I must speak for the "Mormon" constituents, since you guys have completely misstated its doctrines and facts.

(1)  The term "Mormon" was ascribed as a nickname by the enemies of the Church.  If you use that nickname, you automatically brand yourself as someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.  Generally, LDS Church is used as a moniker.

(2)  The gold plates were not entirely gold.  And they weren't "solid" gold.  They were thins sheafs that had the "appearance of gold" where inscriptions were made.  Hence, because he said they have the "appearance" of gold, people called them the Golden Plates.

"Read Putnam explains that according to the approximate measurements of the plates as given by Joseph Smith-- 6” x 8” x 6”-- the Book of Mormon plates would equal a volume of about 288 cubic inches.

'A solid gold block of totaling 288 cubic inches would weigh a little over 200 pounds.... But the plates would weigh much less than a solid block of the same metal. The unevenness left by the hammering and air spaces between the separate plates would reduce the weight to probably less than 50 percent of the solid block.'"

Joseph Smith was a large man, over 6 feet tall, an excellent wrestler, and a farmer by birth.  He could surely handle about a 100 pounds (or less, considering they weren't gold), especially when they are in a thick rucksack or potato sack.

There were also other witnesses who actually saw and handled the plates.  You do not need to be left to his word alone.  And a rubbing and analysis of his translation were authenticated by an expert.

The gold plates are actually believed to have been copper and gold.  Too much gold would have marred the engravings.  Too little would have made them brittle.  Similar metal objects were found in South America and were reported in Scientific American circa 1984.  It is believed the plates were made out of a tumbaga alloy.  This was a process used in ancient America and was used for easy engraving.

(3) The LDS belief is NOT that the world is 6000 years old.  The belief is that the earth is divided into 7 dispensations, each one approximately a thousand years in length.  These start from the Fall of Adam and the final dispensation will occur at the Second Coming of Christ.

Interestingly enough, LDS theology is one of the few where Creationism and Evolution are not completely at odds.  According to an estimate given by Joseph Smith (and we're talking nearly 2 centuries ago), the universe would be closer to 12 point something billion years old.

It is true that the LDS belief is that the world was "formed," not created out of nothing.  But whether it was created from materials or other worlds, I am not aware of any doctrinal guidance.

(4)  The Flood:  the LDS religion uses the King James version of the Bible.  Therefore, unless you believe in a different Bible, there is probably not any difference in the beliefs (or in the possibility of interpretation) for any other Judeo/Christian religion.

I am happy to answer any questions in a non-confrontational manner if anyone is genuinely curious, although I obviously don't speak for the church.

Hi Heath. Welcome to the group. I will speak for myself, and take a little step out and speak for others. Refering to mormons, it was not meant as an insulting word. For myself, I had seen the terms used interchangably.

I do have questions that arose from your post:

My understanding is according LDS, the true Gospels are lost from the earth, and that LDS is it's restoration.(From the Articles of Faith) So, if the KJV is not the real gospel, why do you use it?

That's a false understanding.  The LDS religion believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God just as surely as any other Christian religion and especially in the truthfulness of the New Testament.

The belief is that Peter was ordained to lead the Church after Christ's death, and that he had the Priesthood (i.e. the power to act in God's name).  We believe that the Priesthood must be passed from someone with authority, and that it originates in Christ.  For example, you can't pass on an authority you don't have.  After the martyrdom of the Christians, this Priesthood power was lost from the earth until it was restored to Joseph Smith.

Therefore, the primary difference with other Christian religions is what happened to the power to act in the name of God.  The LDS religion believes in a living prophet today through this restoration exactly the same as those prophets who existed in the Old Testament up until Christ.  It is this claim that most often angers those of other religions and has led to much misunderstanding about the church.

Also note that the LDS religion believes in the Bible, but does not believe that the Bible is the last and only word God will ever give.  After all, if he is such an omnipotent and omniscient being, wouldn't he have plenty to tell people?  Wouldn't he want to comment on how to deal with things never seen before (the Internet, etc.)?  The LDS religion has a foundation that continuing revelation is important to guide people in whatever era they live in.

The KJV or the NKJV, I don't remember which, is actually the closest translation there is to original texts.

Anyone can act in the name of God.  When you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give to the poor, etc. you are acting in the name of God by doing what He commanded.  Whether you verbally state it or not you are acting in His name.

If you mean the power to act as God, no, God never gave that to anyone.  The Apostles were told that if they forgave sins, they were forgiven, if they did not forgive sins, they were not forgiven, that they would be able to heal sicknesses in the name of God, etc.  But they were never told they could tell anyone else that.  They were not given authority to pass their authority on.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that "Mormon" was insulting.  It is often used interchangeably, and was for a time even adopted by members of the church.  But in the last several decades it was discouraged as a nickname and encouraged instead to focus on the fact that it is the church of Jesus Christ.  (Mormon is just the name of the person who compiled the plates translated by Joseph Smith, so imagine if you were called the "Matthews" because you believe in the Book of Matthew in the New Testament.)  Nowadays, if you use that nickname in "Mormon" circles, it becomes immediately evident that your knowledge of the church is lacking.

Here is an official web site meant to describe basic beliefs to the curious:  http://www.mormon.org/

And the official church website is: http://www.lds.org/

I am happy to answer additional questions to the best of my abilities.

Elfear, anyone can act "like" God, that is true, and your point is well taken.

The Priesthood power gives a person special authority to act in the name of God, such as healing, etc.  No one can forgive except God.  No one acts "as" God.

The idea of a Priesthood is common throughout the Old and New Testament.  Surely, that term has some meaning beyond just doing good deeds.

My understanding is that the KJV is the closest "English" translation, but that the German translation is even closer to the actual texts.

I think I may be confused then, I thought Articles of Faith by James Talmage was considered important literature, and I have seen it described "the next best thing to LDS creed" . As well, when I did some searching to be more sure, I looked up some more about Jame Talmage. He also wrote a seven volume set "the History of the Church".In one of the volumes, it speaks of the Book of Mormons being more correct than the bible.
(As a side note, I thought you said mormon is a slang word, but I did a double take as I started reading further. It is called  book of the mormon. This is confusing me further, as I'm writing this and digging up more from LDS sites that use mormon clearly. http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1090-1,00.html )
Now back to original question Since James Talmage was a pretty important guy, president of LDS College in Salt Lake City, and was one of the "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" (Honestly, I don't know what that is yet, but it sounds pretty big. So if he has said that the true Gospel is lost, and that the Book Of Mormon is more correct than bible, plus the addition that the Book of Mormon does have some things different than bible, could you be a bit more clear on the KJV thing and how they believe it's the Word of God? I mean what is the true Gospel, that's lost, when we only had the Bible in the first place?

Edited to add, got that use of mormon part now.
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:09, Wed 23 June 2004.

I think my post above answers your first question.

The "Articles of Faith" compiles many doctrinal items into one book and is often used as a missionary tool, but it is not in itself considered "scripture."

When you say that the Book of Mormon has some things different from the Bible, I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific in order for me to answer.

What was lost is again referring to the Priesthood authority.  The ability for God to directly communicate to His prophets and give continuing revelation for the benefit of mankind.

What is meant by the Book of Mormon being more correct is that the Bible has undergone significant changes throughout 2000 years of translations and transcriptions, so it is probably the difference of saying the Bible is 95% accurate and the Book of Mormon is 99% accurate (since it too is a translation, but a pure translation from original text).  Also, I believe that refers to the belief that the Book of Mormon contains more of a fullness than the Bible alone.
This message was last edited by the player at 08:53, Wed 23 June 2004.

Also, to address Elfear a touch more, Priesthood is divided into levels of authority.  I believe these are originally discussed concerning Aaron and Melchezidek in the Old Testament.  It gives the authority to perform certain ordinances (baptism, etc.) depending on the priesthood and ordained position which cannot be performed (or passed on) except by one with proper authority.  It definitely is not the power to act as the Almighty himself.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:26, Wed 23 June 2004.

This is an official basic statement about our belief in priesthood:

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1083-1,00.html

Well the bible teaches that Jesus is part of the trinity
LDs teaches Jesus is one of three gods, the trinity is three seperate gods
The bible teaches that Jesus is born of a virgin
LDS teach a physical union between God and Mary
The bible says Jesus was born in Bethlehem
The LDs says Jesus was born in Jeruselem

These are a few I found. There are more. But you probably know that. (I assume)

Trinity:  LDS theology believes that the Trinity consists of God (a Heavenly Father), his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  Of these, the Holy Ghost is not considered a "God."  Do you have a Biblical references about how these are inconsistent with the Bible?  It's hard for me to respond to generalized statements.  I believe your concept of Trinity is an "interpretation" of the Bible (as would ours).

