Eran's All-New Mormonism Thread
- Thread starter Eran of Arcadia
- Start date
- Status
CivGeneral said:
"Ordinance" in Mormonism roughly corresponds to "sacrament" in Catholicism. It means things like baptism and confirmation, sealing (eternal marriage), ordaining to the priesthood, and the like. We believe that ordinances are only valid when done with proper priesthood authority, and that furthermore this authority was lost during the apostasy and restored when the church was organized. It is found only in the Church. Thus we rebaptize everyone who joins the church, regardless of previous affiliation.
Eran of Arcadia said:
Actually the "my faith gives me a higher right to salvation" thing is one sore point I would not even begin to express, suffice to say it drives me nuts that a good just and wise man would be denied salvation for being born in China under a different set of beliefs. One thing I never could quite grasp about the organised religions of the West is the denial of the majority of the Earths population today and in history and in the future to have anything but an eternal hell prognosis, this to me is not Jesus's message it's mankinds selfish and self righteous message, I'm very bothered by it. The world's a mixed up place and religious elitism is unlikely to make it any less so. I think religious tolerance of the 20th century and beyond has yet to progress very far, it's still a my God's better than your God system, allbeit they are the same God. It's crazy and self defeating IMHO.
Is there more light for the "heathen" under Mormonism? Or are they too subjugated?
Tae said:
Like I said, Grace is an undeserved gift. But we also believe that good works actually change us as human beings, and that it is only through this change that we will be able to live in the presence of God.
Add to that the fact that we use the word "salvation" to mean 4 different things, and that by each definition the range of those who are saved is from "everyone who has ever lived" to "those who attain the highest glory", and it's hard to keep up with us.
Tae said:
But, in counterpoint, works is evidence of faith. I mean, if a person says "God wants me to give to the poor, and I have faith that giving to the poor is the best thing I can do" - then you know if his statement is true if he gives to the poor. If he doesn't, then his statement is false. Alternatively, if some wannabe philosopher spouts "I don't even believe the sun will come up tomorrow", you know they're lying when they set their wake-up alarm.
Eran: So, if you ask someone to pray, and they tell you that their 'spiritual voice' tells them your doctrine is wrong ... (assuming you believe them that they heard their spiritual voice) where do you assume their message came from?
Sidhe said:
well, like I said, one must accept God's truth to be saved. And most people won't get it here. But we also believe that salvation isn't just based on how you are when you die. Those who die without the fulness of truth (ie, non-Mormons) will be able to accept it in the next life, when it will be a lot more obviously true than it is now.
Meanwhile, as long as they live well here on earth and follow what they can sincerely think is right (even if it's atheism), can be saved. Based on sheer demographics, there will be a heck of a lot more "heathens" in heaven than Mormons, just because there were always more heathens. No one will be barred from salvation just because they were born in a certain place or time.
El_Machinae said:
I personally would say that they were mistaken, that they mistook their own desires or wishful thinking for the Holy Ghost (or theoretically, it could be Satan, but probably not). But as I am not them and can't tell them what to feel and think, it is better for them to follow what they think is right, even if it is actually wrong.
Why don't you assume that you're hearing your own desires and wishful thinking, then?
El_Machinae said:
Well, I can judge what I feel but not what others feel. And what I interpret as the promptings of the Holy Ghost really do feel like something I could not generate on my own, but that came from outside me.
If someone said that they "felt" that we were wrong, I would assume that their feelings were not the same as mine. But, again, being unable to know for sure, I would have to let them do as they feel is right.
And there certainly is a chance that what I think is God talking is really just my psyche. That is the risk I am taking.
I guess Pascal's wager makes more sense when you feel an actual spiritual urge.
El_Machinae said:
Indeed, Pascal's Wager makes absolutely no sense as a reason to believe in God if it seems to you that it makes no sense. But if you think that it is likely that God is, but you are not sure, Pascal tells you why you should make that step. Faith, after all, is not "believing in something for no observable reason" but "acting on what you believe."
Eran of Arcadia said:
Interesting. So you believe that it is your current corporal form that will live in the presence of God?
