Wright-Patt is around Dayton, I think.

Wright-Patt is around Dayton, I think.

Sounds right, dunno if Dayton has it's own stake though

Sounds right, dunno if Dayton has it's own stake though

Yeah, Wright-Patt is around Dayton...but not only does Dayton have a stake...it has *two!* (Dayton, and Dayton East)

That was news to me...I wonder if one of them is new. (I'm in Columbus East)

Yeah, Wright-Patt is around Dayton...but not only does Dayton have a stake...it has *two!* (Dayton, and Dayton East)

That was news to me...I wonder if one of them is new. (I'm in Columbus East)

I asked because not all of the US has a dense LDS population, and I couldn't remember if Ohio was or not

It's a stupid question in retrospect, considering Kirtland is in Ohio...

California has a lot as well, but places like Florida...not so much so

No, for instance the population in Western NY (where both I and the Church were born) is fairly low compared to, say, the Washington DC area. Generally, the northeast and midwest have the lowest densities in the US.

I asked because not all of the US has a dense LDS population, and I couldn't remember if Ohio was or not

It's a stupid question in retrospect, considering Kirtland is in Ohio...

California has a lot as well, but places like Florida...not so much so

Oh, you're right, Ohio doesnt have a dense LDS population. Geographically, those two stakes cover almost all of western Ohio...including many areas that are nowhere near Dayton. Columbus East extends an hour and a half away from Columbus.

Kirtland is in fact in Ohio...but there arent many members there...or people there even, anymore. The Community of Christ operates a lot of the historical sites as well.

However, church growth has been fairly significant in Ohio, 'specically central Ohio recently. We did get our first temple fairly recently, and there have been rumors of another in the next decade or so.

Oh, you're right, Ohio doesnt have a dense LDS population. Geographically, those two stakes cover almost all of western Ohio...including many areas that are nowhere near Dayton. Columbus East extends an hour and a half away from Columbus.

Kirtland is in fact in Ohio...but there arent many members there...or people there even, anymore. The Community of Christ operates a lot of the historical sites as well.


Yeah, that occured to me after I got off. I hadn't thought of the CC when I posted, but it does make a lot of sense that there would be more of them and less members

glad to know there's some growth though...but then again there is always growth all over the world :cool:

As once again questions about the church have come up, in threads about other religions, in order to avoid threadjacking I will answer Stacmon's question here.

We consider God to be the spiritual Father of us all. That makes us spiritually brothers with both Jesus and with Lucifer. (Side note - "Lucifer" means "light bringer" in, I think, Latin. Thus, as Latin isn't God's original language, it must be a title that postdates the passage in Isaiah that inspires so much debate. As it is just a title, it isn't all that important. But it is a name we commonly use when referring to Satan, pre-fall). For some reason it upsets people terribly that we think that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers, but whatever.

Anyways, the deal is, we existed as spiritual children of God. Now, we needed to progress and could not do so without undergoing new experiences. The plan was thus to give us mortal bodies, separate us from the presence of God from a time, and see how much we could learn on our own.

Now, the way it is often described, two plans were presented. Jesus said that we could live on earth, be allowed to make our own mistakes and to suffer, but that in order to be redeemed he himself would go as an atoning sacrifice. Thus those who ultimately accepted this sacrifice could return to the presence of God, and those who rejected it would be separated from Him.

Lucifer, for his part, had another idea. If we were compelled, and not permitted to commit evil, then none of us would be lost, and we could all return to God. he would, of course, receive all the glory due him. Well, this plan was rejected, so he and his followers were cast out of the presence of God - or rather, they rebelled, and thus could no longer withstand His presence.

The real problem, of course, with Lucifer's plan wasn't that it would result in him getting the credit for it. God is not selfish - He constantly reminds us of Christ's role in what did happen. Nor is it the lack of free will - free will being nice and all, but if God could make us like Him without it and its serious penalties, I am sure He would.

No, the real problem is that it wouldn't work. Being compelled to do what is right would ultimately have no effect, would not make us better than we already were. We had to take the risk and expose ourselves to evil and suffering, because it couldn't be done any other way.

As I said, we often, in the Church, speak of this as two rival plans being presented. But in actuality it was not like this - it was foreordained that Christ's plan was the one that would happen, as, again, it actually worked. Lucifer, as one of the best and brightest of God's spiritual children, certainly would be able to present a plan himself, but as it didn't work it didn't stand a chance. Then out of pride, Lucifer devoted himself to attempting to overthrow the plan of salvation (as we call it) as much as he can.

For some reason it upsets people terribly that we think that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers, but whatever.


Eran, I think you have this point a bit turned around.

The Mormon Church is the one, or rather Joseph Smith originally, who separated the Latter Day Saints from the Protestant Church, not the other way around.

It is the Mormon group that felt that the differences in the belief system were so profound that they had to separate themselves and become a new religion.

We all have minor differences with our sect, with denominations, even with our church, but when the changes become so profound that we are disengaging with them and saying so-and-so is 'wrong' and God specifically sent an angel to straighten out the mistakes, then those who don't think they are making a mistake will protest.

So, it's neither accurate nor fair to say that others 'get upset' . It is the Mormons who want to change fundamental beliefs of Christianity, saying they lost their way. Traditionalists simply said, no. That doesn't make anyone "upset". What upsets people is when new religions that are so different from traditional Christianity confuse people by muddying the water about what Christians believe and what defines them as such.

Mormons aren't considered 'Christian' because some of their beliefs preclude the Christian category. They have used the same names we have (ie Jesus and Lucifer) but the historical record of who they are, what they did, their goals, purposes and future roles are completely unrecognizable as Christians understand it.

Especially in this regard: Jesus specifically said that they will never lose their way, because He is our Shepherd. There will be no lost sheep, ever. This is fundamental to Christianity, it threads it's way all through the Old Testament, and is consummated in the New Testament, and so intregal that it is impossible for a erudite Christian to accept it.

I don't know what you mean. It is in no way un-Christian to look at what Christianity has been, historically, and say that this isn't the way that Jesus intended it. When I said some people got upset, I mean they literally take offense at our claim (which fits perfectly well into basic Christian theology, it doesn't require a radical new concept of Christ) that Jesus and Satan were once not so different. In fact, others have said it as well.

Remember, ther Protestant form of Christianity isn't the only valid form.

Remember, ther Protestant form of Christianity isn't the only valid form.
If anything, it's less valid, since the Protestants are just a bunch of heretics to begin with. :p ;)

On a totally unrelated Mormon note, it has been annoucned that Dick Cheney will be speaking at BYU Graduation. BYU is owned and operated by the church...and we used to believe in being political neutral. (well, technically, we still do)

I'm really really upset by this.

Hey, it's just BYU right?

Seriously though, I guess I can see why it would be upsetting, but he is the VP, so it is kind of noteworthy just for that. Like when Notre Dame had the president of Ireland come to our commencement.

This (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/24/mormons.coffee.ap/index.html) is an interesting story. I mean, we need to have a sense of humor about our religion but at the same time we don't like it when we perceive that our sacred symbols are being mocked. Usually, though, when they are it is not in a way that we can do anything about so we can ignore it. I guess it just depends on whether the image is trademarked or not.

Hey, it's just BYU right?

Seriously though, I guess I can see why it would be upsetting, but he is the VP, so it is kind of noteworthy just for that. Like when Notre Dame had the president of Ireland come to our commencement.

Its nothing like having the president of Ireland speak at Notre Dame. For one thing, the Vatican doesn't pay for Notre Dame. Second, the Catholic Church doesn't have a chuch policy of political nuetrality.

Are there not general authorities on the BYU board of trustees? I know that the church itself pays for and runs BYU. It isn't like Salt Lake doesn't know about it.

If BYU wants a politician to come and speak, I guess thats okay. There are several important LDS politicians (although it would be better if it was somebody like a general authority). But Dick Cheney....and only because they couldn't get Bush?? Neither of these men share the values that our church (or that school) esposes...it would be like having Nixon speak.

Honestly, it would even be better if they got Mitt to do it. I'm sure he would have said yes, and he did graduate from BYU.

How can leaders continue to pull stunts like this, and then look me in the eye and say "we dont support any political party?" Its bullcrap.

This (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/24/mormons.coffee.ap/index.html) is an interesting story. I mean, we need to have a sense of humor about our religion but at the same time we don't like it when we perceive that our sacred symbols are being mocked. Usually, though, when they are it is not in a way that we can do anything about so we can ignore it. I guess it just depends on whether the image is trademarked or not.

This is probably not a mockery, to the coffee company at least. They don't really perceive the angel's divinity, and probably only think of using a recognizable figure.

This is probably not a mockery, to the coffee company at least. They don't really perceive the angel's divinity, and probably only think of using a recognizable figure.

Yes they probably didn't mean much by it. However, they probably should have thought things through better and seen this coming, if you know what I mean. Regardless as to their intentions, it can still be taken as offensive. I wouldn't be horribly offended by it, but I still wouldn't like it.

If BYU is funded by the church, wouldn't having Cheney visit then ruin your non-charity status? I don't believe you're allowed to mix politics, religion, and tax deductions.

I am fairly certain they wouldn't do it if that were the case. I also heard today (I don't know if it is true) that he is only doing commencement for one of the colleges; as BYU has such a large graduating class I think they don't have a combined commencement. And there have been plenty of people at BYU who are criticizing this.

So is it considered a sin for Mormon's to drink coffee? Or is it just discouraged, as the CNN article said? I can never keep it straight....

What exactly is the Mormon position on Jehovah's Witnesses, by the way? (All I remember you saying about them was in regards to your groups running into each other going door to door) Are they just another misguided sect of Christianity, or another religion altogether?

Well, bearing in mind our view on Christians besides us, it wouldn't necessarily be an insult to say they aren't Christian. The Church has no position officially, but I would tend to think they are about on the outside edge of the definition of "Christian".

As far as coffee, although drinking it doesn't lead to disciplinary action, neither can one hold a temple recommend. The article probably just wasn't being clear enough on the definition of "discouraged" - we aren't supposed to, but I have known members who did and still attended church regularly and all that.

Well, bearing in mind our view on Christians besides us, it wouldn't necessarily be an insult to say they aren't Christian. The Church has no position officially, but I would tend to think they are about on the outside edge of the definition of "Christian".

As far as coffee, although drinking it doesn't lead to disciplinary action, neither can one hold a temple recommend.
So basically they aren't considered Christian? Is there any sort of guideline the LDS church uses to determine what is "Christian" and what is not?

Could you rephrase that last sentence? I'm a bit confused. They can't hold a temple position if they drink coffee, but they can't be disciplined for it?

If BYU is funded by the church, wouldn't having Cheney visit then ruin your non-charity status? I don't believe you're allowed to mix politics, religion, and tax deductions.

You arent, but this won't be nearly enough to get the IRS's attention. There is little doubt in my mind that needing to avoid paying taxes is one of the reasons for our "neutrality"

I too have heard that a lot of BYU students, not to mention every single mormon democrat, is pretty mad about this though.

You arent, but this won't be nearly enough to get the IRS's attention. There is little doubt in my mind that needing to avoid paying taxes is one of the reasons for our "neutrality"

I too have heard that a lot of BYU students, not to mention every single mormon democrat, is pretty mad about this though.
If it were Al Gore and it were 1999, would you feel the same way?

If it were Al Gore and it were 1999, would you feel the same way?

I would, because I would see that as a tacit endorsement of the Clinton administration, which obviously did not exemplify LDS ideals (although I thought they had good policies).

There would be a few politicians where this would make me *less* upset...I wouldn't really have a problem with an ex-president, such as GHWB or Carter, or an LDS politician...but an active one, let alone one thats scandal ridden, shouldn't come, because it creates a conflict of interest for us.

From what I've seen, Mormon lifestyle can look pretty sterile.

Whats your thoughts?

Sterile?

Have you seen the size of our families? ;)

Or what do you mean by that?

Heh. I'm not question mormon expertise in that area. ;)


Just seemed like when I was in school, the mormon kids just seemed...dull.

Guess I don't really have any room to talk, having gone to a Lutheran church when I was younger and good god that place was heinously boring.

What are services like? Thats probably been answered but I can't read 39 pages.

Heh. I'm not question mormon expertise in that area. ;)


Just seemed like when I was in school, the mormon kids just seemed...dull.

Guess I don't really have any room to talk, having gone to a Lutheran church when I was younger and good god that place was heinously boring.

