I am struggling to think of a socio-cultural context that would make Old Testament law seem sensible or humane.
Thatâs because you donât understand what most of them actually say. This is especially the case if youâre relying on the Brick Testament.
The author of the Brick Testament for example wonât tell you that the âslavesâ he mentions are in fact bond servants who have voluntarily sold their service to a master to working off their debts, or that they are automatically released after 7 years with their debt fully discharged (whether they have paid off their debt or not), or that the Law of Moses granted full legal protection to any servant who chose to leave their master for whatever reason, declaring them free and granting them the right to live wherever they chose without fear of interference.
Nor will he tell you that the law for the murder or manslaughter of a servant required the same punishment as the law for the murder or manslaughter of a free man. Nor will he tell you that if a servant incurred a serious injury from their master they were automatically freed and their debt cancelled. Nor will he tell you that the Law of Moses in fact outlawed the slave trade and did not permit the Hebrews to hold chattel slaves.
The author of the Brick Testament wants you to think that the Hebrews bought and sold each other as chattel slaves, that they engaged in the slave trade, and that they were free to abuse their slaves as they chose. He will also omit to describe the significant health and hygiene benefits of the Law of Moses.
And you will believe whatever he tells you.
Well, this pretty much satisfies all of my objections to Old Testament law⌠All right then, letâs impose it as soon as possible.
Er, how about xenophobia and genocide? Is that still on?
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[/quote]
and where is your proof that the book of mormon was not talking about black people?
Iâll accept a quote only.
[quote]It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black" (The Way to Perfection, p.107).
[/quote]
You also claimed that my first post was âfactually incorrectâ yet you havenât questions the comments I made about the sexist âheavensâ and tithing. Also there was no word from you about the native americans being the lost tribe of IsraelâŚAm I to take it these were correct?
[quote=âyamatoâ]and where is your proof that the book of mormon was not talking about black people?
Iâll accept a quote only.[/quote]
In no place is reference made specific to people of Africa in the whole record. Find me where it does, Iâll only accept a direct quote. But you cannot come up with one since it doesnât exist.
Your second quote (repeating Fortigurn) was from Mormon Doctrine , which is not actually Mormon doctrine. It was a personal interpretation by the author. It is not actually Mormon doctrine and is not believed by most the church. I gave a response to that earlier in the thread.
And I said which specific parts were factually incorrect.
I did. I said that was incorrect. The whole âgold manâ bringing a ânot goldâ wife up to a higher level is wrong. Not only is there no âgoldâ or âbronzeâ, but neither men nor women can bring their spouses up to a higher degree of glory.
The tithing part is right.
Not exactly. But according to LDS doctrine they were a splinter of one of the tribes through inter-marriage. So, I didnât correct it since it isnât wholly inaccurate. LDS doctrine does not state explicitly where the âLost Tribesâ are, though there is a lot of speculation on that subject.
But then, what does that have to do with whether or not Mormons are Christian? What does any of it have to do with it? If all you want to do is say âMormons are weirdâ, then ok. But if you want to say they arenât Christian, youâll have to show in what ways they lack the necessary characteristics of being Christian.
Yes, but that only applied to Jewish slaves.
âExodus 21:2-6
Gentiles slaves were owned as chattel.
âLeviticus 25:44-46
By serious injury you mean losing a tooth or an eye. But masters could beat slaves with rods without fear of punishment as long as the slave could get up within a day or so. Is this really a moral code you want to praise?
The Bible verses I have referenced clearly indicate that non-Hebrew slaves could be bought as chattel and passed down to future generations. That is the definition of chattel slavery. Where does the Bible outlaw chattel slavery? Are you referring to the prohibition against kidnapping people and forcing them into slavery? Hardly seems relevant if buying and inheriting slaves as property is still acceptable.