Mary was a virgin.  The "physical union" you mention is highly oversimplified in your comment.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  If I remember correctly, his family was from Jerusalem.  So this is entirely consistent.

I am not aware of any Biblical inconsistencies, but I'm sure our interpretations have points of divergence.
This message was last edited by the player at 08:33, Wed 23 June 2004.

Alright then, a little more specific, the trinity is 3 seperate gods, among all the other gods, according to LDS
Tell me more of the union of God and Mary then. As it seems to be true, but nopt specified.
If Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and the book of the Mormon says he was born in Jerusalum(not once, but more than once.), then that is an inconsistancy.

I guess I should point out that the "virgin" issue is really mooted by the fact that the only reference to Mary as a virgin was "before" the angel visited her.  I am not aware of any references to her as a virgin after the angel visited her and before Jesus' birth.

I haven't checked my references, but I believe the Book of Mormon says he was from Jerusalem, not that he was born there.

If you need the verses, let me know, I can look them up

The bible says the exact length of time Mary remained a virgin. and it was long after the angel visited her.....

It sounds to me like you have pulled up an anti-Mormon web site which is distorting the beliefs and you are asking questions, not out of a genuine curiosity, but out of some attempt to catch me making a mistake.  I suggest you don't read anything "anti" about any religion, as they are always distorted byproducts of bias and prejudice.  This is one reason I have included a link to the official sites, which also invite you to submit any questions.

You might be right about the Mary issue, but I did a quick word check and only found it before the angel appeared.  Again, I can't really respond without being given references.

Regardless, the LDS belief is that Jesus is a literal descendant of God.  How that process took place is not, to my knowlege, revealed, any more than how the Red Sea was parted is revealed.  Many anti-Mormon people say that it must mean there was sexual intercourse, but there is nothing in my knowledge saying that.  I also don't know how the original text or people of those times defined "virgin."

Also, remember that the New Testament was written by human beings and translated and transcribed over the centuries.  To quibble over such a small thing as semantics is not relevant to doctrinal teachings.

Alright, rogue, just for you I looked up the "born in Jerusalem" quote.  It was a quote by one of the descendants who had fled Jerusalem before its destruction.  They referred to the homeland as Jerusalem just as I refer to my home as America, not Las Vegas, and it was a generalized quote long before Jesus was ever born. To take it otherwise is to take it out of context.  No one in the LDS church believes that Mary had labor and delivery anywhere but Bethlehem.

I repeat that the Holy Ghost is not considered a "God."  The primary difference you will find is that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus.  After Jesus was literally born, there came a need to separate him as a separate being from God the father.  Thus, you have the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  I don't know where you're getting "all the other gods" from.

As an RM, I don't think I branded myself as someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about. I used the term so others here, who might not know what I'm talking about, would know what I was talking about.

Also, the BoM says that Jesus was born in the land of Jerusalem. The alleged authors didn't know the geography of the land very well, since they were born in the americas, so it would have been accurate in their mind and to their people.

To us, it might not make sense to say I was born in the land of Anchorage, but it means the general area of Anchorage. I wasn't born in Anchorage.

Also, I believe that the statement is further clarified by saying, "In the land of our forefathers". Sorry, I don't remember the exact wording off the top of my head.

Sorry, Lawman.  I overstepped with the usage of the term issue due to the obvious misunderstandings being promulgated. I suppose it is true that the term is used by members to talk to non-members in a vernacular they can understand.  This is especially true in foreign countries.  The term "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" in Japanese is practically gibberish (except the Church of Jesus Christ part), but "Morumon-Kyou" (Mormon Church) is readily understood by all and used by the LDS and non-LDS community alike, especially since there are very famous members of the church in Japan and that term is well understood (and also, it would be meaningless to say "LDS").

Speaking of terminology, I think it is important to clarify:

When we say God, we are talking about God the Father, the only God we worship. This is the name Elohim in the Jewish texts.

Jesus is Jehovah, or the Messiah, or Yeshua, the Savior, the Lord.

There are portions of the Old Testament in which it is unclear from the translation which Being is referred to.  If I remember correctly, the portion quoting "The Great I Am" is one of those (but don't quote me on that).  I just don't want my statement in the post above to be taken too far.

The problem with any culture, language or religion is that an outsider coming in must first learn the terms of usage.  The loose term of the word "God" is inappropriate.  We refer to exalted beings.

I think the questions posed so far are very good.  The problem is that they are questions on the level of Calculus made by people who are still learning the Addition and Subtraction of LDS theology.  This makes it difficult to explain without pages and pages of describing the basic teachings first.  For example, it is difficult for a Bible scholar to explain the secrets of the Bible to someone who has not even read the Bible.  Things can be pulled out of context and read without a proper foundation, and this just makes things confusing.  The same is true of any religion, philosophy, or other teaching.

No worries, Heath. Am I correct in assuming you served a mission in Japan, then? I visited there once; it was a memorable experience.

btw, as far as this discussion goes, I am keeping out of it. I am no longer a member of the lds chruch, but I have nothing against it. (I may step in to clarify something someone is saying, having a strong background in both mainstream protestant (various) churches and lds churches, I tend to understand the conceptual diferences between them a little better.)

Yes, I was a missionary in Japan, and I currently live in Tokyo.  I admit I'm not the best spokesman for the church, since I know far more about Far Eastern religions than the various differences of the Protestant religions, but I hope the weaknesses of the messenger won't taint the message.

I think as Lawman suggests, every person is more knowledgeable in certain areas than others, even within their own religion.  For everything they don't have perfect knowledge of (which is the vast majority of the secrets of the universe), then they exercise faith.  My expertise is actually mostly concentrated on the early church starting with Joseph Smith, whom I have read countless pages about.  I guess I figure that if his story is false, then there's no point in believing in the rest of it.  So far, I haven't found anything.  The many Bible-related questions have been asked and answered a thousand times.  Hopefully, I won't say anything that isn't a proper representation of the church's position in trying to answer them.

I am referring to the LDS belief that it's believer's will become gods. That the LDS believe that are many gods.

No, not really. After my initial question of the LDS using the KJV, and why they do that if they place under the Book of the Mormon, that's when we started talking about differences of the two books. And there are differences. I used many sites, including non christian ones for this info. But neither here nor there. The bible and the Book of the Mormon do not agree, and that is known. When you asked for specifics, I had to go searching for the specifics. I certainly did not bring up the "big ones" or the most inflammatory. I kept it pretty simple, and was showing some differences between christianity and LDS.

I recall reading a story about the Church of Latter Day Saints baptizing people after death.  I think in the 80's they were caught baptizing the Jewish victims of the Holucost without the families' knowledge.  Is it true they can baptize someone into their church after they have died?

I think I can answer Rogue and Lycaon with one post (sorry I don't check this site very often):

The LDS belief follows this line of thought:  Man is created in God's image.  Man is a spiritual child of God with a body obtained through mortal conception.  This immortal spirit leaves the body at death and is reunited at resurrection.  The resurrection is only made possible due to Christ.  The resurrection will bring about an immortal and perfect body instead of these weak mortal bodies.

The LDS belief is that each man is judged by his own sins and actions.  It is impossible for man to live a perfect life.  Each person will be judged individually according to his own understandings and limitations and given the chance to accept or reject the fullness of Christ's gospel and repent, whether in this life or in the next.  Then, it is only through the mercy of Christ and the forgiveness of God (termed the "atonement") that men can be perfected and receive the fullness of their potential.  Since they are children of God, the ultimate potential is to become like God, even though this may take a long time after we die.  But we only worship one God.

To enter the kingdom of God, certain covenants must be made and ceremonies by those with the appropriate priesthood performed.  One of these is baptism, as shown by the example of Jesus.  Most people don't have a chance in this life to receive baptism or accept Christ's church.  And after they die, they do not have bodies to get these necessary ordinances performed.  Therefore, members are baptized as proxies for the deceased.  If the deceased accept the gospel after they die, then the ceremonies have been performed before they face the resurrection and judgment.  If they don't, then the ceremony has no meaning, but at least the effort was made. (Part of the baptizing for the dead issue is mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29: "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?")

As for the Holocaust issue, I believe the Church issued a statement that when it was objected to, they stopped, and if there have been any further such proxy baptisms performed, it was not intentional.  On one hand, unless there is some spirit manifestation, the living cannot know the will of the dead or what they may want in the world to come, and most don't object to the ceremonies.  On the other hand, the church is always sensitive to the desires of those related to the deceased.

