Matt's Mormon Thread

[Sir Bugsy]

For those Mormons out there have you ever heard of the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Out west here, it is fairly well known. Most folks regard it as a fairly dark period in the history of the Mormon church. However, the crusaders and the inquistion were dark periods in the history of the Christian church.

Just evidence that no one is perfect, we are all sinners, and we are all in need of the salvation that only Christ can bring. No one is powerful enough to overcome their sin. No one. No matter what you do. Only through Christ's death are our sins redeemed.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Are you saying that a cross is not a symbol, but a craven image? Then why did I see an idyllic painting of Joseph Smith at the church I visited? If you visit a synagogue you will see a Star of David. Symbols are not craven images.

To Lutherans, Christ's death and resurrection is everything. Are there any other Christian denomination where this is not so?

Are there any other Christian churches that do not use a cross in or on their building?

Actually, it seems that you completely misunderstood my post. I am saying that although the cross is not a graven image, but that although the Crucifixion was important, we tend to focus more on the Resurrection. You may indeed find pictures of Joseph Smith in our churches, but there are more pictures of Christ (just usually not on the cross). We do not criticize those who use a cross, but we don't.

@methos: we consider 8 to be the age at which a child reaches accountability, ie knows right from wrong enough to be morally responsible for his or her decisions, and thus capable of sinning. It is thus at age 8 that children are baptized.

 

[ironduck]

Just wondering what 'sin' you think I'm not powerful enough to overcome..

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Just wondering what 'sin' you think I'm not powerful enough to overcome..

Define 'overcome'. Christians do not generally mean by this that it is impossible to stop sinning without God's direct help; what we think is that sin carries a penalty - eternal separation from God. The only way to overcome that penalty is through Christ's redemption, thus he helps us 'overcome' the eternal effects of sin. This is true of all sins, no matter how big or how small. We cannot pay this penalty, but Christ did.

 

[Merzbow]

To elaborate, what I was just taught and what I think makes perfect sense is that Adam and Eve's trangression is not considered a sin in LDS theology because without knowledge of good and evil they were like children - incapable of sinning. God intended for them to do what they did as a necessary part of the evolution of the human race, and didn't put humanity in the untenable situation of having to sin to fulfill his plan.

In the same way one can argue that, say, a 4-year is not doing something wrong in the moral sense by breaking something in anger. At some point, however, they do acquire the moral faculty simply by the fact of growing, and then cannot help sinning because it is practically impossible for us to live 'perfect' lives like Jesus did. It is the sins we do AFTER acquiring the moral faculty that Jesus atoned for, NOT the act of acquiring the moral faculty.

I cannot express how much more sense this makes to me personally than the bizarre doctrine of Original Sin and Adam's stain on all of us that traditional Christianity teaches. God wanted us to live in a playground like children for all eternity? The heck with that.

 

[Newawd]

@Matt: Regarding President Hinkley's trip to the hospitol...

"SALT LAKE CITY — Following a routine medical screening, President Gordon B. Hinckley was found to have cancerous growth in his large intestine. The diseased portion of the intestine was successfully removed through a laparoscopic procedure."

You know, from a purely 'non-religious' standpoint, that man is in *great* shape. For a guy of his age (what, 93 now?) he's sharp mentally, and active phyically.

Oh, and backing up just a tad, I discussed the whole book of Abraham thing with a professor of religion (specializes in ancient scripture) back at BYU. He said:
*********************************
Accepting anything Joseph Smith did requires faith. We believe that his explanations of the facsimiles springs from revelation more than from a technical deciphering of the hieroglyphs. His interpretations have been attacked since they were first published in 1842. In 1912, the reverend Franklin Spalding, bishop of the Episcopal Church in Salt Lake City, wrote letters to world renowned Egyptologists. The eight who responded said what they believed the facsimiles represented. All eight said that Joseph’s interpretations were wrong and yet, interestingly, all eight disagreed among themselves as to what the meaning was. Waves of criticism on this issue surface every so many years. The last one I know about was in the late 1960s and early 1970s. A book that you might find interesting which covers the history of the papyri and leaves open the many questions to which we do not have answers is entitled, I believe, “The Story of the Book of Abraham: Mummies, Manuscripts and Mormonism”, by H. Donl Peterson. I cannot find my copy in the office right now so I cannot verify the title.