I thought the thread read âare morons Christiansâ sorry, carry on
Yes, but that only applied to Jewish slaves.[/quote]
No it didnât. Youâve cited only the seven year debt release clause of Exodus 21:2-6 (without actually dealing with the rest of what I wrote). One of the problems with this is that the translation âa Hebrew servantâ is uncertain, due to unsettled lexical meaning of the word used here. Even translations which render it âHebrewâ usually include a footnote mentioning that this is a conjectural translation. The NET notes âThe interpretation of âHebrewâ in this verse is uncertain: (l) a gentilic ending, (2) a fellow Israelite, (3) or a class of mercenaries of the population (see W. C. Kaiser, Jr., âExodus,â EBC 2:431)â. But I donât need to rest on this, as I will explain later.
No they werenât, and nor does the quote you provide say so. Every servant under the Law of Moses had certain legal protections, which chattel slaves never have. Chattel slaves were completely property, they were not human beings. There were never consequences for their abuse or death, and they never had recourse to any legal protection. For correct definitions of the various forms of servitude in the Ancient Near East, see here. For the Hebrew regulation of these forms, see here.
Both fellow Hebrews and foreigners could be contracted as indentured servants. They sold themselves into the ownership of a master to whom they owed money (or a master who paid off the debts they owed to another person), and payed off their debt with service. Indentured servants under the Law of Moses held kinship rights, marriage rights, personal legal rights relating to physical protection and protection from breach of contract, freedom of movement, and access to liberty by paying their debt (either through service, or with money).
Unlike the other ANE societies, the Law of Moses did not permit family members to sell each other into indentured service to recover family debts. The head of the household sold himself into indentured service, and whilst his family certainly joined him as members of the masterâs household, they were not the property of the master as the man himself was, and nor were they contracted to serve.
No, I mean serious injury. The tooth and eye is simply a way of saying âserious injuryâ. The earliest extant Jewish commentaries (from around the 1st century AD), understood this as a way of referring to serious injury or even any injury which left a mark.
Youâre misrepresenting this (probably unknowingly). The law you cite (and you only cited half of it), distinguishes between manslaughter and murder. The murder of a servant was punished by death, just as the murder of a free man was punished by death. But as with the manslaughterer of a free man, the manslaughterer of a servant was not culpable for his death. So to put it your way, a free man could beat his fellow free man with a rod without fear of punishment as long as the free man could get up within a day or so.
The Hebrews were permitted to pass them on as an inheritance to the next generation until their debts were repaid, which is the meaing of âolamâ in Leviticus 25:46 (translated âperpetuallyâ). The text does not mean they were permanent possessions, but is an explanation as to why they do not go out at the seventh year of release or the Jubilee as the Hebrews do (the reason being that their debts are not cancelled). And no, that is not the definition of chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery did not exist under the Law of Moses. There was no form of servitude under the Law of Moses which placed them in the legal position of chattel slaves. Legislation maintained kinship rights (Exodus 21:3, 9, Leviticus 25:41, 47-49, 54, providing for Hebrew indentured servants), marriage rights (Exodus 21:4, 10-11, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage), personal legal rights relating to physical protection and protection from breach of contract (Exodus 21:8, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage, Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27, providing for Hebrew or foreign servants of any kind, and Leviticus 25:39-41, providing for Hebrew indentured servants), freedom of movement, and access to liberty (Exodus 21:8, 11, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage, Leviticus 25:40-45, 48, 54, providing for Hebrew intendured servants, and Deuteronomy 15:1, 12; 23:15, providing for Hebrew or foreign servants of any kind).
Though several forms of servitude existed under the Law of Moses, in every case all rights were maintained unless voluntarily relinquished (Exodus 21:5-6, Deuteronomy 15:16-17). The Law of Moses commanded that servants, of whatever origin (Gentile or Hebrew), were to be treated as human beings who were part of the family and community. Unlike any other ANE society, the Law of Moses commanded that servants enjoy at least one day a week free from every kind of labour, participating in the sacred day of rest together with the free members of the community (Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14). In addition, the Law of Moses required that servants be incorporated into the community feasts and celebrations, along with the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow (Deuteronomy 12:12; 16:10-16), who were other marginalized classes.