Rogue- The Book of Mormon is considered a companion to the Bible.  It is not meant to displace it.  And there are other records out there as well which we still do not have that were developed from the scattered lost tribes of ISrael.  You have given specific examples where you think they don't agree, and I showed you how they do.  I need specifics in order to address your generalized statement.  I presume your position comes without having read the Book of Mormon in its entirety.  I would urge you to do so first.  I have read both books many times, and thus having done so, I must disagree with you.  Again, I think you'll find many differences in doctrinal interpretation but not in valid interpretations of the doctrine.

For example, your "Jerusalem" quote is easy to take out of context.  If you read the entire book, you will see that time and again the people refer to their homeland as "Jerusalem."  Bethlehem is less than five miles from the city of Jerusalem (which is shorter than my daily commute), so it easily fits within the consistent context of the book.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:45, Mon 28 June 2004.

Alright, did you want to answer the one about the lds believing there are many gods? and they it's believer's will become gods.

The LDS quote is:  "As Man is, God once was; as God is, Man may become."  There is only one God we worship.  As to how many beings like God exist creating worlds and universes in the infinity of time and space, we do not know nor have we been told.  We call this type of being an "exalted" being.

And certainly not all "believers" will become exalted because there are probably few worthy or humble enough for such a high calling--and besides, it is impossible for man to rise to such a state without the aid of deity and complete forgiveness of sins and a purpose single to the eye and glory of God.  And many "non-believers" in this world can receive exaltation based on the choices they make after this life.

That's right, I forgot about that, LDs believes God was a man. (Not Jesus), but they believe that God was a man, before being a god. That is definite distinction between christianity and LDS.

But to your post, I didn't intend to suggest LDS worship more than one god. But that the "exalted" are numerous gods.

Since Christ is the center of our church, we consider ourselves Christians.  But you're right that this is a big distinction between the LDS church and the "rest of" Christianity.

Christ also, of course, walked the earth as a man.  He became the first on this earth to receive exaltation and lead the way for others.  But we consider him the eldest son of God (i.e. our elder brother).  Thus, God is the father over all humankind on this earth (and on the other earths he created), and Jesus was appointed to lead this earth and will therefore return to take his place as King of Kings on earth.

You are correct:  an exalted being receives the promise of Abraham and goes on to create worlds and continue the eternal cycle.  Those who do not receive this highest promise receive rewards comparable to their actions and spiritual readiness at the day of judgment.

We do not believe in a literal hell except in one instance:  Outer Darkness, which is where Satan and his minions and a few who lived on this earth will be.  Everyone else receives differing levels of peaceful, happy, and productive existence after judgment.

I didn't know how to eloborate when we were talking about it, because I have been doing much from memory, and didn't have any material to quote from. This is what I found:

Interesting. Does this mean that God is like a collective consciousness composed of all the souls of the world? And that a similar God may exist for each universe?

No, he meant God was once a man, like us. And that we too can become like gods. That we would become a god who can perhaps create our own world as well, like god.

Jesus was such a one... which counts Him as another God...
Only he called Himself the Son of God, and that he was one with the Father... So He doesn't count as another God and so, saying we worship only one God still holds true. Did I get that right?

Also if ever someone goes and makes himself exalted (with the grace of God), does that mean he should move on and create his own world so that we still have only one God to worship here? All hypothetical, of course.

God the Father is God. But LDS do consider Jesus a god. But is a physical son of God apparantly. I believe Heath has said the Holy Ghost isn't an actual being? But I do believe LDS do believe three gods make up the godhead.
Jesus does count as another God, but I believe Heath said they do not pray to Jesus, but only God.
The last question of exultation, I would assume Heath could clarify further, but I do believe the end answer of that is up to God.

God the Father is God. But LDS do consider Jesus a god. But is a physical son of God apparantly. I believe Heath has said the Holy Ghost isn't an actual being? But I do believe LDS do believe three gods make up the godhead.
Jesus does count as another God, but I believe Heath said they do not pray to Jesus, but only God.
The last question of exultation, I would assume Heath could clarify further, but I do believe the end answer of that is up to God.

Hmmm... would it be better for me to theorize that God is the God of all other gods (that may or may not eventually crop up) and also man?
Since we are all made in His image, we are still technically part of Him such that even if someone does become a god in his own right, he will still be considered a part of God, just like Jesus is.

I'll step back at this point, as that's against what's in the bible, and I think only Heath would be able answer how closely that is to his beliefs.

Rogue:  The Orson Pratt statement may be accurate.  The scriptural reference just says "by the power of the Holy Ghost," but it is true that we believe Jesus was half from God the Father and half from Mary.

To answer the questions, it is actually quite simple:

(1)  The family unit is paramount, including the bond between husband and wife;
(2)  We are the spirit children of God the Father and his spouse, who are both exalted beings;
(3)  In order to get to that state, they had to live and be born on a world somewhere and partake of the same ordinances, testing process, etc. that we do;
(4)  They proved themselves worthy and were exalted to perfection;
(5)  They begat spirit children and created worlds for those children to go through the same process;
(6)  This world is one of those infinite number of worlds
(7)  Jesus is our elder spirit brother and is ordained the King of Kings of this world;
(8)  He and God the Father (whom we worship) are one in purpose and heart, but they are not one being.
(9)  He was born half of God and half of Mary in order to fulfill the very specific mission of the Atonement (to atone for the sins of mankind) and show us the example.
(10) He lived a perfect life and became the first person on this earth to receive exaltation.
(11)  We have the chance to follow the same type of path and become perfected in body, spirit and mind, and will be rewarded according to our faith, repentance and the use of the free agency we have been granted.
(12)  This is an eternal process, so technically there are an infinite number of "exalted beings" (what you might term "gods"), but we only worship God the Father since he gave life to us.

When you think about it, how far could man progress in a million years?  Look how far technology has brought us in just the last century.  It is not inconceivable to think that mankind is still in its infancy in the terms of its potential.

^_^ I like the way you explain things. Very clear. I like your explanation too. It is more or less what I had in mind personally.

I think that man's goal should be to perfect himself spiritually as well as help others achieve that goal. And the more people we have that do that, the closer this world will be to becoming a paradise. Literally, heaven on earth.

LDS isn't so bad. ^_^ It's great to know a little bit more about your religion. Thanks.

I'll be reading this thread once in a while to see how things work in your side of the spiritual world. ^_^

Thanks.  It's really a simple idea, and it's all based around the family unit, creation of personal relationships, and progression to a more perfect state.

FYI, everyone knows the Osmonds are LDS *sigh*, but did you know the following people are LDS?

Glen Larson (the creator of Battlestar Galactica, which incorporates a lot of LDS beliefs into it, such as the Council of 12, etc.) (I have a friend who used to go to church with him in the 70's)

Gladys Knight (but I don't think the Pips are...yet) (I have a friend that goes to church with her when she's in Las Vegas)

The Jets (the musical family that had number one hits in the late 80's) (I was never a fan, but my friend played basketball with the older brothers; they're a very nice Polynesian-like family; I met them once in Las Vegas.)

Some people have said that comedian Steve Martin converted, but I think that's just rumor, even though he seems to have really cleaned up his act.

Tracy Hickman (creator of Dragonlance and one of the original TSR teammembers developing early D&D--the Oasis of the White Palm series of adventures was one of my favorites)(I've met him a few times, and he ran a D&D competition at BYU when I went there in the 80's; great guy)

Steve Young-quarterback for the 49'ers.  (He's just an all around nice guy.  Met him twice in Utah and he owned a house near mine, so I'd sometimes see him in his pickup truck in the early 90's)

Movies:  Aaron Eckhart ("Paycheck" "Erin Brockovich"--main protagonist in "the Core"); Gordon Jump (WKRP in Cincinatti); Jerry Molen (Producer, Twister, Hook, Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, etc.); Neleh Dennis (a Survivor contestant who brought her Bible and Book of Mormon as her luxury item); Rick Schroeder (everyone remembers Silver Spoons, more recently things like NYPD Blue); Billy Barty (famous sufferer of dwarfism; I'm sure you've seen him in his over 200 movies Legend, Willow etc); Don Bluth (yes, the maker of all those cartoons like the Land Before Time--which when watched from LDS perspective sets out by analogy our plan of salvation); Matthew Modine (I'm sure you all know him); Kevin Foxe (married a Mormon and converted after the Blair Witch Project); Mark Deakums (Star Trek Voyager); Neil LaButte (Nurse Betty, In the Company of Men, etc.--director/screenwriter); John Wittaker (Family Affair--I only bring him up because I met him at church before).  There are more but this is a lot.

