Clearly.
Your actions to the contrary.
Is that what you were trying to do? I thought you were trying to point out things you thought were weird about Mormon beliefs.
Funny that you didn’t even mention what beliefs you thought Christians ought to believe which Mormons don’t.
And the rest was your imagination.
And again, a simple ‘yes/no’ question becomes a dick-measuring shitfit.
Factoid.
What an abysmally horrid term!
Yes, good point. Tritheism or polytheism would seem to go against Christian doctrine. However, while Mormon doctrine states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are individual beings, it also still contends that they are one God. But instead of using the concept of the Trinity, 3 aspects but one substance, Mormons state it as a unity of purpose and will. Obedience and worship of one is obedience and worship of the other since they are the same.
I think Jesus Christ not surprisingly definitively answered the key question ‘who is a Christian?’ with these explanations:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the Kingdom Of Heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in Heaven.”
(Matthew 7:21-23)
And the will of God can apparently be summarized as:
“You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your mind” (Deut 6:5). “This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Lev 19:18).”
I’d say if that’s what it takes to actually be a Christian then the Mormon community qualifies as well any I’ve ever experienced – various and sundry astrological ruminations notwithstanding.
Apologies, miss Buttercup, but there are some issues I take seriously.
[quote=“spook”]“You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your mind” (Deut 6:5). “This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Lev 19:18).”
I’d say if that’s what it takes to actually be a Christian then the Mormon community qualifies as well any I’ve ever experienced – various and sundry astrological ruminations notwithstanding.[/quote]
Amen.
R. Daneel:
Not aspects. Persons. The other way is arguably heretical (if by it we are to understand something like modalism or Sabellianism). I know–none of this really makes any sense, but them’s the rules.
I’ve heard of the common-will thing, and it always reminds me of monothelitism (condemned at Third Constantinople)–though this is the idea that Christ has one will rather than two (human and divine), not a basis for uniting the Trinity.
Ordinary Mormon married men who have received the requisite temple ordinances can apparently become gods as well. However, they will continue to be subordinate to their Heavenly Father (and perhaps the whole non-Trinity). The church will never worship any gods other than these three. This vaguely resembles the Orthodox (capital O) doctrine of theosis, and in fact they both cite the same scriptures.
Interestingly, Mormon “temple marriage” notions have some very ancient parallels–for example, in the Nag Hammadi codices (Gospel of Phillip, I think). But the basic theology behind it is actually (shh! don’t tell them!) Swedenborgian. Swedenborg held that angels are created by combining the souls of men and women (one each, you degenerates) who truly love one another–as “soul mates,” so to speak–into one body. Mormons substitute godhood for angeldom, and hold out (theologically) the desirability of becoming a really BIG god by marrying more wives.
Here’s another stupid video, this time of Mormon missionaries showing their desperation:
(Scroll about three posts down for the Mormons.)
R. Daneel Olivaw,
everything you have said so far has just been ‘no you’re wrong’. Is that really the best you can do? Why should anyone believe that you are in fact proving me wrong, since all you do is say ‘no you’re wrong’?
nothing I have said in my first post about mormons was incorrect.
[quote=“yamato”]R. Daneel Olivaw,
everything you have said so far has just been ‘no you’re wrong’. Is that really the best you can do? Why should anyone believe that you are in fact proving me wrong, since all you do is say ‘no you’re wrong’?
nothing I have said in my first post about mormons was incorrect.[/quote]
Yamato, you made incorrect statements in your first post and in later posts. I said exactly which statements you made were wrong. You said you got it from the Book of Mormon, which you did not. You have no proof for your claims unless you can quote legitimate sources for the following:
There are strong rebuttals for the rest of your remarks, but at least they aren’t wrong on their face. You asked me what specifically was wrong, and I told you. If you want to keep claiming these things without providing any proof, that’s fine, but I’ll keep saying it’s false.
Correct. And this is LDS doctrine, not speculation by leaders. And such a doctrine can be used to argue that LDS are polytheistic, so they aren’t Christian. I just say if you’re going to make the argument, do it based on the truth, not on fictions or misunderstandings.
Yeah, either it’s really lucky it turned out that way, some really exceptional research went into this, or it adds credence to the claim of restoration.
I think the main difference is that Mormon teaching takes the idea of God being a father and people being God’s children to a level other Christians don’t. Mormons say when the children grow up, they end up like the father. Other Christians find that concept disturbing.
The Swedenborg angel idea is interesting. Thanks for sharing.
The marrying of additional wives is not a prerequisite for “becoming a really big god” as far as my understanding goes. As I understand it (not doctrine), there are just going to be more women in the highest degree of heaven then men. There just aren’t enough good men out there to go around. 
Classic.
Well, they might have had some reason to re-think the whole polygamy thing… The revelations on this sort of thing are not wholly consistent from one church president to the next.
Couldn’t have been research, since the Nag Hammadi texts weren’t discovered until the 1940’s. Jewish and Christian lore is full of images and practices which different groups periodically rediscover (like polygamy), and employ in a bewildering variety of ways. The Gospel of Phillip goes on and on about the mysteries of the bridal chamber (a theme repeated in Orthodox liturgies), but the emphasis is vertical (the soul and Christ, or something like that) rather than horizontal (man and woman). There is nothing there about marriage “for time and eternity,” for example.
So, there’s some things I don’t understand:
So if Israel is his people, what about the rest of us?
What’s the deal with th Melchesedic (sp?) Priesthood? Why do we need it?
