I didn't see this myself, but my wife told me that she saw a guest on the Today show make some weird claims about what Mormons believe. The guest was a black woman, a part of an interracial couple, and she reportedly said that before 1978:
1. Mormons thought she was evil (because she was part of an interracial couple). 2. Mormons thought her prayers weren't heard (because she was black).
Which isn't true, of course (as we've well established on this board) ... although Matt Lauer just sat and nodded without challenging her assertions — great journalism there, buddy.
But this woman's comments were applied specifically to Mitt Romney, which raises the question ... how is Romney supposed to handle claims like this? They are false, but proving them false takes what is essentially a theological argument, which is weird and inappropriate for a political debate. But at the same time, being thought of as a racist is one of the most damaging things that can happen to a candidate. Look at Senator Biden.
So ... what should he do?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think he should say, "No, that isn't (or "wasn't," when appropriate) what my church teaches (taught)" and leave it at that.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I saw the spot in question. She said that prior to 1978, her interracial marriage "was considered a sin" by the church. She also said that prior to 1978 the church taught that:
1. Blacks were cursed. 2. Their prayers were not heard.
As for the "sin", that's a very valid impression, if not official church doctrine. Growing up even in the early 80s many church leaders, especially in the south, taught that it was wrong in the eyes of the church to marry interracially. The same holds true for point #1 above. Although it probably was never official church doctrine, many Mormons taught, (and probably many more believed) that blackness was the curse of Cain and that is why blacks could not hold the priesthood. This is what I was taught, in church, and did not find out until later that it wasn't official doctrine. It was a pretty standard answer to "why can't blacks hold the priesthood" or "why couldn't blacks hold the priesthood" even when I was on my mission, (86-88) even if it wasn't official doctrine.
As far as my experience goes, however, point #2 is a lie. Whether it's the lie of the guest or one she was told and believes is anyone's guess.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Additionally, the woman's husband clearly (to me) tried to reign her in when she made points 1 & 2 above, and sort of half-heartedly said that Mormons didn't believe that exactly, but that just prompted the wife to say "That's why I said 'prior to 1978'.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I didn't see this myself, but my wife told me that she saw a guest on the Today show make some weird claims about what Mormons believe. The guest was a black woman, a part of an interracial couple, and she reportedly said that before 1978:
1. Mormons thought she was evil (because she was part of an interracial couple). 2. Mormons thought her prayers weren't heard (because she was black).
Which isn't true, of course (as we've well established on this board) ... although Matt Lauer just sat and nodded without challenging her assertions — great journalism there, buddy.
One problem that may be hurting the issue is that Mormons themselves often disagree about what is doctrine, and that it has been noted that there are people out there calling themselves Mormons who act and behave in ways that many members on this board would not consider being a 'true Mormon'.
That is, if I recall correctly, there are people on this board who have said that they have been told by people saying that they are Mormon that blacks are evil or whatever.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Mormons themselves often disagree about what is doctrine." As a good journalist this should be something that is checked out. Yet, all of them act as if Mormons are lock step in what they believe. There are definantly shared beliefs to be sure, but the fact there are so many ways Mormons view those beliefs should be taken more notice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I saw the spot in question. She said that prior to 1978, her interracial marriage "was considered a sin" by the church. She also said that prior to 1978 the church taught that:
1. Blacks were cursed. 2. Their prayers were not heard.
As for the "sin", that's a very valid impression, if not official church doctrine. Growing up even in the early 80s many church leaders, especially in the south, taught that it was wrong in the eyes of the church to marry interracially. The same holds true for point #1 above. Although it probably was never official church doctrine, many Mormons taught, (and probably many more believed) that blackness was the curse of Cain and that is why blacks could not hold the priesthood. This is what I was taught, in church, and did not find out until later that it wasn't official doctrine. It was a pretty standard answer to "why can't blacks hold the priesthood" or "why couldn't blacks hold the priesthood" even when I was on my mission, (86-88) even if it wasn't official doctrine.
As far as my experience goes, however, point #2 is a lie. Whether it's the lie of the guest or one she was told and believes is anyone's guess.
That was a very good summation Karl.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is infuriating. I'm clinging to the hope that the higher profile is merely exposing the misconceptions already existing and not only perpetuating misconceptions. Surely there are honest journalists who will do a little research. I'm hoping the truth wins out.
The nice thing about a great big spotlight is that, while it does bring out the liars eager for a share, the Church can withstand the scrutiny. Thanks for paying attention, everyone! Have a Book of Mormon on your way out! Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
The fact that Romney is a Mormon is going to hurt him no matter what some wack job on the Today show says. Just like being Catholic was a hurdle for JFK when he ran.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In a related segue, I present the top ten reasons to vote for Mitt Romney, which may or may not help with that misconceptions thing:
quote:Here are the top 10 reasons to vote for Mitt Romney:
10) The National Cathedral could be renamed the National Tabernacle
9) NASA could commission a satellite to 'hie to Kolob'
8) The Secret Service could be renamed the Sacred Service
7) All official government prayers could include the phrase 'that we all can get home safely'
6) Napoleon Dynamite could get someone other than Pedro elected
5) The President could not only explain things in Layman's terms, but also Lemuel's terms
4) The President could issue pardons in exchange for 100% home teaching
3) Not only could he pronounce 'Nuclear' but also 'Mahonri Moriancumer' and 'Maher Shalal Hash Baz'
2) At his inauguration he would swear on the Bible 'as far as it is translated correctly'
1) Finally a first family large enough to fill up the White House
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
<Removed.>
[ February 20, 2007, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ah, KoM dutifully pounds out his only note on his one little drum.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ignore him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
5) 3) and 2) were funny,
4) 7) were mildly funny.
It'd be interesting to see if Romney still has home teachers assigned to him that visit him at the white house once a month.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I find him despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with the fact he's Mormon. He ran for governor of Massachusetts on a moderate platform, because he wouldn't have been elected otherwise. He made promises he did not deliver on. When he ran for governor, he stated he wanted equal benefits for gay couples. Then, he opposed a compromise amendment which would've offered gay couples civil unions. While he was governor, he also cut funding for public education, health care, police, and vetoed an increase in minimum wage.
He ran on a pro-choice platform, and later his political strategist Michael Murphy stated that he has "been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly." That's appalling, and it means that he'll say or bend his stance on the issues in any direction depending on what office he's running for to appeal to voters.
When he ran for governor, it was in a more liberal state so he said one thing, and now that he's running for President and needs the votes of conservatives, he's saying another thing. Yuck, yuck, yuck.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Most Republican candidates these days seem to be doing it.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Which isn't true, of course (as we've well established on this board) ... although Matt Lauer just sat and nodded without challenging her assertions — great journalism there, buddy.
KarlEd already gave a great summation of the two points. Point one, according to his version of the show has validity. Point 2 doesn't.
I would like to point out that the woman said "Mormons Thought." No one can truly summarize what Mormon's think. Thinking is done alone. Matt Lauer should have dug in to see if that was church doctrine.
Their may have been individuals that this woman ran into that she concluded thought that way. That is not a representation of church doctrine or common beliefs. Every group is going to have nut jobs that think they hold the true beliefs of the organization. Shame on Matt.
quote: (Regarding black members and the priesthood)..This is what I was taught, in church, and did not find out until later that it wasn't official doctrine.
I never found out it wasn't official doctrine. Does someone have the official reason why they couldn't hold the priesthood? If it wasn't official doctrine, it sure seemed to be taught by Joseph Smith and backed by policy. Or is there no official doctrinal reason they couldn't have the priesthood? This is a serious question. I truly don't know.
I thought that was the reason. I understood the church has tried to gloss over the past by mentioning all the great things Smith did for blacks at that time that was very progressive, but in the end it was the curse that blocked the priesthood.
quote: 2) At his inauguration he would swear on the Bible 'as far as it is translated correctly'
1) Finally a first family large enough to fill up the White House
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
And that is different from every other politician? Not saying that is good (although I don't believe it nearly as much as you do), but that it isn't any more despicable than anyone else trying to get elected.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I gave up expecting broadcast journalist to "dig more deeply" into anything during the months before we invaded Iraq.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I'm curious as to why anyone would expect Matt Lauer or anyone on the Today Show to "dig" into any issue or challenge a guest.
I'm sorry to say this, but it is completely unrealistic to think that the interview format of the Today show would challenge a guest's assertions on anything.
Perhaps the producers of that segment should've done a better job vetting their guests, or they should've had someone from the Romney campaign (or from the LDS church) on to counter.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: never found out it wasn't official doctrine. Does someone have the official reason why they couldn't hold the priesthood? If it wasn't official doctrine, it sure seemed to be taught by Joseph Smith and backed by policy. Or is there no official doctrinal reason they couldn't have the priesthood? This is a serious question. I truly don't know.
I thought that was the reason. I understood the church has tried to gloss over the past by mentioning all the great things Smith did for blacks at that time that was very progressive, but in the end it was the curse that blocked the priesthood.
Iem: Where the doctrine comes from is alittle difficult to ascertain but certainly possible, but I do know for a fact that Joseph Smith himself ordained at least one African American to the priesthood, whether the lesser or greater I am not clear on. I could be wrong but I was under the impression that a complete block on further ordinations of African people did not start until Brigham Young, the 2nd prophet of the dispensation.
But it should be pointed out that the church never said, "Blacks can't have the priesthood because...." It was simply, "Blacks at this time should not be ordained to the priesthood." With no official explanation given.
Certainly many church officials including some apostles such as McConkie believed the "Curse of Cain" explanation, (but even McConkie likely changed his stance on the matter) but there is no clear scriptural exhortation on the point.
From my perspective it seems that Mormons were more worried about "Ordaining people who ought not to be ordained" as Mormons hold priesthood authority with great reverence and respect, and not so much, "Black's are lesser beings who do not deserve equal treatment with whites." There was absolutely no hesitation with giving say Asians the priesthood. I wonder though if Native Americans were withheld the priesthood for the same reason as African Americans.
I still have my questions about the whole situation, and I hope to have a full understanding one day.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
I do not think that the deletion of King of Men's quip was merited. If all negative comments on religion is construed as "disparag[ing] others for their (...) religious beliefs" one might as well consider the number of positive statements frequently made on this board regarding various religious denominations as "try[ing] to convert people to your (...) religious beliefs."
Just saying...
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: Does someone have the official reason why they couldn't hold the priesthood? If it wasn't official doctrine, it sure seemed to be taught by Joseph Smith and backed by policy. Or is there no official doctrinal reason they couldn't have the priesthood? This is a serious question. I truly don't know.
I thought that was the reason. I understood the church has tried to gloss over the past by mentioning all the great things Smith did for blacks at that time that was very progressive, but in the end it was the curse that blocked the priesthood.
When did Smith ever teach this concept? During Smith's lifetime, blacks could receive the priesthood. The first black man with the priesthood was given it by Smith.
edit to add link: www.blacklds.org Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tristan: I do not think that the deletion of King of Men's quip was merited. If all negative comments on religion is construed as "disparag[ing] others for their (...) religious beliefs" one might as well consider the number of positive statements frequently made on this board regarding various religious denominations as "try[ing] to convert people to your (...) religious beliefs."
Perhaps it was the "fairy tale" remark. Let me amend it to "empirically unsupported beliefs", then: I hope we may see the day when all empirically unsupported beliefs of a candidate are an obstacle to his election.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
All?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: When did Smith ever teach this concept? During Smith's lifetime, blacks could receive the priesthood. The first black man with the priesthood was given it by Smith.
Let me check my books and get back to you. Like I said, this is not a topic I know very well--hence the question to clear up my own misconceptions. It could be a Brigham Quote. I know of a at least one specific quote by a prophet--not just an apostle like Bruce R McConkie. I will verify.
As a side not if wikipedia can be trusted, the church flat out declared errors in Mormon Doctrine and wouldn't let it be re-published until 1966 after errors were corrected. That is interesting to me. I never knew that. I will have to check what edition I own.
quote: Nearly a year later, after meeting to discuss the book, the January 8, 1960 office notes of President McKay reflect that:
"We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."[4]
President McKay called President Joseph Fielding Smith on January 27, 1960 at 3:00 p.m. to inform him of the decision:
[President McKay] then said: "Now, Brother Smith, he is a General Authority, and we do not want to give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie's book is not approved as an authoritative book, and that it should not be republished, even if the errors...are corrected." Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, "That is the best thing to do."[3]
When the First Presidency met with Elder McConkie about their decision, he responded, "I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want. I will be as discreet and as wise as I can."[3]
In his biography of his father, Joseph Fielding McConkie, states that:
"On July 5, 1966, President McKay invited Elder McConkie into his office and gave approval for the book to be reprinted if appropriate changes were made and approved. Elder Spencer W. Kimball [of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles] was assigned to be Elder McConkie’s mentor in making those changes. ... My father told me that President McKay had so directed him. In addition to that, I am in possession of handwritten papers by my father affirming that direction."[2]
The second edition of Mormon Doctrine, with its approved revisions, was published in 1966. Horne states, "The most obvious difference between the two editions is a more moderate tone."[3]
Another revision was made to the book in 1978 after President Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation on the priesthood being extended to all worthy male members.
F
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I hope we may see the day when all empirically unsupported beliefs of a candidate are an obstacle to his election.
So what's the empirical proof that our government ought to:
1) Try people who kill other people (in most circumstances) and put them in jail if convicted?
2) Prohibit the sale of strychnine labeled "Yummy Good Eats"?
3) Fund high-energy particle accelerators and make them available to physicists?
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
Ok, so Bob has a post count of 22222 and dkw has 7777. Cool, eh?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I hope we may see the day when all empirically unsupported beliefs of a candidate are an obstacle to his election.
We wouldn't want candidates believing in love or beauty, would we.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
Or Democracy, for that matter.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
It appears as if King of Men's original word choice, while inflammatory, more appropriately conveyed his meaning.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
That is a great link scholar. Thanks. I am impressed with all the quotes from Brigham Young that dispute the "neutral in the pre-existence" theory.
I can't seem to find the exact time the ban was put into place. I am looking here. It looks like it started around 1879 or 1880. I can't see an exact date tho. Was there an exact date when they instituted the ban?
Or was there never a ban and not receiving the priesthood was more of a protocol since Abraham Smoot and Zebedee Coltrin claimed Joseph Smith instituted the Priesthood ban in 1879?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The things you mention fall into two categories. For love and beauty, I would say that they are hardly empirically unsupported; almost all humans report experiencing some variation on these. For democracy, particle accelerators, strychnine, and murder trials, these are based on the following reasoning:
a) X increases the happiness of people b) The happiness of people is a good thing.
a) is subject to empirical measurement; the belief may be right or wrong, but at any rate it has some kind of empirical support from the vote. For example, if I believed that making blue jeans mandatory business wear would make people happy, and campaigned on such a basis, the vote would tell me whether people agreed. b) is not a belief about facts but a moral axiom, and therefore outside the discussion.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Do you think it's possible that religion increases the happiness of a great many people? I certainly suspect it does.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Those were my thoughts as well. I was going to post it, but Hatrack froze up on me when I hit the submit button.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Honestly, I'm just surprised that KoM's remarks were deleted because he routinely uses much harsher criticism/insult of religion and religious people, and it remains.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For love and beauty, I would say that they are hardly empirically unsupported; almost all humans report experiencing some variation on these.
Wait a minute...when did that become a method for you of placing value and respect to something human beings feel, KoM? When that line of reasoning is applied to religion, it certainly fails to persuade you that religion should be respected or even acknowledged as anything but brainwashing.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Let us not forget that not all Republicans are alike.
Bush would simply ignore the allegations, which doesn't work for him, but he keeps doing it.
Reagan would say, "There you go again, misrepresenting LDS doctrine. What it actually says is..."
McCain would try to get the press to understand he's not *really* a Mormon, by finding some Mormon preachers to condemn.
W Clinton would blame an anti-Mormon conspiracy and change the subject. Kerry would do the same except he'd blame Bush.
I think Romney should turn it back on them in a Reaganesque way: point out that their problems with LDS are about them, not him. I don't know him well enough to know if he'd do it, though.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Reagan would say, "There you go again, misrepresenting LDS doctrine. What it actually says is..."
You remember a much different Reagan than I remember. May I ask how old you were during the Reagan administration.
quote:Bush would simply ignore the allegations, which doesn't work for him, but he keeps doing it.
You are too generous. Bush's handlers would never allow him into a crowd where the question would be asked. Behind the scenes they'd do everything in their power to discredit and destroy the questioners.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:May I ask how old you were during the Reagan administration.
There's a loaded question. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:For love and beauty, I would say that they are hardly empirically unsupported; almost all humans report experiencing some variation on these.
Wait a minute...when did that become a method for you of placing value and respect to something human beings feel, KoM? When that line of reasoning is applied to religion, it certainly fails to persuade you that religion should be respected or even acknowledged as anything but brainwashing.
As soon as the subject under discussion became something internal to the human brain, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say the human mind. Religious people, however, make claims about objects outside their minds.
quote:Do you think it's possible that religion increases the happiness of a great many people? I certainly suspect it does.
I believe, however, that the net effect is bad. In any case, I have a moral objection to lying on a wide scale to make people happy; it's only a little better than handing out vast supplies of drugs.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
You believe? Can you support that belief empirically?
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Without reading everything in this thread and making a concerted effort to sort of stay out of the big points of it, I feel the need to confess my ignorance.
I grew up in Massachusetts. I moved from there a number of months I can count on my fingers ago. I didn't know Romney was Mormon. Doesn't matter to me if he is or if he isn't, that's not my point, I just am feeling really ignorant right now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For love and beauty, I would say that they are hardly empirically unsupported; almost all humans report experiencing some variation on these.
You're going to have to explain to me why it makes sense to place importance on entirely subjective responses human beings have to things like beauty and love, thinking them relevant somehow...and not on religion.
Especially for people who place far more importance within their religion for guidelines of thought, emotions, human behavior, than say what happened with the dinosaurs, or where Heaven is.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: You believe? Can you support that belief empirically?
Inquisitions, witch hunts, suicide bombers, cognitive dissonance, and a vast pressure to conform to things that are plainly ridiculous.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In any case, I have a moral objection to lying on a wide scale to make people happy
People who expound on the impact love and beauty has had on their lives, the effect it has on them...they're lying, right?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I was voting age during the Reagan administration. "There you go again" is a famous quote.
quote:MR. CARTER: Governor Reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against Medicare. ...
MR. SMITH: Governor?
MR. REAGAN: There you go again. When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed.
quote:I think Romney should turn it back on them in a Reaganesque way: point out that their problems with LDS are about them, not him. I don't know him well enough to know if he'd do it, though.
First, that's not the way Reagan handled scandals or criticism.
Second, Romney has been a devout practicing Mormon all of his life. He served as the Church's lay leader (stake president) in Boston for many years. If he tries to distance himself from the LDS church while he's running from President, he's a hypocrit and I'm certain it would hurt more than help.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Rakeesh, didn't I already respond to that question? I'm not clear on what part I didn't reply to, please rephrase.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: You believe? Can you support that belief empirically?
Inquisitions, witch hunts, suicide bombers, cognitive dissonance, and a vast pressure to conform to things that are plainly ridiculous.
You're a scientist and that's your idea of proving something empirically?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:cognitive dissonance
What's wrong with cognitive dissonance. As an educator, cognitive dissonance is my goal because it is the first step toward learning.
And KOM, your anti-religious rhetoric has really become a yawner. Can't you let us have any discussion that even tangentally discusses religion without launching into a diatribe about how religion is the source of all evil. Give it a rest.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: You believe? Can you support that belief empirically?
Inquisitions, witch hunts, suicide bombers, cognitive dissonance, and a vast pressure to conform to things that are plainly ridiculous.
You're a scientist and that's your idea of proving something empirically?
No, that's my idea of supporting something empirically, which is what was requested.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:You are too generous. Bush's handlers would never allow him into a crowd where the question would be asked. Behind the scenes they'd do everything in their power to discredit and destroy the questioners.
I know what you mean. Look what they're doing to Joe Wilson right now: criminally prosecuting him because he allegedly misremembered the order in which he spoke to reporters, years ago, when answering prosecutors who were *knowingly* investigating the wrong man, for something they knew wasn't a crime!
And that guy Berger who smuggled out classified documents in his pants -- they nailed *him* to the wall, too, after he said Bush had weakened the U.S. military.
Let's not forget the letter threatening legal action against Sinclair Broadcasting, I mean CBS, when they were going to run a documentary critical of Kerry. I mean, Bush.
Truly a ruthless administration.
---
Since these things didn't happen, it's apparent that the Bush administration does not "do everything in their power to discredit and destroy the questioners."
[ February 20, 2007, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: You believe? Can you support that belief empirically?
Inquisitions, witch hunts, suicide bombers, cognitive dissonance, and a vast pressure to conform to things that are plainly ridiculous.
You're a scientist and that's your idea of proving something empirically?
No, that's my idea of supporting something empirically, which is what was requested.
Again, the supporting makes sense, the empirically, not so much.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Oh, and just for the record, this one is hilarious.
quote:Originally posted by Will B: McCain would try to get the press to understand he's not *really* a Mormon, by finding some Mormon preachers to condemn.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright, I'll ask a slightly different question: which part, exactly, are religious people lying about?
Is it that they feel something in their minds, telling them to look to a source such as the Bible which tells them empirically things that (in some cases) simply cannot be true?
This is not the standard you've used in the past for insulting religion and religious people. You certainly cannot empirically disprove that God exists, yet for some people-people on this board, even-their religion doesn't tell them things which can be empirically disproven.
And yet, beauty and love are valued and shouldn't be scorned, in spite of their exclusively mental and physical, totally subjective impact?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:In any case, I have a moral objection to lying on a wide scale to make people happy
People who expound on the impact love and beauty has had on their lives, the effect it has on them...they're lying, right?
What is so irrational about love or beauty? Love is an emotional (essentially biochemical) response to a value judgement you consciously or unconsciously make of a person. Beauty is a quality we admire and assess according to personal but often similar criteria. Keats should not be taken literally.
Stating that you love someone is saying that you hold that person in the highest esteem, according to whatever criteria you have for others (character, personality, independence, intelligence, what have you).
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Do you think it's possible that religion increases the happiness of a great many people? I certainly suspect it does.
I believe, however, that the net effect is bad. In any case, I have a moral objection to lying on a wide scale to make people happy; it's only a little better than handing out vast supplies of drugs.
I'm also convinced that religion does more harm than good. But even if it didn't, I would rather live in a world where truth is respected, and I suspect that's the case with most people on this board. Lying/Spreading falsehoods/Compartmentalising reason is immoral, according to my system of morality.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What is so irrational about love or beauty? Love is an emotional (essentially biochemical) response to a value judgement you consciously or unconsciously make of a person. Beauty is a quality we admire and assess according to personal but often similar criteria. Keats should not be taken literally.
By the standards you're using here, every emotional response is rational it seems to me, Euripedes.
And most especially...
quote:For love and beauty, I would say that they are hardly empirically unsupported; almost all humans report experiencing some variation on these.
This is never accepted by KoM as reasonable support for belief in religion, that I can remember.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
By the standards you're using here, every emotional response is rational it seems to me, Euripedes.
Yes, in the sense that every emotion is a biochemical reaction, there is a rational explanation for the feeling/sensation/qualia.
quote:And most especially...
quote:For love and beauty, I would say that they are hardly empirically unsupported; almost all humans report experiencing some variation on these.
This is never accepted by KoM as reasonable support for belief in religion, that I can remember.
Of course not. What kind of subjective experiences are we talking about, and what conclusions are we drawing from them?
"I experienced love", for example, can't be used as evidence for the existence of God, and has absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of what's in the Bible.
With visions, there are alternative scientific explanations such as hallucinations or dreams, which have considerably more evidence to back them up than do supernatural explanations.
[ February 20, 2007, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Alright, I'll ask a slightly different question: which part, exactly, are religious people lying about?
Ah, no - I accept the subjective truthfulness of most religious people. I was responding to the suggestion that spreading religion might make people happier, and therefore be a good thing, done presumably by people who would not believe in that religion.
quote:This is not the standard you've used in the past for insulting religion and religious people. You certainly cannot empirically disprove that God exists, yet for some people-people on this board, even-their religion doesn't tell them things which can be empirically disproven.
There ain't no such thing as disproof, so this is a truly remarkably weak argument. Burden of proof lies on the one making positive claims.
quote:And yet, beauty and love are valued and shouldn't be scorned, in spite of their exclusively mental and physical, totally subjective impact?
I do not understand which part of this you are finding difficult. Love is something that happens internal to a human brain; you must therefore accept the report of the brain in question. (Also, in principle, you could measure the biochemical changes connected with the feeling.) Which part of "God exists and forgives my sins" is internal to a human brain? I'm perfectly happy to accept the reports of others that they experience thus-and-so a feeling when they pray; that's internal. But I very strongly object when they reason from this to "God exists". Especially since they can none of them agree on which god their internal experience supports. In a somewhat similar vein, I should be happy to accept the report of a schizophrenic that he hears voices; I would object, however, to his belief that the Government was beaming the voices into his mind, unless he could show me the machinery.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I do not understand which part of this you are finding difficult.
The part where you seemed to respect and value something that went on totally inside the head of someone else. Perhaps it is because we define 'love' so very differently, insofar as I have a definition for it. I did not presume you meant attraction, or a purely biochemical response as you suggest here.
quote:I'm perfectly happy to accept the reports of others that they experience thus-and-so a feeling when they pray; that's internal. But I very strongly object when they reason from this to "God exists".
So...you're 'perfectly happy' to accept the reports that someone feels something. As soon as they suggest that something exists from that feeling, aside from brain chemistry, that's when they become brainwashed idiots?
quote:Especially since they can none of them agree on which god their internal experience supports.
Nonsense, and you're not usually this sloppy. Millions of people agree in groups.
quote:There ain't no such thing as disproof, so this is a truly remarkably weak argument. Burden of proof lies on the one making positive claims.