Need to leave...thank you for your responses, I have never taken the time to understand Morman beliefs and what makes them different from my own.
Tae said:
When I say, "we change", I mean that our spirit does. We will lose our current body at death but get a perfected body at resurrection. But we will keep our spirit permanently, and it is our spirit that needs to progress to be able to live with God.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
How do people convert into Mormonism?
How do converts who have drank tea cope with the dietary laws of not being allowed to drink tea (and other dietary laws that forbids them to consume what is illegal to Mormons)?
For me, I cannot stand to be without tea, and would find it very hard to cope without it. Plus there are other factors too that does not make me drawn to Mormonism, namely the belief in the Trinity, dont view the Book of Mormon as scripture, and the spiritual infalibility of the pope. How do potential converts from Catholicism to Moromonism deal with these sourt of issues?
How do converts who have drank tea cope with the dietary laws of not being allowed to drink tea (and other dietary laws that forbids them to consume what is illegal to Mormons)?
For me, I cannot stand to be without tea, and would find it very hard to cope without it. Plus there are other factors too that does not make me drawn to Mormonism, namely the belief in the Trinity, dont view the Book of Mormon as scripture, and the spiritual infalibility of the pope. How do potential converts from Catholicism to Moromonism deal with these sourt of issues?
CivGeneral said:
Tea and coffee are seen as just a sacrifice that must be made. Giving up drinking and smoking can be hard but has obvious health benefits. It is not uncommon for people to struggle with this even after baptism, but most are willing to try.
As for specific beliefs, if someone is going to become Mormon it is because they believe that our doctrine is correct. So someone who was raised Catholic but investigates Mormonism and comes to the conclusion that it is right will be willing to give up his or her earlier beliefs. We don't want them to look down on their old beliefs, just top accept the truth (as we believe our doctrine to be) when it comes along. The difficulty that some people have in doing so is why they don't become Mormon even if they like everything else about the church.
DNA and the Book of Mormon
Here I will go a little in depth on a subject that made news a few months ago: the relationship between DNA evidence and the claims made by the Book of Mormon. Many people think that the Book of Mormon specifically says that all Native Americans in the Western Hemisphere are descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Thus, when DNA is analyzed and no link is found between Middle Easterners and native Americans, the Book of Mormon is shown to be false.
This is not the case. First of all, the group that left Jerusalem and immigrated to the New World was not from the Lost Tribes. Although the leader of this group, the prophet Lehi (from which many Mormons refer to this group as "Lehites") was an Ephraimite, he and his family were living in Jerusalem over a century after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians, which is how the Ten Tribes were lost. And the entire group only numbered between about 20 to 30 individuals, according to the Book of Mormon's description.
Second, from the very beginning of Church history there were 2 different views of where the Book of Mormon took place. Some said that it occured over the entire New World, with the descendants of the Lehites being the ancestors of all New World people. This view would require that DNA from modern Middle Easterners and modern Native Americans bear similarities.
However, it has been held by others, since even before the discovery of DNA, that the New World was already populated when the Lehites arrived in 600 BCE and that these pre-existing people are the ancestors of modern Native Americans. In fact, some would even say that the Nephites and Lamanites - the two main groups of the Book of Mormon, named after two of Lehi's sons - were descended primarily not from Lehi's group but from the natives already there. In other words, the Book of Mormon is a story not of Israelites in the New World but of natives who had to a degree picked up Israelite culture, religion, and history.
If this is the case, there would be no DNA evidence to confirm or deny it. A group of 20-30 people, living 2600 years ago, cannot be expected to leave a large marker in the DNA of their descendants, especially if it is not known where these descendants are.
The Book of Mormon itself gives not details, and the Church has never taught that one model or the other is correct (although church leaders have expressed opinions). The Book of Mormon gives a vague account of topography, but the Church doesn't try to place it anywhere specific. However, certain elements of Book of Mormon culture are similar to Mesoamerican culture, so most Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon took place somewhere around Mesoamerica.
Additionally, the Book of Mormon implies some assimilation with other groups - a prophet or king may identify himself as a descendant of one of the founders of the Lehite group, which only makes sense if most people aren't. And within a generation or so of the arrival in the New World, each group is much larger than it could be if it started with a dozen members.
