Why do religious people feel a need to defend their faiths?
I dont mean to steap on your toes, but that would be a good topic to bring up in OT for all the religious posters to answer.

Also, this is just another question that came to mind:
What can the Mormons teach other Christian faiths, including Catholics, on how to properly defend their faiths?

Why do we feel the need to defend our faith? Because we believe it is true; and it is human nature to try to argue in favor of that which we think is true. I have heard cases of members leaving the church because they felt that the Church's doctrine, or origins, or whatever, are not nearly as defensible as they had before.

As for your question, CG, just remember a few things. First of all, every human being has had a unique set of life experiences, so it is natural that two people who are both intelligent and rational will come to vastly different conclusions on the smae question. And again, it is human nature to defend ourposition which often means trying to attack or at least find flaws in an opposing view. So if people are trying to "attack" your position, it doesn't mean that they are idiots or bad people, just that they are human. remember, it is okay to be in disagreement, and not to convince everyone. What matters most is that you believe it.

I think the whole notion of "attacking" and "defending" beliefs portrays debate as some sort of war with all sorts of sides and intrigue. While it's often to fun to think about it that way I think when it comes to internet forums and CFC it falls overdramaticizes what's occuring.

These are just friendly spats to see how other people think abou different things in my view. It's not really one side attempting to crush the other side.

Indeed, I have very much enjoyed the discussions I have had with thiose of other views here on CFC OT. On my mission, when someone attacked my beliefs I would neither defend them nor counterattack; I would call into question the assumptions they were using.

That's what I mean. I can't recall defending anything along the lines that a lot of people seem to talk about 'defending' their religion. The very notion of defending one's religion seems somewhat absurd to me.

First, there's the club part of it (organized religion). I can't remember ever feeling a need to defend a club I was a member of. Sure, if it comes to a battle in court or something the organization has to defend itself, but generally clubs serve their members and self-described purpose.

Secondly, there's the spiritual aspect. As far as I'm concerned that's a personal relationship. Why would anyone ever need to defend a personal relationship in public? It's personal!

Basically, I believe the path on which I am to be the best one, and the one that will ultimately bring the most happiness. Hence I share it. Of course, when I "defend" it what I am doing is answering claims that it is not what it purports to be, and showing why I feel such claims are incorrect or inadequate.

Sharing and defending are two very different things though. I see a lot of people saying they have to defend their religion. It's especially a popular notion among muslims right now. Somehow they connect their identity to their religion in the sense that if their religion is being criticized they feel they themselves are being criticized or attacked and must therefore defend their own identity from.. not really sure from what, exactly.

I don't understand this pairing of a public religion with personal identity. I guess it's something that's only relevant for people who have a group mentality (identifying with their group). Since I don't have that mentality it always puzzles me.

I don't really see myself as "defending" it usually. If someone says, "How would you answer Objection X?" I will answer, "I feel it doesn't invalidate my faith because Y." f they say, "u stoopid Morman X proves you're so-called god doesn't exist" etc I will do the same as before, but with feeling.

I was browsing on the civopedia today and discovered that Mr Meier considers Mormonism a major Christian branch which suprised me I must confess!

I've been raised within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints over here in England and I did a quick search on here to see if there was any mention of the church and stumbled accross this post :P

Eran of Arcadia certainly knows his doctrine and I'm very impressed on his answers to certainly challenging and thoughtful questions.

Where did you serve your mission eran (I'm assuming you did anyway, if not forgive my rudeness :))? It was probably mentioned in a previous post so I apoligise in advance if that is the case (I'm guessing it was somewhere in south america :)).

I myself had the opportunity to spend 2 years in my own country (up near the leeds area) and enjoyed it throughly.

Random post I realise but I figure it's good to let people know there are a few of us floating around the internet :)

Is there a forum in which Mormon doctrine is discussed and reinterpreted?

Of which I am aware, no. But I am sure there is. There are forums for everything.

Anyways, chimpster, welcome to CFC and yes, I served in the California Arcadia mission (hence the username) speaking Spanish from 2002 to 2004.

I didn't get a reply to my mormon question from the Episcopal thread regarding the disallowing of women priests, so I'll bring it forth here.. here's the last post from Eran:

No, I mean, why black people couldn't hold the priesthood in the LDS Church for many years is beyond the scope of this thread. How it relates to women not having the priesthood, probably isn't. And like I said, every LDS woman I know has no problem with it. There is plenty to do in the church that doesn't involve holding a leadership position.

My reply:

I understand what you're saying, I'm simply asking you whether you think it would send a message if black people were not allowed to hold the top positions in your church simply because they were black.

Because that's what you do with women.

What precisely do you mean, "send a message"? Because that is so vague as to be meaningless. I think you mean it will make women feel that they are or are considered inferior to men. However, this is not actually the case; given our doctrines on gender, and what exactly the priesthood is, it doesn't actually make women feel inferior. And in fact, as I said, not all leadership positions require that the holder have the priesthood. In fact, many leadership positions are held by women.

What I mean is that it sends a message that women are not capable of being in charge of men. You said yourself that all the highest positions in your church are held by men. What leadership positions in the church puts them in charge of men?

My question is now whether you would think it would somehow be unfair or send a message if black people were not allowed to hold the high positions in your church.

In fact, for many years blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood in the church. (Why this was is a very long discussion.) Yet someblacks joined, believing that the truth of the church was greater than their lack of access to certain things. And for a man not to have the priesthood cuts him off from certain things that women can get without problem. Realistically, no one is saying that women are incapable of holding the highest leadership positions, just that that is not their role.

You didn't answer the question.

Do I think it would be unfair if black people were not allowed to hold the highest positions in the church? If I really and honestly felt that it was God's idea that it be so, no I wouldn't.

You didn't answer the question.


They never do. That is their main MO.

Avoidance of reality.

They never do. That is their main MO. Avoidance of reality.

Whose, Mormons orthe religious in general? I like to think that this thread stands as testimony that I am willing to answer questions.

They never do. That is their main MO.


Actually I think Eran is very good at answering questions about his religion in general.

Eran, at least you're being consistent then. Of course I think it's an unsympathetic viewpoint..

Yes, I understand that. I don't agree, of course, but I hope you can at least have an idea of why I think that it is an acceptable way of thinking (even if it isn't).

It's hard for me to understand following a god that puts down guidelines that make no emotional nor intellectual sense. To me a divine entity is the exact opposite.

Of course, this is at the core of my dislike for organized religion.

They do make emotional and intellectual sense to me - I am just limited in my ability to explain this. In other words, I can "get" it, but not explain it.

But in the church, we actually usually say that women are more righteous and often more capable than men - and the men agree, it doesn't bother us.

If women are considered more righteous and capable it would make all the more sense to have them in the leading positions :)

Btw, you earlier made an argument that women in your church 'don't mind' or 'have no wish' to be in leadership. I find that to be a very flawed argument - the very same one has been used so many times in the past by various organizations and governments. Including in a number of churches that now allow women in the top spots - if you ask women members of those churches now they would not be happy to be told that they could no longer be ministers/priests/bishops/etc.

But in the church, we actually usually say that women are more righteous and often more capable than men - and the men agree, it doesn't bother us.

Sounds like they'd make ideal priests, no?

I find that to be a very flawed argument

Well, that could be the case. However, most of the women I have talked to really do seem fine with it - probably because they, like me, understand the doctrine behind it, better than I have so far explained. I promise to, in the next day or so, give a broader explanation of what we view the priesthood to be, and what the implications are. I don't have time for long posts now (I am at work) but I should be able to explain it better if given enough time.

Sounds like they'd make ideal priests, no?

Oh, we have no doubt they'd be good at it. But like I said, it would take a much fuller explanation to show why we do it like we do. I don't expect to convince anyone, of course, but at least you will know where I am coming from.

I only know a bit about the catholic-lutheran discussion about the priests/ministers, and the catholic one seems to have no real sense behind it - essentially they perform the same function in church in the two factions.

Now, what I'd really like to see would be female imams and ayatollahs.

There are liberal/feminist movements in Islam, they just need more exposure.

Yeah, we have some groupings here, but even in the most liberal countries the islamic communities in general are extremely conservative, and regressive. The liberal movements are like little islands in a sea of blindness.

The most depressing thing is that women (apropos your earlier statement) often cling to the same junk they've been taught by their (male) imams and fathers and brothers - and mothers for that matter, who typically tell the daughters to do as their father says. I've listened to well-educated young muslim women - western citizens - who will not under any circumstances accept criticism of islam, even from other muslims or ex-muslims. It's rather depressing.

Well, it is a little-known fact that Islam has gone through reform movements before. As the world gets more liberal (in the original sense of the word) I think that it will have an effect on Islam.

In other news, our view of the priesthood is very different from those of the Catholics or Lutherans . . .

It has also been de-reformed.. there's a constant push-pull between hardliners and moderates, but the overall status is terribly conservative on social issues.

Well, all of the Muslims I have ever met seemed to be moderates, but then I get the impression they are maybe a little more liberal in the US even than in Europe.

I'm sure this question has probably been asked, but:

When was polygamy taken away from Mormonism? :scan:

In 1890, the practice was officially banned. In 1904, it was made punishable by excommunication.

But in the church, we actually usually say that women are more righteous and often more capable than men - and the men agree, it doesn't bother us.
Where did you get the idea that women are superior?

Where did you get the idea that women are superior?From my wife. :mischief:

Seriously, this (i.e., the spiritual superiority of women) is not necessarily a doctrinal issue. I am aware, as I'm sure Eran is, of statements of various general authorities of the Church on the exalted status of women, but I am not aware of a clear canonical statement to that effect. IMHO, those statements are the opinions of the speaker. If one wishes to be cynical, perhaps they are the scraps tossed to the suppressed women-folk, to keep them content with their lot in the Church -- that's IF one wishes to be cynical.

I'm not sure if Eran covered this already, but women do hold leadership positions in the Church, including some where they preside over men. The readiest example of this is the Primary, the Church program for children (11 or younger): at both the general (i.e., Church-wide) and local (i.e., congregation/ward), the Primary Presidency is all-female. Primary teachers, however, are a mix of men and women. Hence the all-female presidency "presides" over the teachers, including men.

That being said, the highest leadership positions in the Church are unavailable to women, because they are "Priesthood" callings (i.e., reserved for holders of the Priesthood), and women are not eligible to hold the Priesthood.

These questions may have been asked before.

Mormons believe in a doctrine of exaltation. Some say that this doctrine claims that humans can become gods others seem to claim that this doctrine teaches that humans can become like God.

How do Mormons view these passages of the Bible (with the previous statements in mind):

I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is no one like me" (Is. 46:9).

I know what one might say about the next thing however I will include it to see what you have to see:

Ezekiel 28

1 Then this message came to me from the LORD:

2 "Son of man, give the prince of Tyre this message from the Sovereign LORD: In your great pride you claim, `I am a god! I sit on a divine throne in the heart of the sea.' But you are only a man and not a god, though you boast that you are like a god.

Also, I have heard that LDS/Mormonism teaches that God was once a man although your posts seem to indicate you believe that God has always existed. Could you explain more about what the LDS position is? The Bible says that God does not change.

God has always existed, yes; so have we, in one form or another, always existed. Now Joseph Smith did say that Godhad progressed from an earlier state, as we may progress; however, I do think that it is accurate in a sense to say that God does not change. He is always fair, and merciful, and loving, just as He always has been.

