PBS Special on Mormon Church

[sandgk]

umm... yeah... i forgot that he gave the plates back to the angel after he finished 'translating' them.

Joseph Smith Bio

Reads like a missing book from the Tower series by Stephen King.

 

[Muck]

as has been stated before, you cant believe everything you read -- additionally anti mormon sites probably arent the best places to go to find the most accurate information on mormon beliefs.

For the most part you are right however that also works as a broad brush that conveniently dismisses legitimate criticism of some of the church's practices.

Saying "well they're just haters and not really mormons (or no longer mormons) so they aren't really reliable, you should ask the church instead" doesn't always cut it.

I still laugh at the mormom rituals stuff -- Ive even had people tell me I sacrifice goats during rituals and have horns but does that make it true?

Nope

the temple is a place of learning where we make covanants with the lord -- true baptisms for the dead are performed there, as are marriage covenants -- we believe in marriage for time and all eternity, not "till death do you part"

Kinda interesting that no one has made an issue over that one yet given the criticism the church has received for it.

The bigger issues with the Mormons arose when they descended in numbers on western communities, with a resulting change on local politics and economy due to block voting for Mormon candidates and insular socialist practices. That, coupled with a deep distrust and emnity of polygamy, and it was indeed a recipe for civil unrest.

The group left Illinois after Joseph & Hyrum were murdered after they destroyed a local paper that was critical of the group. They didn't have any major problems in the area prior to that.

You are correct that their prior departure from Missouri was under very different circumstances and that they were more victim than aggressor during their time in Independence.

 

[Gatorubet]

The group left Illinois after Joseph & Hyrum were murdered after they destroyed a local paper that was critical of the group. They didn't have any major problems in the area prior to that.

You are correct that their prior departure from Missouri was under very different circumstances and that they were more victim than aggressor during their time in Independence.

Amazing that after all that, the United States convinced 500 of them to enlist in the Mexican American War, and to march from Iowa to Los Angeles as the "Mormon Battalion" To date it is the longest march in United States military history.

 

[Muck]

Amazing that after all that, the United States convinced 500 of them to enlist in the Mexican American War, and to march from Iowa to Los Angeles as the "Mormon Battalion" To date it is the longest march in United States military history.

Politics make strange bedfellows. :)

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Split off Faith/Belief stuff to a new thread Here

 

[MaxBuck]

The primary reason that Christians and Christian churches do not regard Mormons as Christians ...

Correction - the reason some Christians regard Mormons as not being Christians ...

 

[Gatorubet]

Correction - the reason some Christians regard Mormons as not being Christians ...

Correction - the reason many* Christians regard Mormons as not being Christians ..

*"Many" might be more accurate. We know the official position of the largest Christian Church, the Catholic Church, does not. Also, the most liberal (and largest) of the Presbyterian branches does not, nor do the largest Methodist, Lutheran, and Baptist denominations. As evangelical churches historically have even greater antipathy to LDS doctrines, it is likely that most would also be a correct statement. Certainly saying that all do would be incorrect.

 

[MaxBuck]

...Certainly saying that all do would be incorrect.

That, really, was my point. "Some" and "many" are not conflicting adjectives. "Most" I might argue with, lacking any survey data.

 

[afgolfer]

Just trying to gauge some beliefs, but do some of you believe that Adam and eve didn't know they were forbidden from eating of the fruit. if they did and went against God then isn't that a sin?

Conversely They were also told to go and replenish the earth, and when Eve partook of the fruit she was to be cast out of the garden which would have prevented them from carrying out that commandment. Adam knowing that to be the only way to fulfill this law, partook of the fruit. thus they were banished from the garden of eden.

Some people feel that because of this first sin, that we are all condemned and thus are sinners from the time we are born. Some don't acknowledge that we have the choice of what we will do, whether to do the lords will and abide by his standards or to go the way of the world.

I believe that everyone will be given the chance to know of the truthfulness of the Gospel, whether in this life on after they pass on.

I wont get into too much more, if anyone has any questions on my beliefs they can ask here or in a PM. As many of you know i am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), some accept us as Christians, others dont (mainly due to ignorance or because of hearsay IMO)

 

[Gatorubet]

I wont get into too much more, if anyone has any questions on my beliefs they can ask here or in a PM. As many of you know i am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), some accept us as Christians, others dont (mainly due to ignorance or because of hearsay IMO)

LDS theology says that God was a man who became a God, and that men can also become Gods. (This is from Joseph Smith's lips himself, it is from what is called the "King Follett discourse") LDS theology also says that God in physical form had actual sex with the Virgin Mary to create Christ. Christ was not "conceived by the Holy Ghost (or Spirit)" in LDS theology. LDS theology disagrees with the Apostle's Creed. The Apostle's Creed pretty much sets forth the recognized Christian theology.

