posted
BlackBlade: I'm willing to drop the point. It's pretty minor and I think it's distracting from other topics which I feel should be discussed in this thread. From now on I'll refer to members of your specific church as Salt Lake Mormons, to avoid confusion. You should be aware though this isn't just a hypothetical argument - I know members and former members of the FLDS church who refer to themselves as Mormons. You can understand why I (and they) might take umbrage at being told they aren't real Mormons, and for being called ignorant for referring to them by the name they call themselves.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath: Who here has said "they aren't REAL Mormons"? You keep acting like that's what we are doing. You'll note I didn't say the parents who exiled their children for being gay weren't "real Mormons" just bad ones.
But even if you are an outsider looking in, you have to distinguish between the two groups because they don't act in concert.
The originator of this thread wanted to talk about Mormons, Gays, and Polygamy. He's clearly *not* talking about the FLDS church or the RLDS church.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy.
And I support their right to use these terms to refer to themselves and I concur that they are accurate terms so far as context is observed. Because their doctrine and practices diverge so starkly from the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints good communication requires noting the distinction.
Wrong: "Mormons practice polygamy." The vast majority of those who identify as Mormon do not. The large organization most people recognize as the Mormon church does not. The only Mormon group with any amount of political power does not. It's a minority fringe practice.
Right: "The RLDS church practices polygamy."
quote: They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
Again I think they have the right to continue to identify themselves however they want. A few of the more well-known offshoots came into existence as the result of a power-struggle that could have gone either way. ("I'm the prophet!" "No, I'm the prophet!"). So while the Mormons here may wish to constrain the definition, and the larger Church organization has issued public statements to that effect, I'm just suggesting that when criticizing a religion you make a distinction between the groups that are guilty of the crimes you accuse them off.
For instance, complaining about modern day Mormon polygamy and opposition to SSM in the same breath is confusing and misleading.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I spent some time in Colorado City, AZ when I was 18, and it left me pretty disgusted with Mormonism for a while afterwards. (I try to be very civil about it on these boards, and have no problem with most Mormons as individuals, but I consider the religion as a whole to be evil - mostly because of the huge number of friends and acquaintances who have been damaged by it)
What they call themselves is their prerogative, but here you are at least implying that all Mormonism (including Salt Lake Mormonism since you referenced members on this board who are members of SL Mormonism) is evil because of the actions of the FLDS group in Colorado City.
I'll agree with you that "They aren't real Mormons" isn't the right phrasing. More appropriate would be "They aren't members of my religion, they don't believe what my religion believes, and I have a problem if you try to judge me, my friends, any members of my religion, or my religion as an institution by the actions of that completely unaffiliated group."
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LDS and FLDS are the same like American Football and Australian Football are the same. Pretty much in name only.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've already stated I know salt lake Mormons don't practice polygamy. My comment there was an aside about my initial encounter with Mormonism - an opinion that has been altered and broadened since then. My actual post was an attack against polygamy, not Mormonism. My dislike of Mormonism as a whole has to do with other aspects of the religion - polygamy isn't really tied to that dislike at this point in my life. (though I certainly do dislike polygamy)
quote:Originally posted by MattP: For instance, complaining about modern day Mormon polygamy and opposition to SSM in the same breath is confusing and misleading.
FWIW, I'm "complaining" (if that's what you call expressing my personal experience and disgust with polygamy) about polygamy in general, whether practiced by Mormons or other groups. The religion of those who practice it isn't really relevant. Where have I complained about Mormon opposition to SSM exactly?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I promise you, Catholics would object to a protestant denomination calling themselves Catholics.