Sports: Dale Murphy is one of the most famous; Ty Detmer; Merlin Olson.  I don't really follow sports as much.

Authors: Orson Scott Card (met him on several occasions; great guy who's child suffers from CP, something I can identify with--you know him from Ender's Game, etc.)

Anyway, this is longer than I expected.  Sorry.

^_^ That's okay. It's interesting to know. Especially about Glen Larson and Tracy Hickman. I haven't watched Battlestar Galactica in it's entirety. Haven't seen any DVDs around.
What about the Council of 12? What has that got to do with LDS?

Just that the organization of leadership on the battleship was modeled after the organization of leadership in our church.  I honestly haven't watched the show since the 80's, so I can't remember all the details.  That was the only one that stuck out.

Read this post from United Order and found it to be interesting considering so much on these threads mixes science and religion (and since this study focused on my religion):

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/science.htm

In essence, some bullet points:

"Thus, it became obvious to me that Mormons hold not just a lead in scientific production, but hold a *very high* lead. So the significant question might be why this is so. I think looking at the responses of LDS scientists is a good way to find such an answer. In fact, such a study was conducted by a professor of Arizona State University, who was intrigued by the lopsided LDS scientific population. The results are rather conclusive. In brief, there are many reasons; Mormon leaders have always been pro-science, Mormon philosophy encompasses knowledge as a godly attribute, and the Mormon culture's acceptance of continuing revelation from God and openness to new insight."

"But do the Mormon scientists have a strong faith? That question was also answered in this interesting study. Of the LDS scientists polled a significant 83% considered themselves strong believers, while those of other Christian faiths were significantly less, the next highest being 44%."

"Also, of those questioned if their religion had an influence on their perusal to become a scientist, 88.4% of the LDS said "yes," while only 42% of the other Christians felt that their religion had any influence. And twice the percentage of the LDS attended worship services, and twice the percentage of LDS scientists had a favorable attitude toward their church compared to all others."

Some particular issues from the study:

"But do these scientists hold their "scientific" convictions? Absolutely. Of the 214 LDS scientists who participated in the recent Utah poll, "only three of them supported a young earth belief," (that the earth is only a few thousand years)."

"Compare this with nearly five times as many non-LDS scientists who believe in a young earth. And of the strong believers, only 10.6% of the LDS agreed with a non-evolutionary view of man's origin. Interestingly, some of the comments by LDS scientists who accepted organic evolution, demonstrated how small the conflict between science and religion really was. One LDS biologists said, "My religion is not biologically related." And another said, "There is no revelation specifically on how God created man; since religion does not explain it we are left to use what the evidence provides." Of the scientists who were "Strong Believers," only 15.5% of the LDS accepted the story of Noah and the flood literally. Twice as many non-LDS scientists ("Strong Believers") accepted the literal story. While most of the LDS believers felt that there was a literal flood, the details of the flood remained interpretive; only half as much of the non-LDS believers accepted this position, in spite of the conflict that such a rejection might hold scientifically."

"A clear 85 percent of the Mormon scientists believe in Jesus as the Christ, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet."

"Most of the Utah educated scientists, even the non-Mormons and Nominal Mormons, looked at the Church favorably as an institution for human welfare and support for the scientific community. None were antagonistic."


"Mormonism has distinctive doctrines which not only encourage mental development and service, but has produced a value system for family solidarity, healthy living, and a style which facilitates productive achievement."
This message was last edited by the player at 12:07, Sun 22 Aug 2004.

Considering only half of the Christian population considers itself to be strongly religious, this statistic is sort of misleading.

---

In terms of science, though, I'd rather poll Mormon archeologists working in Mexico, and take the words of their responses rather than numbers.

I'm guessing that there is more to this article?  It doesn't state the samples of non lds peoples that it used to get its stastics.

It's in line with the number of non-lds scientists.  Nothing really unusual about that statistic.

Don't quite follow you.  Why is restating the truth misleading? 1/2 is similar to 44%.


Agreed, but I can tell you from my own personal experience that the numbers probably wouldn't change.

(I wasn't really trying to argue anything with the article.  Just thought it was interesting considering that the leadership of our church primarily consists of doctors, lawyers, scientists, businessmen, etc. who were all very successful in their fields.)

Exactly.  Only about 45% of the U.S. considers itself 'devoutly Christian' - and as I recall Mormons got included in that number.

So the number says nothing surprising - I know a number of people who call themselves 'Christians' but believe Jesus rising from the dead is a myth, for example.  They follow it because they have faith in a higher power and want a moral system.

Of course, I know many more 'Christians' who well and truly aren't, they just say it to get things.



Maybe not, but I want to hear their rational.



Mormonism built incentive into its religion, it seems.  Incentive drives economies.

That statistic is probably a useless number in reality. I was talking to a friend one time, and the topic of religion came up, and when asked what religion he was, he says, "Well, my grandmother says I'm protestant."

Unless you're 10 years old, if your grandmother has to tell you what religion you are, you're not it.

I seriously doubt that.  The LDS following always beefs up the percentages because it has such a high retention and devotion rate among its members.  (There are many studies documenting this.) If it was included, it was probably so small comparatively that the LDS numbers wouldn't affect the overall numbers anyway.



Rationale for what?


Can you be more specific?

I;m not sure about retention, but that may just be personal oddities.

Maybe not.  Anyway.




Have any ancient sites described in the Book of Mormon been found in the Americas yet?  I haven't heard of any.



At the heart of it, economies are all about making stuff, fixing stuff, and moving stuff.  People, however, want to see results from their efforts - the mantra of capitalism is to hang the carrot in a place that can actually be reached.

Communism had no such driver.  You got what you got if you did your job well, poorly, or not at all.  While the last was hard to get away with, many jobs ended up getting done poorly.

Tithing seems to be the key.  Catholicism did very well when it required tithes, at least during Charlemagne's reign (even if Christianity wasn't being spread, they sure got their money...)

It's been many years since I looked at the sites in the Americas issue.  I remember such a site being discovered 10-15 years ago.  It is important to understand that the Book of Mormon recounts two passages to the Americas.  The first was the passage of the Mulekites (which as I recall was at or shortly after the Tower of Babel period).  This group lasted for awhile but eventually fell into unrighteousness.  The second group was Lehi's family who crossed in a boat after leaving Jerusalem.  (As I recall, it was 400 or 600 BC.)  Many unrighteous nations also came from that, and the entire groups fell off into unrighteousnes several centuries after Christ.

So there are thousands of years of culture built contrary to the ways of God with only a few hundred spotted years of righteousness.  I'm not sure exactly what you would be looking for in the "sites" you mention.

___

I'm still not sure about your incentive issue.  The incentive I see is the LDS belief that "the glory of God is intelligence," and learning, science, and the arts are built into our culture as very important, especially with our belief that we should try to follow God's example to become like him.  But since the heart of that is unselfishness, I'm having a difficult time following the economic incentive you mention, especially since most of them give up their wealth and properties (not to mention the 10% tithing).

Sorry, forgot the third group mentioned in the BoM.  The Jaredites, who migrated to America most probably from Central Asia.  It is also surmised that there may have been other migrations as well.

Where in the book of mormon are these groups mentioned?  Last year a couple girls introducing themselves as sister X and sister Y stopped by and we chatted a bit.  They gave me a copy of the book of mormon but I haven't read much of it.  When they said that they didn't know what the gospel was it was somewhat of a crediblity hit to them in my eyes.

Nevertheless, it'd be good to figure out actual archelogical, and anthropolgic (sp?) claims that are made in that book.

As far as the actual landing site of Lehi and his ship, they have found that. I am a big archaeology buff and this is one area I follow closely, hoping they will find what they are so Close to. There was a rumor that a Jaredite barge was found in lake Michigan, it was said to be a hoax from a non mormon dissenter later on. It has been a continous marvel though that the Aztec and Mayan temples in Chile are set up on the exact model and size as the holy temples in the holy land. Every time I see a documentary about that I jsut laugh and say, you'll figure it out someday.
 I was baptized LDS in 1997, and have fallen from the path somewhat. I say I can't believe in thier doctrines anymore, but yet I am the first to jump to thier defense. I also follow a Pagan path, and I blend the two rather harmoniously. People don't think that those two would blend, but they do. I guess I just have a very different viewpoint being Native American.