************************

Take that for what it's worth. I added the italics, as that was the part that jumped out at me. I also verified the name of the book. It went along more with what I was thinking about it not being an exact science. I haven't had time to try to track down that book he mentioned yet, but you better believe I'm going to.

Bringing up a new topic...

Another thing that is different about the LDS church is that we believe that a man and a wife can be married not just for this life, but for time and all eternity. Yet one more reason why we believe that families are so important.

@Methos: My favorite book (aside from scripture) about Christ is called, "Jesus the Christ". I've read it in english and portuguese, and it's *awesome*. If you are interested, let me know and I'll bring it on Tuesday.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

Accepting anything Joseph Smith did requires faith. We believe that his explanations of the facsimiles springs from revelation more than from a technical deciphering of the hieroglyphs. His interpretations have been attacked since they were first published in 1842.

That is exactly correct. Actually a tremendous amount of faith. Additionally, all the teachings of the LDS church require a great deal of faith. So please don't think the rest of us are damned just because we do not share your faith. I’ll discuss faith in a moment.

In 1912, the reverend Franklin Spalding, bishop of the Episcopal Church in Salt Lake City, wrote letters to world renowned Egyptologists. The eight who responded said what they believed the facsimiles represented. All eight said that Joseph’s interpretations were wrong and yet, interestingly, all eight disagreed among themselves as to what the meaning was. Waves of criticism on this issue surface every so many years.

Please cite the documentation for this.

A book that you might find interesting which covers the history of the papyri and leaves open the many questions to which we do not have answers is entitled, I believe, “The Story of the Book of Abraham: Mummies, Manuscripts and Mormonism”, by H. Donl Peterson. I cannot find my copy in the office right now so I cannot verify the title.

I will look this one up.

Just wondering what 'sin' you think I'm not powerful enough to overcome..

All of them.

@methos: we consider 8 to be the age at which a child reaches accountability, ie knows right from wrong enough to be morally responsible for his or her decisions, and thus capable of sinning. It is thus at age 8 that children are baptized.

Now this is not just a Mormon idea, a lot of churches believe this. (warning: this is now a general religious discussion. Perhaps I may have to start my own thread to complete it.) Lutherans and Catholics will baptize anyone, newborn to the dying. The Lutheran logic is that an age requirement was never placed on the sacrament when it was instituted by Jesus in Matthew 28:19

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

He states “all nations.” Additionally, what happens to an autistic or a “mentally disabled” person who never is “morally responsible”? Lutherans believe that baptism is a covenant between God and the person baptized. That person becomes part of the “Body of Christ,” the church of all believers. Once you are in, you are in for good. We believe that it doesn’t matter what your denomination is. Just so long as you believe that Jesus is your messiah and saviour.

Additionally, we believe that anyone can baptize anyone else. You don’t have to be a member of the clergy to do the baptizing. We believe it can be done in any location. It can be done in church or a bathtub, or a pool, or over the kitchen sink. We believe it can be done with any amount of water. Full submersion is not required.

The only two requirements are that water is used and the words are spoken.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That is exactly correct. Actually a tremendous amount of faith. Additionally, all the teachings of the LDS church require a great deal of faith. So please don't think the rest of us are damned just because we do not share your faith. I’ll discuss faith in a moment.

Actually, Newawd has stated in several posts, as have I, that we don't think anyone will be condemned for not accepting Mormonism in this life, if one cannot develop faith in its precepts.

Additionally, what happens to an autistic or a “mentally disabled” person who never is “morally responsible”?

They do not need to be baptized. We believe that baptism serves both to 'wash away sin', which means that the ability to sin is a prerequisite, and to forge a promise between God and the individual being baptized, which means that the ability to make and understand that promise is necessary.

Additionally, we believe that anyone can baptize anyone else. You don’t have to be a member of the clergy to do the baptizing. We believe it can be done in any location. It can be done in church or a bathtub, or a pool, or over the kitchen sink. We believe it can be done with any amount of water. Full submersion is not required. The only two requirements are that water is used and the words are spoken.

