Tomas -
Good post.
Thanks.
Would you care to share with the rest of us, which of the posts before your post contained âwrongâ information?[/quote]
Yours specifically.
You were wrong about several details. Not that you couldnât use the correct facts and mock it just as much, the fact you donât really know what youâre talking about on this issue means youâve gotten your information from third-party sources and just accepted what you read on blind-faith without actually seeing if it were true or not. Either that or youâre intentionally giving false information, which would be worse.
Iâm not going to get into Mormon apologetics here, so Iâll only address the actual mistakes, not the mis-characterizations.
Heaven: Itâs not three planets of gold, silver, and bronze. Itâs three degrees of glories like the sun, moon, and stars.
Mormons donât believe people who are basically good but have flaws, or are really good but just wonât accept their version of God burn in hell forever. Instead, they think only a very limited number of really evil beings will spend forever in hell, and everyone else just suffers hell until their sins are paid for and then go to heaven. The kind of person you are will determine the nature of the heaven you are in, with those who were more righteous enjoying a higher level of happiness in heaven.
It wasnât black people having angered God so he made them black. But donât worry, you can get just as angry about what Mormons really believe. Many Mormons really believe the black skin was the mark of Cain and the black skin was a warning not to kill him. You can get angry about that, cause thatâs truly what many Mormons believe, although itâs not actually a doctrine of the church. Itâs still believed by many in the church because it was an opinion held by early church leaders. Not surprisingly, it was a popular belief at the time among Protestants.
Iâd be interested in knowing what the core tenets of the LDS faith are but it all seems a bit hush-hush. Mentioning the planet Kolob, for example, while engaged in any theological discussions with Mormons Iâve encountered will bring such discussions to a screeching halt.
I like and respect the Mormons Iâve met. They uniformly strike me as good people. Iâm not sure if the reverse is true though â as in, do Mormons regard other Christians as true Christians. I may have imagined it, for example, but I got the distinct impression when I said that I was Catholic and not in the market for any religious conversion that I got a distinct âyouâre going downâ look in reply. I could have completely imagined it though. Iâd be curious in hearing about that from anyone knowledgeable about the tenets of the LDS faith. Do they believe other Christians are real Christians?
doppelpost
Spook:
Good questions.
RE: The Kolob thing. I think the reaction you are getting is wariness. As you might be aware, there are plenty of instances when people are interested in ridiculing Mormons and their wanting to know is just so they can find something new to poke fun at.
Kolob is not a central tenet of LDS doctrine. Itâs a small detail.
Mormons consider other Christian denominations as Christian. However, they do not believe their teachings are totally correct, nor do they have any authority to act in the name of God. So, while they are Christian, they still need to be taught the rest of the truth.
The core doctrines are:
God is our spiritual father who is perfect and loves us. He has an only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
We come to earth to gain experience so as to make ourselves capable of greater happiness, but in the process we will go through physical and spiritual death (spiritual separation from God), and though our own actions become imperfect and unworthy of the presence of God.
Jesus was sent to redeem us from death (accomplished for all people in the resurrection) and sin (aka spiritual death), which he did through the Atonement (in the garden and on the cross). However, we have a choice in this. We can choose to reject the Atonement. Choosing to accept the Atonement requires the exercising of faith to the point of repentance, accepting baptism by water and by the Spirit (Holy Spirit).
Additional doctrines that can be considered core are:
*Heaven is not just for the perfect. Thereâs a place prepared for those who are not as good to have their happiness as well. Thus there are three degrees of glory. Those who do not accept the Atonement of Christ must pay for their own sins and will not go to the Kingdom of Heaven, but to a lesser heaven. After suffering for the penalties of their sins.
*God teaches the gospel through prophets who write down what they have experienced. These inspired writings are scripture. The dealings of the prophets in the Middle East were collected into a record called the Bible, which is inspired and is the word of God. The dealings of the prophets in the Americas, including an account of a resurrected Christ appearing to people there, is collected into a record called the Book of Mormon. The record of dealings of prophets in the modern times is still being recorded, but many such writings can be found as a collection called the Doctrine and Covenants.
*It is necessary to have the authority of God to act in the name of God. Authority from God must be given by God or an already authorized agent-- such as a prophet, angel, or someone who has had that authority given by a prophet or angel. This authority is called the Priesthood, and only the LDS church has that authority.
*Families can be eternal.
There are a few more core doctrines Iâm leaving off, but I gotta go to work. If youâre interested in details, keep in mind that there are some things that are canonical, and others that are not. Not everything a church leader has mused is considered doctrine.
Hope that helps.