As far as having no gods before Him: we will never be the equal of God. This is because as our glory and power increase, so does His, as He created us. Thus we will always be 'behind' Him. And we do not become gods on our own, through our own merits, or because we deserve it, but rather through God's mercy and Christ's atonement.

Tollan might also consider these other biblical references (kjv):
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Reconciling one biblical verse with another is not necessarily something that people will ever agree upon. Fundamentally, it requires an appeal to authority (literally, God) to have a definitive statement of what these and other verses actually mean. I just put these out to show a sampling (there are more) of biblical verses that could be interpreted as support for either view put forth in your post - that exaltation means (or at least allows for) humans to become "gods" or "like God." After all, the essence of being a "child" is the capacity to become an adult. In context, the same may be said of "heirs." And if God the Father "hath given all things into [Christ's]hand" (John 3:35), and we are "joint-heirs with Christ" . . . .

As for whether the Mormon position (under either version you give) is correct, or even what it actually means, I think we all have to wait.

I'm a bit confused here.

If the mormon church holds to divine grace bestowed on sinners, and the atonement of Christ for the sins of humanity, where do they disagree with Christians?

How are the teachings of Mormonism different from other Christian/ christian-influenced movements? What does holding Joseph Smith as a church authority mean for Mormons? Is faith in the book of Mormon as a new revelation like a second New Testament the only difference?

Do Joseph Smith's/ Moroni's teachings ever disagree with the OT/ NT in significant matters? Do mormons claim that book of Mormon is like Luther's cachetism or Calvin's institues or Aquinas' Summa Theologica as expositions of the nature of Biblical philosophy/ belief? (I guess so b/c Luther/Calvin never claimed to have direct Divine revelation).

I am wondering just how different Mormonism is from other groups which believe in Jesus as Messiah. Main differences? How did JS and other mormons differentiate themselves from Christians around them?

The primary difference is that we believe that the authority of the early Christian church was lost within a few decades after its founding. Thus Christianity, from that time, did not have the divine authority to perform ordinances or to recieve revelation. We believe that the true church, in its fulness, was restored to Joseph Smith and his sucessors, meaning that only in the LDS Church is found this authority (the priesthood) and only in the LDS Church do its leaders recieve direct modern revelation and prophecy.

wow, I missed a lot. I'll help out Eran.

Well hello, your protestants then. That arguement was first posited by Calvinists and Lutherans. But their denominations are loyal to their founders interp of scriptures (at least they used to be). But they did think that the Catholic church had some, albeit mostly misguided authority on church matters.

I myself am very cynical about the faithfulness of most of post-Constantine christianity. After his official imperial support for Christianity moves in the 4th century Romans 'converted' in droves and in reality brought many of their pagan practices and some of their beliefs and many compromises were made.



I am a seminary student so I am very interested in these matters. I would like to make friends with Mormons, but I've never had them come to my door, yet. So, I'm glad I found you online. I guess you'd call me a sort of Pentecostal Calvinist Franciscan or something like that. I find some truths in the various demoninations and none of them have NT christianity perfect.

What makes Mormons believe that JS teachings and mormonism are the true form of the faith as practiced in the NT and early church? That is the goal of all protestant demoninations that I know of...

If that is difficult to answer, what is primarily wrong with the rest of Christians? What evidence is there that they have gotten it wrong. We may agree on more than you think.

We are not Protestants, actually; we did not try to "reform" the Church as it existed, but to start from scratch. Taxonomically speaking, we belong to what some have called the "Restorationist" branch of Christianity.

As far as how I know it is true, it was through prayer and the Holy Ghost

In some other churches, I have noticed that they do not have any crosses or images of Jesus, unlike the Catholic Church. I was told that this is due to those denominations viewing such things as idols and engraven images of God, and therefor a violation of the Ten Commandments. Do the LDS's feel the same way?

We do not believe such things to be idolatry. We do not use crosses in our artwork or buildings becuase we consider it to be focusing too much on the crucifixion of Christ, when the resurrection is more important and relevant. We do have pictures in our buildings.

I see. So you hold to the same premise as Protestants, but come to a different solution: restoration involving a new, separate

So then, you have more in common with the Anabaptists (Amish, Mennonite, Brethern, Bruderhoff, etc) who succeeded from church at time of Reformation to make new movement and new communities.

Did JS originally wish to remain among Christians, but was mocked/persecuted by them? I thought I remember reading about early mormons being ostracized for their polygamy and doctrine (although I don't know which doctrines).

Also, Protestants claimed to be exclusively reformers, but because of excommunication and their continued lack of communion with Catholics, they too are in a sense separatists. They all had the goal of restoring NT christianity, but they did keep much more in common with Catholics than Anabaptists.

Anabaptists separated themselves from all other Christians and believe themselves the only faithful. Also Donatism (3rd Cent.) is the first instance of such a sort of sect on record for Christians. The Anabaptists have a very unique form of following Christ mainly distinguised by their lack of trained religious authorities. They take with utter seriousness the belief that they are, each of them, "a chosen peaple, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God." -1 Peter 2:9

So LDS believes that the priesthood is a class of people? As per Judiasm before Rabbinic times (post 70 AD).


Also Its good that you emphasize the resurrection, often the death of Christ is too important to Christians. The suffering is important, but the triumphant life given by God throughout those sufferings is more important. Salvation is a life not a moment of conversion (that's really Justification by Grace I think).

Also How is Joseph Smith's revelation regarded in relationship to Bible (NT/OT)?

If he didn't contradict anything, what did he and what do modern LDS emphasize as taught in Bible? I suppose also that he and successors add, what did/do they add - major things? I understand that LDS considers Book of Mormon and other teachings as authoritative revelations of Holy Spirit.

Hey Matt, how's your gig going?

We do consider the Book of Mormon and some other modern revelations to be as authoratative as the Bible. In fact, the idea of restoring, from scratch, the original church was the original essence of Mormonism.

I thought I remember reading about early mormons being ostracized for their polygamy and doctrine (although I don't know which doctrines).

You forgot to mention that he was claiming he had spoke personally with God who gave him texts equal in authority to the Bible. That would kinda sour your reputation in most Christian circles.

Eran and Matt Brown:

How many generations does Mormonism stretch back?

You forgot to mention that he was claiming he had spoke personally with God who gave him texts equal in authority to the Bible. That would kinda sour your reputation in most Christian circles.

Indeed, that was a bigger issue, and earlier, than polygamy, which no one knew about until we had already fled to Utah.

Eran and Matt Brown:

How many generations does Mormonism stretch back?

You mean, like in our families, or as a church? The church itself started in the mid 1800's (i really ought to know the date). For my family, on my dad's side, it goes back almost that far. My mother and her parents are converts, who joined when missionaries knocked on their door in Brazil.

Ironduck, check your PM. I'd *love* to talk about that, but I dont think this is the thread :)

Um, April 6, 1830.

<bad missionary. I knew it was April 6th. Forgot if it was 1830 or 1840. </bad missionary>

You mean, like in our families, or as a church? The church itself started in the mid 1800's (i really ought to know the date). For my family, on my dad's side, it goes back almost that far. My mother and her parents are converts, who joined when missionaries knocked on their door in Brazil.

Ironduck, check your PM. I'd *love* to talk about that, but I dont think this is the thread :)

You're fully Brazillian and your name is Matt Brown?

Eran: I meant in your family.

In my family, both of my parents joined the church about a year before I was born, but my mother and several of my siblings subsequently left the church.

You're fully Brazillian and your name is Matt Brown?

Eran: I meant in your family.

Yeah, its weird, isn't it? My mom fell in love with a Gringo, and I got Brown for my last name instead of Figuriedo. My sisters have ethnic names...I don't.

Yeah, its weird, isn't it? My mom fell in love with a Gringo, and I got Brown for my last name instead of Figuriedo. My sisters have ethnic names...I don't.

Change your name to something like Joao Figuriedo dos Santos or something. Twould be cool.

We do not believe such things to be idolatry. We do not use crosses in our artwork or buildings becuase we consider it to be focusing too much on the crucifixion of Christ, when the resurrection is more important and relevant. We do have pictures in our buildings.


Well, pictures are not engraven images, so I suppose that you are safe. Thanks for the response.

What are engraven images then?

I would imagine, any artwork to which you then ascribe divine or supernatural powers.

Huh? It doesn't say anything about motive in the dictionary, it just talks about the creation of pictures through various techniques.

Well, based on it usage throughout the Old Testament, I think that is what the Ten Commandments were referring to, at any rate.

What do Mormons think about Christians? (Non-Mormons who are Christians)

Which Christians? We certainly have a high opinion of those Christians who happen to be Mormon . . .

If you mean, what do we think of other religions, then (and this is true of all religions, even the non-Christian ones) that they have a lot of truth, and they often help their followers live better lives, but that only in our church will you find all the truth that God has revealed.

I mean like, heaven and hell wise. Or misguided, corrupt ect.

They are misguided in the sense that they believe things that are incorrect, but for the most part other religions are mostly good. Of course, there are human elements in all of them, so there will be corruption. But we admit that even our church isn't perfect.

As far as getting into heaven, we believe that everyone will have a chance, more or less. Those who did not accept the truth (in its entirety) during this life will have a chance to do so in the next, when they are taught it completely.

Well, based on it usage throughout the Old Testament, I think that is what the Ten Commandments were referring to, at any rate.

That wasn't what I meant, look, John said:

Well, pictures are not engraven images, so I suppose that you are safe.

So I ask: What is the difference between a 'picture' and an 'engraven image'?

The religious people that are against 'engraven images' typically do not make distinctions between the kinds of images. They only care about the motive of the image. Some consider images to be forbidden altogether. But whether the image is 'engraved' or 'painted' or produced by any other technique is usually irrelevant.

It seems that us Christians are the only ones who don't give second chances...

It seems that us Christians are the only ones who don't give second chances...

Muslims? Jews? Buddhists?

The religious people that are against 'engraven images' typically do not make distinctions between the kinds of images. They only care about the motive of the image. Some consider images to be forbidden altogether. But whether the image is 'engraved' or 'painted' or produced by any other technique is usually irrelevant.

It is true that some religions forbid the use of pictures in their buildings (but not their literature - here I am thinking specifically of Jehovah's Witnesses) on the grounds that any picture that could be part of religious use is a "graven image". They do not make a distinction.

In a sense, we do. The pictures in our chapels are for decoration and have nothing to do with actual religious ritual.

When the Old Testament said "graven images" (as translated in the KJV) they genrally meant, as far as usage, specifically artwork of any kind that had powers ascribed to them.

Muslims? Jews? Buddhists?
Muslims beleve that hell isn't forever,

Jews I forgot about but I hear they are less strict on forgiveness.

Buddhists believe in reincarnation.

It would be more accurate to say that Christians - some of them - believe that the second chance comes in this life. Other Christians, some of them, believe that there is another chance in the next life depending on the circumstances of this one. The main plot in CS Lewis' The Great Divorce is based on that idea.

^What he said.:yeah:

Muslims beleve that hell isn't forever,

That's a surprise. Quite interesting.

Jews I forgot about but I hear they are less strict on forgiveness.

Most modern Jews don't belive in an afterlife. You die, and that's it.

Buddhists believe in reincarnation.

That one depends more on the Buddhist school of thought.

They are misguided in the sense that they believe things that are incorrect, but for the most part other religions are mostly good. Of course, there are human elements in all of them, so there will be corruption. But we admit that even our church isn't perfect.

As far as getting into heaven, we believe that everyone will have a chance, more or less. Those who did not accept the truth (in its entirety) during this life will have a chance to do so in the next, when they are taught it completely.

