I Baptize Dead People

[Daradon]

Mormons are baptizing dead Jews at holocaust sites. Apparently they have been doing this for quite some time.

They only baptize ancestors of current Mormon members, believing the baptisms will help reunite the families in the afterlife.

People in the Jewish community however find the practice highly offensive. Especially given the circumstances.

'Michel suggested that posthumous baptisms of Holocaust victims play into the hands of Holocaust deniers.

"They tell me, that my parents' Jewishness has not been altered but ... 100 years from now, how will they be able to guarantee that my mother and father of blessed memory who lived as Jews and were slaughtered by Hitler for no other reason than they were Jews, will someday not be identified as Mormon victims of the Holocaust?" Michel said Monday.'

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/11/baptizing.dead.jews.ap/index.html

Apparently they baptize Catholics and other faiths as well.

[RougeUnderoos]

Mormons are baptizing dead Jews at holocaust sites.


Nah, that's not true. It doesn't say they are doing that in the article.

Far as I know (which admittedly ain't much) they've been doing this posthumous baptism thing for a long time and it happens in their temple or church or whatever it's called.

You and I might even be on the holy-rolls after we kick off. I don't care. There are better things I think they could be spending their tax-free money on but it's no skin off my ass.

[Dion]

Nah, that's not true. It doesn't say they are doing that in the article.

Far as I know (which admittedly ain't much) they've been doing this posthumous baptism thing for a long time and it happens in their temple or church or whatever it's called.

You and I might even be on the holy-rolls after we kick off. I don't care. There are better things I think they could be spending their tax-free money on but it's no skin off my ass.

If you're not baptised in the Mormon church you're not saved.

Ohhhhh well....... We'll be so damn busy shaking hands with friends to know where we are :D

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Mormons.....this is just the tip of the iceberg.....I think they are nuts

[jammies]

Ah, when religious freedoms collide... good times, good times.

That's actually a pretty savvy idea from the Mormons. "Did you know Einstein was a Mormon? Yah, we baptized him last year, same ceremony we brought in Napoleon, FDR, Pope Leo XXIII, and Adbul Alhazred. Mormons built this city, brah!"

[Daradon]

Nah, that's not true. It doesn't say they are doing that in the article.

Far as I know (which admittedly ain't much) they've been doing this posthumous baptism thing for a long time and it happens in their temple or church or whatever it's called.

You and I might even be on the holy-rolls after we kick off. I don't care. There are better things I think they could be spending their tax-free money on but it's no skin off my ass.

Sorry I misspoke. They aren't doing it at the actual sites, but they are doing it.

I'd find it offensive it happened to me. I know it technically doesn't matter. But I'd want to be remembered (if I'm remembered at all) how I lived my life and the person I really was, not how my decendants wish to remember me. Besides, it's none of their business what religion I am anyway.

Lastly, it really messes up the history books. It almost feels like a conquest of sorts.

[Rathji]

The LDS church believes that you must be baptized to become a member. Baptism of the dead allows people who have died to have the opportunity to be baptized, since you can only be baptized when you have a mortal body, and dead people don't have that anymore.

Think of it as a guest list to get into a huge party at Stampede, if you are on the guest list you can get in if you show up. If you don't show up, who cares if your name was on the list?

I can see Holocaust survivors being upset though, since they don't believe in / fully understand the doctrine.

edit:
Lastly, it really messes up the history books. It almost feels like a conquest of sorts.

There is no actual change of religion. However, if this person is living in the afterlife somewhere and suddenly decides to join the LDS church, they can. At which point they would become Mormon...in the afterlife... which certainly would not affect any history books

[photon]

Mormons.....this is just the tip of the iceberg.....I think they are nuts

That's pretty unfair, how are Mormons as any more or less nuts than anyone else? We're all pretty nuts.

[RougeUnderoos]

Lastly, it really messes up the history books. It almost feels like a conquest of sorts.

I don't see how it messes up the history books. Maybe weird Mormon history books (and even that I doubt). We don't consider a non-Mormon a Mormon if they've been "baptized" after death.

If I were to find out this had been "done" to my grandparents, that wouldn't suddenly make them any different from who they were. They sure as hell weren't Mormons, and that ain't changed.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

That's pretty unfair, how are Mormons as any more or less nuts than anyone else? We're all pretty nuts.

Agreed we are all nuts...to some degree. Personally I think religion is nuts and Mormons are the Chirpractors of relgion.....

If you look into their history it is a little odd:


Multiple Wives....are you nuts...I like to think this would lead to more sex...but we know better (granted, only the extreme fringe practise this know)
The whole issue with blacks....I think they felt for a time that blacks were "unclean" or some such nonsense....
Not drinking......you ever get stuck un a small town in Utah......believe me it is a long night......

[Daradon]

I don't see how it messes up the history books. Maybe weird Mormon history books (and even that I doubt). We don't consider a non-Mormon a Mormon if they've been "baptized" after death.

If I were to find out this had been "done" to my grandparents, that wouldn't suddenly make them any different from who they were. They sure as hell weren't Mormons, and that ain't changed.

The quote which I put on the post that started the thread seems to indicate that's what the Jewish people fear. That their fallen will be remembered as Mormon. Whether that fear is founded or not, I'm not sure. I'd be willing to trust them over what I know about the subject though. I could be wrong. There is some talk in the article about databases being changed though.

I wouldn't want my last record to read: Daradon, 1979-2028 Mormon. In ANY book.

And even if that didn't happen I still wouldn't want to be 'baptized' by proxy. I think it's a legitimate complaint.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think it's a pretty silly thing to do, but if it is their family members that they are doing it to, then I don't see how it's the business of anyone else.

[Daradon]

I think it's a pretty silly thing to do, but if it is their family members that they are doing it to, then I don't see how it's the business of anyone else.

Hey we all have family members we don't like I'm sure. Just because someone is related to me doesn't mean I think they would have my best interests at heart.

And that would probably go double for family members that never met me.

I'd be more willing to trust the wishes and values of the people I was locked up in the camp with than someone from the new world with a new religion.

Lastly, there is no reason to. Just leave it alone. Why bother changing anything? The only thing the Jewish people are asking is that NOTHING be changed. Pretty simple and sane request I think.

[Thor]

You'd think they had better things to do.

[flip]

If anyone else has seen the fascinating PBS doc called Mormons then you'll know that not only is the whole religion a sham, like many others, (Joseph Smith invented Polygamy because he was caught having an affair with his 19 yo house maid and needed an excuse to get out of it) but they actually have a NORAD like vault in the side of a mountain with records of thousands if not millions of dead people where they are kept safely to be baptized to become Mormons.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Mormons.....this is just the tip of the iceberg.....I think they are nuts

Of course you do.

You've read all the nonsense!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Agreed we are all nuts...to some degree. Personally I think religion is nuts and Mormons are the Chirpractors of relgion.....

If you look into their history it is a little odd:


Multiple Wives....are you nuts...I like to think this would lead to more sex...but we know better (granted, only the extreme fringe practise this know)
The whole issue with blacks....I think they felt for a time that blacks were "unclean" or some such nonsense....
Not drinking......you ever get stuck un a small town in Utah......believe me it is a long night......


1. Mormons were hardly the first of last religion to practice polygamy and they abandoned it over a hundred years ago.

2. The whole issue with blacks? You'll have to explain that one. Have other religions always been 100% inclusive?

3. Have you? Utah is not dry. You KNOW this right? SLC is one of the wildest partying towns I have ever been in too.

[Displaced Flames fan]

If anyone else has seen the fascinating PBS doc called Mormons then you'll know that not only is the whole religion a sham, like many others, (Joseph Smith invented Polygamy because he was caught having an affair with his 19 yo house maid and needed an excuse to get out of it) but they actually have a NORAD like vault in the side of a mountain with records of thousands if not millions of dead people where they are kept safely to be baptized to become Mormons.

Why would they have to keep records in a cave?

They have the permier genalogical library in the world which can be used by ANYONE for free. It's an exceptional resource for people who want to research their family history.

[flip]

1. Mormons were hardly the first of last religion to practice polygamy and they abandoned it over a hundred years ago.

2. The whole issue with blacks? You'll have to explain that one. Have other religions always been 100% inclusive?

3. Have you? Utah is not dry. You KNOW this right? SLC is one of the wildest partying towns I have ever been in too.

Although all the Mormons I've ever met have been great, fairly normal people, I must say there is a lot of weird culture, especially amongst the hardcore Mormons in Utah.

Not a particularly inclusive religion. Lots of underlying hatred of minorities and homosexuals. Weird covering up of their shoddy history including the Mountain Meadow Massacre and Joseph Smith being a shyster.

But like I said, with the exception of a few racists, all the Mormons I know are great people.

[flip]

Why would they have to keep records in a cave?

They have the permier genalogical library in the world which can be used by ANYONE for free. It's an exceptional resource for people who want to research their family history.

It is literally to keep them protected. If there is a nuclear holocaust then baptizing the dead is even more important because Armageddon is even closer. Seriously find the PBS doc called Mormons, it was 2 or 3 parts and absolutely fascinating.

[FlamesAddiction]

1. Mormons were hardly the first of last religion to practice polygamy and they abandoned it over a hundred years ago.
.

If anything, monogamy is an "invention".

[Displaced Flames fan]

It is literally to keep them protected. If there is a nuclear holocaust then baptizing the dead is even more important because Armageddon is even closer. Seriously find the PBS doc called Mormons, it was 2 or 3 parts and absolutely fascinating.

So it's not about protecting historical documents at all. OK.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Although all the Mormons I've ever met have been great, fairly normal people, I must say there is a lot of weird culture, especially amongst the hardcore Mormons in Utah.

Not a particularly inclusive religion. Lots of underlying hatred of minorities and homosexuals. Weird covering up of their shoddy history including the Mountain Meadow Massacre and Joseph Smith being a shyster.

But like I said, with the exception of a few racists, all the Mormons I know are great people.


What do you mean by 'hardcore Mormons in Utah'?

I don't subscribe to the theory that the sins of the fathers are the sins of the sons so excuse me if I don't hold the transgressions of their past leaders against them as a group.

No religion is particularly inclusive, that was my point.

[Thor]

Great Documentary, definitely worth checking out, you can view online at http://www.pbs.org/mormons/

or PM me I can help you dl it.

[Daradon]

They have the permier genalogical library in the world which can be used by ANYONE for free. It's an exceptional resource for people who want to research their family history.


I'll just start off with I don't know anything about the cave thing, that's not really what I'm arguing.

But as far as the records go, isn't that kind of the jist of the article? That they are slowly making their own history that is different from the history we know. If they have the PREMIER genalogical library as you put it, and are baptizing people into the faith (for whatever reason they say, it doesn't matter, this is how it is feared it ends up in the records) there is a possibility their records will become the official story in 100-1000 years. And if not kept a close eye on by independent watchdogs, these people could be recorded as 'Mormon' and not Jewish. And then the history books will say: Millions of Mormons died in the holocaust...


'But since 2005, ongoing monitoring of the database by an independent Salt Lake City-based researcher shows both resubmissions and new entries of names of Dutch, Greek, Polish and Italian Jews.
The researcher, Helen Radkey, who has done contract work for the Holocaust group, said her research suggests that lists of Holocaust victims obtained from camp and government records are being dumped into the database. She said she has seen and recorded a sampling of several thousand entries that indicate baptisms had been conducted for Holocaust victims as recently as July.'


It feels like it's an effort to make a Mormon stamp on history or the world. Whether those fears are founded or not remains to be seen. But as I argued originally. Why bother making any entries or revisions at all? Why not leave the past in the past, and the dead the way they died?

[flip]

So it's not about protecting historical documents at all. OK.

Well that might be it obviously. I was being kind of tongue in cheek with the whole Armageddon thing.

What do you mean by 'hardcore Mormons in Utah'?

I don't subscribe to the theory that the sins of the fathers are the sins of the sons so excuse me if I don't hold the transgressions of their past leaders against them as a group.

No religion is particularly inclusive, that was my point.

I just meant that there seems to be a rather large population of slightly more fundamentalist types in SLC. Maybe I'm wrong but that was the impression I've gotten from talking to people and learning about the religion.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I'll just start off with I don't know anything about the cave thing, that's not really what I'm arguing.

But as far as the records go, isn't that kind of the jist of the article? That they are slowly making their own history that is different from the history we know. If they have the PREMIER genalogical library as you put it, and are baptizing people into the faith (for whatever reason they say, it doesn't matter, this is how it is feared it ends up in the records) there's something very wrong with it.

'But since 2005, ongoing monitoring of the database by an independent Salt Lake City-based researcher shows both resubmissions and new entries of names of Dutch, Greek, Polish and Italian Jews.
The researcher, Helen Radkey, who has done contract work for the Holocaust group, said her research suggests that lists of Holocaust victims obtained from camp and government records are being dumped into the database. She said she has seen and recorded a sampling of several thousand entries that indicate baptisms had been conducted for Holocaust victims as recently as July.'


It feels like it's an effort to make a Mormon stamp on history or the world. Whether those fears are founded or not remains to be seen. But as I argued originally. Why bother making any entries or revisions at all? Why not leave the past in the past, and the dead the way they died?

Yeah, I'm not advocating this practice at all. I understand it and I understand the arguments against it.

I'm arguing against the other crap that followed your original post, which invariably happens anytime Mormonism is mentioned.

[flip]

Great Documentary, definitely worth checking out, you can view online at http://www.pbs.org/mormons/

or PM me I can help you dl it.

Cool! Thanks. I'll definitely be watching this one again.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Well that might be it obviously. I was being kind of tongue in cheek with the whole Armageddon thing.



I just meant that there seems to be a rather large population of slightly more fundamentalist types in SLC. Maybe I'm wrong but that was the impression I've gotten from talking to people and learning about the religion.

Yeah, you're wrong.

Yes, there's a lot more concentration in Utah, but they aren't anymore 'hardcore' than any other Mormons in the US or the world.

I thought you were referring to the groups led by the likes of Warren Jeffs that straddle the UT/AZ border. Not Mormons.

[flip]

Yeah, you're wrong.

Yes, there's a lot more concentration in Utah, but they aren't anymore 'hardcore' than any other Mormons in the US or the world.

I thought you were referring to the groups led by the likes of Warren Jeffs that straddle the UT/AZ border. Not Mormons.


Really? How do you know? Does it not seem logical that the center of their religious universe might be home to a larger amount of "hardcore" Mormons.

Would the Vatican not be a likely place for a higher concentration of "hardcore" Catholics?