So then the higher ups of the LDS would agree you are following the right way?

Mormon was the one who collected and compiled the various plates from various peoples.  The book tells their stories, so where is it?  The whole book is about these groups.  (And there were portions of the plates that were never transferred.  The Book of Mormon is only part of the total compiled plates.)



I myself am often disappointed by the lack of people's knowledge of their own religion (in any religion).  Nevertheless, since religion is about faith and personal confirmation through the Holy Ghost, a perfect knowledge is not necessary for a perfect belief and really has no bearing on its truth.

If you're not happy with the messenger, find someone else to discuss your issues with.  If you have a broken arm and aren't happy with your doctor, do you just abandon medical attention or find a new doctor?



What claims are these?  The Book tells stories of the people much like the Bible does in order to set forth God's religion as it was practiced on the American continent.  It is not an archeological textbook and any geographical references are too vague to pinpoint any longitude or latitude on a map.  There are those who think they have found certain cities (such of the City of Nephi outside of Guatalahara City), but I would be shocked if they could ever prove such a thing.  Like finding a needle in a haystack.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:16, Tue 24 Aug 2004.

Absolutely not (hence he says he has fallen from the path).  The LDS religion believes that it is a straight and narrow path to eternal life.  It is not a path chosen by us.

And I actually have my doubts about the landing site of Lehi and his ship too.  However, the temple size issue I have heard discussed before, and it does seem a very interesting possible piece of evidence.

The evidence that I think is most telling is the DNA evidence of Native Americans.  It conclusively proves that they primarily came from Asia (no big surprise there).  But there have been found in the HLA gene codes trace evidence of pre-Columbian entry of peoples from the Middle East.  (In particular, there is a Y-chromosome haplotype that is often found among the Cohanim line of the Jews.)  Haplotype-X was found present in Native Americans.

[You may ask why this is important.  Geneticists have argued that the Native American population came solely from one or two migrations across Siberia.  This evidence shows that they are dead wrong.  There were multiple migrations, some of them quite probably by boat, and some from the geography of the Middle East.  While this obviously does not prove the Book of Mormon, it gives it a sense of scientific consistency.]
This message was last edited by the player at 02:31, Tue 24 Aug 2004.

I haven't examined the scientific accuracy, but some people have claimed the following:

Zarahemla:  Siebal (currently known as Ceibal)

City of Nephi: Kaminaljuyú (outside Guatemala City) (The five mound groupings at the site have been interpreted by some as representing five lineages as well as five subchiefdoms. If so, they parallel the Book of Mormon lineages of Nephi, Sam, Jacob, Joseph, and Zoram.) (There are also some parallels in the pictographs.  They record a date Nov 8, 147 BC.  They depict a scene which is consistent with King Noah and his son, Limhi, in the BoM.)

There may be more.  I'm not an archeologist myself.

Beyond the fact that genetic drift goes entirely from North to South, not Central America outwards, but the only reliable data I can find is that haplotypes M3, M45, and RPS4Y-T were the major ones present in Native American studies.  In addition, all four matriarchal lines (mitochondrial DNA studies) are Central Asiatic in origin - including Haplotype X.

Beyond that, so far as I know Haplotype X was only found in the Great Lakes and Midwest regions - where the Vikings are thought to have explored.  I'm told that there are different Haplotype X's though.

Of course, these lines can get snuffed out - but that would literally mean that, at one point or another, no sons got to pass on their Y-chromosome and no mothers got to pass on their mitochondria.  This is a pretty brutal squishing of genetic evidence, however.

The thing is polymorphic Alu insertions and microbial flora add to this evidence.

There is also the utter lack of any sort of linguistic evidence.

Science Magazine, 1998 (Virginia Morell).  Here is an excerpt:


I think this disputes your point.  I'm not sure if we might be on a different track.

Roger Highfield (2000) stated in a separate article:



Note that my points are not necessarily to prove the Book of Mormon is true.  I don't think they tell us anything conclusively except that it cannot be found false based on previous "scientific" beliefs.  It simply leaves open the possibility that the book could be true.

I would also stress that the point in the article I read was simply the following:  "While some geneticists have argued that the DNA evidence points to only one or two migrations from Siberia, other evidence suggests that the New World has long been a genetic melting pot, filled with groups deriving from multiple sources."

Neither of these articles are LDS or in any way related to LDS beliefs.  They also say that the haplotype X was found "throughout" the Native American population and I saw nothing about the Vikings or the limited areas you specify.
____

I may also stress that the people in the book on one or two occasions were cursed by their wickedness and their skin was changed (much as Cain in the OT).  It is unclear what, if any, effect such a thing would have on DNA.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:36, Tue 24 Aug 2004.

Does this mean "where are they from"?

Mulekites: Mulek was definitely Jewish (although we don't know about everyone traveling with him).  (This migration involved a group of refugees from Jerusalem at the time of the Babylonian conquest, including Mulek, said to be a son of King Zedekiah. At least some of the descendants of Mulek's group would later be assimilated by the Nephites.)

Lehi and family:  Lehi (who fled Jerusalem) was a descendent of Manasseh.  We don't know anything beyond that, including the race of the others he traveled with. (They arrived in approximately 590 BC.)  (Nephi, Lehi's son, is the origin of the "Nephites" name.)

Jaredites: We know nothing of them other than that they migrated probably from Central Asia about 3000 BC (after the Tower of Babel period).

(There is also discussion in the book of a people leaving overseas to the west, which some people believe went on to populate islands, such as Hawaii, but of course the records don't say what happened to them.)

So by the time the Mulekites or Lehi arrived, there may have been millions already populating America.

I think the current DNA findings help establish, not an LDS belief, but a Biblical prophecy from God to Abraham that his seed will be found in all the earth (and will be gathered--i.e. the 12 tribes of Israel).
This message was last edited by the player at 04:47, Tue 24 Aug 2004.

Another group was more recently found in the South of Siberia amongst the Altaic population.



I find stuff ranging as far south as the Navajo, that's it.  There is specific mention of Haplotype X not being found in Central or South America at all.

That, and there is no Y-chromosome evidence...  This means that there are no male descendants in the region that are not Asian in origin.  i.e. no sons of Abraham.



There are six melonin alleles.  Skin tone is determined by which of these six (one, none, some or all) of these are present.

"Native American Y-chromosomes show a variety of haplogroups, including haplogroups 4 and 1C (Karafet et al., 1999), which are also characteristic of Jewish peoples (Hammer et al., 2000).  1C is common enough in the New World that it has been proposed as a major founder haplogroup for the New World."

I don't think you could say your point above is conclusive.  It is nearly impossible to make such an assertion as that, and the quote above disputes it.

(Just so I don't give the wrong impression, it was just an idea of mine about Abraham.  Truthfully, with the colonization of America, Abraham's seed is likely to spread according to prophecy now or in the future even if it wasn't in the past.)

It is also important to note that Judaism is passed through the maternal line, and the father's line is not a consideration.  Therefore, technically the Y chromosome is irrelevant.  Also, a Hebrew tribal affiliation does not rule out the presence of non-Hebrew haplotypes in DNA. We do know that the Jews were scattered to many parts of Europe and Asia. What about the lost tribe of Joseph? Did some of its members later settle in Asia, bringing their Y haplotype 1C and mtDNA haplotype X with them?



This assumes that skin color was the only thing changed.  It may have been that it is just the visible product of a far more invasive change (or "curse").
This message was last edited by the player at 07:56, Tue 24 Aug 2004.

Here is a comment from an LDS scientist on the subject:


(NOTE: Sariah was Lehi's wife.)
This message was last edited by the player at 08:09, Tue 24 Aug 2004.

I dont follow Genetics all that much, all it does is confuse me. I know I am native American and they say I have that y chromosome, which allows me to live on the reservation, even though I don't.
 I was drawn to the LDS church for thier unity and they are probably the only church that I have found that actually "Live" what they preach. I find myself being pulled back to the church more than ever, and havent been able to do any Pagan practice without feeling a bit guilty, or wrong. Is the spirit telling me I'm messing up? I don't know. Is it Satan putting on another guise to tempt me? Probably not. Pagans don't believe in Satan. Right now I am at a loss of what to do, but prayer has still has not given me a definite answer. What to do now, I don't know.