Burden exists to who? They're obligated to you? I disagree. And correct me if I am wrong, but things are for practical intents and purposes disproven all the time.
It all comes down to this, what I failed to state correctly in the beginning. You expressed a desire that one day, "...all empirically unsupported beliefs of a candidate are an obstacle to his election."
Respect and belief in beauty and love are apparently exempted from this list, unless you trim those words to basic meaninglessness except to the person feeling them-which is not the common definition of either.
You go on to say that they're not exempted because, sure, lots of people feel those things...and this is 'empirical' support? How, exactly? If someone says on first meeting someone, "This person is my lifemate,"-I deliberately avoided the term 'soulmate'-where is the empirical evidence for this? How do you even know they're actually feeling it?
Maybe their brains are lying to them, malfunctioning. That's certainly what you routinely claim about people who believe they hear the voice of God in their mind.
-------------
Euripides,
I hope you'll pardon me for getting a bit heated with you earlier. Carry-over from King of Men's casual, long-term contempt. My apologies.
quote:Yes, in the sense that every emotion is a biochemical reaction, there is a rational explanation for the feeling/sensation/qualia.
I grant that this is a reasonable belief, but I do not grant that it is something commonly believed about beauty and love in particular, especially insofar as it would apply to being an obstacle to a politician.
quote:"I experienced love", for example, can't be used as evidence for the existence of God, and has absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of what's in the Bible.
If "I experienced love" can be used as evidence for having experienced love, why cannot "God spoke to me in my prayers" be used as evidence for God, exactly?
quote:With visions, there are alternative scientific explanations such as hallucinations or dreams, which have considerably more evidence to back them up than do supernatural explanations.
Granted. This does not mean, however, that everyone who believes they hear the voice of God in their mind is crazy as you suggest, however. It just means that based on our current knowledge of dreams and hallucinations, it would appear more likely.
'The science is in', one can safely say, about the Earth being 6,000 years old. We're just beginning to become aware of what the science is regarding brain chemistry and why and how people dream, and what it means or if it means anything, or if sometimes it do and sometimes it don't.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I do not understand which part of this you are finding difficult.
The part where you seemed to respect and value something that went on totally inside the head of someone else. Perhaps it is because we define 'love' so very differently, insofar as I have a definition for it. I did not presume you meant attraction, or a purely biochemical response as you suggest here.
Oh, hang on, are you suggesting that love exists as a sort of Platonic Ideal independent of the people who experience it? In that case, yep, such a belief is completely unsupported.
quote:
quote:I'm perfectly happy to accept the reports of others that they experience thus-and-so a feeling when they pray; that's internal. But I very strongly object when they reason from this to "God exists".
So...you're 'perfectly happy' to accept the reports that someone feels something. As soon as they suggest that something exists from that feeling, aside from brain chemistry, that's when they become brainwashed idiots?
Yes.
quote:
quote:Especially since they can none of them agree on which god their internal experience supports.
Nonsense, and you're not usually this sloppy. Millions of people agree in groups.
Which is precisely what you would expect if their claims are no more than smoke and mirages. If there were genuine proofs, then you'd expect that all religious people would agree on the qualities of their gods. Hence my shorthand. The existence of millions of people who report the same experience, but put a completely different interpretation on it, is a very strong indication that none of them are right.
quote:
quote:There ain't no such thing as disproof, so this is a truly remarkably weak argument. Burden of proof lies on the one making positive claims.
Burden exists to who? They're obligated to you? I disagree. And correct me if I am wrong, but things are for practical intents and purposes disproven all the time.
I agree, but for some reason religious people don't like to accept this when it comes to their gods. For practical intents and purposes, the existence of gods is disproven by there being no shred of evidence in their favour.
As for the obligation, it arises if you want to have a discussion. If you don't, then there's no obligation to support your claims; in that case, why are you posting? But if you want to have a discussion in which one side is allowed to make unsupported assertions, then you'll have it without me, and we'll leave the issue to be decided by machine guns when the revolution comes. Personally I prefer words, they're much cheaper.
quote:You go on to say that they're exempted because, sure, lots of people feel those things...and this is 'empirical' support? How, exactly? If someone says on first meeting someone, "This person is my lifemate,"-I deliberately avoided the term 'soulmate'-where is the empirical evidence for this? How do you even know they're actually feeling it?
I don't, but many people not only report such a feeling, but also act in accordance with it: They marry the 'lifemate', bear their children, work for their comfort, tend their illnesses, grieve when they die. It looks to me as though the balance of probability is against several billion people engaging in a deception to convince me of the existence of love, hence I prefer to believe that there really exists a state of the brain in which one's happiness is increased by the presence and happiness of another. If you have a better theory, by all means suggest it.
quote:Maybe their brains are lying to them, malfunctioning. That's certainly what you routinely claim about people who believe they hear the voice of God in their mind.
Indeed so. I believe that they hear voices; I do not believe that they are hearing the voice of God. The reasons for this are several: First, many people report voices without believing them to be from any god, so we know that it is possible for the mind to deceive itself in this manner. Second, of those who do claim to hear a god, they do not agree among themselves on what the entity says; this argues against the qualities of omnipresence, etc, that they claim for the entity. Third, the entity never says anything useful; it's either platitudes of the form "Love each other" (nothing against this as a principle, but really, if exhortations were going to have any effect, we'd have seen them by now) or else madness such as "All X must die". Now, if we could have a revelation such as "This is the full equation for string theory, and here is its solution", then I'd listen with extreme attentiveness.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I hope you'll pardon me for getting a bit heated with you earlier.
No apology necessary
quote:
quote:Yes, in the sense that every emotion is a biochemical reaction, there is a rational explanation for the feeling/sensation/qualia.
I grant that this is a reasonable belief, but I do not grant that it is something commonly believed about beauty and love in particular, especially insofar as it would apply to being an obstacle to a politician.
Okay, so you could describe love as being two things; the emotional sensation, and the concept. The concept is an abstraction we formed by describing certain qualia and the positive evaluations of character which trigger them - a category, almost. That doesn't make it mystical or irrational; it still has its basis in our observation of reality.
quote:
quote:"I experienced love", for example, can't be used as evidence for the existence of God, and has absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of what's in the Bible.
If "I experienced love" can be used as evidence for having experienced love, why cannot "God spoke to me in my prayers" be used as evidence for God, exactly?
"I experienced love", if translated into a scientific claim, could be translated as, "My evaluation of this person set a series of neural reactions in motion within my brain, in such patterns that are known to cause the qualia we call love or strong affection." That is theoretically verifiable, though not practically. Mostly we're content to accept it because so many of us share the experience (or a diluted form of it - affection).
"God spoke to me in my prayers" on the other hand, posits a whole host of claims. Firstly, that a creator spirit exists, that a human could recognize the entity, that the entity would see fit to communicate with that person exclusively in a way that is unverifiable by others. There are a lot of other implications, all of them highly unlikely. They attempt to make vast (and by implication very detailed) claims about the nature of the universe, with limited and usually vague stimuli to back it up (and no other evidence). It's drawing too many unsupported conclusions from a biochemical experience which can be explained in other more likely ways.
Those stimuli have also been filtered through by a believer's mind, which is more likely to interpret an unexplained experience as an act of God. There are simpler explanations which are better grounded in our scientific knowledge. Again, Occam's Razor serves as a handy guideline.
As you pointed out, the existence of God can not be disproved, it's just highly improbable. As improbable as the existence of Hindu gods, or Allah, or a flying spaghetti monster. There are however many things that can be disproved in the Bible, either by scientific evidence (such as regarding the age of the earth), or by virtue of certain passages being contradictory (logic dictates that one or the other must be inaccurate).
quote:
quote:With visions, there are alternative scientific explanations such as hallucinations or dreams, which have considerably more evidence to back them up than do supernatural explanations.
Granted. This does not mean, however, that everyone who believes they hear the voice of God in their mind is crazy as you suggest, however. It just means that based on our current knowledge of dreams and hallucinations, it would appear more likely.
'The science is in', one can safely say, about the Earth being 6,000 years old. We're just beginning to become aware of what the science is regarding brain chemistry and why and how people dream, and what it means or if it means anything, or if sometimes it do and sometimes it don't.
Yes, the hallucination/imagination/dreams explanations are backed up by a lot of research and deductive conclusions which can be drawn from more widely accepted science, but haven't been proven in every case. I would disagree that we're "just beginning" to become aware of brain chemistry. I'd grant that there's much we don't know, but almost everything we've found so far is in favour of a materialist conception of human beings.
I'm not sure that I said people who believe God speaks to them are crazy, only that they have compartmentalised their faculty of reason and aren't using it to evaluate a certain category of claims (religious) about the nature of reality.
[ February 21, 2007, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, I forgot a fourth reason: In many cases, you can stop the voices by giving the right drugs. Come now, a chemical is going to stop a god? Something doesn't add up there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So um, getting back to what the thread title suggests...
Is anyone really surprised? We all knew as soon as he ventured forth into the presidential race that he was going to have more of a problem with religion than any candidate on any side of the political spectrum.
His biggest problem is a lot like Hillary's, that being, preconceived ideas. Many people think Mormons are polygymists. Many religious conservatives view Mormons as nothing more than a very large cult. There are many negative stereostypes that have to be defeated before he can win.
That problem is WORSE than Hillary's though. Why? Because the majority of the people who have a problem with him being a Mormon are people he needs to vote for him. Meaning, between him and a Democrat, he probably has already lost the vote of a Democratic voter, thus he needs all the votes from his Republican voters, but if they all refuse to vote for him, the Democrat automatically wins.
The two frontrunners in the Democratic race are very, very popular in their own party. A LOT of people can't wait to get out and vote for Obama, and even Hillary (if not MORE for Hillary).
Romney isn't nearly so popular. He's coming from being the governor of one of the nation's bluest states, trying to win hardcore Conservatives and religious voters who are highly, highly skeptical of him, and see much more appetizing choices in McCain and Gingrich (should he decide to run).
He has less than a year to convice at least half the nation that everything they think is wrong. Good luck to him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:b) is not a belief about facts but a moral axiom, and therefore outside the discussion
Not according to your initial statement.
What's your empirical support for the belief that moral axioms don't require empirical support?
quote:First, that's not the way Reagan handled scandals or criticism.
Sure it is. How good is your memory of the Reagan administration?
Or, in a less confrontational form, what's your evidence of this, especially in the face of the very famous and very specific example given in this thread?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Just like being Catholic was a hurdle for JFK when he ran.
JFK said "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters - and the Church does not speak for me."
Does anyone forsee Romney making a similiar statement? How different are traditional Mormon values from the current Republican party platform, anyways?
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
quote:How different are traditional Mormon values from the current Republican party platform, anyways?
In terms of helping the poor, aiding the sick, and providing everyone with a good education...very, very different.
In terms of strengthening the traditional family, protecting the unborn, and providing for the defense of the citizenry, fairly similar.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Alright, I'll ask a slightly different question: which part, exactly, are religious people lying about?
Is it that they feel something in their minds, telling them to look to a source such as the Bible which tells them empirically things that (in some cases) simply cannot be true?
This is not the standard you've used in the past for insulting religion and religious people. You certainly cannot empirically disprove that God exists, yet for some people-people on this board, even-their religion doesn't tell them things which can be empirically disproven.
And yet, beauty and love are valued and shouldn't be scorned, in spite of their exclusively mental and physical, totally subjective impact?
I wish I had KoM's magical powers of derailment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You're a scientist and that's your idea of proving something empirically?
Perhaps he's trying to create the first truly secular society so that he can perform the necessary tests for empiricism. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM,
quote:Oh, hang on, are you suggesting that love exists as a sort of Platonic Ideal independent of the people who experience it? In that case, yep, such a belief is completely unsupported.
No, I'm not. If you noticed, I even went so far as to say I might not even have a definition for it. But it is that kind of scientifically unsupported idea that many people hold when it comes to opinions about love and beauty-which is what I was so surprised about to hear you defending.
quote:The existence of millions of people who report the same experience, but put a completely different interpretation on it, is a very strong indication that none of them are right.
I don't see how that follows, necessarily. It seems to me that millions of people who report the same (well, not really the same except in general terms). Especially for the millions of people who don't believe in an exclusive God.
quote:I agree, but for some reason religious people don't like to accept this when it comes to their gods. For practical intents and purposes, the existence of gods is disproven by there being no shred of evidence in their favour.
Well, OK, now we're back to 'for practical purposes'.
quote:But if you want to have a discussion in which one side is allowed to make unsupported assertions, then you'll have it without me, and we'll leave the issue to be decided by machine guns when the revolution comes. Personally I prefer words, they're much cheaper.
Oh, come now, you know that's not true. The part about having the discussion without you, that is. As for why I'm posting, I've explained that more than once as far as this thread is concerned.
quote:They marry the 'lifemate', bear their children, work for their comfort, tend their illnesses, grieve when they die. It looks to me as though the balance of probability is against several billion people engaging in a deception to convince me of the existence of love, hence I prefer to believe that there really exists a state of the brain in which one's happiness is increased by the presence and happiness of another. If you have a better theory, by all means suggest it.
I wholeheartedly agree. One wonders, though, at the lack of application to religious thinking. Millions, even billions, of people do good things and lead good lives influenced heavily in part by their religion, which is based exclusively on the internal, the interpretation of voices in one's head and events in one's life.
But it don't get your support. This is the inconsistency I've been waiting to hear more about this whole time...the extent of your answer is that it's not an inconsistency, because religious people believe things about the external world based on the internal...and people believing in love and beauty don't? Doesn't wash with me, at least not until you define those terms as you have.
quote:Third, the entity never says anything useful; it's either platitudes of the form "Love each other" (nothing against this as a principle, but really, if exhortations were going to have any effect, we'd have seen them by now)
Here we come back to your unsupported theory that religion has a bad net impact on humanity. Unsupported because sure, you can point out the bad, but for a net impact you also have to examine the good.
------------
Euripides,
quote:Okay, so you could describe love as being two things; the emotional sensation, and the concept. The concept is an abstraction we formed by describing certain qualia and the positive evaluations of character which trigger them - a category, almost. That doesn't make it mystical or irrational; it still has its basis in our observation of reality.
This is what I just spoke with to KoM about. Love and beauty were not initially defined when he took up their defense. By limiting the definition to something (in my experience) most people don't believe about those two things, you've addressed the disagreement and resolved it.
quote:"I experienced love", if translated into a scientific claim, could be translated as, "My evaluation of this person set a series of neural reactions in motion within my brain, in such patterns that are known to cause the qualia we call love or strong affection." That is theoretically verifiable, though not practically. Mostly we're content to accept it because so many of us share the experience (or a diluted form of it - affection).
This does not seem very scientific to me, although I'm mostly an ignorant layman. For example, for your claim to be true there would have to be one objective definition of love or affection. There ain't.
quote:They attempt to make vast (and by implication very detailed) claims about the nature of the universe, with limited and usually vague stimuli to back it up (and no other evidence). It's drawing too many unsupported conclusions from a biochemical experience which can be explained in other more likely ways.
I agree, actually. If nebulous voices in one's brain were the sole reason for believing in God, it would not be enough.
quote:Those stimuli have also been filtered through by a believer's mind, which is more likely to interpret an unexplained experience as an act of God. There are simpler explanations which are better grounded in our scientific knowledge. Again, Occam's Razor serves as a handy guideline.
I don't like using Occam's Razor as a guideline for anything...because if Occam's razor is the onl guideline the evidence (or lack) affords, then in my opinion you can hardly reason towards anything at all.
quote:As you pointed out, the existence of God can not be disproved, it's just highly improbable. As improbable as the existence of Hindu gods, or Allah, or a flying spaghetti monster. There are however many things that can be disproved in the Bible, either by scientific evidence (such as regarding the age of the earth), or by virtue of certain passages being contradictory (logic dictates that one or the other must be inaccurate).
Well, I think we can certainly agree that the existence of FSM isn't less unlikely than the existence of God or Allah or other worshipped gods. After all, there is a chance-albeit a very small one, to a non-believer-that God exists in some form or another, because so many believe in God. FSM has no such dubious support.
As for the Bible, well...before using the Bible to remove evidence for God's existence, please bear in mind that many people believe many things about the Bible. Some people even fully acknowledge its fallibility as a document that's been translated over and over and over for thousands of years with many, many influences,
quote:Yes, the hallucination/imagination/dreams explanations are backed up by a lot of research and deductive conclusions which can be drawn from more widely accepted science, but haven't been proven in every case. I would disagree that we're "just beginning" to become aware of brain chemistry. I'd grant that there's much we don't know, but almost everything we've found so far is in favour of a materialist conception of human beings.
I did not mean to imply that we're just beginning to become aware of brain chemistry, but rather the sciences studying such things are in relative terms in their infancy, aren't they?
And also, bear in mind that those whose brain chemistry receieve the most attention are those who are undeniably ill, isn't that right?
quote:I'm not sure that I said people who believe God speaks to them are crazy, only that they have compartmentalised their faculty of reason and aren't using it to evaluate a certain category of claims (religious) about the nature of reality.
Well, you did say they hear voices in their minds, and believe things that aren't true about the real world because of them. That certainly sounds like one definition of the admittedly subjective word 'crazy' to me.
------------
KoM,
quote:Oh, I forgot a fourth reason: In many cases, you can stop the voices by giving the right drugs. Come now, a chemical is going to stop a god? Something doesn't add up there.
Is going to stop a God from what, exactly? Anyway, I think those kinds of drugs, that can directly change human brain chemistry, are quite powerful.
----------- -----------
Whew! Man, this conversation is burning me out.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dagnabbit, I was hoping there was actually a two-page thread about Mitt Romney.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If "I experienced love" can be used as evidence for having experienced love, why cannot "God spoke to me in my prayers" be used as evidence for God, exactly?
The first statement requires no external agency, while the second does; surely asserting the existence of another entity should have some additional support.
This is somewhat tangential, but I highly recommend a book called Blindsight, which is in a large part about consciousness. Paper copies are hard to find (only two small hardcover print runs, so far), but you can get a PDF for free under a Creative Commons license from the author's website.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I don't know what to say about him. I'm tickled pink a Mormon is getting this far in the national political scene; but I don't think he can win the nomination. Evangelicals, in my experience, hate Mormons almost as much as they do gays. They're not going to come out to the primaries and vote for one, even if their other choices are the deeply suspect McCain and Giuliani. Although, honestly, I'm surprised Brownback isn't campaigning harder, since he seems to be the only Republican candidate that would make the Christian Right happy. So maybe I'm wrong in my assessment and missing something important.
Personally, I'm a bit turned off by the way Romney's been rapidly distancing himself from his policies as governor. I don't have the problem some people seem to with flip-floping, if it's done for the right reason; but I don't think winning the Republican nomination is the right reason.
I'm curious, does that aspect of Romney's behavior turn off any of the Mormons on the board?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Honestly, none of the candidates are really worth two pages (let alone multiple threads, like Obama got). I know you're enamored with Romney, kat (much like I am with Obama), but really, he didn't exactly distinguish himself in MA. He ran on a fiscal responsibility platform, equivocating or punting on social issues, and at the start probably did a bit of good. But the last half of term he spent as much time out of state insulting it in front of conservative audiences, using the governorship as a bully pulpit (SSM marriage, death penalty, immigration, etc.), after campaigning that he'd accept the laws of the state.
There's probably a good Mormon candidate out there, but I wouldn't pin my hopes on Mitt. Much like I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on Obama.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes - I don't like it either. I also think he needs to make some defining, rousing speech about his religion so the press can get PAST it. I haven't read a story about Romney yet that didn't mention his religion. That's inconceivable for the other candidates, and I don't like it.
I'm fine with Romney not being elected because of his politics. I don't want him to be rejected because of his religion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Twinky,
Good point. I'm not speaking of conclusive evidence, though. Just evidence.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The DNC article above doesn't specifically mention his Mormonism.
-Bok
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Okay, so you could describe love as being two things; the emotional sensation, and the concept. The concept is an abstraction we formed by describing certain qualia and the positive evaluations of character which trigger them - a category, almost. That doesn't make it mystical or irrational; it still has its basis in our observation of reality.
This is what I just spoke with to KoM about. Love and beauty were not initially defined when he took up their defense. By limiting the definition to something (in my experience) most people don't believe about those two things, you've addressed the disagreement and resolved it.
Honest question: You're saying that my definition of love is flawed, right? Could you point out where?
Just because I describe love as a concept or as a type of emotion or qualia doesn't deny love any of its potency or emotional/moral implications. I don't see a reason to apply mysticism to it, is all.
quote:
quote:"I experienced love", if translated into a scientific claim, could be translated as, "My evaluation of this person set a series of neural reactions in motion within my brain, in such patterns that are known to cause the qualia we call love or strong affection." That is theoretically verifiable, though not practically. Mostly we're content to accept it because so many of us share the experience (or a diluted form of it - affection).
This does not seem very scientific to me, although I'm mostly an ignorant layman. For example, for your claim to be true there would have to be one objective definition of love or affection. There ain't.
Well, we've discovered patterns in neural activity associated with certain emotions. It's not a stretch to hypothesise that there are patterns corresponding to love. Further, we can generally describe the subjective experience of love to others in a conceptual fashion, and observe changes in behaviour which seem to be the result of this emotion. So just as there is a definition for 'hate' or 'honesty', a conceptual definition of love based on reality is indeed possible.
quote:
quote:Those stimuli have also been filtered through by a believer's mind, which is more likely to interpret an unexplained experience as an act of God. There are simpler explanations which are better grounded in our scientific knowledge. Again, Occam's Razor serves as a handy guideline.
I don't like using Occam's Razor as a guideline for anything...because if Occam's razor is the onl guideline the evidence (or lack) affords, then in my opinion you can hardly reason towards anything at all.
My bringing up Occam's Razor was a caveat to point out that we're often better off by creating hypothesies with as few unverified premises as possible.
quote:
quote:As you pointed out, the existence of God can not be disproved, it's just highly improbable. As improbable as the existence of Hindu gods, or Allah, or a flying spaghetti monster. There are however many things that can be disproved in the Bible, either by scientific evidence (such as regarding the age of the earth), or by virtue of certain passages being contradictory (logic dictates that one or the other must be inaccurate).
Well, I think we can certainly agree that the existence of FSM isn't less unlikely than the existence of God or Allah or other worshipped gods. After all, there is a chance-albeit a very small one, to a non-believer-that God exists in some form or another, because so many believe in God. FSM has no such dubious support.
Agreed, if we count the circumstantial evidence of a church's popularity, Catholicism does appear to have a better chance of being accurate than Pastafarianism does. The belief of a group of people though, has no actual bearing on the state of reality, so without evidence that is more than circumstantial, I'll remain highly sceptical.
quote:As for the Bible, well...before using the Bible to remove evidence for God's existence, please bear in mind that many people believe many things about the Bible. Some people even fully acknowledge its fallibility as a document that's been translated over and over and over for thousands of years with many, many influences,
I wouldn't use the Bible to argue against the existence of a creator entity, but I would use it to argue against the truthfulness of Christian doctrine; more specifically, the doctrine of those who accept the Bible as truth. If certain Christians accept that it is full of inaccuracies, how can they be certain that all the important messages are still true? To those who cherry pick parts of the Bible, what criteria did you use to determine which statements in the Bible were true or worth believing in, while the others aren't?
quote:
quote:Yes, the hallucination/imagination/dreams explanations are backed up by a lot of research and deductive conclusions which can be drawn from more widely accepted science, but haven't been proven in every case. I would disagree that we're "just beginning" to become aware of brain chemistry. I'd grant that there's much we don't know, but almost everything we've found so far is in favour of a materialist conception of human beings.
I did not mean to imply that we're just beginning to become aware of brain chemistry, but rather the sciences studying such things are in relative terms in their infancy, aren't they?
Yes, I'd say so.
quote:And also, bear in mind that those whose brain chemistry receieve the most attention are those who are undeniably ill, isn't that right?
Yes, but is that an offhand way of discrediting psychological research as a field? Studying inconsistencies and irregularities have often shed light on the way things are organised when they aren't dysfunctional. Psychologists are very careful about what conclusions they draw from their studies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You're saying that my definition of love is flawed, right? Could you point out where?
Not at all! I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I only think your definition is flawed if you mean it to represent what most people think about love...and in any case, that would not mean I think your definition is flawed. I just don't agree with it is all.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding. The above is my definition based on the information I have, and I'm convinced that other definitions which include any metaphysical element are incorrect insofar as such a thing is imaginary. So, I think a lot of people are talking about a non-existent meta-entity (for lack of a better word) when they talk about Love.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
> Evangelicals, in my experience, hate Mormons almost as much as they do gays.
It is still breathtaking to me that amount of personal bigotry people will admit to, provided the target is an OK-to-hate group like evangelicals.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I wish I had KoM's magical powers of derailment.
It's not magical. He has no powers except those that are given to him by other posters.
I am boggled that people still let him turn every thread dealing with religion that he wishes into a thread about KoM and what a jackass he is.
The sad thing is that because people respond when he tries to do so, Hatrack is no longer a place where religion can be respectfully discussed between others. All he has to do is come into the thread, jump up and down, and the thread's initial conversation is effectively over.
Yes, it is possible to continue the discussion amidst the screaming match, but the signal-to-noise ratio is so low that it drives most posters away.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I was evangelical for several years. I listened to several sermons about how bad Mormons are. The only Jack Chick tract I've ever seen in real life was the Mormon one, and my pastor's daughter was reading it. I used the qualifier "in my experience" for a reason.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: JFK said "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters - and the Church does not speak for me."
Does anyone forsee Romney making a similiar statement? How different are traditional Mormon values from the current Republican party platform, anyways?
In the temple, when you get your garments and do your endowments, there is a ceremony that is a very spiritual experience for many people. I will not trash there beliefs and quote the ceremony because it is very sacred to the owners of this forum and many members.