[Dion]

Great Documentary, definitely worth checking out, you can view online at http://www.pbs.org/mormons/

or PM me I can help you dl it.

Thanks! I was looking for that documentry since Flip mentioned it :)

[flip]

Thanks! I was looking for that documentry since Flip mentioned it :)

It really is fantastic. Although it bashes the Mormons a little bit, it is fairly balanced with actual interviews with Mormons and such. I'm usually worried with that kind of stuff because it is either too sensitive to not make a group look bad or way too anti-whatever. This one however is pretty fair to the truth while not overly trying to degrade the religion.

Literally the best 4 hour religion class I've ever taken.

[Dion]

It really is fantastic. Although it bashes the Mormons a little bit, it is fairly balanced with actual interviews with Mormons and such. I'm usually worried with that kind of stuff because it is either too sensitive to not make a group look bad or way too anti-whatever. This one however is pretty fair to the truth while not overly trying to degrade the religion.

Literally the best 4 hour religion class I've ever taken.

I did go through thier 6 step program a few years back. Moreso to learn about their faith. Invited them into my home over the summer back in 2000. Interesting part came when they told me i could baptise my father who died 3 months earlier. It was the first time in my life that i wanted to toss a few people out the door on thier ear :mad:

I risisted the temptation and allowed them to continue. The next week they brought in the heavy weights in an effort to get me to join the church. Got some elder so pissed off at me that he was screaming - all because i challenged some of thier doctrine. He left in a huff :D

Overall it was a interesting learning experience. Got invited to a few homes for dinner and met some nice people. In the end i told them thanks but no thanks.

[driveway]

Weird facts about mormonism:

The book of mormon describes a civilization which covered North and South America, lasted for 1000 years and was familiar with such things as steel, elephants, wheeled vehicles, coins, wheat and barley.

The people of the Book of Mormon are described as devout Jews, yet there is no trace of their observance of Mosaic law, or even accurate knowledge thereof.

In 1981 several uses of the word 'white' were replaced with the word 'pure' in the Book of Mormon, following the Church's change in stance on the "curse" of the black race.

The 'curse' of the black race is that they are descended from Cain and their blackness is the 'mark' God laid upon him for murdering his brother. The Church abandoned this teaching in 1978.

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was killed in a gun battle, after having declared his candidacy for President and having himself crowned "King of the Kingdom of God".

Mormons who have been given their 'endowment' are expected to wear a special type of undergarment at all times.

Bizarre teachings of the Mormon Church:

God was once a human and has a tangible body of flesh and bone.
God lives on a planet near the star Kolob.
God has at least one wife "The Heavenly Mother" but she is so holy she is never to be discussed, nor prayed to.
We can become like God and rule over our own Universe.
The Garden of Eden was in the current state of Missouri.
Christ will not return to earth in any year we see a rainbow.
Mormons should avoid traveling on water, since Satan rules there.
Jesus and Satan are brothers.

All religions are weird - but some a weirder than others.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Really? How do you know? Does it not seem logical that the center of their religious universe might be home to a larger amount of "hardcore" Mormons.

Would the Vatican not be a likely place for a higher concentration of "hardcore" Catholics?


You need to clearly define 'hardcore' then, as I requested in the first place.

How do I know? I spent my youth in the Mormon church in close proximity to the area you referred to. Good enough for you?

[flip]

I did go through thier 6 step program a few years back. Moreso to learn about their faith. Invited them into my home over the summer back in 2000. Interesting part came when they told me i could baptise my father who died 3 months earlier. It was the first time in my life that i wanted to toss a few people out the door on thier ear :mad:

I risisted the temptation and allowed them to continue. The next week they brought in the heavy weights in an effort to get me to join the church. Got some elder so pissed off at me that he was screaming - all because i challenged some of thier doctrine. He left in a huff :D

Overall it was a interesting learning experience. Got invited to a few homes for dinner and met some nice people. In the end i told them thanks but no thanks.


When guys on their mission come to my door I ALWAYS invite them in and talk about religion for a while. They always ask me to sign up for an orientation type deal and I always decline and tell them that I have no intention of changing my beliefs.

Usually they are happy to have some company for a while as they are usually from the Southern US. Never have they got mad at me for wasting their time but I often wonder if as they are leaving they are muttering under their breath that they almost had a sale. (sort of like Gil on the Simpsons)

[flip]

You need to clearly define 'hardcore' then, as I requested in the first place.

How do I know? I spent my youth in the Mormon church in close proximity to the area you referred to. Good enough for you?

Yeah i didn't necessarily mean fundamentalist but rather people that follow all of the doctrine and practise to a t. I know several Mormons that think it is no big deal to have a cup of coffee or swear.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Weird facts about mormonism:

The book of mormon describes a civilization which covered North and South America, lasted for 1000 years and was familiar with such things as steel, elephants, wheeled vehicles, coins, wheat and barley.

The people of the Book of Mormon are described as devout Jews, yet there is no trace of their observance of Mosaic law, or even accurate knowledge thereof.

In 1981 several uses of the word 'white' were replaced with the word 'pure' in the Book of Mormon, following the Church's change in stance on the "curse" of the black race.

The 'curse' of the black race is that they are descended from Cain and their blackness is the 'mark' God laid upon him for murdering his brother. The Church abandoned this teaching in 1978.

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was killed in a gun battle, after having declared his candidacy for President and having himself crowned "King of the Kingdom of God".

Mormons who have been given their 'endowment' are expected to wear a special type of undergarment at all times.

Bizarre teachings of the Mormon Church:

God was once a human and has a tangible body of flesh and bone.
God lives on a planet near the star Kolob.
God has at least one wife "The Heavenly Mother" but she is so holy she is never to be discussed, nor prayed to.
We can become like God and rule over our own Universe.
The Garden of Eden was in the current state of Missouri.
Christ will not return to earth in any year we see a rainbow.
Mormons should avoid traveling on water, since Satan rules there.
Jesus and Satan are brothers.

All religions are weird - but some a weirder than others.

Sources?

Some of that stuff is so ridiculously false it's not even funny.
Some of them are out of context.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Yeah i didn't necessarily mean fundamentalist but rather people that follow all of the doctrine and practise to a t. I know several Mormons that think it is no big deal to have a cup of coffee or swear.

Believe me...much coffee is consumed and swear words uttered in SLC by mormons.

[Cheese]

Its all a fact Dis...

Why we left... (http://www.exmormon.org/stories.htm)

What they are.... (http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm)

Mormonism includes many other unusual teachings.....


God lives on a planet near the star Kolob.
God ("Heavenly Father") has at least one wife, our "Mother in Heaven," but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her nor pray to her.
Jesus was married.
We can become like God and rule over our own universe.
There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds.
Jesus and Satan ("Lucifer") are brothers, and they are our brothers - we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father
Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife.
We should not pray to Jesus, nor try to feel a personal relationship with him.
In the highest degree of the celestial kingdom some men will have more than one wife.
Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a "pre-existence", during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life.
Dark skin is a curse from God, the result of our sin, or the sin of our ancestors. If sufficiently righteous, a dark-skinned person will become light-skinned.
The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere.
Not only will human beings be resurrected to eternal life, but also all animals - everything that has ever lived on earth - will be resurrected and dwell in heaven.
Christ will not return to earth in any year that has seen a rainbow.
Mormons should avoid traveling on water, since Satan rules the waters.
The sun receives its light from the star Kolob.
If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood.
A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple.
You can identify a false angel by the color of his hair, or by offering to shake his hand.

Ex-Mormon (http://www.exmormon.org/)

[photon]

Sources?

Some of that stuff is so ridiculously false it's not even funny.
Some of them are out of context.

I dunno, that pretty much sums up the Mormonism video I was shown as a teen at the church I was attending at the time. Mormons are a cult you see and we were being protected against their demonic influence.

It MUST be true! :w00t:

[Displaced Flames fan]

Nice source.

Look, I'm no advocate for the Mormon faith, I'm not a member and haven't been since I was a teenager and that means something.

But this group of people gets more misinformation spread about them than any other religious group I have ever seen. People will believe ANYTHING if you say Mormon's believe it.

Some of the stuff you guys are saying is simply not true.

[MarchHare]

Nice source.


What would be an acceptable source, then, if that one doesn't meet your standards?

[Displaced Flames fan]

What would be an acceptable source, then, if that one doesn't meet your standards?

The Mormon church itself.

Ex-Mormon's with axes to grind and an eager audience willing to believe any tall tale isn't exactly a recipe for truthfulness.

But hey, here I am an ex-Mormom telling you some of these things are not true but I'm not an acceptable source? :confused:

Nice logic.

[flip]

Nice source.

Look, I'm no advocate for the Mormon faith, I'm not a member and haven't been since I was a teenager and that means something.

But this group of people gets more misinformation spread about them than any other religious group I have ever seen. People will believe ANYTHING if you say Mormon's believe it.

Some of the stuff you guys are saying is simply not true.

Have to agree with DFF here. Every religion has their "weird" beliefs.

Hell in Catholocism it is accepted that each time you take communion the host and the wine each LITERALLY turn into the body and blood of Christ.

That is pretty effing wacky.


From WIKI:

According to the Catholic Church, when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and become instead the body and blood of Christ: although the empirical appearances are not changed, the reality is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit who has been called down upon the bread and wine. The consecration of the bread (known as the host (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_%28Holy_Communion%29)) and wine represents the separation of Jesus' body from his blood at Calvary. However, since he has risen, the Church teaches that his body and blood can no longer be truly separated. Where one is, the other must be. Therefore, although the priest (or minister) says "The body of Christ" when administering the host, and "The blood of Christ" when presenting the chalice, the communicant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicant) who receives either one receives Christ, whole and entire.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist#cite_note-25)

If that isn't as wacky as some as the Mormon "beliefs" I don't know what is.

[Cheese]

Ex-Mormon website (http://www.exmormon.org/)

The Origins of Mormonism (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/mormon.html)

Mormon History (http://www.realmormonhistory.com/)

LDS and Mormon Faith (http://www.lds-mormon.com/)

[Daradon]

Yup, all Catholics are vampyres!

I think sometimes, some beliefs get thrown with others. Don't forget every religion has different sects. Sometimes mystical, sometimes down right weird. There could be truth to both sides. There could be a larger Mormon group with very real and practical beliefs, and their could be outdated or wacky beliefs in some other branches. You see that with ALL religions.

[Rathji]

Ex-Mormon website (http://www.exmormon.org/)

The Origins of Mormonism (http://www.atheists.org/christianity/mormon.html)

Mormon History (http://www.realmormonhistory.com/)

LDS and Mormon Faith (http://www.lds-mormon.com/)

Going to one of these sites to find factual information on Mormons would be far more foolish than contacting Sarah Palin to find out if Barrack Obama would make a good president.

[Nage Waza]

I think many of you have missed the reason why Jews are mad at what the Mormons are doing - It is very simple. If murdered people can be 'turned into another religon' than there is motivation for people to murder. Want to convert a group? Kill them then convert them. It is rather sick what the mormons are doing.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I think many of you have missed the reason why Jews are mad at what the Mormons are doing - It is very simple. If murdered people can be 'turned into another religon' than there is motivation for people to murder. Want to convert a group? Kill them then convert them. It is rather sick what the mormons are doing.

Wow. That's a giant leap.

[Daradon]

I think many of you have missed the reason why Jews are mad at what the Mormons are doing - It is very simple. If murdered people can be 'turned into another religon' than there is motivation for people to murder. Want to convert a group? Kill them then convert them. It is rather sick what the mormons are doing.

I touched on that a bit in my resposnes, though I hestitate to jump to the ultimate conclusion that THAT is what they are doing. As such I'm not going to make such a bold claim.

Still, like with most religions, it's hard to believe what they are doing, heck the practice or baptism by proxy in general, not just this specific case with holocaust victims, is being done for purely altruistic purposes. It does feel like a bit of cultural/religious warfare.

EDIT: I have to disagree with the killing part, I don't think that's part of the plan or idea. So in that I disagree.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I touched on that a bit in my resposnes, though I hestitate to jump to the ultimate conclusion that THAT is what they are doing. As such I'm not going to make such a bold claim.

Still, like with most religions, it's hard to believe what they are doing, heck the practice or baptism by proxy in general, not just this specific case with holocaust victims, is being done for purely altruistic purposes. It does feel like a bit of cultural/religious warfare.


I agree with you here.

I think they are the victims of a bad core belief here. It's not logical to believe that a loving God wouldn't accept unbaptized people and especially THESE unbaptized people.

Of course, that's the fundamental problem I have with religion in general. We're right and everyone else is going to go to hell if they don't join us. Pretty much a universal theistic belief.

[Dion]

When guys on their mission come to my door I ALWAYS invite them in and talk about religion for a while. They always ask me to sign up for an orientation type deal and I always decline and tell them that I have no intention of changing my beliefs.

Usually they are happy to have some company for a while as they are usually from the Southern US. Never have they got mad at me for wasting their time but I often wonder if as they are leaving they are muttering under their breath that they almost had a sale. (sort of like Gil on the Simpsons)

I agree, the guys and gals are quite friendly often like small talk when they drop by. The 2 gals that put me thorugh the program often brought home baking to the sessions. In fact when i came down with a bad case of the flu and cold they dropped some home made chicken soup at my door. While i disagree strongly with thier beliefs i respect thier sincereity and honesty about what they believe.

[Daradon]

^^^ Yup, DFF. The more peaceful religions and philsophies really don't care what anyones else religion or philosophy is, and don't believe anyone is excluded. IE to use a more general term in a very simple sense, Nirvana can be achieved by anyone.

In my own life, looking for a partner with the same philosophy is not a huge thing on my list. And if I had kids I wouldn't care what they chose to believe in, probably trying to show them many different things.

I'm pretty sure the afterlife (if there even is one) is the same for every single person. I don't have to pretend I'm right to change anyone else, even those I love, so they get into the same place as me.

I'm probably going to hell anyway, so I wouldn't want my family to follow me there... ;)

[Nage Waza]

To clear up what I wrote earlier, I never thought for a second Mormons kill people in order to 'baptize' them. What I meant was that it sets a dark precedent if mudered people can be claimed by a religion. And that is the issues at heart here, this is not a new issue either. People have complained previously about this practice, and IIRC the issue is exactly as I describe it. Also, the issue of even dragging the names of holocaust victims for some strange cause is somewhat in bad taste.

[RougeUnderoos]

Going to one of these sites to find factual information on Mormons would be far more foolish than contacting Sarah Palin to find out if Barrack Obama would make a good president.