Something I personally think makes more sense. I never did like the exclusivity of religion, the idea that our brand gets you in or your sunk, sounds like wishful thinking to me. If they are right then there are at least 5 or six different heavens. It's a little too convenient in my eyes, but then I've always been pretty cynical about organised religions on this point.

The sinning yeah, fine, live a wantonly evil life, go straight to hell do not pass go, that I can understand, but some people are probably living lives of practical saintliness and are doomed to the fires of hell because of the misfortune of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time; now it may sound blasphemous but I really don't think God's that arbitrary: man however, now that makes a lot more sense that he would come up with in-built exclusivity to reinforce the faith.

Pope John Paul II too acknowledged that those who hadn't recieved the message could still find a place, it's a better compromise.

Plenty of Abrahamic religious groups forbid images of either god or any images altogether, you can see that both in christianity, judaism and islam.

When the Old Testament said "graven images" (as translated in the KJV) they genrally meant, as far as usage, specifically artwork of any kind that had powers ascribed to them.

Umm.. the point here is that they meant 'images', regardless of whether they were 'graven' or not. Some groupings interpret it as all images regardless of motive, while other groupings interpret it as only images of the divine. The reason it says 'graven' in the bible isn't particularly clear afaik given that most images at the time simply were graven (cut out).

It would be more accurate to say that Christians - some of them - believe that the second chance comes in this life. Other Christians, some of them, believe that there is another chance in the next life depending on the circumstances of this one. The main plot in CS Lewis' The Great Divorce is based on that idea.
It's actually a very interesting debate. It largely hinges upon the word "aion" or "aionios", and it's use in the New Testament canon.

This isn't really the place for that, I guess, but it's interesting stuff and anyone who wonders about whether hell is eternal should look it up for themselves.

An eternal hell seems to me in part, the eternal denial of the Good God. Hell seems to me eternal in that it lasts indefinately because you refuse to let go of some lesser thing than God and righteousness. Addiction to some vice holds people in sin, but God offers to them the opportunity to repent.

Ultimately, I think that God will bring glory to himself. A continued, eternal disunity of the heavens seems to me to not glorify God. In the end, he will either destroy all oppostion or draw all opposition into cooperation with him.

Given the Christian's view of God as merciful and just (not condemnatory and arbitrary) I think God will eventually draw satan and all of his minion along with those in hell/bondage/punishment into His fold and turn them back to good.

However, some see that the justice of God demands that he punish those who do not repent, even after an extended period of leniency. The punishment they argue, for denying the ultimate being of life, is total death- destruction from existence.

Some people say that the destruction of evil most glorifies God, others that the turning of evil into good instead is greater. But as the answer is only to truly be found in the afterlife, I see it as mainly a mystery and unnecessary to require agreement among Christians.


Mormons seem to think that all/most will be turned from evil/erroneous ways- at least I hope I am reading them correctly.

All but a very very few will in the end enjoy at least some of the divine glory, and have all the chance they need to forsake their evil ways.

Eran, where's my links?

Sorry, got all busy writing my novel and stuff.

Doctrine and Covenants Section 76 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76) is the most comprehensive description of our view of the afterlife. Read especially verses 50 through 70.

The Book of Mormon actually says little about the afterlife, although it does describe the time between death and Resurrection (and final judgment).

Surely I come before your novel? :wavesbanstick:


Nah, I'm kidding. I wouldn't ban ya for that. But seriously, any old time. You can PM me, or I'll try and keep up in this thread.

I will PM to tell you when I finish the post here, unless I forget, which is likely.

*Racks Brain*....Alma..um, chapter 40 also discusses this subject, as far as the Book of Mormon is concerned.

So for Thanksgiving I went to San Diego, and our hotel was in La Jolla. Close to it was an amazing church, and when we went to visit it it turned out it's a Mormon temple built in 1993. It's really beautiful. We could not visit it but a Sister was here specifically to show pictures of the inside.
Do you guys (Matt and Eran) have been there?
http://www.med.unc.edu/~fshen/photos/build4.jpg

Not to the one in San Diego, but I have been to the temple in Washington DC that's on the Beltway, and the one in Los Angeles.

Used to be the one in Oakland stood very prominately on the side of a hill. Visible for miles. I used to always like looking for that.

It sure is a peculiar architectural style.. gothic nouveau or something..

I wonder why non-Mormons are not allowed in Temples :confused:. I mean, Non-Catholics are welcomed into my parish church, Cathedral, or any Catholic Church (Though they are advised not to take communion)

It isn't just non-mormons, I'm not aloud in either. There are Temple Prep classes(sunday school side thing) that you need or should take and I think you also need a bishops approval or something. I'm not even 50% sure on that. I'm sure Eran and Matt can answer that fully.

I wonder why non-Mormons are not allowed in Temples :confused:. I mean, Non-Catholics are welcomed into my parish church, Cathedral, or any Catholic Church (Though they are advised not to take communion)

It's where they carry out their Super Secret Pagan Rituals*... Seriously, I don't remember why. My dad explained it to me once (When I was born, he was a Mormon, but was trying to be baptized in the Catholic Church) but I've long forgotten why.


* - :joke:

Our temples are not the equivalent of cathedrals or parish churches or synagogues. That is what our chapels do - they are open to anyone, and that is where we do our weekly activities. The temples are for our other ordinances (rituals) which are considered too sacred to carry out anywhere but in a building dedicated for the purpose.

In fact, they are considered so sacred that we don't talk about the details outside the temple, even to other Mormons. In general, they include the proxy ordinances (things like baptism for the dead and all the other ordinances we do on behalf of the dead), as well as celestial marriage.

As far as getting in, to answer Esckey, to participate in most of the ordinances requires that one have been a member for a full year, and that they have a recommend, which is given by the bishop if they are keeping all the commandments. Temple preparation classes are usually given to recent converts, they are not always done for those who were born in the church.

I had to take temple prep for what its worth. Its not very helpful at all.

It's probably not helpful if you were born in the church and knew it already, I suppose.

I remembered one thing I've been meaning to ask about.

What's this whole 'Marriage beyond death' thingy? How does that work if the widow/er gets remarried?

So for Thanksgiving I went to San Diego, and our hotel was in La Jolla. Close to it was an amazing church, and when we went to visit it it turned out it's a Mormon temple built in 1993. It's really beautiful. We could not visit it but a Sister was here specifically to show pictures of the inside.
Do you guys (Matt and Eran) have been there?I've been in. A very nice design inside, as well as out. San Diego is probably my favorite temple.

I've been in. A very nice design inside, as well as out. San Diego is probably my favorite temple.

It's quite a landmark, that's for sure :)
I usually do not like modern churches' design but this one is great.

What's this whole 'Marriage beyond death' thingy? How does that work if the widow/er gets remarried?In a marriage performed in a Temple, the couple are "sealed" to each other (and their children) "for time and for all eternity." Assuming that they are faithful (to God and to one another), we believe their marriage remains in force after death.

When a widow/-er of such a marriage remarries (as my grandmother did), it is typically* only until death. That's how we avoid an eternal web of husband-wife-husband-wife . . . . problems.

*Traditionally, I believe, men could be sealed to more than one wife, but women could be sealed to only a single man. I believe the modern practice is to discourage that and just seal one-to-one. I could be wrong on this, and I don't have an authoritative cite to give you.

Thanks for that.

So there's no ill-will about not being faithful between the first's death and the second? Sorry, not trying to sound flip, it's an honest question.

Also, how does the marriage outside the church work? Suppose a mormon wants to marry a non-morman...would the church sanction it?

It seems rather strange to me..

If a couple marries 'celestially' - that is, eternally, and one of them dies, then how is the new wife/husband going to feel about being only a 'temporary' solution? The whole point of marriage is that there's a sort of commitment, but if you're saying 'I'm not as committed to you as I am to my dead wife/husband', well, that just seems to defy the whole point of getting a new marriage.

So there's no ill-will about not being faithful between the first's death and the second? Sorry, not trying to sound flip, it's an honest question.I haven't been-there-done-that, so I couldn't say. ;)

Slightly more seriously, individual Mormons will have the same issues with re-marriage that other people do: is it disrespectful to the departed spouse to re-marry too quickly? What is "too quickly"? Etc. I have heard apocryphal stories of a dying spouse (typically wife) telling husband she wants him to remarry soon. (Often this seems to be the wife's assessment that her husband is mildly incompetent, and needs someone taking care of him.)

Theologically, there is no "faithfulness" issue: one is not "unfaithful" to the deceased spouse by re-marrying and having *ahem* "marital relations" *cough, cough* with the new spouse.

Also, how does the marriage outside the church work? Suppose a mormon wants to marry a non-morman...would the church sanction it?Marriages "outside the church" - both outside of a Temple and/or between Mormons and non-Mormons can and do happen. They are "sanctioned" by the Church in the sense that the couple are recognized as husband and wife. But it is not an "eternal marriage" (i.e., effective after death). The couple may still qualify to go to the Temple and be "sealed" to one another, which would then make the marriage the same as if they had originally been married in the Temple. If they have had children in the interim (or even before their marriage), the children are part of the sealing ceremony and are sealed to their parents.


If a couple marries 'celestially' - that is, eternally, and one of them dies, then how is the new wife/husband going to feel about being only a 'temporary' solution? The whole point of marriage is that there's a sort of commitment, but if you're saying 'I'm not as committed to you as I am to my dead wife/husband', well, that just seems to defy the whole point of getting a new marriage.For a contrasting point of view, the new spouse has at least as much of a commitment as anyone outside of the LDS Church is offering: until death.

But whatever philosophical interest the question may hold, it doesn't seem to have any practical effect. The fact is, death happens, and people re-marry. (Divorce also happens, and people re-marry, but that is treated differently.) In my own observation, those marriages seem to be as likely to be good (or bad) as the original marriages. I haven't heard any complaints.

Your question also calls to mind the old anecdote, illustrating that this is by no means a distinctly LDS issue:
A preacher, trying to impress upon his congregation how they were all sinners, said, "If there is any perfect person in this room, stand up, now!" When one of them stood up, the preacher (slightly perturbed) said, "Brother Jones, do you really believe you are perfect?" "No sir," Jones replied, "I'm just standing in for my wife's first husband."

Slightly more seriously, individual Mormons will have the same issues with re-marriage that other people do: is it disrespectful to the departed spouse to re-marry too quickly? What is "too quickly"? Etc. I have heard apocryphal stories of a dying spouse (typically wife) telling husband she wants him to remarry soon. (Often this seems to be the wife's assessment that her husband is mildly incompetent, and needs someone taking care of him.)

Theologically, there is no "faithfulness" issue: one is not "unfaithful" to the deceased spouse by re-marrying and having *ahem* "marital relations" *cough, cough* with the new spouse.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around that. If you're married on earth and in the hereafter, then wouldn't that be adultery to have relations (sexual or not) while the surviving spouse is still here on earth? Or is there some kind of 'time-out' while the surviving spouse continues to live their life out?

"Time out" is, I suppose, one way to put it. The marriage still exists when one partner is alive and the other isn't, but in a different sense from when they are both in the same place.

So how is it not adultery then? Or does it have to do with the polygamy thing from way back when? By that I mean, since at one time polygamy was acceptable in the LDS society, does it kinda sorta fall under that? Honest questions here, not trying to flame or anything.

"Time out" is, I suppose, one way to put it. The marriage still exists when one partner is alive and the other isn't, but in a different sense from when they are both in the same place.
So its like a pseudo-polygamy? :confused:

I always though marriage was "untill death do us apart". :confused:

I always though marriage was "untill death do us apart". :confused:

Obviously it's different in the LDS society.