What are services like? Thats probably been answered but I can't read 39 pages.

Dull? Not at all. We have a lot of fun. It's just not in the party all the time sort of way. My LDS friends and I have all sorts of fun...some say the best kind of fun. Idk how true that claim is but we have a blast. Hanging out at the movies or at someone's house, joking around, teepeeing :mischief:, running around like maniacs....

...good times ;)

Services are traditionally separated into three hours. The first hour (or last, depending on where you live) is Sacrament Meeting, where we usually have speakers, partake of the sacrament, and gather as a whole congregation. Sometimes there are special musical numbers, etc.

The next hour is often Sunday School. The youth are in classes according to their age groups, there is a Gospel Doctrine class for the adults, and all the classes teach doctrine and study scriptures etc. The younger children go to 'Primary', where they alternate in the 2nd and 3rd hours between individual age-specific classes and a combined children's class with a lesson and a segment for songs.

The last (or first) hour is by far the most diverse. The Priesthood holding men are put in seperate classes based on their level of priesthood, being Deacons, Teachers, Priests, Elders, and High Priests respectively. The young women have their own classes based on age, and those women who do not have callings with the youth or the primary have a combined class called Relief Society.

There's a lot more and I'm sure I haven't explained this very well, but if you have any questions don't be afraid to ask.

I hear Boyd K. Packer is close to being the next president.

Thoughts?

Eran, Steygre, Matt, Nylan, and all ...

You have all completely spoiled me as representatives of your faith. I just had two Mormons come to the door, to chat. They were kind enough and all, but we had some hiccups. I wasn't expecting them to be creationists, and (as well) wasn't expecting the "God didn't make Adam & Steve!" comment. They also took it as just fine that Samuel had those soldiers kill the babies, they didn't dismiss it as maybe a myth.

They really pushed the idea that God would talk to me if I prayed about the book of Mormon. I asked them to pray and ask if the Global Flood really occcured ...

All in all, very friendly. They didn't buy my "God didn't restrict homosexual marriage, just extra-marital homosexual activity" bit though. Of course, your prophet has already made the position clear on that. Their counter, though, was "if everyone was a homosexual, there'd be no humans!" I so flabbergasted that I didn't think of "if Caine didn't sleep with his sister, there would be no humans!" to counter; I'm not used to Creationists.

The biggest surprise was when I mentioned coffee. I suggested that Mormons were adverse to the idea that their views should be imposed on others, and were unlikely to try to illegalise coffee. One elder's response was that it would be a good thing if coffee was made illegal. I really wasn't expecting that. The other one seemed to agree with me before he was corrected.

They're just young men doing their best to teach what they can about the gospel, they don't necessarily understand everything. Keep in mind that the flaws of a few men do not make a religion false.

On coffee, they probably feel that it would be easier for members to avoid coffee if it was illegal, and that is why they probably thought "yeah, that'd be nice". They clearly were trying to think on their feet. I'm sure they didn't mean it in a "push our beliefs on others" way.

Praying about the Book of Mormon is a sure-fire way to learn for yourself, if you go about it properly. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet, and if he was a prophet, the church is true, etc. It's the keystone of our religion. If it's true, then the gospel is true. If it's not, then the gospel is not the restored church of Christ.

Creationism is a matter of personal belief. Whether or not evolution was God's way of creating man is up for discussion, but as far as I know it has not become large enough of a debate for an official stance, and the doctrine may be too complex for us to fully understand.

Look up "The Family, A Proclimation to the World" to see the church's official stance on marriage.

Remember, missionaries aren't necessarily good debaters or even greatly intelligent. They're just humble servants who are doing their best to spread what they beleive to be God's restored gospel.

I hear Boyd K. Packer is close to being the next president.

Thoughts?

As I understand it (correct me Eran if I'm wrong), Thomas S. Monson would most likely be the next president of the church if Gordon B. Hinckley (who is aging rapidly and has lost his wife) were to die. I hope the prophet doesn't die any time soon, he is such a kind and blessed soul, but if God wills it, it will happen, and a new prophet will be called of God to lead the church.

Why do you have to be baptised to be considered a member of the church?

Good question

There are two reasons I can think of.

1) (secular viewpoint) When you are baptized your name becomes part of church records

2) God has commanded that his children be baptized into his church by those holding priesthood authority. It is the ceremony by which we covenant with God to serve him and to follow Christ's gospel to the best of our ability, and by which our sins are washed away and we are made clean, ready to start afresh as God's children and Christ's disciples.

I could go further, but I'm not sure I'd explain it properly. Does this help?

Good question

There are two reasons I can think of.

1) (secular viewpoint) When you are baptized your name becomes part of church records

2) God has commanded that his children be baptized into his church by those holding priesthood authority. It is the ceremony by which we covenant with God to serve him and to follow Christ's gospel to the best of our ability, and by which our sins are washed away and we are made clean, ready to start afresh as God's children and Christ's disciples.

I could go further, but I'm not sure I'd explain it properly. Does this help?
So wait, you believe baptism is literally what washes away sins? So if you accept Christ, and then get hit by a semi on the way across the street to the church/temple/whatever, you're going to hell?

^Actually, it isnt the baptisim that *washes away sins*...its recieving the gift of the holy ghost right afterwards.

But in your scenerio...no, of course they wouldn't go to hell. If they were older than 8 though, somebody on earth would have to be baptized for them. Thats why we have temples.

^Actually, it isnt the baptisim that *washes away sins*...its recieving the gift of the holy ghost right afterwards.

But in your scenerio...no, of course they wouldn't go to hell. If they were older than 8 though, somebody on earth would have to be baptized for them. Thats why we have temples.
So you believe the gift of the Holy Spirit only comes with baptism, and that is actually what saves? What if you aren't baptized after you die?

I find this interesting because I was never baptized, for a variety of reasons.

So you believe the gift of the Holy Spirit only comes with baptism, and that is actually what saves? What if you aren't baptized after you die?

I find this interesting because I was never baptized, for a variety of reasons.

Aren't you given the choice to after you die? Or something like that?
I remember "everyone should have an equal chance at being a part of the gospel". And talking about what happens to people who die not knowing who God is.

What were your reasons?

Aren't you given the choice to after you die? Or something like that?
I remember "everyone should have an equal chance at being a part of the gospel". And talking about what happens to people who die not knowing who God is.

What were your reasons?
I would assume so, but isn't it a little draconian to treat Christians who haven't yet been baptized in the same manner as non-believers?

Basically, it's just never been something that I felt that I "had" to do. Like it's not something God particularly wants me to do. So earlier in life, the only reason would have been because my parents wanted me to (Although they didn't force me), and now the only reason I would be baptized is just because of this - people asking in a rather surprised manner why I haven't. I don't think wanting to avoid explaining why I haven't been baptized is a particularly good reason to, so it's not something I've pursued. I don't know, but I don't think being baptized actually saves you - it's a sign of the saving, a public announcement that you have been saved, not the act itself.

Stupid Back button ate my reply . . .

Anyways, El_Mac, my views on homosexuality differ from those of many members not on moral or theological grounds but on social, political, and scientific grounds. And the church has no official position on evolution as such, and many members are Creationists, but BYU teaches evolution pretty much without debate. As Nylan said, we all have our opinions. It is somewhat surprising that they said coffee should be illegal, though, I have never heard anyone say that.

Elrohir: bear in mind that the only baptisms we consider valid are the ones we do . . . so an unbaptized Christian, such as yourself, a non-Christian, or a baptized Christian who is in another church are in that sense all in the same boat. But you at least believe in Christ, which (as long of course as you are doing it right) is definitely a huge leap in the right direction so to speak.

I would assume so, but isn't it a little draconian to treat Christians who haven't yet been baptized in the same manner as non-believers?

Basically, it's just never been something that I felt that I "had" to do. Like it's not something God particularly wants me to do. So earlier in life, the only reason would have been because my parents wanted me to (Although they didn't force me), and now the only reason I would be baptized is just because of this - people asking in a rather surprised manner why I haven't. I don't think wanting to avoid explaining why I haven't been baptized is a particularly good reason to, so it's not something I've pursued. I don't know, but I don't think being baptized actually saves you - it's a sign of the saving, a public announcement that you have been saved, not the act itself.

I'm actually not surprised that you haven't due to the fact that I believe that while some people may honestly believe 8 year olds/ younger kids are developed enough to be accountable for their own decisions, I don't believe that a good amount of them are even making the decision themselves. I hear there is a lot of pressure from fellow kids who have been baptised and such.

Repentance plays a major role..

After reading Eran's last comment I believe I've misunderstood something..

Elrohir: bear in mind that the only baptisms we consider valid are the ones we do . . . so an unbaptized Christian, such as yourself, a non-Christian, or a baptized Christian who is in another church are in that sense all in the same boat. But you at least believe in Christ, which (as long of course as you are doing it right) is definitely a huge leap in the right direction so to speak.
So why do you say that you, as well as I, are both "Christians"? If you are truly saved, and I am not, why even consider me a Christian at all? Why not consider me some sort of pagan or non-Christian?

I'm actually not surprised that you haven't due to the fact that I believe that while some people may honestly believe 8 year olds are developed enough to be accountable for their own decisions, I don't believe that a good amount of them are even making the decision themselves. I hear there is a lot of pressure from fellow kids who have been baptised and such.

Repentance plays a major role..
I've honestly never liked the idea of children being baptized, either voluntarily or involuntarily when they are still infants. I don't want to say that someone is or isn't sincere in their faith, but I'm leery of letting a six year old be baptized. But that isn't my call.

That doesn't have a whole lot to do with me now, of course, as I obviously think I'm old enough and mature enough to understand what a commitment to Christ means. ;) However, I don't think baptism is absolutely necessary (Although it's certainly a good thing, in general) to be saved, and I don't understand why I should have myself baptized because of peer pressure.

Salvation is much more than being baptized. In fact, we don't refer to ourselves as "saved" at all - that's something we won't know until judgment, in the next life.

So why do you say that you, as well as I, are both "Christians"? If you are truly saved, and I am not, why even consider me a Christian at all? Why not consider me some sort of pagan or non-Christian?
.


I'm hesitant to continue using the word "saved" in this context. Being "saved", at least in the LDS sense, isn't something that you do and then you're done....I can't really consider myself "saved". Its a lifetime process, that requires me to "endure to the end".

We're both trying to follow the example and teachings of Christ, so in my eyes, we're basically on the same "Christian" team, even if we're in different churches.

That doesn't have a whole lot to do with me now, of course, as I obviously think I'm old enough and mature enough to understand what a commitment to Christ means. ;) However, I don't think baptism is absolutely necessary (Although it's certainly a good thing, in general) to be saved, and I don't understand why I should have myself baptized because of peer pressure.

Well then don't do it because of peer pressure. You'll know when the time is right for you to be baptised and you shouldn't let others influence you, though I'm not saying you are because it's become quite clear that you've done a good job at not giving into peer pressure. :P

I do believe though that baptism by the true church is part of the process to become saved.
Or perhaps I should be saying by a man holding the power of priesthood?
I'm still relatively new to all of this.

Salvation is much more than being baptized. In fact, we don't refer to ourselves as "saved" at all - that's something we won't know until judgment, in the next life.
So you're operating under the assumption that you could, or could not be saved?

Well then don't do it because of peer pressure. You'll know when the time is right for you to be baptised and you shouldn't let others influence you, though I'm not saying you are because it's become quite clear that you've done a good job at not giving into peer pressure. :P
This is the conclusion that I've basically reached, that I shouldn't get baptized until I think it's what God wants me to do, not just because doing so would allow me to "fit in" with my friends better.

I do believe though that baptism by the true church is part of the process to become saved.
Or perhaps I should be saying by a man holding the power of priesthood?
I'm still relatively new to all of this.
I think we just have fundamental views on what it means to be saved. :crazyeye: When I say you are "saved", that means you have accepted Christ, and He has forgiven you of your sins. You can stray from that, and perhaps even fall away entirely and become "unsaved" again, but salvation itself isn't dependent upon a lifetime of good works, or baptism, or any other act besides actually accepting Christ.

Stupid Back button ate my reply . . .

I feel your pain ...

Nylan made a good point, too, in that they're thinking on their feet (which has to be good for you). We have more time to think of a reply than they did (and I barely make good use of that ... )

Still, pleasant enough people. They had a bit of trouble understanding how one could be agnostic on the Creator and not believe in an afterlife. I must have too alien a mindset.