I'm not sure what practices you are referring to, but let me give you my experience:

Many Japanese LDS members have a similar struggle.  The Japanese culture is filled with Shinto and Buddhist practices as part of their culture.  They wonder if it is wrong to participate in their cultural practices because it is tied to religion.  I think such thinking is wrong.  Every person must maintain a cultural identity.  So long as that cultural practice is not "worship" of an idol or false god, I think it is acceptable.  Many of the practices (for example, revering the ancestors--which many people mistakenly think is worship of ancestors) is actually quite healthy and, I think, a good complement to LDS living.  The vast majority of Japanese do not even believe in the religion behind the practices; they just do it for social reasons and to maintain cultural identity.

But like I said, I don't know your situation or what types of "practices" you are referring to.  (I kind of assumed they are Native American rituals or something like that.)
This message was last edited by the player at 14:11, Tue 24 Aug 2004.

The practices I refer to are simple reverence of nature, celebrating the pagan esbats, which coincide with christian things, meditating and basicalyy the prayer styles of Paganism, which involves inviting the god and goddess, the elements and guardians. When I pray, I pray to the triple godhead, which to me is God, his wife and thier firstborn son Jesus christ. In some pagan religions it is the triple goddess, or the god and goddess and earth, but I chose to worship the god of Abraham, Jacob and Issac. the rituals are pretty much the same, the focus on the Diety is my visualization of God, Jesus and Mary, since God has never let the name of his wife be known.
  After all, The thirteen articles of faith, Article 11 states we claim the priveledge of worshipping the almighty God according to the dictates of our own consiousness, and allow all men to do the same. This is how i feel most comfortable.

The Church has specifically stated that we may not pray to anyone except God, including God's wife (our mother in heaven) or Mary, or Jesus (although we pray through Jesus).

The Thirteenth Article of Faith is actually meant to tell the world that we as a religion claim the right to worship God according to our own conscience.  This does not mean that Church members should worship however they personally see fit.  So, although the Church would not deny you the right to worship as you see fit, you could not worship in the way you are describing and still remain a member in good standing.  (I'm not saying they would excommunicate you or anything.  I don't know what they would do, but they'd definitely redirect your practices if you wanted to remain a member in good standing.)

I know you have some ideas going here Styxx, but the of the first things you said was this coincides with "Christian things"

Christians really don't do the things you said. But to be more accurate, those things are specified it is not christian.  If you want to believe what you believe, that's one thing, but there are other people who will see these comments, and wonder "That's christian?". It can be confusing to anyone who hasn't read a bible.

No no, what I meant was that the sabbats and esbats are coinciding with Christian holidays, you know, Yule for christmas, samain for all saints day, etc.
  Prayer is prayer. It is all focus and intent, prayed to the same being that has many faces. we were not meaqnt to understand him, or anything about him in this mortal state. With so amny religions to choose frfom, all saying they are the "Only true Church" I chose what way felt comfortable to me and right in my heart. If God, whoever he may be, holds this against me, then so be it. One of my favorite sayings goes "I'll pray for forgiveness after I die and find out what the real rules were supposed to be."
This message was last edited by the player at 22:06, Tue 24 Aug 2004.

Seems like a dangerous philosophy to me.  Remember that obedience is the first law of heaven.  This is important in thinking about the process of worship because we imperfect beings understand so little of such eternal things that we must exercise trust in God.

One of our sources is lying, that much is certain.  Since (IIRC) 99% of the men were accounted for in the three lines I mentioned.




What does that change?  There are six, not three, color types.

It doesn't change anything.  I was merely suggesting that color type may just be one factor.

I was actually looking for a reference in the book of mormon, do you know of a site that can search that?  I guess I could thumb through it and see what I can find.  Just thought maybe I could save some time.




I don't see anything about Lehi being descendents of Manasseh, there is a Lehi mentioned in the book of Judges but it seems to be more of a place then a person.  Samson killed a whole bunch of Philistines in Lehi, which according to his, is hebrew for "hill" (see judges chapter 15)

Not sure what to say about some of these other people groups, never heard of them before.  As for the 12 tribes of israel, the romans burned the genelogies when general Titus raided Jersalem (75 AD I think this happened?) so who's from what tribe now is somewhat hard to determine.

If you have an LDS copy with annotations, it should be easy to find in the index (I think).  If it's just a copy of the Book of Mormon, I'm not so sure.

The Lehi spoken of is not a figure of the Bible.  (Same name only.)

It is hard to determine who's from what tribe by historical records looking after 75 AD.  But since the Book of Mormon comes from its own historical records kept by the people, we can only take their word on it that they were who they said they were.

The title page of the Book of Mormon explains that the book of Ether “is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven.” The book of Ether itself then tells of when “Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth”

Maybe we should have a thread about the Tower of Babel.

Racism:  If you think the LDS church is or ever was racist, go ahead and post your questions.

Keep in mind that in 1836 (just about 6-7 years after its founding) a black man was called as a general authority, which is one of the top positions in the Church about the level of a Cardinal in the Catholic church.

I am aware they did allow african americans in as members, but for a long time they weren't allowed as priests because they were inferior. That has since changed and they do allow black priests from what I understand. But really, it did start off with the outlook that some races were not equal.

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discources 10:110 )

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."

-Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67


How is this stuff not racist?

In Old Testament times, the seed of the Canaanites was cursed so that their seed could not hold the priesthood.  This line continued through the wife of Ham brought with Noah on the Flood.  The LDS Church does not control the curses of God; only God controls that.  The African heritage contained this blood, so they were not allowed the priesthood, but they were always allowed to become members and be baptized and treated equally in all other ways.

This curse brought great discomfort to one of the former prophets, Spencer W. Kimball.  It had bothered him all his life.  So he went into the holiest place of the temple and plead with God that the curse be lifted.  He met with the other leaders of the Church there, and they engaged in prayer.  It was revealed to them that all people would be able to receive the priesthood regardless of heritage, thus answering the petitions of the righteous.

Is God a racist for choosing the Israelites over other races?

It is also important to remember the Joseph Fielding Smith quote above.  We existed before being born and are in the exact position we are on earth today (whether talented, blessed, or persecuted) based in part on what we did before we came to earth.  Basically, where we are on earth today is part of our reward or lack thereof from heaven.  His quote isn't racist.  It is just responding to inquiries and stating that African-Americans, like everyone else on earth, is simply receiving the merited award?

Here is a site with a bit of discussion:

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/000H9.html

It is important to remember that the seed of the Canaanites were cursed pertaining the priesthood but alternatively blessed with "wisdom."

That site and this one that follows were both created by Black Mormons (hence, the "Black Mormon Homepage") in defense of the church and its policies.

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/b...ormon/homepage2.html

Keep in mind that "racism" infers superiority of one race over another.  This was never the case in the LDS church.  In fact, while many "Christians" were slaveowners, Joseph Smith ran for the US Presidency in 1843 with one of his goals to end slavery.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:25, Fri 27 Aug 2004.

BTW, Journal of Discourses and Mormon Doctrine are not considered "scripture."  In fact, Mormon Doctrine is just a treatise of one man's opinion on the nature of LDS things based on the perspective of an LDS leader.   In fact, specifically referring to this doctrine, Bruce R. McKonkie (who wrote "Mormon Doctrine") stated in 1978:

"There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things… All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles."
This message was last edited by the player at 03:09, Fri 27 Aug 2004.

Wouldn't that suggest that previous leaders were mistaken, something I thought they couldn't do?

A prophet is only a prophet when he speaks on behalf of God, not in any other capacity.

Prophets are human beings with their own opinions too.

Also, as mentioned in the other thread, the Law of God changes to meet the needs of the people of each time (such as the change of the law of Moses to the Law of Jesus).  Hence the need for continuing revelation through a living prophet.  Looking only to the past gives one only the Law of God given to the people of the past, not the law of God given to you and your people.

It is also important to remember that the LDS belief is that God does not give a law unless he is asked about it in sincere prayer after diligent and earnest study of the matter.  It was made clear after the revocation of that policy in 1978 that in 1978 such sincere prayer and diligent and earnest study were made on the issue of Blacks and the priesthood.  No specific comment to that effect was given previously.

An additional comment on this, again a comment by Bruce R. McKonkie as to why inaccurate beliefs get into the church:

"As it happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God.  He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation laid by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has come on to eternal exaltation. Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord. "

That last statement you quote above is important because not all of what you quoted belong in that category.  As we've shown elsewhere, even the Bible is not infallible.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:53, Fri 27 Aug 2004.

Although as I mentioned earlier, I come directly from Brigham Young stock through my mother's side, I always take what he said with a grain of salt, as he was a very forward speaking man.  The question about accuracy should only reflect what is basic and essential for our own salvation.