However, the gist of one particular is that you consecrate everything to the building up the Kingdom of God--which is the LDS church. It is very bold and leaves little room for misunderstanding. You pledge everything. Time, resources, life.
What I would LOVE to see happen is for a reporter to ask if Romney has been through the temple. I would then like them to quote that part of the ceremony and ask him how that would influence his presidency.
I am sure he will give a very politically correct answer, but I think the public needs to be aware that he made that promise in the temple. He will become a very powerful public figure and I think in the context of a presidential run it would be appropriate to hear his response.
I doubt JFK ever made such a commitment to the Catholic church, and so I see very little in common between them in regards to religion.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
That's always the way of it: whenever people chooses to demean a group, they're perfectly justified in their own minds, because that group really does have those awful qualities.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
quote: Evangelicals, in my experience, hate Mormons almost as much as they do gays. They're not going to come out to the primaries and vote for one, even if their other choices are the deeply suspect McCain and Giuliani. Although, honestly, I'm surprised Brownback isn't campaigning harder, since he seems to be the only Republican candidate that would make the Christian Right happy.
Will, Are you saying that many Evangelicals, in blacwolves' experience, don't have strong currents of hatred towards Mormons and gays or just that it is wrong to say that they do?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: JFK said "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters - and the Church does not speak for me."
Does anyone forsee Romney making a similiar statement? How different are traditional Mormon values from the current Republican party platform, anyways?
In the temple, when you get your garments and do your endowments, there is a ceremony that is a very spiritual experience for many people. I will not trash there beliefs and quote the ceremony because it is very sacred to the owners of this forum and many members.
However, the gist of one particular is that you consecrate everything to the building up the Kingdom of God--which is the LDS church. It is very bold and leaves little room for misunderstanding. You pledge everything. Time, resources, life.
What I would LOVE to see happen is for a reporter to ask if Romney has been through the temple. I would then like them to quote that part of the ceremony and ask him how that would influence his presidency.
I am sure he will give a very politically correct answer, but I think the public needs to be aware that he made that promise in the temple. He will become a very powerful public figure and I think in the context of a presidential run it would be appropriate to hear his response.
I doubt JFK ever made such a commitment to the Catholic church, and so I see very little in common between them in regards to religion.
I think you have gotten the wrong impression from the ceremony you are quoting.
1: If the ceremony meant what you think it means, how could I spend any time going to school/work or even writing this particular post?
2: 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."
Now some wonderful people very literally give up everything for the path of Christ and that's admirable, if its done out of love.
It is also true that Mormons believe that one day we will be required to live a "law of consecration" again, which is a form of theological socialism. But right now is not that time. Part of the impression I got was that I was promising that when that law is reestablished I will obey it.
For Mormons we all belong to God anyway, and should he request any service or act of us, we ought to do it. How is that any different from any other Christian sect?
I think perhaps you have misunderstood a covenant to mean something it does not.
I've already heard Romney say he does not represent the church while he is president. Does that mean he will disregard his entire moral compass while president? I doubt it, but do we really expect that from any other president?
I would suggest if you are concerned with Romney converting America into a country more accustomed to what Mormons appreciate you should learn of the religion and decide whether you believe that is an acceptable or unacceptable situation.
But its my guess that Romney will make America as Mormon as JFK made it Catholic.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
quote:1: If the ceremony meant what you think it means, how could I spend any time going to school/work or even writing this particular post?
Because you're doing those things (or should be doing those things) to build up the kingdom of God.
Zion isn't built on whispered prayers alone.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you saying that many Evangelicals, in blacwolves' experience, don't have strong currents of hatred towards Mormons and gays or just that it is wrong to say that they do?
I think he's saying that going from the proven statement "some people who belong to group A have characteristic X" to "characteristic X is an attribute of members of group A" is bigoted.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I understand. That sounds like a tautology to me.
If you mean to say "characteristic X is an attribute of all members of group A", I could see that as bigoted, but I'd ask where anyone said anything like that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I wish I had KoM's magical powers of derailment.
It's not magical. He has no powers except those that are given to him by other posters.
I am boggled that people still let him turn every thread dealing with religion that he wishes into a thread about KoM and what a jackass he is.
The sad thing is that because people respond when he tries to do so, Hatrack is no longer a place where religion can be respectfully discussed between others. All he has to do is come into the thread, jump up and down, and the thread's initial conversation is effectively over.
Yes, it is possible to continue the discussion amidst the screaming match, but the signal-to-noise ratio is so low that it drives most posters away.
I prefer to believe it's magic rather than that people are so, uh, how should one say, silly?
KoM, I support your right and need to question religion, but there is such a thing as, you know, timing and tact. Starting another thread or something might be more appropriate. I'm sure people would love to debate you.
[ February 21, 2007, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure I understand. That sounds like a tautology to me.
I know, from previous dicussions, that you see this as a tautology. I find thinking it to be a tautology to be sloppy. The only way you can make it a tautology is by mentally adding the word "some" to the statement, which is as unjustified as adding the word "all" to the statement.
My contention is NOT that blacwolve said that all evangelicals hate Mormons, but that her original statement - even with the qualifier "in my experience" - can be interpreted as a universal statement about a group (in this case, the group of evangelicals that blacwolve has experienced). It is ambiguous, and the only way to clarify it is to add "some" or "all."
You presented a false dichotomy to Will when you asked him what he was saying. I gave a (much more likely, but still unconfirmed) interpretation of what he was saying. In presenting that dichotomy, you added a quantitiative qualifier, most likely because you yourself recognize that the lack of such a qualifier leaves the statement ambiguous.
However, Will B's statements were in response to a statement about a group that had no quantitative qualifier. Your question was based on faulty assumptions about Will's perception.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The only way you can make it a tautology is by mentally adding the word "some" to the statement
Dag, when others, such as OSC, made statements about psychologists or liberals or whatever, you've told me that it was clear that they actually meant things even more specific than "some". What makes this different?
---
edit: Also, following your explanation that this is ambiguous, wouldn't you then agree that Will's accusations of bigotry were at best premature?
[ February 21, 2007, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In addition, I'd note that prejudice towards gays and Mormons is a well-established characteristic of a significant number of Evangelicals, even outside of blacwolve's experience. That is not to say that all of them have this characteristic, but many of them do and it seems linked to the things that make up their group classification.
Is it bigotry to say that though?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's not easy dealing with a lot of the light/dark symbolism in the Book of Mormon when you are a person of color. I mean, I'm only half Asian, but when Nephi talks about a "skin of blackness" he's apparently talking about what we consider Native Americans. Then there is Brigham Young's decree on miscegenation and the various things Joseph F. Smith said over the years. I mean, when the scriptures use blindness as a metaphor, they aren't trying to say that people who can't see well or at all are any more fallen than the rest of us.
I don't struggle with these things any longer, but they are difficult to handle growing up in the church, let alone looking at it from the outside. I've never heard the "God doesn't hear their prayers" thing, but I've heard of weirder hang-ups getting gleaned from Mormonism.
I'm kind of ignorant about and afraid of Evangelicals, so I guess the feeling is mutual. Though I think most people don't understand why Mormons are so feared, there are many reasons to fear them but I think our doctrine on lay ministry is one that is never mentioned but is probably a bigger motive than people realize.
P.S. I checked the wikipedia entry and now I'm just more confused. I guess it's an multi-denominational "movement" or parachurch? I suppose Mormonism could seem just as weird if someone were intent on misunderstanding it, though our hierarchy isn't so different from Catholicism. But to be restorationist with the hierarchy could seem chimaeric.
[ February 21, 2007, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
quote:I think our doctrine on lay ministry is one that is never mentioned but is probably a bigger motive than people realize.
Why?
Come to think of it, I know why-- people fear speaking in front of crowds more than death. (I read a study somewhere) Because Mormons have a complete lay ministry, eventually everyone has to get up and speak (or preach) to the congregation.
Yeah. I can see why that'd frighten people away.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, when others, such as OSC, made statements about psychologists or liberals or whatever, you've told me that it was clear that they actually meant things even more specific than "some". What makes this different?
How on earth is that relevant to my attempts to explain what Will B. meant? You contended it was a tautology, which implies that the ONLY way to interpret it is to read an implicit "some" in "characteristic X is an attribute of members of group A."
It's not a tautology precisely because it's ambiguous. There's no more reason to add a a "some" to a non-quantitatively qualified statement than there is to add an "all." I have done neither in this case, merely pointed out that the ambiguity makes it very possible that Wil B meant something entirely different than the two choices you offerred him.
I have argued in past discussions that it was most likely that OSC meant "some." The very act of making such an argument acknowledges the ambiguity.
In other words, they're not different, and my reaction to each is entirely consistent with the fact that the statements are ambiguious.
quote:wouldn't you then agree that Will's accusations of bigotry were at best premature?
I'm not interested in venturing an opinion on the appropriateness of Will B's statement. I only ventured into this because I thought the dichotomy you presented in "Are you saying that many Evangelicals, in blacwolves' experience, don't have strong currents of hatred towards Mormons and gays or just that it is wrong to say that they do?" failed to take into account a very likely interpretation of blacwolve's original statement by WIll.
If you want to take up whether Will B's interpretation is correct or not (which would only make sense if he confirms my interpretation of what he said), then go ahead and do so with him. You won't be able to reference my prior statements about OSC when you do so, of course, because Will didn't make them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Come to think of it, I know why-- people fear speaking in front of crowds more than death. (I read a study somewhere) Because Mormons have a complete lay ministry, eventually everyone has to get up and speak (or preach) to the congregation.
No, I was more talking around the issue of "priestcraft", which is what the Book of Mormon calls what is now known as ordained ministry. I don't want to be offensive to most ordained ministers because most of them are genuine in their service. On the other hand you have the Jim Baker's and the Oral Roberts (I think, I suppose he might just be crazy and not corrupt.) I don't even know if the term "televangelist" is just clever sounding, or if evangelical christianity shares ground with televangelists.
Certainly there are those who imply Mormons are greedy, but I was thinking the other day that we don't pay for ordinances. I don't know to what extent people do in churches in general, but I believe additional donations if not outright fees are involved in baptisms, confirmations, weddings, and so forth. Anyway, I don't think Mitt is worried about the people who think Mormons are too rich and successful.
I respect Mitt a great deal and I think he'd make a good president, I just think the timing of the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is going to stink. And if he's campaigning during that (Sept. 11 2007) it becomes a big deal, whereas if there weren't a Mormon running for president, it would just be one of those things.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pooka, I have to say that your last couple of posts made me a little uncomfortable. I'm going to limit my comments to two points:
1. I don't think you're right about the lay ministry being what evangelicals have a problem with. It's different, but not wildly different, and I don't think it is threatening.
2. You have to be a full tithe payer to go to the temple, and you have to commit to paying tithing to be baptized. I do NOT think it is a commercial transaction - it isn't. It's a commitment to a commandment, and if someone isn't intending on even trying to keep the commandments then the commitment seems a little iffy. Still - no tithing, no baptism or temple. I think calling it a commercial transaction is wrong for both LDS and other denominations.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ministers receive fees and gratuities for weddings. I don't know to what extent it happens for other ordinances (outside of Reform Judaism). You also usually have to pay more than $25 to use the facilities at a "normal" church. ($25 or some other utilities mitigation fee is what Mormons pay the actual church to do a wedding reception.) Also, "commercial" is a word you have introduced to the discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But you won't be given access to the temple for a wedding or whatever unless you tithe. From a simplified perspective, it's the difference between having a subscription and paying a one-time fee. If you don't want to be accused of the money thing, you've got no leg to stand on to attack other religions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I wholeheartedly agree. One wonders, though, at the lack of application to religious thinking. Millions, even billions, of people do good things and lead good lives influenced heavily in part by their religion, which is based exclusively on the internal, the interpretation of voices in one's head and events in one's life.
But it don't get your support. This is the inconsistency I've been waiting to hear more about this whole time...the extent of your answer is that it's not an inconsistency, because religious people believe things about the external world based on the internal...and people believing in love and beauty don't? Doesn't wash with me, at least not until you define those terms as you have.
I think you are confusing moral claims and factual ones. My list of things that people do for love was not intended to argue that love is a good thing. It was intended to argue that love exists. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I approve; I could have come up with a similar list for hate, or for supporting a sports team. Let me remind you of the original context: I said that a candidate's beliefs should be empirically supported; Irami claimed that this would let out candidates who believed in love and beauty; I am now arguing for why I think a belief in love is empirically supported. That we all think love is quite a good thing is completely irrelevant to this.
Now to how religion affects people's lives: This shows that religious belief exists. It does not show that any gods exist. That's the difference. Let me break it up with two hypothetical candidates:
Candidate A: Love exists. Love is a good thing.
These are two statements. The first is empirically supported, as I have just argued. The second is a moral belief, not a factual one, and I therefore do not demand empirical support for it.
Candidate B: God exists.
This is only one statement, and not empirically supported.
quote:What's your empirical support for the belief that moral axioms don't require empirical support?
I see my original post was a little badly worded, at least when dealing with a lawyer. Try "All statements and beliefs about facts should be empirically supported." This is not itself a statement about facts, hence it does not undermine itself. "God exists", however, is a statement about facts.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
My minister at my wedding got a seat at the table (EDIT: at the reception), and I gave an offering to his church (he is now retired, he is a lay person in his church), and that's it. He was the minister of my family's church for 30+ years, and married my parents and baptized me, so that may have been part of it, but he didn't say, he just refused a direct payment, even though the wedding was ~3 hours from his house, each way.
So not all ministers (and probably not all ministers in any given church) charge. Then again, I am most decidedly NOT a member of an evangelical church (at least my particular tradition isn't).
-Bok
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Pooka, ministers traditionally receive an honorarium for weddings. In my experience, it is not a set amount, but rather what the couple wishes to give. Please remember that for ordained ministers in most Protestant denominations this is their job, as well as their calling, and Saturday is usually their one day off a week.
There are no "extra" donations expected for baptisms or confirmation, and I have never heard of a member having to pay to use the facilities at a church. But I have never booked a wedding, either, so perhaps for larger events when the church is not normally open there is a fee for having janitorial staff on hand or something.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think this is dicey territory. It isn't just the humans - someone has to pay the light bill.
In any case, I don't think that's a source for contempt of Mormons. I do, think, however, that it sometimes goes the otherway, unfortunately. While I'm a big fan of a lay ministry and tithing, I'm uncomfortable with criticizing other religions for their money structure.
Barring the televangelists using the money to pay for plastic surgery and private jets, of course. However, those are really the egregious exceptions.
quote:I have never heard of a member having to pay to use the facilities at a church
This does exist. There's a church in Dallas that Matt and I visited on a Sunday night one time (Matt's studying religious history - this makes for the occasionally unusual date), and somehow we found out that it cost almost four thousand dollars, even for the members, in a facilities fee to be married in their chapel. That was a little boggling.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But you won't be given access to the temple for a wedding or whatever unless you tithe. From a simplified perspective, it's the difference between having a subscription and paying a one-time fee. If you don't want to be accused of the money thing, you've got no leg to stand on to attack other religions.
No you shouldn't be given access. I am quite confident that if I did none of those things I could still secure access of the temple and partake in the ordinances, temple worthiness has always been at its core something between the individual and God himself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Black Blade, I'm not sure what your last post said. Do you mean you think you could still go to the temple if you didn't pay tithing?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, Perhaps I've misunderstood previous conversations to this effect, but I was under the impression that if an LDS member did not tithe, they would not be welcome to participate in temple ceremonies. Is that incorrect?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I don't know to what extent people do in churches in general, but I believe additional donations if not outright fees are involved in baptisms, confirmations, weddings, and so forth.
I have never heard of a church charging for a baptism or confirmation, or expecting any additional donation. I find the idea outragous. For weddings there may be building use fees, fees for the organist (although you can choose to provide your own), fees for printing bulletins or various other optional services. To come in and get married by the pastor in front of two witnesses with no "extras" -- no charge.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: This does exist. There's a church in Dallas that Matt and I visited on a Sunday night one time (Matt's studying religious history - this makes for the occasionally unusual date), and somehow we found out that it cost almost four thousand dollars, even for the members, in a facilities fee to be married in their chapel. That was a little boggling.
Good lord. No pun intended. Like I said, I've never tried to reserve a church for a wedding, and I think some sort of fee to cover the wage of the person who comes to unlock it and the heat and lights for when you're there is perfectly reasonable. But four grand? Wow.
Is it a historic/incredibly beautiful chapel, at least?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It was in a brand-new church that looked like the campus of a small liberal arts college and was located in a tony suburb. I figure that the church cost millions to build. To its credit, it was a very beautiful chapel.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I wish I had KoM's magical powers of derailment.
They can be yours. All you have to do is say three magic words.
"Hitler was right."
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I wonder if they have a sliding fee scale for members who are less well off. I can't imagine being a member of a church and wanting to get married there, and not be able to afford even a modest wedding at my actual church because the facilities fees were so high.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wish I could remember the name of it - I know they have a website. *thinks*
UPDATE: Okay, I found it. There is a price of $4,000 at one point, but that is the highest price and it is for non-members having what is apparently a state wedding. The most common, I would imagine, is for members in the chapel. That's $1200 for the facilities fee.
quote:I wish I had KoM's magical powers of derailment.
They can be yours. All you have to do is say three magic words.
"Hitler was right."
I don't think that would work, actually. Nobody feels like arguing with an idiot who would make such a statement, because it doesn't touch them emotionally. People are quite secure in their belief that Hitler was wrong; it's not a matter for controversy. However, they are not very secure in their religious beliefs; hence any challenge there is immediately met with a vast defensive mobilisation, thread derailment be damned.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
While I hesitate to say that that's much more reasonable, it is a lot cheaper. And I'm sure any hall that seats 7000 would be on the pricey side to rent. (The $4,000 non-member level.) Oh, and it includes a wedding coordinator, lighting and sound technician. . .
But yeah, I'm sure most people would be using the chapel or the Atrium, for $800, if they have less than 200 people. And an office wedding with just family and no set up is still no charge.
Thanks for finding it! Interesting site to poke around on. Not my cup of tea as a church, but hey.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
quote:I am quite confident that if I did none of those things I could still secure access of the temple and partake in the ordinances, temple worthiness has always been at its core something between the individual and God himself.
Well...you can SAY that you pay an honest tithe, even when you don't. It's not like the Stake Pres., or Bishop or whatever is going to check. They take your word for it.
So...yeah. You can lie to them. You can go and partake in the temple ordinances even if you aren't a full tithe payer, or if you sleep around, or if you don't believe in God.
pooka--
I think it far more likely that pastors of other faiths object to Mormonism for the reasons they say they object to it: doctrinal differences. I don't think there is a fear among other Christian congregations that the Mormons are going to steal their meal ticket.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
My goodness. They have a Director of Weddings and five Wedding Coordinators on staff.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kat/MrS: You are not SUPPOSED to, and bishops and stake presidents who issue "reccomends" are charged with making sure they perform good interviews and are sensitive to things that are amiss. But it's not a system devised with the premise, "People guarding the house of God."
You are asked questions, and yes one of them is "Are you a full Tithe payer." If you say yes more often then not that is the end of the question. Mormons have tithing settlement, but whether you turn up for it is your decision, and I have never seen a bishop demand you be there at a given time.
Thus its quite possible to do none of the things that qualify you for temple admittance and yet still attend. The people who work within the temple do not do background checks on entrants, simply having your recommend card is good enough for them.
edit: LOAF, yes that was my point. I was just trying to indicate that you can't literally say that temple admittance is contingent on you paying out monetarily. I'd like to think it's better that God simply knows if you are worthily entering his house.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
For reference, we paid $300 to the Church for our wedding. Of the other sacraments I've received, there was no charge for confirmation, first or subsequent communion, baptism, or reconciliation. I doubt there's one for holy orders, and I know there's not one for annointing of the sick.
Out of 7 sacraments, there was a fairly minor (for the area) charge for one, which included the use of a large building, including HVAC, lighting, and the usual facilities expenses, plus a fair amount of written materials, and quite a few manhours of effort. And I know that, had we not been able to afford it, we would have been able to be married without paying it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
BB, the only fuzzy in there it seems to me is what exactly constitutes a full tithing. However, if you are not even trying and know it, I don't think lying in a recommend interview is the same thing as it being okay to go to the temple even if you don't pay tithing.
If you are saying that no one is running your credit card at the door, that's definitely correct. It's fair to say you cannot go to the temple honestly without paying tithing, though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Katharina: Missionaries go to the temple all the time without paying any tithing. If I am unemployed I can still attend the temple as 10% of 0 is still 0. And beyond that you can lie your way in.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I was trying to pose the point that you don't actually have to pay any money to go to the temple. Faithful members of the church should tither their 10% as it demonstrates their willingness to recognize that all they receive is a gift. People with that mindset are invited to enter the temple.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Yes - I don't like it either. I also think he needs to make some defining, rousing speech about his religion so the press can get PAST it. I haven't read a story about Romney yet that didn't mention his religion. That's inconceivable for the other candidates, and I don't like it.
I'm fine with Romney not being elected because of his politics. I don't want him to be rejected because of his religion.
To be fair, when talking about the Right, whenever I read an article about a candidate, it almost always talks about religion. It's a crucible that Right candidates MUST face, so it's talked about in the media. For Giuliani, it's how his social policies differ almost 180 from church positions. For McCain, it's how he never publicly talks about his faith, and how he publicly shunned the Church seven years ago, and now is trying to cozy up to them. For Romney, it's about him being a Mormon. I certainly think it's there, just maybe not to quite the same degree.
The debate doesn't show up so much on the Left, because voters don't really care as much, it's not something they have to deal with to win a primary, it's something they have to deal with to win a General, which is why come next February, you'll start seeing those same news articles talk about Left candidates and their religious views.
You can't really blame the media, the issue IS important to Right voters, and they are reporting it. What they should be doing, I think, is holding panel discussions amongst church leaders, including Mormons, so people can see the disgagreements, and decide for themselves whether or not those differences can be accepted.
As for not voting in a candidate based on his religious beliefs...hoo boy. I think that the more religious someone is, the more likely they are to not vote for someon based on the candidate's religion. I don't think it's fair to say "I don't want him to be rejected because of his religion." I think it was Scott R I was discussing issues with in another thread, I can't remember the specific topic, but basically it came down to the fact that we disagreed on something, it had something to do with voting for a candidate, and he said that he places his religious beliefs before those of the nation, and votes accordingly. As such, if the religious beliefs of a candidate are antithetical to his own, I'd assume they would be automatically eliminated.
Religion will always be a factor. Chances are I'm always going to be less likely to vote for a highly religious candidate because they'll be opposed to gay marriage (which actually, I think is what Scott and I were discussing in the thread I mentioned). Religion will always matter to people on the Left because it effects the politics of the candidate. It will always matter to the Right, because voting doctrine is important to them. Those are grand generalizations I know, and it doesn't bear out perfectly, but in general that is the way it is.
And I think a Mormon would have a better chance, based on his religion alone, of running on the Democratic ticket than the Republican. If Romney can't make it to the White House, it's the fault of the Christian Right.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tithing is percentage of increase. If you don't have increase, you don't pay anything. If you do have increase and do not pay tithing, then in order to go to the temple you have to lie at some point.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm with dkw on this one, in my experience. Of note is that my church there are only two sacraments recognized: baptism and communion. And those, to my knowledge are always free.
-Bok
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In my current church we have a tradition of collecting food for the food pantry and money for the emergency assistance fund on the first Sunday of every month. The tradition has been to put out boxes for the money at the front of the center aisle and people put in their donation when they come forward for communion. I HATE this tradition, because it gives the appearance of paying to receive communion, even though they are not connected except in the timing.
However, to change it would go against the strongest folk doctrine of any church -- "But We've Always Done It That Way!" So I haven't picked that particular fight yet. Next year, maybe.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
If you do, invite me. I loves me some good church wrasslin matches.
"Danamite from the top ropes-- ooo! Elbow to Jimmy 'Holy Man' Smits' face! But look out-- it's the Choirboy, coming out of the choir loft!
HOLY SMOKES! Danamite puts him in a Cross lock!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't think that would work, actually. Nobody feels like arguing with an idiot who would make such a statement, because it doesn't touch them emotionally. People are quite secure in their belief that Hitler was wrong; it's not a matter for controversy. However, they are not very secure in their religious beliefs; hence any challenge there is immediately met with a vast defensive mobilisation, thread derailment be damned.
Ever seen a eugenics argument? Ever seen a blog invaded by Steve Sailer toadies?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But those aren't Hatrackers, so they're not really people, as such. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
you attest that it has lesser derailment value because belief against it is so strong. The inverse is true: the near-universality of position against it creates three polarizing conditions.
1. Nearly everyone's against it. So nearly everyone feels confident to chime in against it. 2. Since nearly everyone's against it, the people who are not against it are obsessive and zealotic and near impervious to counterpoint, and will band together in diehard idealism and entrench themselves in defense of their position. 3. The subject doesn't get debated much, so a bunch of people hop in who wouldn't hop in to subjects that have been sandblasted ad nauseum.
A tenuous #4 may apply where people jump in to say 'raagh, this topic should be locked (etc etc).'
It kind of paints an inverse construct of your supposition that religious arguments are furious for virtue of insecurity of position.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:In any case, I don't think that's a source for contempt of Mormons
What sparked this whole issue for me was two things: the last person who told me Mormonism a cult said the principal thing that made it so was tithing. (She was not interested in discussing theology at all.)
When I was working at the synagogue, I was a little shocked to see how much tithing was compared with the synagogue annual dues. It was actually something that sort of shook my faith in the tithing system. Then I came to realize that people make other donations all the time for various reasons, and they make substantial donations at the time of various life events. So it wasn't necessarily the case that I paid more to my church.
I apologize for offending so many people. I guess different cultures have different attitudes about money. I suppose Suze Orman was right that it's more polite to discuss sex than money in American society.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Speaking only for myself, I don't find anything you (or anyone else) has said offensive, but I did want to be completely clear that no one is ever charged to receive a sacrament in any church I have ever heard of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ditto, on both counts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*thinks* I think tithing is a major committment. I met several people on my mission whose issue was tithing. I know people now whose concern is with tithing in one aspect or another.