I'm sure there is inaccurate information in those links, but surely some of it has to be true.

Ferrinstance, the origins of the book of Mormon (specifically, how Smith claims it was inspired/written). I read about seer stones, a hat, gold plates and other curious things. Is that all false?

[Displaced Flames fan]

I'm sure there is inaccurate information in those links, but surely some of it has to be true.

Ferrinstance, the origins of the book of Mormon (specifically, how Smith claims it was inspired/written). I read about seer stones, a hat, gold plates and other curious things. Is that all false?

Hat? Not sure, I suppose the story could have him wearing one...that wouldn't be odd.

But yeah, the origin was gold tablets and stones that translated them.

I didn't say it was all false.

[Calgaryborn]

I don't see how Mormons baptising dead folks could be a a danger to Jews or any other Religion. It is unlikely that the Mormon records would survive while all others were destroyed. Also, you would think that seeing a baptism date that was sixty some years after the date of the persons death would give any historian pause.

I think the Jewish lobby should be careful not to use the anti-Semitic card too quickly on none issues. It weakens their voice against the real threats Jews face.

[RougeUnderoos]

Hat? Not sure, I suppose the story could have him wearing one...that wouldn't be odd.

But yeah, the origin was gold tablets and stones that translated them.

I didn't say it was all false.

No, you didn't say it was all false, but Rathji said as much.

The part about the hat is that he looked into a hat with the rocks in the hat as he was translating the gold tablets while another guy wrote down what he was saying. I don't know if it's true or not.

[Thor]

I don't see how Mormons baptising dead folks could be a a danger to Jews or any other Religion. It is unlikely that the Mormon records would survive while all others were destroyed. Also, you would think that seeing a baptism date that was sixty some years after the date of the persons death would give any historian pause.

I think the Jewish lobby should be careful not to use the anti-Semitic card too quickly on none issues. It weakens their voice against the real threats Jews face.

Please expand on this.

[Rathji]

No, you didn't say it was all false, but Rathji said as much.

The part about the hat is that he looked into a hat with the rocks in the hat as he was translating the gold tablets while another guy wrote down what he was saying. I don't know if it's true or not.

What I said was basicly you need to understand the source and realize that the information will all be biased to the point that it cannot be considered an acurate source. I said it was akin to asking Palin about Obama being the best President, clearly not the best person to be asking if you want a factual answer.

I did not mean to imply that all the information there was false. What I meant to say, and probably should have, was that you could find out alot more factual information from going directly to the source.

There is no secret how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, it is written in pretty much every copy and in the Joseph Smith History. I am sure there are links to it online, but I am dealing with sick baby so hopefully if you are interested you could search 'Joseph Smith History' on http://www.lds.org and you would come up with many relevant links.

Edit: Direct Link to Jospeh Smith History (http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1/1#1)

[Cheese]

Hat? Not sure, I suppose the story could have him wearing one...that wouldn't be odd.

But yeah, the origin was gold tablets and stones that translated them.

I didn't say it was all false.

So which parts would you suggest "might be"? If you believe some of it how do you choose which parts to believe? Sounds like Bible translation doesnt it?

[onetwo_threefour]

For those who defend this practice, wouldn't you be offended by the idea that your core beliefs could be so callously disregarded after your death? I'm an atheist.and live by that creed. I do not want some morbid missionary reciting superstitious drivel over my bones at some distant point in the future. It is disrespectful to the beliefs of the dead.

[driveway]

Some of the stuff you guys are saying is simply not true.

Which statements about Mormon doctrine that have been posted in this thread are not true, specifically?

It's hard to track down 'credible' sources without being certain which statements you're disagreeing with.

Also:

I'm an atheist.and live by that creed. I do not want some morbid missionary reciting superstitious drivel over my bones at some distant point in the future. It is disrespectful to the beliefs of the dead.

Then you're not a very devout atheist. What do you care if someone reads some drivel over your bones (nothing but a collection of calcium and other minerals) at some point in the future? Since there is no god and no afterlife there is no way it can impact you at all.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

1. Mormons were hardly the first of last religion to practice polygamy and they abandoned it over a hundred years ago.

2. The whole issue with blacks? You'll have to explain that one. Have other religions always been 100% inclusive?

3. Have you? Utah is not dry. You KNOW this right? SLC is one of the wildest partying towns I have ever been in too.


So it's acceptable to say "they do it so can we".....
The issue has been touched on by other members...
Yes, St George....(the post said "small") and Zima is not a substitute for real BEER.......there was no hard booze at the bar.
Most of my understanding is from Mormons, like the guy I worked with that was more than happy to tell me about his special undies.

[jammies]

Most of my understanding is from Mormons, like the guy I worked with that was more than happy to tell me about his special undies.

It might not have been Mormonism he was interested in turning you onto...

[ok, ok,....I get it]

It might not have been Mormonism he was interested in turning you onto...

nice....very nice......which was what I said the about the undies;)

[Rathji]

Which statements about Mormon doctrine that have been posted in this thread are not true, specifically?

It's hard to track down 'credible' sources without being certain which statements you're disagreeing with.

The only online source you can be pretty much sure is credible is www.lds.org (http://www.lds.org)

There are many other sources, including the Book of Mormon and Missionaries.

As for responding to your specific claims, I will take some more time later when I am not trying to decide which end of me needs to be hanging over the toilet due to the flu. This post took well over an hour to type.

[flip]

I think I have a solution to this debate.

Mormons are pretty wacky but we can all agree that Scientologists are bat s**t crazy like no other "religion".

[Cheese]

The only online source you can be pretty much sure is credible is www.lds.org (http://www.lds.org)

There are many other sources, including the Book of Mormon and Missionaries.

As for responding to your specific claims, I will take some more time later when I am not trying to decide which end of me needs to be hanging over the toilet due to the flu. This post took well over an hour to type.

LOL...so the ONLY facts are the facts that the LDS themselves provide? :whistle:

Facts (http://mmoutreachinc.com/mormons/facts.html)

More Facts (http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/walter-martin/mormonism.htm)

and yet MORE Facts (http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon190.html)

Of course the LDS will deny any and all of this as they would never lie about anything. :whistle::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Burninator]

The only online source you can be pretty much sure is credible is www.lds.org (http://www.lds.org)

There are many other sources, including the Book of Mormon and Missionaries.

Ha! Maybe if you're a Mormon it is. Clearly the church is a very bias source of information about itself.

[flip]

LOL...so the ONLY facts are the facts that the LDS themselves provide? :whistle:

Facts (http://mmoutreachinc.com/mormons/facts.html)

More Facts (http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/walter-martin/mormonism.htm)

and yet MORE Facts (http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon190.html)

Of course the LDS will deny any and all of this as they would never lie about anything. :whistle::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Please. SOME of that is true but those links are just as biased as the official Mormons are. Most of the crap on those sites is no different than someone making a site about Christians that says all Christians think non-believers are going to hell. It may be true to SOME fundamentalists but I'd bet 90% of Christians don't believe that all of us non believers are going to burn in hell for eternity.

Your arguments lost a lot of weight when they are just as uninformed and biased as the ones you are trying to disprove.

And strangely enough I'm on your side. I think Joseph Smith was a quack and a shyster, Mormons have basically all been brainwashed into believing a whole bunch of crap that isn't true. They do have some strange dogma and such but that certainly doesn't extend to all members of Mormonism nor does it mean that they aren't good, hardworking Canadians and Americans.

Most Mormons I know are a benefit to their community not a burden. One of the few religions that I can truly say that about. Sure they may have some archaic practises, especially among the "hardcores" but last I checked they aren't pulling Jihads, forming terrorist groups or flying planes into buildings. Instead they are...going door to door spreading faith... OOOHHH the evil Mormons are out to get us.

[Cheese]

Please. SOME of that is true but those links are just as biased as the official Mormons are. Most of the crap on those sites is no different than someone making a site about Christians that says all Christians think non-believers are going to hell. It may be true to SOME fundamentalists but I'd bet 90% of Christians don't believe that all of us non believers are going to burn in hell for eternity.

Your arguments lost a lot of weight when they are just as uninformed and biased as the ones you are trying to disprove.

Again...which links and what information? There is all kinds of info out there so I would like to ensure I get the right stuff just for you.
I dont think anyone has said that besides their dumbfark religion that some people arent decent hard workin folk have they?
That has NUTHIN to do with Mormonism.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Please. SOME of that is true but those links are just as biased as the official Mormons are. Most of the crap on those sites is no different than someone making a site about Christians that says all Christians think non-believers are going to hell. It may be true to SOME fundamentalists but I'd bet 90% of Christians don't believe that all of us non believers are going to burn in hell for eternity.

Your arguments lost a lot of weight when they are just as uninformed and biased as the ones you are trying to disprove.

You sure.........this is the problem I have with religion, most claim to this that or the other thing.....but when push comes to shove they don't follow through, like the guy with the jesus fish on his car that gave me the finger........

[flip]

Again...which links and what information? There is all kinds of info out there so I would like to ensure I get the right stuff just for you.

Wow. Stop being so incredibly and intentionally obtuse. If you are as informed as you claim to be you should be smart enough to know that there is a lot of crap out there.

I love the condescending attitude whenever someone questions the "facts" that you've presented then you link to random INTERNET sites. The biggest haven for idiots to post any sort of garbage and present it as truth.

I don't pretend to be an expert on Mormon facts and myths, but neither are you, and neither are those sites.

You sure.........this is the problem I have with religion, most claim to this that or the other thing.....but when push comes to shove they don't follow through, like the guy with the jesus fish on his car that gave me the finger........

Hey I'm not trying to say all Christians are perfect. Like I said I'm on your side, I think most religious people are out to lunch with the stuff they believe and practice. But lets not just turn into the exact same judgmental, stereotyping bunch of jerks that we are trying to bash here.

[Cheese]

Wow. Stop being so incredibly and intentionally obtuse. If you are as informed as you claim to be you should be smart enough to know that there is a lot of crap out there.

I love the condescending attitude whenever someone questions the "facts" that you've presented then you link to random INTERNET sites. The biggest haven for idiots to post any sort of garbage and present it as truth.

I don't pretend to be an expert on Mormon facts and myths, but neither are you, and neither are those sites.

I know more than you...and if youd rather I go off the top of my head I can...obtuse or not.
Its simply easier to send you to sites created by many different folks...Christians, Atheists and other. I left it up to you to either read them or bash me.

[flip]

I know more than you...and if youd rather I go off the top of my head I can...obtuse or not.
Its simply easier to send you to sites created by many different folks...Christians, Atheists and other. I left it up to you to either read them or bash me.

WOW. :rolleyes::bag:. Nuff said.

[Nage Waza]

I don't see how Mormons baptising dead folks could be a a danger to Jews or any other Religion. It is unlikely that the Mormon records would survive while all others were destroyed. Also, you would think that seeing a baptism date that was sixty some years after the date of the persons death would give any historian pause.

I think the Jewish lobby should be careful not to use the anti-Semitic card too quickly on none issues. It weakens their voice against the real threats Jews face.

I can't believe this is tough for some people to understand. If you can convert someone once they are murdered, then why bother trying to deal with them alive? Simply torch the village then convert them all to your religion.
As for this 'Jewish Lobby', what are you reffering to? You might have read a few too many pages out of some flier you got in a parking lot (from a guy with red shoelaces). They should be careful not to play that card too quickly? Just when is too quickly? It weakens their voice against the real threats they face? How does this all add up in your head?
You know, I have no doubts that you are concerned about the jewish conspiracy. It all makes sense.

[arloiginla]

You sure.........this is the problem I have with religion, most claim to this that or the other thing.....but when push comes to shove they don't follow through, like the guy with the jesus fish on his car that gave me the finger........
Sad that some have to ruin it for the rest of us.

Maybe he just had the fish put on so that cops would never suspect that he stole the car.

[Displaced Flames fan]

So which parts would you suggest "might be"? If you believe some of it how do you choose which parts to believe? Sounds like Bible translation doesnt it?

Whoa.....believe?

I never said I believe anything. All I said is that not everything that is said about Mormonism is true. Big difference.

[Displaced Flames fan]

So it's acceptable to say "they do it so can we".....
The issue has been touched on by other members...
Yes, St George....(the post said "small") and Zima is not a substitute for real BEER.......there was no hard booze at the bar.
Most of my understanding is from Mormons, like the guy I worked with that was more than happy to tell me about his special undies.

Of course not, but that's not the argument that was made. The arugment was that Mormonism is significantly 'wackier' than other religions. I disagree and point 1 and 2 that you responded to are supporting evidence.

You get most of your understanding from Mormons. Where do you think I got mine and how in the heck does yours supercede my first hand experience?:confused:

[Nage Waza]

I don't think I have ever disliked a mormon person, all that I know have been really nice. The religion does believe in a strange North American history, but so what? My religion believes in assorted strange things as well. I will take a doorbell ring over a car bomb any day.

[eddly]

I'm a mormon. Ask me anything and I will give you a straight up no BS answer.

[flip]

I'm a mormon. Ask me anything and I will give you a straight up no BS answer.

Seriously what is with the magical underpants?

[eddly]

Seriously what is with the magical underpants?

Wow flip, that is pretty disrespectful.

We do not consider them to be magical so for you to refer to them as such is pretty rude.

So what are they? They are a simple reminder to us of the promises we have made to our Heavenly Father such as following the commandments. If you look at other religions you'll see similar things. Catholics wear a cross for example.

Your post was a bit of a thread killer in my opinion as I was willing to answer any question you had, I guess I wasn't expecting to be mocked. It is easy to mock that which we don't understand. I'm sure if we analyzed your life we could see things that we thought were peculiar. Just because a person or group of people does something that you are not accustomed to does not mean it is wrong (or right for that matter).

Perhaps you have another question for me.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Wow flip, that is pretty disrespectful.

We do not consider them to be magical so for you to refer to them as such is pretty rude.

So what are they? They are a simple reminder to us of the promises we have made to our Heavenly Father such as following the commandments. If you look at other religions you'll see similar things. Catholics wear a cross for example.

Your post was a bit of a thread killer in my opinion as I was willing to answer any question you had, I guess I wasn't expecting to be mocked. It is easy to mock that which we don't understand. I'm sure if we analyzed your life we could see things that we thought were peculiar. Just because a person or group of people does something that you are not accustomed to does not mean it is wrong (or right for that matter).

Perhaps you have another question for me.


Jews wear yamulkes, muslims wear a certain dress. It's certainly not an odd thing for a denomination/religion to have a distinctive clothing item that signifies something in their belief system.

