I'm currently taking a class titled "Religion and Human Sexuality", and we've just gotten to LDS.
I just have to say, wow. So many things about the religion I didn't expect. I think the TA put it best: "A lot of people think LDS is a Christian religion just like all the others. Well, it is a Christian religion, but definitely not like all the others."
My head is still trying to get around the whole "Telestial, Terestrial, Celestial Kingdoms". Don't know if it's appropriate to say this about a religion, but very cool.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's what I thought when I heard about the teachings of the Church. A year and a few months later, I was baptized. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:...and Human Sexuality
So what do the kingdoms have to do with sexuality?
Is there a kingdom in which there is none?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And they really do eat babies. Shocks most people.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
We haven't gotten to the sex part of the religion yet, we just got a general background about it.
Well, actually the one thing we've learned so far is that in LDS God has sex.
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
Obviously fugu is kidding. Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I don't think that's official doctrine, although it is not difficult to extrapolate that idea from that which is doctrine.
In general, whether or not He does isn't very important to members of the LDS church.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except God, I'd imagine. It's probably a huge deal to Him.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
I said members of the LDS Church.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I hate to sound snide or stupid, but does that mean God has gender, or God has intercourse? I'm asking honestly.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course I'm not kidding, it clearly says in the Book of Mormon:
quote:And yea, babies shall get in your belly
just to make it really clear for the sticklers out there
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I hate to sound snide or stupid, but does that mean God has gender, or God has intercourse? I'm asking honestly.
The latter, He's referred to as our Heavenly Father, so He's clearly a "he". The question is intercourse, of which I'm sure He has no desire to talk to us about.
Hobbes Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Well, the professors didn't so much say that God has sex. Rather, they said that the fact that God produces "spirit babies" implies He has some sort of "spirit intercourse".
As opposed to creating people out of dust or clay.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I said members of the LDS Church."
Yeah, so? God's not a member?
----------
Javert, it was my impression that LDS doctrine does not teach that God creates our souls, but rather that our souls have always pre-existed.
[ April 06, 2005, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
RE: Javert: The key word there is "implies" There are certainly many other possible interpretations, and the question is considered too disrespectful to even address.
RE: Tom: The LDS Church is an organization designed to serve God and better humanity. God isn't a member of it, any more than a celebrity would be a member of his own fan club
We do believe that intelligent beings (like us) have existed forever. However, we existed in a very simple form that is lesser than a "spirit" or a "soul". The process of "creating our spirits" (whatever that might have involved) is not what made us exist at all, but it is what made us a part of this particular creation.
[ April 06, 2005, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"the question is considered too disrespectful to even address"
Seriously, why would this be? If God had sex, why would He be sheepish, ashamed, or otherwise unwilling to admit it?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I think the key lesson I'm going to take from this class is what our Professor said on the first day: when you think you know something about a religion, it usually turns out you don't know anything at all. Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: If God had sex, why would He be sheepish, ashamed, or otherwise unwilling to admit it?
Lots of reasons...
Shame I can't post any of them on a family forum.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Seriously, why would this be? If God had sex, why would He be sheepish, ashamed, or otherwise unwilling to admit it?
When the only explanations you can come up with are "sheepish", "ashamed", and "unwilling to admit it", it demonstrates a mindset so different from LDS thought that I hardly know where to begin
Actually, I wonder, Tom ... can YOU think of a reason why a god or a religion might draw a respectful boundary around that god's sexual nature that is NOT pejorative in some way?
EDIT: And I should point out, by the way, that I asserted nothing about God's personal feelings about sexuality. Since I'm not God, I don't feel qualified to speak for Him. What I asserted was that most Mormons consider discussions of God's sexuality to be disrespectful. Reread the post if you're uncertain.
[ April 06, 2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Cow-Eating Man (Member # 4491) on :
So, instead of answering the question, you're going to make him play guessing games?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I'm taking a page right out of Tom's own debate playbook, actually
In truth, though, I think he was being a bit disingenuous by asserting only pejorative or contemptible-sounding explanations for the Mormon attitude. I want to give him another shot at it, hoping he'll surprise me with a bit of respect, before I continue the discussion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:it was my impression that LDS doctrine does not teach that God creates our souls, but rather that our souls have always pre-existed.
It's an issue of semantics. In LDS terminology, our intelligence has always existed. God took our intelligence and gave it a spirit body, hence we became his spirit children. He then created this earth so that we could add a physical body to our spiritual body. In LDS theology, the spirit and the physical body (presumably along with our eternal intelligence) form the human soul.
[ April 06, 2005, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Cow-Eating Man (Member # 4491) on :
Do onto others as you expect they'll do onto you?
I would think that in a thread who's title is "crash course in LDS" it might be more benificial to offer explanations to the group at large than to mess with one person. In spite of his post count, Tom isn't the vast majority of people here posting or lurking. Is your current approach really the attitude you want the rest of us to attribute to the subject matter in this thread?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"can YOU think of a reason why a god or a religion might draw a respectful boundary around that god's sexual nature that is NOT pejorative in some way?"