It is very possible that in terms of dollar amounts, 10% is more than is expected or advised in other denominations. That's okay. It doesn't change why we pay it in the first place.
(For what it is worth, I think that for every principle out there, there's someone with a concern with it. I met one guy whose concern was repentance - he had a problem with anyone asking him to repent, because he thought it implied he wasn't good enough as he was. Very interesting.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Me three.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Scientology.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kat -- 10% has been advised in both the United Methodist and Lutheran churches I've attended. However, I think it's probably less common than in LDS congregations. No one is ever asked if they are tithing, and there are no consequences if you don't.
Edit for clarity: I think it's less common that people actually do it, not that it's what's advised. I'm pretty sure 10% is considered the baseline for all Christian denominations, after all, that's what a tithe is. But it isn't stressed very often, usually just talked about during the annual stewardship drive, which usually takes place over a month or so in the fall. Most churches I've been a part of stress giving of your time as well as money during that time, too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That makes sense. I think 10% as a number is mentioned in the scriptures somewhere. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"A tithe" means "one tenth", just to "to decimate" means "kill one in ten". Hence the number.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Or maybe the other way around. Apparently the standard Babylonian land tax was ten percent, and that's where the number comes from. But the English word 'tithe' does come from an Old English word meaning one-tenth. Yay Wiki!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: (For what it is worth, I think that for every principle out there, there's someone with a concern with it. I met one guy whose concern was repentance - he had a problem with anyone asking him to repent, because he thought it implied he wasn't good enough as he was. Very interesting.)
In a similar vein, I've met people who won't sing "Amazing Grace" because they don't think they should have to call themselves "a wretch."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: (For what it is worth, I think that for every principle out there, there's someone with a concern with it. I met one guy whose concern was repentance - he had a problem with anyone asking him to repent, because he thought it implied he wasn't good enough as he was. Very interesting.)
In a similar vein, I've met people who won't sing "Amazing Grace" because they don't think they should have to call themselves "a wretch."
*Wishes Amazing Grace was in the LDS hymnbook.*
KOM: I always feel awkward using decimate in the context of, "Army A decimated Army B" because I always have to think "Did Army A really kill around 10% of Army B?" People just don't use it in its original context anymore, but my brain wishes we did.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hey, I've heard that, too. It's one of the folk theories for why Amazing Grace isn't in the LDS hymnbook.
Edit: Wow, that's what happens when there's a lasp between writing the post and actually submitting it.
As an utter side note, President Hinkley went to his first movie in a theatre in years when Larry Miller hosted a screening of Amazing Grace.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That makes sense. I think 10% as a number is mentioned in the scriptures somewhere.
Several places, although none is (explicitly) referring to money -- rather to livestock and produce.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Historically LDS tithing was collected in livestock and produce before money became absolute currency. Every once and a while someone still makes payment in that way - perhaps more so in 3erd World Countries.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Historically LDS tithing was collected in livestock and produce before money became absolute currency. Every once and a while someone still makes payment in that way - perhaps more so in 3erd World Countries.
I've still heard of small farmers paying with produce even in the US.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Speaking only for myself, I don't find anything you (or anyone else) has said offensive, but I did want to be completely clear that no one is ever charged to receive a sacrament in any church I have ever heard of.
I was a bit taken back when we were asked to make a donation to the church where my Mother In-Laws funeral was held. It just seemed so tacky to ask for a donation to hold a funeral mass. But I'm sure they would have done it even if we had declined to make a donation.
Actually, the way the whole funeral was handled bothered me quite a bit. She had been a parishener there for over 30 years and had been a eucharistic minister until her final illness. She had requested that a particular priest who she had known well give the mass but we were told that wasn't possible without any explanation. We were barely consulted regarding arangements for the mass. I had prepared a eulogy for her and had the damnedest time even finding out at what point in the mass I was to give it. The priest who delivered the mass mispronounced her name through out. The whole thing just seemed very cold to me in comparison to the traditions in my church where the funeral would be handled largely by closest family and friends with the Bishop other leaders there to provide support to the family.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
No one even laughed at my 'Danamite' comment.
I'm depressed, now.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I laughed. Although more at the fact that if you changed "Jimmy" to "Judy" you would have had the name of our coordinator of youth & children's ministry. The idea of that inter-office brawl was amusing.
edit: Gah, top of page!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Rabbit, I'm sorry that was your experience. I have heard that type of horror story before, but I still believe it is the exception rather than the rule. It's not been my experience at the dozen or so funerals I've been to for family or friends of several different denominations, and it's definitely something I do my hardest to avoid at the funerals I officiate. Even the time I officiated at a funeral for someone I'd never met with less than two hours notice* I made sure to spend every minute available before hand talking with the family to make sure I heard some of their stories about their mother/sister and that they knew what was happening and were able to participate at whatever level they desired.
*very unusual circumstances -- the pastor in the neighboring town had a sudden attack of kidney stones and was rushed to the hospital.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lord Of All Fools: No one even laughed at my 'Danamite' comment.
I did, inside.
I think from now on we should all call dkw that. All the time.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Okay.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: In a similar vein, I've met people who won't sing "Amazing Grace" because they don't think they should have to call themselves "a wretch."
Heh. We just change the words. We have centuries of practice in co-opting good stuff and altering it to suit us.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The other folk theory for why it isn't in the hymnbook is because of copyright issues, because there are lots of other hymns there that have had the words changed to suit, so why not that one? For kicks, listen to In Our Lovely Deseret.
The last folk theory I heard was that the exclusion was the result of a little politics in the music committee a hundred years ago.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I've heard Mormons (okay, one in particular) rage about "Amazing Grace", and how horrible it was and doctrinally wrong to call oneself a "wretch".
I found it ironic that he couldn't see that "Amazing Grace" is so very very much like "I Stand All Amazed", one of his favorites.
Katharina, what am I missing in "Deseret"? What got changed?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have heard that too. I think it's bizarre, especially considering 2 Nephi 4.
Or "How Great Thou Art". That's one of my favorite hymns, I think. I love all the alleluia hymns, and I like How Great Thou Art for how fun it is to sing the chorus. Just a great combination of music and lyrics there.
The melody for "In Our Lovely Deseret" is more recognizable to a lot of people as the melody for "Jesus Loves The Little Children."
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Oh, that, yes. I remember that one from my Methodist-Grandmother days.
So ... How Firm A Foundation is a protestant hymn, and the people in my ward are always talking about how we changed the words in their lifetime. So do other protestants out there still sing "Yoo-hoo unto Jesus"?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In "How Firm a Foundation"? No. Never heard that.
Edit: and our hymnal usually indicateds when words have been changed. So I'm inclined to think that what I'm looking at is the original 1787 version.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
" How firm a Foundation"? Do you mean the playtex song?
EDIT: The phrase "You, who unto Jesus for refuge have fled." is changed to "Who unto the Savior for refuge have fled." Because to fit the meter "You, who unto Jesus" was repeated three times. Now "Who unto the Savior" is repeated three times. To someone looking for sinister motives, it might appear that the change implied that the Savior was some other being, not Jesus.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We change a lot of words and, thankfully, steal a lit of Protestant hymns. Most of the word changes are to make the hymns more inclusive and get rid of somse of the "men only" language. It used to bug me, because sometimes it makes the poetry awkward, but I have come to realize that inclusion is more important.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't supposed to say that, but the phrase is "you, who unto Jesus for refuge has fled." Unfortunately, the comma doesn't really come across.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In my hymnal it's "to you who for refuge to Jesus have fled." It's not repearted three times though. Perhaps you are using a different tune?
Edit: Words and tune as I know them are available here Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You can play the song from this page. Is this the same melody?
Oh, hey, that one does have different words. Where did I here the other one? *scratches head*
Update: Yep, definitely different melodies. I don't think I've heard that melody before - it's very pretty.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What are you favourites? Mine is "Be Thou My Vision", but there are so many I love.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
DKW's hymn tune is "Foundation" The hymn tune for Kat's is "Fidelity". It is a relatively new innovation to print the hymn and the music on the same page. Hymnals traditionally just had the Hymn and the tune was up to the musician. This hymn standing alone has a 11 11 11 11 meter. The Mormons sing it with a 11 11 11 6 6 11 meter. So you have to repeat that line three times. NOTE: It was in the original Mormon hymn book as an 11 11 11 11 hymn. There was no music nor there specified tunes in that book.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*nods*
Our hymnal has a Metrical Index that lists all the hymns by meter so you can see what other tunes you could sing them to.
Example: "Away in a Manger" is also 11 11.11 11 so you could sing "How Firm a Foundation" to the tune of "Away in a Manger."
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I think that the churches-and-money issue gets clouded too easily by a sort of cynical attitude that people have about money — the assumption that when someone asks you for money, it is because of greed, and only because of greed.
The truth is that churches need means to operate, and someone needs to provide those means. At some point or another, in the modern western world, that means that money is going to need to change hands. Whatever bad connotations that has in our culture, it's inevitable. A church is going to ask for money.
In the Mormon church, there is a very strong sense that if you are going to be profiting, spiritually, from your participation in the church, you ought to be helping to support its continued existence. Mormons value responsibility and industry among their highest virtues, and personally, I take issue with someone who has the attitude that they should be able to reap all the benefits of church membership, but that they shouldn't have to contribute anything to keep the church running.
Similarly, I see nothing wrong with other churches passing plates, or asking for dues, or using any of a number of different methods in order to keep themselves solvent and able to continue providing their services to their members.
The place where the money issue gets to be an issue for Mormons is when we see individuals getting rich from religious contributions. When we tithe, there is a strong expectation that our money will be used solely to maintain and advance the church — "build Zion", so to speak. There is nothing greedy or insidious about spending money to maintain your religious infrastructure. But there does seem to be something insidious about an individual who offers religious services in exchange for wealth, particularly when those services are part of a religious tradition (like Christianity) which openly condemns the amassing of wealth for its own sake.
There is also an inherent distrust that Mormons have developed for cases where a person's livelihood is directly connected to what they preach. It just seems a bit too tempting a carrot to hold in front of someone — "If you tell them what they want to hear, your job will be secure." Or, conversely, "If you don't tell them what they want to hear, they'll boot you out and hire another guy."
While I don't think this is actually a significant issue for the vast majority of preachers, still, as a general policy, I'm glad that the people who speak in my church aren't paid to do so. Sometimes they say weird things, and I can't stop them. Not all of them are excellent speakers — none are professionals. But there is a sense of authenticity that I get from listening to a person speak about something they care about, and receive nothing in return.
This natural distrust of the popular circuit preacher, or the franchise-building church mogul, probably stems to some degree from Joseph Smith's first experience with religion — which involved a lot of charismatic traveling revival preachers, and local churches competing divisively for the same pool of potential members. I think that one thing he really valued in the church he began was the ideal that no one's livelihood would depend on earning popularity among the members. No one would be encouraged to become one of these charismatic traveling preachers, or to compete for membership, because there would be no money in it for anyone.
Again, I'm not saying that any particular church falls short of these ideals. But this, I believe, is why the money issue is so important to Mormons, and why we see no problem with paying tithing as a requirement for active membership in our own church, even while many of us often see serious problems with the way money is handled elsewhere. It's not about where the money comes from, or how it is asked for ... but rather, it is about where the money goes, and under what conditions.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Another reason (actually, a much more important reason) for the tithing requirement is an idea that Joseph Smith put into words like so:
quote:Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation;
It's not just a sense that you should help to support the continued provision of a service you enjoy (though you should). It's also simply the fact that sacrifice (in the sense of giving up things that are important to you) is a key part of Mormon worship. It would be meaningless and insulting to put someone through the motions of Mormon ceremonies, etc, without this key ingredient. If someone believes in Mormonism, then this is one of the most elementary parts of what they believe. To require it as a preliminary step before moving on to more serious commitments (like marriage in the temple) seems like a no-brainer to me. If someone is completely unready or unwilling to make sacrifices for the sake of building Zion, then how in the world can God justify asking them for the much greater sacrifices entailed in making temple covenants?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:There is also an inherent distrust that Mormons have developed for cases where a person's livelihood is directly connected to what they preach. It just seems a bit too tempting a carrot to hold in front of someone — "If you tell them what they want to hear, your job will be secure." Or, conversely, "If you don't tell them what they want to hear, they'll boot you out and hire another guy."
Growing up in the Methodist tradition, I must admit that the idea of a church being able to hire and fire its minister seems odd to me, too. Methodist clergy are appointed by a central body, of course, as are Catholic clergy and I believe Episcopalian. I definately agree that it seems like there would be some temptation to moderate your message if you feel your job depends on it, although I attended a Lutheran church for many years, and it certainly didn't seem to be an issue.
Since most of the denominations that do use paid clergy have very established doctrines and require some pretty intensive training and an advanced degree for clergy, however, I think that would somewhat mitigate the temptation to change the message for the audience.
quote:Sometimes they say weird things, and I can't stop them. Not all of them are excellent speakers — none are professionals. But there is a sense of authenticity that I get from listening to a person speak about something they care about, and receive nothing in return.
This is something I wonder about. . . it is apparent from discussions here that there are some pretty divergent views on various topics among LDS. What happens if whoever is speaking that week says something really odd, that most Mormons wouldn't consider correct? Does someone address it? Just to the speaker, or is there a clarification made to the congregation? I imagine something important enough to need a clarification wouldn't come up very often, but what would happen if it did?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
It's the bishop's responsibility to make sure that any false doctrine mistakenly taught from the pulpit is gently, but firmly, corrected. Most of the time, the topics taught in the main church meeting (called sacrament meeting) are straightforward enough that we avoid a lot of the places where it is easy for someone to stray into fringe ideas. But when it happens, there is a safety net.
However, some bishops are too polite, or uncertain enough themselves of a particular doctrine, that they let it slide. Luckily, there are enough different voices in the Church (as different people speak each week) that even when something like that happens, there is a Wikipedia-like correction process Later voices will make the correct point, and more often, so that the overwhelming impression an individual gets is of the truth.
Also, we always have the written word and the words of modern prophets to keep the general church in line with actual doctrine, even when individuals spin out into weird places.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Interestingly enough I had never heard the "wretch" problem with singing Amazing Grace. My father posed the possibility that the hymn leads one to believe that grace is a free gift that one will almost get by default, and that perhaps rubbed the hymn selection committee the wrong way.
<shrugs> I think our hymns are due for a revision, there are just too many that are not that fun to sing and nobody ever sings them. If they SOMEHOW find their way onto a program, people get more annoyed as they try to figure out how to sing it, rather then enjoying the feeling of unity and praise as they sing.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: The place where the money issue gets to be an issue for Mormons is when we see individuals getting rich from religious contributions. When we tithe, there is a strong expectation that our money will be used solely to maintain and advance the church — "build Zion", so to speak. There is nothing greedy or insidious about spending money to maintain your religious infrastructure. But there does seem to be something insidious about an individual who offers religious services in exchange for wealth, particularly when those services are part of a religious tradition (like Christianity) which openly condemns the amassing of wealth for its own sake.
I agree about growing wealthy off religious services. But I draw the line in a slightly different place -- I see a difference between being paid a fixed salary and people who start independent "ministries" where the line between their personal finances and their "ministry" finances is weak. I don't get more money if people put more money in their offering envelope. My salary and benefits are public information, published in the minutes of the meeting at which they are set each year and printed in the church newsletter the week after the meeting. (And if I wanted to grow wealthy I'd have stayed in engineering -- fewer years of post high school education and much higher salaries.)
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
dkw, it sounds like you're handling it well. No criticisms here from me. Transparency is probably the best way to avoid the appearance of corruption. Wish we had more of it in government
And I WAS trying to draw a line between "getting wealthy" and simply receiving money to keep things going (though I wasn't as clear about it as you were). Paying salaries can definitely be a part of a church's budget, as long as — as you point out — there is sufficient transparency, and a strong demarcation between church funding and personal profit.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Oh that's not my handling of it. That's standard for all the major denominations.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Then presume my "you" to apply to "all you folks from major denominations" Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Done.
It's a pretty big issue -- one of my colleagues managed to get personal and church finances tangled recently. He's suspended and facing church trial. It's possible that criminal charges might be filed as well, although probably not since he paid everything back.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:What happens if whoever is speaking that week says something really odd, that most Mormons wouldn't consider correct? Does someone address it? Just to the speaker, or is there a clarification made to the congregation? I imagine something important enough to need a clarification wouldn't come up very often, but what would happen if it did?
I think Sacrament Meeting is usually more mainstream doctrine. But Sunday School classes have a lot more variety. I was certainly taught some things in Sunday School as though they were doctrine that I later learned were not.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote: I was certainly taught some things in Sunday School as though they were doctrine that I later learned were not.
This is why they're constantly harping on us to teach from Church-approved resources - the lesson manuals, the scriptures, Church magazines, etc. So many teachers get upset at this, because there are a lot of good sources out there with more information or cuter pictures or more interesting "object lessons" - but the only way to make sure it's actual Church doctrine that's being taught is to make sure people are all teaching from the same source. And even if they do, personal opinion creeps in. It just does.
As Puppy said (or was it Rat Named Dog? ), it's the bishop's responsibility to make sure that correct doctrine is being taught in the ward, and sometimes he'll have to stand up and issue a correction from the pulpit. It's pretty rare though. Unfortunately he can't be in every Sunday School class, and sometimes certain assumptions get passed along as doctrine that we don't find out aren't exactly "gospel truth" until we get older and/or dig deeper.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Someone told me newer hymnbooks have deleted the extra verses of "How Firm a foundation". I assumed it was for brevity, I'll be sad if it's to get rid of "my grace all sufficient shall be thy supply."
I believe salvation is not part grace, part living faith. It is simultaneously all grace and all living faith.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I thought I would try a list of the most common misconceptions about Mormons I know about. These are about the "mainstream" Mormons.
1) There is only one "Mormon" Church.
This is perhaps where the most persistant misconceptions come from. To be honest, there is a little more than 100 different varieties from the time of Joseph Smith the founder. Today there are two main branches (the one based in Salt Lake City and the Community of Christ based in the East). The rest are smaller offshoots that mostly practice polygamy. They are intersting and sometimes newsworthy, but don't represent the majority of Mormons you would meet.
2) Mormons are polygamists.
Of course this has been discussed at Hatrack a lot. The practice of polygamy has been banned since 1890 (or at least disconntinued by 1910 if you count the possible practice by hangers on). Anyone who practices this is excommunicated. In full disclosure, theologically it has not been rejected.
3)Mormons are racists and think Blacks are cursed
See above discussion about this issue. Historically they have not been any more racist then any other religion. In fact, recent (sorry, don't have the statistics with me) polls show Mormons less likely to be racist then on average. Although I am on the side of denying blacks the priesthood as God sanctioned at one time, there really isn't any official revelation or anouncement as to why or when. As was stated, Joseph Smith ordained a couple blacks to the priesthood.
4) Mormons aren't Christians.
It is true that Mormon perceptions of God and Christ are not like the traditianal Orthodox beliefs. However, the "non-designation" as Christians is less a descriptive as a descriminatory statement. Calling Mormons "non-Christian" does more than try to draw attention to the differences. It is the same as calling a black a N*****, denying something central to personal identification. Mormons believe in Jesus Christ as Savior who died for our Sins and was Resurrected, and the center of worship. Personally, I wouldn't mind the designation non-Orthodox Christian, non-traditional Christian.
more later . . .
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Sorry it took a while for me to get back to you BlackBlade. I have been busy. This is a response to a discussion we were having on page 2...I think.
quote:I think you have gotten the wrong impression from the ceremony you are quoting.
1: If the ceremony meant what you think it means, how could I spend any time going to school/work or even writing this particular post?
No, I did not get the wrong impression. I think fairly clearly and have a lot of temple experience. Part of the covenant is giving your life. Obviously the church is not a suicide cult. You are expected to give everything as the church deems necessary. The church, as is implicitly understood in your covenant, gets to be the finale decider of what and when you sacrifice. As of now members are expected to pay 10% of their income and accept any calling without reservations.
However, you have turned the decision of what and when you sacrifice to the priesthood authority. You really don’t think the voting public would perceive a potential conflict of interests? I think they would want to explore it. I think they deserve to explore it.
quote:2: 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."
Are you implying that a specific covenant to an organization is the same thing as a religious saying by Christ? It also seems like you are suggesting that since members don’t give everything to the church then the rich young man is like the church’s current members. They are not like the rich young man. For the most part they would give everything to the church if the church requested it—which, as both you and I have pointed out, the church hasn’t—yet.
quote:It is also true that Mormons believe that one day we will be required to live a "law of consecration" again, which is a form of theological socialism. But right now is not that time. Part of the impression I got was that I was promising that when that law is reestablished I will obey it.
Exactly. The finale decision maker is the church. You will follow the church because of that specific temple covenant. You don’t think an average American would see a potential conflict with a person who has made the same covenant as you and also having the power of the presidency?
quote:For Mormons we all belong to God anyway, and should he request any service or act of us, we ought to do it. How is that any different from any other Christian sect?
The church views itself as the only true and living church. Which means the political body of the church is understood to be Christ’s organization. The motive may be the same as other churches, but the result is that LDS members have a huge responsibility to build the kingdom of God on this earth by building up what they consider to be His church. That is why the missionary program is much more…aggressive?...no…an expectation for every worthy male member.
quote:I think perhaps you have misunderstood a covenant to mean something it does not.
I hope I have clarified for you that I do understand the covenant.
quote:I've already heard Romney say he does not represent the church while he is president. Does that mean he will disregard his entire moral compass while president? I doubt it, but do we really expect that from any other president?
I never claimed he represents the church. I am not talking about his “moral compass.” I only said that he made a specific covenant to building up a specific organization. It is not unreasonable to assume that that organization will have his ear. It would be good for voters to get to hear him explain how that specific covenant will influence how/if he interacts with that organization.
quote:I would suggest if you are concerned with Romney converting America into a country more accustomed to what Mormons appreciate you should learn of the religion and decide whether you believe that is an acceptable or unacceptable situation.
But its my guess that Romney will make America as Mormon as JFK made it Catholic.
Look, I don’t think Romney is going to influence making liquor illegal to purchase on Sundays or beer to have a smaller alcohol content-- that is reserved for Utah politics. I think the PR of the church is much too smart to do anything that overtly could be used to make the church or Romney look bad.
Romney did a FANTASTIC job of taking the Olympics that was riddled with scandal and money problems and having it executed seemingly flawlessly in Utah. Huge huge kudos from me. I am so impressed with that management feat that I would probably vote for him.
Altho I am a social liberal, I don’t think the president has that much power over guiding what I see as historical tides.
That being said, you know many Mormons are going to vote for him because they know in the last days America is going to denounce the constitution, and it will be the church that keeps it alive. It will be the church that establishes a theocratic rule that defends the constitution in the last days.
I am not concerned that members will use that as a reason to vote for him.
I am concerned that the faith in the church’s destiny in being the guardian of the constitution while having theocratic power in America is ingrained in Mormon belief, and I think that the voting population would want to know the extent of a candidate’s support of that religion. I think a reporter should explore his relationship to an organization with those ingrained beliefs, especially considering he made such a specific covenant to the priesthood leadership in a church that sees it’s destiny as being ingrained in our future politics.
It is for that reason I think it would neither be inappropriate nor anti Mormon for a reporter to quote that particular ceremony/covenant in the temple and ask Romney to respond. As the potentially most powerful public figurehead, his response to that particular covenant is owed to the public.
I understand what the temple covenant is about, but if you don’t see a difference between a temple covenant and JFK being a catholic or a couple of scripture references, then you are either being disingenuous or you don’t understand the temple ceremony.
EDIT: Changed "our missionary program" to "the missionary program." Old writing habits die hard! Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Iem: I think there is a fundamental flaw at the core of your reasoning that needs clarification. Though it could be argued as a matter of definition, I believe the church is an extension of God, not the other way around. The church is as God has designed it to be, and it will change according to His will.
Obviously one who believes Mormonism to be not what it claims to be, sees the church as a group of men who run things using God as their authority to do so.
Mormons promise to dedicate their time, talents, etc to "The building up of God's kingdom here on earth."
The church is very literally defined as, "God's kingdom here on earth." It is complete with a spokesman for God, as well as the administrators who execute God's will as it pertains to the kingdom.
But from my perspective the church is completely reliant on God's direct interaction with it.
You should note that Mormons who are serious about their religion, do not take even the prophet's word at face value. Anything he says, can be directly confirmed from God himself through prayer. If the prophet says, "Time to consecrate 100% of your possessions to the kingdom, it is God's will." I am 100% confident that I could approach God himself through the medium of prayer and ask him "Is this right?"
You keep stating, "as the *church* deems necessary." (emphasis added) The law of consecration has its roots in scripture. The church could not just decide for me what God's will is. I believe that our prophet is indeed God's spokesman, which is why I believe he can speak for God in the first place, but that does not mean I myself let him dictate how I worship God, but I do respect him enormously and believe him to be everything that a prophet of God ought to be.
That IS exactly as Jesus has required all Christians to live. God speaks and man obeys. Jesus very literally said to the rich young man, "Drop everything and follow me."
quote: However, you have turned the decision of what and when you sacrifice to the priesthood authority
I have not. The priesthood authority can make known to me God's will concerning his church and like I said I can check it. But the church is not responsible for telling me what God's will is concerning me directly exclusively.
quote: Are you implying that a specific covenant to an organization is the same thing as a religious saying by Christ?
I made no such covenant to the church. My covenant was directed to God, I owe loyalty to His insofar as it remains his church. Again, the church does not dictate what I must do to be loyal to God, his scriptures have outlined it, and I can personally ask God his opinion on the matter.
quote: Exactly. The finale decision maker is the church.
Nope, God will tell the prophet when its time and I am 100% that the prophet will invite the membership of the church to ask God himself if what he is saying is true.
quote: no…an expectation for every worthy male member.
