quote:You will find that that covenant is not different then Jesus saying, "Whoso shall lose their life for my sake shall find it." or his instructions to the rich young man, "Sell all your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and come follow me."
I wish more people would read past the punchlines. After the rich young man leaves sorrowing, the disciples ask Jesus "Who then can be saved?" None of the disciples feels they would be able to do what Jesus just asked that young man. Jesus answers "With man it is not possible, but with God all things are possible."
Mormons are rightfully perceived as continually forgetting the need of God's power to accomplish the works of salvation. We become worthy not by excellence, but by humility.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, it's only negative, because it's fairly neutral. lem hasn't made any proclamation as to what the temple means to Mormons, but rather saying Mitt should address it for the non-Mormon American who may have misconceptions about the LDS. These people will look at it in a relatively negative light, by default, and it is up to Mitt, running for president, to clarify these issues that can appear a bit ominous to non-members.
You need to acknowledge the way it might look to outsiders, and correct them. Not doing so can increase skepticism, and lead to him not getting the nomination (or winning the election itself).
posted
That he is reflecting how other people will look at it does not change the truth of what I said.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure it does. He isn't putting the worst possible spin on it, he just isn't putting an insider's way of putting it to an outsider spin on it. I thought lem was very careful, and at times charitable. This difference of perception highlights to me the fact that Mitt should tackle this (and any similar) questions.
The alternative is to call lem's point a scare tactic and implicitly not be very charitable to non-Mormons.
posted
You don't have to agree with me. However, you cannot say that I'm wrong to feel as I do. I don't care if he's reflecting the zeitgeist - if that's true, then it is a reflection on the zeitgeist.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it wrong of the "zeitgeist" for people to be nervous about Mormons talking about holding the country together against perceived attacks on the Constitution? If so, why?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The alternative is to call lem's point a scare tactic and implicitly not be very charitable to non-Mormons."
That is my choice. If you can't believe us when we say it the first time, I am not going to waste my energy trying to make you believe or understand it the second time.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course your feelings aren't invalid, kat. Why would anyone say you shouldn't feel how you feel? It just doesn't add anything to the conversation to mention it one way or the other.
For example, I'll add that I find it uncomfortable in the ways some Mormons in this thread are trying to move the argument onto their ground, where of course one can make the good-faith judgment of how a fellow believer will act, rather than taking on the (in my opinion) necessary step to address it from a more ecumenical position. It feels like they are trying to gloss over something rather than truly and earnestly address it. I'll go so far to say that any of them could address it (though in this case the argument is that Mitt should, in a particular context; none of you folks are public figures running for an office where you will represent a large number of non-Mormons). I don't see why someone here, at the least, [EDIT: can't] agree that it isn't unreasonable to address this issue, even though I don't think anyone here in the thread is expecting or requiring any Mormons to actually answer it.
I have an inkling of an understanding of why (the "sacredness" aspect of the temple and the goings-on in them), but hey, those are my totally non-constructive feelings. Though I am appreciative of any Mormons who reply, giving the nature of the query. You folks are pretty decent.
posted
Occassional, the difference is that you haven't admitted it could look a bit worrisome to an outsider. You just dismiss the concern out of hand. So you haven't addressed it, so much as saying it doesn't exist.
posted
Bok, I don't get what you are saying. Why SHOULDN'T we move it onto our ground? Isn't part of understanding someone about seeing it from their ground?
Should we address it by saying you are all correct, it means exactly what you say it means? I just don't get what "onto our ground" vs. "onto your ground" means other then to agree with a viewpoint we don't actually share.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course your feelings aren't invalid, kat. Why would anyone say you shouldn't feel how you feel? It just doesn't add anything to the conversation to mention it one way or the other.
Bok, lem asked for people to express their opinion and feelings on how and what he was posting. Kat was responding to his request. Even though the request was aimed at the mods, it's clear lem was interested in how people perceived his posts in this regard.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I thought she was responding to the larger point of the thread, not that specific post.
My apologies, kat.
Occassional: Because we aren't you. When you are trying to prove something to someone else, I find it works best that on the face of it, the opponent's point has merit, and then follow that up with a big ol' "but here is where you are mistaken..."