Thatâs the prohibition specifically against the slave trade (the Israelites were not permitted to enslave people against their will), yes, but there are other laws in the Law of Moses which forbade treating servants as chattel slaves. It was permissible to purchase men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, but not to sell them to others (Exodus 21:2, Leviticus 25:39, 42, 45, Deuteronomy 15:12). Taking men and women and enslaving them against their will, or selling them into slavery, was expressly forbidden on pain of death (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7).
The âslavesâ you think are âboughtâ in the sense of a slave trade, or inherited as chattel slaves, are people who sell themselves into bonded servitude to pay off their debts. They enter this service voluntarily. Under the Law of Moses they can be released in several ways:
- Leave their master without penalty, and with legal protection
- Pay their debt
- Be released by their master
You think none of that is relevant? It is a simple fact that obedience to two of the commandments regulating servitude within the Law of Moses would have prevented every form of slave trade in which Western civilization became involved. The South American, East and West Indian, and African slave trades would have been totally prevented if Western societies had passed laws expressly forbidding involuntary slavery and sale on the one hand (such as Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7), and granting an escaped slave their full liberty and freedom of movement whilst forbidding the community to return them to their master or take advantage of their marginalized position (such as Deuteronomy 23:15-16).
[quote=âFortigurnâ]
No they werenât, and nor does the quote you provide say so. [/quote]
Yes, it absolutely does.
Itâs obvious that the passage refers to non-Hebrews. And the rest of the paragraph discusses chattel slavery,
The text says they are property and permanent slaves. How could they be permanent slaves if they are released after 7 years regardless of whether they pay their debt?
Why emphasize the need to treat Jewish slaves kindly if the law forbids distinguishing between the two?
I find it interesting that you abide by the plain reading of the Genesis account to argue that God created other people besides Adam and Eve, but here you refer to controversy over the interpretation of one word, when the plain reading of the text distinguishes between Jewish indentured servants and Gentile slaves who are considered permanent property.
I havenât denied it refers to non-Hebrews, but it does not discuss chattel slavery. One of the links I provided contained definitions of various forms of ANE servitidue, including chattel slavery. It quotes standard academic reference works, especially for the definition of chattel slavery:
[quote]âA [chattel] slave was property. The slaveownerâs rights over his slave-property were total, covering the person as well as the labor of the slave. The slave was kinless, stripped of his or her old social identity in the process of capture, sale and deracination, and denied to capacity to forge new bonds of kinship through marriage alliance. These are the three basic components of [chattel] slavery.â
Peter Garnsey, âIdeas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustineâ, 1996, page 1[/quote]
[quote]âIn brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedomâŚâ
Henry Holt, âEncyclopedia of Cultural Anthropologyâ, David Levinson and Melvin Ember (editors), volume 4, page 1190, 1996[/quote]
[quote]âGuterbock refers to âslaves in the strict sense,â apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines.
The meaning âservantâ seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation âsemi-freeâ. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active.â
Brill, âA History of Ancient Near Eastern Lawâ, Raymond Westbrook (editor), 2003, volume 1, page 632[/quote]
Your definition (whatever it is specifically), clearly does not agree with the academic consensus, so I feel free to reject it. It does not appear you are either correctly informed on the subject, or well read. You havenât read the work to which I linked, and nor have you addressed any of the facts I presented (namely that all servants under the Law of Moses had rights, including full legal protection if they left their masters, which no chattel slaves ever had).
I didnât say they were. Clearly you did not read my post. I said they opposite, âthey do not go out at the seventh year of release or the Jubilee as the Hebrews doâ.
I did not say that the law forbids distinguishing between the two.