Yet I've never heard anyone refer to the magical hats of the Jewish faith.

Thanks for trying eddly.

[Cheese]

I'm a mormon. Ask me anything and I will give you a straight up no BS answer.

hmmm ok, I have a few.

1) The Angel Moroni. Explain?

2) In 1828 after Joseph Smith's God had told him to join no other church he applied for membership at a Methodist Church. Why did he disobey the Angel?

3) The Gold Plates. Have you or anyone in your family ever seen them? Has anyone in the church?

4) IF Joseph Smith suggested the translation of the plates was correct in 1830...why have their been revisions in later editions?

5) Are women able to attain leadership IN THE CHURCH? If not why not?

6) Are people of color able to attain leadership in the church?

7) These were original tenats of the LDS, termed as essential...

- The Adam-God doctrine (Adam is God the Father);
- the United Order (all property of church members is to be held in common, with title in the church);
- Plural Marriage (polygamy; a man must have more than one wife to attain the highest degree of heaven);
- the Curse of Cain (the black race is not entitled to hold God's priesthood because it is cursed; this doctrine was not abandoned until 1978);
- Blood Atonement (some sins - apostasy, adultery, murder, interracial marriage - must be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner's blood, preferably by someone appointed to do so by church authorities)

If they were termed essential by the early church, and supposedly the "word of God", why have they been abandoned?

8) and lastly...the LDS scripture called "Doctrine and Covenants" were prophecies by the Prophet Joseph Smith. How many of the prohecies outlined in this document have come true? If any name them.

Thanks.

[MoneyGuy]

I have a couple of questions. How do you justify adherence to a church with such strange beliefs? Were you born into this church or did you join as an adult? I'm wondering about someone's rationale for joining such an organization. I've studied the Morman faith and don't have a very high opinion. I won't say more for fear of offending someone.

[flip]

Wow flip, that is pretty disrespectful.

We do not consider them to be magical so for you to refer to them as such is pretty rude.

So what are they? They are a simple reminder to us of the promises we have made to our Heavenly Father such as following the commandments. If you look at other religions you'll see similar things. Catholics wear a cross for example.

Your post was a bit of a thread killer in my opinion as I was willing to answer any question you had, I guess I wasn't expecting to be mocked. It is easy to mock that which we don't understand. I'm sure if we analyzed your life we could see things that we thought were peculiar. Just because a person or group of people does something that you are not accustomed to does not mean it is wrong (or right for that matter).

Perhaps you have another question for me.

What am I supposed to refer to them as? You want to clear the air about mormonism and then someone asks a question and you tear them a new one. Good way to kill the thread yourself.

I meant no disrespect. I honestly heard that mormons wear magical underpants, in fact I believe I learned it here in this thread so I was trying to clear the air since obviously a lot of us don't know what we're talking about.

Holy sensitive much. You can't say you'll answer anything then get offended at the first question.

I certainly don't find it offensive that you mentioned that Catholics wear crosses.


I have a couple of questions. How do you justify adherence to a church with such strange beliefs? Were you born into this church or did you join as an adult? I'm wondering about someone's rationale for joining such an organization. I've studied the Morman faith and don't have a very high opinion. I won't say more for fear of offending someone.

Oh my god how offensive, how dare you ask such an offensive question. Clearly eddly just wants to answer the friendly ones. No critical or uninformed approaches allowed.

[MoneyGuy]

"Strange beliefs?" You think that's offensive?? The intense bashing that Christianity takes here all the time is way, way worse than that. I've seen many posts where people here say that any believers are fools or worse. I've always wondered why someone belongs to the LDS. I think most people who are members are so from childhood, but I know that some join as adults also. If he doesn't want to answer, that's okay. I think it's a legit question. And believe me, I am informed.

[Rathji]

"Strange beliefs?" You think that's offensive?? The intense bashing that Christianity takes here all the time is way, way worse than that. I've seen many posts where people here say that any believers are fools or worse. I've always wondered why someone belongs to the LDS. I think most people who are members are so from childhood, but I know that some join as adults also. If he doesn't want to answer, that's okay. I think it's a legit question. And believe me, I am informed.

Most LDS members are converts , rather than born into the church. This does vary by region though and in some places the ratio is the other way around (portions of Utah, Idaho, and Southern Alberta)

Oh my god how offensive, how dare you ask such an offensive question. Clearly eddly just wants to answer the friendly ones. No critical or uninformed approaches allowed.

Attacking him is probably the best way to get a reponse.

Asking your question the way you did would like like walking up to a Jewish person and saying, "So whats the deal with the funny little bowl like hat on your head, it have magical powers or something?"

I think that it should be assumed that if you found out that a certian religious group did something as part of thier religion that you might not phrase questions about that activity in a mocking manner, if you want a response that isn't hostile. Inf act, given the history of responses on these boards about the subject of religion, you should be thankful that someone is willing to answer your question at all.

If you don't want to ask polite and relavent questions, then I am going to guess that you will not get polite or relavant answers.

[Displaced Flames fan]

What am I supposed to refer to them as? You want to clear the air about mormonism and then someone asks a question and you tear them a new one. Good way to kill the thread yourself.

I meant no disrespect. I honestly heard that mormons wear magical underpants, in fact I believe I learned it here in this thread so I was trying to clear the air since obviously a lot of us don't know what we're talking about.

Holy sensitive much. You can't say you'll answer anything then get offended at the first question.

I certainly don't find it offensive that you mentioned that Catholics wear crosses.




Oh my god how offensive, how dare you ask such an offensive question. Clearly eddly just wants to answer the friendly ones. No critical or uninformed approaches allowed.


Please.

Did he say they were 'magical' crosses?

What aspect of the undergarments make them magical? Why would you call them magical other than to mock?

Oh...and he answered the question for the record.

[Displaced Flames fan]

"Strange beliefs?" You think that's offensive?? The intense bashing that Christianity takes here all the time is way, way worse than that. I've seen many posts where people here say that any believers are fools or worse. I've always wondered why someone belongs to the LDS. I think most people who are members are so from childhood, but I know that some join as adults also. If he doesn't want to answer, that's okay. I think it's a legit question. And believe me, I am informed.


Where and how did you obtain your knowledge?

[flip]

Please.

Did he say they were 'magical' crosses?

What aspect of the undergarments make them magical? Why would you call them magical other than to mock?

Yeah you're right how dare I expect a mormon to be tolerant of ignorance. That might be something Christ would do.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Yeah you're right how dare I expect a mormon to be tolerant of ignorance. That might be something Christ would do.

See, this is exactly why I get so upset about the misinformation.

When you have so many people believing so much crap about you, it gets old.

And I don't think you can claim ignorance...you can honestly say you had never heard that term...or used it...until this thread?

[flip]

See, this is exactly why I get so upset about the misinformation.

When you have so many people believing so much crap about you, it gets old.

And I don't think you can claim ignorance...you can honestly say you had never heard that term...or used it...until this thread?

I've never heard of it before this thread was created a couple months ago. I even have lots of mormon acquaintances so it is one of the parts of mormonism that I was curious about.

I've brought up the term around my mormon friends but they aren't exactly the most religious people I've ever met so they kind of dismissed it. I don't know if they'd never heard of it either, didn't want to share or perhaps were embarrassed. I was hoping to get a "real" account of what it is all about as opposed to looking it up on the internet. Hence my original post. I wasn't kidding or being condescending when I said "seriously what is up with the magical underpants" I honestly don't know what that is all about. Still don't. I just don't have another term for it. Should I have asked what is up with mormon underpants? I'm not sure if that would garner a serious response.

I'm not trying to pretend that I'm not totally ignorant of this particular aspect of mormonism. I really want to know what the deal is. Chastity belt kind of thing? Just a vow to not have sex before marriage? I have no idea.

I meant no offense. I am trying to enlighten myself so that the next time it comes up I won't have to act clueless and I can correct my intollerant friends.

[Displaced Flames fan]

So you thought that Mormons actually call them magical underpants.

See, this is the whole problem. This crap gets spewed around, people believe it and then mock (not you) something based on lies.

Same thing with people who believe Islam teaches murder.

[Rathji]

I honestly don't know what that is all about. Still don't.

He answered your question with this:

So what are they? They are a simple reminder to us of the promises we have made to our Heavenly Father such as following the commandments.

[Cheese]

He answered your question with this:

So what are they? They are a simple reminder to us of the promises we have made to our Heavenly Father such as following the commandments.

Having made covenants of righteousness (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/temples/index.htm), the members wear the garment under their regular clothing for the rest of their lives, day and night,

... partially to remind them of the sacred covenants they have made with God.within Mormonism even married couples must "cover their nakedness" in front of each other and wear garments while sleeping together is part of the sensory deprivation program.

How do Mormons overcome Masturbation?

After you have made this decision, then observe the following specific guidelines: 1. Never touch the intimate parts of your body except during normal washing and using the bathroom.

2. Avoid being alone as much as possible. Find good company and stay in this good company, especially when you are feeling particularly weak.

3. If you are associated with other persons having this same problem, YOU MUST BREAK OFF THEIR FRIENDSHIP. Never associate with other people having the same weakness. Don't suppose that two of you will quit together, you never will. You must get away from people of that kind. Just to be in their presence will keep your problem foremost in your mind. The problem must be taken OUT OF YOUR MIND for that is where it really exists. Your mind must be on other and more wholesome things.

4. After you bathe, don't admire yourself in the mirror. Stay in the shower just long enough to clean yourself. Then dry off and GET OUT OF THE BATHROOM into a room where you will have some member of your family present.

5. When in bed (especially if that is where you masturbate), wear pajamas or other clothes so that you cannot easily touch yourself (and so that it would be difficult to remove those clothes. The time it takes to remove your clothing gives additional time to controll your thinking and overcome the temptation).

6. If the temptation seems overpowering while you are in bed, GET OUT OF BED! Go into the kitchen and make a snack, even if it is in the middle of the night, and even if you are not hungry. The purpose behind this suggestion is that you GET YOUR MIND ON SOMETHING ELSE. You are the subject of your thoughts, so to speak.

7. Never look at pornography (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/sexuality/pornography.html) on the internet or elsewhere. Never read about your problem (even on sites claiming to be "educational"). Keep it out of mind. Remember -- "First a thought, then an act." The thought pattern must be changed. You must not allow this problem to remain in your mind. When you accomplish that, you soon will be free of the act.

8. Put wholesome thoughts into your mind at all times. Read good books, scriptures, talks of church leaders. Make a daily habit of reading at least one chapter of Scripture, preferably from one of the four Gospels in the New Testament, or the Book of Mormon. The four Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- above anything else in the Bible can be helpful because of their uplifting qualities.

9. Pray. But when you pray, don't pray about this problem, for that will tend to keep it in your mind more than ever. Pray for faith, pray for understanding of the Scriptures, pray for members of your family who need help. Pray for your friends, BUT KEEP THE PROBLEM OUT OF YOUR MIND BY NOT MENTIONING IT EVEN IN YOUR PRAYERS. KEEP IT OUT of your mind! The attitude of a person toward his problem has an affect on how easy it is to overcome. It is essential that a firm commitment be made to control the habit. As a person understands his reasons for the behavior, and is sensitive to the conditions or situations that may trigger a desire for the act, he develops the power to control it.

(http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/sexuality/overcoming_masturbation.html)
Stop it or youll go blind (http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/sexuality/overcoming_masturbation.html)

[Rathji]

Did you just accidentally leave out part of that post? It really doesn't make any sense unless you are a 19th century optometrist and trying to encourage the proper development of eyesight in young men.

Please clarify. Thanks.

[Dion]

:pop:

[eddly]

hmmm ok, I have a few.

1) The Angel Moroni. Explain?

Moroni was the last prophet in the Book of Mormon. He visited Joseph Smith a few times.

2) In 1828 after Joseph Smith's God had told him to join no other church he applied for membership at a Methodist Church. Why did he disobey the Angel?

Actually you can take it back further to 1820. At this time Joseph learned that all churches on the Earth were not entirely correct. Why was he still interested in the Methodist church? I don't know. Anything I can come up with would just be speculation. I'm guessing he would have been pretty bored staying at home every Sunday. I believe a portion of his family was also attending the Methodist church at this time. I don't recall Joseph Smith being directly told to not join the Methodist church. Not denying it though as it would of course seem strange to do so considering what his claims were.

3) The Gold Plates. Have you or anyone in your family ever seen them? Has anyone in the church?

No one in my family has seen the plates as far as I know. I don't know if anyone in the church that is alive today has seen them. No one has claimed as much.

4) IF Joseph Smith suggested the translation of the plates was correct in 1830...why have their been revisions in later editions?

I don't know. The changes vary in their severity. I'm not going to pretend that they are all grammatical changes. Are you concerned with the fact that changes were made or by the substance of the changes?

5) Are women able to attain leadership IN THE CHURCH? If not why not?

What do you define leadership as being? Can women speak in church? Yes they can. Can they teach classes? Yes they can. Can they serve missions? Yes they can. Can they lead groups of people? Yes, there are several organizations within the church that women lead. If you are referring to whether or not a woman can become a prophet? Well, I don't know. It hasn't happened yet, but it could in the future.

6) Are people of color able to attain leadership in the church?

Yes.

7) These were original tenats of the LDS, termed as essential...

- The Adam-God doctrine (Adam is God the Father);
- the United Order (all property of church members is to be held in common, with title in the church);
- Plural Marriage (polygamy; a man must have more than one wife to attain the highest degree of heaven);
- the Curse of Cain (the black race is not entitled to hold God's priesthood because it is cursed; this doctrine was not abandoned until 1978);
- Blood Atonement (some sins - apostasy, adultery, murder, interracial marriage - must be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner's blood, preferably by someone appointed to do so by church authorities)

If they were termed essential by the early church, and supposedly the "word of God", why have they been abandoned?

That is a great question, unfortunately I do not have a suitable answer for you. I simply don't know. This all originates with the prophet Brigham Young. I wish I could ask him about these things as well.

8) and lastly...the LDS scripture called "Doctrine and Covenants" were prophecies by the Prophet Joseph Smith. How many of the prohecies outlined in this document have come true? If any name them.

This will depend on what you consider to be prophecies. There are numerous. Off the top of my head, there were several regarding members of the church at the time... and another easy one to refer to is the translation of the Book of Mormon. Are there some that have not yet come to pass? Yes. Are there some that seemingly can no longer come to pass? Yes. Is this a problem? I'm not sure. I imagine circumstances can change. I'm sure we can see similar circumstances in the Bible.
Thanks.