DNA cannot be used to confirm or deny the Book of Mormon story, as long as one understands what the Book of Mormon is actuall saying about geneology and what should be expected. In fact, in general it can't be judged by history or science, but rather on its spiritual qualities.
Here I will go a little in depth on a subject that made news a few months ago: the relationship between DNA evidence and the claims made by the Book of Mormon. Many people think that the Book of Mormon specifically says that all Native Americans in the Western Hemisphere are descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Thus, when DNA is analyzed and no link is found between Middle Easterners and native Americans, the Book of Mormon is shown to be false.
This is not the case. First of all, the group that left Jerusalem and immigrated to the New World was not from the Lost Tribes. Although the leader of this group, the prophet Lehi (from which many Mormons refer to this group as "Lehites") was an Ephraimite, he and his family were living in Jerusalem over a century after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians, which is how the Ten Tribes were lost. And the entire group only numbered between about 20 to 30 individuals, according to the Book of Mormon's description.
Second, from the very beginning of Church history there were 2 different views of where the Book of Mormon took place. Some said that it occured over the entire New World, with the descendants of the Lehites being the ancestors of all New World people. This view would require that DNA from modern Middle Easterners and modern Native Americans bear similarities.
However, it has been held by others, since even before the discovery of DNA, that the New World was already populated when the Lehites arrived in 600 BCE and that these pre-existing people are the ancestors of modern Native Americans. In fact, some would even say that the Nephites and Lamanites - the two main groups of the Book of Mormon, named after two of Lehi's sons - were descended primarily not from Lehi's group but from the natives already there. In other words, the Book of Mormon is a story not of Israelites in the New World but of natives who had to a degree picked up Israelite culture, religion, and history.
If this is the case, there would be no DNA evidence to confirm or deny it. A group of 20-30 people, living 2600 years ago, cannot be expected to leave a large marker in the DNA of their descendants, especially if it is not known where these descendants are.
The Book of Mormon itself gives not details, and the Church has never taught that one model or the other is correct (although church leaders have expressed opinions). The Book of Mormon gives a vague account of topography, but the Church doesn't try to place it anywhere specific. However, certain elements of Book of Mormon culture are similar to Mesoamerican culture, so most Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon took place somewhere around Mesoamerica.
Additionally, the Book of Mormon implies some assimilation with other groups - a prophet or king may identify himself as a descendant of one of the founders of the Lehite group, which only makes sense if most people aren't. And within a generation or so of the arrival in the New World, each group is much larger than it could be if it started with a dozen members.
DNA cannot be used to confirm or deny the Book of Mormon story, as long as one understands what the Book of Mormon is actuall saying about geneology and what should be expected. In fact, in general it can't be judged by history or science, but rather on its spiritual qualities.
.Shane. said:
Exactly. I mention it only because there are a lot of people who think that science contradicts the claims of Mormonism, but they misunderstand what those claims actually are.
Eran of Arcadia said:
But, conversely, many religions use science and/or history when it suits their aims/agenda, then beg off when the facts don't match. Under those circumstances, I will raise my voice and defend the integrity of the discipline and attack the disingeniousness of the claimant.
As an aside, I teach US History part-time and as part of some classes I've had students ask me about the roots or founding of Mormonism and/or John Smith. In that case, I give what I believe to the be the best historical truth possible, but I don't make or offer any conclusions as to the belief system. It just isn't applicable.
.Shane. said:
Not to be pedantic, but it's Joseph Smith.
Anyways, it does sometimes bother me when religious people use science to try and prove that their religion is correct, or that another is incorrect, but then either vanish or claim that science is wrong if it disagrees with them.
I think that there are a few cases when science says the same things that religion says, But I wouldn't base my faith on science. Additionally, as a student of history I can recognize the difference between religious and historical claims. As a historian, I would never try to judge the claims of Joseph Smith or other founders of Mormonism, I would just try to identify them in the context of their time. As a believer, I say that his claims were true. But there is a difference.
- Status