No, not really; historically, religions that are impressed with their gods' sexual prowess aren't quiet about it. Then again, I have trouble understanding the concept of "respectful boundaries;" we've had that discussion about the LDS interpretation of the word "sacred" before, in which I've explained that Mormons treat things they consider sacred the exact same way I'd treat something of which I was deeply ashamed.
[ April 06, 2005, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
So Tom, Does this mean that you freely discuss the details of your sex life with anyone and everyone? If not does this mean you are ashamed or embarassed?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm probably a bad person to answer that question. Because, well, yeah. I don't generally go volunteering information -- mainly to avoid offending others, not to spare my own sensibilities -- but I won't shut down anyone's speculation on the topic, either.
[ April 06, 2005, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Whether or not God has sex (in some weird, spiritual way) just simply doesn't matter. It doesn't change what we believe, but to some people, it changes perspective, since for some reason, people believe that sex is an absolutely dirty and evil thing that God couldn't possibly be involved in because, well, God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Whether or not God has sex (in some weird, spiritual way)..."
As I understand it, God also has a physical body in LDS doctrine.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
So is there anything at all in your relationship with Christy that you consider personal enough that you are selective in the way you talk about it. Is there anything in your life that has such strong emotions attached to it, that you rarely talk about it? Or are shame and embarassment the only emotions your feel strongly enough that they effect the way you act?
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
Maybe God just doesn't feel that it's that important for us to know, hmm?
[ April 06, 2005, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: MEC ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Is there anything in your life that has such strong emotions attached to it, that you rarely talk about it?"
I can't think of anything like this that isn't associated with a bad emotion. Every good emotion I've ever had is not something I'd balk at describing.
Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
Fascinating as are Tom's views on spirituality, I'm actually rather more interested in Javert's class. What religions have you studied so far? Is there anything of particular interest besides what you've already mentioned about the LDS?
Just curious about the origional topic.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Cow, you're getting ahead of yourself. I don't think any lurkers are going to freak out during the very brief span of time during which Tom and I can exchange several posts.
I'm also not comfortable with the tactic Tom used — expressing his impression of my beliefs in pejorative terms to goad me into a hurried, reactive response. That tactic attempts to use my fear that onlookers will "get the wrong impression" against me, and I've seen it too many times to jump at it anymore.
Now, to actually address Tom — your issue with the way Mormons handle sacredness and respect is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote, "it demonstrates a mindset so different from LDS thought that I hardly know where to begin."
The way you handle your own feelings of shame is very much your own, and it would be rather narrow-minded of you, were you to assume that because you think and behave a certain way, that must mean that other people have the same motivations.
It is not uncommon for Mormons to broadcast their own weaknesses and struggles, both to limited audiences (confessing sins to leaders, spouses, and wronged parties) and to large ones (testimony meetings, constant public speaking obligations, blessing ordinances). While there is a lot of variety in our individual personalities, on the whole we are unusually open about things that you might consider personal and private. Sharing such things can actually be rather cathartic under the right circumstances.
However, we are also ingrained with the idea that you show respect by "not casting pearls before swine". No offense is intended by that quote, of course ... the idea is just that when something matters a lot to you, you keep it to yourself and bring it out only at the right occasion.
We treat the name of God with respect this way. When a Mormon refers to Christ, you will usually hear him use titles ("Christ", "The Savior", "The Redeemer") rather than the name Jesus. And you never hear the Southern Baptist rendition of "JEEEEE-SUS!" from our pulpits. We actually kind of cringe a bit when we hear it. That doesn't imply shame. Just respect.
We do the same thing with personal spiritual experiences, with patriarchal blessings, and of course, with temple rituals. If something is truly meaningful, spiritually, then it is not to be waved around like a banner. It is to be kept close and precious. Shame never comes into it.
That may not be the way you do things, Tom, but I've never thought of "Tom-ish-ness" as being a particularly important gauge of the validity of a custom
And since you have discussed this with Mormons before, and DO have a sense of how we feel about these things, I'm sort of extra-disappointed that you jumped to the "shame" conclusion, knowing full well that it was wrong.
[ April 06, 2005, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Curiously, that helps me understand many things about you.
For me, and I believe many other deeply religious people, the best most joyous momments of my life are so deepy emotional that I lack the words to talk about them. When I recall them or try to share them, I am as likely to cry as laugh and curiously tears and laughter may come together as expression not of two different feeling but of one which is so strong that i have no way to release it.
Many, if not all of those samethings can be said about my sexual relationship with my husband. I keep trying to go into more detail, and find that it is simply to personal for me to share.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"No offense is intended by that quote, of course ... "
You know, I really, really have trouble believing that. It's like saying, "There's no point in teaching an idiot," then trying to explain to someone that it's just an aphorism that isn't meant to imply anything. *grin*
I suspect that people who use the "pearls before swine" line may not consciously intend offense, but I think there's an implied "us (the deserving) vs. them (the swine)" which cannot help but offend. Especially since the implication is not that it's just not worth casting pearls before swine, but that the pearls themselves might be damaged by the casting.