Not so! The Roman Catholic Church would have an objection to other groups calling themselves Roman Catholics, but there are other groups that also use the name "Catholic" and even lots of protestant denominations (all of them that use the Nicene Creed) that consider themselves part of the lower-case "c" catholic church.
posted
So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
Posts: 49 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
FOr me, the key to understanding is to realize that the LDS definition of marriage comes from what we believe to be revelation. We believe that God has set boundaries for what is considered acceptable within marriage. Now whether those boundaries are eternal principles that God recognized, or if they are principles that he created is another question. The key comes down to a belief of what is morally acceptable. Now, my understandin is that the church agrees that same sex unions should certainly be allowed the same benefits of marriage, IE tax benefits, hosptial visitation rights etc. But one major key is whether these unions would be allowed to fight for the right to be married in any building or by any person who is authorized to marry. Whether it is true or not, I was told that one of the church's concerns was that if SSM happened, that there would be a fight to force the church to allow ssm in the temple, something we do not believe in. That fight could end up making it so the church could no longer marry in the US. Even if the US were to allow SSM, and thereafter remove any sort of prohibitions to polygamy, the church would not immediately jump on the bandwagon to allow members to have polygamous unions. It would take revelation to the prophet. Now whether the prophet receives revelation or is just delusional is a matter of faith. Now can the church improve? Certainly. No one is perfect, and we can and should all work to improve ourselves, remembering to hate the sin, and not the sinner. I personally would say yes to SSM as long as there are rights granted to churches that allows them to practice their faith in terms of whether or not SSM is allowed within their faith. Until I see something that specifically allows that, I would likely be opposed to it. While the Constitution allows for a seperation of church and state, some might argue that if marriage is a basic right, that to not allow SSM would be discriminatory.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I promise you, Catholics would object to a protestant denomination calling themselves Catholics.
Not so! The Roman Catholic Church would have an objection to other groups calling themselves Roman Catholics, but there are other groups that also use the name "Catholic" and even lots of protestant denominations (all of them that use the Nicene Creed) that consider themselves part of the lower-case "c" catholic church.
</tangent>
Thanks! You saved me some work. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arjen: As far as I know, there are no laws that say you have to marry (I mean, perform the ceremony) anyone who comes up and asks you to. I know of a church that refuses to do inter-racial weddings and and sets a dress code for those being married. They're certainly within their rights to do so and have not been reprimanded by the government for it. I imagine the same will go for LDS - you'll still be allowed to marry or not marry any couple you please. Allowing SSM won't change that.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I promise you, Catholics would object to a protestant denomination calling themselves Catholics.
Not so! The Roman Catholic Church would have an objection to other groups calling themselves Roman Catholics, but there are other groups that also use the name "Catholic" and even lots of protestant denominations (all of them that use the Nicene Creed) that consider themselves part of the lower-case "c" catholic church.
</tangent>
Thanks! You saved me some work.
That's interesting, thanks for the info.
Now, is this actually contradicting my point? I'm not sure.
Clarify something for me: if one of these lower case c catholic Protestant groups had some horrific practice that the Roman Catholic Church decried, then would it be reasonable to lay the blame for that on "Catholics" in general? Are they sufficiently related and intertwined for that?
I don't know the answer. But I hope you do! Because, in context of this actual thread, that's the analogy I was presenting.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BBegley: So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I promise you, Catholics would object to a protestant denomination calling themselves Catholics.
Not so! The Roman Catholic Church would have an objection to other groups calling themselves Roman Catholics, but there are other groups that also use the name "Catholic" and even lots of protestant denominations (all of them that use the Nicene Creed) that consider themselves part of the lower-case "c" catholic church.
</tangent>
Thanks! You saved me some work.
To extrapolate on this somewhat - most protestant churches will, in their doctrine statement, claim to be part of the holy catholic church. (sometimes also called "the Bride of Christ". It's a theological concept that all Christians form one spiritual "body") Because of the Reformation, they don't place themselves under the authority of the Vatican, but they certainly consider themselves to be a part of that body.
I actually don't know if LDS claim this or not. I know they reject other parts of the Nicene Creed... I'd appreciate if someone would educate me on this.