Again, from Bruce R. McKonkie:

"Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works. Yes, Brigham Young did say some things about God progressing in knowledge and understanding, but again, be it known, that Brigham Young taught, emphatically and plainly, that God knows all things and has all power meaning in the infinite, eternal and ultimate and absolute sense of the word. Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe and the answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works. I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And again, that is something he will have to account for. As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with

[7] what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation. This puts me in mind of Paul's statement: "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Cor. 11:19.) I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. If that belief is on basic and fundamental things, it will lead us astray and we will lose our souls."

And later from the same letter:

"There is no need to attempt to harmonize conflicting views when some of the views are out of harmony with the Standard Works. This is what life is all about. The Lord is finding out what we will believe in spite of the allurements of the world or the philosophies of men or the seemingly rational and logical explanations that astute people make. We do not solve our problems by getting a statement from the president of the Church or from someone else on a subject. We have been introduced to the gospel; we have the gift of the Holy Ghost; we have the Standards Works and it is our responsibility to get in tune and understand properly what the Lord has revealed and has had us canonize. The end result of this course of personally and individually pursuing light and truth is to reach that millennial state of which the scriptures say it will no longer be necessary for every man to say to his neighbor "know the Lord," for all shall know him from the greatest to the least. Joseph Smith says this will be by the spirit of revelation. "
This message was last edited by the player at 04:08, Fri 27 Aug 2004.

This letter from McKonkie is very interesting because it looks at stewardship and authority, and the responsibility for teachings.  It was a letter rebuking a professor (from BYU I think) for publicly promulgating his opinions about the progression of God even though they are not in harmony with the Church teachings that God does not progress except through multiplying his kingdoms.

This is another very interesting section:

"This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact still remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do. The appointment is not given to the faculty at Brigham Young University or to any of the members of the Church. The Lord's house is a house of order and those who hold the keys are appointed to proclaim the doctrines. Now you know that this does not mean that individuals should not do research and make discoveries and write articles. What it does mean is that what they write should be faith promoting and where doctrines are concerned, should be in harmony with that which comes from the head of the Church. And those at

[9] the head of the Church have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works. If they err then be silent on the point and leave the event in the hands of the Lord. Some day all of us will stand before the judgment bar and be accountable for our teachings. And where there have been disagreements the Lord will judge between us. In the meantime if we want to save our own souls we need to strive with all the power we have to be in harmony with the revelations and not to be teaching or promulgating doctrines that suit our fancy. I advise you to take my counsel on the matters here involved. If I err, that is my problem; but in your case if you single out some of these things and make them the center of your philosophy, and end up being wrong, you will lose your soul. One of the side effects of preaching contrary to what the Brethren preach is to get a spirit of rebellion growing up in your heart. This sort of thing cankers the soul spiritually. It drives people out of the Church. It weakens their faith. All of us need all of the faith and strength and spiritual stability we can get to maintain our positions in the Church and to work out our salvation."

Heath, I really believe that the LDS is a not a racist organization, and that you yourself are quite upstanding, with strong values.
That wasn't my issue, or what I was trying to portray. But, in the past, I do believe it was so. I understand mistakes happen, as no one but Jesus is perfect. I agree with your comments that they can and do make mistakes like anyone else.

For the record, I don't think it was a racist religion at any time.  Blacks were never excluded from membership of the Church (unlike many other Churches in those days), and they were treated with as much respect, dignity and fellowship as any other members.  The LDS Church was out there fighting slavery while at the same time denying them the priesthood.

So why were they denied the priesthood?  Because God said so due to the curse He levied in the Bible.  We generally follow what God says without question.  It is not accurate to portray it as human feelings regarding the priesthood issue.

"Racism" means that one race is held superior to another.  Blacks were simply not given the priesthood until the pleadings of the Brethren to God; they were not treated as inferior to Whites.  Women are not given the priesthood, so from your definition it would also be a sexist religion even today.

Keep in mind that the priesthood in OT times only came through the blood of the Levites, so everyone of every other race was excluded.  It is only over time that the priesthood was allowed for other races, and with the 1978 Proclamation it was extended to all worthy males.  We are not seeing a sudden epiphany there.  We are seeing the final conclusion of an expansion process going back to the beginning of the earth and ushering in the way for the Second Coming of Christ.

So to answer your question, while some mistakes were made regarding "interpretation" of "why" they were denied the priesthood, the fact that Blacks were denied the Priesthood until the Brethren prayed was not a "mistake," merely the carrying out of God's Will for that time and dispensation.  (That would be the LDS position.)

It is important to remember that a living prophet is a prophet for his people in his time.  Therefore, although Brigham Young was a prophet, he is not my prophet because he died long before I was born.  The scope of his authority was limited to the people he had stewardship over.  Anything else would really be just his opinion.

"You can't be a priest"

"Why?"

"Because you are a woman/black."

"What about that bars me from priesthood?"

"Your eldest ancestor, Eve/Cain, made an utmost sin."

"So I am directly responsible for the mistakes of my parents?"

"No, you are responsible for the mistake of your ancestors."

"That's supposed to be more comforting?"

"It is God's will."

----

By barring a race, or a gender, from a position, it implies something is wrong, or otherwise impure, regarding them.

Since it is a function of race or gender, and not merit, it is an inequality that they are incapable of rectifying.  It also implies that they are 'less saved' by fact of birth.

You apparently didn't read all of the posts above.  LDS belief is that we existed before we were born.  Our position in this life is directly related to our rewards for how valiant we were before birth.  Therefore, as Joseph Fielding Smith said, what race we are born into is a result not of our ancestors but of our own actions before birth.  It is for us to then use our free agency to rise above that birth.

Holding the priesthood is not a right nor is it necessary for entering into the kingdom of God.  It is simply the power of God that he bestows upon those whom he sees fit.

It is interesting that this is more of an issue with those who are not Black than those who are.  My sister-in-law, for example, is from Haiti.  She doesn't question it for a second.

Just to clear up another error, women not holding the priesthood has nothing to do with a curse (e.g. the curse of Eve).  It comes down again to the issue that a man and wife together are one.  The woman uses the priesthood through her husband while not holding it herself.  It is a gender role issue, not a curse issue.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:30, Fri 27 Aug 2004.

Is she a part of the Church?

I didn't question so much when I was Catholic, either.  Well I did, but I came up with solutions that satisfied me.

There are many things related to our birth we can't control.  I can never bear a child, and I doubt I can ever make it into the Olympics.  But I have my brain which I have used to the best of my advantage.  My wife, who is handicapped, will never walk straight.  My son, who has brain damage, may have problems throughout his life.  Do we curse God because of our birth and what he's done?  No.  We can simply thank him for giving us as much as He has and do the best with the talents and abilities we have, for without Him we would not even exist.

Yep, I agree with you there whole heartedly Heath. God gave us exactly what we need. God gives everyone the exact thing they need, whatever that may be.

Yes (and her family too).  My brother is an active priesthood holder, and they were married in the LDS temple.  Most people don't realize how truly diverse the LDS population is, including a very large African-American population.  Here in Japan, our congregation is about 40% White/US, 40% Japanese, and 20% other (including Black, French, Polynesian, Filipino, and Korean).

the summer before last, i went through just about all of the conversion process with a pair of LDS missionaries, but stopped just short of baptism. everyone has heard rumors of the mormon secret handshakes, the secret rituals that take place in the temples, etc. when i asked about these things, the missionaries kind of skated around it, and i never did get a straight answer. can someone affiliated with the church of LDS give me a straight answer on this?

The ordinances in the temple are sacred and are not discussed, even by members amongst themselves, outside of the temple.  My wife and I do not even discuss them outside of that sacred place.  Sacred things are just not discussed casually.  It's not really "handshakes" (LOL).  In the temple, they show you the sacred things you need to know to pass into the celestial kingdom, and you receive ordinances needed for exaltation (just as baptism is a necessary ordinance).

It is important to always remember that "secret" and "sacred" are two totally different things.  Jesus said, talking of sacred things, not to cast pearls before swine.  There are some experiences I do not share.  You might say in a similar strain that the act of love between husband and wife is a sacred thing, and look at how society treats it.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:22, Wed 08 Sept 2004.

There are books, and at least one movie made by former LDS members that do go into details of the rituals spoken of here.

You could always check those out. I can't remember any titles off hand.

 Heath and Rogue, just a note to say thank you. I had been teetering on the edge of making a big mistake and leaving Christianity all together. Something that Heath had said about maintaining Cultural diversity struck me as worth checking out. So, I went to my Branch President and had a nice long talk. Between that and reading this thread, and some of the Others, I have set myself back to within the Tenets of the Faith, and am trying to make a good new start. I went to church for the first time in a very long time, and it seemed the teachings of the day answered all the doubts I had. I sat in the chapel and cried a good half hour before I left. The answers were there all along, I had just refused to look for them.