Thanks for your questions. I realize I may not have gone into as much depth as you want. It may seem like I am hiding something, but honestly the average mormon would not be able to answer the majority of your questions to your satisfaction. We simply don't know everything. So, I think I did pretty good :D

[eddly]

I have a couple of questions. How do you justify adherence to a church with such strange beliefs? Were you born into this church or did you join as an adult? I'm wondering about someone's rationale for joining such an organization. I've studied the Morman faith and don't have a very high opinion. I won't say more for fear of offending someone.

Please define strange for me. Is something strange to you because it is not part of what you define as being normal? Reality is what we perceive it to be. You see something as being abnormal. Another person sees that same thing as being normal. We live in a very diverse world. Instead of judging religions or cultures based on our own perceptions, we need to be open minded and respectful of others. I mean everyone in general, even myself.

I was born into the church.

[eddly]

sensory deprivation program



What is the source for this? I'd like to read more on it.

[Cheese]

Thanks for your questions. I realize I may not have gone into as much depth as you want. It may seem like I am hiding something, but honestly the average mormon would not be able to answer the majority of your questions to your satisfaction. We simply don't know everything. So, I think I did pretty good :D

I understand that most Mormons cant answer the questions I posed...and Im certain that ALL of the Mormon leadership couldnt answer them either, at least not without letting the cat out of the bag...so to speak.
Lets take the prohecies question a bit further shall we?
IF Joseph Smith was indeed a Prophet, then all of his prophecies should come true...not? I mean how can you be a Prophet if most of your prophecies are either false or never happen?
So when JS prophesized that there would be a second coming within 56 years, that the US government would be overthrown, Congress to broken up, finding treasure in Salem, Mass, Pestilence to befall many...etc etc etc..
How does the average Mormon justify these false prophecies? Mistakes? Written down wrong? JS didnt really say them?

[Rathji]

So when JS prophesized that there would be a second coming within 56 years, that the US government would be overthrown, Congress to broken up, finding treasure in Salem, Mass, Pestilence to befall many...etc etc etc..
How does the average Mormon justify these false prophecies? Mistakes? Written down wrong? JS didnt really say them?

These are claims that are in the D&C? If so, could you provide locations for them. If not, then what is your source? I don't recall any claims specific to the ones you are making.

[Cheese]

These are claims that are in the D&C? If so, could you provide locations for them. If not, then what is your source? I don't recall any claims specific to the ones you are making.

Rathji...there are literally hundreds of websites showing all of the false prophecies regarding the D & C. I could link them but its really easy to check them out for yourself and then you can select which one you believe.

[Rathji]

Ok, let me bottom line this for you then.

Anyone can post something on a website and claim it is what the LDS Church believes. If you can point out a website where the LDS Church itself claims it believes something, then I will answer any questions about that. If you can find something in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price, I will try and answer your questions about that.

If you want to know why the website www.antimormon.com says that Joseph Smith raped 300 monkeys in whore houses, you are out of luck here. I will give you a hint though, and it has something to do with if you should be believing everything you read on the internet.

If you would like some real answers to real concerns, I would be glad to help.

If your goal is anything other than that, I suggest you stop posting in this thread.

Edit: I have no idea what antimormon.com says about monkeys. I didn't even realize it was a real website until I hit post.

[MoneyGuy]

Where and how did you obtain your knowledge?

One course, two books, independent research and a friend who is a former Morman. I expect some here will try to discredit one or more of these sources, especially the last one, non-independent or someone or groups who have a bias. I'm finding this thread interesting.

[Rathji]

One course, two books, independent research and a friend who is a former Morman. I expect some here will try to discredit one or more of these sources, especially the last one, non-independent or someone or groups who have a bias. I'm finding this thread interesting.

I would trust you getting more correct info from your friend who was mormon than I would trust you getting from any random website on the subject.

I looked back through your some of your posts MoneyGuy and I can't figure out your question. Feel free to repost it and I will give it a shot.

Edit: Never mind, I found the post with the questions.

How do I justify belonging to a church with such strange beliefs? Was I an adult?

Like the majority if LDS members, I converted when I was an adult, and at the time pretty much anything to do with this dude rising from the dead after being hung on a cross seemed pretty strange.

In fact right now, I can honestly tell you that I don't see why people think mormons are so strange. I mean you can beleive that God exists, that Jesus was his son and rose from the dead 3 days after he died. Yet you can't believe that God talks to prophets today. When it boils down to it, that is the only real, tangilble difference between the LDS church and any other Christian church that exists in the world today.

Sure some believe in baptizing this way, or that way, or other minor differences. The main thing is the belief that by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ you can be saved. That is the key. I don't care if you are Baptist, Methodist or Mormon. If you believe that Christ is your saviour then what you believe is right.

End of Story.

I hope that answers your question, because I kinda got off tanget there.

[MoneyGuy]

I would trust you getting more correct info from your friend who was mormon than I would trust you getting from any random website on the subject.

I looked back through your some of your posts MoneyGuy and I can't figure out your question. Feel free to repost it and I will give it a shot.

My question is essentially this: What motivates an adult to join this church? I thought that most adherents were born into the church (many who are born into it end up leaving) but I know that many also join as adults. Why?

[Rathji]

Yeah, I figured your question out and answered it in my previous post through an edit.

I am interested in what course you learned about the LDS church?

In response to your last question:
Many who are born into the church end up leaving because like anything in life you need to believe for yourself. Belief in God isn't really something that you can be told about and then accept. You really need to figure it out and believe for yourself. Sometimes that doesn't happen though. It doesn't matter if you are born into it or not, you still need to believe if you are going to remain a member.

[Cheese]

Ok, let me bottom line this for you then.

Anyone can post something on a website and claim it is what the LDS Church believes. If you can point out a website where the LDS Church itself claims it believes something, then I will answer any questions about that. If you can find something in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price, I will try and answer your questions about that.

If you want to know why the website www.antimormon.com (http://www.antimormon.com) says that Joseph Smith raped 300 monkeys in whore houses, you are out of luck here. I will give you a hint though, and it has something to do with if you should be believing everything you read on the internet.

If you would like some real answers to real concerns, I would be glad to help.

If your goal is anything other than that, I suggest you stop posting in this thread.

Edit: I have no idea what antimormon.com says about monkeys. I didn't even realize it was a real website until I hit post.

So let me get this straight...the only way youll believe something is false regarding the church and its doctrines is if the LDS says it or proves it themselves? :bag:
Have you actually taken the time to read some of the articles in any of the websites I posted?
You know Rathji...if you disbelieved 50% of the stuff in links I posted that would still leave 50% as true. Its obvious the sales job by the LDS is fantastic if you are that sold on their product.

http://www.exmormon.org/

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon439.htm

[Rathji]

So let me get this straight...the only way youll believe something is false regarding the church and its doctrines is if the LDS says it or proves it themselves?

No, that is not what I said.

What I said is, I will not try and explain why the Church teaches something that it clearly doesn't teach. If you have a question about something the Church actually does teach then ask, and I will do my best to give an answer.

As for the claims of anti-mormon websites, I have read them and alot of what they say is partially true and taken way out of context, some is pretty close to true and some is such an outright lie that I have no idea where they got it from. I won't list and debunk all of these websites for your personal enjoyment.

[Thor]

This discussion reminded me of this Audio on Mormons by Christopher Hitchens, if anyone is interested. This is from his book God is not Great, audio version obviously.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYLLnGtW2qs
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX7nzo3jaGA

[Displaced Flames fan]

One course, two books, independent research and a friend who is a former Morman. I expect some here will try to discredit one or more of these sources, especially the last one, non-independent or someone or groups who have a bias. I'm finding this thread interesting.

No, I won't try to discredit anything you've listed there at all. But I find it simply amazing that the information provided by two current Mormons (Rathji I think is practicing, my apologies if not) and one former who grew up in the church (myself) is simply dismissed and laughed at.

[Displaced Flames fan]

So let me get this straight...the only way youll believe something is false regarding the church and its doctrines is if the LDS says it or proves it themselves? :bag:
Have you actually taken the time to read some of the articles in any of the websites I posted?
You know Rathji...if you disbelieved 50% of the stuff in links I posted that would still leave 50% as true. Its obvious the sales job by the LDS is fantastic if you are that sold on their product.

http://www.exmormon.org/

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon439.htm


Don't you think Rathji, Eddly and I would KNOW what is actually taught by the church?

Your willingness to believe all the stuff found at the links you've listed coupled with your complete unwillingness to believe what we've told you is baffling to me.

[RougeUnderoos]

Part of the problem here is that specific questions aren't really answered, or they are danced around.

I'm going to steal from Cheese...

One prophecy was that there would be a second coming in 56 years. It didn't happen, how do you explain that?

It's pretty straightforward. It was never really answered though. All we get is "if it didn't come directly from the church website..."which is not really an answer at all. First of all, I don't expect that the church would list false prophecies on their website. Why would they? Just because they don't have it up there doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

Maybe a better way to put the question to an expert (a Mormon) would be "did Joseph Smith say their would be a second coming that didn't happen"? It's really a "yes or no" kind of a question.

"I don't know" is also a possible answer, I guess.

"If it's not listed on the official LDS website, then no" isn't really an answer.

[Cheese]

Don't you think Rathji, Eddly and I would KNOW what is actually taught by the church?

Your willingness to believe all the stuff found at the links you've listed coupled with your complete unwillingness to believe what we've told you is baffling to me.

You are not the only ex-Mormon Dis. ;) Quite frankly my eyes are wide open and with literally thousands of ex-Mormans spouting the same stuff, Id say you probably were either very young when you left or didnt really pay attention. Quite frankly the vast majority of Mormons know nothing at all...nothing but what is told.

[Displaced Flames fan]

You are not the only ex-Mormon Dis. ;)

Of course not, but I don't have an agenda either.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Part of the problem here is that specific questions aren't really answered, or they are danced around.

I'm going to steal from Cheese...

One prophecy was that there would be a second coming in 56 years. It didn't happen, how do you explain that?

It's pretty straightforward. It was never really answered though. All we get is "if it didn't come directly from the church website..."which is not really an answer at all. First of all, I don't expect that the church would list false prophecies on their website. Why would they? Just because they don't have it up there doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

Maybe a better way to put the question to an expert (a Mormon) would be "did Joseph Smith say their would be a second coming that didn't happen"? It's really a "yes or no" kind of a question.

"I don't know" is also a possible answer, I guess.

"If it's not listed on the official LDS website, then no" isn't really an answer.

Actually, Rathji said he wasn't familiar with that being in the Doctrine and Convenants...which is an answer IMO.

[Cheese]

Of course not, but I don't have an agenda either.

LOL...my agenda is the truth. Is that an issue? I ask questions and rarely get answers.

[Cheese]

Actually, Rathji said he wasn't familiar with that being in the Doctrine and Convenants...which is an answer IMO.

Rathji needs to study a wee bit more about his religion then...doesnt he?

[Displaced Flames fan]

LOL...my agenda is the truth. Is that an issue? I ask questions and rarely get answers.

I didn't realize you were referring to yourself. So you were taught all of this stuff as a Mormon?:blink:

[eddly]

Part of the problem here is that specific questions aren't really answered, or they are danced around.

I'm going to steal from Cheese...

One prophecy was that there would be a second coming in 56 years. It didn't happen, how do you explain that?

It's pretty straightforward. It was never really answered though. All we get is "if it didn't come directly from the church website..."which is not really an answer at all. First of all, I don't expect that the church would list false prophecies on their website. Why would they? Just because they don't have it up there doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

Maybe a better way to put the question to an expert (a Mormon) would be "did Joseph Smith say their would be a second coming that didn't happen"? It's really a "yes or no" kind of a question.

"I don't know" is also a possible answer, I guess.

"If it's not listed on the official LDS website, then no" isn't really an answer.

I don't recall reading that Joseph Smith ever set a date for the second coming. By saying that, I'm not saying it didn't happen. It is just hard for me to comment on it if I have never heard about it till reading your post. In the 1800s it was common among some religions to make such claims. So my answer is "I don't know".

I have read many sites, lds approved and others that are considered anti-mormon. Claiming that everything on an "anti-mormon" site is a lie is ridiculous. Many of it is actually fact, but often the context is not explained. Regarding Cheese's question, I have never come across a quote stating that Joseph Smith had declared a day or year for when the second coming would occur. Please show me the source for it, I would love to read up on it.

[photon]

I don't think all ex-mormons who create those sites have an agenda either.. Just like every other religion, I'm sure there are groups of Mormons who are far more, um, enthusiastic than others and just like every other organization out there people have bad experiences with them.

So on one hand you can't discount what sites like exmormon.org since the people bring their stories to sites like that do so from those extreme groups, and on the other hand you can't characterize every single Mormon you meet by the way some groups inside the organization behave.

[eddly]

Rathji needs to study a wee bit more about his religion then...doesnt he?

It is rather hard to have every verse memorized. Assuming you believe in the Bible, do you have it thorougly memorized? Also, no need to belittle him as you are doing...

[eddly]

I don't think all ex-mormons who create those sites have an agenda either.. Just like every other religion, I'm sure there are groups of Mormons who are far more, um, enthusiastic than others and just like every other organization out there people have bad experiences with them.

So on one hand you can't discount what sites like exmormon.org since the people bring their stories to sites like that do so from those extreme groups, and on the other hand you can't characterize every single Mormon you meet by the way some groups inside the organization behave.

Good post photon. I agree, exmormon.org can be a great source of information. I have browsed several times over the last 10 years (I believe it has been around for 13 years now). Another good source is www.postmormon.org (they are generally less bitter about the church than the visitors of www.exmormon.org can be).

[photon]

It is rather hard to have every verse memorized. Assuming you believe in the Bible, do you have it thorougly memorized? Also, no need to belittle him as you are doing...

Heh, you're barking up the wrooooong tree. :w00t:

Though I would say a lot of ex-whatevers (Christians etc) have more knowledge about their religious books than the average active member, at least in my limited experience.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Heh, you're barking up the wrooooong tree. :w00t:

Though I would say a lot of ex-whatevers (Christians etc) have more knowledge about their religious books than the average active member, at least in my limited experience.


I would agree with that, especially where the bible is concerned.

[eddly]

I would agree with that, especially where the bible is concerned.

Certainly true in mormonism. I'm surprised sometimes by what my father does not know about the history of the church. He has held several fairly high level positions where I live. What you have to understand is the fact that we as Mormons are not actively taught every little detail about church history. Essentially we are given a very bare version. So when someone asks a question here and we don't have an answer, don't be surprised and assume we are hiding secrets that we know... it really isn't the case. As with most, if not all religions, belief is based on faith not facts alone.

