quote:

---

Texas is not that close to AZ nor Utah.

---

Exactly. I was talking about CA.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Duh.
<-- not very bright sometimes

 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
We love you anyway.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
It happens to JW's, too. I think the proselytizing is threatening.
 

---

Posted by Jqueasy (Member # 7085) on :
 
I am not a morom, and i was raise in a church that taught that mormons were not christians. Would someone please post some of the misconceptions about mormonism that are mistakes made my some christians. I am intrested to here the discrepencies between what the LCS say and what some of my baptist roots say.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
First misconception -- it's LDS, not LCS.

The full name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

It's almost impossible to clear up all conceptions that you might or might not have. Ask questions and we'll answer them.

Also, you might get better results asking this question over on the other side where there are more people to answer your questions.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
If you'd like to clear up your misconceptions without exposing them to the populace, you could also go to mormon.org, the official site put up by the Church just to answer questions from curious folk.
 

---

Posted by Jqueasy (Member # 7085) on :
 
First misconception, the abilty for Follower of mormonism to achieve diety, secondly jesus being the brother of Lucifer.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Okay, no. 1. We believe our purpose here on Earth is to strive to become more like our Heavenly Father. Some of us may someday become so much like him that we are gods, but that's a long way off, and we don't know much about it.

[ February 16, 2005, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
No. 2: We believe we are all children of God, and lived with Him before we lived on Earth. Satan was one of Heavenly Father's children, just as we were, but chose to leave rather than follow God's plan for our salvation. Since we are all children of God, we are all brothers and sisters in spirit. Yes, this includes Satan and Jesus Christ, but their relationship isn't unique.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Second misconception:

Also from mormon.org:

quote:

---

Satan, also known as the devil or Lucifer, is an enemy of God and of all those who endeavor to do the will of God. He attempts to entice and tempt all men and women to do evil or wrong. He uses deception and the imitation of good to lead people away from God. He cannot force or coerce an individual against his or her will to do evil and follow him. His objective is to make all mankind miserable. He once lived in a pre-earth or premortal life in the presence of God before this earth was created. He rebelled against God and the eternal plan of progress and righteousness. He persuaded many others to follow his rebellion all of whom were cast out of God’s presence. They are damned in their development for they do not receive physical bodies. They work to influence and tempt those who dwell as mortals on the earth. All who are obedient to God’s commandments and follow the principles of goodness and righteousness are protected from Satan’s influences. The time will come when Satan will no longer have power over men and women, and his works will cease.

---

We believe that we were all in God's presence before this life, and that we are all God's children. As such, we are all brothers and sisters.

edit: kq said it better.

[ February 16, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by Jqueasy (Member # 7085) on :
 
So these are not misconceptions, but are really the beliefs of the LDS church?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
We wouldn't ever put it in those terms, but those statements are not false.

We just explained to you what we do believe.

[ February 16, 2005, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by Jqueasy (Member # 7085) on :
 
i am not trying to upset anyone, just want to get my facts right.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
No worries. Ask away.
 

---

Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
 
Wow thanks guys this really sparked off a good discussion and if you don't mind I have a question or two of my own. First of is it insulting to be called Mormons and if thats like a nasty slang where did it originate. Also someone told me something I had never heard before, they said that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believed the world started like in the early 1800's or something and I had never heard of this in any of OSC books which is where I have learned most of my information about the church. Since I had never heard this I figured this person was wrong but couldn't say so due to a lack of knowledge. So if you could clear it up that would be great. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
The word Mormon comes from The Book of Mormon, a book of scripture that we use alongside the Bible. www.mormon.org can tell you a lot about The Book of Mormon if you want to learn more.

From the beginning, people that didn't understand started calling it things like "The Book of the Mormons" or "The Mormon Bible", etc., and calling members of the church Mormons.

The church was organized on April 6, 1830.
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 

quote:

---

It happens to JW's, too. I think the proselytizing is threatening.

---

quote:

---

I wondered do some Baptist churches really spread lies about Mormon churches saying their devil worshipers and such or is it just fiction when the book says that.

---

quote:

---

Also someone told me something I had never heard before, they said that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believed the world started like in the early 1800's or something ...