------
For what it's worth, Geoff, I figured it out when you asked for the clarification. And I figured that you'd figure that I figured, which is why I wasn't more explicit about it. *grin*
So help me God, though, I really don't ever want to default to the "it's important to me, so I'm going to hide it under a bushel" line of thinking.
Rabbit's point -- that some emotions are so strong that they're simply not possible to express -- is not something that I've ever experienced.
[ April 06, 2005, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And since you have discussed this with Mormons before, and DO have a sense of how we feel about these things, I'm sort of extra-disappointed that you jumped to the "shame" conclusion, knowing full well that it was wrong.
Now you are doing the samething you are accusing Tom of doing. It is fairly clear that Tom has never felt the kind of emotions I associate with sacredness. If he hasn't felt it himself it is hardly surprising that he is sceptical that such feelings really exist.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Tom, do you realize that "casting pearls before swine" isn't a phrase that Geoff made up? Geoff didn't pick the animal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, Porter, I know that. I also know that it's a very common phrase in some religious circles that gets used every time we discuss the nature of "sacredness" on this site. And I'm also pointing out that it's inherently offensive, even though no one I've ever heard use it has -- I believe -- consciously intended offense.
[ April 06, 2005, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Cow-Eating Man (Member # 4491) on :
I don't believe I said that we would freak out. Only that you're manner towards Tom might not be the manner in you want us (or me) to associate with asking questions about your faith.
Instead of being goaded into a hurried, reactionary response, you went for what, exactly? You certainly appeared to be jumping from here. Certainly not an attempt to answer the question.
Though, now you have tried to explain it, I think. Thank you, I was also wondering why it would be considered disrespectful.
Any particular reason you swapped names? Or are you also wandering between computers?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Geoff uses one name at home, and another at work.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Folks, let's not degenerate to accusations. There are always people who find other people's faith amusing. Like the poor (in the New Testament saying) they are always with us.
Our doctrine is that God has a gender; and that God, like all celestial beings, is married - male and female joined together. Some people get weird about that and start praying to "heavenly mother," but that's not how Jesus taught us to pray. Still, the doctrine is that while marriages must be performed on earth, in the mortal flesh, they continue to exist, among the righteous, in heaven.
But what activities are performed there and how spirit children are created is (a) a matter of pure speculation and (b) none of our business. If it ever becomes our business, I'm sure we'll be told.
All this talk about respect comes down to this: Common decency requires that good people refrain from mocking the sacred beliefs of others, at least not to their faces. Mocking Mormonism and Mormon beliefs on my website is most definitely in my face. I ask you now to stop it. Smirking references to God having sex are in such appallingly bad taste as to embarrass everyone on your behalf.
And not just because it's God we're talking about. For heaven's sake, smirking references to specific people on this board having sex would be in appallingly bad taste, because it's private and none of your business. Of course people have sex. But generally speaking, we don't do it in the road. It's not a spectator sport, and as long as we maintain the veil of decency around our activities, then we are entitled not to have it be a matter of public discussion.
The pertinent matter - about LDS views of sexuality - is that we are a Christian religion that regards chastity, not as "abstinence" in a monkish sense, but as "appropriateness." We are merely amused by Paul's admonition that he wishes we could all be "as he is" - single.
Mormons believe that people should marry and make babies - multiply, and replenish the earth. We may seem ascetic in our abstinence from various addictive substances, and downright sacrificial in the tithes we pay, but within the institution of marriage, we see nothing base or evil in taking part in the act of procreation - whether it leads to actual procreation or not.
In this respect we run counter to the whole philosophy that sex is for procreation only. We may have roots in New England puritanism as a society, but as a religion we vote yes to the survival of the species.
[ April 06, 2005, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Orson Scott Card ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Tom, If you posted a picture of your lovely wife on the internet and trolls came by regularly and wrote rude, obscene and insulting things in response to the picture -- would you be tempted to take the site down? If so, would it be because you're ashamed of your wife.
Maybe taking the picture down wouldn't be your response, but certainly you can understand why many people would respond that way.
Somethings are simply so valuable to us that it hurts to see them mocked or even undervalued. We learn with time, to share those things only with those who we believe will value them as we do.
[ April 06, 2005, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, do not Jews avoid saying or writing out the full name of God? Do you think the are doing it out of shame?
I think treating things sacred is a dying art. Few seem to understand it anymore.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Well, this thread has certainly taken an interesting turn.
To answer your question Law Maker, so far we've touched on Taoism, Hindu, Buddhism, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism (which, I know, is not really one religion at all), Islam, and right now we're on LDS. We're going to cover Paganism/Wicca, and then more broadly the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.