So how is it not adultery then? Or does it have to do with the polygamy thing from way back when? By that I mean, since at one time polygamy was acceptable in the LDS society, does it kinda sorta fall under that? Honest questions here, not trying to flame or anything.

I don't think it has anything to do with polygamy, at least not the way that we practiced temporal plural marriage. I guess I would describe the marriage as being in a limbo state where the partner on earth can marry again if they choose, but the partner in the next life is waiting. I suppose it is "like" plural marriage in that a person is simultaneoulsy married to two people, but "married" in two different senses.

I always though marriage was "untill death do us apart".

That's the point of LDS temple marriages, is that in such circumstances we believe it not to be.

And yet another way to consider it: adultery is sexual relations (and I think it does need to be sexual relations, ;) , we can debate what qualifies as "sex," later a la Gingrich and Clinton) with a person who is not your spouse. In this hypothetical, however, both the deceased first wife and living second wife are your spouse, legally and lawfully wed. One is your spouse forever (assuming both of you kept/keep your covenants), while you enjoy that relationship with the other only so long as both of you are alive.

To be clear: I can certainly understand your point of view; it is simply not the point of view of Mormonism. :)

That's the point of LDS temple marriages, is that in such circumstances we believe it not to be.
What about Divorce? What is the Mormon's view on Divorce?

Another question to add to the table, What happens if a Mormon marries a non-Mormon? And would they be allowed to hold the marriage in the temple or just in a church?

Marriage in the temple can only be between two Mormons who are worthy to enter the temple. The sealing (the part that makes it eternal) is separate from the civil part of the marriage; thus civil divorce does not automatically mean that the temple marriage is ended - to do that requires a different process.

What about Divorce? What is the Mormon's view on Divorce?

Another question to add to the table, What happens if a Mormon marries a non-Mormon? And would they be allowed to hold the marriage in the temple or just in a church?

Already answered. Pay attention. ;)
Marriages "outside the church" - both outside of a Temple and/or between Mormons and non-Mormons can and do happen. They are "sanctioned" by the Church in the sense that the couple are recognized as husband and wife. But it is not an "eternal marriage" (i.e., effective after death). The couple may still qualify to go to the Temple and be "sealed" to one another, which would then make the marriage the same as if they had originally been married in the Temple. If they have had children in the interim (or even before their marriage), the children are part of the sealing ceremony and are sealed to their parents.

The prohibition is against coffee, not caffeine, so decaf is out also, but cola is in (although many don't drink it anyways). It also covers leaf tea, but herbal tea is okay. The reasons for this are more than just health-related, but that's all a little OT.

Not here it isn't! So fess up...what's with the caffeine? I always thought the prohibition was against caffeine, not coffee.

Is coffee ice cream okay?

The prohibition, laid out in Doctrine and Covenants 89 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/89), prohibits "hot drinks" and "strong drinks". At first it was only a suggestion, when first given by Joseph Smith; later leaders of the Church, who we believe were also prophets, made it a commandment (known as the Word of Wisdom), and also explained what "hot" drinks are: coffee in any form, and leaf tea.

Now, you say, that is odd. I can see maybe coffee - it can be addictive - but why leaf tea? What's wrong with that?

There are health benefits to following the Word of Wisdom in its fullness - I believe that actual studies have shown that active Mormons live longer , and the studies weren't done by the church - but (this is more my opinion than doctrine) there is also value in obeying. There is strength in giving up something relatively harmless but not particularly beneficial, as it helps us avoid harmful things as well.

But that's the "why", you asked about the "what". So yes, in addition to alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs, coffee and leaf tea are out. Caffiene is not the reason for it, however. This is a common misconception, and it is true that some members feel that drinking caffeine violates the spirit of the law (which is, ultimately, a health code after all). Me, I avoid caffeiene, usually, because it makes me feel weird.

Is coffee ice cream okay?

Not if it was made with coffee beans. I suppose a Mormon might argue that it is still not "coffee" , and eat it anyways while still saying they obey the WoW (what the "cool kids" call it . . .), which, since I think it has not been specifically prohibited, might be a defensible position.

Me, I avoid caffeiene, usually, because it makes me feel weird.

But you're mormon, you should be used to feeling weird! Sorry! Joke! Couldn't resist...

Anyways... I'm thinking back to a couple of books I read and enjoyed as a kid, and there was Mormons on one side of the town, and gentiles on the other side. They were able to co-exist fairly peacefully. This was back around the 1890's or so, when things were much worse than in later years. I remember the author making the point several times that there was coffee for the gentiles, and milk for the mormons. I guess as a kid because of that misconception I always read it as caffeine.

So I guess my follow up question is, Why not caffeine too? While it's a 'tame' drug, a drug it is and addictive as well.

Church leaders have said that as it is not healthy, it should be avoided, generally, but do not outright prohibit it.

(And it's not just being Mormon that makes me feel weird . . .)

I dunno Eran... I readily admit you know more about this than I do. I also admit that my limited exposure with LDS doctrine is going on 20 years ago. So things could be misremember, made up, or downright not in line with your doctrine. I know the LDS has different, well, sects, for want of a better phrase, and I don't recall which 'version' they were.

But I guess I just don't get the whole prohibition against hot drinks. Coffee, tea... I don't see a reason why not. I don't understand why not is what I'm saying. So hot leaf tea is bad. What about iced tea? To me, decaffinated coffee and iced tea are pretty close to each other. And to me, caffeine is certainly more dangerous than decafinated coffee. So if cola is okay, why not decaf coffee? And I suppose if it's contrained iced tea could be up there with cola.

Like I said, if we obey God (who we believe, after all, to be the one who gave this commandment) in something that is relatively "unimportant" (not that a commandment ever really is) it will be easier to obey Him in the really important things. I don't know of any better way to explain it.

And at any rate, drinking a lot of caffeine is unquestionably bad for one. We all know that ingesting harmful substances violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the WoW, and in the end that is also important.

(And although I have met members who didn't realize this, "hot" doesn't just mean temperature, so iced tea is out as well.)

Well, I'm sorry amigo, but that's just not answering my questions.

If that's the best as you can answer it, well, I respect that and will let it go.

And I hope you remember that I truly am trying to understand here, and I'm not trying to dog your religion. The LDS church is one of the last branches of christianity I have any real respect for.

Yeah, I know. I am just saying that we believe it came from God, that He sometimes gives us strict rules and sometimes lets us figure it out on our own, and that darned if I can figure out why.

So there you go . . .?

But I guess I just don't get the whole prohibition against hot drinks.
You might burn your tongue!

Yeah, I know. I am just saying that we believe it came from God, that He sometimes gives us strict rules and sometimes lets us figure it out on our own, and that darned if I can figure out why.

So there you go . . .?
Well, next time you're talking to a deacon you could tell him "Hey, I know this guy on the internet, and he has some questions about this..." ;)

You might burn your tongue!

This is actually a serious discussion.

Well, next time you're talking to a deacon you could tell him "Hey, I know this guy on the internet, and he has some questions about this...".

Actually, we use the term "deacon" differently, thus most deacons are 12 or 13 year old boys. But that's a different subject entirely.

Not in this thread. I meant 'Bishop'. I knew y'all did the terms differently, I just misremembered the term I wanted.

Yeah, I get it. I will explain the concept of priesthood more fully, as I promised weeks ago, but now it is late and I have work tomorrow. I will get to it, I promise.

Well, next time you're talking to a deacon you could tell him "Hey, I know this guy on the internet, and he has some questions about this..." ;)


Naw; ask the deacons. Mix it up. They might know ...

Anyways... I'm thinking back to a couple of books I read and enjoyed as a kid, and there was Mormons on one side of the town, and gentiles on the other side. They were able to co-exist fairly peacefully. This was back around the 1890's or so, when things were much worse than in later years. The semi-autobiographical Great Brain Series (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Brain/dp/0440430712) or you may have been thinking of the same author's autobiographical Papa Married a Mormon (http://www.amazon.com/Papa-Married-Mormon-John-Fitzgerald/dp/B000EHN1NM). Good reads, all.

I'll get back with my own comments on the hot drinks/caffeine question in a minute. (I was just digging for thread juxtapositions . . . .)

Like I said, if we obey God (who we believe, after all, to be the one who gave this commandment) in something that is relatively "unimportant" (not that a commandment ever really is) it will be easier to obey Him in the really important things. I don't know of any better way to explain it.

And at any rate, drinking a lot of caffeine is unquestionably bad for one. We all know that ingesting harmful substances violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the WoW, and in the end that is also important.

(And although I have met members who didn't realize this, "hot" doesn't just mean temperature, so iced tea is out as well.)

Actually according to recent scientific research coffee really isn't as bad as people make out, in fact it can actually have positive benefits, it's one of those substances that has recieved a bad press with little or no scientific backing, that said I'm not speaking against your beliefs against stimulants, it's totally up to you.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18725181.700-coffee-the-demon-drink.html;jsessionid=LFFJBEKCDLNB




How worried should we be? True, there are mountains of papers linking caffeine to all manner of health problems. But once you start digging, caffeine's critics don't have much going for them beyond an almost religious zeal to demonise the stuff. In fact, recent evidence suggests they are dead wrong. Caffeine, it turns out, has a multitude of health benefits. So much so that if most of us weren't drinking it already you could argue the case for adding it to the water supply.

Caffeine consumption goes back perhaps 8000 years, but the bad publicity is a much more recent phenomenon. One of the earliest documented health scares came in 1911 when the US government sued the Coca-Cola Company, claiming the caffeine in its drink was "injurious to health" (Coca-Cola won).

Caffeine bashing started in earnest in the mid-1970s when several major studies linked it with heart disease and bladder cancer. And that was just the start. "I've probably read 4000 or 5000 caffeine and coffee papers," says James Coughlin, an independent toxicologist in southern California who's been advising the coffee industry for nearly a quarter of a century. "Somebody has published a paper linking coffee or caffeine with just about every disease known to man."

Perhaps the most notorious study came in 1980 when Thomas Collins of the US Food and Drug Administration linked caffeine to birth defects in rats. The study sent shock waves through the drinks industry and led the FDA to warn pregnant women to cut down on coffee and tea.

In the study, Collins gave pregnant rats enormous doses of caffeine, equivalent to 200 cups of coffee or tea in one gulp, via tubes inserted down their throats. That method of force-feeding, known as gavage, is a standard laboratory technique for getting foul-tasting substances into lab animals. But it wasn't necessary with caffeine, which can simply be added to drinking water. Recognising this, Collins redid his study in 1983 with the caffeine in the rats' water, thereby spreading the dose out across the day in a more realistic fashion. This time there was no increase in birth defects.

Most of the human studies also turned out to have methodological problems. Some indeed showed statistical correlations between caffeine consumption and the risk of getting diseases such as cancer, but they failed to account for smoking - in part because the link between cigarettes and cancer wasn't well understood at the time.

"There were a lot of spurious results," Coughlin says, pointing out that while most smokers drink coffee, few people who avoid caffeine smoke. But now that a new generation of studies allows for the effect of smoking and other factors known to be linked to cancer, he says, "any relationship to coffee has fallen away". Likewise the much-touted link between caffeine and high blood pressure and heart disease. Caffeine does raise blood pressure, but only in people who are not regular users. In 2003, the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quietly dropped a recommendation that doctors should advise patients with high blood pressure to cut back on caffeine.