Edit: Dan, I've already stated several times that I don't lay that specific blame (polygamy) on "Mormons" in general, and explained why. I'm sorry if it's not clearer, but reread my posts. You're assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not. I realize I was making several different points in the various posts I've made, and you might think I'm intertwining those points in a way that I'm not. My thinking it absurd that Salt Lake Mormons are so quick to dismiss other LDS as "not real Mormons" is not tied to an attempt to blame all Mormon churches for the sins of one small faction. And my current dislike of Mormonism that I expressed is not tied either.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BBegley: So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
Yes.
There aren't enough of the smilies in the Universe for my response to your post.
I don't even know where to start.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can start with a "you can't seriously believe" and follow that with a "any reasonable person knows" and you could certainly layer in few "inescapable conclusions". I mean, it's not that hard.
You'd still be completely wrong, of course. But knowing where to start in displaying your sense of superior knowledge of someone else's culture is the LEAST of your problems.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BBegley: So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
Yes.
There aren't enough of the smilies in the Universe for my response to your post.
I don't even know where to start.
Apparently not, because you didn't.
Anyway, I'm here all week.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I actually don't know if LDS claim this or not. I know they reject other parts of the Nicene Creed...
No, the LDS church does not consider itself part of this. That's probably one big reason many other churches don't consider us Christian.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy. They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
I think you're creating a big conflict out of thin air here. While there might be some LDS members who sniff when you mention the FLDS church and say, "Oh, those aren't real Mormons," they are few.
But you just clarified for me that it is the official position of the LDS that the FLDS aren't really mormon.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy. They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
I think you're creating a big conflict out of thin air here. While there might be some LDS members who sniff when you mention the FLDS church and say, "Oh, those aren't real Mormons," they are few.
But you just clarified for me that it is the official position of the LDS that the FLDS aren't really mormon.
I misread your question and amended it with an ETA.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The originator of this thread wanted to talk about Mormons, Gays, and Polygamy. He's clearly *not* talking about the FLDS church or the RLDS church.
That is correct. I'm curious about the motivation and thought process for the currently non-polygamous Mormon community.
Obviously, FLDS would prefer that polygamy were legal. I was wondering if LDS feared SSM as a possible prelude to legalizing polygamy.
My impression thus far is that most LDS members do not think about polygamy at all, and those that do are not worried at all about a return to it.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That's interesting, thanks for the info.
Now, is this actually contradicting my point? I'm not sure.
Clarify something for me: if one of these lower case c catholic Protestant groups had some horrific practice that the Roman Catholic Church decried, then would it be reasonable to lay the blame for that on "Catholics" in general? Are they sufficiently related and intertwined for that?
I don't know the answer. But I hope you do! Because, in context of this actual thread, that's the analogy I was presenting.
No and no.
I think the comparable would be that it's appropriate to call members of the fundamentalist sects Mormon, as they use the Book of Mormon and refer to themselves that way. But it would be incorrect to refer to them as part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as that is the name of a specific organization that they are not a part of.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy. They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
I think you're creating a big conflict out of thin air here. While there might be some LDS members who sniff when you mention the FLDS church and say, "Oh, those aren't real Mormons," they are few.
But you just clarified for me that it is the official position of the LDS that the FLDS aren't really mormon.
It's the official position of the LDS church that its members are not "Mormons". They actually discourage the use of the monicker amongst church members.
So it's kinda a non-starter that other groups want to be called Mormons.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regardless, I have met people who call themselves Mormons and Latter Day Saints, and who are called Mormons by those around them, who practice polygamy. They follow the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and they practice the same religion. If some members of their religion want to claim they're "not real Mormons" that's fine, but I think it's absurd to make everyone else redefine a term just because you happen to not like them, and rather dishonest as well.
I think you're creating a big conflict out of thin air here. While there might be some LDS members who sniff when you mention the FLDS church and say, "Oh, those aren't real Mormons," they are few.