I think the most interesting aspect is that, as far as doctrine is concerned, the eastern religions are more split between abstinence and sexuality, whereas the western religions seem to tend to make one choice or another. I think that specifically comes from there not being as much a sense of "good and bad" in, say, Buddhism as there is in the Abrahamic religions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:In this respect we run counter to the whole philosophy that sex is for procreation only. We may have roots in New England puritanism as a society, but as a religion we vote yes to the survival of the species.
That raises an interesting question. Does your god produce precisely the number of spirit children required to match human population growth? Or is there, as 'twere, a waiting list of spirits wanting to be given a body? If the former, it would seem a bit odd that humans could, if they chose, dictate that your god would have no more children.
Also, if the spirit child happens to be given a body that is aborted, does he get another chance? I would think the amount you can learn in a few weeks inside a womb would be rather limited.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
We believe that we existed and were conscious as spirits before we came here and that, yes, there are people waiting to come down here.
As for the abortion question -- we don't know.
[ April 06, 2005, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
We believe that all the people who will ever live on the earth were created spiritually before the earth was made. Actually, not just the people but everything in the earth was created spiritually before the earth was made.
It is not clear whether that means that God has stopped creating new spirits or the spirits he is creating now will be born on some yet to be created earth or if the whole question is mute because God and his spirit beings don't live in linear time where questions like before and after make any sense.
The question about children who are aborted (naturally or through human intervention) has never been clearly answered. Perhaps the best clue we have to answer this question is that babies that are miscarried are not sealed to their parents in the temple. This could indicate that they get a second chance. It could also just be a convenience issue and those sealings will be done at some future date.
[ April 06, 2005, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
We believe that God has created countless earths peopled with His children. My understanding is that this is not the first and probably not the last. It is my personal opinion that our God will continue creating earths peopled with His offspring forever.
Posted by signine (Member # 7671) on :
quote:Tom, do not Jews avoid saying or writing out the full name of God? Do you think the are doing it out of shame?
I think treating things sacred is a dying art. Few seem to understand it anymore.
Not to threadjack, but I was having a conversation with a very religious friend of mine a few months ago (she's one of those non-denominational Jesus Freak people) who was quite upset because apparently I have a nasty habit of taking The Lord's Name in Vain. I had to explain to her that God has a name, and that in the Old Testament (as it was written in Hebrew for Jews) everyone was aware of this and most people knew his name. (Nevermind the fact that as far as I know no one has any idea how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton.) As God had a name, it was viewed that using it invoked his presence. It would strike me as being an astoundingly bad idea to irritate God. I can imagine him having the Celestial equivalent of a cell phone ringing every time someone mentioned his name. Man that would suck. I'd throw down some commandments too.
She asserted that the name of God is "God" or "Jesus" or "Christ." I was kind of flabbergasted by that. The fact that Christ's name is sacred I can totally buy, but the name of God is God? I thought of it more as a title. Like saying "Professor" instead of "Bob" (given your proffesor's name is Bob).
Thoughts?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
My biggest thought in response to your post is that although I don't know what a "non-denominational Jesus Freak" is, it sounds like a pretty disrespectful way to refer to a "friend".
[ April 06, 2005, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote: Mormons believe that people should marry and make babies - multiply, and replenish the earth.
So, one of the questions that has haunted me since I was about 12 sitting in one of my last ever Mia Maids classes, was being told that in order to get to the highest part of the celestial kingdom, you HAD to get married and have babies - no options.
Is that actually a fundamental belief, or just one of those odd belief varieties based on locale of said ward?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
To enter into the highest degree of glory, you must enter into the new and everlasting covenant, aka eternal marriage. I believe that having children (or having the desire if you are incapable) is an integral part of temple marriage (though I don't have a source on hand to back that up—I'll check on it).
Having children is a fundamental aspect of godhood (or, at least, the highest degree of godhood). If you don't want children, then you essentially don't want that degree of exaltation.
And of course, if you don't get married in this life, you still have a chance in the next.
[ April 06, 2005, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Have babies - absolutely not. Not everyone is physically capable of having children, to start with. We're going to thwart their eternal progress based on infertility? Yeesh.
As for marriage, yes, but eternal marriage, as in sealed in the temple.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Hmmm. Must be one of those geographical varieties' thing.
Uncle Orson? Any comments - as I believe you are perhaps the eldest of the elders around here on the 'rack?
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
I think Jon Boy addressed that concern, quid:
quote: I believe that having children (or having the desire if you are incapable)
And there really aren't too many regional variations in LDS doctrine.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quidscribis -- our teachings explicitly say that nobody will be denied any blessings because of things beyond their control. When we talk about having children, like Jon Boy did, we are referring to having children in this life and/or in the next.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
But the question is (barring the forgiven few that are physically incapable) - is having children (when capable) a requirement of entry into the highest level of the celestial kingdom? Or just marriage sealed within the temple?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
There is no clear doctrinal answer to that.
However, we believe that we are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Hey, I'm having connectivity problems over here, and it took a few minutes for the thing to actually post, so I wasn't arguing with Jon Boy. It was just a delay beyond my control.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
Yeah, sure. I bet you're not even in Sri Lanka. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
If I'm not, I'd like to know why the stupid connection is resetting every minute!!!! Yeesh!