Even so, the steady drip, drip, drip of adverse publicity has continued. One recent obsession has been the interplay between caffeine and low-carbohydrate diets, some of which prohibit caffeine on the grounds that it raises insulin levels and thus promotes fat storage. Nutritionists, though, dismiss such simplistic advice. "There are numerous processes involved in fat storage," says Linda Bacon of the University of California, Davis. "It may be that caffeine can simultaneously trigger some that are going to encourage weight gain and others that encourage loss." The literature does not support the assertion that caffeine raises insulin levels. If anything it has the effect of depressing them by decreasing insulin sensitivity.

Another recent flap has to do with caffeine's undeniable addictiveness. As every java junkie knows, if you skip your morning brew you'll be fuzzy-brained and irritable and may also get a headache. No big deal, you might think, and easily remedied. But to some it's no laughing matter.

In a study published last October (Psychopharmacology, vol 176, p 1), neuroscientist Roland Griffiths of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, argued that caffeine withdrawal was serious enough to be added to the next edition of the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. He reviewed all the literature on caffeine withdrawal and uncovered a dismal litany of symptoms, from headaches, fatigue and depression to vomiting and muscle pain. He also concluded that the benefits of caffeine are an illusion: coffee merely reverses the withdrawal symptoms.
“The words 'drug' and 'addiction' are powerfully emotive. Nobody robs banks or commits murder for caffeine”

Jack James, a psychologist at the National University of Ireland in Galway and arguably caffeine's fiercest critic, would certainly agree. James has long argued that studies showing caffeine's positive effects on altertness and mental performance are flawed because the volunteers are habitual caffeine users whose performance on caffeine is being compared with their performance without it. Caffeine doesn't make anyone perform better, he argues: it merely restores them to a normal level.

Caffeine supporters, however, believe that this is all a storm in a coffee cup. Just ask anyone who has wrestled with insomnia after an evening brew whether caffeine's effect is real or illusory. And sure, caffeine is a habit-forming stimulant, but nobody abuses it. Take too much and you feel jittery and anxious rather than getting high. And nobody ever got mugged by a caffeine junkie. "An addictive drug is something you commit a crime for," says Manfred Kroger, a professor emeritus at Pennsylvania State University and spokesman for the Institute of Food Technologists.

Caffeine researcher Lawrence Armstrong, an exercise physiologist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, agrees. "Caffeine is a substance of dependence, not a drug of addiction," he says. "The words 'drug' and 'addiction' are powerfully emotive. Nobody robs banks or commits murder for caffeine."

I'm afraid I'll have to editorialise this article, as it's not in the public domain, but that said it really isn't the demon drink.



Caffeine supporters, however, aren't content with merely countering the critics. Over the past few years they have quietly been building the case that coffee, at least, is positively bursting with healthfulness. Nearly two dozen studies, for example, now show that coffee drinkers have a 25 per cent reduced risk of colorectal cancer, Coughlin says. And the more coffee you drink, the lower the risk.

In addition, several studies have shown reduced risk of liver cancer among coffee drinkers, as well as lower incidence of Parkinson's disease and type 2 diabetes. There are even some tentative findings that caffeine may help stave off Alzheimer's disease, as well as alcohol-related liver damage. And lest you think the coffee industry or other interested parties funded the studies, these results were by-products of large, multi-purpose cohort studies such as the Nurses' Health Study, administered by Willett under a grant from the US National Institutes of Health.

Willett has also found that coffee reduces the risk of kidney stones. Drinking a lot of any liquid has a similar effect, but coffee is particularly beneficial, probably due to its diuretic effect. Also, he says, coffee lowers the risk of gallstones and, intriguingly, suicide. "Probably coffee is a mild antidepressant, and for some people it's just enough to pull them back from the brink," says Willett.

Nobody's really sure why coffee has such diverse benefits. "It'll be 15 or 20 more years before we nail these things down," Coughlin says. "Many people think of coffee as a caffeine delivery vehicle, but in coffee there are probably 2000 other chemicals."

Coughlin suspects that the anti-cancer effects are due to polyphenols, a class of antioxidants widely touted as the health "goodies" in red wine, chocolate, tea, and many fruits and vegetables. In lab tests, he says, coffee trumps these other foods in terms of polyphenol content. And a recent study by researchers at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania found that coffee is the number one source of antioxidants in the US diet.

With such favourable press for coffee, why does caffeine keep on getting it in the neck? Kroger believes that, in part, the problem stems from young researchers trying to make names for themselves. The temptation is to feed massive amounts of a common substance such as caffeine to rats and see what happens. If the rats get sick, it's news.

Kroger also believes that the anti-caffeine sentiment is down to health-food advocates' bias against processed foods, a class that includes most caffeinated soft drinks. But he argues that some zealots simply seem to have a puritanical attitude. It's as though they believe that if God wanted us to be perky in the morning, we'd be that way naturally, he says.

When the dust settles, the debate about caffeine turns out mostly to be simple common sense. Too much caffeine will give you the jitters and keep you up at night. It might even give you disconcerting but largely harmless heart palpitations, and you'll suffer mild withdrawal symptoms if you stop. But all things considered, caffeine is your friend. Worry about something else.

Yeah, the picture of coffee (in moderate amounts) as being unhealthy is problematic, similar to how alcoholic drinks (also in moderation) have been re-evaluated..

In my opinion that's not important though. No one's likely to get hurt from not drinking coffee or alcohol. Much more important are sexual restrictions that are outright damaging in my opinion. I won't get into that again though because I was unable to explain my points last time I tried. It's just to note that if one wants to criticize an institution for laying down rules the important ones should be criticized first and foremost rather than the trivial ones.

Have they been any Mormons who ignore the "No coffee/tea" rule and freely drink it because they disagree with the rule/ordinance? If the Mormon drinks coffee/tea, would he get excommunicated?

I just found this movie of Eran's missionary work! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXOh4g_FLIM&mode=related&search=)

Have they been any Mormons who ignore the "No coffee/tea" rule and freely drink it because they disagree with the rule/ordinance? If the Mormon drinks coffee/tea, would he get excommunicated?A short one, before I have to catch my bus: A: yes; B: no. One does not get excommunicated for this, although one would not qualify to enter the Temple.

I just found this movie of Eran's missionary work! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXOh4g_FLIM&mode=related&search=)

That's some leet biking skills there :)

I think that more Mormons who break the WoW do so not because they inherently disagree with the rule, but because they are too weak to follow it.

I just found this movie of Eran's missionary work! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXOh4g_FLIM&mode=related&search=)

Well, I did once fly over my handlebars and land on my feet on my mission, but not because I was Xtreme in any way, shape, or form; I just hit my front brakes harder than my rear on a hill I was going down too fast . . .

A short one, before I have to catch my bus: A: yes; B: no. One does not get excommunicated for this, although one would not qualify to enter the Temple.
How do they then requalify to enter the temple?

Thye have to stop drinking coffee, and they have to repent (which involves feeling regret for having done it, and praying for forgiveness).

Well, that and have another interview with the Bishop, but one has to do that to get a temple recomend no matter what.

The semi-autobiographical Great Brain Series (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Brain/dp/0440430712) or you may have been thinking of the same author's autobiographical Papa Married a Mormon (http://www.amazon.com/Papa-Married-Mormon-John-Fitzgerald/dp/B000EHN1NM). Good reads, all.

I'll get back with my own comments on the hot drinks/caffeine question in a minute. (I was just digging for thread juxtapositions . . . .)

Yes, those are the books. I loved the Great Brain as a kid, and when I got older I found Papa Married a Mormon and it's sequel, Mama's Boarding House.

specifically off limits:

...tea from tea leaves.

...Also, herbal teas are allowed.
But hebral teas are also (often) from leaves. :confused:

Yes, but from different types of leaves.

As long as there is a distinction, at least in my opinion, that is all that matters. I could be wrong as to how the Church views it, though.

Hey have you ever converted a die-hard athiest?

First answer: I never converted anyone. We don't talk like that. The people who came into the church as a result of my mission, whom I taught and baptized, were converted by the Holy Spirit.

Second: No, and it would have been cool. I knew missionaries who had baptized agnostics, in English-speaking work, but in Spanis speaking work I didn't encounter many atheists, and they never wanted to talk to me anyways.

I got one for ya.

I knew a guy who just came back from his mission. I may have mentioned him in passing before. Anyways, he would go to a person's house, and that person would set a time for them to come back. And when they got back, there'd be a JW or some other evangelical denomination there. So, did you ever have any 'showdowns'? This is not just directed at you, Eran, but anyone else who's had a mission before.

We had a few "turf wars" with JWs when walking around Sacramento. I offered to exchange books (I get a NWT bible, they get a Book of Mormon), they freaked out and ran. The JWs in Sactown really dont like Mormons...we'd just brush them off

I don't think JWs anywhere like the LDS. Competition? Could be.

But JWs are easy to freak out. In my experience.

I don't think JWs anywhere like the LDS. Competition? Could be.

But JWs are easy to freak out. In my experience.

I admit, some missionaries like to pick fights or egg them on, which might contriubte to their fears. I wasn't one of those...I honestly had never met one before I went out, and just wanted to talk. They werent interested :)

Jehova's witnesses are freaked out..

How many people does the average missionary convert (or what you call it) and how many did you?

I admit, some missionaries like to pick fights or egg them on, which might contriubte to their fears. I wasn't one of those...I honestly had never met one before I went out, and just wanted to talk. They werent interested :)

One thing I'll say about JWs, then I'll stop threadjacking. Most of my experience comes from their door-to-door evangelicalism. However, I was working with a girl and her sister for about four months, and I found out they were JW's. Never once did they evangelicize at work, or even bring a bible to read on break as several other christians have. Now, I don't know if they went door-to-door or not, but I never saw a watchtower on their desk, nor did they pass them out at work. If they hadn't said anything, I would have never known. Nice people, too.

Anyways....

I think a lot of it depends on the area. People who serve in Europe might baptize one person in two years. People who serve in say, Utah, might baptize 100.

I served for around 3 months, and I (er, the holy spirit. We dont actually convert people.) baptized two people. I dont know what the average is, because it varies mission to mission....and even in certains areas within missions.

And you don't have quotas or anything like that, right?

No, that would defeat the purpose. Our mission had certain "goals" to teach X number of lessons a week...but we work with people, not cold statistics. Even if nobody wanted to talk to me all day, as long as I was out actually working, I felt productive, and I understand that most missionaries feel the same way.

That's kinda what I thought. Some people (not me) seem to think that as, um, 'enthusiastic' y'all are out there, there was a quota system going on. Don't remember where I heard that, either.

Well, I'm not getting paid or anything...so nothing really changes if I dont teach anybody. But if you're going to go so far away from home and use up this time, you might as well be working, right?

I didn't suggest otherwise.

Which brings me to another question. What funds you while on your mission?

What happens is every missionary's family (or ward/stake if the family can't afford it) sends in a flat fee to Salt Lake (I think its 400 bucks a month), and the church distributes the money to every missionary. Since some places are more expensive than others, and we dont get to pick where we go, this makes sure that nobody gets screwed with the "super expensive mission".

I got a stipend of around 125 a month which i could use for food, certain meds, cleaning supplies, stuff that broke in my apartment, etc. The church paid for my housing, and for my car as well, as well as limited medical insurance.

The church does not cover you, however, for a pre-exsisting medical condition. This is a big reason why I'm here typing on CFC, instead of in California right now.

So you send in $400 a month (we'll assume, for the sake of arguement), and in return because of your location you got back $125/mo? So where did you get the $400 from? Did you have a job or something? Savings?