But you just clarified for me that it is the official position of the LDS that the FLDS aren't really mormon.
It's the official position of the LDS church that its members are not "Mormons". They actually discourage the use of the monicker amongst church members.
So it's kinda a non-starter that other groups want to be called Mormons.
Well, they at least discouraged the use in the late 90's and early 2000's. I think they changed that approach realizing they were trying to swim up stream and have since started trying to make the term "Mormon" a positive thing. (See the I'm a Mormon campaign.)
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, what stilesbn said - after a brief period trying to correct people they've now embraced the term.
On the topic of what other groups call themselves, President Kimball famously said "There is no such thing as a fundamentalist mormon."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That's interesting, thanks for the info.
Now, is this actually contradicting my point? I'm not sure.
Clarify something for me: if one of these lower case c catholic Protestant groups had some horrific practice that the Roman Catholic Church decried, then would it be reasonable to lay the blame for that on "Catholics" in general? Are they sufficiently related and intertwined for that?
I don't know the answer. But I hope you do! Because, in context of this actual thread, that's the analogy I was presenting.
No and no.
I think the comparable would be that it's appropriate to call members of the fundamentalist sects Mormon, as they use the Book of Mormon and refer to themselves that way. But it would be incorrect to refer to them as part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as that is the name of a specific organization that they are not a part of.
Right, this makes sense.
I originally (wrongly) interpreted Dogbreath as saying, in effect, "I've known lots of Mormons who do X, and X is bad, so Mormons have that to answer for."
And by what you've said above, I think this would be an unreasonable position to take if it were reapplied for Catholic denominations.
It's sort of moot since I misinterpreted his position, though. Still, thanks for the info. I'm not terribly familiar with the nuances of Christianity. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Yeah, what stilesbn said - after a brief period trying to correct people they've now embraced the term.
The progression seems similar to the use of the term "Christian" to describe followers of Jesus Christ. It was originally used as a derogatory term and early Christians referred to themselves for several decades (or possibly centuries) as "Followers of the Way" (according to the book of Acts) before eventually co-opting the term, then having the term "Christianity" replace "The Way."
It makes me wonder if the term "Latter Day Saint" will eventually be replaced and the Church will change it's name from "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" to "The Mormon Church" or something in the next hundred years or so.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: It makes me wonder if the term "Latter Day Saint" will eventually be replaced and the Church will change it's name from "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" to "The Mormon Church" or something in the next hundred years or so.
I doubt it. One of the claims of the church is that it's the Church of Jesus Christ. It is very important to have the name Jesus Christ in there and the Book of Mormon highlights in numerous places the fact the the followers of Christ were called the Children of Christ or Church of Christ. I suppose anything is possible but chances are the official name will remain the same with the informal name being "Mormons."
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
They also have trademark rights to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." I don't think anyone owns "Mormon".
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's the official position of the LDS church that its members are not "Mormons". They actually discourage the use of the monicker amongst church members.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: They also have trademark rights to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."
Nobody inside the church quite gets just how Scientology-ish that seems, do they?
My closest friend grew up in the Community of Christ. Your church sued them out of their name, "Reorganized Latter Day Saints", and made all of you look pretty silly by doing it.
Trademarking the name, indeed. The RLDS church has been around every bit as long as yours has, and comes from the exact same source, the schism that happened as a result of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s somewhat sudden and unexpected death.
The bizarre and funny part is, a lot of Mormons haven't the slightest idea about that whole situation. 5 churches were created out of that schism, and the largest was the group that headed to Utah and became the current church. The other 4 are still around, though.
Trademarking the name, indeed.
[ April 13, 2013, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BBegley: So is it safe to say that even if polygamy were legalized, it would likely still be prohibited by the LDS church, and that the continued prohibition would have widespread approval within the Mormon community?
Yes.
There aren't enough of the smilies in the Universe for my response to your post.