Mormons generally don't care that they don't know every single detail about the early church. They feel that they received a spiritual witness of its truthfulness and that trumps everything. Therein lies the problem as people in other religions also feel that they have received a witness proving that their church is correct. So much confusion in this world.

At the end of the day, if you are happy worshiping as you do, and it does not negatively impact others I really don't care what you believe and would not want to tear down what someone believes.

[Rathji]

Part of the problem here is that specific questions aren't really answered, or they are danced around.

I'm going to steal from Cheese...

One prophecy was that there would be a second coming in 56 years. It didn't happen, how do you explain that?

It's pretty straightforward. It was never really answered though. All we get is "if it didn't come directly from the church website..."which is not really an answer at all.

He said that this specific prophecy was in the Doctrine and Covenants, to which I asked him where in the D&C it was. I didn't specificly recall such a prophecy so I was asking him to point it out.

These are claims that are in the D&C? If so, could you provide locations for them. If not, then what is your source? I don't recall any claims specific to the ones you are making.

He could not point it out, but instead pointed me towards websites.

To which I responded
Anyone can post something on a website and claim it is what the LDS Church believes. If you can point out a website where the LDS Church itself claims it believes something, then I will answer any questions about that. If you can find something in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price, I will try and answer your questions about that.

If you want to know why the website www.antimormon.com says that Joseph Smith raped 300 monkeys in whore houses, you are out of luck here. I will give you a hint though, and it has something to do with if you should be believing everything you read on the internet.

Which I thought was a pretty straightforward way of saying that him asking me about a random claim was not going to get an answer unless he provided a reference to something the church taught. To simplify the discussion I asked him to keep his questions to material that was published and that I could access. I am sure there is more information out there, but since I dont have access to it how could I make any reasonable response?

[Cheese]

I don't recall reading that Joseph Smith ever set a date for the second coming. By saying that, I'm not saying it didn't happen. It is just hard for me to comment on it if I have never heard about it till reading your post. In the 1800s it was common among some religions to make such claims. So my answer is "I don't know".

I have read many sites, lds approved and others that are considered anti-mormon. Claiming that everything on an "anti-mormon" site is a lie is ridiculous. Many of it is actually fact, but often the context is not explained. Regarding Cheese's question, I have never come across a quote stating that Joseph Smith had declared a day or year for when the second coming would occur. Please show me the source for it, I would love to read up on it.

Heres a wiki on JS and his prophecies eddly...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
It has the prophecy on the 2nd coming about 2/3s of the way down.
Again Im not trying to suggest you are wrong...Im just saying there are literally hundreds of sites that have the same "factual" info out there. As a matter of fact Id suggest there is likely more factual sites out there than LDS supported sites.
Thanks for suggesting that not everything on the anti-sites is a lie...thats important...like I said...if you think half of it is a lie...that means half is correct.
How do you justify the lies as a Mormon?

[Cheese]

Certainly true in mormonism. I'm surprised sometimes by what my father does not know about the history of the church. He has held several fairly high level positions where I live. What you have to understand is the fact that we as Mormons are not actively taught every little detail about church history. Essentially we are given a very bare version. So when someone asks a question here and we don't have an answer, don't be surprised and assume we are hiding secrets that we know... it really isn't the case. As with most, if not all religions, belief is based on faith not facts alone.

Mormons generally don't care that they don't know every single detail about the early church. They feel that they received a spiritual witness of its truthfulness and that trumps everything. Therein lies the problem as people in other religions also feel that they have received a witness proving that their church is correct. So much confusion in this world.

At the end of the day, if you are happy worshiping as you do, and it does not negatively impact others I really don't care what you believe and would not want to tear down what someone believes.

My final question to you eddly...I promise I wont bother you with this anymore. You suggest in this post that "Mormons are not actively taught every little detail about church history" and "Mormons generally don't care that they don't know every single detail about the early church" yet you obviously have bought into the system 100%.
IF I was to tell you that you could use that same reasoning and try to get a job as a doctor/lawyer/engineer...would it work? If not why wouldnt you study every little piece of church history you could find. Isnt it important to have all the knowledge?

[Rathji]

Thanks for suggesting that not everything on the anti-sites is a lie...thats important...like I said...if you think half of it is a lie...that means half is correct.
How do you justify the lies as a Mormon?

If a website is lying about Mormons, I really don't think anyone but the website owner needs to justify what they are lying about. My personal opinion is they have far to much free time on their hands to be concerned enough about what a religion they don't belong to believes in that they are willing to make a website about it.

I couldn't begin to guess why though.

If not why wouldnt you study every little piece of church history you could find. Isnt it important to have all the knowledge?

Sure it might be good to know every single thing, but personally I don't have time to document every possible version of events that happened almost 200 years ago. I know what is important and/or interesting to me. I don't try and believe that people who have been members of the LDS church were always perfect, but some of the claims that people make about stuff that happened have no historical backing at all, yet are presented as fact. If me not believing that stuff makes me ignorant, then so be it, guilt as charged. However I would much sooner doubt the logic of the person who woud believe something just because it is posted on the internet that cannot provide any sources to back up their claims.

[RougeUnderoos]

He said that this specific prophecy was in the Doctrine and Covenants, to which I asked him where in the D&C it was. I didn't specificly recall such a prophecy so I was asking him to point it out.


He could not point it out, but instead pointed me towards websites.

To which I responded


Which I thought was a pretty straightforward way of saying that him asking me about a random claim was not going to get an answer unless he provided a reference to something the church taught. To simplify the discussion I asked him to keep his questions to material that was published and that I could access. I am sure there is more information out there, but since I dont have access to it how could I make any reasonable response?

It's a pretty strong accusation to make about a guy who (afaik) is considered a prophet within the LDS community. Your answer of "I never heard that, but I'm not sure" doesn't seem to have much conviction behind it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I expect(ed) adherents to know if it's true or not. No maybes about it.

But that could be my own bias or misunderstanding talking. Maybe y'all believe he was capable of making mistakes and that's part of the deal and you don't make a big hubbub about it. That would make sense.

[Rathji]

It's a pretty strong accusation to make about a guy who (afaik) is considered a prophet within the LDS community. Your answer of "I never heard that, but I'm not sure" doesn't seem to have much conviction behind it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I expect(ed) adherents to know if it's true or not. No maybes about it.

But that could be my own bias or misunderstanding talking. Maybe y'all believe he was capable of making mistakes and that's part of the deal and you don't make a big hubbub about it. That would make sense.

I don't recall the text that he was refering to and I am sorry if this offends you, but I can't pull chapter, verse and specific contents out of my memory. This is why I asked him for clarification, because as far as I knew the scripture didn't exist. If he pointed it out, then I would know it did exist, and I would be able to make a comment on it.

If my answer is not satifactory to you or you feel that because I do not know off hand without a reference that I am not qualified to respond then I am sorry.

[photon]

I have one question actually.. what's the general Mormon view of their scripture? Is it closer to an "evangelical" view of it being perfect and infallible? Or a more liberal view? Or is Mormonism like Christianity in that it has different groups within it that hold varying views?

Reason I ask is I remembered the last time many many years ago I had a Mormon at my door discussing things, and when they popped this little tidbit they lost me totally: that all Natives in the Americas and Polynesia are descended from Israel.

I don't know if he was the exception or the rule.

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't recall the text that he was refering to and I am sorry if this offends you, but I can't pull chapter, verse and specific contents out of my memory.

You can't offend me. And you don't have to pull chapter and verse out of memory. The question boils down to "did he make prophecies that didn't turn out to be true"? The answer is "I don't think so". I'd expect it to be stronger than that. But whatever.

I've really got no beef with Mormons. Like someone said earlier, if you are practicing your faith and not harming anyone else* then I'm in no position to hack on you for it. I'm just kind of curious. I'm not in the business of trying to convince anyone of anything.

*I don't consider door-knocking to be harmful. I do consider (and Mormons don't do this) bringing religion into public institutions and using it as justification for oppression** and violence*** to be harmful, so some other sects are fair game. The taxes thing does kind of bug me though.

** that's a whole 'nother can of worms
*** and so is that

[Rathji]

I have one question actually.. what's the general Mormon view of their scripture? Is it closer to an "evangelical" view of it being perfect and infallible? Or a more liberal view? Or is Mormonism like Christianity in that it has different groups within it that hold varying views?

Reason I ask is I remembered the last time many many years ago I had a Mormon at my door discussing things, and when they popped this little tidbit they lost me totally: that all Natives in the Americas and Polynesia are descended from Israel.

I don't know if he was the exception or the rule.

As to your first question, I will refer you to the Articles of Faith, which is basicly a point for explaination of what mormons beleive.

Articles of Faith (http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1)

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

So for the most part, scripture is considered correct and the truth. That does not mean that it should always be interpreted literally though.

As to your second, yes the Book of Mormon tells of a family who escaped from Israel before Jerusalem was destroyed about 600 BC. This family managed to make it to the North American continent and established a civilization here. I am not sure of the actual Church position on this matter, but it is my belief that these people grew into the civilizations we know as the Aztecs, Mayans and eventually to what we know as Native Americans today.

[Calgaryborn]

Doctrine and Covenants 130:14,15 basically predicts that if Joseph Smith lives to be 85 he will see Jesus' return.

I think the Mormon church sees the Bible as inferior to the book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The reasoning is that mistakes have been made in the copying over the centuries. Also the Mormons see the Christian churches as to have become corrupt and therefore changed the Bible to suite to conform to their new beliefs.

[photon]

As to your first question, I will refer you to the Articles of Faith, which is basicly a point for explaination of what mormons beleive.

Articles of Faith (http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1)

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

So for the most part, scripture is considered correct and the truth. That does not mean that it should always be interpreted literally though.

So in cases where something probably shouldn't interpreted literally in light of more modern knowledge / values, re-interpreting it isn't that big a deal?

Just trying to compare that to the very strict religious upbringing I had where if something (anything) said one thing and the Bible said another, the Bible superceded it.

As to your second, yes the Book of Mormon tells of a family who escaped from Israel before Jerusalem was destroyed about 600 BC. This family managed to make it to the North American continent and established a civilization here. I am not sure of the actual Church position on this matter, but it is my belief that these people grew into the civilizations we know as the Aztecs, Mayans and eventually to what we know as Native Americans today.

I think historical and genetic evidence pretty much eliminates that possibility though doesn't it? This is what made me think of the question in the first place; I thought the evidence was clearly against this so I'd wondered if the general thoughts of the church populace changed with the change in information.

I know one of the major criticisms levied against Mormonism when I was young by the preachers was how the beliefs had changed over the years whereas Christianity hadn't, so much more apparent since Mormonism is young. To them change was bad, even then I didn't really agree.

(Yes our preachers went out of their way to preach against Mormonism.. they had a whole series in youth and young adults on cults, Mormons were at the very top.)

[Rathji]

The question boils down to "did he make prophecies that didn't turn out to be true"?


It is possible that if you take a quote from scripture out of context in which is was meant by the author that you could prove that it should have happened by now and did not.

However given that pretty much no scripture is exact in what it says (Try Revelations if you want some examples), to take any prophetic scripture and claim that it is false because it hasn't happened yet seems rather foolish.

There are of course arguments that claim us crazy mormons rationalize away the things that didn't come true when some people might say they should have. I can see that that argument holding weight if you don't have any faith to support that rationalization.

[Rathji]

I think historical and genetic evidence pretty much eliminates that possibility though doesn't it?
I am not a genetic's guy nor do I have a desire to understand genetics. I very much doubt that any genetic work has been done by the general scientific community regarding the validity of the Book of Mormon. I do know that there have been studies done by BYU that have attempted to track genetic stuff and how it relates to ancestory. I am not sure if they touched on this topic though.

I don't understand how historical evidence could be in contradiction to this, perhaps you could elaborate on your point.

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't understand how historical evidence could be in contradiction to this, perhaps you could elaborate on your point.

There is significant historical and scientific evidence that the Mayans, Aztecs and current native population of North America does not descend from a single family that left Israel 2600 years ago.

[eddly]

Heres a wiki on JS and his prophecies eddly...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
It has the prophecy on the 2nd coming about 2/3s of the way down.
Again Im not trying to suggest you are wrong...Im just saying there are literally hundreds of sites that have the same "factual" info out there. As a matter of fact Id suggest there is likely more factual sites out there than LDS supported sites.
Thanks for suggesting that not everything on the anti-sites is a lie...thats important...like I said...if you think half of it is a lie...that means half is correct.
How do you justify the lies as a Mormon?

This quote from the wiki article seems to explain it satisfactorily:

Coming of the Lord within 56 years
"President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. . . . it was the will of God that they should be ordained to the ministry and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh — even fifty six years should wind up the scene.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith#cite_note-22) [This was uttered in 1835, and 56 years was completed in 1891] It should be noted that Joseph Smith did not preface this statement with "Thus sayeth the Lord," as he generally did when he claimed to be quoting the Lord. Latter-day Saints generally assume he was stating his opinion, on the basis of an earlier, recorded revelation:
Doctrine & Covenants 130:14-17 states:
I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time. Joseph Smith, Jr., died at the age of 38, and so the terms of the revelation were not fulfilled.
While some consider this prophecy, uses of words and phrases such as "should", "without being able to decide", and "I believe" demonstrate this to be opinion, interpolation, and conjecture that can not be taken as prophecy.

This doesn't appear to be a false prophecy to me.

Your next question "if you think half of it is a lie...that means half is correct. How do you justify the lies as a Mormon?" How do I justify there being lies on anti-mormon sites? Quite easily, they have an agenda. They are using pieces or parts of facts and twisting them. In some cases whole "facts" are simply created.

For example, while I served as a missionary the local paper in the city I was in published an "advertisement" that claimed Mormons pray to Joseph Smith and only he can forgive our sins. That was created by the author of the advertisement to generate a reaction. It is based on nothing.

Here is another example, the statement that we believe Jesus and Lucifer to be brothers is in fact true. When I say nothing more than that it certainly leaves you with a fowl taste in your mouth. Understandable! The explanation that you would not see is the fact that we believe that we are all God's children created in his image. Jesus is our brother, and so is Lucifer. That lessens the severity of the statement in my opinion.

Perhaps a more interesting question you could have asked me would have been "how do you justify the church's stance that anti-mormon literature is entirely false when you in fact disagree?". But you didn't ask that question.