But at least it's not another anchor dropped on and severing the undersea telecommunications cable, rendering us without international dialling or internet for a week or more like a few months ago, all out of greed by Indians wanting us to route through them instead of Singapore. [/derail]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: But the question is (barring the forgiven few that are physically incapable) - is having children (when capable) a requirement of entry into the highest level of the celestial kingdom? Or just marriage sealed within the temple?
Temple marriage is the only requirement. However, it is somewhat difficult to go an entire lifetime in marriage without having children unless one member of the marriage is sterile/barren. Well, unless you're actually TRYING not to have kids. While that is not specifically against our religion, it is not looked highly upon. As for regionalisms, the proper term would be "crazy leaders who think they know everthing"isms. A lot of people seem to pass off as doctrine things that are merely their own understanding of certain things. Then there are some who pass off as doctrine things that apostles/prophets/the local general authority said in a private conversation that was overheard by Sister Jenkins' counsin's twin sister. But that's just the way Mormons work sometimes
[ April 07, 2005, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Having kids or not definitely falls under the umbrella of "things we have been given guidence on, but the specifics of which you need to decide for yourself, and it's none of anybody else's buisness."
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
However, in some ways Mormonism encorages that personal idiosyncratic look at doctrine. It can be "dogmatic" without requiring a solid map of "everything" spelled out. That is the one reason non-Mormons can get so confused. There are some things that are very specific in the beliefs, while other things are whatever the individual thinks might be the answer.
My suggestion to those who study LDS doctrine for the first time is to ask "is that an official doctrine of the LDS Church, or a speculation built from the official teachings?"
Oh, and "we don't know" really is an answer on many subjects, and not just a dismissal. Its a by-product of a religion that believes Revelation is an ongoing process.
[ April 07, 2005, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Not to threadjack, but I was having a conversation with a very religious friend of mine a few months ago (she's one of those non-denominational Jesus Freak people) who was quite upset because apparently I have a nasty habit of taking The Lord's Name in Vain. I had to explain to her that God has a name, and that in the Old Testament (as it was written in Hebrew for Jews) everyone was aware of this and most people knew his name. (Nevermind the fact that as far as I know no one has any idea how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton.) As God had a name, it was viewed that using it invoked his presence. It would strike me as being an astoundingly bad idea to irritate God. I can imagine him having the Celestial equivalent of a cell phone ringing every time someone mentioned his name. Man that would suck. I'd throw down some commandments too.
She asserted that the name of God is "God" or "Jesus" or "Christ." I was kind of flabbergasted by that. The fact that Christ's name is sacred I can totally buy, but the name of God is God? I thought of it more as a title. Like saying "Professor" instead of "Bob" (given your proffesor's name is Bob).
Thoughts?
To answer your comments about Jews:
Many Jews who are observant and care about such things do not write the name of G-d. May also do not write out or say the names that have come to substitute for the name of G-d, except in prayer or for religious observance purposes. In speaking of G-d, many Jews substitute the expression "HaShem" - which means "The Name."
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
God has many names. They are all his name, and many of us really appreciate it if you use it with respect.
Back to Mormonism ...
Let's give the word "godhood" a rest, please. We don't know what it means, and the scriptures never explain it. We know about the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom, eternal increase, etc., but whether we become "like God" only relatively or absolutely and what that would even mean is completely beyond the scope of any human alive to explain. So to assert that we can aspire to a status that sounds, to many, as if we thought we could become the EQUALS of God, is not doctrine and it's not helpful in explaining our beliefs to others.
About marriage as a necessity: Yes, it is a necessity, but NOT necessarily a necessity in this life. If you reach the end of this mortal life unmarried - as millions of people do, generation after generation - God does not limit you because of this. Everything will be sorted out in the end. No one will be deprived of their just place in God's kingdom because of a mere lack of opportunity during mortality. God doesn't play favorites. My son Charlie Ben, for example, never had a hope of marrying - he couldn't walk or speak. But he was able to live a righteous, generous, and happy life; God would not punish him or restrain him from his place just because the vicissitudes of mortal life - prebirth damage to his brain - made it impossible for him to control his body well enough to enter into fatherhood and husbandhood.
Start from the premise that God is just and he loves us all, and if we obey him to the best of our ability and understanding, our Father will help us the rest of the way home, through the guidance of the Spirit, the atonement of the Son, and his own great plan for our happiness.
In this life, we do all that we CAN do. That's Mormon doctrine. That's why we don't believe that unbaptized infants are damned, or that people who never heard the name of Christ in their lives will be forever barred from heaven. Not do we believe that only Mormons will go to heaven - in fact, we believe that everyone will have such a clear chance to choose the way, and will be judged so fairly according to their understanding of God's will during their lifetime, that in the end we will all shout for joy and give thanks to God for his justice and mercy to us.