Pretty much every Christian church has slightly different ideas on what constitutes baptism. This is why we believe that some source of doctrine other than the Bible is needed - after all, every Christian church that baptizes is trying to follow the model of the Bible, but with different results.

 

[ironduck]

All of them.

Just name a couple of sins I'm unable to overcome..

 

[Newawd]

When I speak of not being able to overcome Sin, I am talking about the fact that I *have* done things during the course of my life that were not in accordance with God's will.

If someone wants me to tell them what sins they can not overcome, they must first tell me what sin they have committed. I think that most intellegent people realize that they are not perfect (regardless of thier religion). These people have 'sinned' at least once in their life. See, we *can* overcome sin in that we can stop committing them. However, just not doing it anymore does not mean that you have 'overcome' that sin. We must also have that sin... lets call it, "removed from our record". We can't do that. We lack the capacity. Only through the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made for us can we clear our record. Only with his help can we 'overcome' sin.

So Ironhorse, tell us of something that you have done that would be considered a sin, and that is the sin that you can not overcome. It *can* be overcome, just not by you. Or you can tell us that you have never sinned, and give us all a good laugh.

 

[ironduck]

I have never sinned for I believe not in the concept of sin.

I have wronged people, however, and I'm sure you consider that sin. To overcome that I try to improve myself and apologize or pay off debt to the people I have wronged by doing good things for them. This way these wrongdoings are in fact overcomed by their realization, acceptance, and forgiveness. Not by any gods, but by the humans that were involved.

The fact that you think there's a stain on someone's record even after they have improved themselves and found forgiveness with the people involved lucidly demonstrates the guilt complex that is painted all over christianity.

 

[Newawd]

@Ironduck: Lol. Sorry, but I saw that coming from a mile off. . I've walked the path of this conversation with people before. Hehe. I look at your post and I see:

ironduck
Deity

How apropriate. You are a deity unto yourself.

One thing I disagree with you on is the whole, "painted with guilt" issue. I am not a guilty man. True, if there were no Christ, we would be "painted with guilt". Lucky for us, Christ did come. He did attone for our sins. But because of him, we don't need to feel guilty. You loko to yourself and your neighbors for forgiveness. We look to ourselves and our fellow men for their forgiveness, and do all we can to try to make things right. After that, we also ask forgiveness of our God.

@Sir Bugsy: Out of curiosity, do you believe in asking God to forgive your sins, or do you believe that it is swollowed up as part of the "Saved by grace" thing without you needing to ask?

@Everyone: I purchased a copy of that book I mentioned about the Book of Abraham from Amazon. I'll let you know how it goes. . I hope there is a source for the whole "none of the 8 egyptologists agreed on the translation" thing so I can pass it on to y'all.

 

[ironduck]

How apropriate. You are a deity unto yourself.

I have seen little but flaming from you in this thread. Everyone who questions your sacred beliefs are being flamed.

You flame me for not believing in the concept of sin. You flame people who question the validity of the mormon scripture and their translation. You flame egyptologists for disagreeing with your translations. And you flame people for questioning the wisdom of making sexual discovery a sin.

You are the epitome of someone who finds the truth in sacred books and words of authorities rather than by investigating the real world.

 

[Methos]

@Ironduck: I pm'ed you.

So as to keep this thread from going into a useless argument, please keep off-topic arguments/discussions via pm.

 

[Newawd]

I'm sorry Ironduck. My 'deity unto yourself' comment is not supposed to be an insult. In my humble opinion, those who see no God in the universe see God only in themselves (whether they choose to believe it or not). My opinion may be wrong, but it is still my opinion. It is something that I have discussed with people on several occasions. That is why it stood out to me so much when I looked up and saw your name with "Deity" underneath it. It wasn't an effort on my part to belittle or insult you.

Some people worship other gods. Does that make them bad people? No. Some people worship no gods, but are gods unto themselves. They can still be excellent people if they choose to live lives that reflect high morals. Different does not mean bad.

Sorry again Ironduck. I meant no offense. More than that, you seem like a guy who wants to do what you believe to be right. I belive that if you somehow came to believe that there *is* a God, you would worship him without a second thought.