[photon]

I am not a genetic's guy nor do I have a desire to understand genetics. I very much doubt that any genetic work has been done by the general scientific community regarding the validity of the Book of Mormon. I do know that there have been studies done by BYU that have attempted to track genetic stuff and how it relates to ancestory. I am not sure if they touched on this topic though.

I don't understand how historical evidence could be in contradiction to this, perhaps you could elaborate on your point.

I don't know if genetic work would have been done specifically to speak to the Book of Mormon, but there's tons of work tracing the genetics of people all over the word to determine the migration patterns of people over tens to hundreds of thousands of years, so that question would be answered as part of that.

Historical evidence would be pretty easy, you would be able to see the migration of people over time, technology levels and art and such being influenced by the origin of ancient Israel, etc..

A Google search of Mormon Indian and DNA brought up this: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm

Anyway, I don't want to get too bogged down in the detail of one facet, I was more after the bigger picture.

Lets assume for the moment that the evidence precluded the notion of a single family coming over and populating this hemisphere, what would be the Mormon reaction to that? Would they adjust their core beliefs and reinterpret that portion of scripture and move on to better things to worry about, or would they maybe more hold on to the idea based on an adherence to scripture despite evidence? That's the core of my question I guess.

[eddly]

My final question to you eddly...I promise I wont bother you with this anymore. You suggest in this post that "Mormons are not actively taught every little detail about church history" and "Mormons generally don't care that they don't know every single detail about the early church" yet you obviously have bought into the system 100%.
IF I was to tell you that you could use that same reasoning and try to get a job as a doctor/lawyer/engineer...would it work? If not why wouldnt you study every little piece of church history you could find. Isnt it important to have all the knowledge?

I actually haven't bought into the system 100%. Although I do go to church every Sunday. There are some things in the church that trouble me that I have not been able to resolve for myself yet.

Religion relies significantly on faith. Hoping for things that are not seen. By the will of the father it is done etc etc.

When it comes to wordly things like a career, it is generally understood that effort is required (actually the same is true in spiritual matters, we have to work for our salvation as well, faith alone is not enough to save us). When I said "Mormons generally don't care that they don't know every single detail about the early church" notice how I said generally. I in fact do research to learn about the early days of the church.... time permitting as I do have a very demanding job.

[eddly]

Maybe y'all believe he was capable of making mistakes and that's part of the deal and you don't make a big hubbub about it. That would make sense.

To an extent yes. It is troubling for a prophet to be making false claims. However, factors can change making the situation around the prophecy to be completely irrelevant. God will not intervene to ensure a prophecy will occur. We have our free agency.

A prophet is still a human being susceptible to the same weaknesses we all have. As such, they can make mistakes. King David made a pretty mighty mistake for example.

Other "false" prophecies are often rationalized away by saying that the prophet was merely stating his own opinion and not his own. When speaking for the Lord, they may say "the Lord sayeth..." or something to that extent. In my opinion I find this a little troubling as it leaves them an out in case they are in fact uttering false prophecies. There are several well known prophecies that are rationalized away by saying that that what they were saying was just popular opinion at the time. Perhaps you know some of these prophecies I am referring to.

[Rathji]

Lets assume for the moment that the evidence precluded the notion of a single family coming over and populating this hemisphere, what would be the Mormon reaction to that? Would they adjust their core beliefs and reinterpret that portion of scripture and move on to better things to worry about, or would they maybe more hold on to the idea based on an adherence to scripture despite evidence? That's the core of my question I guess.

That is something that really can't be interpreted any other way. I don't know how I could explain it so that you could understand without giving you a Book of Mormon and saying "here, read this" and get back to me with any questions you have.

[eddly]

Doctrine and Covenants 130:14,15 basically predicts that if Joseph Smith lives to be 85 he will see Jesus' return.

I think the Mormon church sees the Bible as inferior to the book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The reasoning is that mistakes have been made in the copying over the centuries. Also the Mormons see the Christian churches as to have become corrupt and therefore changed the Bible to suite to conform to their new beliefs.

You neglected to read the next two verses that work to clarify the matter further:

14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the acoming (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/130/14a) of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore alet (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/130/15a) this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.

17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

Verse 16 seems to explain it quite well. So essentially he was told that the Second coming wouldn't be within the next ~50 years! So I guess he was right.

Saying that mormons believe that the Bible is inferior is not quite the correct way to describe it. Inferior is too strong of a word. We happily use the Bible and the Book of Mormon. However, you are right in the sense that we may turn to the Book of Mormon first. I love the Bible though... although the Old Testament can be a little difficult to grasp...

[eddly]

So in cases where something probably shouldn't interpreted literally in light of more modern knowledge / values, re-interpreting it isn't that big a deal?

Just trying to compare that to the very strict religious upbringing I had where if something (anything) said one thing and the Bible said another, the Bible superceded it.


Basically the more recent source (prophet or scripture) trumps the other.


I think historical and genetic evidence pretty much eliminates that possibility though doesn't it? This is what made me think of the question in the first place; I thought the evidence was clearly against this so I'd wondered if the general thoughts of the church populace changed with the change in information.


This is an interesting subject. No one can deny the DNA evidence showing that the Native Indians and the people of the Pacific Islands actually do not have Israel DNA. This is a confusing matter for me as well. Very troubling actually as I have studied the related science in university. That being said, the response from the Church has been subtle. The introduction to the Book of Mormon now reads that the people in the Book of Mormon were among the inhabitants of America. Implied is the fact that the Book of Mormon people's DNA became so mixed with the other inhabitants that you can't trace it. :bag: I'm waiting for a better explanation.



I know one of the major criticisms levied against Mormonism when I was young by the preachers was how the beliefs had changed over the years whereas Christianity hadn't, so much more apparent since Mormonism is young. To them change was bad, even then I didn't really agree.

(Yes our preachers went out of their way to preach against Mormonism.. they had a whole series in youth and young adults on cults, Mormons were at the very top.)

Oh, all churches have evolved over time. Hard to argue with that in my opinion.

[eddly]

I am not a genetic's guy nor do I have a desire to understand genetics. I very much doubt that any genetic work has been done by the general scientific community regarding the validity of the Book of Mormon. I do know that there have been studies done by BYU that have attempted to track genetic stuff and how it relates to ancestory. I am not sure if they touched on this topic though.

I don't understand how historical evidence could be in contradiction to this, perhaps you could elaborate on your point.

There has been extensive research on this Rathji.

[photon]

That is something that really can't be interpreted any other way. I don't know how I could explain it so that you could understand without giving you a Book of Mormon and saying "here, read this" and get back to me with any questions you have.

What do you mean, the part about the ancestry of people on this hemisphere can't be interpreted any other way, or the part about adhering to scripture even if something contradicts it?

If it's the first, sure it could be interpreted other ways.. interpret it as a myth; a story told to make a point rather than something that's literal truth.

Saying read the Book of Mormon doesn't help much, I'm trying to get a sense of how the current religion views the world, not how the scripture is written. Scripture doesn't exist without interpretation, so you have to find out how scripture is interpreted to learn anything. Reading it on my own isn't going to tell me much on how the current church operates.

So I still have the question; if evidence made it 100% clear that it is impossible that the ancestry story of the Book of Mormon were as written, how would the religion respond?

[Calgaryborn]

You neglected to read the next two verses that work to clarify the matter further:

I found the reference to the "false prophesy" on the Utah lighthouse web site. It only referenced the two verses. I did look it up in a copy of the D&C and you are right: I didn't read any other verses in the passage. I thought the fact that Joseph had to live to 85 to see this made it a non issue because he didn't live that long..



Saying that Mormons believe that the Bible is inferior is not quite the correct way to describe it. Inferior is too strong of a word. We happily use the Bible and the Book of Mormon. However, you are right in the sense that we may turn to the Book of Mormon first. I love the Bible though... although the Old Testament can be a little difficult to grasp...

Where the book of Mormon conflicts with the Bible you do see the Bible as incorrect. Right?

[eddly]

So I still have the question; if evidence made it 100% clear that it is impossible that the ancestry story of the Book of Mormon were as written, how would the religion respond?

If there was undeniable evidence I guess the religion would be in hot water.

But, what if there was undeniable evidence that there is no God, all religions would be pretty well screwed.

What if there was evidence that the Bible was a work of fiction? Well I guess that would hurt a lot of religions as well.

The what if game is pointless. But perhaps you feel like you have this undeniable evidence against the Book of Mormon?

[eddly]

Where the book of Mormon conflicts with the Bible you do see the Bible as incorrect. Right?

Give me an example to work with if you can.

[photon]

Basically the more recent source (prophet or scripture) trumps the other.

Interesting! That's pretty different than current Christianity though Christianity has had 2000 years to work out the kinks and harmonize things.

That being said, the response from the Church has been subtle. The introduction to the Book of Mormon now reads that the people in the Book of Mormon were among the inhabitants of America. Implied is the fact that the Book of Mormon people's DNA became so mixed with the other inhabitants that you can't trace it. :bag: I'm waiting for a better explanation.

Hm yeah, DNA doesn't quite work like that.

Oh, all churches have evolved over time. Hard to argue with that in my opinion.

Some are just more willing to admit it than others :)

[Calgaryborn]

So I still have the question; if evidence made it 100% clear that it is impossible that the ancestry story of the Book of Mormon were as written, how would the religion respond?

That's not a question that can be answered. If the book of Mormon is infaliable then the science would have to be wrong. It does happen you know: Look at global warming.

[photon]

If there was undeniable evidence I guess the religion would be in hot water.

Not really IMO, one simply has to change the interpretation of the scriptures. To me it's amusing when interpretation of scripture changes organically over time to reflect the changing morals of society and that's fine, but when changing in response to new scientific evidence is suggested, people get all upset.

That's why I was asking about the Mormon view on scripture.. only if a religion views its scripture as inerrant and infallible is it in trouble if a fact contradicts it.

But, what if there was undeniable evidence that there is no God, all religions would be pretty well screwed.

I guess, but in general you can't prove a negative.. well you can but not this kind of negative (there is no God).


What if there was evidence that the Bible was a work of fiction? Well I guess that would hurt a lot of religions as well.

The what if game is pointless.

I don't think it is, what if's are useful in finding flaws in reasoning. If my world view depends on something to the point that I can't even contemplate a "what if" question around changing in a way that would contradict my view, then that's a pretty good demonstration that my world view is flawed: "My world view cannot be wrong because if there was something that invalided my world view my world view would be wrong!"

But perhaps you feel like you have this undeniable evidence against the Book of Mormon?

Not at all, I haven't read the Book of Mormon. I only picked that example as something I recalled from years ago (something that could be verified or dismissed based on evidence) to get to my question about how Mormonism views its own beliefs and scriptures.

[Calgaryborn]

Give me an example to work with if you can.

Eph 2:8 says "For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

In the book of Mormon you have the same verse except after the word "faith" the phrase "after all that you can do" is inserted. That totally changes the meaning of the verse and one does contradict the other. I was told that the phrase "after all that you can do" was left out of the Bible by some copiest over the centuries.

At any rate, that is the example that springs to mind. If you want the reference in the Book of Mormon I will find it for you. I just can't tonight. It's time for me to pumpkin. I've got to be up in 6 hours.

[photon]

That's not a question that can be answered. If the book of Mormon is infaliable then the science would have to be wrong.

You're just restating my question in the form of a sentence with a condition, thanks. I'm asking about how Mormons view their beliefs.

It does happen you know: Look at global warming.

"Right" and "wrong" are words that don't work well within the realms of science, at least not the way you are using them.

[eddly]

Not really IMO, one simply has to change the interpretation of the scriptures. To me it's amusing when interpretation of scripture changes organically over time to reflect the changing morals of society and that's fine, but when changing in response to new scientific evidence is suggested, people get all upset.



There lies the problem. You can't suddenly change the fact that the Book of Mormon starts out in Jerusalem. It is what it is. So if you have evidence against that fact, well it is done like dinner (or perhaps the Canucks near the end of the season).

The DNA issue is threatening to be this issue, but the majority of Mormons are totally unaware of it or disregard it because we apparently don't fully understand the science, or simply the science is wrong.

The church is starting to bend as I eluded to regarding the change in the introduction of the Book of Mormon where it is mentioned that the Book of Mormon people are among the inhabitants. However, there are portions of the Book of Mormon that work to contradict this... or the prophets of the Book of Mormon thought it was not important to mention these other inhabitants... especially when they went as far as to predict the coming of Christopher Columbus (doesn't outright say his name though) and the eventual settling of America etc. Oops. This is a concern for me.

[photon]

There lies the problem. You can't suddenly change the fact that the Book of Mormon starts out in Jerusalem. It is what it is. So if you have evidence against that fact, well it is done like dinner (or perhaps the Canucks near the end of the season)..

I guess I see what you mean. From an external point of view it's easy enough to say "well interpret the whole account as myth rather than a statement of fact". But as an individual I guess it'd be more difficult to simply change one's view. "Right then, this part here that we've been telling you is fact, now we're going to treat it as a meaningful story". That's a tough sell.

Although this is also something that Christianity has has do deal with over the years; Christianity has its fair share of historical claims that have have fallen into question or have no support.. Christians that choose to not just ignore the evidence can still keep their core values intact while accepting the new knowledge. At least some do anyway.

[eddly]

Eph 2:8 says "For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

In the book of Mormon you have the same verse except after the word "faith" the phrase "after all that you can do" is inserted. That totally changes the meaning of the verse and one does contradict the other. I was told that the phrase "after all that you can do" was left out of the Bible by some copiest over the centuries.

At any rate, that is the example that springs to mind. If you want the reference in the Book of Mormon I will find it for you. I just can't tonight. It's time for me to pumpkin. I've got to be up in 6 hours.

Great example. There are several ways to rationalize this difference. First of all, saying the Bible is incorrect here is too strong of a way to describe it. As you implied, it would be considered to be not translated correctly in this particular instance. Or, perhaps it wasn't a complete thought... and it was implying that "yes... of course works are required still, but it wasn't explicitly stated".

In a different context Mormons do believe that we are saved by the grace of God. It just comes down to what being "saved" really means. Mormons would believe it to mean in this instance that you are saved from temporal death. We believe that receiving a resurrected body and eternal life is a free gift, so in essence, you are saved by the grace of God. However, through your good works we believe in addition to this you can achieve eternal salvation which would be eternal life in God's presence, which is not a free gift.

It is fascinating how one little scripture can be interpreted so many different ways.

[eddly]

Although this is also something that Christianity has has do deal with over the years; Christianity has its fair share of historical claims that have have fallen into question or have no support.. Christians that choose to not just ignore the evidence can still keep their core values intact while accepting the new knowledge. At least some do anyway.