Actually, I think it is hard for a lot of people to get that. It is basically because of all the time I spent on another forum (SDMB) before my mission, that I can understand how an atheist or other complete nonbeliever thinks - and CFC has helped there as well. Whereas oddly enough it was my mission that helped me to see how other believers think.

I hate saying this word even if it is the name of the place, but, do mormons believe in Hell? I've never heard anyone from church say anything about it. I've heard and seen the term "cast off" and things like that but nobody at church is blunt like my friend who always says "If you don't love God first and most, you are going to Hell"...

Hell as the traditional Christian concept? No we don't. As a place of temporary punishment for those who persist in rejecting Christ, yes, but it isn't eternal. I explain the whole Plan of Salvation in one of these old posts but I don't remember which one.

Hell as the traditional Christian concept? No we don't. As a place of temporary punishment for those who persist in rejecting Christ, yes, but it isn't eternal. I explain the whole Plan of Salvation in one of these old posts but I don't remember which one.

Really? I'll look around for that.

Really? I'll look around for that.

Yes, it's part of the first missionary discussion. I won't reteach it all since it's somewhere in these old posts, but basic concept is that yes, there are places we go in the afterlife according to our righteousness, but the only version of "hell" as traditional Christians see it is a time when we pay for our sins. It is not eternal though, as he said.

Don't be afraid to ask more questions, anytime.

Yes, it's part of the first missionary discussion. I won't reteach it all since it's somewhere in these old posts, but basic concept is that yes, there are places we go in the afterlife according to our righteousness, but the only version of "hell" as traditional Christians see it is a time when we pay for our sins. It is not eternal though, as he said.

Don't be afraid to ask more questions, anytime.

Whoever said I was afraid?

It's a figure of speech, just making sure you don't become afraid. As I have to try to npt be afraid to answer some of these questions . . .

It's a figure of speech, just making sure you don't become afraid. As I have to try to npt be afraid to answer some of these questions . . .

:lol: so true, you never know how people are going to take your response, or whether or not you've explained the doctrine well enough to do it justice.

I feel like a representative of God. I represent his church, and I'm scared to let him down. I have faith though that God will be able to speak through me if I listen to the spirit.

Yes, it's part of the first missionary discussion. I won't reteach it all since it's somewhere in these old posts, but basic concept is that yes, there are places we go in the afterlife according to our righteousness, but the only version of "hell" as traditional Christians see it is a time when we pay for our sins. It is not eternal though, as he said.

Don't be afraid to ask more questions, anytime.
If we have to go through pain and suffering after we die to atone for our own sins, then what was the point of Christ coming and dying? Doesn't that make Him somewhat irrelevant?

It would be for sins that we did not repent of, for by repentance we are cleansed and Christ's sacrifice counts for us. If we don't accept his sacrifice fully, then we have to suffer for our sins just as he did. It's hard to explain...but no, it doesn't negate Christ's sacrifice. It's our personal acceptance of his sacrifice that determines whether or not we suffer too.

I'm not sure I'm explaining this properly...

It would be for sins that we did not repent of, for by repentance we are cleansed and Christ's sacrifice counts for us. If we don't accept his sacrifice fully, then we have to suffer for our sins just as he did. It's hard to explain...but no, it doesn't negate Christ's sacrifice. It's our personal acceptance of his sacrifice that determines whether or not we suffer too.

I'm not sure I'm explaining this properly...

To me, it seems you are saying if you don't repent of everything, you are going to Hell, or whatever you'd like to call it, which is temporarey.

What if we forget some of our sins and don't repent because we don't remember? Do we still suffer?

To me, it seems you are saying if you don't repent of everything, you are going to Hell, which is temporarey.

What if we forget some of our sins and don't repent because we don't remember? Do we still suffer?

Not exactly...again, it's hard to explain...

Essentially though, when we accept Christ's sacrifice and repent of our sins, we are cleansed and although our sins may have been as red as blood, we become as white as snow.

Honestly I really don't know enough detail to explain this properly, Eran or downtown might be able to do a better job, since they've already been missionaries and missionaries are better equipped to explain, and if not that then prayer and scripture can help clarify what you are ready to understand.

It would be for sins that we did not repent of, for by repentance we are cleansed and Christ's sacrifice counts for us. If we don't accept his sacrifice fully, then we have to suffer for our sins just as he did. It's hard to explain...but no, it doesn't negate Christ's sacrifice. It's our personal acceptance of his sacrifice that determines whether or not we suffer too.

I'm not sure I'm explaining this properly...
So if you ask Jesus to forgive your sins, then see a hot chick and think "Man, I'd like to bang that", then get hit by a truck and die, you're going to hell for five minutes or five thousand years or whatever to pay for that one thought, because you hadn't asked Christ to forgive that particular thought? What? Do you really think Christ's saving power is dependent upon whether we've asked for forgiveness for one particular sin that we've committed recently, or that He would send His chosen, His elect, His beloved to burn in hell, even for just a short period?

re Nylan: Right, we can either accept Christ's sacrifice and he will pay for our sins, or we can refuse it and suffer for them, and in the end we will gain a lesser reward than we could have. And this suffering is ultimately still for our benefit, it is hard to explain, but God only allows us to suffer if it works for our ultimate good.

@Elrohir: we are not judged merely for the precise state of our soul at the exact moment of death, but for what we have made ourselves throughout life.

@Elrohir

if you had that thought you obviously didn't learn your lesson and haven't truly and fully repented

but I do see your point.

see^

@Elrohir: we are not judged merely for the precise state of our soul at the exact moment of death, but for what we have made ourselves throughout life.
OK, so why would Christians need to suffer to "cleanse" their souls? Why isn't Christ sufficient?

@Elrohir

if you had that thought you obviously didn't learn your lesson and haven't truly and fully repented

but I do see your point.

see^
What? Everyone sins. Just because you sin after you repent, are you saying that repentance isn't valid? Can there be any sort of repentance that is valid, then, besides one on your deathbed?

So in the end, we are all going to suffer and we will all be in this "hell-like" place temporarely?

OK, so why would Christians need to suffer to "cleanse" their souls? Why isn't Christ sufficient?


What? Everyone sins. Just because you sin after you repent, are you saying that repentance isn't valid? Can there be any sort of repentance that is valid, then, besides one on your deathbed?

It's not that Christ didn't sacrifice, it's whether or not we accept his sacrifice. Christ unlocked the gate, but we still have to walk through

And if you go and commit the same sin immediately you haven't really repented. That's like shooting something and breaking it, and then your mother telling you not to do it again. You say "i'm sorry! I'm so sorry!"...but then you turn around and shoot something else. That's not repentance. If you don't shoot a second time though, it is.

Commiting sins interspersedly that arent' a regularly reoccuring habit and problem isn't something that's negated, and everything is subjected to your ability and situation, so there's no real good example to explain with. Just know that if you are truly trying your hardest to be righteous, you'll be alright.

OK, so why would Christians need to suffer to "cleanse" their souls? Why isn't Christ sufficient?

Like I said, it is only those who reject him and his sacrifice - which won't divide up into "Christians" and "non-Christians", as those who need it get a chance later and those who merely pay lip service aren't, really.

What? Everyone sins. Just because you sin after you repent, are you saying that repentance isn't valid? Can there be any sort of repentance that is valid, then, besides one on your deathbed?

Repentance is an ongoing process.

So in the end, we are all going to suffer and we will all be in this "hell-like" place temporarely?

No, as I said, only those who persist in rejecting Christ. it is of course a little more complicated than that, if you don;t find the earlier post I can explain tomorrow; right now I am tired . . .

So in the end, we are all going to suffer and we will all be in this "hell-like" place temporarely?

Again, it's not hell in the way common Christianity portrays it. Think of the guilt and suffering you feel when you know you've done something wrong. It would be similar to that as far as I can tell. You wouldn't want to be in God's presence if you weren't fully pure, you'd feel too horrible.

It's complicated and hard to explain, I know it doesn't make sense. The best way to understand what really goes on is to search for it in the scriptures and to pray for understanding. It sure beats a bunch of us guys who are only human and are struggling along in life as well. We're fallible. God won't ever give you a wrong answer or give you the wrong impression that doesn't make sense.

edit: crosspost

OK, so why would Christians need to suffer to "cleanse" their souls? Why isn't Christ sufficient?


This may be totally irrelevent but I keep thinking "fire sterilizes needles".
Basically, even if the needle looks clean, it isn't and without the fire it will never be clean enough to use on someone without causing an infection?

We may have repented but there are still parts of us that are unclean and the only way we can be perfectly cleansed is to be..."sterilized"?

I really don't even know what I'm saying anymore...
I'll just end it at that.

It is a metaphor, or analogy, and as such isn't quite perfect, but I think it gets the idea across.

It's not that Christ didn't sacrifice, it's whether or not we accept his sacrifice. Christ unlocked the gate, but we still have to walk through
And keep walking through, again and again, and if you miss then you're stuck outside with everyone else who never did?

Commiting sins interspersedly that arent' a regularly reoccuring habit and problem isn't something that's negated, and everything is subjected to your ability and situation, so there's no real good example to explain with. Just know that if you are truly trying your hardest to be righteous, you'll be alright.
Is that all we have to do? Try really hard? Then why did Christ come? If all we've got to do is try real hard to do the right thing, then why couldn't Christ have stayed home instead of coming and dying for us?

This may be totally irrelevent but I keep thinking "fire sterilizes needles".
Basically, even if the needle looks clean, it isn't and without the fire it will never be clean enough to use on someone without causing an infection?

We may have repented but there are still parts of us that are unclean and the only way we can be perfectly cleansed is to be..."sterilized"?

I really don't even know what I'm saying anymore...
I'll just end it at that.
But if Christ can't cleanse us, then why did He even bother coming?

Well, I could say that if all we really have to do is try hard, that is the result of Christ - without him it would not be possible at all. But of course, even after the Atonement we are saved by far more than our works.

So much of our salvation depends on intent. If we mean well and are trying our best, we won't be condemned to eternal punishment. I like the way Catbackwards put it though, we may still need a little cleaning up around the edges to fully purify ourselves. Again, we believe that "hell" is a temporary state of cleaning, and really a more accurate word would be purgatory.

A more direct definition of "hell" is a state of "damnation", meaning lack of progress. That's a completely different subject.

Also, bear in mind that even those of us who are really good have a loong way to go to reach the ultimate goal of exaltation. Of course, at times it will be difficult.

Also, bear in mind that even those of us who are really good have a loong way to go to reach the ultimate goal of exaltation. Of course, at times it will be difficult.

What exactly is exaltation?

What exactly is exaltation?

Becoming like God, the ultimate goal of existence.

Becoming like God, the ultimate goal of existence.

And progressing eternally, forever growing with God and your loved ones, to become greater and to learn more for all eternity. Living with those you love for eternity. Also so much more than we can possibly comprehend as mortals.

Much less boring than the most commonly mentioned stereotypical heaven, eh?

I'll say again, the Mormon vision sure sounds like my vision, except with a needless death interjected :)
....
'Ro, I think you're stuck on the temporal aspect of asking for forgiveness, and they're talking about the faith in forgiveness. I don't think that they think that Jesus atones for all the sins you commit before you ask for forgiveness and then you build up a balance of sins after your baptism that have to be undone, though that seems to be a Catholic notion ...

I think it's a general state of faith in the forgiveness. The more faith you have that Jesus has atoned for the sins, the less you need to realise it in the afterlife. Faith is certainly (in Christianity, or real life) not a binary thing. I referenced this idea in a "ask a Christian thread" when I asked why people had enough faith that Jesus was going to save them when they didn't have enough faith to perform the miracles that he promised.
...
Two questions for the Mormons:
- I'm under the impression that 'something' existed before God did, no? What made this 'something'? Does the B of M make specific changes to the Creation story to allow for evolution and no global flood - or the opposite?

- The missionaries yesterday seemed to think that 'be fruitful and multiply' was important, and Mormons still seem to. How does the request for huge families combine with the common sense of Earthly overpopulation? Do the Mormons have a game plan for when we get to the 11 billion mark? Is overpopulation forseen in your Scripture? Are you under some moral pressure to increase the population that the Earth can sustain?