---

Not sure where they got that idea, though it probably came from the fact that the CHURCH started in the early 1800's. But we have the same disagreements with each other about the age of the earth that every other bunch of Christians out there has Some are literal Creationists, some believe that the earth took slightly longer to make, and some think God used scientific processes that took millions of years. But "made in the 1800's" isn't one of the options.

Though it would be interesting to meet someone who DID believe that, just to see how they justified it

Michelle ...

quote:

---

Okay. Read the Chick thingie. Which allegations were incorrect, which were somewhat correct, and where did he get those ideas?

---

quote:

---

have any of you (the Mormons in particular) seen the South Park where they basically rip on Mormonism? did that piss you off?

---

quote:

---

and it is my understanding that Mormons also believe that Jesus spent some time in North America? is this true?

---

quote:

---

Okay. Read the Chick thingie. Which allegations were incorrect, which were somewhat correct, and where did he get those ideas?

---

I can tell you where he gets his ideas. Crack cocaine.

And considering how much enjoyment I've gotten out of parodying Chick tracts, I'd say don't change a thing, Jack. Don't change a thing!
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
I've never understood why some religions feel the need to make official statements about other faiths. Didn't both the Baptists and Methodists recently make "official" statements saying the LDS Church wasn't consistent with current Christianity?

(Which is kinda true, since the church clearly believes it is the restoration of Christ's Church and, therefore, is not Protestant.)

It always cracks me up that we live in a society that we often listen to (and accept) the single voice of the dissenter rather than the whole. That's like assuming the only truth we believe from a large corporation is from the people that get fired...or from the competition.

If www.mormon.org seems too PR for you, you can visit the church site directly and hear doctrine from the very mouths of its leaders, reference books and other direct sources. It doesn't get any clearer than that:

www.lds.org
 

---

Posted by Ramdac99 (Member # 7264) on :
 
Hey Antonia, that name doesn't happen to be a reference to A Christmas Story, would it?
 

---

Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
 
Thanks again everyone for your responses. I am Lutheran but I keep an open mind when it comes to religion especially other variations of christianity. I am currently reading the bible (very slowly when I have time but hay its long and atleast I'm doing it) and when I finish that I think I will read the book of mormon. Someday I'm going to read the Koran too. I am going to inform my freind that she's way off the mark with the whole 1800's thing I was pretty sure she was originally.
 

---

Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
 
Whats a Chick? Other than a cute girl and a baby chicken?

On another note I must say this forum has been somewhat educational. I now know things I didn't before.

Now on a more personal level now I'm annoyed at my friends in the christian fellowship club here at Abbott (I'm not a member I just hang out to debate evolution) they just aren't umm appreciative of other religions. C'mon one of them wants to have a class on how to convert Muslims to Christians ack!
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
The Falcon Christian Fellowship, at my high school, was about 1/3 LDS, 1/3 Baptist, 1/6 Presbyterian, and 1/6 Methodist. (There were a couple of others in there, but those are the approximate numbers.) I always saw it as a pretty cool thing that they all managed to get along and be civilized. They were the second largest club on campus.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
Sid, Jack Chick is this dude who makes cartoon pamphlets that promote a very creepy and negative version of Christianity.
 

---

Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
 
The part of the Chick pamphlet that really made me curious was the part that implied racism ... that Mormons believed that blacks were born inferior.

I doubt that would be a current teaching but was that a legitimate belief LDS church at one point?
Michelle
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
It is not and never was doctrine.

I have never even heard of a church leader who believed it.

[ February 17, 2005, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
In all fairness, several church leaders believed it. But as of the late '70s, blacks can finally serve as priests.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
The policy that disallowed ordaining black priests originated when the early Church was trying to survive in a slave state in the early 1800's. It was only instituted AFTER one black priest had already been ordained, and no specific revelation on the subject was ever cited.

Years later, after the move to Utah, as the officially non-racist Mormons attempted to justify to themselves why such a policy should exist in a church of adamant abolitionists, a wide range of explanations were made up, most tracing back to the lineage of Cain, or of Ham, or of some other ancient who fell into disfavor.

None of these explanations ever became official doctrine of the Church, but they made some members (and even some leaders) feel better about themselves in the meantime, without having to question the validity of Church policies — a practice that often makes the faithful feel uncomfortable or disloyal. Unfortunately, these ideas justified and propagated real racism among some members of the Church ... to about the degree that racism was widespread throughout ALL of America at the time.

