I had a heavy "Full Gospel" upbringing. I went to church 3 times a week, My familly prayed together often, basically god was a big part of my life.
My parents were, well are still i guess, kind people, but never very understanding of other religions. When I would ask them about others beliefs, and how they thought that they were right about god as much as we were, they would tell me basically that everybody else is misguided, and that there is only one God, and Jesus Christ is our savior and all that. When I brought home a copy of the Book of Mormon (which i bought for two dollars at the Goodwill store), I thought that is must have been part of the Bible that we hadn't read yet. It had a cross on it, 'nuff said. But my dad shocked me when he took me out to the street, LIT THE BOOK ON FIRE, and threw it in a sewer drain. He told me to destroy any copy of the book of mormon I ever ran across. He told me it was deceptive work of the devil.
When mormon missionaries come to the door, or call on the phone, he is more polite, and the conversation usually ends with My father and the missionary both agreeing to pray for each other, after abour 2 hours of heated theological discussion. I'm not kidding 2 hours is the averege time, i once listened to him talk for over 5 hours about it.
I know the basic differences betwean mormonism and other forms of christianity, about god speaking to Indians and tablets being found in North america or something (Please forgive my ignorance, but i haven't really done alot of research, hehe), but i fail to see why some men of faith, generally good men like my father get very angry the very mention of mormonism. Do mormons feel the same way about other branches of crhistianity?
I am currentl wrestling with the idea of God, and religion, but I would like to thank Mr. Card for his wrightings, which bring ideas about god out of the fringe and into the increasingly secular mainstream. Thanks, man.
Sorry about the round about disorganizedness, im teally rired , and need to go to sleep. Night jobs are for vampires.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: i fail to see why some men of faith, generally good men like my father get very angry the very mention of mormonism
Here are the major differences in doctrine that disturb many Christians, as I (a non-Mormon, non-Christian) understand them:
1) God has a physical body, and is married. 2) Humans can become gods, and this is ultimately the point of our physical existence. 3) God did not create the Universe; He assembled it from things that were already there. Your soul existed without having been created by God. 4) Jesus visited the American continent to talk to some displaced Jews a while back. 5) All other Christian religions are wrong; they have lost the direct line of authority to God. On the other hand, most Mormon men believe they have the ability to talk to God and get answers on important issues. 6) There isn't really a "Hell" -- or a "salvation" -- in the way most Christians understand it. 7) The devil is a renegade who argued against Free Will; the whole point of the Garden of Eden is that it had to happen in order to give us Free Will, which God considers essential. 8) God is limited, in that He cannot violate rules of logic or nature.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Okay, now some of these are beliefs that I could actually accept for myself...
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
I have to disagree with number 5. LDS don't believe they are all wrong, rather, incomplete.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You sure the Book of Mormon you picked up had a cross on it?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
"why some men of faith, generally good men like my father get very angry the very mention of mormonism."
There are probably members of this board who can answer better than I can, but I'll give my impressions from the standpoint of a lifelong Mormon. I think there are several reasons that many other Christian denominations oppose Mormonism and the LDS church. 1) They see the Book of Mormon as a competitor to the Bible. Even though the LDS church teaches the two are complementary. The idea of putting any book on the same level of the Bible is anathema. 2) Rejection of traditional Christian doctrines like the trinity and saved by grace alone. 3) Adoption of new doctrines and acceptance in general of new prophets and revelation. 4) Lack of religious pedigree. Most Christian denominations feel a kinship since they largely descend from the mideval Catholic church; the LDS church doesn't. 5) Active proselyting by LDS missionaries. One of the surest ways to drum up opposition is to go about trying to convert people.
"Do mormons feel the same way about other branches of crhistianity?" I personally don't feel the way your father seemed to (i.e., angry at the very mention of <insert religion here>). Most Mormons I know don't feel that way, but I'm sure there are some. The official stance of the church can be summarized by the 11th Article of Faith, given by Joseph Smith. "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
You can find out more about the LDS church at www.mormon.org or www.lds.org. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I didn't write my list to compete with Tom's. When I started the post no one had replied yet.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
All I know is that Mormons are one of the few religions out there that doesn't have much if any blood on its hands. Whether their beliefs are right or wrong, I would have to say G-d should have no problem with their morality or way of life.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] 5) All other Christian religions are wrong; they have lost the direct line of authority to God. On the other hand, most Mormon men believe they have the ability to talk to God and get answers on important issues.
Not to quibble, but as a Mormon I don't believe the ability to "talk to God and get answers on important issues" is limited to either Mormons or men. The church teaches that all people who sincerely desire to know, and who believe in God's ability to answer, can receive answers to important questions. I think you are conflating prophetic revelation with personal relation, two fairly distinct principles within Mormonism.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Your soul existed without having been created by God.
Tom, I'm not sure that's technically true. I was always taught that God was the father of our spirits in the same way our mortal fathers are the fathers of our physical bodies. Your confusion may stem from the Mormon belief that intelligence, like matter, is neither created nor destroyed. "Intelligences" were organized before the world was created. Presumably this organization was done by God (the Father) and it is the organized intelligence that is our "soul".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think you are conflating prophetic revelation with personal relation
For simplicity's sake only. The differences weren't particularly relevant to the discussion.