We actually have no specific requirements as far as havinng children. Sure, it is encouraged in general terms, and we believe that for those who are able, having children is an important part of the growing process, but it is not like it is a sin to not have more children than the replacement rate. And as of now anyways we do not make up a large enough population of the earth to make a major difference in overpopulation.

And I can't say that something existed "before" God - but something existed before creation. What God did was organize it. The Book of Mormon makes almost no mention of "science" as such - all we have for the flood being global is the Genesis account, but at least some of us think that it wasn't necessarily global.

Oh, I just remembered another one; they seemed think the KJV was the 'best' version of the Bible to read, that it was the most 'true'. Is this a common belief, or a necessary belief? I think don't they understood that I was hesitant to believe a version that mentions unicorns

The KJV is the one we use officially. In general it is held to be the most accurate, if not the easiest to read, but we recognize that any version is going to have errors.

I can't say its the best..the LDS version of the bible in other languages isn't the King James directly translated into a different language...I think they use a different translation.

Yeah, the Spanish version we use is the Reina Valera (although unlike the KJV, the Church doesn't currently have printing rights and thus cannot publish a version with our own footnotes) which is pretty much the Spanish equivalent, historically speaking.

Their argument was that the KJV was the first translation and therefore the most accurate. I didn't even see the logic in such a statement. Is there some assumption there that they didn't tell me? When I asked if they believe that King James was Inspired (capital 'I'), they denied it.

I don't see how Mormons could convert someone who knew that there wasn't a global flood. You'd need the seeds of a previous belief in the Flood to find any purchase.
26 And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life.
27 And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence.
29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.
30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth.

As I said, not necessarily. We don't hold the Bible to be literally inerrant. I mean, I for one don't believe in a global flood, and even though most members probably do, there are others who don't.

I don't see how Mormons could convert someone who knew that there wasn't a global flood. You'd need the seeds of a previous belief in the Flood to find any purchase.

A lot of people no where near the Middle East have flood myths as well. Just do a google search of it, you'll find some.

Now, I'm not saying that makes the Story of Noah historically accurate, because I believe that like most stories in the bible, Noah is largely metaphorical.

Well, I know there have been many historical floods; that's just common sense. And it's a perfectly good reason for a culture to have a flood myth, too.

There was never a global flood which killed all but a few humans and wiped out almost all life from earth, though.

Will we ever truly have all the evidence to prove it conclusively though? As weak mortals, probably not. Whether or not the flood was global is up for debate, but the principle still rings true, and one small detail that we don't understand or God has not found us ready to know does not negate a faith. We're only humans trying our best to obey God, we're not perfect, we don't know everything.

Yeah, it's proven.

The problem with your reasoning (not that it isn't faithful) is that it would allow us to conclude that 'maybe' there were unicorns around during the time of David too. We could, but it wouldn't be reasonable.

Who knows! ;) I do see your point

The details won't always be worked out in this life, sometimes we won't get our answers yet because we're not ready to understand them...a "milk before meat" concept. The message has been gotten across though, and I'm willing to wait for my answer. I personally believe that the flood was global, despite there being little to no proof, and who knows. Maybe it was localized. In the end those details truly won't matter so much as how we react to and obey the principles of the gospel that we can understand and do know the true answers for.

Eran, I'm in Alma 40:11-26 and there is quite a bit that I don't understand.

A friend told me that their are 3...places one can go when they die.
One referred to as paradise, another for...actually I forget..., and the other which the book of mormon refers to as: Damnation; Spiritual Darkness; Hell.

In the book of mormon, I only see two places. Paradise and Damnation/Spiritual Darkness/Hell.

Another thing I don't understand is Alma 40:16...something about the first resurrection. The first? Is there a second? Is that the reuniting of the soul/body?
If that is the first, once again, what is the second...if there is a second?

The last thing [I'm sorry for so many questions!] is about the reuniting of the body and the soul. It says everyone limb and joint shall be restored, every hair on our head, etc. Are we all restored as old people? Young people? Kids? Parents? I don't understand...

Hello, my name is rebakan(nickname of my real name) I am a LDS for 30 years.My question to Eran of Arcadia: Are you a member of the Church?thanks, rebakan

I take it you haven't read the whole thread. ;) That's okay, 840+ posts is a lot to wade through.

I'm gonna answer this one for him, and yes, yes he is.

it;s me again.OK, I just want to be sure because of his answers was too accurate, i mean too clear for someone not a member.And, yes, i didn't read all because I just find out this thread twenty minutes ago.Thanks, rebakan

besides i am a member of the church I was a missionary and so, if I can help anyway in this thread, please just let me know.It is a very good thread, i never thought could exist here.Thanks, rebakan

@rebakan: Okay, where did you serve? When? Whereabouts do you live? And welcome to the thread.

@Illusionist: As far as I can tell, Alma is referring to what happens between death and Resurrection, not final judgment itself. So we will be resurrected, and receive a perfected body. And we will be either in paradise or hell, so to speak, depending on how and who we were in life. The "first" and "second resurrection just refers to the order in which people will be resurrected (according to their righteousness, not the order in which they died).

The three degrees of glory are basicaly where we go after final judgment. They are all, even for the most unrighteous of people who have lived, better than on earth. It is only those who commit a very specific sin (which no one here is capable of committing) who are cast out completely.

[Keep in mind I've only read the first 9 pages so far and still slowly moving forward. There are probably quite a few things I missed too. ]

RLDS and FLDS...? [<--nevermind about that, I decided to stop being lazy and looked those two up]


Downtown: What's up with you and not liking Utah? Going by the stereotype, I would assume that you would love Utah and BYU, but that is strictly going by a stereotype...o_o.

Last question of the night:

What happens once you are baptised/baptized? [not sure which it is anymore...getting the UK and US stuff mixed up lately]

I hear that you have to learn all the lessons the primary teaches and such..and then catch up with whatever program you belong in according to your age?
Then again I'm not completely sure I heard correctly or not.

I just remember a speaker talking about her experience joining as an adult.

Whats the facial hair policy?

@Left: there is no official policy (for members; missionaries have to be clean shaven) but it is somewhat discouraged. Not strictly; my dad is in the stake High Council and has a mustache, for example.

@Illusionist: There are set of lessons (we call them discussions, or at least we did when I was a missionary [side not: the Spanish word used was "charla", which is actually closer to "chat" than discussion; every Spanish speaking missionary would refer to them as charlas even when speaking English; the English and Mandarin elders in our mission mocked us relentlessly for this] but I think they have a different name) that are taught to investigators, then after baptixqm (what?) there is another set; adults attend a special new member class their first year, then regular Sunday School; new members under 18 just go to their age-appropriate class. A convert baptism is one in which either the new member is 9 or older, or is 8 and older and whose parents aren't members.

@Eran of Arcadia: i am Brazilian and I served in the south of Brazil.My parents and one brother were the first to be baptized, but my brother, maybe 'cause he is a psychiatrist, left the Church very soon after the baptism.So only my parens, I and my husband, my children are members now.My parents were the fourth couple to be called on a mission in Portugal when the Church began there.I liked this thread very much, people can know exactly the truth about the Church from a secure font.Thanks Eran for that.
rebakan

[
Downtown: What's up with you and not liking Utah? Going by the stereotype, I would assume that you would love Utah and BYU, but that is strictly going by a stereotype...o_o.

Couple of reasons. I actually really dont have any real animosity towards Utah, although I don't think I'd want to live there. Salt Lake City is actually a fun town, and the mountains and national parks are really breaktaking. I'm not a big fan of the political climiate there, or the "Utah bubble effect", which happens when you have a bunch of Mormons together for a long time...they forget what the rest of the world is like.

And the best example for the Utah Bubble Effect in the whole world is BYU. I chose not to go there because I'm a Music/Political Science student. I can't think of a more dead music scene than Provo Utah (no bars!!! Where could I play??), or a more politically regressive enviroment. I also don't think its good for one's spirtual development (not to mention worldly benefits) to be in that stupid bubble. The students and the administration of that institution simply drive me crazy.

I'm an easterner though, and a liberal (and quasi-ethnic....I'd be one of the blackest people at BYU), so I don't fit most LDS sterotypes, which are based on Utah culture. I much prefer it out here.

downtown has a point, but BYU does have bonuses as well, being surrounded by members and morals helping to keep you on the right path (in general anyways) etc. but I guess it's more personal prefrence, whether you prefer security or diversity.

downtown has a point, but BYU does have bonuses as well, being surrounded by members and morals helping to keep you on the right path (in general anyways) etc. but I guess it's more personal prefrence, whether you prefer security or diversity.

I'm sure there are members at other universities and if you really need a whole university filled w/ people of your belief to keep you on the right path, then so be it. But I think the church alone will be enough for me so I would rather go to a university around where I live. But that is my personal preference.

Yeah, there's "Institute", which is a young adults church class similar to Seminary, so there is a community


BYU would be an all-inclusive saying prayers in class kaboom of an LDS environement, but yeah, it's not what everyone needs. I don't need to be surrounded by the gospel 24/7 to feel spiritual, but I'm not everyone.

@rebakan: Okay, where did you serve? When? Whereabouts do you live? And welcome to the thread.

@Illusionist: As far as I can tell, Alma is referring to what happens between death and Resurrection, not final judgment itself. So we will be resurrected, and receive a perfected body. And we will be either in paradise or hell, so to speak, depending on how and who we were in life. The "first" and "second resurrection just refers to the order in which people will be resurrected (according to their righteousness, not the order in which they died).

The three degrees of glory are basicaly where we go after final judgment. They are all, even for the most unrighteous of people who have lived, better than on earth. It is only those who commit a very specific sin (which no one here is capable of committing) who are cast out completely.
So Hitler's up in Heaven right now, partying it up? Do you think that's really fair?

And the first person who claims Godwin's get's smacked. :trouble: ;)

"Up" in heaven, no. But we don't think God or anyone will torture him for all eternity. He has forever to dwell on his misdeeds, that is quite punishment enough.

"Up" in heaven, no. But we don't think God or anyone will torture him for all eternity. He has forever to dwell on his misdeeds, that is quite punishment enough.
So when you said that "they are all, even for the most unrighteous of people who have lived, better than on earth" what did you mean?

I mean that where we are sent is a much nicer place. But if we spent our entire lives turning ourselves into such horrible people that we cannot enjoy it, that is our fault.

It's not heaven, but it's better than here

"heaven" is much better

I mean that where we are sent is a much nicer place. But if we spent our entire lives turning ourselves into such horrible people that we cannot enjoy it, that is our fault.
Do you think Hitler deserves to go to a much better place?

Than earth? Why not? Yes he was a horrible human being but like I said the whole point of this earth is to test us, those who fail to gain the ultimate objective still don't need to suffer. One thing we are told is that everyone will have a perfect knowledge of their sins; for the unrepentant that is a pretty major punishment.

Than earth? Why not? Yes he was a horrible human being but like I said the whole point of this earth is to test us, those who fail to gain the ultimate objective still don't need to suffer. One thing we are told is that everyone will have a perfect knowledge of their sins; for the unrepentant that is a pretty major punishment.
So you're tested, and if you fail you still get off pretty good? Hitler was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, and according to you he's in a place much better than this Earth, even if he never repented of his crimes. How is that just in any way?

How is it not? He is better off than he was on earth but much, much worse off than he could have been. I know who Hitler was and what he did; but I don't need to imagine him being eternally tortured to come to grips with it.

@Eran of Aecadia: you said:"Up" in heaven, no. But we don't think God or anyone will torture him for all eternity. He has forever to dwell on his misdeeds, that is quite punishment enough."(#859)
Do you really believe that? Have you seen any movie about the Concentration Camps and the tortures Hittler input to the Jews? How can such a person go to Heavens?I completely disagree with you!
rebakan

@Eran of Aecadia: you said:"Up" in heaven, no. But we don't think God or anyone will torture him for all eternity. He has forever to dwell on his misdeeds, that is quite punishment enough."(#859)
Do you really believe that? Have you seen any movie about the Concentration Camps and the tortures Hittler input to the Jews? How can such a person go to Heavens?I completely disagree with you!
rebakan

Rebakan: D&C 64:10

It's not our call where he is right now, but even though he was a horrible man he should be forgiven. But I have seen a movie about the Concentration Camps though. :l It was horrible.

Yes, I am not for a minute suggesting he was anything but an evil man, I don't know where this idea comes from. What I am saying is that God won't torture him for all eternity. His own sins might, though.

downtown has a point, but BYU does have bonuses as well, being surrounded by members and morals helping to keep you on the right path (in general anyways) etc. but I guess it's more personal prefrence, whether you prefer security or diversity.