You gotta start on their turf, or you aren't communicating with them, IMO.
posted
The point is that we don't believe that the opponent's point has merit. There is a fundimental disagreement and not just a misunderstanding.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps Mitt Romney will pick up some of the Moslem vote. After all, there are some interesting similarities between Mormons and Moslems. Both believe it is OK for a man to have more than one wife. Both believe in a special prophet outside of the Bible. Each has their own sacred writings outside of the Bible. Mormons believe in healthful living, and Moslems forbid the use of alcoholic beverages. Moslems say good things about Jesus Christ, but do not acknowledge that He is the fully divine Son of God; while Mormons also do the same.
Come to think of it, are there any really significant differences between Mormons and Moslems? I'm just asking.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both believe it is OK for a man to have more than one wife.
AAAAA!!!
This is not currently true. It is not presently okay to have more than one wife. It hasn't been for over a hundred years!!
quote:Moslems say good things about Jesus Christ, but do not acknowledge that He is the fully divine Son of God; while Mormons also do the same.
This is NOT TRUE. It really isn't. You are spreading disinformation on a major scale.
quote:Come to think of it, are there any really significant differences between Mormons and Moslems? I'm just asking.
You mean BESIDES one group believes in Christ as the son of God and savior of the world and the other doesn't?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just being provocative in a Puckish sort of way. I am surprised at Kat's claim that Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the fully divine Son of God. I know good and well that Mormons and most other Christians do differ on this point. We certainly do not mean the same thing when we refer to Christ being the Son of God. To Mormons, was not Christ just one of the Lords of Kolob? I suspect there is some dissembling on Kat's part, here. Also on the claim that Mormons no longer believe in polygamy. I am not talking about what policy has been adopted in order to keep the feds off their backs, I am talking about theological teaching, that God allows polygamy. Has God changed?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
deliberately provocative = troll You have to be careful with lies like that, especially when so many people believe them already. Spreading around false rumors like that is not okay.
No, there is no dissembling. Check the link. You should believe what actual Mormons say instead of second-hand what someone else has told you.
I have to tell you, being told that I'm lying about my religion and my beliefs is mind-blowingly offensive.
For polygamy, it is okay if/when God says it is. He said it isn't, and it usually isn't except in the cases he says it is.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am surprised at Kat's claim that Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the fully divine Son of God. I know good and well that Mormons and most other Christians do differ on this point.
It would be more accurate to say that many Christians (like yourself) differ with their inaccurate percetiopn of our stance on that point.
quote:To Mormons, was not Christ just one of the Lords of Kolob?
No.
quote:I suspect there is some dissembling on Kat's part, here.
quote:For myself, I am very uncomfortable with the way you are talking about the temple, lem. I feel like you are putting the worst possible spin on future events and inventing unlikely worst scenarios to scare people. I feel like that shows a real lack of charity towards Mormons in general.
I am grateful for both katharina and occasional's frank honesty towards my post. I solicited it. I appreciate it. I also like Scott's response.
That doesn't mean I am not surprised. I am still unsure what "spin" I have put on the covenants and how that was intended to "scare" people.
The unlikely event that I portrayed as the worst scenario is the church establishing a theocratic rule. I could be very wrong about that. Scott responded resplendently about that scenario.
Why is that so bad? The church is Christ's kingdom on earth. Christ will come down and rule the world for 1000 years. Christ will lead the church. Or...dissolve it. I haven't heard that scenario, but I have been gone a while.
Before Christ's rule the constitution, a holy document, will need to be rescued by the Latter Day Saints.
These are basic (not foundational) tenets of the LDS belief system. I see a political role for the church in the future. That is not a stretch and it is shared by many Mormons. This is not an anti-Mormon perception. I don't see how it is sinister or against Mormon belief.
Heck, most of my work bosses think I am an active Mormon. I don't foster that feeling. I just don't deny it. When all three of the administration is in various Bishoprics or Stake Presidencies, I only listen with a smile and say nothing. I work on their computers as they talk excitedly about "what it means" if Romney becomes President.