Later, after the Civil Rights movement in America had successfully changed the hearts of a lot of people, the Prophet and Apostles (the leaders of the Church) met to pray about the old policy. They received an overwhelming impression that the time was right to rescind the policy and extend the priesthood to members of all races.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
The reason why the Church takes flak for this policy, though, is the fact that unlike many other Christian churches, we have existed as a single, coherent body since the early nineteenth century. Look at most modern Evangelical churches, and you'll see that few of them have maintained the same leadership and membership for more than a few decades, if that. So it's easy for an Evangelical church to say, "Well, WE never had any racist policies!" when in fact, the oldest members of that same church once attended other churches that DID have racist policies. But because there is no single, coherent Christian Church, old racist churches were allowed to die off, and modern Christians can pretend they never existed.

Mormons, however, are stuck with every silly thing ever said by a leader of the Church at any time in history. We can't just fade away and be replaced every few decades as a new theological trend sweeps the country
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I once went into the Christian book store in Bozeman hoping I could find something of general interest to Christians. They had an entire section of anti-mormon literature. I found it offensive then, and now, that people proporting to be Christians would dedicate so much space and effort to deliberate distortion of others beliefs. Most of what they said about Mormons was comparable to calling the Catholic Eucharist cannabalisim.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
... which they also do
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Didn't both the Baptists and Methodists recently make "official" statements saying the LDS Church wasn't consistent with current Christianity?

(Which is kinda true, since the church clearly believes it is the restoration of Christ's Church and, therefore, is not Protestant.)

---

Whoa, wait a minute. You have to be Protestant to be Christian?

So, um, you're one of those who believe that Catholics are not Christian?
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
There is a somewhat valid argument that can be made that Mormons are not Christians. That is, if you have a definition of Christian narrow enough, you can be justified in excluding Mormons under that definition. Generally those who do so base it on Mormon's rejection of the Nicean and Apostles' Creeds. If adherence to those creeds is requisite to be called Christian, and it is in some people's minds, then Latter-day Saints don't fit into that definition. I personally consider myself both Mormon and Christian, but I don't let it bother me that some people may think I am not.

edit: By the way, Geoff, that was the best and most succinct explanation of our Church's history with blacks that I have ever seen.

[ February 17, 2005, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Brian J. Hill ]
 

---

Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
 
Geoff, I agree with Brian. I have never read a more to the point statment about the historical relationship between blacks and the church. Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
Yeah, what solo said.

While we're on Mormonism, though, I have a question. Somewhere I read that Mormon youths refrain from dating 'til their sixteen. I definitely see nothing wrong with waiting 'til your more mature, but I was curious as to why they picked that age. Is that in scripture? Or is that just a convenient age to choose because of everything else it gets you (driver's license, job, etc.)? Or is there another reason? Or was the article I read that from full of crap?
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
Young people are encouraged to wait until 16 to date, but it's not in the scriptures. It falls under the category of "the counsel of the modern prophet" which we adhere to just as closely, but which doesn't have the permanence of scripture. It is designed to apply to a specific situation in a specific time, rather than reflecting some deep, underlying, universal truth
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
Okay. And now the other question: why sixteen? I mean, I know 14 year olds that are definitely mature enough to date, and 24 year olds that are definitely not.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 
We haven't been given a specific reason as to why 16 and not 15 or 17.

We are encouraged to not attend mixer functions like dances until 14, not to date until 16, and to not date exclusively until 18.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 

quote:

---

Hey Antonia, that name doesn't happen to be a reference to A Christmas Story, would it?

---

quote:

---

Whoa, wait a minute. You have to be Protestant to be Christian?
So, um, you're one of those who believe that Catholics are not Christian?

---

You misunderstand me. There's "christianity" as being a believer and follower of Christ. Christ is the end-all and center of faith within The Church of Jesus-Christ. So by that definition, we are Christian.

It's not like it's "The Church of Bob." :-)

But then there's the definition of christianity as a common heritage. Catholics claim to be the original church left in the care of the Apostles. Over time groups broke away and began their own faiths. These Protestants and other groups are but branches of a central tree, a common background.

The Church of Jesus-Christ, however, is restorationist. It claims no connection with any existing faith, but instead teaches it is the restored gospel through direct revelation by authorized prophets. It's a whole different tree.