“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48)
If God is perfect, why did a man have to convince him not to destroy all of Sodom and Gomorrah and save the innocent from there? Why would He prefer the Israelites and bring them victory over others? Should he not have asked them to convert the others to true faith?
So, who are these people, where are their remains? where is the link to Israel?
OK, so if my 14-yo daughter is raped by a stranger, she must now marry her rapist? And the rapist should pay me money?
[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”][quote=“yamato”]R. Daneel Olivaw,
everything you have said so far has just been ‘no you’re wrong’. Is that really the best you can do? Why should anyone believe that you are in fact proving me wrong, since all you do is say ‘no you’re wrong’?
nothing I have said in my first post about mormons was incorrect.[/quote]
Yamato, you made incorrect statements in your first post and in later posts. I said exactly which statements you made were wrong. You said you got it from the Book of Mormon, which you did not. You have no proof for your claims unless you can quote legitimate sources for the following:
There are strong rebuttals for the rest of your remarks, but at least they aren’t wrong on their face. You asked me what specifically was wrong, and I told you. If you want to keep claiming these things without providing any proof, that’s fine, but I’ll keep saying it’s false.[/quote]
I thought we agreed that it was actually white people who were punished by God by blackening their skin? And that is found in a canonical writing, the Book of Mormon. On the other points, I sympathize strongly with your attempts to correct misinformation.
Smith must have been thinking of the Mound Builders, though Mormon historians usually situate the action in Latin America. (For the sake of comparison, the Garden of Eden is located in Missouri.) The link to Israel comes from the Book of Mormon, written on now-repo’ed golden plates which were shown him by an angel, and translated from the “Reformed Egyptian” using a special gem or something. And witnessed by…well, you know.
By the way, they got Smith to translate some actual Egyptian coffins using his seer stone.
Another by the way–the Lost Tribes reached the Americas by way of the Pacific, not the Atlantic.
Fifty shekels, if she is a virgin. But (if you live in the city) only if she remembered to cry out. (“Oh baby, give me what I need!” doesn’t count!)
Confused? You need…the Brick Testament!
thebricktestament.com/the_la … 2_23a.html
Tra-ra-ra boom di-yay
I met a girl today
I paid her fifty cents
To go behind the fence
I threw her to the ground
And pulled her panties down…
Fifty shekels, if she is a virgin. But (if you live in the city) only if she remembered to cry out. (“Oh baby, give me what I need!” doesn’t count!)
Confused? You need…the Brick Testament!
thebricktestament.com/the_la … 2_23a.html
[/quote]
Neat site.
But hey, for the townies, it’s only if she’s betrothed. Otherwise, all bets are off. Fifty shekels and any unattached girl is mine!
Now can you imagine if there was no separation of state and religion in the US? I just don’t think many Christians have really read ALL of the Old Testament. Sure, there’s good stuff, but there’s some bad stuff.
We at least agreed that Mormon leaders believed that the darkened skin was a punishment, and certainly in regards to Native Americans. However, seemed yamato was posting about those of African descent, in which case the black skin would not be the curse, but a mark saying such not to kill him for his crime-- but that the mark of Cain was the origin of the Africans is not official doctrine, and something that is no longer the common belief.
That is the distinction I’m trying to make there. It was a belief held by many at the time, but was never considered “revelation”. That many people then were racist to varying degrees is not something to be proud of, but it is no surprise.
Thanks. 
There is room for criticism and apologetics, but when criticisms are not based on correct information it’s frustrating.
Seems a number of your questions are related to Christianity at large rather than specific to LDS teachings. But nothing wrong with that. To some degree it helps illustrate how LDS are Christians.
We’re all his. But Israel are the ones who (are supposed to) obey him most faithfully, so they get special covenants and blessings.
I could answer you with a 40 page dissertation, but at the end I don’t think you would understand much better and it almost certainly would do you no good to know unless you believed some other things.
I’ll try and give you an answer that will satisfy your purpose, though.
The priesthood is the power to act in the name of God. It is necessary to do anything of eternal significance. Eternal marriage, officiating over the church, or if it becomes necessary to tell a mountain to move.
Too many possible answers.
I’d say God didn’t need Lot to convince him not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. He planned it that way, even having Lot there to ask him to spare people.
As for Israel being given victory, aside from the symbolic value of having the righteous (at least, apparently) beating the unrighteous worshipers of idols, the primary reason they were supposed to go to war was because the people they were encountering were so full of iniquity that they would drag anyone who joined them into spiritual darkness.
Native Americans. At least, partially. There was apparently another group up north that the people intermarried with after the conclusion of the record. The link to Israel is that a Jewish prophet took his family across the sea around 600BC, as well as there being a few other groups that all died off or merged into one.
OK, so if my 14-yo daughter is raped by a stranger, she must now marry her rapist? And the rapist should pay me money?[/quote]
I don’t read that as rape. I read that as she was willing. Notice that it says “they be found”. The result here is a shotgun wedding.
The case of rape was treated the verse before:
[quote]25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: [/quote]
If a man rapes your daughter, he gets the death penalty, and the daughter is blameless.
The law of Moses was a very forward thinking law. It limited revenge and explicitly said that a woman should not be blamed for her own rape-- much better than the woman being considered disgraced.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Confused? You need…the Brick Testament!
thebricktestament.com/the_la … 2_23a.html[/quote]
The Brick Testament is very clever, but of course the creator has an agenda and deliberately presents only selected texts, typically out of their literary and socio-cultural context, misleading the reader. He also chooses titles for each section which are intended to represent the text as having a meaning other than what it says, priming the reader for misinformation.