Oh, sure, there are good things about it. It has a great Business school, and one of the best places to go to learn a foriegn language well.
I think you hit the nail on the head though, about security or diversity. I think *diversity* is a pretty big part of the whole university experience myself.

I'm sure there are members at other universities and if you really need a whole university filled w/ people of your belief to keep you on the right path, then so be it. But I think the church alone will be enough for me so I would rather go to a university around where I live. But that is my personal preference.

BYU is a really big school (both Provo and Idaho), which draws in a lot of out of state kids...heck, even the Utah State school system draws in lots of out of state kids, so you'd be surprised as to how few members there are at some eastern, non-LDS colleges. I think American (Undergraduate Population: 5,000 and change) had 5 active undergrad Mormons. Ohio State, with a population of 60,000, had like, 50. The biggest advantage of going to place like BYU would be for dating. If I was to only date Mormon girls...I'd be SOL. (And the whole not drinking, not having pre-martial sex bit does make you a slightly less attractive dating canidate for non-mormons...)

Different strokes for different folks. If I was a business student, I might have sucked it up and gone to BYU, cause it's really cheap. Its just an *awful awful* place for what I'm studying.

Sorry Eran of Arcadia and Illusionist.I didn't mean to judge or offend any of you, maybe because I'm not American, I've learned English by myself(with help of American missionaries, of course), I might misunderstood what You said. But I really mean to say is that He, being as he was, could not go to live near God, He(God) would be very unfair if he made it, and I'm sure He isn't.But The Lord will decide that, not me.I know that scripture, thanks for reminding me.rebakan

I'll be more careful from now on on reading what you say here.Thanks, rebakan.

Yes, indeed there is almost certainly (though we are not to judge) no way Hitler could stand to be in the presence of God, it would be a worse punishment if God were to do that.

From this post:
http://www.lds.org/multimedia/files//5302_PRESTONENG_hr.jpg
The Mormon Church in Preston, Lancashire. Apparently this Church is very important but I've no idea why. If one of our LDS buddies can let me know I'd be grateful*.

*Or I could just get off my lazy arse and take this question to the "Ask A Mormon" Thread

What's so great about Preston?

Well, historically speaking, Preston is home to the oldest continuously organized congreagtion in the church. (It wasn't, of course, the first, but all the older congregations were disbanded while the Church was running around the United States). It was important for the history of the Church in England, which in turn is important to the history of the church as a whole. (From the middle to the end of the 19th Century, the Church's growth came primarily from England and Scandanavia.)

However, the fact that it has a temple is slightly different. There are about 120 temples in the world right now, roughly half in the US but with at least 3 on every continent. They are different from our regular meetinghouses (where we go every Sunday for church, and have other activities during the week.) Temples are for our more sacred ordinances, so to speak, and only members in good standing can go there. it is where we perform, for example, sealings (which we consider to be the basis of eternal marriage).

Any other secret rites?

Also are there any "secret" extreme mormon groups?

Well, historically speaking, Preston is home to the oldest continuously organized congreagtion in the church. (It wasn't, of course, the first, but all the older congregations were disbanded while the Church was running around the United States). It was important for the history of the Church in England, which in turn is important to the history of the church as a whole. (From the middle to the end of the 19th Century, the Church's growth came primarily from England and Scandanavia.)

However, the fact that it has a temple is slightly different. There are about 120 temples in the world right now, roughly half in the US but with at least 3 on every continent. They are different from our regular meetinghouses (where we go every Sunday for church, and have other activities during the week.) Temples are for our more sacred ordinances, so to speak, and only members in good standing can go there. it is where we perform, for example, sealings (which we consider to be the basis of eternal marriage).
Cheers Matey :goodjob:

Any other secret rites?

Well, if they are secret, I can hardly tell you now can I? ;)

Also are there any "secret" extreme mormon groups?

There are some fringe groups (like the polygamists in Utah) but the total number of members of offshoots or other groups combined are about 5% of the membership of the LDS Church.

Any other secret rites?
Not really secret, just commonly unknown. Baptism of the dead. Ask Eran of this. As a young Deacon in the church I did participate. However I did not understand it. I heard their words of explanation but I had no relation to it. I was baptised like a hundred times for people who died in Mexico over a hundred years ago.

In Mormon temples there are places that even members in good standing cannot enter. Nor can government officials. I find this understandable as relates to honoring sacred sites. But I still find it strange. And I find it strange that when my government honored this sanctity they dishonered the sacred places of the natives of this country.

Any other secret rites?

Not secret,

sacred

And I find it strange that when my government honored this sanctity they dishonered the sacred places of the natives of this country.

it's cause the government, they are jerks.

I finally figured out why Mormonism was similar to my outlook. I recently learned that my hopes are similar to those of the 'transhumanists', and that Mormonism has a similar community.
http://transfigurism.org/community/

My question was about the (mandatory? suggested?)food stores and your (mandatory? suggested?) tithes. Does one of these have priority over the other? Are you supposed to tithe before all the food is collected, or are you supposed to collect the food first?

Tithing is 10% of one's increases, and thus variable. Food storage (which recieves somewhat less emphasis) is more 'fixed" so to speak.

And although it is true that there are LDS transhumanists, they may be less representative of Mormonism as a whole than even I am. See this conversation (http://zoo.nightstar.net/viewtopic.php?t=15947&sid=878c46b7e30ceeb77d0555aa8f9cd7aa) for more details.

That's why I asked: if you had to choose between tithing (this week) and buying a few litres of peanut butter for the basement - is there one you're supposed to do over the other?

From your site: :lol:

I patiently await the day when we face an outbreak of synthoChrist-induced mad cow disease. Probably in somewhere like Germany. People all drooling and staggering around the city streets, spontaneously generating fishes and healing the blind...

Um, what is the food storage for?

I would think it would be a kind of food bank that is distributed to the less needy :confused:.

Um, what is the food storage for?

Just in case theres a disaster or something and you need it, or your neighbors/community members need it.

We've had a few really bad ice storms where I live, where we didnt have power, and couldn't use roads for over a week. Its nice to have some extra food and supplies...just in case.

So is it mandatory for mormons to do that or just a reminder for those who live in areas where it might be relevant? It would seem a little weird where I live..

So is it mandatory for mormons to do that or just a reminder for those who live in areas where it might be relevant? It would seem a little weird where I live..

I dont know if we can use the word Mandatory...nobody is going to revoke church memberhip if you don't. We don't have a full year food supply, and when I move out on my own in a few months, there is no way I'll have it...I won't able to afford it, and I won't have space for all that stuff. I'll have a pretty small storage.

Its recomended though, and I can speak from experience that its handy. The power can go out for long streches of time just about anywhere. We've only needed to dip into ours twice in my lifetime (the other time was a Tornado)...but I dont see whats so weird about being prepared.

And paying tithing is always more important than food storage. If, however, the choice is between paying tithing and having enough food to eat, the Church basically says to pay tithing as a sign of good faith and at any rate they will give you back more than what you pay for food.

I would think it would be a kind of food bank that is distributed to the less needy

The Church has general food storehouses for that purpose, the individual food storage is for disasters. Plus, you know, society will fall apart right before the Second Coming. Obviously. So we will be set there, and that's nice.

Hmm

I'm impressed at the lack of questions, considering the recent airing of "The Mormons" on PBS...

Did either you guys see it? Did you like it?

Saw it. I found it interesting, but I did note it was a bit slanted in some areas. For example the creepy music and odd paintings (never seen that one of Moroni before) when talking about Joseph Smith, and asking ex-members about church doctrine isn't going to get a very balanced answer.

All in all though, it will dispell at least some of the confusion about the church and inform somewhat. It may not be fully (although it had it's moments) positive concerning the church, it's getting our name out there. I did enjoy it watching it for the most part.

Did you catch it?

Saw it. I found it interesting, but I did note it was a bit slanted in some areas. For example the creepy music and odd paintings (never seen that one of Moroni before) when talking about Joseph Smith, and asking ex-members about church doctrine isn't going to get a very balanced answer.

All in all though, it will dispell at least some of the confusion about the church and inform somewhat. It may not be fully (although it had it's moments) positive concerning the church, it's getting our name out there. I did enjoy it watching it for the most part.

Did you catch it?

I saw most of it.

Remember, this had nothing to do with the church, so you have to expect having the voices of other perspectives heard. They did have one pretty out there anti-mormon guy (The one who wrote Mormon America), but I thought everything else was pretty fair. Its been a while since I hear our choir referred to as a PR project though...I mean, I *guess* thats true....

People in my ward have been crapping a brick over it though, something that I think is pretty unwarrented.

I saw most of it.

Remember, this had nothing to do with the church, so you have to expect having the voices of other perspectives heard. They did have one pretty out there anti-mormon guy (The one who wrote Mormon America), but I thought everything else was pretty fair. Its been a while since I hear our choir referred to as a PR project though...I mean, I *guess* thats true....

People in my ward have been crapping a brick over it though, something that I think is pretty unwarrented.

Yeah, it's more balanced than most of what people get exposed to when they don't hear it from the church, so I suppose in the long run it is a good thing. It just makes a few uneasy when it's not 100% fair and accurate considering how much misinformation gets around most of the time.

They didn't even mention that the Tab has the guiness record for the longest running radio broadcast, did they?

I was hoping they'd mention some LDS celebrities, but I suppose that's what American Mormon is for :lol:

I don't know any mormans, so could you tell me how it differs from the church of egland :blush: a bit general but it would be very helpful!

Do mormons have to shave their armpits? I am curious.

re: the PBS special:

Well, bear in mind that "balanced" and "favorable to us" aren't the same. Obviously they need to speak with ex-members, they are a part of the entire LDS context. And of course they have to assume a non-divine origin for eveything in the church; we don't.

re: our armpits:

I don't know of any command or prohibition regarding body hair, so it is safe to assume none exists. We are advised to be well-groomed, however.

I saw the television(PBS) show on the Mormons and I still think it is laughable to say the least when some of the mentions of people being excommunicated based on beliefs that does not adhere to the faith of the present conventional understandings of what make a Mormon .

They called themselves Mormon Intellectuals!Yeah right!:rolleyes:

Merely disagreeing with what the Church teaches is not enough for excommunication, but teaching in public something that contradicts it is. And I think that is fine; if you think the Church is that wrong, it can't possibly be what it claims to be, so why be worried about being a member?

Merely disagreeing with what the Church teaches is not enough for excommunication, but teaching in public something that contradicts it is. And I think that is fine; if you think the Church is that wrong, it can't possibly be what it claims to be, so why be worried about being a member?

Indeed they make excommunicating those who are openly preaching doctrines contrary to the church seem like a great, horrible wrong. They don't believe the church, they don't follow the church, so what's the problem with separation of those people and the church?

EDIT: Okku, you can learn some of the basic beliefs at www.mormon.org, and if you search this thread a few pages back there should be a list of the articles of faith, which our our basic beliefs. I do not know much about your aforementioned church, so I cannot compare it. The best thing I can think of to do is show you some basic doctrines and let you see how they compare.

Oh, and don't be embarassed. Many people know little to nothing about the church, or base their entire knowledge of the church on South Park.

....Hey Eran, hope you don't mind me beating a dead horse but this thread is eons long and I was hoping you could reanswer a question you probably already did several times... but, do all Mormons support polygamy? Do you?

....Hey Eran, hope you don't mind me beating a dead horse but this thread is eons long and I was hoping you could reanswer a question you probably already did several times... but, do all Mormons support polygamy? Do you?

No. We haven't supported that practice in over 100 years. Its against the law, and it would suck really bad.

Mormons do not, under any circumstance, support polygamy. If you're polygamous, we kick you out of the church.

Mormons do not, under any circumstance, support polygamy. If you're polygamous, we kick you out of the church.

...er, you mean the current Mormon doctrine... because there are several 'mormons' who practice polygamy and even defend it on the basis on religion. Hell, in the Canadian province of BC (and some US state from where its based) is a 'Mormon' community that very, very actively practices polygamy... actually they practice worse they polygamy, they trade off their little girls in the handfuls to marry one guy. Now I was just wondering if the current and majority of Mormonism accepted polygamy or not, and thanks for answering.