In the meantime, we live in this world by faith, discovering who we are by seeing what we choose to do. That's worry enough for me; by and large, I let the metaphysical questions take care of themselves, trusting that it will all work out as long as I do what I can now.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: I can imagine him having the Celestial equivalent of a cell phone ringing every time someone mentioned his name. Man that would suck. I'd throw down some commandments too.
That's one of the explainations I give Primary kids who just aren't satisfied with standard answers when I sub in their classes. I also used it when I worked at a Catholic school. Works wonders when they realize there might be a reason behind some of these rules, and even if that one's not it, there might be a better one, and maybe they should think about obeying them. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The below is basic reading material for understanding LDS Doctrine on the subjects we have been touching upon.
[ April 07, 2005, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Thank you, sir, for clearing that up.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: In the meantime, we live in this world by faith, discovering who we are by seeing what we choose to do. That's worry enough for me; by and large, I let the metaphysical questions take care of themselves, trusting that it will all work out as long as I do what I can now.
This is something that I think is applicable to everyone, no matter what their particular faith is.
My faith is not that of the LDS church, or any other church for that matter. It's more of a faith in doing good to others and for others, working to improve myself and helping to make a difference. I try and live by that (although sometimes I get a little distracted), and if I succeed, I think I will have lived a good life. What happens after that is out of my control, so there's not too much point fretting about it.
[ April 07, 2005, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I really, really hope I did not offend anyone with my question. I apologise if I did.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
(((((DPR)))))
Hobbes Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
For my part, I wish to apologize to anyone who may have seen my joke in the brief period between the time I posted it and the time I took it down. I swear that it was meant to be purely light-hearted, and it was never my intention to mock anyone's beliefs. But it didn't take me long to look at it again and realize that it looked very mocking, and that it would offend more people than it would amuse.
I don't know if any of the anger in this thread was directed specifically at me--I removed the post before any anger was expressed--but in the end it doesn't matter. I really should have known better, and if I had given it a moment's thought before I hit the reply button, I'd have never said anything at all. I am ashamed that I did, and I sincerely and humbly apologize for it. I hope that anyone who may have read it will understand that I did not intend to mock, and will be able to forgive me for my lapse in judgment.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Javert, now I'm curious about what the section about the LDS covers. Do you read any of the Book of Mormon? How does the course differentiate the various religions it covers? What are the defining characteristics it highlights?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
The problem with this course is that it is RELIGION and Human Sexuality, which gives a lot of room for generality. We only meet two times a week, so the trend has been that the first meeting we get a general overview of the religion, and the next meeting we go into detail about one specific "sexual issue" that relates to that religion in some way.
We just finished Islam, where we discussed the whole practice of female veiling. When we did Catholicism we discussed birth control. For LDS, we're going to discuss polygamy.
And, please, understand that neither I nor my professors mean any disrespect to the LDS Church by studying polygamy in reference to them. The reasoning for it, as was explained to me, is that it was practiced at one time by Mormons and by looking at that it will help us understand their beliefs in relation to their religion and sexuality. Also, it unfortunately IS a stereotype among people who know nothing about LDS that they practice polygamy. So, by studying why that stereotype is there, perhaps we can help remove it.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
As a total derail are you aware that Muslims, in some parts of the world, still practice polygamy? Fahim's uncle has two wives, completely legal in Sri Lanka and many other countries.
And now I"m curious to know what you learned about veiling practices among Muslim women. Curious to know if it's the truth or outdated prejudices or biased opinion. Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
as a total derail of derail, do you know that there is an honorary consulate of Sri Lanka in the building I work in?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
As a derail of a derail of a derail, did you know that friend and co-worker of mine who sits in the cube next to me is Sri Lankan?
-Bok
Posted by Hammer (Member # 7528) on :
First, thanks to OSC for taking the high road.
Next, here are some truths from the Bible and from the Book of Mormon.
1.1 Cor 15:40-41 speaks of the different degrees of glory of heaven aka telestial, terrestial and celestial.
2. Heavenly Father has a glorified body as does Jesus Christ. They both appeared to Joseph Smith thus answering the debate as to what God is. In Genesis it says we are created in His image. I don't think a spirit without body, parts or passion would look like this but then I personally haven't seen Him.
3. Spirit children. "We are His offspring" Acts 17:28; "The spirit shall return to God who gave it" Eccl 12:7; "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee: Jer 1:4-5; "We are to be in subjection to the Father of our Spirits" Heb 12:9; "God chose us before the foundation of the world" Eph 1: 3-4. These are just some of the concepts that lead us to the truth that we had a premortal existence as spirit children of God.
4. KoM: no, there is no exact count of spirits to bodies created by us. In Revelations it tells us of the war in heaven where Lucifer adn 1/3 of the "hosts" of heaven, or Lucifer and his "angels" were cast out. If you consider that there are over 6 billion people living on earth now, and from the begining of time there have been potentially 10 billion, and of course we do not know how many more there are to be born but lets assume another 6 billion, that's 22 billion spirits or angles that STAYED in heaven. That applies to the reference in the paragraph above where it says God chose us from the begining. Rather, we chose to follow God and Jesus Christ. As to if more spirit childrean are being created I do not know, nobody does but God.