Or more accurately every *able* worthy male member. Plenty of men are honorably exempt from participating in a full time mission.
quote: I only said that he made a specific covenant to building up a specific organization.
And every Christians agrees that they will, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caeser's and render unto God that which is God."
Romney as President, has a responsibility to the American people and to his church. But it does not follow that because he is in a position of power he owes the church leadership his hand or even his ear in performing what one of them might think the president should be doing. Traditionally the church has not told people how to vote, but simply abjured them to vote responsibly. If Romney is true to his oath as president and simultaneously true to his oaths as a Christian there is no reason to believe that a Mormon is going to be told by God to do things former Christian presidents would never do.
I have to go now, but I think I responded to the crux of your post.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Traditionally the church has not told people how to vote, but simply abjured them to vote responsibly.
I don't know. In California, the church went so far as to raise funds.
I don't know where you want to make your distinction, but even if it wasn't doctrine, we are talking about officials in the church raising funds in church, during church time, on church letterhead. It doesn't have to be that big of a deal, I just don't like people denying that the church is a huge political machine when it wants to be.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Some of the reasons I like talking to you BlackBlade is because you are knowledgeable about the Church and you will engage me. It is a pleasure.
quote:I think there is a fundamental flaw at the core of your reasoning that needs clarification. Though it could be argued as a matter of definition, I believe the church is an extension of God, not the other way around.
I find it amusing that a fundamental flaw in my reasoning is your belief. I kid I kid. I know what you are talking about.
Here's the thing. I do not address the power you have through the Holy Ghost to verify the will of God because that is a non-issue to my argument.
The point isn't whether you can verify everything the Priesthood authority has to say. The point is that you have verified it. You share the belief. You believe they are speaking the will of God. You believe the organization is being lead by God. I accept both you and Romney have put the Church to the BoM test and are satisfied.
If you claim you question everything they say by the power of the Holy Ghost, I believe you.
Great..moving on. My point is that you have covenanted (because you believe) not to "The building up of God's kingdom here on earth" but to "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion."
You go on to make my point by saying:
quote: The church is very literally defined as, "God's kingdom here on earth." It is complete with a spokesman for God, as well as the administrators who execute God's will as it pertains to the kingdom.
You believe "the church is completely reliant on God's direct interaction with it."
I am not talking about your belief. I am talking about the voter's belief. They don't see a distinction because the distinction only comes through shared belief.
You and Romney have a shared belief. In that belief you have consecrated everything to the church and, through your personal careful process of elimination of false doctrine through the Moroni promise, you will dedicate everything to the building of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which you believe is God's kingdom.
The church has a history of dabbling in theocratic government. The church sees itself as having a destiny of being a theocratic government led by Christ in the last days.
We now have the first Mormon running for President since Joseph Smith in what many believers feel is the end times. You really don't think that temple promise is relevant to potential voters?
quote: That IS exactly as Jesus has required all Christians to live. God speaks and man obeys. Jesus very literally said to the rich young man, "Drop everything and follow me."
If that young man had dropped everything and followed Christ, then that would have been viable issue to debate had he been up for some sort of Roman democratic election.
Can we come to an agreement that the reason you haven't dropped everything is because the church, as an extension of God, has not required it of you yet? You did hint that you would follow the law of consecration once it is re-established.
quote: If Romney is true to his oath as president and simultaneously true to his oaths as a Christian there is no reason to believe that a Mormon is going to be told by God to do things former Christian presidents would never do.
That is a personal belief and is only true to the other party if they share your belief. Most voters don't. I certainly don't.
Here is my ideal question to Mitt Romney.
quote:Mr. Romney. The LDS church has a history of forming a theocratic government in early church History. It also sees a destiny of being directly involved in a theocratic government in the last days preceding the coming of Christ and after the coming of Christ. You are now the second Mormon, the first being your church's founder Joseph Smith, to run for the president. How will your covenant "*temple covenant here that talks about consecrating everything to the LDS church*" affect your presidency and the churches perceived future role in politics?
My immediate thought would be that he would say the power invested in him by the people of the United States belongs to the people of the United States and is not his to consecrate to the church.
I have faith he would answer it masterfully, but I think it is important for the general public to hear the question.
What do some of you other non-members and members think of such a question?
quote:I have to go now, but I think I responded to the crux of your post.
It really wasn't the crux of my post, but it was a nice clarification on what we think are important fundamental definitions on God's relationship to the Church.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
* To the Mods*
I am having to be very cautious about what I say because I don't want to lock the thread or get anything deleted.
Irami Osei-Frimpong has already given us a very good point, but his letters are posted on an anti-Mormon website. I have already spoken more about the temple then I intended.
If one of the moderators is reading this, can you give us direction? How can we talk about how Mormonism might influence Romney? Irami certainly isn't going to get a copy of that letter off of a neutral site.
My concern about the temple covenant is real. Help us move this forward without it getting locked. Ideas?
Or is this something not appropriate to discuss here?
[ February 25, 2007, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"My concern about the temple covenant is real."
The question is, if you are so insistant that particular Covenant is the way you say it is, is there any proof that it has been used the way you claim it could? My experience is that very few Latter-day Saints practice the commitment made in the Temple to the extent that it hampers their personal public judgments. Fewer still are in a position that would be any different than any other believer in God who must navigate things of this world with things of the next.
In other words, no matter what YOU think it means, the reality is that setting it up the way you have is nothing other then a scare tactic! The responses here by believing Mormons should show you a believer doesn't take it as all Chruch or nothing as you seem to indicate. The scenerio you present (Prophet says this and members do without a thought) is so frankly false and conspiracy theoried that it comes close to anti-Mormon.
Yes, Mormons dabbled in theocratic government in the past. They did it within terms of the United States laws at that time. They made no laws that were against the Constitution of the United States. Even more, They made no laws for those who were not members of the Church beyond anything allowed by the Constitution of the United States. IN THE END (and this is important enough to put in large caps) TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOLLOW ITS LAWS IS PART OF BUILDING UP ZION. TO SERVE YOUR COUNTRY IS ALSO TO GIVE OF YOURSELF TO THE CHURCH, FOR GOVERNEMNT IS GIVEN BY GOD! TO BREAK THE LAWS OF THE LAND OR BECOME A LAW OF YOUR OWN IS TO BREAK THE COVENENT OF GOD!
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:The question is, if you are so insistant that particular Covenant is the way you say it is, is there any proof that it has been used the way you claim it could?
The responses here by believing Mormons should show you a believer doesn't take it as all Chruch or nothing as you seem to indicate. The scenerio you present (Prophet says this and members do without a thought) is so frankly false and conspiracy theoried that it comes close to anti-Mormon.
Hmmm..which way have I said it has been used? Let me recap.
You (card carrying Mormons) promise everything to the church but you accept that as of now that means accepting callings and paying a 10% tithe. I did say that if the church instituted the law of consecration again good temple going Mormons would follow it because of the covenant. I stand by that.
I pointed that out to show that the temple covenant is taken seriously by members to the establishment of the LDS church.
Ahh here we go:
quote: Look, I don’t think Romney is going to influence making liquor illegal to purchase on Sundays or beer to have a smaller alcohol content-- that is reserved for Utah politics. I think the PR of the church is much too smart to do anything that overtly could be used to make the church or Romney look bad.
I don't think the church will influence Romney. What a conspiracy theorist I am!! I was snarky in attributing that to the Church's PR department. That was probably uncalled for. I certainly never claimed nor believe the Church uses that covenant to send out Marching orders for blindly obedient people to follow so the church can bring down our country and take over.
quote:In other words, no matter what YOU think it means, the reality is that setting it up the way you have is nothing other then a scare tactic!
A scare tactic? WOW. Let's see what I would do with a Mormon candidate.
quote: Romney did a FANTASTIC job of taking the Olympics that was riddled with scandal and money problems and having it executed seemingly flawlessly in Utah. Huge huge kudos from me. I am so impressed with that management feat that I would probably vote for him.
Altho I am a social liberal, I don’t think the president has that much power over guiding what I see as historical tides.
I will probably vote for him because I think he is an effective manager and I don't see him with any real power to influence what I see as social progress. BOOO!!!
quote: They made no laws for those who were not members of the Church beyond anything allowed by the Constitution of the United States. IN THE END (and this is important enough to put in large caps) TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOLLOW ITS LAWS IS PART OF BUILDING UP ZION. TO SERVE YOUR COUNTRY IS ALSO TO GIVE OF YOURSELF TO THE CHURCH, FOR GOVERNEMNT IS GIVEN BY GOD! TO BREAK THE LAWS OF THE LAND OR BECOME A LAW OF YOUR OWN IS TO BREAK THE COVENENT OF GOD!
I don't dispute this. The most unconstitutional thing that has been done in the name of Mormonism was the destruction a printing press that exposed Joseph Smith's polygamy and also slandered him; but that was preceded by years of persecution back in the wild frontier days. Silencing dissent is certainly not a Mormon characteristic.
What was the point of my discussion? Ahh yes, TheHumanTarger said:
quote: JFK said "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters - and the Church does not speak for me."
Does anyone forsee Romney making a similiar statement? How different are traditional Mormon values from the current Republican party platform, anyways?
..and I responded with a recap of the ceremony and finished with:
quote: I doubt JFK ever made such a commitment to the Catholic church, and so I see very little in common between them in regards to religion.
That is it. I see very little in common between Romney and JFK when it comes to religion. I have stated why I think they are dissimilar.
I think they are dissimilar enough for him to be asked about that partucular covenant by a reporter.
I will probably vote for him if he is nominated. My belief system says the church will have his ear, and that bothers me. In the end I don't think it grants the church any real power--hence my vote. It is not like Mormons are the Taliban.
That being said, it bothers me enough that I think it should be addressed in the public arena. It is better debated before the Primary then after. If his Mormonism is a deal breaker for the average citizen, I would rather we find out now so he is not nominated.
I also think that covenant would bother a lot of people. You may think I have framed it as a conspiracy, but I think I have articulately made my point. I have been intellectually honest with my experiences, beliefs, and knowledge.
I am really curious how other Hatrackers feel about this discussion. Thank you for letting me know Occasional.
EDIT: Because I don't want to start a new post. In the end, I think the temple ordinance/covenant would be relevant to voters. You don't. I am jaded because I left the church. You are biased because you are in the church.
I really have nothing else to add, but I am really curious what other people think. I would actually like to quote that entire section of the temple ceremony so Hatrackers would have all the information to form their opinion, but Hatrack is not an appropriate medium for that. Maybe a reporter will read this thread and pleasantly surprise me.
[ February 25, 2007, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I want to clarify two things. Occasional said the first and I said the second.
quote: the reality is that setting it up the way you have is nothing other then a scare tactic!
I am guessing this is in reference how I set it up that members promise everything to the church and the church is the finale decider on what is sacrificed.
First, I don't know how else to set this up. I truly believe that members do consecrate everything to the building of the Church. That is what they do. I have done the ceremony.
I don't think it is "all or northing." I think it is "all" with the understanding that the church will never require it's members anything that is an unreasonable burden.
Members consecrate all, but the reality is that most members only pay tithing, participate fully in church, live a temple worthy life, and accept callings willingly. Actually, that is quite a lot! There is a vague notion that the law of consecration will be lived in the future, but that is not really on members' minds.
I am sure if there is a MAJOR world even that makes the church feel it is necessary to "call-in" on that promise, then members will re-evaluate their testimony, and those who follow the church will see a very compelling reason.
If we have a car bomb blow up Hoover Damn and loose electricity for more then a week and society starts to crumble, I could see the church coming out and taking theocratic control of it's members to establish civility until the crises is dealt with. I would see nothing sinister with that.
However, the promise is a consecration of everything for the building of the Church. Why others don't seem to think that might be a conflict of interest for voters is truly beyond me. It seems very obvious it could be--especially considering a President is not an average member.
It seems patently different then JFK and Catholicism or a Born Again Christian who gives up everything for Christ.
quote: My belief system says the church will have his ear, and that bothers me. In the end I don't think it grants the church any real power--hence my vote.
I don't think Mitt winning would give the church any new theocratic powers. That doesn't mean I don't think they are invested in his win.
A Mormon President would do a lot to legitimize the church. NO, I DON"T THINK THE CHURCH IS ILLEGITIMATE. I think most Americans think it is a cult, currently practice polygamy, or know nothing about it. Having a Mormon president would go a long way in opening doors to missionaries both here and abroad.
Influence over the public is what I am confident the church is after, not an ally in some back room secrete deal that grants the church land, privileges, or power.
I can feel an intentional agenda to distance Romney for Mormonism so his religion doesn't interfere with his chance of succes.
I would expect, behind closed doors, there is already work being done on how to revamp missionary tactics if we have a Mormon president. Mormons are nothing if not an industrious people who plan ahead. I also expect that there are committees set up that are working on ways to support him without seeming like they are influencing him.
I don't think that is insidious or conspiratorial. I think it is natural.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
quote:you know many Mormons are going to vote for him because they know in the last days America is going to denounce the constitution, and it will be the church that keeps it alive. It will be the church that establishes a theocratic rule that defends the constitution in the last days.
While I've heard this expressed in Sunday School classes ("The Constitution will hang by a thread!"), it's not doctrine as far as I can tell. Doctrinally, the Church is expected to remain small, but widespread.
quote:The LDS church has a history of forming a theocratic government in early church History. It also sees a destiny of being directly involved in a theocratic government in the last days preceding the coming of Christ and after the coming of Christ.
I don't know of any LDS-centric scripture that talks about the establishment of a theocratic government before the coming of Christ. I know scriptures that talk about how communities of believers will act; but there's nothing in the scriptures (to my knowledge) that speaks to the idea of a central political organization.
Post-second-coming, the Church will be dissolved.
quote: How will your covenant "*temple covenant here that talks about consecrating everything to the LDS church*" affect your presidency and the churches perceived future role in politics?
I think this objection relies on the concept (myth) of Mormon authoritarianism too much. The temple covenant in question is very open to individual interpretation.
Harry Reid, the Mormon Democratic senator from Nevada, may be voting for same sex union legislation with the understanding that he is fulfilling that covenant; Orin Hatch (Utah, Republican) may oppose the same legislation, with the same understanding about the covenant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, the "non-designation" as Christians is less a descriptive as a descriminatory statement. Calling Mormons "non-Christian" does more than try to draw attention to the differences. It is the same as calling a black a N*****, denying something central to personal identification. Mormons believe in Jesus Christ as Savior who died for our Sins and was Resurrected, and the center of worship. Personally, I wouldn't mind the designation non-Orthodox Christian, non-traditional Christian.
This goes way too far. Just as LDS have a particular definition for "Saint," many people have a particular definition for "Christian." I don't consider it the equivalence of racism for a Mormon to use the word as they commonly use it.
One fairly common usage of "Christian" refers to a core set of beliefs which Mormons don't share. It is, in fact, a definitional difference, and one that reflects some pretty important differences. At the heart of these differences is a distinction made particularly and forcefully by Mormons themselves: that the Christian Church was not present on earth for a significant period of time. The Mormon tradition is quite simply not part of a tradition that stretches back (temporally) without break to Christ - and this is a core, central aspect of Mormon beliefs. They affirmatively assert that they are not part of this tradition.
In the broader sense, Mormons are "Christians." And I use the word in a sense that includes them very often. However, when I use the word in a way that does not include Mormons, I am not doing the equivalent of calling a black person "n*****."
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:While I've heard this expressed in Sunday School classes ("The Constitution will hang by a thread!"), it's not doctrine as far as I can tell. Doctrinally, the Church is expected to remain small, but widespread.
Really? I thought the church was like a stone cut out of the mountain that would fill up the whole world. Let me refresh your memory about how this "not doctrine" got embedded in Mormon thought.
quote:Unfortunately, we as a nation have apostatized in various degrees from different Constitutional principles as proclaimed by the inspired founders. We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: “Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction” (19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray; ms. in Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City).
That comes from a Prophet while he was a prophet. It might not be signed in and in the standard works like The Proclamation, but I certainly think this is a little more then just a prophet's opinion.
quote:but there's nothing in the scriptures (to my knowledge) that speaks to the idea of a central political organization.
Again, I am talking about why Mormons would vote for him. Do you really think this theocratic destiny is an obscure belief?
quote:I think this objection relies on the concept (myth) of Mormon authoritarianism too much. The temple covenant in question is very open to individual interpretation.
Harry Reid, the Mormon Democratic senator from Nevada, may be voting for same sex union legislation with the understanding that he is fulfilling that covenant; Orin Hatch (Utah, Republican) may oppose the same legislation, with the same understanding about the covenant.
That is a great answer to the question.I am sure Romney will give an equally good answer. But can you understand why I think it would be good for that question to be out in the public--especially before the primaries? Can you see why people might think Romney being Mormon is qualitatively different then Kennedy being Catholic?
EDIT:
quote: Post-second-coming, the Church will be dissolved.
I was always taught in seminary and institute, including at BYU, that the church is everlasting. Christ would personally be at the head of the church, but it would definitely not be dissolved.
The church would continue to do temple work during His 1000 year reign of peace. I understood this would be the time those who didn't have their ordinances done and died without any physical record would have angels who could give the celestial records to members.
Maybe I have remembered this wrong. Can someone verify if that is true?
[ February 26, 2007, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
The Priesthood is eternal.
The Church, as a hierarchical organization, is not. It lasts as long as Heavenly Father needs it to. My understanding is that it will be dissolved during the millenium for whatever governmental organization Christ has in mind.
quote:“Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction”
This could mean a lot of things, lem-- including the establishment of a theocratic government. Or another exodus into communitarian living, in which those who welcome the freedoms of conscience upheld by the doctrines of the Mormon church (D&C 134) are seperated from those who don't.
quote: I thought the church was like a stone cut out of the mountain that would fill up the whole world.
Indeed. However, Nephi prophesied--
quote:1 Nephi 14 12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.
Fill the whole earth? Yep. Rule the whole earth? Clearly not.
Mormons have a tendency to overstate their own importance, and the effects that the church will have in society. It's why we also have a banging persecution complex, and martyrdom syndrome. In my opinion, a little less looking toward political power is called for, and a little more looking toward our neighbor that needs help moving his sofa.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
By the way, in case there's any confusion-- this is Scott R, avoiding 10000 posts.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
Also, lem-- read Pres. Benson's advice on how to maintain the Constitution. There's nothing there to indicate the formation of a new government by Mormons.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh good grief - that explains a lot. I'm sort of embarassed I didn't realize it before.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: I am really curious how other Hatrackers feel about this discussion. Thank you for letting me know Occasional.
I am reading and am very appreciative of the discussion. You are raising the same questions I would, albeit with more care and tact (and greater knowledge) than I could.
Thanks.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
On a different note, the LDS Church came up at my work the other day. A colleague had gone to Salt Lake City and visited the temple. She related Mormon practices with much sniggering, eyerolling, and inaccuracy. *sigh
I did my best to correct calmly and without riling her up further. There were others listening, and I wanted it at least addressed.
---
Edited because "Mormon" != "Morman"
[ February 26, 2007, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
quote:"Mormon" != "Morman"
Unless one is actually male...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
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.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
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).
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That he is reflecting how other people will look at it does not change the truth of what I said.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
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.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"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.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
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.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
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.
-Bok
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
I think it's a question that should be asked, and one I'd ask myself, if I wasn't a Mormon.
The answer for me, for my brand of Mormonism, is just what I stated on page 4.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
quote:So you haven't addressed it, so much as saying it doesn't exist.
"The Liberal Cabal is taking over Hatrack!"
"No it isn't. It doesn't exist."
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
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.
-Bok
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
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.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Scott, that's why I mentioned "some Mormons"
quote:"The Liberal Cabal is taking over Hatrack!"
"No it isn't. It doesn't exist."
I, uh, don't see the connection.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Occassional, Fair enough. And if Mitt feels that way, and addresses it as such, I won't be surprised when loses the election. *shrug*
-Bok
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I, uh, don't see the connection."
His connection is my answer to you that you said fair enough.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Everything kat just said is correct.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
Maybe RL was speaking ironically? Or hyperbolically?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I suppose it's possible. If so, all he has to do is say so.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
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?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
You are mistaken.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Occ, Scott was also being wryly funny, and I was (attempting to) return the favor. I did get his point.
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: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.
Isn't that pretty much what most Christians believe? It was OK for Abraham, but not for us today.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
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.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
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*.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
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.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
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.
quote: As for that, be careful about which list you believe.
Damn you snopes!! Why did you have to go and ruin such a fun belief! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's what Snopes is there for.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
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.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That should be Snopes' tag line: "We're the wet blanket of fun!"
-Bok
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Out of curiousity, what was this doctrine of "gathering to Zion"?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Lords of Kolob?
This is a good name for a band.
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
But that's 'Kobol,' right?
Thinly veiled, but still such.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lord Of All Fools:
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.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
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.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
:big hair swings as he bangs his head in time to the driving rock opera:
Lords of Kolob, wing through the skies Defeat the King of Murder and Lies, Take back the throne of glass and fire Chorus high in a victory pyre
Lords of Kolob! Lords of Kolob! Swords of Kolob! Swords of Kolob! UNIIIIIIII-EEEEEEEEE-IIIIIIITE!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*waves lighter*
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Lord Of All Fools:
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.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
dkw--
My experience agrees with yours. I was thinking more of the word "founding" than "prophet."
In my initial, unposted, post, I wrote how my grandmother for the longest time believed we worshipped Joseph Smith on par with Christ, and how my initial reaction to lem's post would kind of confirm that, since I was saying Joseph Smith was the founder of OUR religion and Jesus Christ was the founder of that OTHER religion...
Anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Olivet: God's reasoning is laid out as thus,
"The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question...The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency (Prophet and his councelors) and Twelve (The Twelve Apostles) and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead? The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have. . . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . . "
IMO and YMMV there was no expediency to practice polygamy as it was not nearly as essential as say temple ordinances. But again if the Lord had said nothing about leaving polygamy behind I believe president Woodruff's claim that he would have allowed all those terrible things he saw in vision to occur.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Lord Of All Fools:
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.
Sorry for double posting, but I agree DKW it is not. Do you think Jesus can not with propriety be referred to as a prophet?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What gets me angry (and that is the word) is that not only will people believe anything about Mormons, but they don't believe Mormons (even here at Hatrack) when false information is corrected. Uncountless times there have been conversations like:
A. This is what Mormons believe.
Mormon. No, it isn't. This is what we believe. At the least this is how we interpret the belief.
A. No it isn't and you know it - you liar.
Mormon. I of all people should know what I believe.
A. Well, your Church is lying to you and you in return are lying to me.
Mormon. (exasperated) Whatever.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
"Do you think Jesus can not with propriety be referred to as a prophet?"
Hmm. Not sure what you mean by "with propriety."
I think he certainly exercised many prophetic functions during his earthly life, so no, I don't think it would be improper to refer to him as a prophet. But I would say the same thing about Martin Luther King Jr., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jim Wallis, and a whole host of other people.
I think part of the disconnect is that non-Mormon Christians don't have the same reference of "prophet" as a leadership role that Mormons do. Certainly Moses would be a strong counter example, but many would tend to think first of prophets like Amos that were critical of the power structure, not part of it. So the idea of a "founding prophet" just doesn't ring a bell.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: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.
I don't think he should be an apologist for his religion. I never liked that word...apologist. It makes it seem like the religion is false and you have to apologize for believing it. I really thought "apologist" was a derogatory title, until I saw Mormon researches apply it to themselves.
Anyway, I think he should be confronted on a specific covenant he made and explain how he interprets it personally.
quote: What gets me angry (and that is the word) is that not only will people believe anything about Mormons, but they don't believe Mormons (even here at Hatrack) when false information is corrected. Uncountless times there have been conversations like:
A. This is what Mormons believe.
Mormon. No, it isn't. This is what we believe. At the least this is how we interpret the belief.
A. No it isn't and you know it - you liar.
Mormon. I of all people should know what I believe.
A. Well, your Church is lying to you and you in return are lying to me.
Mormon. (exasperated) Whatever.
Since you have made it clear you think my posts in this thread are "anti," I have to ask if this is in reference to me? If it is me, please give me an example where I corrected what other people believe despite their corrections.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Actually it is about Bokonon and Ron Lambert, although the latter hasn't chimed in yet as to what we have said. Past experience has proven, to me, he would follow the pattern given. Your persistance in having us answer a question we have already answered does come close to this.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Your persistance in having us answer a question we have already answered does come close to this.
Fair enough.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
If I recall correctly, Calvin identified 'prophet' as one of Christ's three defining roles.
I agree, though, Dana, that Mormons tend to use the term 'prophet' loosely to describe the president of the church even though it's properly only one of the roles ascribed to him. Strictly speaking Mormons believe that in Joseph Smith the roles of prophet and priest were combined - he combined the call to repentance with the authority to perform ordinances.
For what it's worth, lem, I don't think you've been 'anti' here. I think 'anti-Mormon' in general is an overused term, and if Mormons are going to have productive conversations with those of other faiths in a non-proselyting sense, we're going to have to learn to follow the Catholic example and show patience instead of indignance every time our faith is mischaracterized.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: What gets me angry (and that is the word) is that not only will people believe anything about Mormons, but they don't believe Mormons (even here at Hatrack) when false information is corrected. Uncountless times there have been conversations like:
A. This is what Mormons believe.
Mormon. No, it isn't. This is what we believe. At the least this is how we interpret the belief.
A. No it isn't and you know it - you liar.
Mormon. I of all people should know what I believe.
A. Well, your Church is lying to you and you in return are lying to me.
Mormon. (exasperated) Whatever.
Isn't this thread a strong example of there being evidence that 'Mormons' are taught different things, if not perceive what they are taught differently, and that not all Mormons view things the same?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Storm not only that, but replace "Mormon" with "Protestant" and you also have a correct statement, in my experience.