I hope that makes sense.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Hmm . . .

Would a better analogy be, in LDS eyes, some kind of graft rather than a whole new tree?
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
But we don't believe we are a graft or a new tree. What we believe is like, the tree was planted, then cut down and burned. We are the tree that was restored to the earth by the hand of God, whole and unblemished, that had been cut down and burned before.
 

---

Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
 
Kind of like a Pheonix tree!
P.S. I'm not making fun thats just what popped into my head when I read the tree thing.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Kind of, except we believe that the tree won't go away again until Jesus returns (although it might get hacked at quite a bit...)
 

---

Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
 
Hello Ketchup, nice to know your around.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Hi, but you don't need to say "hi" every time you see me, dear. I am on far too much for that.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
The single most pervasive "myth" (using that as the nicest way of putting it) would be that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not Christian. As someone above said, you could technically say that if you used the most narrowly and biased understanding of that term. Most LDS fully admit that we are not traditional or orthodox Christians. We are not Protestant or Catholic, but consider ourselves Restorationists. Strangly, those who are loudest at claiming Mormons aren't Christians say the same thing about Catholicism.

If you MUST claim a difference from the Catholic and Protestant traditions, it is far less offensive to just say "Mormon Christians" like you would Evangilical Christians, Progressive Christians, Cultural Christians, etc. But, to say Mormons aren't Christians is usually an agressive attack to deny an identity with the very Deity Mormons Worship. It would be as if you were to say (and some have is why I use the example) Muslims don't Worship God; Just a polytheistic Moon Goddess. Again, technically speaking that might be true, so far as the origination of the word Allah is concerned. But, that is not their intentions and arrogantly dismisses the viewpoint of the worshippers. The past meaning of the word is irrelavant to Muslims as much as the different interpretations of the nature of Jesus Christ is to Mormons.

The second one is, regardless of how many years (will it take 1000 years before people get the hint?) has passed, people still claim the vast majority of Mormons are polygamists. True, the doctrine remains in force as a revelation. Still, it has been equally pronoucned in no uncertain Prophetic statements that the practice is to be abandoned. people who marry more than one husband or wife will be EXCOMMUNICATED from the "mainstream" Church. Other than shared history, at best, the Mormons who are still practicing polygamy are seperate denominations as different as Baptists are to Methodists (or perhaps even Protestants from Catholics). However, because making potshot points is more important than distinctions, secular and religious groups continue to force an immediate connection.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 

quote:

---

Would someone please post some of the misconceptions about mormonism that are mistakes made my some christians. I am intrested to here the discrepencies between what the LCS say and what some of my baptist roots say.

---

quote:

---

It's funny because it certainly brings out the best and worst in people. People either rave and gush their testimonies, or they hate it with a lot of passion.

---

Just to queer your overgeneralization a bit, I should point out that after reading the Book of Mormon, my overwhelming reaction was an unimpressed, but not particularly hateful, "meh." Coupled with a dismissive shrug of the shoulders, IIRC.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
However, that is the way you are with ALL religion. More a persnal character trait than a typical reaction to the Book of Mormon.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Nah. There are a few religions I genuinely hate. Scientology, for example, makes me red n the face whenever it's discussed; I have no patience nor respect for its practicioners, and actively attempt to dissuade them away from it where possible.
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
Probably the biggest reason that so much confusion and misunderstandings abound about the LDS church is that for a lot of people, their idea of "independent research" when it comes to the topic of religion is "asking their preacher." It's like asking old-school M.D.s about the effectiveness of chiropracteurs. I thought this would begin to change in the age of the internet, but if you google "mormon" you're just as likely to find anti-Mormon and "ex-Mormon" websites as you are to find sites sympathetic to the faith.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
In all fairness, asking Mormons what Mormons believe will also result in some distortion in the other direction. Really, the best way to get a fair picture is to read both Mormon and anti-Mormon websites with skepticism filters set to high.
 

---

Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
 

quote:

---

In all fairness, asking Mormons what Mormons believe will also result in some distortion in the other direction.

---

quote:

---

Mormons will deliberately avoid some of the more shocking and "non-Christian" elements of their doctrine when tracting; this is a conscious strategy, especially since the church wants a great deal to present a "mainstream" face to the world.