If you don't think there are Mormon memes based on writings and speeches of LDS prophets about a political destiny for the church...then you are not being honest, you are the queen of spin, you are the queen of gloss, or you don't understand Mormonism.
It might not be doctrinal, but it is there. Scott has addressed it.
We have a Candidate who is Mormon and presumably been through the temple. The church has a vested interest in his success. He has made a holy promise in the most holy part of LDS theology to build up the kingdom.
How is seeing that as different then Kennedy and wanting him to clarify his perceived role in the churches future and his intent and method in honoring a particular covenant he made bigotry?
He could be the president representing every American Citizen! Asking is bigotry? Anti-Mormon? That should be a welcome question to answer zeitgeist concerns.
Not sharing a belief and having political concerns is not “Anti.”
You can feel I have framed it to be Anti-Mormon. I haven't.
So there is no misconception about how I am using this as a covert anti-Mormon attack: I would support Romney. I don't think the church will influence him politically. I think the church wants him to win to legitimize the religion. There is a big push to make Mormonism more mainstream. But I see a concern. I would like it addressed. I don't think this is anti-Mormon.
If we see a presidential ticket between Clinton and Romney, then I think you will see true anti-Mormonism in the press. This is not it.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am surprised at Kat's claim that Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the fully divine Son of God. I know good and well that Mormons and most other Christians do differ on this point.
I've seen enough of your posts on this site to bias me against your views on what "other Christians" believe.
That said, what do you mean when you say Christ was "the fully divine Son of God?"
When I say it, speaking for my understanding of Mormonism, I mean that He was conceived by Heavenly Father and Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit, as related in Scripture. He lived a sinless life, though he was tempted beyond any other man living; and through His own perfection, was able to miraculously break the bonds of death and sin, and redeem all those throughout all time who accept His sacrifice and follow His commandments.
quote: To Mormons, was not Christ just one of the Lords of Kolob?
No. As I stated above, he is much more than that.
quote: I suspect there is some dissembling on Kat's part, here. Also on the claim that Mormons no longer believe in polygamy. I am not talking about what policy has been adopted in order to keep the feds off their backs, I am talking about theological teaching, that God allows polygamy. Has God changed?
:snort:
The Lord doesn't want us practicing plural marriage right now. It was a practice He wanted some Mormons to participate in when the Church was young. There have been several reversals in doctrine throughout the history of the church-- not to say that God has changed, but that the circumstances necessitating the initial commandment have been altered sufficiently to require other instruction.
Polygamy. Gathering to Zion.
Those are the two big ones I can think of where instruction was given and later rescinded for reason.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:through His own perfection, was able to miraculously break the bonds of death and sin
I'll just add that it wasn't merely His lack of sin that allowed Him to do this. It was also because of His divinity as the Son of God.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, plural marriages do happen within the Church, but not among living participants. It's a facet of the concept of eternal marriages. In Mormonism, men and women can be sealed together in marriage not just for this life, but for eternity.
Here's the scenario:
Steve and Bonnie are married for time and all eternity. Bonnie dies. Steve gets remarried to Judy for time and all eternity.
Whether the three remain all married to one another after everyone is dead is between them and God.
ALSO:
It doesn't work the other way; meaning, Judy could not get married to Bill after Steve's death *unless she obtained a cancellation of her marriage to Steve*.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a Mormon Friendly analysis of Ron's post. I withhold judgment if he is being trollish. I don't know his intent, but I am rooting for Scott!!
I was listening to a BYU CD, I wish I had it and could remember the name so I could recommend it to both Mormons and non-Mormons.
The whole tape was an explanation of Islam. The speaker was very educated, articulate, respectful, and Mormon.
Here are some of his points I remember.
Islam and Mormon are very similar in ways other religions don't understand.
They both started off with a first vision. In Mormonism Jospeh was initially surrounded by darkness and despair. Jospeh interpreted that as Satan. He called on God and saw divine light. Mohammad was surrounded by darkness, got scared, ran home and told his family who interpreted the darkness as a sign of God's power.