I am sometimes amazed at what my kids come home from Sunday School saying - we have Sunday School teachers who will teach lessons that are not part of our stated doctrine. Like once my daughter told me only those people who are baptised by full immersion have had a "correct" baptism because that's what her teacher told her. She was upset because she was baptised as an infant by sprinkling. Our church believes baptism can be done by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, it's really not an issue to us which exact method is used.
Needless to say, I reported that teacher to the head of our Christian Education department. But definitely, I agree that not everyone will perceive things the same way even if they've been raised in the same church under what are ostensibly the same beliefs.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Storm not only that, but replace "Mormon" with "Protestant" and you also have a correct statement, in my experience.
I am sometimes amazed at what my kids come home from Sunday School saying - we have Sunday School teachers who will teach lessons that are not part of our stated doctrine. Like once my daughter told me only those people who are baptised by full immersion have had a "correct" baptism because that's what her teacher told her. She was upset because she was baptised as an infant by sprinkling. Our church believes baptism can be done by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, it's really not an issue to us which exact method is used.
Needless to say, I reported that teacher to the head of our Christian Education department. But definitely, I agree that not everyone will perceive things the same way even if they've been raised in the same church under what are ostensibly the same beliefs.
Right. Wasn't trying to say it was just Mormons.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
lem, I have never heard the term apologist used derisively, so that is a new one on me. I did not intend to offend with my word choice. I just meant that he is, at best, uniquely placed to set things straight, if he should choose to do so. I don't think it is his duty by any stretch of the imagination, nor am I certain it would help his campaign.
Not that I really care one way or another, mind you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I dunno-- I haven't seen any of the practicing Mormons on this thread disagreeing with me.
But that may have more to do with my reputation as a knuckle dragging, belligerent, vengeful psychopath than the validity of my arguments.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That, and the baby-eating.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Storm Saxon: While you will find disagreements on a variety of subjects even amongst Mormons there is still a feeling of agreement to a large extent.
To use Belle's example, you would be VERY hard pressed to find any group of Mormons arguing about how the ordinance of baptism ought to be performed. Ordinances are basically spelled out in the scriptures and are pretty inflexible.
So you might find Republicans and Democrats amongst Mormons or you might find Mormons disagreeing on the details of the second coming. Yet, questions about say the nature of God, the trinity, what is canon, etc there is not much room for debate compared to other sects.
My brother and I were discussing the differences in how our mission presidents ran their missions and my brother said that since his mission president had been called to be a "Seventy"(an upper tier of church leadership) after being released as a mission president, that God clearly agreed his take on things. This turned into a debate about whether callings to leadership positions validate doctrine. On this point I bet Mormons could disagree and argue. But I am willing to bet that if you attended your average Mormon chapel you would find the majority of what is taught to be virtually identical across the board.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But that may have more to do with my reputation as a knuckle dragging, belligerent, vengeful psychopath than the validity of my arguments.
Not really. I know I can take you.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The difference Belle is that, more than likely, when you correct someone on a belief they will acknowledge that is something they didn't know and will change their opinion. However, more than not when a Mormon does the same thing they are accused of "lying," or "hiding the truth" or some other show of lack of accepting the answer.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I dunno-- I haven't seen any of the practicing Mormons on this thread disagreeing with me.
But that may have more to do with my reputation as a knuckle dragging, belligerent, vengeful psychopath than the validity of my arguments.
Scott, that's true, but it seems like every time there's a thread on this forum about Mormon beliefs, it turns into a back and forth about what is authoritative, true ,whatev. The whole rated R thing is one example, the caffeine/hot drinks one is another. The bit recently between Puppy and Rabbit is another. There's also the fact that there are apparently splinter groups wandering around who consider themselves 'real' Mormons who still believe polygamy is valid. Civil unions are another example. Abortion is another example.
Considering all of this, I don't think qualifying your statement to exclude ex-Mormons holds a lot of water and is a little rude to lem, but it's no biggie to me. My purpose isn't to excuse Mormon bashing so much as it is to point out that it's quite possible for people to believe different things about Mormons, because 'Mormons' themselves are, to some degree, different in their beliefs.
I am not saying that there aren't things that the majority of Mormons believe. I'm in no position to really state what y'all believe definitively. I'm just saying that I've observed a lot of disagreement between Mormons on this forum on religious matters. I think this is a good thing.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I'm in no position to really state what y'all believe definitively"
Hey, I think this is great. Too bad there are so many people who (not necessarily on Hatrack) think they know EXACTLY what Mormons believe even when confronted by the differences.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Inasmuch as it doesn't impact me, it's not really my problem. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OK, when I suggested there were many similarities between Mormons and Moslems, I did so tongue-in-cheek. But Kat, you need to understand that if you are not totally straightforward, and are employing an artful dodge or two, then saying you are dissembling is fair, and it is not the same thing as calling you a liar. Most people tend to try to present their religion in the best light, but it is easy to go too far in dismissing the negatives and become a PR hack rather than a real apologist (witness) for the faith. Then you are dissembling, and it is fair to say so.
The vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is and always was God, equal to God the Father. As Jesus said of Himself in Revelation 1:8: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Also John testified of Jesus, the Word, at the beginning of his gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." (John 1:1-3; see v. 14 to confirm that this "Word" being spoken of is Jesus Christ.)
Since this is the single most important difference in the theology of Mormons vs. other Christians, I cannot just let it go when Kat tries to give the impression that Mormons teach pretty much the same things that other Christians do on the nature of Christ. Maybe Mormons do not think that their differences in this area matter much, but other Christians most certainly do.
I am not being judgmental in this; I am just insisting that we be completely factual.
And I do not care for being called a liar, when I was entirely truthful in what I said. We may be speaking from different viewpoints, where certain theological terms (like Divine Son of God) mean something distinctly different. But when you know most other Christians mean something different than you do, it is incumbent upon you to explain how you are defining the terms differently. To not do so, and then claim you believe the same thing, is dissembling.
And it is an historical fact that Mormons at one time taught that God approved of polygamy. You may shout as loud as you want that Mormons no longer advocate polygamy; the fact remains that you only changed because the feds kept cracking down on you. You may say you changed because your official elected prophet told you God changed His mind, but this does not get Mormons off the hook with the rest of us over this issue. If this admittedly morally corrupt society were to reach the point where it approved of all forms of marriage including polygamy, how much you want to bet the official Mormon prophet would say it is OK to go back to the church's earlier teaching on this? You may think this is being cynical. I see it as realistic. I would even dare to say that my own church, if given enough time, would become just as authoritarian and tradition-exalting as the Roman Catholic church. This is just the way sinful human beings are, especially when they are attempting to be religious.
It was not my intent to give offense. But neither will I back down, unless you convince me that I should.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
hmm, I don't know if I should be happy he proved my point or correct him on the many false ideas he spouted about Mormonism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I cannot just let it go when Kat tries to give the impression that Mormons teach pretty much the same things that other Christians do on the nature of Christ.
Kat did not claim that Mormons believe the same thing about the nature of Christ and God as traditional Christians. She did say that YOUR explanation of what it is Mormons believe was wrong.
And she's right - "[Christ] is the fully divine Son of God" is certainly something that can be said about the beliefs of traditional Christians, but you left out the part that actually differentiates our beliefs from Mormon beliefs ("eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.") (You did say this in your later post, but not in the one Kat took exception to.) Lacking that additional qualifier, Kat's exception to your post was accurate, not dissembling.
This is especially true when you try to conflate the LDS conception of Christ with the Islamic conception of Jesus. Islam utterly rejects any conception that Jesus was involved in an atonement or played a sacrificial role.
I certainly agree that the LDS conception of Christ is fundamentally incompatible with the Nicene Creed's conception. I don't think that Kat asserted otherwise, and for you to accuse her of doing so is inaccurate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: I think the point of contention is that Mormons believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, and the only savior of humankind, and we accept his teachings as God's truth. We see this as grounds enough to accept us as Christian. At least in the literal German meaning of the word (Friend in Christ.) It seems to me you are suggesting that because we disagree on the nature of God and Jesus that therefore Mormons are not Christian. Fair enough.
It gets alittle shady though.
Mormons believe Jesus did indeed create the heavens and the earth. We believe he is the "God of the Old Testament."
We feel that Jesus justifies OUR view of the trinity so are we not appealing to the same authority, the scriptures?
"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."(emphasis added)
"Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:"
We believe Jesus clearly describes himself as separate from, "The Father." Or does having a greater number of people agree with you validate a belief?
I'm not attempting to get into a bible thumping session though I admit I certainly look like it. I'm just trying to point out that for Mormons we appeal to the word of God (the God we both believe in) as evidence of our beliefs.
I agree however that it is misleading to simply say, "Mormons, Lutherans, Methodists, they all really believe in the same Jesus so lets group them all together.
At the same time I think simply saying, "Mormons are Christians but they are not protestant or catholic is sufficient to articulate the differences. Sunni and Shiite Muslims all call each other "apostates" and "not really Muslim" and I think this too is inaccurate.
quote:You may shout as loud as you want that Mormons no longer advocate polygamy; the fact remains that you only changed because the feds kept cracking down on you. You may say you changed because your official elected prophet told you God changed His mind, but this does not get Mormons off the hook with the rest of us over this issue
Sounds alot like a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario, hmmm?
quote:If this admittedly morally corrupt society were to reach the point where it approved of all forms of marriage including polygamy, how much you want to bet the official Mormon prophet would say it is OK to go back to the church's earlier teaching on this?
If that is God's will. I'd wager you really do not understand how polygamy operated when we did practice it. Cynical? Why would we as Mormons condemn a commandment that God himself gave us? We merely strongly disagree with those who say, "God never said to stop polygamy, Wilford Woodruff was a false prophet when he gave that revelation."
Hypothetically if Jesus comes again and says that his kingdom allows for polygamy would you accept that or would you continue to believe its evil? Purely hypothetical.
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
I find it funny that through 6 pages of discussing LDS members and politics that no one has brought up Ezra Taft Benson and how he served as the Secretary of Agriculture while he was in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. I think having one of the apostles in that high of a governmental position would have been far more risky than having a president who happens to be LDS.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Thanks Dagonee. That about sums it up.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I find it funny that through 6 pages of discussing LDS members and politics that no one has brought up Ezra Taft Benson and how he served as the Secretary of Agriculture while he was in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.
I did quote him. Does that count for anything? president Benson was also convinced that the John Birch Society was the most effective non-church organization in the fight against Socialism and godless Communism.
As a Secretary of Agriculture he had the presidents ear, but he did not have the access to the majority of world leaders or have the power to veto.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ron: I think the point of contention is that Mormons believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, and the only savior of humankind, and we accept his teachings as God's truth. We see this as grounds enough to accept us as Christian. At least in the literal German meaning of the word (Friend in Christ.) It seems to me you are suggesting that because we disagree on the nature of God and Jesus that therefore Mormons are not Christian. Fair enough.
BlackBlade, I think by that definition Mormons are Christian. That's a definition I use sometimes. But there's another definition - one that is over a thousand years old - under which Mormons are not Christian. Sometimes I use one definition, sometimes the other. I am talking about two different concepts when I do so. And Mormons do not belong to one of those concepts.
"We see this as grounds enough to accept us as Christian" is fine - I agree with it with respect to one definition. But the other definition contains some stuff that is very important to us. We see the lack of belief in the portion of the creed I quoted as grounds enough to disqualify you as Christians under the creed-based definition. There are a host of situations where the distinction is important.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dag: I can appreciate that, I really can. But you can see how Mormons would have errrmm.... a lesser degree of respect for a document crafted by men that arrived at its conclusion through a democratic process rather then a document that God himself dictated through a man He Himself selected.
If Mormons applied the same logic to the creed that you do, then Mormons must reject Catholics, Protestants, and all other splinters that adhere to the creed as non-Christians. I do not feel that this is particularly productive in any respect.
But could you perhaps elaborate on these "situations" you mentioned where this is important? I would be much obliged, you seem like a very reasonable person, and it's not as if I believe there is no way you could have good reasons for holding on to this distinction.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
[Gentle reminder]
While this may for various people range anywhere from an interesting intellectual exercise to the ultimate point of contention in religion today, it should be remembered that according to the owners of this site, the more encompassing definition of Christian, which includes Latter-Day Saints, is the one they consider appropriate for this forum. [Edit -- this is not to say it might not be considered and discussed in the theoretical here, but maybe treading lightly is a good call.]
[/Gentle reminder]
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
BB - you're erecting something of a strawman there in regards to the Nicean creed. It's important to remember that most creedal Christians do in fact believe that divine authority had something to do with the production of the traditional creeds. Contrary to popular Mormon belief, other Christian faiths do not believe that revelation is over.
In my opinion, distrust for Mormon Christology among other Christians has to do with a deep conviction about what Amulek says in the Book of Mormon - that an infinite atonement is necessary for human salvation. A Christ who is not in fact God in the classic trinitarian sense seems to many non-Mormons, I think, insufficient, because he doesn't share in the infinite characteristics that non Mormon Christians reserve for God's attributes. Of course, this gets to a really different understanding of the way the universe works among the various faiths.
Anyway, as to what Ron said - 1)None of the scriptures he cited do not apply to Mormon Christology. The Mormon Christ is in fact uncreated. (this seems to be a particular concern, due to the issues about infinite attributes I mentioned above) 2)Ron, I believe I remember from somewhere that you're a biblical literalist. If so, how do you reconcile your present negative convictions about polygamy with God's sanction of it in the Old Testament?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag: I can appreciate that, I really can. But you can see how Mormons would have errrmm.... a lesser degree of respect for a document crafted by men that arrived at its conclusion through a democratic process rather then a document that God himself dictated through a man He Himself selected.
I'm not trying to compare the support for our respective beliefs here. Obviously, I feel support is stronger for mine and you for yours. I could easily make a similar statement in reverse, since we believe the council was guided by the Holy Spirit and that these beliefs are not derived from the creed, merely expressed within it. They derive from God-inspired texts as well as records of His own words.
quote:But could you perhaps elaborate on these "situations" you mentioned where this is important?
The most obvious example is which baptisms are accepted within each denomination. Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, and many others accept each others' baptism. The LDS church does not accept their baptisms and vice-versa.
In a more prosaic sense, there are quite a few ecumenical organization whose express purpose isto bring together those with the common kernel of shared belief - Lewis's "Mere Christianity," if you will - that used the creed as the expression of the "minimum" set of shared beliefs as a basis for membership. It is entirely appropriate for those groups to use the creed-based definition of Christian and, in doing so, exclude those groups that don't share belief in the creed.
quote:If Mormons applied the same logic to the creed that you do, then Mormons must reject Catholics, Protestants, and all other splinters that adhere to the creed as non-Christians.
Which would be fine. I'd think they were wrong, just as you think I'm wrong here. I can live with that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And she's right - "[Christ] is the fully divine Son of God" is certainly something that can be said about the beliefs of traditional Christians, but you left out the part that actually differentiates our beliefs from Mormon beliefs ("eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.") (You did say this in your later post, but not in the one Kat took exception to.) Lacking that additional qualifier, Kat's exception to your post was accurate, not dissembling.
In that section that you say differentiates our beliefs, there is actually only one word, "Being" which is not wholly compatible with Mormon doctrine. In fact, I believe that if only two (or perhaps 3) words were changed in the Nicene Creed, it is fully compatible with the Mormon understanding of God.
quote:We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one will with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Father he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy universal and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I recognize that those changes to the Creed are very important to some Christians and do not mean to minimize their significance. My point is that we accept far far more of the creed than we reject. We have much more in common than is generally assumed by either Mormons or more traditional Christians.
If your point is that the Mormon understanding of God differs in non-trivial ways from the Catholic understanding of God, then I have to agree. It does. It would be silly to argue otherwise. If Mormon's didn't consider those differences important then we'd accept the Creeds.
If your point is that Mormon's won't be saved because they aren't "real Chrisitians", then your out of line. Jesus is the only one with the wisdom or the right to judge who is or is not Christian. I will accept his judgement but never yours.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If your point is that Mormon's won't be saved because they aren't "real Chrisitians", then your out of line. Jesus is the only one with the wisdom or the right to judge who is or is not Christian. I will accept his judgement but never yours.
I can't imagine any possible way you could read my posts in good faith and think this could possibly be my point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: "Do you think Jesus can not with propriety be referred to as a prophet?"
Hmm. Not sure what you mean by "with propriety."
I think he certainly exercised many prophetic functions during his earthly life, so no, I don't think it would be improper to refer to him as a prophet. But I would say the same thing about Martin Luther King Jr., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jim Wallis, and a whole host of other people.
I think part of the disconnect is that non-Mormon Christians don't have the same reference of "prophet" as a leadership role that Mormons do. Certainly Moses would be a strong counter example, but many would tend to think first of prophets like Amos that were critical of the power structure, not part of it. So the idea of a "founding prophet" just doesn't ring a bell.
Sorry didn't see this post until just now. I just meant, "Do you think it is appropriate to refer to Jesus as a prophet?" propriety/appropriate. Thanks for the clarification Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sorry Dag, that wasn't directed at you but rather at some self proclaimed Christians I've known in real life who do espouse that view.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Rabbit. I agree wholeheartedly with "Jesus is the only one with the wisdom or the right to judge who is or is not Christian."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dag: Thanks, that make perfect sense to me.
I guess I needed to understand how different denominations view the Nicene creed more accurately. Though admittedly for some reason it did not occur to me that Catholics would see the creed as having divine sanction which in retrospect should have been obvious to me. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Nuts. I posted on the wrong computer and suddenly, I'm all Scott R again. There goes my 10k landmark...
quote:I find it funny that through 6 pages of discussing LDS members and politics that no one has brought up Ezra Taft Benson and how he served as the Secretary of Agriculture while he was in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. I think having one of the apostles in that high of a governmental position would have been far more risky than having a president who happens to be LDS.
According to my dad, ETB was a terrible Secretary of Agriculture. I quote him directly, "Benson set agriculture back 20 years."
This was said by my dad after he'd converted, while Benson was prophet.
:shrug:
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Occ, point out where I have disbelieved what you guys are saying? Maybe I worded something wrong; I know I misinterpreted kat... I'm not too worried about Mitt Romney in this regard; he was my state's governor, and he didn't have me worried that the LDS church was going to execute a takeover of the state government.
I just think that the stakes are a bit higher now, and many people have misconceptions about Mormons. I think it's in his best interest to address these points. He could gain a lot of good will from the public at large, even.
-Bok
PS- sorry if this post is a bit of a mess, I just finished posting a longish post over at the 2350 Forum at Sake, my brain is fried.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I haven't read all six pages. Has anyone mentioned that Harry Reid, the senate majority leader, is LDS? This is the highest elected office ever held by a Mormon and yet Reid gets relatively little attention for his religious beliefs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Occ, point out where I have disbelieved what you guys are saying?
I think he was referring to Lambert, who said that Kat wasn't being completely honest when she (and others) said that, yes, we really do believe that Jesus was the divine son of God and not just a "Lord of Kolob" (whatever that means).
[ February 26, 2007, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But Kat, you need to understand that if you are not totally straightforward, and are employing an artful dodge or two, then saying you are dissembling is fair, and it is not the same thing as calling you a liar.
oh my stars, I am not dissembling in the slightest. I believe that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, that he is the savior of the world, and that it is only through his atonement that we are able to be forgiven.
MattB informs me that he thinks you think I am aware of classical trinitarianism and am thumbing my nose at it, and this is why you think I'm dissembling. Okay - I don't really, and I am not. I have not studied what other Christians believe about Christ. For obvious reasons, that's not what we learn in Sunday school. What I believe about Christ is what I said above.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:So you haven't addressed it, so much as saying it doesn't exist.
We did address it by saying it doesn't exist. That is one example where you don't believe us. You can disagree that it doesn't exist, but the implication here is that we do think it exists and just don't want to acknowledge it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe the problem here is the assumption that Mormons define themselves in opposition to other Christians. There is some inevitable "we believe this, unlike other people, who believe this", but there isn't much. There are no classes on what other Christians believe, and except for a few comments in Joseph Smith History and in the D&C (there's a whole section devoted to the Shakers), what other people believe isn't mentioned.
So, when you accuse Mormons of dissembling when they say they believe in Christ, you are assuming that we know exactly what you believe and claiming to believe the same while actually not. That simply isn't true. Mormons don't take as a given Catholic or Protestant beliefs and define themselves against it. Why should we?
Do you see what you're doing when you claim that we are not telling the truth? You are relying more on what other people have told you about Mormons than on what Mormons say about themselves. This would be a good moment to question your own sources.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blackblade, I never said that Mormons were not Christians. I did say that they do not understand the nature of Christ the same way that most other Christians do (and when I said "other," I was implying that Mormons are Christians).
True enough, Moslems only acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, not as one equal to God the Father, eternally pre-existent with the Father. Mormons regard Jesus as more than just a prophet, they see Him as Messiah and Saviour, but not eternally pre-existent with the Father.
But Mormons do exalt Joseph Smith as a prophet and founder of the church, and this seems similar to the way that Moslems regard Mohammed. I am not saying necessarily that this is evil or wrong, just that this is a similarity that stands out in distinction from other Christians. My own church (Seventh-day Adventist) believes that Ellen G. White was given the prophetic gift, and she was one of the founders of our church, but she insisted that we are to go by the Bible as authority for everything we believe, not by what she says, so she strictly forbade us to make her writings the standard for our faith. But obviously I am not as ready to condemn Mormons for having a founding prophet as other Christian denominations may be.
I do question the idea of having prophets who are elected--I believe it is God who chooses the ones to whom He gives spiritual gifts, including prophecy, and the church only has the authority to affirm the choice that God has made. But no doubt Mormons believe they are doing this when they elect their modern prophets. How are the rest of us to know any different?
Moslems forbid the use of alcohol, and Mormons, to the best of my knowledge, do as well. My church does too, so I am viewing this as a positive, not a criticism. But it is a point of similarity between Mormons and Moslems. I would hope that Mormon missionaries will take advantage of this similarity when trying to work with Moslems.
Mormons used to believe in and many practiced polygamy, and Moslems also believe in and some still practice polygamy. This is clearly a point of similarity, however much Mormons may protest that they no longer advocate or practice polygamy. All non-Mormon Christians have always condemned polygamy, to the point that all Western, Christian-dominated nations treat having multiple spouses as a crime called bigamy.
But look I am not really seriously saying that Mormons are just like Moslems. I just thought that there are a few similarities, and at least to me it seemed amusing to point this out. Since this seems to have caused some Mormons here to become very defensive, I will drop it. Never mind.
And for what it matters, were Mitt Romney to become the Republican nominee, I would probably vote for him for president (though I would prefer John McCain).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But no doubt Mormons believe they are doing this when they elect their modern prophets
We do not elect prophets, presidents, or any other leaders. They are called.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I've been lurking this thread, but Ron, I'm really interested in your response to a question that has been asked of you by a couple people. You mentioned that all non-Mormon Christians have always condemned polygamy. In an earlier post, you referenced the unchanging nature of God. Being a Biblical literalist, how do you reconcile God's apparent sanctioning of polygamy in the Old Testament with Christian condemnation of the act?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Mormons regard Jesus as more than just a prophet, they see Him as Messiah and Saviour, but not eternally pre-existent with the Father.
You've been expressly told - numerous times now - that this is wrong:
quote:Originally posted by MattB: 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.
quote:Originally posted by MattB: The Mormon Christ is in fact uncreated. (this seems to be a particular concern, due to the issues about infinite attributes I mentioned above)
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one will with the Father. Through him all things were made.
If I'm understanding the difference correctly, it's that Jesus is not the same being/substance. But he has always existed with God and was the means by which Creation occurred. (Could someone please confirm this for me?)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:But no doubt Mormons believe they are doing this when they elect their modern prophets
We do not elect prophets, presidents, or any other leaders. They are called.
And just how does this 'calling' manifest itself in what we might delicately call the non-spiritual realm? I would assume that there is not an actual halo of light around the correct candidate, so it seems you would need some sort of human agency to make the calling bureaucratically real.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Through prayer and fasting, men who hold the responsibility for various congregations receive revelation for who to call to what duty.
Members of the church who will be affected by this person's call are asked to sustain or object to the call. This isn't like a vote; it is a show of support. A single objection is cause for investigation by those in authority.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:If I'm understanding the difference correctly, it's that Jesus is not the same being/substance. But he has always existed with God and was the means by which Creation occurred. (Could someone please confirm this for me?)
Exactly. Why non-LDS Christians continue to not understand this point is beyond me. There are differences to be sure, and even a few beyond just the being/substance issue. However, as for Jesus as Christ/God (although different than the Father)/Creator and other such things that any Christian (Protestant or Catholic) recognize as his role there really isn't any difference beyond what might be found between other denominations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the differences are far bigger than you seem to, Occ, and generally much bigger than the differences between the denominations that accept the Nicene creed (which includes Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the majority of Protestants). But it's still annoying to see someone repeatedly asserting that his knowledge of your faith is more accurate than your own. Reminds me of a certain comic book creator.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What would you say are those differences? I know there are, and acknowledged that, but just wondering what you think they are.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Jesus is the creator. Jesus, according to the Restored Gospel (Mormon doctrine) is Jehovah, the Lord. Pentecostals believe Jesus is Jehovah and there is no god but Jehovah (If I understand this right). When I had this discussion with someone this summer, I prayed about it and gave much thought to Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane: Not my will, but thine be done. I before believed that Jesus was the begotten son of God and not God incarnate, because people I trusted told me so, but now I believe it for myself.
On the question of Muslims, I believe Muhammed founded a dispensation of the gospel, and that Islam is as correct as many Christian sects. But to call him a founding prophet is a little dicey, since the doctrine that arose was that he was the seal, or last of the prophets.