You have not read my post properly. I did not deny that there is a distinction made between the treatment of Jewish indentured servants and Gentile servants. I explained very clearly that there was a distinction, and I explained what that was:
If you want to continue the discussion, please read my posts. It will save us both some time.
[quote]âA [chattel] slave was property. The slaveownerâs rights over his slave-property were total, covering the person as well as the labor of the slave. The slave was kinless, stripped of his or her old social identity in the process of capture, sale and deracination, and denied to capacity to forge new bonds of kinship through marriage alliance. These are the three basic components of [chattel] slavery.â
Peter Garnsey, âIdeas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustineâ, 1996, page 1[/quote]
I find that definition problematic, as it would also mean that American slaves were not chattel slaves. American slaves had the right to marry, and in fact were encouraged to do so after the international slave trade was outlawed and slaveowners had to rely on slaves procreating. Slaves were protected from murder and there are recorded instances of white men being executed for killing slaves. Some slave families were broken up at auction but most were kept together because families were more productive. And yet they didnât have the right to stop being slaves, which to me is the crux of the matter.
But none of the verses you cite grant Gentile slaves the right to leave their masters.
Only Deuteronomy 23:15 applies to all slaves:
The question is, does taking refuge in someone elseâs home mean the slave is no longer a slave? Or that he must remain a slave, but with a new master? The verse doesnât make it clear, but since youâre the well read one, Iâm hoping you can clarify.
One last question. In practice, did Gentile slaves have the ability to free themselves at will without fear of punishment? If the answer is no, then why prattle over whether they fit an academic definition of âchattel slave?â If yes, why call them slaves at all?
I invite you to challenge the standard academic definition by submitting a paper to a relevant peer reviewed journal.
On the contrary:
[quote]Deuteronomy 23:
15 You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you.
16 Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.[/quote]
Thereâs no qualification there about their ethnicity. This applies to Hebrews and Gentiles.
This statement is likewise untrue:
Actually these also refer to all servants:
- Legislation concerning bodily harm: Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27
[quote]This law-the protection of slaves from maltreatment by their masters-is found nowhere else in the entire existing corpus of ancient Near Eastern legislation. It represents a qualitative transformation in social and human values and expresses itself once again in the provisions of verses 26-27.â
Nahum M Sarna, âJewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Series: Exodusâ, 1991, note on Exodus 21:21-27[/quote]
- Legislation providing access to liberty: Deuteronomy 15:1, 12; 23:15
[quote]âWherever slavery existed, there were slaves who escaped from their masters. Ancient Near Eastern law forbade harboring runaway slaves, and international treaties regularly required allied states to extradite them. The present law, in contrast, permits escaped slaves to settle wherever they wish in the land of Israel and forbids returning them to their masters or enslaving them in Israel.â
Nahum M Sarna, âJewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Series: Exodusâ, 1991, note on Deuteronomy 23:15-16, as quoted by Glenn Miller, âDoes God condone slavery in the Bible?â, 2005[/quote]
[quote]âA slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israelâs own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.â
âA History of Ancient Near Eastern Lawâ, Raymond Westbrook (editor), 2003, volume 2, page 1006[/quote]
- Legislation providing a legally protected day of rest each week: Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14
[quote]âThe sabbath principle of ancient Israel is in large measure the root cause of an important social revolution in human history. As Lohfink has noted in his penetrating discussion of leisure in light of the Sabbath commandment, the ancient world was clear in its distribution of work and leisure. âWork was for slaves and women; leisure was the substance of a manâs lifeâa free manâs lifeâ (âLeisure,â 203). The Sabbath commandment of the people of Israel changed all that, for in this commandment the distribution of work and leisure among those âaboveâ and those âbelowâ was replaced by a new principle based on a temporal cycle. The seventh-day rest is valid for all persons, and even for draft animals (v 14).â
Christensen, D. L. (2002). Vol. 6A:120 Word Biblical Commentary, note on Deuteronomy 5:14[/quote]
-
Legislation requiring servants to be involved in the communitiesâ festive activities: Deuteronomy 12:12; 16:10-16
-
Legislation specifically requiring Israelites to treat foreigners with respect and care: Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10:19
[quote]âAlthough slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love (âaheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen.â
âMarriage and Family in the Biblical Worldâ, 2003, Ken Campbell (editor), page 60[/quote]
All of this legislation applied to both Hebrews and Gentiles.