I don't even know where to start.
Apparently not, because you didn't.
Anyway, I'm here all week.
You know, it's not necessarily all that difficult to predict the behavior of some groups of people, especially those that exist as a result of people trying to achieve a measurable, fairly objective goal. However, you're talking about predicting the behavior of a religious group, a pretty new one. This is a group that reverses itself pretty regularly, through 'divine revelation' mediated by its leadership.
I don't know where you get the self-importance to predict future 'divine revelations', but it's mystifying. I mean, I've heard from at least a couple of Mormons here on Hatrack that they wouldn't mind a return to polygamy. Do you deny that at least some would be happy about that?
You know, I'm getting the distinct feeling that you're trying to assure us that you are all far more mainstream than you really are. I understand that, it's a human impulse to try to fit in. However, a lot of non-Mormons here are pretty aware of the church's history. We're the wrong group to try to this with, I think, OK?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, was there as point when we asked on Hatrack 'hey, could we have an embarrassing, rude element of our side of the aisle to say things that make the rest of us embarrassed' and you signed up, steven?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Man, was there as point when we asked on Hatrack 'hey, could we have an embarrassing, rude element of our side of the aisle to say things that make the rest of us embarrassed' and you signed up, steven?
I only jumped in when AFR decided he was going to predict the future.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: steven: You're also being snide, condescending, and rude. Also, scientology sounding? Pretty sure we've got Hubbard beat by over 100 years.
quote:The bizarre and funny part is, a lot of Mormons haven't the slightest idea about that whole situation.
Wait what? You mean Mormons are not all up in their own history just like *everybody* else on the planet?
What a bizarre and funny thing!
You're doggone straight I'm being snide, condescending, and rude. I'm still just stating facts, though...and not even in an unbalanced way. IMHO.
Speaking of history, though, wouldn't you agree that Mormons are highly genealogy-focused, as a group? Highly.
How about THIS genealogy for you, Blackblade? None of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s descendants even BELONG to your church. They went with another splinter group, the one that your church forced to change its name through a copyright and a lawsuit.
In fact, up until 1996, the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS, until you sued them) was run by an unbroken line of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s descendants. I will be happy to provide links for that, if you would like.
So exactly what does that say about your church? It's so focused on genealogy, but completely without the most important Mormon lineage.
And I really don't mean all that to come off as harsh as it does. I'm sorry that it does.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My closest friend grew up in the Community of Christ. Your church sued them out of their name, "Reorganized Latter Day Saints", and made all of you look pretty silly by doing it.
My church? I'm not LDS. As far as I'm concerned it's all hooey. I just choose not to be an ass about it.
quote:Trademarking the name, indeed. The RLDS church has been around every bit as long as yours has, and comes from the exact same source, the schism that happened as a result of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s somewhat sudden and unexpected death.
And? Whenever any single legal entity (church, business, marriage) splits into two the shared property and rights necessarily split as well. The current LDS church won the rights to that name and took legal action to protect it. Another sect won the copyright to some of the early scripture written Joseph Smith, etc. There's nothing very Scientology about using the legal system. Scientology's thing is abusing the legal system - suing with the express purpose of harassing and financially destroying enemies and critics.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:My closest friend grew up in the Community of Christ. Your church sued them out of their name, "Reorganized Latter Day Saints", and made all of you look pretty silly by doing it.
My church? I'm not LDS. As far as I'm concerned it's all hooey. I just choose not to be an ass about it.
quote:Trademarking the name, indeed. The RLDS church has been around every bit as long as yours has, and comes from the exact same source, the schism that happened as a result of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s somewhat sudden and unexpected death.
And? Whenever any single legal entity (church, business, marriage) splits into two the shared property and rights necessarily split as well. The current LDS church won the rights to that name and took legal action to protect it. Another sect won the copyright to some of the early scripture written Joseph Smith, etc. There's nothing very Scientology about using the legal system. Scientology's thing is abusing the legal system - suing with the express purpose of harassing and financially destroying enemies and critics.