And does the $400/mo you pay to SLC also help pay for your housing and other costs the church picks up?

Well, I worked in an expsensive area. My apartment was 1,700 a month, for example. Some missionares only need, say, 200 a month for housing, so that extra money goes to elders like me.

I worked full time every summer (plus playing with my band and teaching on the side), and worked part time in college, so I had some savings. My grandparents actually helped pay for a lot of my mission, since they wanted me to keep my own money for college. Right now, since I can't go back to AU (and I can't even work until I get my corrective surgery), I'm living off the rest of that savings.

Cool. I don't know much about the missions, except you're called, sent to where they want to send you, and mostly ride bikes. So I appreciate you taking time to answer my questions.

No problem. Happy to help.
Now though, its like 1:25 in the morning, so Im going to bed :)

I've got another 6 and a half hours work. :(

Apologies if this has been asked before:

"All are to", actually.

No, I mean, our concept of the afterlife is quite different from that of other Christians, as well as our view of who gets there, although not How.
Can you explain how your afterlife is different from mainline Christians? What is the fate of non-Mormons in Mormon theology?

Eran and I briefly discussed it, but I can't seem to find the post. Must not be in this thread.

You might try searching for 'castles' by my username in OT. I'm pretty sure I used that term in the post.

Eran and I briefly discussed it, but I can't seem to find the post. Must not be in this thread.

You might try searching for 'castles' by my username in OT. I'm pretty sure I used that term in the post.
Must have missed it, Sorry :blush:.

No worries.

I have gone into greater depth, here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4128922&postcount=184) and here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4510788&postcount=327). If that helps.

As per the "ambush", happened to me once; the guy, when we came back, had all his 7th Day Adventist pastor friends over, and they tried to convince us that we needed to keep Saturday as the Sabbath. We just showed in Doctrine and Covenants, that Joseph Smith said that it had been revealed to him that Sunday was to be the hily day; that pretty much shifted the argument to whether Joseph Smith was really a prophet or not, but they didn;t really realize that.

To start with, most non-Mormons don't know exactly what is and isn't prohibited by our dietary law, the Word of Wisdom. I will explain the doctrine behind it in more depth below, but these are what are specifically off limits:

Alcoholic beverages, tobacco (including smokeless forms), coffee (even decaffeinated), tea from tea leaves.

Caffeine itself is not prohibited. That means that Coke and other colas are okay (but somewhat discouraged as they can be unhealthy). Also, herbal teas are allowed.

Why are coffee and tea not allowed but caffeine is?

The prohibition, laid out in Doctrine and Covenants 89 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/89), prohibits "hot drinks" and "strong drinks". At first it was only a suggestion, when first given by Joseph Smith; later leaders of the Church, who we believe were also prophets, made it a commandment (known as the Word of Wisdom), and also explained what "hot" drinks are: coffee in any form, and leaf tea.

Now, you say, that is odd. I can see maybe coffee - it can be addictive - but why leaf tea? What's wrong with that?

There are health benefits to following the Word of Wisdom in its fullness - I believe that actual studies have shown that active Mormons live longer , and the studies weren't done by the church - but (this is more my opinion than doctrine) there is also value in obeying. There is strength in giving up something relatively harmless but not particularly beneficial, as it helps us avoid harmful things as well.

But that's the "why", you asked about the "what". So yes, in addition to alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs, coffee and leaf tea are out. Caffiene is not the reason for it, however. This is a common misconception, and it is true that some members feel that drinking caffeine violates the spirit of the law (which is, ultimately, a health code after all). Me, I avoid caffeiene, usually, because it makes me feel weird.


Here's your answer.

Okay, I've mentioned it before, but I thought I'd ask directly.
Samuel ordered Paul to slaughter babies, and claimed to be speaking for God. Do Mormons, as a whole, believe that God ordered the slaughter of babies (through an intermediary)?

Eran has (maybe) implied that this is just selective editing on the Jew's part. Is there any official Mormon doctrine that doesn't make you all serve the god that's described in that passage?

(It's Saul, by the way)

The study guides for the Old Testament seem to imply that this was a literal incident, but that it was justified. Now, I (I realize that this may horrify some) can see how it might theoretically occur that God, being just and mericiful, would want innocent people to die (we all go to a better place, after all) but not that He would want to turn good people into murderers; hence, I think this probably didn't happen. However, I gather that a lot of members think it did.

The study guides that we have, although reflecting our beliefs, are not canonical, generally; I don't know of any absolutely canonical claim that these particular events did. Stegyre might know better than me.

Yeah, I'm more looking for the consensus view.

The consensus view is that it happened, but that it was a merciful act on God's part to order it as it prevented the children from growing up to be wicked.

Like I said, I can see God causing the children to die and still being good, but it's harder to imagine Him ordering His people to become murderers.

Like I said, I can see God causing the children to die and still being good, but it's harder to imagine Him ordering His people to become murderers.

Yeah, there's certainly a divide there.
I think a prescient bout of sterlity (a few years earlier) would have been the most moral. But, I'd have to say that a command through a prophet passes no tests of morality.

I just ask because the Mormons believe in modern prophets, but you've always seemed to waffle as to whether they believe that Samuel divinely ordered people to stab babies.

I can't really imagine the logic-twisting involved that would be required to justify that act (as moral); by a good god, or by its followers

Okay, I've mentioned it before, but I thought I'd ask directly.
Samuel ordered Paul to slaughter babies, and claimed to be speaking for God. Do Mormons, as a whole, believe that God ordered the slaughter of babies (through an intermediary)?

Eran has (maybe) implied that this is just selective editing on the Jew's part. Is there any official Mormon doctrine that doesn't make you all serve the god that's described in that passage?
Samuel lived centuries before Paul. :confused: Did you mess up the names, or something? Or is this specific to Mormon scriptures?

(It's Saul, by the way)Q.F.T., for Elrohir's sake. (El Mach is mixing the Old Testament Saul with the New Testament Saul/Paul.)

The study guides that we have, although reflecting our beliefs, are not canonical, generally; I don't know of any absolutely canonical claim that these particular events did. Stegyre might know better than me.Or Stegyre may not, but he'll share his own opinions. Actually, it seems I wrote about this once before, although in one of the other threads.

IMHO, I take this incident at face value: Samuel ordered the slaughter of every man, woman, child, cat, kitten, cow and puppy dog. Moreover, the text makes it very clear that this was a commandment from God, and Saul is ultimately rejected by God for his failure to be obedient on this particular point.

So, my bottom-line answer, this particular Mormon believes that, yes, God ordered that slaughter, through Samuel. More detail (if desired) may be provided later: I have a bus to catch, soon, for the long ride home.

Yeah, yeah, saul/paul. It's like getting the Herods confused :mad:

I can't imagine that any person can read that incident and deem it to be morally acceptable. Who can possibly say that the soldiers acted in a moral fashion when the stabbed babies while 'under orders'?

I can't imagine that any person can read that incident and deem it to be morally acceptable. Who can possibly say that the soldiers acted in a moral fashion when the stabbed babies while 'under orders'?Moral in the sense of, "I think this is good and what decent, honorable people should do": no, certainly not.

Moral in the sense of, "if God orders it, it is per se moral": yes, by definition. For myself, I do not use that definition, and fortunately, I am not called upon to judge God's morals.

EDIT: But what is the real point of your observation: that God did not order it; that the soldiers did not do it; or that the soldiers should not have done it even if God commanded it? (Or something else entirely, like, "How can you believe in a God that you believe commanded such a heinous thing?")

Keep in mind that the soldiers did it because a prophet ordered them to (a scenario you don't touch above); if we deem their actions to be moral, it's the Niremburg defense all over again. The ultimate in moral relativism ("all murder is condemned, unless it's ordered by a prophet")

With Eran's responses previously, I had wondered if the Mormons had washed out the event, and didn't believe it to be true. You know how people try to distinguish God and Allah? I was wondering if this was a way to distinguish the Christian god from the Mormon version.

Basically, did the Mormon god order its people to stab babies?

What would have made it moral is not that a prophet commanded it but that God commanded it. In other words, what a prophet commands has no more value than anything else unless it comes from God.

That doesn't really answer El Mac's question..

In a sense; I would say that homicide really would be morally (but not legally) justifiable if it was commanded by God. Like I said, I feel that nonetheless it would almost certainly have a negative effect on the one doing it.

I suppose that this is one issue that may seem hard to understand. Bear in mind that we don't make this a large part of our doctrine; we have explicitly said that no religious body has the right to inflict a punishment greater than excommunication on its followers.

I think the question was simply what the general doctrine is for mormons. Did your god order people to murder other people or not? As far as I understand Eran says that he personally doesn't think so, and Stegyre that he does think so.

What would have made it moral is not that a prophet commanded it but that God commanded it. In other words, what a prophet commands has no more value than anything else unless it comes from God.
Oh, I get that it's moral for God to kill people (or people's minds can easily be twisted to think so). But God neither used sterlity nor smiting to make room for Saul's people.

To put it in absolute perspective: Hitler declared that he felt that he was lead by God to do what he commanded his armies to do. His armies then obeyed. We despise both the soldiers and Hitler; him for ordering and them for obeying.

Except for the belief that Samuel was lead by God, we cannot distinguish Samuel from Hitler. As well, the soldiers in both events are the same; they (putatively) believed they had a divine mandate, because they believed the prophet. Even if some people's consciences bothered them, there is plenty of religious precedent that God sometimes indirectly commands people to do horrid things.

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no absolute canonical answer, but most agree with Stegyre.

Here I am referring to the Cannanites. As far as killing anyone, the answer is yes; in the Book of Mormon, Nephi (the first author) was told by God to kill someone who at the time was defenseless, but had earlier tried to kill him, in order to get something. He actually refused the first time.

I don't mean to start a morality argument, because I think the point is rather intuitive.

I'm just looking for consensus. Thanks.

It is a difficult question; I admit that there is no obvious answer. The question of the Canaanites is discussed in the Book of Mormon, actually.

I can't imagine that any person can read that incident and deem it to be morally acceptable. Who can possibly say that the soldiers acted in a moral fashion when the stabbed babies while 'under orders'?

Keep in mind that God sees beyond what we see. We can't see the consequences of our actions like God can. When God ordered the killing of the indigenous tribes in Israel, hundreds of thousands of lives were destroyed, but we know that once Israel had settled in the Promised Land for many more centuries, a man would rise from that very nation to redeem the souls of all who believe. God had a plan from before time, that Jesus would be born in Israel and save millions and millions of people through his sacrifice, and therefore we can be sure God has a plan for every order that he gives.

Here I am referring to the Cannanites. As far as killing anyone, the answer is yes; in the Book of Mormon, Nephi (the first author) was told by God to kill someone who at the time was defenseless, but had earlier tried to kill him, in order to get something. He actually refused the first time.

Why did god tell him to kill the other guy? Is there a specific reason given or obvious morale to the story? It sounds like an eye for an eye?

Keep in mind that God sees beyond what we see. We can't see the consequences of our actions like God can. When God ordered the killing of the indigenous tribes in Israel, hundreds of thousands of lives were destroyed, but we know that once Israel had settled in the Promised Land for many more centuries, a man would rise from that very nation to redeem the souls of all who believe. God had a plan from before time, that Jesus would be born in Israel and save millions and millions of people through his sacrifice, and therefore we can be sure God has a plan for every order that he gives.

That is a highly problematic course you're entering upon. If god knows everything in advance then he knew that he would be ordering the killing of all those innocent people before he even created earth. In other words, he knew that he would be ordering for innocent beings to suffer. Are you sure that's your outlook on christianity?