Now, your group disagreeing with the Creed is all fine and dandy Golf, but it is not accurate to call that view "Christian". This seems to continue to upset you, and I am sorry if it does, but it is not just Gatorubet that thinks it, it is the opinion of the most learned theologians of the various church denominations who have studied it.

Feel free to show me why I am ignorant of core LDS theology and I will apologize to you, or show me how I have mischaracterized LDS religious tenets. If the largest Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran denominations, and also the Catholic Church, have examined your theology and said that you are not Christian, for you to say that the charge of being non-Christian is the result of "hearsay" or "ignorance" is specious.

You are free to believe what you want to. You seem to love your church and do well there, and that is great. But truth-in-labeling demands that it be called something other than Christian.

 

[Gatorubet]

I believe that everyone will be given the chance to know of the truthfulness of the Gospel, whether in this life on after they pass on.

Here, I agree 100% with you Golf.

 

[afgolfer]

since you seem to be all knowing in my faith, and accepting of anything against it (for the most part, IE They dont accept you so you aren't)

How do you believe God came to be?

How did we come to be?

What is our purpose here?

Also, since you use other religions to claim that i am not a Christian while ignoring any reference to my definition of a Christian taken from a dictionary ( last i checked it didnt say you had to be catholic, methodist, baptist, etc or recoginzed by them) I understand what you are saying but find it to be faulty logic.

By using your logic the Christ was guilty of all the accusations brought against him when he was brought before pontius pilot, because more than one witnessed against him, but does that make it so?

When man or another religion feels the need to go against another religion what does that say about them. I may not believe what another religion believes, but Im not going to try to call them names or try to dictate what they can call themselves. i don't understand why they feel they need too do so, oes it make them more correct or legit?

 

[afgolfer]

You are free to believe what you want to. You seem to love your church and do well there, and that is great. But truth-in-labeling demands that it be called something other than Christian.[/quote]

Honestly, this part makes no sense to me. Who says it is truth? Who demands it? and it is right? what do you call me then? Ive been called a satanist or that I worship and pray to Joseph Smith, but does that make it so? where do you draw the line as to what to believe when told something about the church by another church

 

[Gatorubet]

since you seem to be all knowing in my faith, and accepting of anything against it (for the most part, IE They dont accept you so you aren't)

I'm not all knowing, but I come from Mormons, and I know of Mormon theology. My Grandparents were LDS.

How do you believe God came to be?

How did we come to be?

What is our purpose here?

Gator Football....as near as I can tell.

Also, since you use other religions to claim that i am not a Christian while ignoring any reference to my definition of a Christian taken from a dictionary ( last i checked it didnt say you had to be catholic, methodist, baptist, etc or recoginzed by them) I understand what you are saying but find it to be faulty logic.

I am not saying you are not a Christian.....unless you believe in LDS theology, in which case your theology cannot be called "Christian". I have no idea what your personal beliefs are. To my knowlege your beliefs have not been studied, just your Church's. Really, you can call yourself a Hindu church too, but pardon me for not agreeing to that either. You are LDS. Cool. Unique. But not a Hindu - or Christian - church.

By using your logic the Christ was guilty of all the accusations brought against him when he was brought before pontius pilot, because more than one witnessed against him, but does that make it so?

When man or another religion feels the need to go against another religion what does that say about them. I may not believe what another religion believes, but Im not going to try to call them names or try to dictate what they can call themselves. i don't understand why they feel they need too do so, oes it make them more correct or legit?

Hey, again, you can call yourselves "The Most Christian Church on the Block, Inc.", and I would not prevent it if I could. But I'd tell anyone who was mildly interested that your theology does not match your name. I mean, it seems only fair to be truthful to new members when advertising what flavor of religion you are. People take this stuff seriously ya know...

 

[Gatorubet]

Honestly, this part makes no sense to me. Who says it is truth? Who demands it? and it is right? what do you call me then? Ive been called a satanist or that I worship and pray to Joseph Smith, but does that make it so? where do you draw the line as to what to believe when told something about the church by another church

Golf, for two thousand years there has been sort of a lot of discussion about this topic. Now, maybe everyone gets it wrong but Joe Smith. Cool. That is not the point here. The point is, what do you call a collection of ideas that have been a "brand" for several millennia? That collection is known as "Christian". Like intellectual copyright stuff. Your collection of ideas is just as worthy. Heck, let's say its even better than the other brand. But even if that is true, you can't call your new stuff the same name as the old brand. Why? One reason is because the two collections of ideas are in fact different, and the other is because it would confuse people who recognize that old brand name and think that they are getting the old product - when in fact they are not.

All I'm saying.