[quote=âspookâ]Iâd be interested in knowing what the core tenets of the LDS faith are but it all seems a bit hush-hush. Mentioning the planet Kolob, for example, while engaged in any theological discussions with Mormons Iâve encountered will bring such discussions to a screeching halt.
I like and respect the Mormons Iâve met. They uniformly strike me as good people. Iâm not sure if the reverse is true though â as in, do Mormons regard other Christians as true Christians. I may have imagined it, for example, but I got the distinct impression when I said that I was Catholic and not in the market for any religious conversion that I got a distinct âyouâre going downâ look in reply. I could have completely imagined it though. Iâd be curious in hearing about that from anyone knowledgeable about the tenets of the LDS faith. Do they believe other Christians are real Christians?[/quote]
Check out The Articles of Faith for a good summary of the basic tenets. I think the wikipedia entry is pretty balanced. The only doctrines that are secret have to do with temple ceremonies. Everything else is wide open.
The Mormons I associated with spent very little time ridiculing other religions. I always considered anyone who professed a belief in Christ, in whatever form, to be a Christian, and Iâd say that represents the view of most Mormons.
You sometimes hear a phrase like âmy father has many mansionsâ when referring to âgood peopleâ who arenât LDS. Meaning, there are several degrees of heaven (called âdegrees of gloryâ in the Mormon religion), depending on your personal integrity and adherence to gospel principles, but your place in one of those mansion is supposed to be judged only by yourself and an all-knowing personage (the Christ). The insistence that there is only one path to the highest degree of eternal glory part feels a bit condescending. It was one of the doctrines I couldnât acceptâI knew too many people who deserved the same degree of glory as anyone I knew in the Mormon church, and I couldnât accept that God would be so exclusionary, like a bad manager. However, this doctrine is usually not discussed in a isnât critically judgmental context, i.e. Mormons donât talk about how Catholics, Protestants, or Buddhists are flawed people.
Iâve met loads of Mormons. Apart from the arseholes whoâve made the grave mistake of trying to doorstep me in my home (which has happened several times, much to their misfortune) every single one of them has seemed perfectly OK to me. I met two just five minutes ago, bicycles, white shirts et al., and we had a nice chat while I slurped my Kirin and they chewed up their mango slurpees.
Long as they donât start on the religion nonsense theyâre fine in my book.
Before I make any further comment, I have a question.
Can Mormons successfully pray for a new pony for me?
No. You need to find some golden crockery in a field first.
Reading the above I have to say Iâm convinced Mormons are Christians in every sense of the word. No big surprise here though as Iâve always believed you can tell a tree by its fruit.
Correct. The traditional LDS teaching is that it was white people who angered God, so He made them black:
[quote]2 Nephi 5: 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
Jacob 3: 8-9 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.
Alma 3: 6-8 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.[/quote]
The historical and current status of black people in LDS theology is discussed in some detail (with extensive reference to primary sources), here.
I never met a Mormon until I came to Asia. Most of the bicycle set, I get along with. I always enjoy a hands-on theological discussion. They rarely foam at the mouth when I lay the Quâraan on them. Or the Talmud.
Yet, theyâve been trained to do that, right?
I like making the wingman squirm while the flight leader holds him off, and delivers some amazingly spot on rhetoric. I have for years been trying to get them to give me Their Book.
I finally made it last week, without even going to a single meeting.
I started, but itâs pretty insipid so far. A premature judgement, I know. Iâll have to report in, further down the turning of the worm.
Serenity, yo!
Iâve read it. It is aces. They came to my house when I was a kid and gave my mum one with black and white pics. Me and my Crayolas got busy that week.
Why are there gazillions of our bicycled buddies in the 'wan? Is it seen as rich pickings, soul-wise?
Not really wrong, but youâre confusing the ideas about the dark skin of the Native American with ideas about the dark skin of the of African. Very similar, but there are differences. All of the Book of Mormon references you quoted are specific to Native Americans. For reference to anything involving the mark of Cain youâll have to use non-canonical, but still influential, writings. It was never doctrine, but still a widely held belief among the LDS.
It is LDS teaching that the darker skin of the Native American was because of their doing evil, and the main purpose of the skin was to warn the obedient against intermingling with them. According to the Book of Mormon record, the leaders of the church at the time (anciently) saw the darker skin as a curse and white skin as preferential (repeatedly equating âfair skinnedâ with âbeautifulâ). And itâs not a stretch to imagine the vast majority of church leaders of the early Mormon church as holding similar views.
That was a very well written article, and levied some serious criticisms against the positions of a number of former church leaders.