(Same goes for the distinction between "intelligence" and "soul." *grin*)
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
"1) They see the Book of Mormon as a competitor to the Bible. Even though the LDS church teaches the two are complementary. The idea of putting any book on the same level of the Bible is anathema."
This one always cracks me up. The "worship" books used by Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics are surely "meant" as a "complement" to the Bible, too, but they are pretty heavy on doctrine (not found in the Bible - such as the Nicene Creed, or the Apostles Creed, or rote prayers) that form faith and beliefs as much if not more so than the few Bible verses read at Sunday service.
Speaking as a mid-30's that was raised by a Mormon father and Roman Catholic mother (heavy emphasis on LDS by father's parents), spent late teens agnostically, early 20's "New Wave-y", late 20's/early 30's in the ELCA, and the last year exploring the Anglican church. Ie., IMHE (in my humble experience).
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
Scott R, no im not totally sur though it seems that was the case. it was a long time ago,i was probably 10 or so, so about 10-12 years ago.
Thanks for the help in understanding, keep it coming.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:why some men of faith, generally good men like my father get very angry the very mention of mormonism
I think it is become some view the LDS faith as a cult that is taking Christians off the path to salvation and on to a false path, and doing so in the name of Christ.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: the few religions out there that doesn't have much if any blood on its hands
Um, Mountain Meadows Massacre? Which is a deeply misunderstood event that I have never seen any published commentator cover adequately. But I couldn't let the statement stand.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I think you are conflating prophetic revelation with personal relation
For simplicity's sake only. The differences weren't particularly relevant to the discussion.
(Same goes for the distinction between "intelligence" and "soul." *grin*)
I don't think "simplicity's sake" works for the "intelligence/soul" inaccuracy. If it were merely a minor point lost in shorthand, I wouldn't have posted a reply. The difference is pretty fundamental. What you posted implies that we existed prior to God and were not created by him. I'm pretty sure that is not what any Mormons believe. That some part of what we are existed prior to (or independantly of) God and was subsequently organized into what "we" are is a completely different concept and more correctly relays the Mormon view of our relationship to God (the father), in my opinion. Any current Mormons who feel I'm misstating this issue please correct me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Karl, I agree with what you just said.
Also, while it doesn't mean exactly the same thing to us as to others, we do believe in an omnipotent God who is the creator of all things.
But if you use Tom's list as a description of problems that others have with Mormonism (and that's really what this thread is about), including the small mistakes and misunderstandings, then it's very accurate.
But most of us would not say the things about our beliefs that Tom said. It's an outsider's view of our beliefs.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote: the few religions out there that doesn't have much if any blood on its hands
Um, Mountain Meadows Massacre? Which is a deeply misunderstood event that I have never seen any published commentator cover adequately. But I couldn't let the statement stand.
pooka, I almost posted this myself, but still, even if this could be counted as "blood on the hand of the LDS Church" (as opposed to blood on the hands of certain individuals, or even simply a tragedy borne out by the paranoia and persecution of the time) I don't think it really invalidates Stephan's assertion. In light of crusades, inquisitions, holocausts, etc, I don't think the Mountain Meadows Massacre actually holds the same horror.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
The LDS Church is much younger than other religions, though, so it SHOULD have less blood on its hands. Most other young chuches are also fairly unstained, other than the true cults, I would think.
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
quote:"1) They see the Book of Mormon as a competitor to the Bible. Even though the LDS church teaches the two are complementary. The idea of putting any book on the same level of the Bible is anathema."
This one always cracks me up. The "worship" books used by Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics are surely "meant" as a "complement" to the Bible, too, but they are pretty heavy on doctrine (not found in the Bible - such as the Nicene Creed, or the Apostles Creed, or rote prayers) that form faith and beliefs as much if not more so than the few Bible verses read at Sunday service.
In the Catholic Church, at least, these "worship" books do not hold anywhere near the same status that the BoM holds for Mormons, as I understand it. These books exist only as a convenience for following along at mass. They contain [quoted] scripture, but they are not scripture.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'd love to have a Bible study with the Jehovah's Witnesses that didn't revolve around their study guide.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Well, there ARE important liturgical books in the Catholic church but they aren't used much by laypeople. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09296a.htm Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
But are they considered instrinsically scripture?
Isn't the Book of Mormon scripture?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: The LDS Church is much younger than other religions, though, so it SHOULD have less blood on its hands. Most other young chuches are also fairly unstained, other than the true cults, I would think.
That's kind of a pessimistic way of looking at it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes, we believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture, every bit as much as the Bible.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The Book of Mormon is most emphatically scripture. If you see an LDS member's scriptures, you'll see the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price together, often published as one book. In any class, all of these different books of scripture are referenced with equal weight and authority.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I talk and expound and detail about all the babies I've eaten, and it doesn't do a scrap of good.