...er, you mean the current Mormon doctrine... because there are several 'mormons' who practice polygamy and even defend it on the basis on religion. Hell, in the Canadian province of BC (and some US state from where its based) is a 'Mormon' community that very, very actively practices polygamy... actually they practice worse they polygamy, they trade off their little girls in the handfuls to marry one guy. Now I was just wondering if the current and majority of Mormonism accepted polygamy or not, and thanks for answering.

There is simply no need to even call them "mormons'. Mormons are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You cannot be polygamous and be a member of that church...so these communities are clearly not members of the church, and thus, not Mormon. They have very very little theologically in common with the LDS church anyways.

Are there wackos that call themselves Mormon that live in Arizona or BC or whatever and do this stuff? Yes. But they're about as Mormon as I'm Jewish.

From your perspective they probably aren't mormons, but islamic and christian fundamentalists are usually still labeled islamic and christian fundamentalists, similarly non-mainstream mormons can be named mormon fundamentalists or extremists. All large religions have fringe movements (and small religions usually are fringe movements relative to their local surroundings such as the mormons were when they encouraged polygamy).

From your perspective they probably aren't mormons, but islamic and christian fundamentalists are usually still labeled islamic and christian fundamentalists, similarly non-mainstream mormons can be named mormon fundamentalists or extremists. All large religions have fringe movements (and small religions usually are fringe movements relative to their local surroundings such as the mormons were when they encouraged polygamy).

Right. However, it would be more accurate to compare them to say "baptist fundamentalists" because we are Christian and therefore it would be a splinter of a denomination. We'd rather they not be called 'Mormon' because it misleads others, we consider "Mormons" to be LDS members.

From your perspective they probably aren't mormons, but islamic and christian fundamentalists are usually still labeled islamic and christian fundamentalists, similarly non-mainstream mormons can be named mormon fundamentalists or extremists. All large religions have fringe movements (and small religions usually are fringe movements relative to their local surroundings such as the mormons were when they encouraged polygamy).

The difference is that Islam and Christianity (with the exception of the Catholic church) doesnt have centralized leadership strucutures, who will kick people out if they dont meet the membership qualifications.

If I'm a craaaazy southern-baptist, its highly unlikely that the Southern Baptist convention will kick me out, and keep me from calling myself a baptist. I am unware of anything similar in Islam to what Mormons (and Catholics) have.

They may have broken off from the LDS church, but they really ought to do with the old RLDS church did...change their name to reflect the fact that they have nothing to do with the parent church. (The RLDS is now the Community of Christ).

Actually, I can call them "Mormon" in a sense, as they believe in the Book of Mormon, but the are not Latter-day Saints.

And every religious movement has fringe groups - I found out that even the Church of Scientology does.

Actually, I can call them "Mormon" in a sense, as they believe in the Book of Mormon, but the are not Latter-day Saints.

And every religious movement has fringe groups - I found out that even the Church of Scientology does.

Well, naturally to some extent. Some of us just don't like it when they give the wrong impression about the church.

Do terrorists hate you too? and nazis?

Oh, and Nylan brought this up in another thread: How did humans get to the Americas? (the natives)
on that note, does a mormon always know?

Well, the Book of Mormon says that a small group came by boat from the Middle East to the Western Hemisphere about 600 BCE. Some members have taken this to mean that they are the sole ancestors of all native Americans, but I at least am inclined to think that they met the natives who had already come from Asia thousands of years before - and to me, the Book of Mormon implies this.

And does a Mormon always know what?

Do terrorists hate you too? and nazis?

Oh, and Nylan brought this up in another thread: How did humans get to the Americas? (the natives)
on that note, does a mormon always know?

Well, I would assume the Arab brand of terrorists would hate us because we're Christian, although I'm not sure. As for Nazis, not specifically that I can recall. The church did exist in Nazi Germany and was not attacked like the Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and whanot. That may have changed with Neo-Nazis as far as I know.

Yeah, Eran pretty much covered it. Similar to Abraham of the Old Testament, this family was given a 'promised land' according to the Book of Mormon. It's hard to say whether or not there were others there, but I don't see any reason why not.

Well, the Book of Mormon says that a small group came by boat from the Middle East to the Western Hemisphere about 600 BCE. Some members have taken this to mean that they are the sole ancestors of all native Americans, but I at least am inclined to think that they met the natives who had already come from Asia thousands of years before - and to me, the Book of Mormon implies this.

And does a Mormon always know what?

Thank you, thats actually more ineresting than i thought it would be, and
does a mormon always know everything there is to know?

Well, I know everything, but I am unusual in that regards.

Wait, what I meant is, we are not on average any smarter than anyone else. I don;t know everything about the church that there is to know, and some of my views (although not generally the ones I describe here) are, although orthodox, somewhat "liberal". Asking other Church members at CFC OT may give you another answer.

Yeah, Eran pretty much covered it. Similar to Abraham of the Old Testament, this family was given a 'promised land' according to the Book of Mormon. It's hard to say whether or not there were others there, but I don't see any reason why not.

You don't think it's quite clear that there were people in South America before 600 BC?

That's what the thread is for.

We don't believe that Jesus actually lived in North America. But we do believe that after his ascencion in Palestine, he came to a group of his followers somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (we do not claim any particular exact location) and taught and ministered to them for a time. We also believe that he visited other such groups throughout the world that have not been identified.

I was just looking in this thread and saw this- it intrigues me. Surely with the Mormonism being founded in America, so long after all the other churches of Christianity, surely this goes to show that the religion is somewhat constructed to meet the "desires" of the American people? I mean, if Mormonism teaches that Jesus came to the Western Hemisphere, then Americans are obviously going to love this idea, and be more likely to convert. I don't mean to sound offensive, this idea of Jesus in North America just seems very different to the usual bog-standard Nazareth/Jerusalem shabbang.

Also, not trying to disprove that Jesus went to the Western Hemisphere, but how do Mormons suggest that Jesus managed to get to North America? (Transport etc.)

Thanks. :)

Well, it was after he came back from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven - so as a claim it is no more nor less than that of any Christian. He came down from heaven, that's how.

As far as fitting the needs of people in the Western Hemisphere, I don't know anyone who joined the church because it claims that Jesus was once in the same hemisphere as them. Most Americans aren't that easily impressed.

I was just looking in this thread and saw this- it intrigues me. Surely with the Mormonism being founded in America, so long after all the other churches of Christianity, surely this goes to show that the religion is somewhat constructed to meet the "desires" of the American people? I mean, if Mormonism teaches that Jesus came to the Western Hemisphere, then Americans are obviously going to love this idea, and be more likely to convert. I don't mean to sound offensive, this idea of Jesus in North America just seems very different to the usual bog-standard Nazareth/Jerusalem shabbang.

Also, not trying to disprove that Jesus went to the Western Hemisphere, but how do Mormons suggest that Jesus managed to get to North America? (Transport etc.)

Thanks. :)

We have about as many members (I'm not sure exactly) outside of the US as in. We are a very international religion, and people convert just as "fast", if not faster, in far off places than in the good 'ol US of A.


Concerning transportation...Jesus ascended into heaven after his resurrection. If he can ascend into the sky, he could easily descend to any point on the planet with similar grace.

All religions are like this. The main characters always come from and spend their time in the local region where the religion is founded. It's what the locals know.

Now, if a religion had their prophet or god come from an entirely different region on earth that wasn't even known at the time, but the word spread to other unknown regions who only later learnt about this geography that would truly be something ;)

Actually, "the same hemisphere" is pretty vague. And the Book of Mormon is no no more specific than that (actually, even that part is implied).

If you view it as an outsider I'm sure you'll see it's quite amusing.

Not really. I don't find the historical claims of other religions "amusing", whether I believe them or not. I don't really see the following dialog as having ever occureed:

Joseph Smith: Jesus came to the Western hemisphere briefly after his ascension!
American: (to himself): hey, that's my hemisphere! I should join this religion!

Well, can you name a religion that doesn't just in one huge honker of a coincidence take place in the region where it's founded?

Do the greek gods live in Japan? No.

Was Jesus born in Sweden? No.

Same goes for mormonism. I think most people who aren't mormons find it amusing because it seems an even more peculiar coincidence than the other religions - the book of mormon is about how these middle easterners came to the new world. It's not about how they came to China, is it?

:)

Well, it might be about how they came to, say Mesoamerica, as opposed to upstate New York where it originated. Really, now, "the same hemisphere" doesn't strike me as "coincidental". Although given the particular claims it makes, Mormonism, if it is what it claims to be, was bound to start where it did, more or less, because of what happened in the Book of Mormon.

I haven't read the book, but it's my understanding that originally people believed that it explained how the natives came to America, and that some mormons even believe that today. From that perspective it's a pretty nice fit.. the story of how god helps establish a new tribe of people in the new world. It's just perfect for starting a new religion (or offshoot of an old one) that gives people a sense of belonging and history to their lands.

The same goes for judaism, it's got tons and tons of stories of what happened in the past to their people and their region (in fact those stories are actually fabricated history at least in part which can be seen from the city names etc that are used).

Well, many people may have thought that it explains the presence of all Native Americans - but it doesn't really. In my opinion at least, if that is what Joseph Smith had been trying to say he would have made it clear. As it is, it only mentions a small group coming to an unknown point somewhere in the Western Hemisphere.

As far as the Israelites, they weren't attempting to tell a universal history, it is hardly surprising that they focused only on what was happening to them.

Of course they'd only focus on themselves. But they are god's chosen people, so their books claim.

Right.

Well, their view of what it means to be "God's chosen people" has changed along with the rest of the religion over time. But if they really were God's chosen people, they wouldn't care what God was doing with, say, the Chinese at the time.

Of course. I'm simply pointing out how it's always just perfectly coincidental in all these religions that their prophets and gods just happen to only fool around in that particular area.

A guy could show up tomorrow in Sweden and say he just got a message from god that Jesus visited Sweden after he was crucified and here are the true scriptures and they're all about stuff from a Scandinavian-centric perspective. To me that would be amusing (and completely natural for a new religion), that's all.

There weren't any scriptures of Jesus found in America before the Spanish came. There weren't any traditions of the Norse gods in China a thousand years ago.

For an outsider there's nothing peculiar about that, but if I was part of a religion I would think it was very odd if my religion had such a funny coincidence. :)

No, I still don't see the issue. We don't believe that God has had dealings only with Israel and "somewhere in the same hemisphere as me" just that those are the ones we know about.

Naturally a religion is going to start where the events happened with something like Israel. It's not like they heard about it first or anything...

With the LDS church, it's NOT "where we were". Mesoamerica (where most people imagine the events happened although there is no proof for or against the claim) is as close to upstate New York as Israel is to Austria. Furthermore, the first converts were white, not Native American.

I believe the religion "sprang up" because it's true

I don't think any religion springs up because the events happened where the religion began. It emerges because of the beliefs and the message.

I don't think any religion springs up because the events happened where the religion began. It emerges because of the beliefs and the message.

That, and the need for stories to bind together a society.

Religion is more than just stories, certainly in this case.

And if Jesus had visited Sweden after his resurrection, makes sense he'd tell a Swede first. Or at least someone in the Eastern Hemisphere.

I don't think I've claimed otherwise.. religion is all sorts of rituals and beliefs.

I won't get further into this. I find it amusing, you obviously don't. I guess it's only amusing for someone who isn't religious. I've seen a number of people's reaction when they heard about mormonism and they thought it was funny.

Well, good for them.

After all, like I keep saying, the connection is far less significant than you seem to think.

I do have a question that is troubling me since i had seen that documentary on "Mormons" from that PBS show:do you have any things that you believe that can somewhat be considered heresy or is that whatever a thought that is remotely unorthodox comes to your mind,you surely will not share it with us gentiles?

Well, I am what I would call "liberal orthodox" (the Church itself doesn't use the term but I think it fits): I believe the Church is true and the leadership is correct, but I don't agree with the majority of Church members on many social and some theological issues. But if I disagree with a lot of members on an issue or point of doctrine, I don;t mind mentioning it here as long as I make it clear what is canon and what is my opinion.

Well, I am what I would call "liberal orthodox" (the Church itself doesn't use the term but I think it fits): I believe the Church is true and the leadership is correct, but I don't agree with the majority of Church members on many social and some theological issues. But if I disagree with a lot of members on an issue or point of doctrine, I don;t mind mentioning it here as long as I make it clear what is canon and what is my opinion.What do you mean by "the Church is true" and that how can it be that whatever the authority that the leadership holds be correct when in fact in the past they have been wrong?