The best example I can think of related to your point here is the whole idea that christianity believed that the world is in fact flat. There are numerous scriptures where prophets claim this. (False prophecy!).

Check it up on wiki, I don't have the url for it, it is a good read. I believe it was Galileo who challenged the claim, or perhaps he was saying the Sun didn't revolve around the Earth as Christianity claimed at the time... one of the two anyway.

Ok I found it, this is from a post I made to another forum a while ago about the Galileo thing...


I have always been fascinated by Galileo and the persecution he faced as a result of his research. He had discovered that the Earth in fact moves around the Sun, and not vice versa. This went against the Catholic Church's view at the time.



Western Christian biblical references Psalm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms) 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Chronicles) 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes) 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#_note-Bellarmine_quote)
- wiki


Imagine being Galileo and trying to convince a Catholic friend of yours that Earth isn't stationary. Good luck! He had ample evidence, but it fell on deaf ears.


Could evidence against the Mormon Church convince a friend that it is in fact false? It really depends on how entrenched they are in their beliefs. If Galileo went up to a complete stranger and said, "hey the Earth isn't stationary"... he obviously wouldn't have much success. This stranger would actually have to be open to finding out that (s)he was wrong about something. A TBM has to be open to finding out that (s)he could actually be wrong, (s)he has to have some doubts before being able to accept the truth.


Just like the Catholic Church's response, the Mormon church forbids members to read "anti" material (how do they really define anti material anyway??!!?). Galileo's published works were apparently taken out of circulation and he was under house arrest until his death.


My point is that even with the increased availability of Church history, I doubt we'll see a mass exodus from the Mormon Church. Even before the popularity of the Internet, evidence was still out there, you just had to want to find it. If you don't want the evidence, you can ignore it.


There is hope however, the Catholic Church now admits they were wrong.


On 31 October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_31) 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992), Pope John Paul II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II) expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Council_for_Culture).[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#_note-26)[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#_note-27)


My intentions for this post were not to bash the Catholic Church. I have no grudge against Catholics.

[photon]

The best example I can think of related to your point here is the whole idea that christianity believed that the world is in fact flat. There are numerous scriptures where prophets claim this. (False prophecy!).

Check it up on wiki, I don't have the url for it, it is a good read. I believe it was Galileo who challenged the claim, or perhaps he was saying the Sun didn't revolve around the Earth as Christianity claimed at the time... one of the two anyway.

Very fascinating in my opinion. Science wins in this case.

EDIT: Ooops looks like you found it.

[photon]

But yeah that's a good example. And really you can easily take those scriptures and rather than interpret them literally as saying the earth doesn't move, and reinterpret them as poetic license.. not meant to be literal, but meant to communicate a bigger truth about God's immovability or some such. Same thing with scriptures that talk about a flat earth.

If I write something about my wife's eyes being brighter than the sun, it's not meant to be literal.

There's other stuff that doesn't get the same out though.. calling a bat a bird, or a global flood, etc.. But still Christianity has changed and adapted to accept new knowledge.

I think Mormonism would survive accepting evidence that the natives aren't descended from Israel.

[eddly]

Alright I'm off to bed soon. I enjoyed the discussion. It is nice to see a respectful discussion related to religion for a change.

[Rathji]

I think Mormonism would survive accepting evidence that the natives aren't descended from Israel.

Now that I have gotten some sleep I will give you my opinion, I apologize for basicly saying " read the Book of Mormon" last night but I couldn't figure out how to explain this in a condensed manner. What follows is not Church Doctrine but is in fact my own opinion on the matter, since photon is asking how I rationalize it.

Genetics aside, I think the biggest problem associated with beleiving that the Native Americans are decendents of Jewish blood stems from the fact that their skin isn't even the same color. It is my belief that if I can rationalize that problem that the DNA inconsistancies quite easily explain themselves.

// What follows if a super condensed readers digest version of the Book of Mormon from begining to end
// Btw am I a total dork for commenting my post?

So this guy Lehi is chilling in Jereuselum and God comes and says to him,"Hey Lehi, get your crew and jet from here because this place is gonna be flattened soon". So Lehi figures God has never let him down yet, so he gathers up his kids and some woman folk for them and they all take off into the wilderness. Long story short they make a boat, come over to North America. Now Lehi has 2 of his kids who really were not happy about leaving jereuselum, they figured their dad was nuts. So they rebel against their Dad and the other kids and they abandon the whole concept of worshiping God. Now God at this point is not pleased, so he curses these 2 kids with darkened skin. So the 2 bad kids go about their business and there ends up being 2 seperate kingdoms built up. To make another even longer story short, the bad kids decencents wipe the floor with the good kids decendents. So now you have one group of darker skinned folks chilling waiting for Columbus to come over and scam them outta manhatten.

Now I realize that story was simplified to the point of absurdity, but the point is, if you believe that God can do all this stuff and understand that he changed the skin color of these people. It really isn't that big of a stretch to believe that he changed this skin color by altering thier DNA. I mean he is God and all powerful and everything, but the stuff he does needs to follow the rules he set up when he made the world. Its not like he can just grab a can of paint and say "Bam, your brown", so he changes their DNA.

If you don't believe in God, or that he created the world, or that his is all powerful, then I can imagine that is is pretty nuts to agree with this explaination, but how could you deny that it makes total sense to someone who does beleive those things.

Rationalizing inconsistancy that I have found between what scripture says and what science says can be boiled down to one simple fact. If you beleive in the fact that God exists and believe that he has done everything people say he has done, then it is not a big stretch to believe that he did those things in a way that forced us to have faith that he existed rather than a way that give us proof he existed.

[Thor]

There is significant historical and scientific evidence that the Mayans, Aztecs and current native population of North America does not descend from a single family that left Israel 2600 years ago.

There was a great documentary on PBS some years ago called "Journey of Man" which used DNA to track human migration from a single family in Africa.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/12/1212_021213_journeyofman.html

Highly recommend checking it out, its Fascinating.

13 parts on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4

[photon]

Now I realize that story was simplified to the point of absurdity, but the point is, if you believe that God can do all this stuff and understand that he changed the skin color of these people. It really isn't that big of a stretch to believe that he changed this skin color by altering thier DNA. I mean he is God and all powerful and everything, but the stuff he does needs to follow the rules he set up when he made the world. Its not like he can just grab a can of paint and say "Bam, your brown", so he changes their DNA.

True, but would He do the change in such a way that it appeared exactly like was a natural progression of populations over very specific geographic areas at very specific times? To me that seems deceptive.

If you don't believe in God, or that he created the world, or that his is all powerful, then I can imagine that is is pretty nuts to agree with this explaination, but how could you deny that it makes total sense to someone who does beleive those things.

Well I can't deny it would make sense to someone who believes those things, but that's circular logic. I believe the things I do because they are right, and they are right because I believe them.

To me something written by God would be self evidently so... it would make clear predictions that come true (not veiled in the ambiguities of history and language), it would be perfectly self consistent, and it would address questions and issues far in advance of when it was written, instead of appearing to be entirely a product of the time it was written. I haven't read the book of Mormon so I don't know if it meets these criteria or not.

Rationalizing inconsistancy that I have found between what scripture says and what science says can be boiled down to one simple fact. If you beleive in the fact that God exists and believe that he has done everything people say he has done, then it is not a big stretch to believe that he did those things in a way that forced us to have faith that he existed rather than a way that give us proof he existed.

Right, but that's belief based on... nothing, just based on a desire to believe. Believing he did everything he said he did also requires believing that he actually said those things too. All this reasoning could be applied to Odin or Zeus and come to the same conclusions; why not believe in them?

And that's fine for some, but what about those that can't believe like that? Not everyone can believe based on no reason.

I don't think you mean forced to have faith do you? That would imply that God's chosen those who he's forced to have faith and those who don't.. meaning he chose those who don't believe to not believe, meaning there's no free will (and presumably sending those that don't believe to hell or whatever the Mormon equivilent is).

[Rathji]

I don't think you mean forced to have faith do you? That would imply that God's chosen those who he's forced to have faith and those who don't.. meaning he chose those who don't believe to not believe, meaning there's no free will (and presumably sending those that don't believe to hell or whatever the Mormon equivilent is).

I mean that to beleive in God takes faith. There is no indisputable proof that God exists and there never will be. So if you beleive that God exists then you have faith. There always will be circular logic when you discuss God, which is the basis of why many people refuse to believe. I do understand thier thinking though, because without faith there really isn't any other way to think.

And since you touched on it, free will is a huge part of what Mormons believe. If there is ever any thing that anyone claims about what the LDS Church teaches that doesn't involve you having 100% choice in all your actions, then it is not factual.

[photon]

In the Bible there are times in the past that God has clearly intervened in the affairs of man.. so in Christianity there is in theory indisputable proof that God exists.

Is it the same with Mormons? I.e. are there cases in history where God did something for/to/whatever someone that would be indisputable proof for that person? In the Bible God knocks Paul off his horse and blinds him, which would be pretty indisputable, plus all the miracles Jesus performed would be pretty indisputable.

And you didn't really address the part about those who can't just believe. I assume Mormonism is an exclusivistic religion (i.e. for salvation you have to accept the teachings, if you don't there's some punishment), so people who can't just believe get left out?

[Cheese]

DNA and Mormon Scripture


The Book of Mormon teaches that a tribe of Jews sailed from Jerusalem to the New World in 600 BC and split into two factions, at war with each other. On one side were the Nephites who were "God-fearing, white* and delightsome", and on the other were the Lamanites who were idolaters and received the "curse of blackness", meaning that their skin turned dark. According to the Book of Mormon, by 385 AD the idol-worshiping Lamanites had wiped out the Nephites.

The Mormon church considers the Lamanites as the principal ancestors of the American Indians (and teaches that if they returned to church, their skin could once again become white). However, DNA testing has shown that American Indians came from Asia and not the Middle East, leaving the Mormon church to try and explain the gap between scientific evidence that Native Americans were not descendants of a lost Hebrew tribe, and a 175-year-old book that the church regards as literal and without error.

Genetic testing of Jews throughout the world had already shown that they shared common strains of DNA from the Middle East. Southerton examined studies of DNA lineages among Polynesians and indigenous peoples in North, Central and South America. One mapped maternal DNA lines from 7,300 Native Americans from 175 tribes.

Southerton found no trace of Middle Eastern DNA in the genetic strands of today's American Indians and Pacific Islanders.

In "Losing a Lost Tribe," published in 2004, he concluded that Mormonism — his faith for 30 years — needed to be reevaluated in the face of these facts, even though it would shake the foundations of the faith.

In the fall 1997 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, LDS author Brigham Madsen discussed the difficulty that many Latter-day Saints are having with accepting the Book of Mormon as an historical document (Reflections on LDS Disbelief in the Book of Mormon as History). Many who have closely examined the contents of the book in light of scholarship have come to realize that it cannot possibly be true history.
and this...

Mormon leaders cannot acknowledge any factual errors in the Book of Mormon because the prophet Joseph Smith proclaimed it the “most correct of any book on Earth,”.
Bedrock of Faith jolted (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/16/local/me-mormon16)

[Rathji]

Is it the same with Mormons? I.e. are there cases in history where God did something for/to/whatever someone that would be indisputable proof for that person? In the Bible God knocks Paul off his horse and blinds him, which would be pretty indisputable, plus all the miracles Jesus performed would be pretty indisputable.

There are people who have spiritual experiences that have alot easier time than others, I still beleive that those people require faith though.


And you didn't really address the part about those who can't just believe. I assume Mormonism is an exclusivistic religion (i.e. for salvation you have to accept the teachings, if you don't there's some punishment), so people who can't just believe get left out?

I am not sure what you mean by can't just believe, however I will make an attempt at answering what I think you mean. This is serious paraphrasing, so if I am unclear about something feel free to ask.

There are multiple levels of glory within heaven. If you do everything you should you recieve the highest level of glory, if you mess up some stuff you get the middle level, and if you screw up even more you get the bottom level. Now not to confuse the issues, none of these levels are what a normal Chirstian church would call Hell. They are all heaven, but just varying degrees of glory. There is another level, for the real bad folks, called outer darkeness which would be the equivilent of Hell, AFAIK Murderers, rapists and other obviously very bad people go there.

So to answer your question, yes I suppose you could say that there is a punishment of not reaching the higher level of glory if you don't believe, but I wouldn't really call it punishment unless you fall into the category of people who are going to outer darkness.

I hope this makes sense.

[photon]

Yup makes sense.. so an atheist who lead a moral life would go to some low level of heaven then, but not outer darkness?

That seems more fair than Christianity's stance.

By can't believe I mean people who require some kind of evidence; people who can't take that leap of faith.

Let me illustrate with an example. You see a hoof print in your yard. It could be made by a horse, a zebra, or a unicorn. Most likely you could not bring yourself to believe it was made by a unicorn no matter how much you desired to. You might be able to convince yourself it was a zebra if you lived in a city with a zoo, but you still wouldn't be doing so with any good reason.

Same thing for some people with respect to God; they can't bring themselves to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

[Rathji]

Yup makes sense.. so an atheist who lead a moral lifewould go to some low level of heaven then, but not outer darkness?


Anyone who leads a moral life will obtain some glory, of that I am certain.


Same thing for some people with respect to God; they can't bring themselves to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

When I first started learning about the church, I didn't beleive in God or anything else they taught me. I was dead set against the whole idea and I needed evidence before I would continue with the lessons. The missionaries that taught me said that the only way to get that proof is through prayer. Of course with me being a cocky 19 year old with chip on my shoulder against Mormons and no beleif in God , I scoffed at the idea at first. Eventually I did pray about it and I got an answer.

Now for me that answer was like a gun shot, all of the sudden I had this indisputable proof that God existed. I had my evidence and there was no way to deny it. So you might be wondering how this relates to your comment and here it is: I needed to have faith, no matter how small that faith was, to actually get my cocky butt down on the ground and pray. So to answer your question, there is no way I know of that you can believe God exists without faith. Even if you saw him face to face, if you did not have the smallest degree of faith that he existed you would not believe it was Him. If you personally saw Jesus rise from the dead you would think it was trickery and deception before you would believe that it was the Son of God standing there before you if you didn't have even the smallest degree of faith.

You do need faith, it doesn't have to be a great faith, but it does have to be there.

[photon]

On the flip side would be someone who's spent decades praying, decades seeking, decades having faith, but never getting that similar kind of experience.

God doesn't seem to be playing fair.