Ask a Mormon, Part 3

[warpus]

Yes, and compared to dying in the Holocaust, having their name used as part of a religious ritual pretty much won't register . . .

All I'm saying is let's have respect for their names and leave them alone. They deserve as much..

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, the LDS Church currently doesn't use their names - but if that concerns them now, I would be surprised.

 

[Cutlass]

I really don't get that view. If we are right, then only we are right.

Prove it. Get God down here and spell it out for everyone. You see, that's the point. You may or may not be right. But you have no evidence either way. And neither does anyone else. Even though a great many of them also make the same claim that they and only they are right. But since neither you nor they can prove it, then it really just comes down to "we say we are right and you are wrong".

So what you really have is that some men say we are right and everyone who does not agree with us is wrong. And then some other men say we are right and everyone who does not agree with us is wrong. And then some other group of men say the same. Ect, ect, ect, ect, ad nauseam.

But it is ultimately the claims of men! And no men are infallible. A bit more modesty is called for.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Prove it. Get God down here and spell it out for everyone. You see, that's the point. You may or may not be right. But you have no evidence either way. And neither does anyone else. Even though a great many of them also make the same claim that they and only they are right. But since neither you nor they can prove it, then it really just comes down to "we say we are right and you are wrong".

So what you really have is that some men say we are right and everyone who does not agree with us is wrong. And then some other men say we are right and everyone who does not agree with us is wrong. And then some other group of men say the same. Ect, ect, ect, ect, ad nauseam.

But it is ultimately the claims of men! And no men are infallible. A bit more modesty is called for.

There are it seems two issues here:

1. Whether we are correct in our claims.
2. Whether, if we are correct in our claims, others who disagree are thus wrong.

Now, we do not expect people to take our word for 1. But we believe 1 - and if 1 is right, 2 naturally follows.

But they are two separate issues that you seem to be lumping together.

 

[Cutlass]

There are it seems two issues here:

1. Whether we are correct in our claims.
2. Whether, if we are correct in our claims, others who disagree are thus wrong.

Now, we do not expect people to take our word for 1. But we believe 1 - and if 1 is right, 2 naturally follows.

But they are two separate issues that you seem to be lumping together.

I happen to think that all religions can use a bit more self-skepticism and less absolute certainty. That absolute certainty, when that certainty is actually that some man is right, not that God is, is a dangerous thing.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

We believe that our doctrine comes from God, by revelation to man . . .

And the issue isn't self-certainty, apparently, but whether having the truth means having a monopoly on it.

 

[Cutlass]

Everyone believes their doctrine comes from God. But the way I see it, the failure to accept the possibility that you might be wrong, is staggeringly arrogant. And I don't mean that specifically as a criticism of Mormons. Because you are far from alone in that.

 

[ParkCungHee]

With the Baptizing the holocaust dead thing, I'd point out that it's only the baptizing thing that's so unusual, because most christian faiths regard baptism as something that has to be either physically performed or is only symbolic.

From a catholic perspective, We pray for Jesus's forgiveness for all the souls in Purgatory. Assuming that any of those killed in the holocaust have not yet been assigned to Heaven or Hell, we're praying for Jesus's blessing upon them.

This is on top of the fact that we consider whole swaths of living people to be members of our church, even if they say they're not.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Everyone believes their doctrine comes from God.

And if any one of them is right, then pretty much by definition I am wrong where I disagree with them.

But the way I see it, the failure to accept the possibility that you might be wrong, is staggeringly arrogant.

I just see it as human nature, myself.

And I don't mean that specifically as a criticism of Mormons. Because you are far from alone in that.

Who is doing that here? That is a completely separate issue. I can say that I am not 100% certain of something, but I can then go on and say that if it is true, the opposite of it is not also true.

And that is what I have been saying here.

With the Baptizing the holocaust dead thing, I'd point out that it's only the baptizing thing that's so unusual, because most christian faiths regard baptism as something that has to be either physically performed or is only symbolic.

Yes, other than one fairly ambiguous mention of it in 1 Conrinthians, there is no precedent for it in mainstream Christianity. There is precedent for viewing baptism as necessary for salvation, though.