What do you mean by "the Church is true" and that how can it be that whatever the authority that the leadership holds be correct when in fact in the past they have been wrong?

I mean, that the claims to divine authority that the Church makes are correct - I accept that. That doesn't mean that every single word that has ever come out of the mouth of anyone in any position of leadership in the history of the Church is the truth, just that when they claim to speak for God, they really speak for God.

I mean, that the claims to divine authority that the Church makes are correct - I accept that. Interesting on how you applied the word "Church" as somekind of entity embodying all people that resides in it as being one.

That doesn't mean that every single word that has ever come out of the mouth of anyone in any position of leadership in the history of the Church is the truth, just that when they claim to speak for God, they really speak for God.Are you contradicting the claim of the fallibility of the role of a leader in the Church authority?If that is so,then in consequence,every individual leaders in the Mormon Church that claim to speak for God is entitled to be not in the position of leadership because of some error have been made in some areas.

Interesting on how you applied the word "Church" as somekind of entity embodying all people that resides in it as being one.

Well, that is sort of what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is. Can't speak for any other religion.

Are you contradicting the claim of the fallibility of the role of a leader in the Church authority? If that is so, then in consequence,every individual leaders in the Mormon Church that claim to speak for God is entitled to be not in the position of leadership because of some error have been made in some areas.

What do you mean? I know that every leader the church has had has been human, and had faults, and made mistakes. That by itself doesn't mean they don't speak with God. We don't claim perfection, of all humans only Christ himself attained that.

What do you mean? I know that every leader the church has had has been human, and had faults, and made mistakes. That by itself doesn't mean they don't speak with God. We don't claim perfection, of all humans only Christ himself attained that.If every leaders is human and not perfect,then how can we rely on them to speak on the behalf of something that is perfect such as God?Does it take something perfect to interpret Perfection?:mischief:

If every leaders is human and not perfect,then how can we rely on them to speak on the behalf of something that is perfect such as God?

Because someone's got to do it. We aren't supposed to take their word for it either, we should take it up with God ourselves.

Does it take something perfect to interpret Perfection?

Well, I can usually tell what he is saying :mischief:

Because someone's got to do it.Obviously,since it is a billion-dollar industry.:lol:

We aren't supposed to take their word for it either, we should take it up with God ourselves.Then there goes the monopoly on what is the correct way to speak by way of Him doesn't it?Why all the silly reliance of having human people who are elected to be better human than the lot of you Mormons who are just not that human enough than the other humans(the leadership). :gripe:



Well, I can usually tell what he is saying :mischief:Yeah!and tell that to the leadership!:p

Obviously,since it is a billion-dollar industry.

Actually, they aren't really making any money off of it.

Then there goes the monopoly on what is the correct way to speak by way of Him doesn't it?

We don't claim that only the prophets communicate with God.

Why all the silly reliance of having human people who are elected to be better human than the lot of you Mormons

Nor do we insist that they are inherently better people.

who are just not that human enough than the other humans(the leadership).

They are human, yes, but in my experience are good people.

Yeah! and tell that to the leadership!

Oh, they know.

Actually, they aren't really making any money off of it.
Oh,I am sure they get a few perks here and there.Plus,power is worth more than money to some egos.


We don't claim that only the prophets communicate with God.I was referring to the leadership.

Nor do we insist that they are inherently better people.But they are somewhat entitled to be better only enforcing what is heresy and what is not then i have to say that whoever dissent is not the better one in that circumstances.

They are human, yes, but in my experience are good people.But being good does not denote as being qualified?

Oh, they know.Really.Have you saying anything that is somewhat contrary to their beliefs?

Oh,I am sure they get a few perks here and there.Plus,power is worth more than money to some egos.

It is a lot of work, and no real power.

I was referring to the leadership.

Yes, we never said they are the only ones who can communicate with God.

But they are somewhat entitled to be better only enforcing what is heresy and what is not then i have to say that whoever dissent is not the better one in that circumstances.

Well, if they are really receiving revelation from God, than it is Him and not them who defines orthodoxy. If they are not, then the question is irrelevant.

But being good does not denote as being qualified?

No, God chooses whom he will.

Really.Have you saying anything that is somewhat contrary to their beliefs?

Not particularly. What do you mean?

It is a lot of work, and no real power.i don't know what to say, Eran,but it is odd to say the least that you don't think that it is "no real power" for the administrators who handles purse in influencing the movement.:confused:

Yes, we never said they are the only ones who can communicate with God.Ok.What was the original question?:confused:
One more time to refresh my memory:"Who is it that communicate with God?"

Well, if they are really receiving revelation from God, than it is Him and not them who defines orthodoxy. If they are not, then the question is irrelevant.So,these people who are in charge of excommunicating other members are somewhat the figurative gatekeeper on recieving the message from Him on what is unorthodox and what is acceptable?

No, God chooses whom he will.I forgot,what goes inside the Church stays in the Church.We be damned to know who is qualified because we are simply just gentiles and have no understanding on how the divine dicision on who is most qualified to be a member of the leadership.:rolleyes:

Not particularly. What do you mean?Have you ever been summoned by a tribunal of some sort in regarding an unorthodox belief that you hold or are you simply a good robot who blindly conforms to whatever the conventions of the many Mormon beliefs?

i don't know what to say, Eran,but it is odd to say the least that you don't think that it is "no real power" for the administrators who handles purse in influencing the movement.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. They draw no salary, and don't personally benefit from the Church's expenditures.

One more time to refresh my memory:"Who is it that communicate with God?"

Prophets can speak for God to everyone, but individuals can speak to God on their own behalf.

So,these people who are in charge of excommunicating other members are somewhat the figurative gatekeeper on receiving the message from Him on what is unorthodox and what is acceptable?

Well . . . yeah. Sort of. In the event, decisions on what and what is not an excommunicable offense are made on a higher level than excommunication trials.

I forgot,what goes inside the Church stays in the Church.

I am answering your questions.

We be damned to know who is qualified because we are simply just gentiles and have no understanding on how the divine decision on who is most qualified to be a member of the leadership.

We believe they are chosen through divine inspiration.

Have you ever been summoned by a tribunal of some sort in regarding an unorthodox belief that you hold or are you simply a good robot who blindly conforms to whatever the conventions of the many Mormon beliefs?

Um, neither? Merely disagreeing on some issues won't get one excommunicated. I couldn't get kicked out of the Church for anything I say here, I think, for instance.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. They draw no salary, and don't personally benefit from the Church's expenditures.To erase what i was trying to go at this:Can you give me a list of details that the leadership do in this billion-dollar organzation that you happen to be one of its million members?



Prophets can speak for God to everyone, but individuals can speak to God on their own behalf.So individuals can speak to God but they can't speak for him in public in certain cases?


Well . . . yeah. Sort of. In the event, decisions on what and what is not an excommunicable offense are made on a higher level than excommunication trials.Trials that consist of who that judges the accused?

I am answering your questions.Yeah,and I have to apologize myself since I really did not do any research on some of my questions and I have to say that I never have read this thread till now.:blush: Got alot to learn what I am trying to engineer this dialogue's directions.



We believe they are chosen through divine inspiration.Then who does the picking since it requires someone or some body of oversight that consist of people selecting who is qualified to be the right choice?I would not be surprise that alot of applications that have many people claiming to be divinely inspired.:lol:



Um, neither? Merely disagreeing on some issues won't get one excommunicated. I couldn't get kicked out of the Church for anything I say here, I think, for instance.I guess you are not radical enough to be flattered by a simple summons.:D

To erase what I was trying to go at this:Can you give me a list of details that the leadership do in this billion-dollar organzation that you happen to be one of its million members?

I cannot account for all that they do. But they are responsible for a lot of the long-term planning, making decisions regarding Church programs, as well as speaking to congregations, etc.

So individuals can speak to God but they can't speak for him in public in certain cases?

Right. God can tell me what I should do, but not what you should do. Only the prophet can speak on God's behalf to the whole world (yes, we realize no one outside the Church really listens to him, that's their issue.)

Trials that consist of who that judges the accused?

I believe that Church disciplinary courts are at the level of the stake (a stake is a unit of roughly 10 congregations) but can go higher (like, if the president of the stake is the one being tried.)

Yeah,and I have to apologize myself since I really did not do any research on some of my questions and I have to say that I never have read this thread till now.:blush: Got alot to learn what I am trying to engineer this dialogue directions.

All good, that's why I am here.

Then who does the picking since it requires someone or some body of oversight that consist of people selecting who is qualified to be the right choice?I would not be surprise that alot of applications that have many people claiming to be divinely inspired.

Each level is chosen by the one above; ie positions in the ward (congregation) are called by the bishop, the bishop is called by the stake, etc.

I guess you are not radical enough to be flattered by a simple summons.:D

Or at least, not claiming to be speaking for the church when I go off. But heresy is a rare charge, things like adultery are more common.

Wait, people are charged with adultery by the church?

No, but adultery is an excommunicable offense - get caught and you can get kicked out. They don't go looking for it, but if they know, then it is an issue. If you think that is unreasonable, well, the Church decides who can belong.

Could you explain exactly what the church does? Is there some kind of trial or something going on?

Also what else is deemed excommunicable offenses?

edit - oh and one more: I don't understand the point of excommunicating members for 'sinning'. Isn't the main message from Jesus to forgive and love your neighbour according to mormons? How does kicking people out of the religion accomplish that?

I don't have the list, but it would be things like adultery, or heresy, or anything that is a felony.

I also don't know the whole procedure, but it is a trial of sorts. Of course, they can't make you show up, but if you don't then I think you get excommunicated anyways. A member who is excommunicated isn't barred from meetings or anything, but they can't hold callings or anything like that. And the idea is that it is temporary - excommunicated members can be rebaptized.

What's a calling?

Also, what about other sorts of behavior that are typically seen as unchristian, such as lying, stealing, being too self-absorbed, and so on?

What's a calling?

What one does in the church - like teaching Sunday School, or being the bishop, or directing the music. What happens is that whoever is responsible extends the calling (usually the bishopric), and one has the option of accepting it (which most people do) or not. A calling is held anywhere from a few months to a few years.

Also, what about other sorts of behavior that are typically seen as unchristian, such as lying, stealing, being too self-absorbed, and so on?

Very bad, but not all of them result in excommunication, which is reserved for serious things. As we consider marriage so important, adultery is seen as bad enough.

What usually happens with excommunicated members? Do they still attend church like before? And how long do they usually stay excommunicated for?

What usually happens with excommunicated members? Do they still attend church like before? And how long do they usually stay excommunicated for?

Some still come to church (and are eventually rebaptized), others leave completely. So some will never come back (this is completely up to them, the only way to be permanently excommunicated is to be excommunicated on two occasions for adultery), others will. How long is up to them and the bishop, as to whether they have fully repented.

So if you commit adultery twice you're out for good? No more forgiveness?

What else can permanently excommunicate you?

Not committing adultery twice, being excommunicated twice for adultery.

As far as I know, that is it.

So you can kill someone, get excommunicated, get rebaptized, kill someone again, get excommunicated again, and then get rebaptized again?

But if you commit adultery twice (yeah yeah I got the double excommunication in between thingy) no such luck?

If that's true I'm really puzzled. I also don't understand how it squares with the usual christian doctrine of forgiveness. Other than whackjobs like jehova's witnesses and the like I can't think of other christian factions doing this.

Well, now that you mention it, yeah, murder would be automatic. In fact, I think that if you kill someone under any circumstances they will ask you about it, if not try you for your membership. And if you have murdered in the past and want to be baptized, you need permission from the leaders of the church. Can't believe I forgot that one :confused:

As far as forgiveness - God will forgive whom He will, but He told the church not to rebaptize anyone after being excommunicated twice for adultery.

Why not? Aren't humans supposed to forgive and love one another?

yes, and no one is saying we shouldn't forgive and love someone, but that doesn't mean that we can't excommunicate them. In fact, often excommunication is seen as an important part of the repentance process (it does tend to get one's attention after all), it's just that in this case they can't be in full fellowship.

Just another thing I don't understand at all in your mindset.

When I read the new testament what comes forward as the most powerful message is that people should unconditionally love god and each other and share of themselves fully no matter what the other person has done in the past.

Excommunicating someone from your religion for good so that they are permanently banned from having full membership seems to go against all that, considering that you consider your religion to be the true word and fellowship of god.