5. While these dialogues are good, you simply cannot learn the foundations, tenets, beliefs and doctrinal principles from a chat room simply becasue individuals relate principles to their own paradigms.
All I can say is there is a right and wrong way to live life. If you truely want to know what God wants, all you need to do is ask Him--sincerley.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Just by reading this thread, I thank God I was born Catholic.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Javert, I'm curious what "specific sexual issue" you discussed related to Judaism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"All I can say is there is a right and wrong way to live life. If you truely want to know what God wants, all you need to do is ask Him--sincerley."
Wrong. But thanks for playing. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
only because you choose to not listen to His answer, Tom...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I understand it's necessary for you to believe that, Farmgirl. But consider, as you cling to that opinion, that the answer you believe you've gotten from God is quite different from the answer Hammer says he's gotten.
This may indeed be part of some higher purpose. If so, I can only assume that not answering some people is part of the same purpose.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm with Tom on this one. I firmly believe that I have listened to any and all answers that God has given me. I'm the only one in a position to judge my own sincerity on this. If God has answered, but not in a manner in which I am able to recognize the answer, whose fault is that? The omnipotent/omniscient being who theoretically wants to impart some information, or the limited, lowly human who desperately wanted to receive said information?
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
While I can understand where you are coming from guys, how appropriate is it for this thread?
How appropriate would it be for someone to come into the Kansas Vote thread, plop down, and say "Nope. That initiative was a great idea. Try again"?
[ April 07, 2005, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Portabello ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: How appropriate would it be for someone to come into the Kansas Vote thread, plop down, and say "Nope. That initiative was a great idea. Try again"?
Pretty appropriate, I'd imagine. In fact, I practically invited it by asking how people in Kansas voted; I wouldn't expect anyone to lie about it.
Actually, I'd be interested in hearing how anyone would defend their "yes" vote to that amendment, so I really hope that if someone voted that way, that they'd realize it's not inappropriate to say so.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
More to the point, I don't think its any less appropriate to the thread than the quote Tom was originally responding to, though Tom's response could perhaps have been less blunt.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
So then where is this thread going to?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:"All I can say is there is a right and wrong way to live life. If you truely want to know what God wants, all you need to do is ask Him--sincerley."
Wrong. But thanks for playing.
I believe that you may not have gotten one yet. Yet, though. Sometimes it takes a very long while, and the answer doesn't always come while you're on your knees.
I've had only a small fraction of prayers defnitively answered, and of those maybe 1-5% was during or immediately after a prayer. There are other ways. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Perhaps there are. In my own case, however, my present course in life was chosen in direct response to very prolonged, sincere prayer. What kind of god says "Knock and it shall be opened to you", hides behind the curtain until you go away, then opens the door only after you're gone?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe that's the reasoning behind "endure to the end."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quidscribis: We did indeed discuss that some in Islam still practice polygamy, as did Judaism very early in its history. As far as veiling, we had in depth discussions of the Western perception of why Islamic women veil (or women of any religion veil, for that matter), versus their own reasons for it. I'm at school right now, so I can't go in depth about it, but I know what you're getting at. We try in our class to look at everything from an unbiased point of view, and failing that, look at the positive and negative reasons for everything.
rivka- Unfortunately my notes are at home, and I have a bad memory, but I believe we focused on gender issues, which was appropriate because my professor is both female and a rabbi (or used to be a rabbi, she mentioned it the first day...once again bad memory ). I can get into more detail when I get home tonight.
Oh, but I do remember that for Judaism the class watched "A Price Above Rubies". So, if you've seen it, we've dealt with some of the issues addressed in that film.
Allright, back to class!
[ April 07, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Javert ]
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I've had much the same experience as KarlEd...sincere seeking, and the answers coming back different from my upbringing or not at all. I felt abandoned, left to make my own sense of the world. Yet I've come to a place of peace and balance, doing the best I can with what I've got. I am content.
Irrelevant, at any rate. It is important to respect the paths our friends walk. Perhaps we just speak different languages when we refer to spiritual concepts. It's interesting to talk about doctrines and tenets, but what really matters (at least to me) is the way people choose to live their lives...
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
One of my favourite musicians ever is a man who writes and sings Islamic educational songs. He did a song called "The Veil" which really made me understand why so many women choose to go veiled. And it's catchy and fun to sing, but I sometimes get weird looks when I'm caught singing his songs under my breath.
On the off chance anyone is curious: Dawud Wharnsby-Ali is the singer's name.
[ April 07, 2005, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by Hammer (Member # 7528) on :
Tom said: "This may indeed be part of some higher purpose. If so, I can only assume that not answering some people is part of the same purpose. "
Hammer says, no answer is an answer. Sometimes the answer you get in contrary to what you asked. Not understanding this doesn't preclude the fact that there was an answer.