An extension of an insight that came to me on page 4 of this thread is found in the following conference address.
quote: As we "talk [more] of Christ,"1 the gospel's doctrinal fulness will come out of obscurity. For example, some of our friends can't see how our Atonement beliefs relate to our beliefs about becoming more like our Heavenly Father. Others mistakenly think our Church is moving toward an understanding of the relationship between grace and works that draws on Protestant teachings. Such misconceptions prompt me to consider today the Restoration's unique Atonement doctrine.
quote: But grace is not cheap. It is very expensive, even very dear. How much does this grace cost? Is it enough simply to believe in Christ? The man who found the pearl of great price gave "all that he had"12 for it. If we desire "all that [the] Father hath,"13 God asks all that we have. To qualify for such exquisite treasure, in whatever way is ours, we must give the way Christ gave—every drop He had: "How exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not."14 Paul said, "If so be that we suffer with him," we are "joint-heirs with Christ."15 All of His heart, all of our hearts.
I don't know that I'd use the word "qualify" that appears in this segment, but it is a very good summary.
P.S. Another thing I would add is that to be a joint-heir with Christ is not just to suffer with him, but to forgive with him, to love with him and to rejoice with him.
[ February 27, 2007, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This kind of goes in a different direction, but I'm really into this quote from C.S. Lewis today. Of course C.S. Lewis wasn't Mormon, but he seems better able to explain a lot of our beliefs than we are:
quote:"People often think of Christian morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, 'If you keep a lot of rules, I'll reward you, and if you don't I'll do the other thing.' I do not think that is the best way of looking at it. I would much rather say that every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing into a Heaven creature or into a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is Heaven: that is, it is joy, and peace, and knowledge, and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What would you say are those differences? I know there are, and acknowledged that, but just wondering what you think they are.
I think Rabbit's modified version of the creed highlights them. What I'm saying is that I think those differences are more signifcant than you seem to think they are.
In fact, the "one in being with the Father" difference, in and of itself, is hugely significant to me. Remember, it was considered so important 300 years after Christ's death that it was one of a very few aspects of the faith put into the creed - a fact that highlights the importance of the doctrine and it's centrality to the faith.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
From what I can tell, here are what seem to be the core differences and similarities between the Mormon concept of Christ and the traditional Christian concept of Christ. Just to provide a starting point for actually understanding one another:
Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is uncreated, and has existed for all eternity. Traditionals also believe this. The difference is that Mormons believe that EVERYONE is uncreated, on the most fundamental level. Our belief in absolute free will is rooted in the fact that we believe that all people are uncreated, and therefore, their choices are determined neither by God, nor by chance, but by their own fundamental, eternal desires. This is a belief that, to my knowledge, is not shared by most other Christians. So, in Mormonism, Christ is eternal and uncreated, but this is not a feature that makes Him unique.
To Mormons, Christ is a completely separate being from God, but shares a spiritual unity with Him, much like the unity that all Christians strive to achieve with God and with one another. We believe that the Biblical scriptures which indicate a distinction between Christ and God are literal, while the scriptures that indicate their unity are meant in the sense I described above. Most Christians, on the other hand, accept the Trinitarian view described by the Nicene Creed, which emphasizes a literal unity.
Mormons do not view God's eternal, omnipotent, "godlike" state as a unique condition. It is perfectly possible for God to have all these common godlike attributes, AND for Christ to have them all, too, despite their being separate individuals. Thus we can say that Christ is "fully divine" without simultaneously suggesting that He is the same person as God. I get the impression, however, that most Christians see most of God's attributes as entirely unique to God, and thus, for an individual to be "completely divine", that individual would have to literally BE God. There isn't another way to do it. Am I right about that?
Essentially, Mormons separate the idea of being godlike in nature from the idea of actually BEING GOD (ie, being our Father in Heaven, the individual whom we worship). We actually consider human beings to be of the same basic nature as God (though immature and flawed), and to have much of the same potential. From a Mormon's perspective, having the potential to develop godlike attributes doesn't make us God's equals. God is God, and is worthy of worship, not because He is omniscient and omnipotent, but because He is our Father, to whom we owe everything we have. That is a unique position that no one else can ever fill. Thus, our belief that Christ possesses all of God's divinity does not make Christ a "second God" the way that polytheistic religions worship multiple gods. We will always worship only one God, our Father. Yet we recognize Christ as being fully divine, and possessing all of God's glory.
I assume I don't need to explain how that differs from traditional Christianity
I guess my point is that, yes, obviously, we're different. We follow the same teachings, which were brought to us by the same Christ, and we have a lot in common, which in my mind, makes us all a part of the same Christian family. But the more esoteric concepts are very different from one another. That makes it easy for us to talk past each other, using the same words to describe very different ideas. There isn't anything insidious about this ... it's just part of the way language works.
So I'd appreciate it if some folks would give us the benefit of the doubt and actually try to seek clarification, rather than accusing us of deception simply because you don't understand what we're saying.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Through prayer and fasting, men who hold the responsibility for various congregations receive revelation for who to call to what duty.
Members of the church who will be affected by this person's call are asked to sustain or object to the call. This isn't like a vote; it is a show of support. A single objection is cause for investigation by those in authority.
I must say that the difference between this procedure, and appointment by a central authority with a right of veto by the congregation, seems to me rather thin. I'll grant you that it's not an election, as such; but I see no need to dignify this particular variant of administrative procedure with the name 'calling to duty', especially in the context of a discussion with people who do not believe that it is a god doing the calling.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That you do not wish to call it such does not change what it actually is.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The reason to assert the use of inspiration, King, is to underscore the important belief that IF we claim that our Church belongs to God, THEN we need to base our leadership decisions on His will. Regardless of whether or not you accept that the inspiration we seek is actually being delivered, the fact that we seek it is critical to our theory of how our Church should be run.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But the more esoteric concepts are very different from one another.
I'm not sure why it bugs me so much, but this (and the suggestion that our beliefs don't differ that much) definitely touches a nerve with me.
I think it's because it strikes me as a form - a much milder and unintended form - of what Ron has been doing when he tells Mormons what they believe. The difference I've been focusing on and which you touched on in the post above isn't esoteric - it's in the creed, which makes it basic, fundamental, and central, at least from our perspective. One of my beliefs is that the nature of the relationship between God and Christ is profoundly important to my beliefs.
When the differences are made to appear less minor or when they are described as esoteric, it seems to say to me, "You don't really believe that the nature of the relationship between God and Christ is profoundly important to your beliefs."
I want to emphasize that I don't think you or Occ said anything wrong, rude, or offensive on this page. It bugs me, and that's as close to "why" as I can get right now. If you feel moved to consider this aspect when posting about the differences - not to say that the you consider the differences major or central, but to acknowledge that we do and clarify that you're not saying otherwise - I'd appreciate it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That you do not wish to call it such does not change what it actually is.
That you do wish to call it such does not change what it actually is.
However, I was not making an argument about what it really is, which would only take us into faith territory we've hashed out many times before; I was pointing out that for purposes of the discussion at hand, to say 'calling to duty' is not very useful. It doesn't tell Ron, or me, anything about what the procedure of your church actually is; and it is highly unlikely to convince either of us that your leadership is any more godly than what would be produced by elections, since we don't believe in your god. I can only conclude that you meant it for a trumpeting of territory, a way of saying "Our church has leaders chosen by God, and yours doesn't."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't a trumpeting of anything - it is a description of what it is happening. Other religions don't even enter into it. More details can be had, if requested. Details were requested and supplied. That you want to disbelieve it is your perogative.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Perhaps to be more accurate you should have used the word "choose" rather then "elect," without having to bring God into it. There is a distinction.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was pointing out that for purposes of the discussion at hand, to say 'calling to duty' is not very useful. It doesn't tell Ron, or me, anything about what the procedure of your church actually is; and it is highly unlikely to convince either of us that your leadership is any more godly than what would be produced by elections, since we don't believe in your god.
Actually, it was a way of responding to the assertion by Ron that their prophet was elected rather than chosen by God. Scott clarified that the process referred to by Ron as "election" was actually the process by which they believed God chose their prophet.
Obviously, Ron disagrees with Scott and the others about whether the prophet was actually called by God. But there's a significant difference between the concept "the members choose the leaders" - a concept used by many churches who do not believe there is special divine guidance involved - and the concept of an inspired selection process that involves input from the members.
The underlying intent is very different, and it's this intent that is relevant to the theological discussion that was taking place.
A discussion, by the way, that presupposes the existence of God.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I've been lurking this thread, but Ron, I'm really interested in your response to a question that has been asked of you by a couple people. You mentioned that all non-Mormon Christians have always condemned polygamy. In an earlier post, you referenced the unchanging nature of God. Being a Biblical literalist, how do you reconcile God's apparent sanctioning of polygamy in the Old Testament with Christian condemnation of the act?
BaoQingTian, the principle involved was stated by Jesus in regard to the issue of divorce in Matthew 19:3-9:
quote:"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
The Bible is not a public relations document, only setting before us good examples, and showing the heroes of faith only in a good light. The Bible tells what the Patriarchs did, including Abraham taking Hagar for a second wife, and then all the dire consequences that followed. It tells us what Solomon did, in marrying hundreds of wives and taking hundreds of concubines, and how by his own confession the many pagans among these women turned his heart away from faithfully following the Lord, until he recovered his senses in old age.
What God allows, especially what He allowed when the human population was low following the Flood, is not the same as what He desires. The Ten Commandments clearly spell out God's will. Although God said He chose to make His covenant with Abraham "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws," this does not mean Abraham never violated any of the precepts of God's law. Indeed the Bible says that "all have sinned." (Romans 3:23.) Hebrews 11:8-11 tells us that Abraham was accounted righteous by faith. God imputed obedience to Abraham because of the promised Seed, who would be the Righteousness for all humanity, and because Abraham demonstrated the sincere inclination of his heart to obey God. Had he lived long enough, he would have come into perfect compliance with God's Law, and like Enoch would have been translated to Heaven without seeing death. Abraham was required by God to offer his son on an altar, as a test of his faith. When Abraham showed he was willing, God said it was enough, and Abraham did not have to go through with it. Also Hebrews 11:11 tells us: "By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised." This is credited to Sarah, despite the fact that when she first heard God's promise that she would have a son in her old age, she laughed.
----------------------------------------------
Occasional (and others who spoke about the nature of Christ), I find it a little exasperating how apologists for Mormonism keep redefining words so they can say they mean the same thing we do when we talk about the nature of Christ. Most Christians (non-Mormon Trinitarians) hold that Jesus Christ is God. Same in substance with the Father (if substance is the right Word). When we say we believe Jesus is the fully divine Son of God, this is what we mean. This is what the Christian church has always meant throughout the ages. But Mormons apparently redefine what it means to be divine, and claim we are misrepresenting them when we say they don't believe Jesus is the fully divine Son of God.
How we understand this has an enormous impact on soteriology, the doctrine of how it is that Christ saves us, because no one less than God Himself can atone for our sins and redeem us. Anyone of less standing would not have sufficient merit even to save Himself, when the sins of humanity were imputed upon His head. Only One who is truly and completely and fully in every sense God, could show us how our sin is dealt with in the heart of God, that He must reject it and refuse to embrace it, and that the punishment for sin must be carried out or else God is no longer righteous, and that the transaction is carried out in God's own heart, where God Himself must submit Himself to unimaginable self-sacrifice in order to obtain our redeption. Jesus dying on the Cross is God sacrificing Himself for our salvation. Had the plan of salvation that was decided upon before the creation of earth specified that it would be the Father instead of the Son who would be Surety for our race and come to earth and live among us and die for our sins, the salvation history we have in the Bible would be exactly the same. But it was Jesus, the Son of God, who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, and who wrote the Ten Commandments on tables of stone with His own finger, and who became incarnated as a man, fully taking part in our human nature and becoming the New Adam for our race, and dying on the Cross to pay for our sins, and rising again to affirm our new heritage as a race redeemed in Him, with Him as the new Head of our race.
Jews balk at the idea of God being three and yet one. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons also back off from embracing the full historic doctrine of the Trinity. JW's are more blatant, in claiming Jesus was actually a created being upon whom the Father endoweed Sonship. Mormons try to avoid the extreme to which JW's go, but they still cannot bring themselves to fully embrace the idea of God truly being a trinity, three Persons who are totally equal and always have been, and yet One God.
Here is my personal probably very flawed attempt at explaining the Trinity: God is too big to fit in the universe, too eternal to fit within time. This God who exists outside of time and space we call the Father. God who permeats all of space and time, upholding every atom, quark, and second of time, who gives every living creature their very lives and keeps them living from moment to moment, we call the God, the Holy Spirit. God who projected Himself into space and time in the form first of an angel to be the Brother of angels, then as a man to be our Brother, and who joined Himself permanently to human nature to become our Saviour, we call God the Son.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Occasional (and others who spoke about the nature of Christ), I find it a little exasperating how apologists for Mormonism keep redefining words so they can say they mean the same thing we do when we talk about the nature of Christ.
None of them have said they mean the same thing when they talk about the nature of Christ. Occ EXPRESSLY confirmed on this very page that Mormons have a different belief about the nature of Christ. Rabbit made a pretty good post about it, and Puppy discussed it at length.
Not one Mormon on this thread has claimed that Mormon beliefs about the nature of Christ are the same as trinitarian beliefs about the nature of Christ. They have been expressly clear about this multiple times.
quote:Most Christians (non-Mormon Trinitarians) hold that Jesus Christ is God. Same in substance with the Father (if substance* is the right Word). When we say we believe Jesus is the fully divine Son of God, this is what we mean.
The italicized portion is, indeed, what we (non-Mormon Trinitarians) believe about the nature of Christ. "The fully divine Son of God" without additional language does not fully express this belief - it is accurate yet incomplete. When we say it amongst ourselves, it is understood that the rest comes with it. But the language for the attributes not expressed in "the fully divine Son of God" is well-documented and easy to use. If you said, "Mormons do not believe that Christ is the fully divine Son of God who is one in being with Him" you would be accurate.
This is basic, basic stuff and at this point it looks as if you are trying to be offensive.
*It's the right word for a very particular usage of substance. What most people think of "substance" today would be inaccurate.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I'm not sure why it bugs me so much, but this (and the suggestion that our beliefs don't differ that much) definitely touches a nerve with me.
Sorry, Dag ... I wasn't trying to say that the differences are unimportant. In fact, I think that, while it isn't discussed all that much, the fact that Mormons consider all people to be uncreated is a huge deal that makes us unique among Christians, and is a big part of why the faith resonates with me. I have trouble conceiving of another way to view the origin of man that doesn't, in one way or another, invalidate our free will.
BUT, while on a spiritual and philisophical level, the difference is critical, on a "let's get along and live in the same country together, and elect each other to political office" level, the day-to-day teachings of Christ are far more important, in my estimation. And on that score, we're largely in agreement about what is right and what is wrong. That's the main reason I was downplaying the difference.
I understand why acceptance of the creeds would be critical to someone who views the first several centuries of traditional Christianity as a developmental period that culminated in the creation of their religion. For someone outside your faith to come in and say, "I accept everything up to THIS point, but then nothing afterwards," probably sounds weirdly invalid, like they're just trying to cherry-pcik their favorite beliefs, and manufacture something that doesn't include much of what you consider to be part of the foundation of Christianity.
But then, at the same time, you have to understand OUR position ... that the traditional Christian church has changed over time, and a lot of doctrine was in flux in the centuries before the creeds. To us, it seems as though there are many different directions that Christianity could potentially have gone in the years following the ascension of Christ, and the fact that the one nailed down in the Nicene Creed became the successful one doesn't necessarily make it the only possible version of Christianity. We see the idea of Christianity as having started much earlier, and as having encompassed a broader range of doctrines in the intervening years. So for us to reach back in time, and attempt to branch from an earlier, pre-creed point in Christian history seems perfectly valid from our perspective. We think that if the people following Christ's teachings in 70 AD were Christian, then we are also Christian, even though neither of us has ever recognized the Nicene Creed Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Puppy, while I agree with almost everything in your post, I'm with Dagonee in his distaste for the word "esoteric." The Creator/Creation distinction and monotheism and homoousia are not esoteria to creedal Christianity, they are absolutely central foundational beliefs.
It's roughly equivalent to saying that since we all believe that Joseph Smith lived in New York, wrote (or at least transcribed) the Book of Mormon and founded the LDS church we believe basically the same thing, excepting that Mormons believe he was a prophet of God and non-Mormons don't.
Edit: wrote this before your last post.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Some misconceptions need to be cleared up, Puppy:
quote:I understand why acceptance of the creeds would be critical to someone who views the first several centuries of traditional Christianity as a developmental period that culminated in the creation of their religion.
We don't consider those centuries "developmental" in the sense you seem to mean. There were no new doctrines created at Nicea. Existing doctrines, in existence and followed from the time of Christ, were expressed and formally recorded.
quote:We see the idea of Christianity as having started much earlier, and as having encompassed a broader range of doctrines in the intervening years.
We see the Christian Church as being founded on Pentacost (edit: this might be more emphasized among Catholics), with Christianity having started even earlier. When you say you see Christianity having started much earlier, do you mean prior to the incarnation? If you don't, then this is inaccurate insofar as it deals with our beliefs.
(no longer clearing up misconceptions)
quote:So for us to reach back in time, and attempt to branch from an earlier, pre-creed point in Christian history seems perfectly valid from our perspective.
From our perspective, there is no pre-creed point in Christian history except in the mundane sense that it hadn't been written yet. All of Christian history is post-beliefs-embodied-in-the-creed, even though 300+ years predate the authoring of it.
quote:We think that if the people following Christ's teachings in 70 AD were Christian, then we are also Christian, even though neither of us has ever recognized the Nicene Creed
And we think that the people following Christ's teachings in 70 AD believed everything expressed in the Nicene Creed.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Mormons try to avoid the extreme to which JW's go, but they still cannot bring themselves to fully embrace the idea of God truly being a trinity, three Persons who are totally equal and always have been, and yet One God.
That's an interesting way to express that idea. It sounds almost like your saying that Mormons "really" know that you're right about the Trinity, but for some reason, we're unwilling to believe it, despite its obvious truth.
I'm sure you can imagine that this isn't how we see it, from our perspective To us, it seems as though you have accepted an idea that is both counterintuitive and unnecessary, given the text of the scriptures. The Trinity is one way to reconcile some of the apparent contradictions about God in scripture, but it isn't the only way, and it isn't even the simplest way. It's just the way that some of our Christian brethren have chosen to interpret the word of God.
However, looking at the scriptures themselves, and our own sources, we find a different explanation that, to us, seems not only more true (in terms of generating faith), but also more plausible (in terms of hanging together and making sense to us, philisophically).
Obviously, everyone is different, and there is nothing wrong with the fact that you and I have been better persuaded by different sets of ideas. While my beliefs resonate very strongly with me, I can accept the fact that yours resonate with you, and that you aren't likely to find my beliefs terribly persuasive.
I do wish, however, that you could afford my people a bit more respect when it comes to the way we view and express ourselves about Christianity. We are doing our best to be clear, and to bridge the gap between our faiths, but this isn't an easy task. Especially when the other side utterly denies us the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:And we think that the people following Christ's teachings in 70 AD believed everything expressed in the Nicene Creed.
Okay, I think we've hit upon something, then. THIS is probably the source of our disagreement. Mormons typically believe that there was a lot of variance of opinion among Christians about the unity of Christ with God, and other core doctrines, and we view the Council at Nicaea as being the moment in history at which belief in the Trinity was formalized, and the discussion was finally settled for the first time. Thus, when we consider ourselves to have branched off at an earlier point, what we're suggesting is that we accept a version of early Christianity in which the doctrine formalized in the Nicene Creed was not universally believed, and in which many (if not most) Christians believed things that were more compatible with our doctrine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: If polygamy was universally wrong according to the law, why is there not statue saying so within the law itself? I myself do not agree with your interpretation of Jesus' point in the scripture you quoted. He seems to be discussing divorce or in their terminology "Putting away wives" unjustly, rather then saying, you may have one but no more. If you marry a second wife you do not "put away" your first wife, you continue to love her and ideally she loves you just as much.
Your explanation does not mesh very well in light of 2 Samuel 12:7-9 where Nathan rebukes David for setting Uriah the Hittite up to die.
"7 ...Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. (in other words, more of what he had already been given) 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon."
Nathan does not condemn David for polygamy, in fact he states that God has awarded David his wives.
Solomon did not sin in marrying many wives until he started marrying wives from the nations of Canaan.
-----
Mormons completely accept the Godship and divine nature of Jesus Christ. We believe he is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the one who wrote the 10 commandments. He created this earth. He literally took upon himself a human body and lived among us, he was begotten by "His father."
quote: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons also back off from embracing the full historic doctrine of the Trinity.
Well from our perspective you are drawing conclusions inappropriately from Christ's simple admission that He and "The Father" are One. One being one in purpose and of one mind. Two perfect beings would undoubtedly draw completely identical conclusions from the same set of knowledge, and could quite accurately be described, "As One."
We reject the "One in substance" insofar as it means they are the same being; of the same substance is completely acceptable. The problem Mormons have with the traditional doctrine of the trinity is,
1: We believe our interpretation is the more traditional and more correct, and that the Nicean creed is a departure from that original, true doctrine.
2: Joseph Smith not only stated that he saw two distinct personages in his first vision, he received subsequent revelations from Christ where He literally spells out the unified but distinct nature of the 3 beings that comprise the godhead.
Mormons are not "balking" or "backing off from embracing the full doctrine." We simply believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and were we to accept your doctrines, we must by necessity reject Joseph Smith as a bone fide prophet of God. Any Mormon who receives a testimony of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon MUST reject the doctrine of the trinity as you have described it.
But I will agree that I do not think it is correct for Mormons to say, "We REALLY believe the same thing!" It does our entire church a disservice, as we believe God formed it, so from our perspective God must have thought our differences were great enough to warrant creating a new church. If differences were slight he could have simply operated within an existing church and reformed it.
I think what Mormons WANT is for other Christians to stop setting us apart as some sort of cult, or non Christian religion. We earnestly believe in Jesus Christ, just as much as you do. And often other Christians try to label us as, "Non Christians" as a way to undermine our position. "Your church is not true because it is not Christian." "You do not really believe in salvation through Christ, you believe you need Joseph Smith."
If Mormons are not Christians, what are we? Our church belongs to Christ, we worship Christ, we testify of Christ, we accept no substitutes for Christ, what then is our church? What is our religion if not Christ? If then it is Christ, do we need another word to describe it so that Christian does not "lose" its meaning?
There are good reasons why we balk at not being identified as Christians. If we are not Christ's, then to who do we belong?
edited for clarity and grammar.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Puppy, to clarify:
I'm not saying there wasn't dissension amongst early Christians. But there was an authoritative Church body for resolving such conflicts and such resolution represented accepted and established doctrine. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts is the first example of this.
In one sense Nicea did "settle" the trinity issue. However, the belief is that this was a positive statement of what the beliefs already were in the face of dissension - not that there was no dissension.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blackblade, the Bible frequently sets forth things involving God in the sometimes quaint manner and custom of common human speech. Saying God gave or would give David multiple wives is simply the way the prophet chose to work it. But what God allows is not necessarily the ideal tht He would prefer.
The best example I can give involves the death of King Saul, as reported in 1 Chronicles 10:
Verse 4 says Saul killed himself: "Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it."
Verse 11 implies the Philistines killed Saul: "And when all Jabeshgilead heard all that the Philistines had done to Saul...."
Verses 13-14 say that the Lord killed Saul: "So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse."
All three statements, of course, are true in their own way. Saul literally killed Himself. The Philistines caused his death in a more general sense. And God "slew him." This latter shows us that God takes responsibility for the things that He allows, even if it is not His fault, and not necesarily what He would prefer.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ron, are you saying that the old testament prophets did not, in fact, have more than one wife? or if they did, it was against the Lord's wishes?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
No katharina, I am saying that people in the Old Testament, even patriarchs and prophets, did not always do things the way God would have preferred. And though God may have indulged them in certain situations, they still suffered the consequences.
There is an ancient Chinese system of writing using pictographs. The pictograph for a garden is a cross-hatch design. The pictograph for home is a garden with two stick figures in it, a man and a woman. The pictograph for unhappiness shows a garden with a man and two women in it. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm having a hard time of thinking of any OT prohphet that is recorded as having more than one wife. Patriarchs, yes; kings, yes. Is this an example of our differing use of the word "prophet" again?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What does a Chinese pictograph have to do with the Bible or God?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:that people in the Old Testament, even patriarchs and prophets, did not always do things the way God would have preferred.
Are you saying that when the old testament prophets (patriarchs) had more than one wife, they went against what God preferred?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron: Thats pretty shaky ground if you ask me. God is listing all the things He has done for David and then he interjects something he "allowed" in the middle and continues listing more gifts?
God most certainly DID slay Saul in that Saul had descended into sin and God no longer protected nor gave him advice as to what to do. God allowed Saul to get himself in a position where the Philistines could kill him. It is exactly the same as how David "slew" Uriah. Neither David nor God delivered the stroke, they both allowed circumstance to accomplish their aims.
quote:Saying God gave or would give David multiple wives is simply the way the prophet chose to work it.
And who are you to judge how the prophet "meant" to phrase it? I could just as easily argue that the prophet was directly saying that David had been given so much at God's hands and had spit in God's face figuratively by slaying Uriah so he could marry wife. The parable of the ewe lamb that Nathan preceded these comments with further describes a situation where David has been given much by God
If it was not right for David to take multiple wives God would most likely have commanded David not to as plenty of righteous men were monogamous. David in his early days was very open to listening to God, why should we assume that God simply understands cultural differences and lets things slide? I know of no culture where God has been so accommodating, if I remember he is no respecter of persons.
Again where in the law can you identify a rule against polygamy?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Puppy, to clarify:
I'm not saying there wasn't dissension amongst early Christians. But there was an authoritative Church body for resolving such conflicts and such resolution represented accepted and established doctrine. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts is the first example of this.
In one sense Nicea did "settle" the trinity issue. However, the belief is that this was a positive statement of what the beliefs already were in the face of dissension - not that there was no dissension.