Well, it is my outlook that He allows innocent beings to suffer, yes, but that it is for their ultimate benefit.

That's a whole different thing than specifically ordering suffering.

The first is akin to letting a child into the world - we know there's most likely going to be suffering. The second is akin to hitting the child.

Keep in mind that God sees beyond what we see. We can't see the consequences of our actions like God can. When God ordered the killing of the indigenous tribes in Israel, hundreds of thousands of lives were destroyed, but we know that once Israel had settled in the Promised Land for many more centuries, a man would rise from that very nation to redeem the souls of all who believe. God had a plan from before time, that Jesus would be born in Israel and save millions and millions of people through his sacrifice, and therefore we can be sure God has a plan for every order that he gives.

Keep in mind that your putative God had a thousand different (more moral) options. From sterility to direct smiting.

We're friends, so I'll be frank.

You're justifying this. And it's sick. And I mean to cause defensiveness with that harsh language. It's sick that a teenager has been convinced that this event is acceptable (and even Holy).

You're saying that the soldiers did the right thing, because they believed a man who told them that God told him that they should stab babies.

People accuse atheists of having relativistic values. Meanwhile, a Christian cannot condemn the stabbing of babies by men who believed a person who claimed to be a prophet.

Osama claims to be a prophet, and gives his soldiers orders to kill innocent people.
Hitler (kinda) claimed to be lead by God, and told his soldiers to kill innocent people.

In all these incidents, we recognise that the 'prophets' are evil and their followers are evil for obeying. Any person should be able to square his shoulders and easily state "people who stab babies while under orders from a person who claims to be a prophet are misguided, wrong, worthy of contempt, and worthy of punishment".

Given the logic here, you cannot (with confidence) deny Hitler's claim that he was acting under God's command (since, you know, the State of Israel DID result). And you surely cannot condemn the soldiers who believed that their leader was giving orders under God's command.

It's the ultimate Niremburg defense, and it's sick

PS: I'm very torn about posting this

edit: In other words, I could point out a thousand evils done 'in the name of God' and you'd condemn them (or you should ...). But a single line of text convinces you that this was Hold and Good. Urg.

I agree with your post El Mac. I understand being torn since we're trying to keep a civil discussion, but you're attacking the argument, which is fair in my view.

Why did god tell him to kill the other guy? Is there a specific reason given or obvious morale to the story? It sounds like an eye for an eye?This is the story of Laban.

Laban was a keeper of the records when Nephi and his family left Jerusalem sometime around 600 b.c. The Lord specifically commaned Nephi and his brothers to return to Jerusalem and get the records (which included the Israelite scripture up to that time -- essentially, the Bible up through Isaiah, although also apparently other books of scripture that are lost from the modern Bible).

Nephi and co. returned to Jerusalem and pursued a number of different strategies to get the records from Laban. First, they just asked: Laban threw them out. Second, they gathered up all of their riches, which they had left behind in Jerusalem (and apparently, the family had been rather well off) and brought them to Laban in an attempt to buy the records. Laban liked the loot, but figured (apparently rightly) that he could get it all for nothing: he sicced his guards on Nephi and his brothers, who had to flee, sans records and goods.

At this point, Nephi's less-faithful brothers were rather miffed and wanted to give up. (They were hiding in a cave outside Jerusalem, hoping Laban's guards didn't find and kill them.) Nephi persisted, and was told (by an angel, no less) that God would deliver Laban into their hands.

Nephi returned to Jerusalem, and as he was making his way to Laban's house, came upon a man passed out drunk in the street. Upon closer examination, the man turns out to be Laban. Nephi reports the incident as follows:
And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel. And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands; Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law. And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass. And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword. Source (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/4)

Nephi subsequently dresses up as Laban and tricks one of Laban's servants into giving him the records.

Back on the main point, El M makes a valid point (although I'm not sure the Nazis ever claimed a divine mandate for their atrocities). Imho: if you think God has ordered you to kill someone, consider it very, very carefully, and err on the side of caution. (Also, be prepared to accept the human/legal consequences: "God told me to" is not a legal defense to a crime, and if God really did tell you to, then either He expects you to bear the consequences, as well, or He will somehow spare you that.)

Anyone ever read Dave Duncan's Seventh Sword Trilogy? (Highly recommended - I've enjoyed reading and re-re-reading it - and available electronically.) The first book, The Reluctant Swordsman concludes with an analogous incident, and it's very interesting (and humorous) how the author resolves it. But I cannot tell, as it would spoil the final surprise of that book.

I think that all the people posting in this thread can take it; they're rather good at gleaning 'the point' from the parts that offend them.

Keep in mind my perspective, too. I have experienced a man (in custody) who told me that God told him to kill me, because I was interfering with God's plan for his life. (He also has a 'hit list' of other people, which is how he came to our attention)

I suffer no morality confusion by attempting to keep him locked up (though this event is now over a year old, and I'm not so involved in that case anymore).

Given the man's charisma, intelligence, and piety - we were nervous about him starting a cult and intervened to prevent it.

If prayer and bible study lead to a state where one was more in-tune with God (or if I believed such things), then I would have to rethink my world view. As it is, I can state (using the same criteria) that both he and Samuel were in the wrong. Someone of faith would have to switch criteria.

Anyway, Mormonism has to be extra careful, because they believe in modern revelation. There's a reason why they sometimes have approved of polygamy (and some can be convinced back into it), child brides, and condemning homosexual marriage. And that's because their prophets tell them God's mandate.

This is why I ask; I want to know if Mormons worship a god whose prophets have previously commanded people to stab babies.

The issue, perhaps, is not that you don't believe that God would order someone to kill someone else, simply because you don't believe in God. There is a huge difference between God telling me to kill someone and my own inner demons saying it - if God exists.

Anyway, Mormonism has to be extra careful, because they believe in modern revelation. There's a reason why they sometimes have approved of polygamy (and some can be convinced back into it), child brides, and condemning homosexual marriage. And that's because their prophets tell them God's mandate.

Well, on the other hand we have been explicitly told that a prophet cannot/will not give us a revelation that contradicts earlier commandments, and we have been pretty specifically told that religions can't kill people.

In other words, it would be a violation of a lot of our doctrine for the prophet to tell us to start killing babies.

Polygamy is an odd example; we believe it to be a revelation, but we also believe that the decision to end it was a revelation; those whop continue it do not claim that they got a new revelation to start it again but that the revelation to end it wasn't valid.

Keep in mind that your putative God had a thousand different (more moral) options. From sterility to direct smiting.

. . .

edit: In other words, I could point out a thousand evils done 'in the name of God' and you'd condemn them (or you should ...). But a single line of text convinces you that this was Hold and Good. Urg.While it's not quite that simple, I agree with your central point. Nevertheless, we do not have the luxury of making a smorgasbord God: "My God will do 'x,' 'y,' and 'z,' but never, ever 'a' or 'b.'" God is who He is, and very clearly not accountable to us.

Imho, it is intellectually weak to discount the multiple biblical incidents of divine smiting, either directly or through human means (which the Bible again explicitly states that God uses, and both evil and righteous men may be used to bring to pass divine purposes).

As for modern "prophets" commanding slaughter, no one needs to take their word for it, just as the ancient Israelites need not have taken Samuel's word. Imo, if God would tell a prophet such a thing, He certainly should be prepared to confirm it to the individual who must "do the dirty work," and that individual remains personally accountable for getting it wrong.

[Edit: I note I'm cross-posting, so please don't assume that this necessarily responds to the most recent posts, but I think readers are smart enough to "get" my point, whether or not they agree with it.]

edit: x-posted
Back on the main point, El M makes a valid point (although I'm not sure the Nazis ever claimed a divine mandate for their atrocities). Imho: if you think God has ordered you to kill someone, consider it very, very carefully, and err on the side of caution.

Again, it's the ordering through a prophet that I find most offensive. I cannot convince an 'inspired' person that God's not commanding them (due to their mania) and I cannot disprove that they weren't actually commanded by God.

By using a prophet as an intermediary, though, I can condemn those who chose to believe the prophet. They cannot prove that it was God ordering the prophet or not. And I don't think that the Israelites should be regarded in anything less than contempt in this case, or any similar case.

Regarding Hitler: I have no idea if he was acting on Divine Mandate. But some people believed he was, because he seems to have implied it. And that's my point.

(I kinda hate wasting all this good material (on my part) in the back of a specialist thread: I reserve the right to reuse it :))

As Stegyre says, actually, they can prove it. If the prophet called me today and told me to go kill someone, I would check with God first. If I didn't get confirmation from Him, I wouldn't do it. And I would have a pretty high threshhold for what defines "confirmation".

I don't know the situation with the Israelites - all we have is what they said hundreds of years later. If God exists, and if in His divine wisdom He needed the Canaanites to die, and if He needed the Israelites to do it, He must have had a way to do it that wouldn't force anyone to do anything that would destroy their soul in the process. I believe that he is just and merciful above anything else.

Stegyre, thanks for the story. I don't understand why god tells him to kill Laban, other than that Laban has not kept the law of god. It sounds akin to the old testament laws in which people were frequently sentenced to death for a variety of 'ungodly' acts.

Do you think this really took place the way it's described? And if so, why would god want Nephi to kill someone? It seems to me that god wants to teach Nephi that he should protect the law of god through bloodshed if necessary. It reminds me of Ares, the greek god of war and bloodlust.

Actually, the justification wasn't that he was evil (lots of people who were worse went unpunished) but that it was the only way for Nephi to get the plates on which the scriptures were written, to the benefit of Nephi's descendants.

In fact, later in the Book of Mormon there are accounts of people who are actively fighting against the church of the time, but aren't punished as they are breaking no secular laws.

Imho, it is intellectually weak to discount the multiple biblical incidents of divine smiting, either directly or through human means (which the Bible again explicitly states that God uses, and both evil and righteous men may be used to bring to pass divine purposes).

I know it's not what you mean, but it's quite easy to toss out all the divine smiting. Intellectually, it's casual. Wouldn't be the first time we thought people were trying to use a divine mandate to justify their actions. We just don't fall for it anymore.

As for modern "prophets" commanding slaughter, no one needs to take their word for it, just as the ancient Israelites need not have taken Samuel's word.
Ah, but they would have been in the wrong to deny him. That's the other half of the point. Saul is seen to be a sinner because he didn't go all the way (though his 'disobedience' is portrayed as greed based). And we can easily feel that NOT obeying Samuel would have been portrayed negatively.

I'm a bit fatigued here, but my point is that people are justifying the atrocity as a 'good thing'. And that requires mental acrobatics that are not to be encouraged.

As Stegyre says, actually, they can prove it. If the prophet called me today and told me to go kill someone, I would check with God first.

:lol: you edited while I was hitting the 'quote' button. I deleted the rest, but I was certainly surprised to see it.

Here's my problem: a lot of people have "checked with God" as to whether they should believe Genesis 1 is a literal account. Guess what the answer was ...

To be raised in a mindset where Genesis 1 is Scripture or the prophet 'should' be right is to bias the response. IMO

I still can't get my mind around how anyone would think that a just and loving god would ever order humans to kill each other. If you know just the least about war you realize what a mess it is and how much suffering is involved for everyone.

If a super powerful god wants someone wiped out surely he could beam them up to heaven or disintegrate them or whatever.

Stegyre, Hitler constantly invoked god as part of the mission of the german people.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.