Regardless, I am thankful for Tom to have the right to state his opinion openly and exhange viewpoints with everyone participating.
Maybe someday I will share with you how God answered my prayers. For right now, it is too personal.
Besides, after a bowl of split pea soup it's time to crawl back under my bridge.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Hammer says, no answer is an answer. Sometimes the answer you get in contrary to what you asked."
How do you reconcile that with your earlier statement, Hammer?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Here's another reason why it's a good idea to keep spiritual manifestations personal — they are so subjective that it is pointless and silly to try to judge one another's experiences. Tom's relationship with God is for him to work out. I can't offer him explanations. The most I can do is tell him what I've found and hope he finds something useful in it. If not, I've reached the limit of what I can do, and the rest is up to him.
I think it's usually a good idea to assume that other people have been sincere in their personal search, and that if they found something different from you, that isn't a threat to the legitimacy of your experience. You don't have to explain it or dismiss it. Just realize that we're all here to go on different journeys, whatever those journeys may entail.
This applies equally to the religious people who try to explain away someone's lack of an answer, and to the non-religious people who try to explain away others' spiritual experiences.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think it's usually a good idea to assume that other people have been sincere in their personal search, and that if they found something different from you, that isn't a threat to the legitimacy of your experience."
Unless of course you have a remarkably scientific mind, and the mere fact that your experience doesn't seem replicable is a threat to belief. Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Do you think that's a good idea Tom?
Posted by chracatoa (Member # 7575) on :
quote:All I can say is there is a right and wrong way to live life. If you truely want to know what God wants, all you need to do is ask Him
I'd say that's dangerous. (ex.: Q: "Should I fly this airplane through that building?" A: <yes>). How would you know who's/what's answering? Crazy fundamentalists may believe they're talking to God when they are only delusional.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Maybe that's the reasoning behind "endure to the end."
Maybe. Maybe "endure to the end" is one of several psychological tools that have been honed for millennia to keep people from looking at the man behind the curtain.
At some point one must look at the path they are on and decide if they are heading to a place they want to be. Were I to continue "enduring" I'd very likely be dead right now, or at best on the same path I'm on right now only years behind. I chose to cut my losses and when God had the chance to change that, he decided not to, or wasn't there to change anything in the first place. What bothers me far more than any fear of what God will do to me or where my path is taking me is that so many people have to judge me spiritually incomptent or outright rebellious in order to stabilize their own world view.
quote: Not understanding this doesn't preclude the fact that there was an answer.
I cannot accept this. Only the most perverse of beings answers in a way He knows you will not be able to understand. Were such a god to exist, I could not worship him.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug*
Maybe this is the wrong place for it. People are being very respectful of yours - wouldn't it suck to have someone come in and...analyze your life decisions negatively?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I think it's usually a good idea to assume that other people have been sincere in their personal search, and that if they found something different from you, that isn't a threat to the legitimacy of your experience. You don't have to explain it or dismiss it. Just realize that we're all here to go on different journeys, whatever those journeys may entail.
THANK YOU.
Edit: I only wish that more theists felt that way.
[ April 07, 2005, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: *shrug*
Maybe this is the wrong place for it. People are being very respectful of yours - wouldn't it suck to have someone come in and...analyze your life decisions negatively?
Have I been disrespectful?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Tom's post was pretty on-the-nose. I think he should have been more polite.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, someone comes out and says that all your answers can be had merely by asking, I come out and say they're wrong.
They throw in an "in my opinion," or even an "in my experience," and they won't provoke a response. *grin*
I find it interesting, for example, that Hammer now apparently believes that God may not provide answers to sincere requests in a recognizable format.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...I think I was talking more about the thread made in response and the defensiveness about the answers to questions posed here. When Occ did it, he got dogpiled. When KarlEd did it, it was made light, which is much better, but the intention was the same.
I wonder if this is because of the rash of baptisms last year? I know some people were upset, which seems the height of rudeness but is, I suppose, human. There used to be a general hands off approach - "Let the religiosos discuss among themselves." - but it's different now. I was hoping the hostility would go away on its own, but it's been a year now. Time for the pendulum to swing back.
[ April 07, 2005, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Forgive my obtuseness, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. What thread made in response? And what did Occ do for which he was dogpiled that I also did but wasn't? I'm sure I've missed something, which is likely since I've really only be in a couple of threads today. One of them was "Ask me anything".
I'm not feigning anything here, Kat. I might be misreading you, but it seems like I've been called hostile and disrespectful in two separate places and I honestly don't see it. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I don't see hostility here, in general.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It seems to me that when there are two groups fundamentally different in some way who are used to experiencing hostility from the other, hostility may be perceived where there is none.
I don't see hostility here, but I do see people expressing honest opinions and being told that they are somehow wrong. I think the non-believers have received the brunt of it in this thread.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
just to make it really clear for the sticklers out there
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
If I'm not, I'd like to know why the stupid connection is resetting every minute!!!! Yeesh!![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)