This is a good clarification. I have been reading along and up til a couple of posts have been nodding along, "Oh good. Dag's got it covered."
My understanding is that, once Christianity became the "state religion" it became important to write down and codify our beliefs and that the beliefs laid down in the creed, especially regarding the nature of God/Christ. But I don't want to minimize that there was dissent. Bishops did have to be convinced. The authoritive church body for establishing doctrine meant a lot of discussion and consensus building. Dagonee is correct that the creed when he states that the Council at Nicea recorded what the Church already believed and even more correct when he notes that coming to an agreement about what that meant was not without controversy.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blackblade, when knowledge of God has become darkened, and God seeks to lead a people back into a full appreciation of His truth, He never demands of them total reform all at once. He leads them step by step, as they are able, saying, "Today this is the truth you must focus upon. Tomorrow some other truth will become a testing truth to reveal your faithfulness to Me."
God did not say anything to Abraham about taking the pagan idols with him when He started out for the Promised Land. But later He did encourage various people to put away their idols, and finally He absolutely required this of Israel, allowing them to be carried away captive because of their continued refusal to put all the vestiges of idolatry away from them.
The seventh commandment says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14)
How do you define adultery?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is a good clarification. I have been reading along and up til a couple of posts have been nodding along, "Oh good. Dag's got it covered."
I didn't realize that my 4:08 post could be taken to mean everyone agreed about everything until Puppy's last post.
This is why precision is important!
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: All non-Mormon Christians have always condemned polygamy
This is false. There are many Christian Polygamy sects. Here's an example. The numbers don't compare to Mormon Polygamy sects, but they certainly exist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ron, in order to say that polygamy has always been disapproved of by God, you have to stretch quite a few things in the Bible, at the very least.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm a non-Mormon Christian and I don't condemn polygamy. Under the right circumstances.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blackblade, when knowledge of God has become darkened, and God seeks to lead a people back into a full appreciation of His truth, He never demands of them total reform all at once. He leads them step by step, as they are able, saying, "Today this is the truth you must focus upon. Tomorrow some other truth will become a testing truth to reveal your faithfulness to Me."
God did not say anything to Abraham about taking the pagan idols with him when He started out for the Promised Land. But later He did encourage various people to put away their idols, and finally He absolutely required this of Israel, allowing them to be carried away captive because of their continued refusal to put all the vestiges of idolatry away from them.
The seventh commandment says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14)
How do you define adultery?
1: Could you cite where Abraham took his idols with him? I have no recollection of this. I do agree that God reveals his word gradually as the full import would be too much for most people. But God in your scripture said, "Moses" allowed you to put away your wives, but not "God." God distanced himself from saying he ever sanctioned or even allowed divorce as the Jews were then and previously doing it.
2: Adultery? Thats a difficult question, as you may or may not separate fornication from adultery. But engaging in sexual intercourse with somebody who is not your lawfully wedded wife/husband most likely constitutes adultery. If neither party is married I call it fornication. Adultery to me is more serious then fornication.
Hence if a man divorces his wife and marries another woman, outside of his wife fornicating with another man, he commits adultery in the eyes of God and His laws. The 2nd woman he has sex with is also committing adultery as the man in the eyes of God and His laws is still married to the first woman, even if civilly the divorce has taken place.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the most dangerous misconceptions for Mitt Romney are those held by Mormons about themselves.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BlackBlade, I have been unable to locate a text that indicates Abram took with him out of his father Terah's house some household idols. There is an occasional mention that such existed, such as when Jacob told his household to get rid of them: "Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you....And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand...." (Genesis 35:2, 4) There is an earlier mention of household idols in Genesis 31:19: "And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father's." Jacob said nothing about these idols for some time, until he finally told his household to put them away.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Jacob said nothing about these idols for some time, until he finally told his household to put them away.
There may be more than just one reason for this, you know.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I think the most dangerous misconceptions for Mitt Romney are those held by Mormons about themselves.
Not sure what this meant, pook.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
1: Jacob telling his household to put away their strange Gods is certainly well within moral grounds. It does not say Jacob worshiped the idols, and its doubtful that his man/woman servants were not Canaanites and they certainly had idols. I am sure Abraham's "household" probably has NO overlap with Jacob's "household."
2: Again, Rachael's motives for taking the images are not given any explanation in the biblical account. Perhaps she knew by taking them her father would pursue Jacob and they would be forced to reconcile their differences. Lets say she took them with the intent of worshiping them when Jacob took her home, does that mean Jacob himself was worshiping idols?
Idolatry (idol worship, not laziness) is given ALOT of treatment in the old testament. God did not tolerate it at all from the beginning. It may interest you that in the extended account of Abraham's life that Mormons accept, it is revealed that Abraham was almost sacrificed by his own father to the pagan idols of Egypt, and that God saved him and slew the priest the was poised to slay Abraham. It was from there that Abraham wandered until he reached Canaan. I was always interested that Abraham took his father with him even after that event, though ultimately according to the account Terah temporarily repents of his wickedness but turns back to idol worship and abandons Abraham.
The fact Abraham himself was nearly sacrificed by his own father to idols adds a powerful dynamic to when Abraham himself was asked by the one and true God to sacrifice his own son.
Ron, perhaps we should focus on polygamy's treatment in the Old and New testament. We already agree that God slowly reveals his word, but my point was that God still has some standards that have always been in force. Idol worship has never been tolerated amongst his people.
Posted by Mr.Intel (Member # 10057) on :
I just wanted to add something to the thread that Puppy/Dagonee/et al were discussing regarding the Nicaean Creed. Fair disclosure: I am a practicing Mormon.
Mormon doctrine claims that after Christ was resurrected, he left his kingdom (church) in the charge of Peter (with the help of the other Apostles). It further attests that all of the Apostles were killed and that when they died, the kingdom that Christ established -- the organization of the church was killed with them. Finally, (and here is the part that is missing from all the discussion so far) Christ gave specific authority to his Apostles to govern the church. This authority is called by Mormons "The Priesthood".
The Priesthood, according to Mormon belief, is the defining aspect of our creed. To quote the current president of the church, “[The priesthood] is a delegation of divine authority, different from all other powers and authorities on the face of the earth. … It is the only power on the earth that reaches beyond the veil of death. … Without it there could be a church in name only, [a church] lacking authority to administer in the things of God.”
So, it is the lack of priesthood at Nicaea that makes the Creed less than inspired. It doesn't matter what they decided should be included or how they came about it. Even in an historical/fact gathering capacity, they simply didn't have the authority to speak for God. Therefore, the Nicaean Creed holds no water for Mormons because it happened during the "Apostasy" wherein there was a famine in the land "of hearing the words of the Lord".
Non-Mormon Christians seem to believe otherwise. They (according to my discussions with friends and relatives of various sects) believe that the priesthood is a body of inspired men/women that are called by God to teach His word. On its face, it sounds remarkably like Mormon belief. But in practice, the calling of Mormon leaders is done by Articles of Faith "the laying on of hands by those who are in authority" (traceable back to Christ). For non-Mormon Christians, I believe, calling in the ministry is obtained by seeking God's will and then devoting time and effort to gospel study (correct me if I am wrong). The distinction here is not that what non-Mormon Christians are doing wrong, but that one gives people the authority to act in the name of God and the other gives people a greater closeness to God. This distinction is important, as the speaker in the first link I gave (Elder Jeffery R. Holland) said, "Clearly, acting with divine authority requires more than mere social contract. It cannot be generated by theological training or a commission from the congregation. No, in the authorized work of God there has to be power greater than that already possessed by the people in the pews or in the streets or in the seminaries—a fact that many honest religious seekers had known and openly acknowledged for generations leading up to the Restoration."
The defining difference between Mormons and non-Mormon Christians (and the one that will likely never be aired in a political debate) is divine authority.
Edited to clean up some punctuation issues.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mr.Intel, you are very mistaken concerning your characterization of non-Mormon Christians and callings to ministry, especially in the contention that Mormon beliefs regarding "'the laying on of hands by those who are in authority' (traceable back to Christ)." For example, many Christians believe in the Apostolic Succession.
quote:The Catholic Church (including its rites), Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Independent Catholic, Anglican Communion and some others hold that apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles. In Catholic and Orthodox theology, the unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" [2] would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would be with the apostles to "the end of the age".[3] According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept as would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors; as, for example, if all the bishops of the world agreed to abrogate the Nicene Creed or to repudiate the Bible.
Both Orthodox and Catholics believe that each of their teachings today is the same as or is in essential harmony with the teaching of the first apostles, although each might deny this about the other, at least where the teachings of each are in conflict. This form of the doctrine was formulated by Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century, in response to certain Gnostics. These Gnostics claimed that Christ or the Apostles passed on some teachings secretly, or that there were some secret apostles, and that they (the Gnostics) were passing on these otherwise secret teachings. Irenaeus responded that the identity of the original Apostles was well known, as was the main content of their teaching and the identity of the apostles' successors. Therefore, anyone teaching something contrary to what was known to be apostolic teaching was not, in any sense, a successor to the Apostles or to Christ.
Roman Catholics recognize the validity of the apostolic successions of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some Independent Catholic Churches. The Eastern Orthodox do not recognize Roman Catholics nor any other group as having Apostolic Succession, examples of economia such as the reception of Catholic priests by "vesting" rather than by re-ordination, notwithstanding.
Further, ecumenical councils such as the Nicean Council are not seen as "a body of inspired men/women that are called by God to teach His word." They are seen by Catholics as possessing infalliable authority given by Christ himself.
I'm sure those denominations not mentioned here have their own views on the authority of such councils, but I doubt your summary is accurate for most of them, either.
So, it is the lack of apostolic succession and the rejection of the line of authority from Christ through the Apostles, the Bishops at Nicea, and subsequent person by person succession lasting through today that makes the Mormon teachings on this subject less than inspired.
This just goes to show that the misunderstandings aren't one way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fun facts I learned last night:
In 1904, Reed Smoot (how's that for a Mormon name) was elected to the Senate. The Senate was not going to let him take his seat because he was Mormon and some Mormons were still practicing polygamy, although Reed Smoot in particular did not. President Teddy Roosevelt intervened and Reed Smoot took his seat. He was an apostle at the time. He was in the Senate for the next thirty years.
Yep, there was a SENATOR who was a member of the QUORUM OF THE TWELVE at the same time. Forget about whether or not he gave credence to the leaders back in Salt Lake - he WAS one of the leaders back in Salt Lake.
Incidentally, he used to go back to Utah to campaign for the Republicans, which upset some of the other apostles such as Lorenzo Snow because they were Democrats. Which is understandable. Considering there was about thirty years of this, Matt thinks this is part of where the idea that to be a good Mormon one must be a Republican came from. I can see how that would appear.
B.H. Roberts, a great Mormon theologian (wrote all sorts of books in the last part of the nineteenth century) was a Democrat and he was elected to the House of Representatives from Utah. The House did not let him take his seat because he was Mormon. That stuck, and Roberts was sent back to Utah. B.H. Roberts was practicing polygamy at the time, so considering the laws at the time, I kind of think the House had a point
[ February 28, 2007, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
I just wanted to say that I'm learning alot from this discussion and I appreciate the way that it is taking place.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Constitutional side note: the Senate and House have essentially unfettered authority to refuse to seat members. Even if it is unconstitutional to do so because of religion,* the courts have said there is no remedy for such a violation. That is, the House could get away with this today and nothing short of political action could stop them.
*There's good reason to think that the religious tests clause might prohibit this. However, since there's no remedy, there's no precedent. Without question, it would be grossly violative of the spirit of the Constitution.
Posted by Mr.Intel (Member # 10057) on :
Dag,
There are many ideas on how authority is passed, but Mormons claim that authority a) had to be directly/physically transferred from one holding the authority to the next; and b) that the authority has to be traceable back to Christ. Papal primacy and the Mormon restoration are the only two ways this could have happened. Mormon theology holds that Papal primacy could not be one of the avenues of apostolic succession because of the apostasy referenced in Amos 8.
Obviously the Catholic Church (and Anglican and Episcopal by association) do not agree with the Mormons on this topic.
Most other Protestants don't claim Apostolic succession the way that the Mormons and Catholics do. They claim a "connectional" (from your enlightening wiki link) association to the succession. Which, according to strict Mormon interpretation is a farce.
You and I both know that interfaith doctrinal debates rarely lead to persuasion, so I'll end this post by saying I don't intend for anyone to believe me solely based on what I say. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on what anyone else (including me) believes. I am trying to point out why Mormons don't believe anything that came out of Nicaea. In reality, the Book of Mormon plainly states that such doctrinal differences represent "stumbling blocks" that keep people from understanding the truth. I would argue that this very discussion could be so described.
My lack of understanding of what other Christian faiths believe is one thing I can ammend and hope that by participating in this thread, it will help ameliorate my condition. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Most other Protestants don't claim Apostolic succession the way that the Mormons and Catholics do.
Just a reminder: Catholics alone make up more than half the Christians in the world. Throw in 200+ million Eastern Orthodox and 70 million Anglicans, and more than 2/3 of all Christians' views on authority are not covered by your earlier description. That's all I wanted to get across.
(And I'm not saying your description fits the others, but I'm not qualified to speak to that. I think that most believe that the Council of Nicea was well before any break in the succession, so, even if your description is adequate today, it does not apply to their interpretation of the authority of the creed.)
Edit: and I appreciate the explanations. It's not anything new to me (due solely to similar explanations I've read here before), but I always like well-intentioned discussions about differing beliefs.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: For non-Mormon Christians, I believe, calling in the ministry is obtained by seeking God's will and then devoting time and effort to gospel study (correct me if I am wrong).
You are wrong.
quote:Most other Protestants don't claim Apostolic succession the way that the Mormons and Catholics do. They claim a "connectional" (from your enlightening wiki link) association to the succession. Which, according to strict Mormon interpretation is a farce.
The "connectional" link that you describe as a farce is not held by "most Protestants" according to the wiki link, but only by United Methodists. Since I'm a member of that "farscial" body, I'd like to clarify a point.
The break in apostalic succession as understood by the Catholic church is because the founder of the Methodist denominations, John Wesley, was not a Bishop. He was, however, an ordained Anglican priest. Therefore there still is an unbroken link of laying on of hands traced back to the apostles. The same is true of the Lutheran church -- Martin Luther was a priest, but not a bishop.
There are independent churches whose clergy are either self-ordained or ordained by groups of people with no connection through the historic links, but the major denominations trace their ordination through the laying on of hands by someone (or multiple someones) who was ordained in the same way.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Getting back to the original thread topic, it does not appear to me that Mormons suffer from any stigma in government. Mitt Romney managed to get elected governor of Massachusetts, and his father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan back in the 60's, and I remember him as being very popular, credited with "saving American Motors Corp." (which no longer exists, but that happened later). He ran for president as a favorite son, and the only thing that really did him in was when he visited Vietnam and later said that U.S. generals "brainwashed" him.
These days, most Americans have no idea what their own church teaches, let alone what others teach, so denominational affiliation is not likely to be a hindrance for any candidate.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I do not agree with you, Ron. Does that mean you haven't heard of the infamous poll where 43% said they would never vote for a Mormon?
Dana -- my LDS paradigm very well may be keeping me from understanding what you're saying, and please correct me if needed. From you say, it appears that most protestant denominations claim at least of some of their authority through their unbroken chain to the apostles through Catholic church. This would imply a belief that the Catholic church had authority, at least up to Luther.
How does this mesh with the unfortunate belief of some that Catholics aren't really Christians? Is it just a disconnect between the doctrines of the denominations and the beliefs of the members, or is there a belief that while the Catholic church had authority at some point, but has since lost it? Or something else entirely?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The break in apostalic succession as understood by the Catholic church is because the founder of the Methodist denominations, John Wesley, was not a Bishop. He was, however, an ordained Anglican priest. Therefore there still is an unbroken link of laying on of hands traced back to the apostles. The same is true of the Lutheran church -- Martin Luther was a priest, but not a bishop.
Thanks for chiming in, Dana. I've always wondered about that. My knowledge of this topic WRT to Protestants stops at the Anglican Communion (or it did before you expanded it).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
mph: both of those, plus the fact that the majority of the "Catholics aren't really Christians" folk are not the mainline denominations but the more independant evangelical churches who don't believe in any type of apostolic succession. Some churches even have clergy who are self-ordained (though they would say called by God).
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How does this mesh with the unfortunate belief of some that Catholics aren't really Christians? Is it just a disconnect between the doctrines of the denominations and the beliefs of the members, or is there a belief that while the Catholic church had authority at some point, but has since lost it? Or something else entirely?
Not all Protestants believe that Catholics aren't Christians. And in that case, as far as I know, the biggest issue is salvation through grace vs. salvation through works.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Not all Protestants believe that Catholics aren't Christians.
I did not imply that they do. I purposely used the word "some", to mean "some protestants".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dana -- which groups believe that the Catholic church once held authority, but no longer do, and how do they believe that this authority was lost?
Posted by Mr.Intel (Member # 10057) on :
Dana,
Ruffled feathers aside, I appreciate your comment.
I never called your religion a farce. I said that according to strict Mormon belief, the idea of a "connection" to apostolic authority was a farce. Take it however you like, but at least grant me the dignity of replying to what I said, not to what you think I said.
Numbers are meaningless to me, so discussion about how many people belong to which religion doesn't make your argument any more valid. There are thousands of Christian denominations in the world (probably more) and I'm a lot more interested in what they each believe than how many bodies they have in church every Sunday (or were sprinkled or dunked or otherwise included in the membership records).
On the subject of succession, let me get this straight... The sects who claim apostolic succession (i.e. Catholic, Anglican, Mormon) believe that they got it from Peter (an Apostle) and then through various people after that (i.e. the Pope). While those who believe in connection to the succession, claim they got it through some other office (i.e. Priest). Is that right?
This is a key difference, then because Mormons believe that an actual Apostle has to pass along the authority. Apostleship isn't just a nice name, it's an office in the Priesthood. It has keys, rights, and powers that aren't found in other offices. Bishop and Priest are offices in the Priesthood, too, but they don't have the same responsibilities as Apostle. According to Mormon doctrine, Apostles have all the keys and powers that Christ has ever given to man. No other office has these keys and powers. Among them is the power of revelation. Not the kind of revelation that anyone can get when they read the Bible, but the kind that Moses had when he received the ten commandments, the kind that Isaiah had when he saw the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ, the kind that Abraham had when he was promised that his seed would be as the sands of the sea. Finally, Mormons claim that there is only one church that has this authority on the earth today.
To my understanding, there is no other church that claims these things -- that there was an apostasy, that the authority to speak in God's name was lost and that subsequently, the power was restored in a church by the original Apostles Peter, James, and John.
So, unless an Apostle ordains another man to be an Apostle, the chain is at least partially broken (again, this is according to Mormon belief) since the keys and powers of the Apostleship could only be transferred to another Apostle. If Wesley and Luther weren't Apostles, then their authority is not the same as Peter. Since Mormons claim that Peter, James and John ordained Joseph Smith to be an Apostle (an other Prophets conferred keys to them as well) that all the keys of authority exist in the church colloquially known as the Mormon one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Numbers are meaningless to me, so discussion about how many people belong to which religion doesn't make your argument any more valid. There are thousands of Christian denominations in the world (probably more) and I'm a lot more interested in what they each believe than how many bodies they have in church every Sunday (or were sprinkled or dunked or otherwise included in the membership records).
I mentioned them solely to point out that your intitial description fits a small minority of non-Mormon Christians at most.
quote:On the subject of succession, let me get this straight... The sects who claim apostolic succession (i.e. Catholic, Anglican, Mormon) believe that they got it from Peter (an Apostle)
Or another Apostle, not just Peter.
quote: and then through various people after that (i.e. the Pope).
Not just the Pope - through any Bishop (from the episcopate churches' perspective).
quote:This is a key difference, then because Mormons believe that an actual Apostle has to pass along the authority.
I can't tell if your "this is a key difference" sentence refers to the previous sentence or the previous paragraph as a whole. To be sure everything is clarified, each Bishop was ordained by an Apostle or by another Bishop. We believe that a Bishop gains the full authority of the Apostle or successor to an Apostle that ordained him. The only difference between what you claim regarding the transfer of authority to your non-Peter/James/John Apostles is what you call them (plus the 1.8 millenia gap).
Mormon "Bishops" are far different than Catholic Bishops. We mean "successor to the Apostles" when we say "Bishop."
quote:To my understanding, there is no other church that claims these things -- that there was an apostasy, that the authority to speak in God's name was lost and that subsequently, the power was restored in a church by the original Apostles Peter, James, and John.
Your "these things" references a set of claims much broader than your summary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(Dagonee, just for the record, I'm still nodding along.)
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: According to Mormon doctrine, Apostles have all the keys and powers that Christ has ever given to man.
I need a brush up on my Mormon theology understanding. I thought only the President of the church had all the keys, and he delegated them to the different apostles. I know Joseph Smith claimed he got the greater priesthood and lesser priesthood from multiple angels. Wasn't it Peter, James, and John, for the Melchizedek and Aaron for the aaronic priesthood, according to Smith?
Exactly who supposedly gave what keys and what the keys are has always been a little fuzzy for me. Ie, did Peter, James, and John give separate keys individually to Joseph, or did they all give the same keys at the same time? And what keys were they? Do todays 12 have all the keys individually but only have authority to use some of the keys? Or do they only have select keys given by the President?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:(Dagonee, just for the record, I'm still nodding along.)
Which is good evidence for my contention that this is central and well-settled doctrine. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*snicker*
Posted by Mr.Intel (Member # 10057) on :
quote:I mentioned them solely to point out that your intitial description fits a small minority of non-Mormon Christians at most.
I can live with that.
quote:Not just the Pope - through any Bishop (from the episcopate churches' perspective).
Okay, Dag. I think I'm with you. According to the theory of Apostolic Succession, Bishops are the same as Apostles as far as passing along authority. So when the Catholic Church claims authority through the Popes to Christ, their claim is that Bishops have the same authority that Christ gave to Peter. As for Luther and Wesley, they were not Bishops or Apostles, so their claim is less... valid?
quote:I can't tell if your "this is a key difference" sentence refers to the previous sentence or the previous paragraph as a whole. To be sure everything is clarified, each Bishop was ordained by an Apostle or by another Bishop. We believe that a Bishop gains the full authority of the Apostle or successor to an Apostle that ordained him. The only difference between what you claim regarding the transfer of authority to your non-Peter/James/John Apostles is what you call them (plus the 1.8 millenia gap).
Just the last sentence, as Mormons agree with the idea of Apostolic authority being passed to other Apostles. So other than the Bishop/Apostle nomenclature (and that Mormons believe in an apostasy) Apostolic succession is fairly close to the line of authority beliefs of the Mormons? Cool.
quote:Mormon "Bishops" are far different than Catholic Bishops.
I won't argue with you there!
quote:Your "these things" references a set of claims much broader than your summary.
Which summary was that? Nevertheless, I don't claim to know the ins and outs of all the Christian religions (which is the point of my conversing with you and Dana) so I can honestly say that I don't know of any other church that claims "those things". Do you?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses. Google "restorationism" for more details. I don't think any of the others specify Peter, James, and John, but they were all founded on the idea that original Christianity died out due to apostasy and was restored in their church.
Posted by Mr.Intel (Member # 10057) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: I need a brush up on my Mormon theology understanding. I thought only the President of the church had all the keys, and he delegated them to the different apostles. I know Joseph Smith claimed he got the greater priesthood and lesser priesthood from multiple angels. Wasn't it Peter, James, and John, for the Melchizedek and Aaron for the aaronic priesthood, according to Smith?
The President of the Church is the only one with the authorization to exercise all the keys at the same time (unless he designates others to do so). The keys also exist in their entirety in the body of men ordained as Apostles (the Quorum of the Twelve) and are given to the Apostle when he is ordained. They are latent unless activated by the President. As an example, the sealing power is one of the keys held by all the Apostles which can be activated for use by the Apostles, and also given to Temple Presidents and certain men that are called to perform Temple sealings.
quote:Exactly who supposedly gave what keys and what the keys are has always been a little fuzzy for me. Ie, did Peter, James, and John give separate keys individually to Joseph, or did they all give the same keys at the same time? And what keys were they?
In Doctrine and Covenants 110 has some of the answers you are looking for. Basically, Moses, Elias, and Elijah commit different keys to Joseph Smith. Moses gave (among others) the keys of the gathering of Israel. Elijah is the one who commits the sealing power. Peter, James, and John gave Joseph Smith the Melchizedek Priesthood (the same Priesthood that Melchizedek held) and ordained him to the office of Apostle.
Here is another great resource on the keys of the Priesthood.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
John the Baptist gave Joseph Smith the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dana -- if I understand correctly, restorationists don't claim any of their authority from a line that goes through the Catholic church.
Are there any churches who claim their authority from a line that goes through the Catholic church, but who believe that the Catholic church no longer has that authority?
edit: Or were you not answering my question?
[ February 28, 2007, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Mr.Intel (Member # 10057) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses. Google "restorationism" for more details. I don't think any of the others specify Peter, James, and John, but they were all founded on the idea that original Christianity died out due to apostasy and was restored in their church.
They sure do believe in restoration. But not a one of them (as far as I can tell from their wiki entries) believe in Apostles or mention anything about authority (or the succession thereof).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
mph, no that was in response to the post directly above it, not yours.
There are a lot of protestants who believe that the Catholic church became corrupt sometime around the middle ages, but I don't know of any specific denominations who include that in their doctrine.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thank you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: mph, no that was in response to the post directly above it, not yours.
There are a lot of protestants who believe that the Catholic church became corrupt sometime around the middle ages, but I don't know of any specific denominations who include that in their doctrine.
There are a lot of Catholics who believe that the Catholic Church became corrupt sometime around the middle ages - but also think that there is more good than bad and that the bad is, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, fixable. I think that all Churches have some corruption in them somewhere. Even instituted by God, they are organized and administered by fallible human beings. So we all get things wrong, sometimes.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)