They are both the only religions that have a sacred book that purports to be the direct word of God. The books deal with ecclesiastical, governmental, and personal matters. They are set up (sections and verses) in roughly the same manner.
Both believe in polygamy as a divine commandment of God. Mormons abandoned earthly polygamy.
They both had a succession crises when the prophet died resulting in two main factions. The crisis was similar in that succession was a dispute between genealogy and appointment.
They both have a reverence for their founding prophet in a way not seen in other religions. This reverence is partially due to the belief that the prophet restored God's law.
There are so many differences that I think it is offensive to both Muslims and Mormons to equate the two together. There certainly are academic similarities that I find as fascinating as I do the coincidences between Lincoln's and Kennedy's assassinations.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: as I do the coincidences between Lincoln's and Kennedy's assassinations.
As for that, be careful about which list you believe. Many of the things they state are completely false, whilst others become trivial with just alittle scrutiny.
posted
That the Saints should physically move to one of the Mormon communities like Kirtland, Nauvoo, Independence, or Utah.
Now, the counsel is to not move to Utah, but to strengthen Zion throughout the world wherever you live.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until about 1880 (I think), when people were baptized as LDS, they were encouraged to move to (gather to) Zion. This was, in turn, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and until, finally, having been driven out of those other places at gunpoint, Utah. The Perpetual Emigration Fund was set where the Fund would pay for the move and then the new settlers would pay it back and the money used for the next round of emigrants. Around the 1880s, saints were no longer encouraged to move to Utah but to instead stay in their homelands and build up the church there. That is what is currently in force - to strengthen the stakes at home.
Incidently, there is currently a Perpetual Education Fun that works under the same principle - poor LDS are sent to school, and then pay it back once they graduate and have careers. This is mostly for non-US members who don't have the access to student loans American members do.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Christ in Mormon theology is understood in different ways than Christ in creedal Christianity; that is, Mormons believe he is a personage distinct in will and substance from God the Father and Holy Spirit; creedal Christians believe he is part of the classic Trinity, of one essence and nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
However, this does not means that Mormons do not revere Christ as the fully divine redeemer whose sacrifice made our salvation possible, the son of God, uncreated, worthy of worship. All of these are commonly understood and accepted among Mormons.
I'm still enjoying 'Lords of Kolob.' I have _never_ heard that phrase before, and, really, I'm one of the people I would expect to have heard it if it had any historical or theological currency in Mormonism.
quote:Out of curiousity, what was this doctrine of "gathering to Zion"?
That Mormons should gather to a single location - ie, Utah - to build the Kingdom of God. Similar to Zionism among Jews, though it's been formally rescinded as an imperative for the past fifty years or so.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm still enjoying 'Lords of Kolob.' I have _never_ heard that phrase before, and, really, I'm one of the people I would expect to have heard it if it had any historical or theological currency in Mormonism.
The only time I've heard it was in reference to the old Battlestar Galactica show.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lord Of All Fools: ALSO:
It doesn't work the other way; meaning, Judy could not get married to Bill after Steve's death *unless she obtained a cancellation of her marriage to Steve*.
That's the part that annoys me, because, in effect, the church DOES still practice poligamy, just not on earth. It's not that the practice bothers me, it's that the revelation that God said it was 'no longer okay' seems kind of half-hearted. I mean, if you could say, "Hey, God decided this wasn't such a great idea after all, because people are killing us because of it" that would make sense to me. But to say "It isn't okay NOW because God said it's not" even though, really, it's still okay. I hesitate to make large distinctions between this life and what comes after, given that in most situations LDS don't make that distinction.
*shrug*
On Topic: It doesn't seem FAIR to expect Romney to be an apologist for his religion (that is to have to explain it to those outside) but it would be beneficial to his cause (I think) if he could pull it off without seeming shrill or nutty.
Then again, he might be wise to leave that to others, and downplay the whole religion angle. It should be about the issues, anyway.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They both have a reverence for their founding prophet in a way not seen in other religions.
I saw this and thought, "Wait a second. What about Jesus?"
But I get your point.
Heh. That was exactly my initial reaction as well.
In my experience the word "prophet" is not generally applied to Jesus by the majority of Christian denominations.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