Um, yeeeeeeaaahhhh....if your religion is suing another religion over, well, anything, something has gone very fricking wrong. VERY.
when you find yourself involved in petty silliness like that, it's time to rest a moment, take stock of the situation.
I don't remember ANY major religious figure (Buddha, Jesus, etc.) suing anyone. If anything, they were all "render unto Caesar...", "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle...", etc.. They were kind of above petty squabbles and materialism, were they not?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about THIS genealogy for you, Blackblade? None of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s descendants even BELONG to your church. They went with another splinter group, the one that your church forced to change its name through a copyright and a lawsuit.
There is no doctrinal support for the idea that the prophet of the LDS church should be determined through patrilineal succession. That assumption contradicts Joseph Smiths's statement that "all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." So one group held a vote, choosing Brigham Young, and the other went with his son.
quote:So exactly what does that say about your church? It's so focused on genealogy, but completely without the most important Mormon lineage.
The purpose of LDS genealogy is not to determine status, but to ensure that sacred ordinances are delivered to as many people as possible. There is nothing more important about one lineage over another.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:So exactly what does that say about your church? It's so focused on genealogy, but completely without the most important Mormon lineage.
So in order for you to care about genealogy, it must also be a means by which succession is determined? Are you even listening to yourself? There are zillions of prophets that did not have fathers who were also prophets. In fact, that's so rare when it comes up people actually make a point of mentioning it "The God of Abaraham, The God of Isaac, The God of Jacob." Moses' sons aren't even mentioned if he had any, Jesus didn't have a son take over, Peter didn't have a son take over, why should it suddenly be super important for Joseph Smith?
You're assuming it's necessary for one of his progeny (which not many survived) be the next leader of the church. Joseph Smith's lineage is *not* the most important, it's not even more important than the Joe Smith who is also a Mormon who lived down the street from the prophet.
I'm sorry your genealogy lesson was wasted on me, I was aware that one of Joseph Smith's lines led the RLDS church, and that my church instead went with Brigham Young when I was a young boy. We do have plenty of Joseph Smith's family in my church though.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My closest friend grew up in the Community of Christ. Your church sued them out of their name, "Reorganized Latter Day Saints", and made all of you look pretty silly by doing it.
My church? I'm not LDS. As far as I'm concerned it's all hooey. I just choose not to be an ass about it.
quote:So exactly what does that say about your church? It's so focused on genealogy, but completely without the most important Mormon lineage.
So in order for you to care about genealogy, it must also be a means by which succession is determined? Are you even listening to yourself? There are zillions of prophets that did not have fathers who were also prophets. In fact, that's so rare when it comes up people actually make a point of mentioning it "The God of Abaraham, The God of Isaac, The God of Jacob." Moses' sons aren't even mentioned if he had any, Jesus didn't have a son take over, Peter didn't have a son take over, why should it suddenly be super important for Joseph Smith?
You're assuming it's necessary for one of his progeny (which not many survived) be the next leader of the church. Joseph Smith's lineage is *not* the most important, it's not even more important than the Joe Smith who is also a Mormon who lived down the street from the prophet.
I'm sorry your genealogy lesson was wasted on me, I was aware that one of Joseph Smith's lines led the RLDS church, and that my church instead went with Brigham Young when I was a young boy. We do have plenty of Joseph Smith's family in my church though.
Dude, I couldn't care less about your church, it's legitimacy in the larger Mormon theological universe, blah blah, etc.. Don't care, never cared, WON'T EVER care. It's all fantasy and role-playing, IMO.
My point was that, on the face of it, it's a bit inconsistent to NOT be the church that was led by Smith's descendants, yet still be so laser-focused on genealogy as a mark of purity, holiness, etc, etc., blah blah, etc. etc.