The verse does make it clear:
[quote]Deuteronomy 23:
15 You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you.
16 Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.[/quote]
See commentary above.
Yes. See commentary above.
Sorry if this has already been answered.
Is there a reason why there are so many more Mormons than there are of people of other faiths around here trying to convert local people?
The only real problem I have with Mormons is that it strikes me as disrespectful and condescending to attempt to save the souls of people whose souls are most likely quite fine as it is. I hear of no Taoists running around Utah trying to convert Mormons and sometimes I think the world would be a much better place if we all just followed our own religious/non-religions instead of convincing others that theirs is wrong and yours is right, and starting wars, spreading disease and eradicating cultures along the way.
Itâs church policy, and long-established custom, that young Mormon men ought to devote two years of their life to missionary work. For them itâs a rite of passageâkind of like military service hereâwhich marks the transition from boyhood to manhood. For the church, itâs the reason they have been able to grow to the size they have (eight million? I know they say more).
Other religions think your soul is just fine as it is, and/or donât particularly want you as a member anyway (you mentioned Taoists). Many think you really ought to join the one true church, but donât care enough to make converting you a big institutional priority, or find the door-to-door thing creepy. Besides the Mormons, the other group who does this big-time is the Jehovahâs Witnesses. Evangelical Protestants will try to convert you, but donât usually come to your door for some reason (probably logistic).
In the case of the Mormons, I speculate that Taiwan holds special appeal not because they gain many converts (most missionaries are dismal failures at this, chalking up only a few converts eachâmany of whom ultimately disappear after being baptized), but as a means of preparing the church to go convert China, as soon as opportunities open up. As far as I know, they have not started any wars here, eradicated any cultures, etc. Their behavior compares well with that of say, foreign English teachers and businessmen.
Not a bad answer, Screaming Jesus. Donât take my response to be attempting to correct or contradict, just another take on the matter.
Originally it was full grown men. But sending them away from their families for 3 years (or however long their mission turned out to be) was kind of stressful for wives and kids.
Same with Buddhism. Many Buddhists think Christianity is a pretty good way to go-- not all that enlightened and unlikely to escape the circle of life pain death and rebirth in this lifetime, but if you live your life as a good Christian next time youâve got a good chance to return as a Buddhist.
Most Protestants are fine with you being any kind of Christian (well, as long as itâs orthodox). There are groups of Protestants that send groups to Utah and there are a number of religious groups that devote considerable time trying to save Mormons and any other group of heathens by explaining how such teachings are terribly wrong and will lead you to hell.
There are also many evangelical groups in Taiwan and Hong Kong. But you probably wonât notice them. They donât wear name tags or dress uniformly, and they mostly target the Chinese. Ironically, Mormon missionaries are more likely to know who they are because evangelicals frequently target them.
I donât think there are that many more in Taiwan. Taiwan is just smaller and they foreigners on bicycles or wearing white shirts and black name tags stick out more.
No.
Not at all ChristianâŚno matter how you spin it.
Nothing similar in the Christian Bible to be foundâŚ
Mormons have as much claim to being called Christian as Ron L. Hubbard does to being called Jesus.
One thing Smith and Hubbard both share in commonâŚthey were great writers of entertaining BS.
No.[/quote]
Wrong. The correct answer is yes.
First, youâre reading about Mormons from people who arenât Mormons and have something against Mormons. They donât understand the teachings and they take things that arenât doctrine calling it doctrine. If you want to know about Mormons, ask a well educated Mormon, not your local preacher or the websites designed to say that Mormon beliefs are bad.