However, keep in mind that none of the primary sources that were quoted are considered authoritative. Despite the title Mormon Doctrine, the work does not actually define Mormon doctrine, but only makes comments on it. There are only 4 accepted sources of LDS doctrine, collectively called the Standard Works. With the exception of a pronouncement of the Prophet explicitly stating it to be a revelation or a unanimous pronouncement of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, nothing said by any of these people is considered doctrine.
When debating LDS beliefs this is an important thing to keep in mind. While it is clear that early church leaders had many interesting opinions and made a lot of speculation, it is not counted as LDS doctrine. On the other hand, many Mormons do believe these things.
[quote=âirishstuâ]Before I make any further comment, I have a question.
Can Mormons successfully pray for a new pony for me?[/quote]
Yes! If they have the right faith.
But according to Mormon belief, you can successfully pray for your own new pony.
Not really wrong, but youâre confusing the ideas about the dark skin of the Native American with ideas about the dark skin of the of African. Very similar, but there are differences. All of the Book of Mormon references you quoted are specific to Native Americans. For reference to anything involving the mark of Cain youâll have to use non-canonical, but still influential, writings. It was never doctrine, but still a widely held belief among the LDS.[/quote]
I didnât actually say anything about Africans or the mark of Cain. I simply said that it was LDS teaching that white people were made black, not that black people were made black.
Yes, thatâs exactly right.
Thatâs a very good spirited response, thanks.
The problem is that this position (like the Roman Catholic vacillation over church councils and papal decrees), does not take into account the fact that such doctrines as the article discusses were taught as fact, and were taught as standard beliefs. We do not find the General Authorities presenting these doctrines as âmaybesâ, or as optional.
Many Mormons do believe these things because they were taught to believe them by a succession of General Authorities.
I donât know. Certainly they have had very little success here.
Any religion connected to Freemasonary is nothing more than a cult.
2Cr 11:13 âFor such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.â
The problem is that this position (like the Roman Catholic vacillation over church councils and papal decrees), does not take into account the fact that such doctrines as the article discusses were taught as fact, and were taught as standard beliefs. We do not find the General Authorities presenting these doctrines as âmaybesâ, or as optional.[/quote]
I can see where you might think that. But most members donât read Brigham Youngâs Journal of Discourses (if you want ammunition to ambush an unsuspecting Mormon, thatâs the #1 source to find it!), or Mormon Doctrine. Those people who come to read these non-canonical works are usually told the same as I just mentioned here. Some of it may be inspired, but anything outside core doctrine could be wrong and a person should rely on prayer and personal revelation when reading it. (Similar recommendations are used in reference to works considered part of the pseudopigraphia or Apocrypha.)
Lessons delivered in church classes are based on the standard works and guided by lesson manuals that are carefully screened. While outside works are quoted, it is done with the approval of a council of General Authorities, not just a single member. Teachers are advised not to deviate much from what can be found in the standard works and to use outside sources with discretion. Courses taught based on outside materials are the exception, not the rule. At least, that is my experience.
Additionally, in Mormon church service, lay members are usually called up to give talks on a specific topic. Such talks are intended to be inspiring, help people to apply gospel principles practically in daily life, and to help the speaker learn. These speeches are certainly not doctrinal, and there are frequently mistakes made. General Authorities also give similar speeches, but such things are not considered doctrine. Many of the things recorded in these books are the equivalent of a learned person getting up to give a talk. Sometimes it is incredibly insightful, but at other times it is wrong.
When General Authorities speak in an official capacity, such as at worldwide General Conferences, those who are not apostles or the prophet/president of the church are invited to give a talk, but the content of their talk is reviewed before they give it. (No, people do not have the right of âfree speechâ at that time as far as the church is concerned.) Controversial subjects (in terms of doctrine) are rarely ever discussed and quotes from outside sources are rarely used unless what it is relating can also be found in the standard works. I never heard discussion of Kolob, the nature of the descendants of Cain and their skin, or any speculation that there are other gods or that God the Father (as opposed to the Son) was once a man during General Conference. Those ideas while available to be read in non-canonical Mormon works are not taught officially in the LDS church.
Great emphasis is placed on receiving inspiration and even revelation from God in the Mormon church, and it is that revelation from God that members are supposed to use in judging what things a speaker was inspired to say, and what was just their own idea. This âspiritualâ critical thinking is part of Mormon church culture. What is actually doctrine is made abundantly clear in church meetings.
So, while I understand your point, I will respectfully disagree.
See the lengthy reply above.
âŚare simply copyings of the Old Testament, verbatim. Around 50% of the Book of Mormon is re-recordings of the Torah. The other half is sub-literate bullshit. Ask any remotely insightful scholar.
I donât understand you, Mr. Isaac Asimovâs robot. Why do you consistently play the Devilâs Advocate towards stuff that you beyond obviously donât believe in?