Thanks for answering the questions though.

Just another thing I don't understand at all in your mindset. When I read the new testament what comes forward as the most powerful message is that people should unconditionally love god and each other and share of themselves fully no matter what the other person has done in the past.

Well, I agree with that. And in fact, when I was a missionary I knew another missionary whose dad had done that. No one suggested he not love his father.

Excommunicating someone from your religion for good so that they are permanently banned from having full membership seems to go against all that, considering that you consider your religion to be the true word and fellowship of god.

First of all, the specific "two strikes and you're out" is scriptural, meaning it definitely came from God if our scriptures are to be believed. Second, it is no guarantee that if someone is permanently excommunicated, that they won't go to heaven or anything like that.

Thanks for answering the questions though.

It's why I am here after all.

10K Part 1!

Just another thing I don't understand at all in your mindset.

When I read the new testament what comes forward as the most powerful message is that people should unconditionally love god and each other and share of themselves fully no matter what the other person has done in the past.

Excommunicating someone from your religion for good so that they are permanently banned from having full membership seems to go against all that, considering that you consider your religion to be the true word and fellowship of god.

Thanks for answering the questions though.

Part of it may have something to do with the possibility that those who commit adultery and are unrepentant get excommunicated. They come back later, but they do it again...and are unrepentant. It is the unrepentant who are excommunicated. Eran's point about their eternal state stands. However, at the point where they've been excommunicated twice for adultery it is not likely that they will be willing to change and keep the commandments.

It takes A LOT to get excommunicated, especially considering the great willingness in the church to forgive the repentant.

I understand that, I'm just saying that from my perspective either one is always willing to love and forgive or one sets up certain demands. The way I read the relevant parts of the new testament no such demands should be set as we are all god's children.

Of course, people read the bible whichever damn way they want, this only goes to show that mormons read it differently than I do.

Phew! Out of curiosity I just read this entire thread! Zounds.
I'm a newcomer, so I thought I'd identify myself. My name is Alexander, and I'm another Mormon here to join the party.

On Apolyton I'm known as Alexander I (was originally Alexander01) and I'm a fairly prolific poster. Over here I'm usually a lurker, reading but not posting much. However, I couldn't resist joining this thread.

Brief Bio:
Raised LDS in Kansas City, MO and Dallas, TX.
My father is a German convert to LDS from Catholicism, my mother (deceased) was born LDS, from pioneer heritage.
Served my mission from '01 - '03 in Salt Lake City.
Graduated from BYU with my BA Christmas '06.
Newly married, currently reside in Provo, UT with my wife.

I'm ready and willing (though whether I'm able is debatable ;) ) to attempt to help answer any questions on Mormonism. I feel I must commend Eran and the others for the superb way they've handled the wide variety of questions they've received. I hope my two cents will be as useful.

No, but adultery is an excommunicable offense - get caught and you can get kicked out. They don't go looking for it, but if they know, then it is an issue. If you think that is unreasonable, well, the Church decides who can belong.

Now, if I understand this correctly, you only actually get excommunicated for adultery if you're gone through the temple already. In fact, I suspect that thats the way it is for a lot of the things that can get you excommunicated...the standards are different, pre-temple and post-temple (or pre-priesthood, post-priesthood).

The church is not likely to excommunicate a 17 year old for having sex with his girlfriend. The church IS likely to excommunicate that 35 year old, returned missionary who married in the temple and has 3 kids. The expectations are different.

Served my mission from '01 - '03 in Salt Lake City.


Hey, welcome to the party/CFC. Always glad to have another Mormon, even if they went to BYU :)

You actually served in Utah? I bet thats different...never wanted for meals much I bet :lol:

yes, welcome Alexander. It's always good to expand the number and variety of LDS posters.

Hey, welcome to the party/CFC. Always glad to have another Mormon, even if they went to BYU :)

You actually served in Utah? I bet thats different...never wanted for meals much I bet :lol:

Thanks for the welcome. :)

Actually, it's interesting how that happened. When I first started, the local members had a system for feeding us 7 nights a week. It was actually kind of difficult with schedules -- sometimes we'd miss a dinner for a variety of reasons and the member would get offended. Elder Kofford of the Seventy then limited the mission to 3 member dinners a week, but the local members couldn't seem to figure out how to do it -- so then we'd get a 7 or none ultimatum from some members, and of course had to pick the none, as member dinners were the least important things in our schedules. Other members managed the transition quite well. Keep in mind, I served in around 70 wards and nine stakes. The most I ever had at a time was 2 stakes/13 wards. So for the first three months I was well-fed, the rest not so much. :D

Utah is an intriguing place to serve an LDS mission, as everybody knows who you are and what you're doing, usually. Our mission president was Richard G. Hinckley (the prophet's son), now of the Seventy. Our standard door approach while tracting was "Hi, we're the missionaries." Around forty people I taught joined the church. It was a great place to serve.

The church is not likely to excommunicate a 17 year old for having sex with his girlfriend.

I thought adultery referred to affairs where one or both are married to someone else, so that should be a given, unless the mormons have a different definition?

I thought adultery referred to affairs where one or both are married to someone else, so that should be a given, unless the mormons have a different definition?

Well, you would get busted for both adultery, and having sex outside of marriage. I would get in bigger trouble now, hypothetically, that I would have 2 years ago. Just because I'm not married doesn't mean I'm given a blank check to not be chaste.

So having sex with your girlfriend could also get you excommunicated?

Breaking the law of chastity after one has gone through the temple could.

I think it's viewed as worse for people married in the Temple. It's that whole "where much is given much is expected" thing. Granted, you could get in a lot of trouble for fornication (sometimes defined as pre-marital sex), but committing adultery after sealing (extra-marital sex) I think is considered worse because more is expected of you after making covenants with God and your spouse.

I think it's viewed as worse for people married in the Temple. It's that whole "where much is given much is expected" thing. Granted, you could get in a lot of trouble for fornication (sometimes defined as pre-marital sex), but committing adultery after sealing (extra-marital sex) I think is considered worse because more is expected of you after making covenants with God and your spouse.

I agree, and perhaps what I was told was "LDS Legend" or something. From what I was told from my mission president, and my bishop, was that breaking the law of chastity after the temple is a *big deal*.

Is there a difference, as far as church discipline is concerned, between fornication and adultery? To tell you the truth, I'm not sure, and I'd rather not risk finding out :)

Sufficient to say, sexual purity is important in Mormonism.

Sufficient to say, sexual purity is important in Mormonism.

Yeah, that's an understatement. :)

What the heck is 'sexual purity'? That may be a mormon term but it makes no sense to me.

Why is it a rule that only husband and wife can have sex anyway? What specifially is seen as bad about sex outside marriage when it's consensual? Is it just one of those 'we don't know, but god says it's going to cause us problems in the future so we follow that' kind of rules?

Why is it a rule that only husband and wife can have sex anyway? What specifially is seen as bad about sex outside marriage when it's consensual? Is it just one of those 'we don't know, but god says it's going to cause us problems in the future so we follow that' kind of rules?

Well, yeah, kind of. And that is pretty much good enough for us. But basically, since the relationship between husband and wife will be necessary for us to achieve our divine potential, and since sex is a big part of building that relationship, it is important that that be what we use it for. That is why, say, adultery is worse than just sex outside marriage.

Don't you find it peculiar to live in a world with rules set by an outside entity that don't really make sense inside the world you live in, but that you should follow nonetheless simply because you're told it will make sense in some other world?

It does make sense to me, I just can't explain it. It is much harder to feel the influence of the Spirit when one is not keeping the commandments, I assure you, but if you don't believe in/don't recognize it, then of course it will seem arbitrary.

Well, for one, extra-marital sex is a betrayal of the sacred bond between spouses. Unfaithfulness is deeply, deeply harmful to one's spouse, it is dishonest and it is selfish.

As for premarital sex, it cheapens the value of intimacy in marriage. We Mormons believe that sexual intimacy is inherently tied to marriage because it is the act of creating children, and we believe that all children have the right to a family with a mother and a father who love each other and care for the children. As such, premarital sex devalues the creative act that we consider sacred.

Since we believe that the ability to create life is an inherent trait of God, any perceived abuse of our own ability to create life here in earthly mortality is seen as diametrically opposed to our own attempts to become more like God and is thus condemned by the Church.

Sex is the most intimate, sacred, and powerful part of a relationship between man and wife. It is the sacred God given power to create life, and the most powerful expression of love in existence. Thus it must not be abused.

That's the basic gist of it

Eran, now that makes sense, if you experience personal advantages in this world by keeping various laws it's not just abstract promises of the next life.

To the two posters above: Who ever said anything about abusing sex?! Calm down. To a lot of people, including me, marriage is just a symbol (or less), what matters is the relationship regardless of its formal status. Two people who love each other are not abusing squat just because they don't have your stamp of approval.

Also, sexual intimacy does not equal the creation of children. Otherwise infertile (which includes all women past menopause) couples could not be sexually intimate..

Well, what you call a perfectly natural thing to do (sex outside of marriage) we call its misuse. The two are not entirely mutually exclusive by the way. And sex is about more than children, but still should be about the relationship between husband and wife. But the consequences of not doing this would be greater for us than for someone who doesn't realize that.

I think you would do yourself* a favour by not referring to sex between unmarried couple as 'abuse' of sex. That you personally find it wrong is one thing, but the word 'abuse' carries very serious meaning in a sexual context.

Consider that the most fundamentalist muslims consider it sexually immoral for a man and woman who are not related to even shake hands. They too could speak of that as sexual 'abuse' then, which would be equally devaluing of the term. From my perspective you are stuck in the same issue (sexual angst) just to different degrees.

*those who use the term obviously

I think you would do yourself* a favour by not referring to sex between unmarried couple as 'abuse' of sex. That you personally find it wrong is one thing, but the word 'abuse' carries very serious meaning in a sexual context.

That basically boils down to semantics. But generally we don't use it in the Church, it was just to illustrate the point here.

Consider that the most fundamentalist muslims consider it sexually immoral for a man and woman who are not related to even shake hands. They too could speak of that as sexual 'abuse' then, which would be equally devaluing of the term. From my perspective you are stuck in the same issue (sexual angst) just to different degrees.

We certainly can distinguish it from sexual abuse as it is generally understood. And angst isn't the right word I think either. We don;t sit around worrying about it, generally, just avoid it.

I wonder if Abadoom opens a new Mormonism thread...

Hmm, not sure the mods would appreciate that one. Doubt it would stop him though . . .

Seriously, though, this thread has been busy lately. Almost time for Part 3!

It was me that bumped it... :D

I wonder if Abadoom opens a new Mormonism thread...

:lol: He'd better not, or I'd have to use Google Earth on him ;)

That basically boils down to semantics. But generally we don't use it in the Church, it was just to illustrate the point here.

Yes, but when you use words such as 'sexual abuse' for an unmarried couple making love then you're either ignorant of the real meaning of the term or you don't understand that it simply isn't abuse in any way, shape or form.


And angst isn't the right word I think either. We don;t sit around worrying about it, generally, just avoid it.

I don't expect mormons to sit around worrying about sex. I do however think that all the sexually restrictive rules in mormonism are an unhealthy set of doctrines that are born out of sexual angst. Mormonism was founded during the Victorian era and it shows.

Yes, but when you use words such as 'sexual abuse' for an unmarried couple making love then you're either ignorant of the real meaning of the term or you don't understand that it simply isn't abuse in any way, shape or form.

The only time I ever heard the term used was in this thread - we said that sex itself was being abused (ie misused), not any of the participants. Big difference.

I don't expect Mormons to sit around worrying about sex. I do however think that all the sexually restrictive rules in Mormonism are an unhealthy set of doctrines that are born out of sexual angst. Mormonism was founded during the Victorian era and it shows.

Think what you want. That doesn't create reality. Except one thing: the Victorian era started after 1830. That term is overused - it means a lot more than "more sexually conservative than I am."

Yes, but when you use words such as 'sexual abuse' for an unmarried couple making love then you're either ignorant of the real meaning of the term or you don't understand that it simply isn't abuse in any way, shape or form.

As Eran said it's not abuse of the people involved, but rather abuse of the act itself. Writing us off as ignorant does not become you.

Our apologies for any confusion this may have caused.

Well, it may be cheating, but this makes post 1000, the new thread is coming up here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=224203).