---

quote:

---

Really, the best way to get a fair picture is to read both Mormon and anti-Mormon websites with skepticism filters set to high.

---

quote:

---

By the same token, there's ample disagreement and/or misinformation in Mormon culture about what is or is not doctrine, and merely asking random Mormons is unlikely to give anyone a consistent answer.

---

quote:

---

29 And thou shalt declare glad tidings, yea, publish it upon the mountains, and upon every high place, and among every people that thou shalt be permitted to see.

30 And thou shalt do it with all humility, trusting in me, reviling not against revilers.

31 And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.

---

quote:

---

they also have a right to emphasize common beliefs in the hopes of dispelling common misconceptions

---

Absolutely. Which is exactly the same thing as de-emphasizing controversial doctrine, wouldn't you agree?

quote:

---

So when this faith tells me "You do not have to take our word for it; you can learn for yourself, independent of all else," I am impressed by such confidence.

---

quote:

---

Really, the best way to get a fair picture is to read both Mormon and anti-Mormon websites with skepticism filters set to high.

---

quote:

---

And unless they're asked, they won't talk about 'em at all. Is this inaccurate?

---

I would say yes and no on that one. They are talked about in an implied manner that is connected to the other things taught. On the other hand, it would take months and perhaps years to talk about every little detail and nuance of the LDS Church teachings. Missionaries are for setting people in a direction, not teach Seminary.

I agree with Beverly as well. You can tell an anti-sight by asking what positive vs. negative comments are made. True, that can go with what the LDS Church teaches as well. But, at the same time, it is as if you are saying "Fox News" isn't biased because it talks about one side of the political viewpoint that the others aren't.

[ February 21, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Such sites would not, in my mind, be anti-Mormon."

Hey, like I said, it's not my dichotomy. Brian made the argument that if you Google Mormonism, you're as likely to come up with "anti-Mormon" sites as you are sites "sympathetic" to the faith. There's no mention there of a middle ground, although I certainly believe such a middle ground exists and is capable of providing factual information. The definition of "anti-Mormon" varies widely, however, so I just ran with the assumption that it's anything which isn't sympathetic to the faith.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

The definition of "anti-Mormon" varies widely, however, so I just ran with the assumption that it's anything which isn't sympathetic to the faith. [Smile]

---

quote:

---

Hey, like I said, it's not my dichotomy. Brian made the argument that if you Google Mormonism, you're as likely to come up with "anti-Mormon" sites as you are sites "sympathetic" to the faith. There's no mention there of a middle ground

---

quote:

---

will you at least give credit that the Missionaries will talk about the "deeper" stuff when asked?

---

I did that in my initial post. Jinx.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I know you mentioned that, but what I mean by credit is "a positive note."
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Hm. I thought I did. Reviewing my post, I can verify that I did; in fact, I specifically credited that behavior when explaining why I wouldn't call it "lying."
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 
Just to clarify: I was arguing that the internet isn't a reliable source for finding information, especially about a topic that an individual knows nothing about. I did not intend to set up a "dichotomy" of Mormon vs. anti-Mormon. I was simply offering my opinion on why many people still have silly misconceptions about the LDS faith. To sum up, it is because in general people are too lazy to become informed.

I did not intend the word "sympathetic" to mean "apologetic." In my mind, a site sympathetic to the Mormons does not have to actually believe the doctrine. In this definition, I consider a "neutral" site to be sympathetic. But there are a great deal of sites that like take on the appearance of being trustworthy and neutral, while in actuality are actively trying to convince people NOT to be Mormon. These are the only sites that I consider "anti-Mormon."
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
Hey Tom, I'm not familiar with "YMMV." Please clarify! :-)

Does this mean you investigated the church and found it wasn't for you? What was your experience?
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Your Mileage May Vary

I wasn't familiar with it before I saw Tom using it either.

[ February 21, 2005, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Does this mean you investigated the church and found it wasn't for you? What was your experience?

---

Yep. A while back -- many years, now -- when I left the Baha'i Faith, I went looking at other churches that had interested me earlier. I found the LDS rather intriguing, and did the whole "read the BoM and ask the spirit" bit. Sadly, this came up completely empty. Zip. But since this has been my experience with all religions, it's also entirely possible that God has decided NOT to reveal Himself to me for reasons of His own; it's not a good indication that the church itself is broken.
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 
Interesting.