@Everyone: If anyone feels that I have made personal attacks on them, please let me know and I will give individual apologies. Such has not been my intent. My wife would verify that I can sometimes be a complete jerk without meaning to.

@Methos: I felt it OK to post this here, as it's hard to argue with somebody saying "Sorry". Besides that, I express an honest religious opinion, which is right on target for this forum.

 

[ironduck]

Alright, no worries then, although I strongly disagree. I'm no more a deity than any other human, nor have I ever claimed to be. Rather, I disagree with what a given religion may or may not label as sin.

A few examples:

Eating cows.
Eating blood.
Receiving blood in medical emergencies.
Homosexuality.
Being with a woman during her period.

None of those are immoral, but they are wrong, or 'sinful' in various religions or factions thereof. Since I do no subscribe to any religion that is not of my concern, therefore I am not sinful for breaking laws of an arbitrary religion.

If someone wants to discuss morality with me that is quite a different matter, but sin? That is for you to deal with.

For your information, the title beneath my name is a standard issue on these forums, it changes at certain post numbers.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

 

[El_Machinae]

To overcome that I try to improve myself and apologize or pay off debt to the people I have wronged by doing good things for them.

Ah, but have you actually paid off every wrong that you have done? I don't think you have, not because I think you're nasty or anything, but mainly because I don't think that *I* have.

If you've wronged someone, and not compensated them, isn't it still a stain on your background?

PS: I was hoping 2000 posts would be the deity level. But now I have to click that link to see.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Alright, no worries then, although I strongly disagree. I'm no more a deity than any other human, nor have I ever claimed to be. Rather, I disagree with what a given religion may or may not label as sin.

A few examples:

Eating cows.
Eating blood.
Receiving blood in medical emergencies.
Homosexuality.
Being with a woman during her period.

None of those are immoral, but they are wrong, or 'sinful' in various religions or factions thereof. Since I do no subscribe to any religion that is not of my concern, therefore I am not sinful for breaking laws of an arbitrary religion.

Certainly, if morality is no more than a human construct, or at least an attempt to live in a society, then what you said, those are not sins. But I live my life with the belief that my religion is correct (for reasons I have already mentioned) and if that is the case, then God has stated that certain things are sins for reasons He understands but we do not. I realize that you do not believe in a God who would prohibit things for any reason, but it makes more sense than you seem to give it credit for. If you are breaking laws, not of an 'arbitrary religion' but of God, and don't realize it, well according to Mormonism it doesn't mean you are damned, just off course. But without Christ you (and I, and anyone else) can't get back on course.

Also, I don't recall Newawd flaming anyone. He has shown a lot of respect for alternate viewpoints in this thread.

 

[Methos]

That is why it stood out to me so much when I looked up and saw your name with "Deity" underneath it.

@Newawd: Just so you know, the “deity” located below his username is in regards to his number of posts. I believe 2000 posts grants you deity status. Looks like Ironduck has already informed you of this though.

Here is where ThunderFall states how many posts are required for each level. Hmm, must not be right as I should be deity by that post.

Rather, I disagree with what a given religion may or may not label as sin.

A few examples:

Eating cows.
Eating blood.
Receiving blood in medical emergencies.
Homosexuality.
Being with a woman during her period.

Some of those I find odd as well, but understand where they can get them from. I talked with a Jehovah’s Witness once on the giving blood topic and I could understand how he came about that belief. I don’t agree with it, but I can understand it.

I’ve never heard the last one nor the one on eating blood.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

No need for that.

 

[Newawd]

@Methos: Here's where these things come from:

Eating Cows: Hindu (I believe)
Eating Blood: Old Testament
Receiving blood: Jehova's Witness
Homosexuality: Bible
Being with a woman during her period: Old Testament

I think the whole 'eating blood' thing is more of an issue with actual blood, not blood in meet. About eating blood... it's mentioned only in the old testament. IMHO it deals with people in olden times only. It even states that in one of the instances where it's mentioned:

Lev. 3:17
It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

In all honesty, there are lots of things in the OT that sound to me like they were almost more of a health code. Without refrigeration in a hot environment they had to be very careful about what they did or didn't eat.