From a catholic perspective, We pray for Jesus's forgiveness for all the souls in Purgatory. Assuming that any of those killed in the holocaust have not yet been assigned to Heaven or Hell, we're praying for Jesus's blessing upon them.

Well, everyone needs it - and a lot of suffering endured doesn't wipe out the bad you did . . .

This is on top of the fact that we consider whole swaths of living people to be members of our church, even if they say they're not.

I think I have seen several groups with that view . . .

 

[ParkCungHee]

I think I have seen several groups with that view . . .

Anyones that spring to mind?
I had some Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Friends that got a little annoyed when I told them that, but when they found out what that actually entailed they didn't mind anymore.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Anyones that spring to mind?
I had some Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Friends that got a little annoyed when I told them that, but when they found out what that actually entailed they didn't mind anymore.

I think some Protestants have the view that virtuous people who never heard of Christianity were really Christian whether they knew it or not (well, obviously they didn't know it).

I don't think this doctrine makes a lot of sense to me, but I don't mind if, say, Catholics went around saying that deep down, at heart, I was a Catholic.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't think this doctrine makes a lot of sense to me, but I don't mind if, say, Catholics went around saying that deep down, at heart, I was a Catholic.

Well our position is a little different. Our position is that we never broke with parts of the Anglican Church, the Old Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox church, despite them saying they have broken with us. We welcome them and honor their practices as those of members of the catholic church, even out of communion with our Pope. In short, we regard their priests as priests, their sacraments to be valid, their churches to be holy, and if one of them decides to call himself a Catholic, no conversion process is required, for in our eyes, you were always a part of the flock.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But I am sure they would feel quite differently . . .

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well yes...I always found it strange that on the one hand people criticize us for a lack of Ecumenicism, and our most Ecumenical policy gets people upset.

 

[holy king]

I understand that people do, but I honestly don't understand why, what rational reason there is. If (say) the Scientologists started doing something like this to my deceased Mormon ancestors (of which I currently have none, but will some day) I would not get upset.

it's pretty tasteless, i have to say.

they were murdered for being jewish, after all.

 

[Harshad]

What exactly is the current role of Joseph Smith in the religion nowadays?

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

What do Mormons think about the fact that they cannot find conclusive archaeological evidence about the emigration of the Jews into Central America?

 

[civ_king]

it's pretty tasteless, i have to say.

they were murdered for being jewish, after all.

this is what I was driving at!

What do Mormons think about the fact that they cannot find conclusive archaeological evidence about the emigration of the Jews into Central America?

Pretty sure this was asked earlier and the result was that not all Native Americans were descended from the tribes that landed there

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

it's pretty tasteless, i have to say.

they were murdered for being Jewish, after all.

Murdered for being ethnically Jewish, not religiously Jewish, though. Besides, one may honor martyrs of any cause and still think that their cause was not entirely correct.

What exactly is the current role of Joseph Smith in the religion nowadays?

What do you mean, exactly? We still consider him to be the founder of our faith, the first prophet, and his teachings are important to us.

What do Mormons think about the fact that they cannot find conclusive archaeological evidence about the emigration of the Jews into Central America?

The truth of the Book of Mormon is confirmed through other means. Actually, a lot of Mormons seem to think that there is evidence (if not proof) that such a thing happened but I don't find such evidence convincing - but, at any rate, as I said that is not how one comes to know that the Book of Mormon is true.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Murdered for being ethnically Jewish, not religiously Jewish, though. Besides, one may honor martyrs of any cause and still think that their cause was not entirely correct.



What do you mean, exactly? We still consider him to be the founder of our faith, the first prophet, and his teachings are important to us.



The truth of the Book of Mormon is confirmed through other means. Actually, a lot of Mormons seem to think that there is evidence (if not proof) that such a thing happened but I don't find such evidence convincing - but, at any rate, as I said that is not how one comes to know that the Book of Mormon is true.

And is there any consencus about what language was written on the golden plates? Certainly it wasnt reformed Egyptian - if he had meant Coptic - which makes me doubt the whole thing about the golden plates.