No one even notices. . .
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
But do you eat them with your hands? And are they raw? No one said anything about baby grease on your hands or blood on your lips. Chill dude.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>But do you eat them with your hands? And are they raw?
YES.
That's the point.
If you'd been paying attention, Karl, my lad, instead of wallowing in sinful RPG excursions and wondering when-oh-when Slash is going to update the game, you'd have NOTICED.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Then I stand corrected. My appologies. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Right. Babies usually have fairly clean records. Stick around a few centuries and somehow, sometime, some member of the religion will do something famously nasty.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: i fail to see why some men of faith, generally good men like my father get very angry the very mention of mormonism. Do mormons feel the same way about other branches of crhistianity?
From what you said, it doesn't sound like he got mad at the mention of mormonism. He got mad at/ frightened by the possibility that YOU, his child, were interested in mormonism. I would imagine that most parents who are devoted to their religion share similar fears of a child leaving the flock even if they would not express them in the dramatic way that your father did.
Posted by BADPLMR1 (Member # 8580) on :
All organized religions were conceived to allow small groups of people to control large groups of people and their wealth to the small groups stated or unstated ends.There is almost no difference between any of them with each claiming to be the only true source of enlightenment and most threatening the direst of punishment for any who believe differently. Don't stray from the path or you will burn in a lake of fire forever,that type of thing.You might just as well believe that to eat your enemies heart will give you his strength.Anyone that claims to actually talk to "god" is delusional and should be on medication. People should just be nice to each other,not steal or kill,isn't that supposed to be the real message after all?
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Wow, it's King of Men, only not half so eloquent.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Anyone that claims to actually talk to "god" is delusional and should be on medication.
That is a pretty sweeping statement with scary consequences if society were to actually believe you. Many people have deep spiritual experiences that enhance their lives. To name call them and medicate them seems pretty mean in my opinion.
I personally would never listen to them, but that is me. There is a world of variety out there, and I don't understand these hostile feelings.
If someone is using their "relationship" with God to exercise some type of dominion over a group, I think that we, as a society, need to look at what type of threatening activity "may" be going on.
Having a theocratic government seems very anti-progressive to personal freedom, but having groups with self proclaimed inspired leaders does not seem delusional or scary.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We also consider things that our prophet says in the present to be scripture, though not everything he happens to say. But our view of the revealed word of God goes way beyond the Bible, yes.
No one has mentioned polygamy.
I know some otherwise good and holy men who get really angered at spiders. Beyond reason, I would even say. Doesn't mean one is categorically good and the other evil. It just means they had a bad experience with them once.
Posted by BADPLMR1 (Member # 8580) on :
Don't want anyone to get bent out of shape,just stirring the pot.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think people who have no idea what is likely to offend others should be medicated. Posted by BADPLMR1 (Member # 8580) on :
Remember,politcal correctness IS facism
Posted by Goo Boy (Member # 7752) on :
Hey BADPLMR1, you're a jackass. Don't get bent out of shape, though. I'm just stirring the pot. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
:lol:
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
The troll is hungry. I think it needs to fast and contemplate the nature of God. Posted by BADPLMR1 (Member # 8580) on :
can ijust contemplate my naval?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How many boats are we talking about here?
Posted by BADPLMR1 (Member # 8580) on :
lotus position anyone? too much for a fat old man like me
Posted by BADPLMR1 (Member # 8580) on :
sorry ex-jarhead trying to type too fast.just pretend it was an "e"
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I wish String would fix the title of this thread. I keep reading "More Man-ism" and thinking "Hey, I'm all for that!". Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:flexes:
More man. Oooh, check out these guns!
:kisses bicep:
Hoo-ah
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I believe the correct term is "masculinism."
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'd love to have a Bible study with the Jehovah's Witnesses that didn't revolve around their study guide.
[brief side-bar] Actually, you can, Pooka. We use the study guides as a topical aid (or at least are supposed to) and the question/answer format is designed to stimulate discussion and draw the student out (as each person is different and getting them to talk can be difficult).
But you can study just the Bible itself (sans guide).
What happens is, the conductor, in preparation, will work out a list of all the scriptures pertaining the current subject in some logical order (usually, simply following the actual study guide) and then use that as the basis for the study. The result is a Bible discussion that loosely follows the study guide without using it directly.
Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
I know some otherwise good and holy men who get really angered at spiders. Beyond reason, I would even say. Doesn't mean one is categorically good and the other evil. It just means they had a bad experience with them once.
Funny that you should say that, I had a talk with my dad on a car ride and found out he used to be a mormon. Used to be a lot of stuff actually. He was born catholic, then decided he was an athiest, then a mormon, then he voted for Nixon.
Since that incedent when he burned the BoM, he has decided that burning books really isn't a good Idea, and that if a person really seaks out god and is honest with themselves and doesnt wright run on sentences, they will come to the right place in the end. A much more reasonable position, if you ask me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Wow--whudda thunk! Cool that you learned something new about your dad, String. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Too bad about the whole Nixon thing, though. *pat pat*
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)