The above quote you got from an anti-Mormon site is from a Mormon writer, but not from canon. It is a comment about a doctrine that is very frequently talked about by people trying to find fault with the Mormon church, but rarely understood. The vast majority of quotes concerning this doctrine is speculation. Website sources love to quote speculation and call it doctrine.
Second, why isnât it Christian? Because itâs not the same as what some group of other Christians believe? Even though what you just quoted from some website isnât LDS doctrine, why wouldnât it still be Christian?
Not all Christians will believe the same things as your specific sect.
So, if one set of Christians believes that the mother of Jesus is the one you should worship, is that Christian? If one set believes God is an amorphous being is that Christian? If one sect says God makes some people to go to hell so others will glorify God more for going to heaven is that Christian? If one group says God and Jesus are made of the same substance, is that Christian? How about sects that donât think the Bible is literal and that most of it is symbolic, are they Christian? What about those that think Jesus was not divine? Or was divine? Or was both at the same time?
Sorry, SoulDragon. Catholics donât get to say who the Christians are. Neither to the Protestants. Nor can they get together and determine that only people who believe in the Trinity are Christians.
Christian is a simple concept:
You believe Jesus is the Son of God who came to save us from sin and death, and you follow the teachings in the Bible.
Any other added beliefs just divide Christians into different groups.
No, but you could find plenty of similar quotes from commentators.
Good one. Except that it makes no sense.
If you wanted to say âMormons have no more claim of being Christian than Scientologists doâ it would make more sense. Except, it would totally suck as an argument.
RDO, as Iâve mentioned earlier, people usually understand the LDS to teach X, Y or Z on the basis that the LDS members believe it because the LDS Church itself taught X, Y or Z for decades. Hereâs an example.
Telling people âWell thatâs not taught in our canonical literatureâ doesnât change the fact that LDS members believe it because the LDS Church itself taught it for decades. In the case of the white people cursed with a skin of blackness, LDS members believed it not only because it was taught by the LDS Church for decades, but also because itâs in the canonical literature.
[quote=âFortigurnâ]RDO, as Iâve mentioned earlier, people usually understand the LDS to teach X, Y or Z on the basis that the LDS members believe it because the LDS Church itself taught X, Y or Z for decades.
Telling people âWell thatâs not taught in our canonical literatureâ doesnât change the fact that LDS members believe it because the LDS Church itself taught it for decades. In the case of the white people cursed with a skin of blackness, LDS members believed it not only because it was taught by the LDS Church for decades, but also because itâs in the canonical literature.[/quote]
Thereâs a difference between what the church teaches and what people in the church speculate, including people who are General Authorities. When you go to a Mormon church service you arenât going to hear a lesson about these controversial topics. Although these are questions that are brought up from time to time, these are not basic teachings of the LDS.
In regards to the remarks of the âblack skinâ, the objection is not to God making groups distinct by their skin color, or even that the mark of Cain itself was a black skin. The objection is to the idea that Cain is the ancestor of Africans, to the idea that people with black skin were somehow âless valiant spiritsâ, and to the racist nature of the passage. Those parts are speculation on the part of the speaker and they are not taught in LDS church.
The problem I have is that people go to the internet and look up speculation outside core teachings and completely ignore the basic teachings when discussing this. The following is official doctrine, and was written by the church founder in response to enquiry as to what the church believed.
Are Mormons Christian?
[quote=âJoseph Smithâ][ol][li]We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.[/li]
[li]We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adamâs transgression.[/li]
[li]We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.[/li]
[li]We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.[/li]
[li]We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.[/li]
[li]We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.[/li]
[li]We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.[/li]
[li]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.[/li]
[li]We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.[/li]
[li]We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.[/li]
[li]We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.[/li]
[li]We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.[/li]
[li]We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of PaulâWe believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.[/li][/ol][/quote]
I wouldnât even go that far.