And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
And again, I don't mean this to be as harsh as it sounds.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point was that, on the face of it, it's a bit inconsistent to NOT be the church that was led by Smith's descendants, yet still be so laser-focused on genealogy as a mark of purity, holiness, etc, etc., blah blah, etc. etc.
For somebody who couldn't care less you sure talk emotionally about it.
Being focused on genealogy has nothing to do with feeling pure or holy. It's a way to get in touch with those who came before you, and bind them to you as a family. It's one of the key reasons we build temples. It has nothing to do with making sure certain blood lines are in leadership positions.
quote:And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
OK, contrast that, with this,
quote:We do have plenty of Joseph Smith's family in my church though.
A tiny hint, you can have lots of family outside of your own children.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point was that, on the face of it, it's a bit inconsistent to NOT be the church that was led by Smith's descendants, yet still be so laser-focused on genealogy as a mark of purity, holiness, etc, etc., blah blah, etc. etc.
No, it's not. You just misunderstand why genealogy is important. For instance, you are again way off the mark when you suggest that genealogy has anything to do with "purity, holiness, etc."
A quick lesson: The LDS church believes that certain ordinances are required to fully progress spiritually. Baptism, for example.
They also believe that a physical body is required to receive these ordinances. This creates a conundrum - what about all those people who died without having that opportunity?
The solution is proxy baptisms, where a living person can perform the physical ordinance as a stand-in for a deceased person.
In the LDS church genealogy is completely about discovering people who have not yet participated in these ordinances so proxy ordinances can be performed on their behalf. Full stop. Nothing about holiness, purity, status, etc. It's actually a pretty banal bookkeeping task.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point was that, on the face of it, it's a bit inconsistent to NOT be the church that was led by Smith's descendants, yet still be so laser-focused on genealogy as a mark of purity, holiness, etc, etc., blah blah, etc. etc.
For somebody who couldn't care less you sure talk emotionally about it.
Being focused on genealogy has nothing to do with feeling pure or holy. It's a way to get in touch with those who came before you, and bind them to you as a family. It's one of the key reasons we build temples. It has nothing to do with making sure certain blood lines are in leadership positions.
quote:And as far as having any of Joseph Smith's descendants in your church, PROVE IT. I don't believe it for a second.
OK, contrast that, with this,
quote:We do have plenty of Joseph Smith's family in my church though.
A tiny hint, you can have lots of family outside of your own children.
So then we have a misunderstanding.
I do seem to remember an article by OSC telling a story about how arrogant some of his relatives are about being descended from some of the first members of the Utah LDS church. However, I'm sure not all Mormons are equally focused on such things.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Moses' sons aren't even mentioned if he had any
quote:Exodus Chapter 2: 21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.
22 And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.
quote:Exodus Chapter 4: 20 And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand.
quote:Exodus Chapter 4: 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
quote:Exodus Chapter 18: 2 Then Jethro, Moses' father in law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her back,
3 And her two sons; of which the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange land:
4 And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh:
quote:I Chronicles 23:
15 The sons of Moses were, Gershom, and Eliezer.
16 Of the sons of Gershom, Shebuel was the chief.
17 And the sons of Eliezer were, Rehabiah the chief. And Eliezer had none other sons; but the sons of Rehabiah were very many.
...For that matter, you can read the Book of Chronicles and track the history and notable achievements of Moses's descendants. But I think it's a little disingenuous for you to simply say "they weren't mentioned, if he had any." Maybe say "the LDS Church doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Moses's alleged sons" or something, so people realize it's an issue of your religion's dogma, not of historical records.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath: Disingenuous, or mistaken perhaps? That's great you corrected my incorrect assumption. Moses' sons didn't succeed him, which falls in line with what I was saying, but that's cool to know he had them.
I don't know how we got to the LDS church from there, but the fact remains the records states Moses ordained Joshua to succeed him.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
smilies in the Universe for my response to your post.![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