We tend to think the first attempts will work, much like my first attempt at speaking a foreign language. It takes time for such things, tuning the radio so to speak, and some seem to tune in faster than others. It can be frustrating when you feel naught but static.

(Allrighty, I used naught in a sentence.)

I wouldn't give up on it, though, regardless of what direction you eventually take. I'm biased toward the LDS faith, obviously, and I firmly believe that if one seeks with sincerity and real intent, having faith in Christ, they'll come to know it. I've seen it with myself and many others, but everyone's journey is different.

That's the problem with trying to learn by logic, though. It muddies the waters. Heaven knows I've tried and, though interesting, it's never as effective as consistently getting on my knees and working it out despite my ADD brain. :-)

Yet more unsolicited $0.02...

[ February 21, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: estavares ]
 

---

Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
 
Mormon? I'm from Earth!
 

---

Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
 
Aaaaaand it's dead! I killed it, I killed it! I killed yet another thread.

</preemptive brag>
 

---

Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
 
Awww you killed it! And I was just getting into it.



-steev
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
You know, you could just add some interesting questions or observations to get the thing going still. On the other hand, this is "The Other Side" of the OSC Forums. Much slower.
 

---

Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
 
Most religions are really fascinating. I like hearing about the beliefs of others; although anything with animal sacrifice I can do without.

For the LDS(s:What is your favorite teaching/passage from the Book of Mormon?
Michelle
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
EDIT: Crap, I must have not noticed a new page or something The post below applies to a much earlier part of the conversation, in which Michelle was reacting to some early teachings about Blacks and the priesthood.

Michelle, the bottom line is that while individuals believed some negative things about Blacks during that period, the ideas they taught we never codified as official church doctrine. In fact, when one church leader during that era attempted to put several of these ideas in a work of his called Mormon Doctrine, he was asked to remove them, and they did not appear beyond the first edition.

While the Mormon Church is often portrayed as authoritarian and highly-controlled, in truth, there is a lot of individual study and perspective that goes into Mormon belief, at every level. We believe that individuals have every right to personal revelation from God, and as a result, every Mormon has a slightly different idea of what we believe.

That feature of the Church is a two-edged sword. It means that getting involved in the study of Mormon doctrine can be a fascinating exercise in creative problem solving and speculation. I've heard my religion called (by outsiders) a "thinking man's Christianity". But it also means that in the course of pursuing such studies, many people at all levels of the Church will regularly have stupid ideas that get propogated as "folk doctrine" and can be difficult to distinguish from the "real doctrine" without a lot of study and experience.

[ February 21, 2005, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
 
So the bottom line is that the part of the Chick pamphlet that implied it was official dogma that lesser souls are born with darker skin is not at all accurate?
Michelle
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 

quote:

---

So the bottom line is that the part of the Chick pamphlet that implied it was official dogma that lesser souls are born with darker skin is not at all accurate?

---

I didn't see the pamphlet in question, but yes, it is not at all accurate.

In the LDS church, we don't care about skin color, ethnicity, or whatever. It's irrelevant.

Having said that, there will always be the narrow minded idiots who think otherwise, but they would be going contrary to the teachings of the gospel.

Going back to the original question from the beginning of this thread, I have relatives who have told me - with quite a lot of anger and hostility - that my church is a cult, I'm a Satan worshipper, I'm going to burn in hell, and I'm the Anti-Christ - all because I'm LDS. Their churches taught them that, and they believe it. Unfortunate, but true. They are Baptists and Mennonites from western Canada. So it's not a geographical thing per se.

I have to admit that it mystifies me, why these churches spend so much time preaching about the evils of other religions rather than trying to teach their members how to be more Christ-like, or have more compassion, or kindness, or more about unconditional love, or any of a number of other things that would actually contribute to helping people develop themselves in a positive way.
 

---

Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
 

quote:

---

So the bottom line is that the part of the Chick pamphlet that implied it was official dogma that lesser souls are born with darker skin is not at all accurate?

---

quote:

---

I found the LDS rather intriguing, and did the whole "read the BoM and ask the spirit" bit. Sadly, this came up completely empty. Zip. But since this has been my experience with all religions, it's also entirely possible that God has decided NOT to reveal Himself to me for reasons of His own; it's not a good indication that the church itself is broken.

---