posted
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!
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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"?
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
" 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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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! Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
"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!
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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*****."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Later voices will make the correct point, and more often, so that the overwhelming impression an individual gets is of the truth.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), 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.