- Hitler, Munich 1922

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Actually, the justification wasn't that he was evil (lots of people who were worse went unpunished) but that it was the only way for Nephi to get the plates on which the scriptures were written, to the benefit of Nephi's descendants.


And once again, this makes no sense. If god was willing to help Nephi (which he obviously was) why was he not willing to zap Laban, or simply make him unconscious? He directly orders Nephi to kill Laban even though he could have helped give him the scripture in a gazillion other ways. He chose the very worst of all the options! The most morally despicable!

No, it seems morally despicable, but death is not the worst thing that can happen to someone.

No, it seems morally despicable, but death is not the worst thing that can happen to someone.

Ooch: no one likes hearing that from a person of a different faith!

Anyway, while death might not be the worst thing to happen to someone (there's a reason people commit suicide); killing someone IS one of the worst things you can do. It should either be an accident or the last available choice

El Mac has it - it's the killing that's the problem. He's asking his loyal follower to kill another human being. That's not a nice thing to do. He could have just given him a tranquilizer arrow. Or done the job himself.

I would disagree. Killing someone is USUALLY the most morally despicable thing one can do. If God commands it, it is not then morally justifiable merely because He says so; rather, He says so because He knows (and the person He is commanding doesn't) that it is one of the exceptions.

I think we had this discussion pages ago - not that I mind going over it again, but I don't think we will come to an understanding any better now than before.

Also, rest assured I am not going to kill any of you.

Exceptions to what? How is Nephi and his family going to feel after their loving god just ordered him to kill another human being?

And in the case of Saul, an army ravages a whole society, plunders and rapes their way through it all - on god's command? What kind of exception is that?

Logically it makes no sense to talk about exceptions if god is both powerful enough to do the job himself and just and loving.

El Mac has it - it's the killing that's the problem.

Yeah, but that's not even the forefront of my statement. It's the killings on the orders of a prophet that offends me, and then seeing people justify it.

Well, all I can say is that God often asks humans to do things He can do Himself, and that I don't know why. I admit, this does raise broader questions to which I don't have all the answers.

As far as killing Laban, I doubt anyone felt too bad about it. After all, Laban had already tried to kill them.

Nephi felt bad about it. Half of that chapter is him going back and forth about how he doesnt want to kill anybody

ID and ElM, you seem to be making two different points.

For ID, it seems to be, "If God wanted so-and-so dead, He should/would have done the dirty work himself." It is "morally despicable" for God to do otherwise. That, again, is what I would call smorgasbord-God, and like it or not (and you clearly don't: that's understood; honestly, I'm not a fan of the idea, either), that is not a view that agrees with much of the evidence. One must essentially discredit the Old Testament, and that is not credible for most Christians, of any stripe. Politely meant, this is just something Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, or anyone else who subscribes to these texts must deal with. Simply writing it off is the action I consider intellectually dishonest.

For ElM, while adopting ID's view, also seems concerned with the problem of how we arrive at a common morality, if a significant group of us can always trump the agreed-upon morality with a new "divine mandate." Yep, it's a problem, particularly for those who believe in continuing revelation (not just Mormons, but we certainly would be one example). Thankfully, it appears pretty darn rare, in modern times, at least. And we are not called upon to judge the actions of ancient Israelites (and we probably lack the historical context to do so, too).

I think Stegyre just put it better in 1 post than I have been able to do in pages.

Eran, I once visited the Mormon temple in Kensington (London) and inside there was a large mural of Jesus standing on the steps of a mezo-American pyramid, preaching to aztecs. Do you believe Jesus crossed the Atlantic and visited the new world?

I don't think there's a difference in the points El Mac and me are making. I'm just trying to focus on the immediate part of it - the 'evidence' as Stegyre calls it. The reason is that I think it's pretty important to discern whether you think 'the evidence' is credible in the first place. If it isn't, there may not be a breach of logic and no problem with future 'prophets' ordering death and destruction. But since it appears that you do think the 'evidence' shows that god did use other people as instruments to do his dirty work the full scope of El Mac's criticism regarding modern prophets becomes relevant.

I was actually critiquing Puglover's defense of the event. Of course, the critique applies to all those who think God actually ordered Samuel to order people to kill babies

It is "morally despicable" for God to do otherwise. That, again, is what I would call smorgasbord-God, and like it or not (and you clearly don't: that's understood; honestly, I'm not a fan of the idea, either), that is not a view that agrees with much of the evidence.

My initial reason for rejecting the idea of the Christian god was that it was described as 'wholly good', which is obviously false since the concept barely can exist logically. At that point, one realises that they need a morality system that can survive rigorous testing and scenarios; the Christian version does not. I would have to abandon a robust ethical system to believe in the Christian one.

The nail in the coffin, then, was realising that there's no good reason to assume that there's a god who cares about our prayers.

And that's what keeps me warm at night - there's no reason to act or believe that there's an entity that cares one whit about us.
Thanks for the answers. Sorry for the finicky critique. Oh, and Eran, thanks for clearing up the polygamy thing - I hadn't previously understood the scenario regarding that or the concept of order of revelations.

Eran, I once visited the Mormon temple in Kensington (London) and inside there was a large mural of Jesus standing on the steps of a mezo-American pyramid, preaching to aztecs. Do you believe Jesus crossed the Atlantic and visited the new world?

Yes, the Book of Mormon describes Jesus, after his resurrection, appearing (not travelling, as it describes it as a miracle) a group of his followers somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (generally assumed to be Mesoamerica).

wow...this thread's pretty impressive. You done good Eran, you done good. Need any help?

Sure, I take it when I get it. of course, the two most prolific LDS posters on CFC (myself and downtown) are by LDS standards pretty liberal; maybe you are less so?

You can start if you want by explaining a little bit about yourself - how long have you been a member, where do you live, did you serve a mission, etc.

Do Mormons calibrate Ash Wednesday and Lent, and how is it different from how Catholics calibrate those holy days?

We don't officially celebrate any religious holidays outside of Easter and Christmas. And even then, we don't add a lot of religious elements; for the most part, Mormons celebrate each holiday more or less like anyone else would.

We don't officially celebrate any religious holidays outside of Easter and Christmas. And even then, we don't add a lot of religious elements; for the most part, Mormons celebrate each holiday more or less like anyone else would.

Unless you live in Utah..then you might celebrate Pioneer Day. Apparently thats our extra holiday? I had never even heard of it until I went to the MTC.

Unless you live in Utah..then you might celebrate Pioneer Day. Apparently thats our extra holiday? I had never even heard of it until I went to the MTC.What? It's our State holiday. The fact that it's for the day the Mormon pioneers entered Salt Lake Valley is beside the point. :mischief:

(Growing up in Utah, I remember the day off from school we got for the real state religion: the opening of deer hunting season. :lol: )

What? It's our State holiday. The fact that it's for the day the Mormon pioneers entered Salt Lake Valley is beside the point. :mischief:

(Growing up in Utah, I remember the day off from school we got for the real state religion: the opening of deer hunting season. :lol: )

Its your *state* holiday?? Whoops. We had LDS themed calenders sold in our area a few times as fundraisers for something or anohter (maybe it was the scouts), and they all had pioneer day on it...none of us knew what it was. I thought it was just a church thing. Is it *only* celebrated in Utah, or do people do things in Idaho/Arizona/Parts of California that I didnt go on my mission/everywhere but the places I've lived?

As for deer season, haha, we get that day off too :)

So I was watching Thank you for smoking (great movie, btw, I love Aaron Eckhard) and I know he was or is part of the LDS community. There's one deleted scene in there where you actually see him puff on a cigarette - the only time someone is seen smoking on camera. I was waiting for him to light up the whole movie, and was wondering how he would handle that, being Mormon and all.

So what's the church's stance on actors portraying drinkers/smokers? Are they allowed to do it, or is there some kind of penance involved?

He is not particularly devout, is my understanding, and may or may not consider himself still LDS - but that is not necessarily my business. As far as acting goes, although some members will avoid roles that (for instance) have sex scenes or something, and we are told to avoid the appearance of evil, it is generally understood that acting is acting. After all, nonsmokers play smokers all the time.

How do you know he's not particularly devout? Is there some kind of list, or is this something that you've just picked up from what he's said. FWIW, it didn't show him puffing on it very much, he could have hotboxed it. And the two minor sex scenes, there was no nudity.

But that aside, maybe I'm still not understanding. Let's say that there's an actor, and he's devout. But he plays a womanizing, smoking drunkard, and all of this is seen on screen. Because that's not how he really is, it's 'okay' for him to do it? Or could he refuse to do it because it's against his religion? Or, I'm suspecting what you said was it depends on the actor and how he feels about it....

I don't base my assessment of him on anything besides the fact that a lot of the more devout LDS celebrities are usually more open about it. But again, I don't know, and am not going to judge him . . .

As far as members in general, the church has, as far as I know, no rule as to what one can portray, except of course no explicit sex scenes. But whether someone wants to play a character who smokes or drinks onscreen is up to them, as long as they are just acting.

Any idea off the top of your head how many Mormon actors there are out there? If not, that's cool.

Um, no I don't. I know that the blond girl on Criminal Minds (JJ, not Garcia) is LDS, a couple of Survivor contestants, I don't know who else. I know of more former members (like Paul Walker and Eliza Dushku) than current members, I think there are lists out there but don't know for sure.

I know the couple who wrote Napolean Dynamite are, and Jon Heder is too. That's all I can think off too.

Umm.. why is that interesting? Are you trying to figure out if mormons have a large representation of actors or something? Scientology style?

I forgot the Hesses and Heder.

But I think that there are relatively few of us in Hollywood compared to the percentage nationwide. No idea if there is a particular reason.

Umm.. why is that interesting? Are you trying to figure out if mormons have a large representation of actors or something? Scientology style?

Why isn't it? ;)

Opinions, of course, vary. Just another stupid little statistic for me to play with. Okay, maybe not stupid....

You can start if you want by explaining a little bit about yourself - how long have you been a member, where do you live, did you serve a mission, etc.

Alrighty then, I guess a formal introductin is in order then ;)

I was born into a strong LDS family, but I suppose technically I wasn't a member until I was baptized at the age of eight.

I have lived in many locations across the world, and as such can testify that the church doesn't change regardless of where you live. Places I have lived include Utah, central California, Ohio, Japan (yes CivGeneral, that's right ;) ), Alabama, and Florida

...I'll leave you to guess as to where I live now though if you can't guess it

I have not served a mission, but I plan on going on one as soon as the opportunity presents itself.



I do my best not to judge anybody, regardless as to their beliefs


...can't think of anything else, but if any of you have questions or want more detail on my background, feel free to ask

so those of you who still have questions Eran and downtown haven't already answered, or just want my opinion (for the half peso it is worth), fire away!

Forgive me the double post and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I saw the articles of faith when I scanned the thread. I thought I would post them, as a simple explanation of what some of our core beliefs are:



The Articles of Faith
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


1.We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.


2.We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.


3.We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.


4.We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.


5.We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.


6.We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.


7.We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.


8.We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


9.We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.


10.We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.


11.We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


12.We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.


13.We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith

Oh yeah, good catch there.

So you are evidently, or at least probably, under 19? As far as I know all the other LDS posters in this thread (I think just me, downtown, and Stegyre) have gone, so maybe we can bore regale you with mission stories, as all RMs seem to do . . .

What? another Mormon who lived in Ohio? What stake?

What? another Mormon who lived in Ohio? What stake?

Don't remember, whichever one Wright Patterson AFB was in

as you can tell, I was young



and yeah Eran, I'm under 19, so I guess technically I'm still young