 As for the Temple and racism, I really don't know. I've never been to the temple, I don't have a temple recommend, and not sure I want one. Being in a place that sacred and special would only serve to make me feel even more worthless. So I never went.
 I think that the only reason there would have been any seemingly racism in the temple is because all the facts and precepts and tennets of the Mormon eligion are not released at once, but as they are needed. They followed all the information they had from the books and from the preisthood at the time, and acted as they saw was required. When the Prophet prayed about what should be done about the colored races, then god sent his answer. If he  had sent it out before or after, it may not have had the effect that God wanted. I know it sounds a bit muddled, but its too early to be thinking quite yet.

Released as it's needed? The bible says all are equal in Jesus. There already was a statement to the effect that racism is bad. That all are equal in Jesus.

It says that all -Christians- are equal.

Honestly, I wouldn't recommend doing this.  Even if you think it will help you understand, it is always done by a disgruntled person, is in opposition to our church teachings, and usually is not very accurate.

It's kind of like listening to "ex" military employees talking about the secrets in Area 51 and the aliens supposedly there, and all the cover up and how they were threatened if they revealed the government secrets.  At some point, it gets skewed and is just not accurate anymore, even to the point of absurdity.

It's not exactly released as it's "needed."  It is released precept upon precept, line upon line, to the extent we can handle it.  Thus, Moses smashed the higher law and came back with the lower law because his people were not ready yet.

We also receive revelation only to the extent it is pertinent to our salvation.  Trivial facts, even things like the literalness of the Flood or things like that, are not essential to our salvation.  Whether we murder or commit adultery or things like that are.  So there is big difference in what He feels we need to receive.

Styxx is right, though, that revelations are received for a higher purpose, a purpose we just don't know all the time.  Who can say they know the mind or will of God?

I'm not sure what rogue is referring to.

I was very glad to hear this, Styxx.  It's nice to know that this board can be more than an intellectual exercise.

It is important to note that the policy about denying the priesthood to Blacks was not immediately implemented by Joseph Smith in the 1830s. Even after it was practiced, there was no revelation explaining the teaching.  The only "revelation" recorded was the 1978 manifesto from the church saying that all worthy males, regardless of race, should be able to receive the priesthood.

In fact, there are only 2 alleged witnesses who said that Joseph Smith told them about Blacks not having the priesthood, and both are very shaky.  One was a slaveholder with racial bias who was misquoting directives given for missionaries teaching slaves (most probably to protect the slaves), and the other probably never made the claim at all, considering that he himself ordained a Black man to the office of Seventy two years after the "alleged" remark from Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith was also well aware of appointing Blacks to the priesthood and never objected.  In fact, this Black member of the Seventy actually lived with Joseph Smith for a short time and claimed that Joseph Smith told him he was entitled to the priesthood.  Many other Blacks were also ordained in the 1830's.

So I think we have one of 2 situations:

(1)  This was just a policy enacted that was never put as a question to God until 1978 (given the lack of any revelation on the subject); or
(2)  It was truly part of the Biblical curse continuing, but that curse was lifted after the prayers and pleadings in 1978.

(The policy was implemented in the 1840's or 1850's.)  It was based on three cursings in the scriptures:  (1) The curse of Cain and his seed, (2) the curse against the Canaanites before the Flood, and (3) the curse of Canaan (grandson of Noah through Ham) - cursed to be a "servant of servants" after an incident concerning holy garments.  The second curse is most probably the one most applicable in this case based on the migration of the peoples.)

I think what I was trying to say was that I think each precept comes through as we need it most. At the time the Teachings of the Blacks as priesthood holders come out it was during all the racial tension. If Joseph Smith had ordained blacks then maybe it would have been kept as information in the church and not maiking headlines simply because the Church had its fair share of being hated by the public, for the public to know that they were treating blacks as equals then would have brought the church more grief.

Since I've kind of read up on the issues, I can say that I don't think that's the case.  The church has never done anything out of social pressure.  That's probably part of the reason its members have been so persecuted, including my own ancestors, who were forced to flee their homes and cross frozen terrain because of mobs and Mormon-haters, dying and suffering frostbite along the way.  No, the church is not afraid of "grief."

Instead, this is either a policy based on interpretation of the curses listed in the Bible without anyone actually receiving revelation on it.  (This is what bothered Spencer W. Kimball so much and led to him praying for a revelation on the subject when he became the prophet.)

If you remember the story of the Brother of Jared, God does not generally answer prayers that are not made.  You must have a question, formulate a proposed answer, and go to Him for a decision.  My feeling is that this policy worked its way in without such a process, although of course if it is God's will to deny priesthood to a certain group, then that's His divine right, and that may have been the case.  We just don't know for certain since it was over 150 years ago.

They had enough to deal with. I think the church in its truest sense, would have accepted anyone anyway. After all, didn't the Nephites take back Lamanites that had repented and changed thier ways? I'm not very knowledgeable in the LDS ways yet and am in no way an expert, Nor have I read very far into the Book of Mormon, but that makes sense to me.

First, we must remember that Blacks were never excluded from the church.  They were always welcome.  It was just the matter of the priesthood.  The foundation of that policy was based on Biblical curses stating that they would be "blessed in wisdom but cursed in the priesthood."

They were always welcomed into the LDS church? But we have posted quotes from leaders of the LDS church who said such horrible things about how inferior they were.

Ahhh, now I get it clicked into comprehension. okay, I'm okay now. LOL!!

No, I think you have quotes discussing their heritage and the meaning of the curse, and how they were born into their place due to their choices before being born.  They were always welcome, and in fact their choices for good were rejoiced even more because they were born to disadvantage.  They were NEVER, EVER denied baptism.  They were NEVER, EVER denied fellowship.  Their circumstances were considered unfortunate and disadvantageous, yes, but so is a handicapped person.  Yet are they denied fellowship?

I reread your quotes and still don't know exactly what you're referring to.  They are also not part of the canon of LDS scripture, so they are simple opinions of men.

In fact, here is what Joseph Smith had to say on the subject:

"Joseph Smith was a great advocate for the black people; in a time in which many of his fellow white countrymen owned black slaves, and in a time which almost all white Americans believed that "Negroes" were "inherently inferior" to white people. The Prophet Joseph Smith did not believe that Negroes were inherently "inferior" to whites. He said that they were the way they were only because the whites did not allow them to be educated. He said that if one "changed their situation" and educated them "they would be like" the whites. He advocated the freedom, education, and the granting of "equal rights" to blacks at a time when only a small minority of Abolitionists believed that blacks should be granted equal rights. When he was once asked what advice he would give to a man who came into the Church with 100 black slaves, the Prophet replied:

"I have advised them to bring their slaves into a free country and set them free~educate them~and give them equal rights." (Compilation on the Negro in Mormonism, p.40)

He also said:

"Break off the shackles of the poor black man and hire him to labor like other human beings." (History of The Church 5:209)

In the publication "Joseph Smith's Views on the Power and Policy of the Government of the United States," he called for the end of slavery and the education and granting of equal rights to Blacks. This publication was widely read and disseminated, especially in Illinois. Joseph Smith called on Congress to sell the millions of acres of Federal public lands and use the money to purchase the slaves from their masters, to free them, educate them, and give them equal rights.

Many believe that this publication was read by a young Illinois lawyer and politician who lived not very far from Nauvoo in 1843 when Joseph Smith ran for the U.S Presidency.  His name:  Abraham Lincoln.

So Rogue, I'm afraid you're painting a very inaccurate picture of the history of our early church.  Slinging around a few quotes out of context (and possibly not even accurate) does not paint a valid portrait of a whole culture or its views.

In fact, in 1832, Joseph Smith had received a revelation which is canonized in LDS scripture as the words of God:

"VERILY, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls,
2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, and they [Britain] shall call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against others nations [Germany, Austria-Hungary], and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
(Doctrine & Covenants section 87)

28 years after this revelation, the Civil War broke out, beginning in South Carolina in 1860, dividing the north and the south in the most costly battle in terms of human life in U.S. history and ending in the freedom of the slaves.  This was about 17 years after Congress rejected his proposals to free the slaves (1843).
This message was last edited by the player at 02:58, Fri 10 Sept 2004.

Just to continue to paint a more accurate portrait, the LDS church was despised by the white men of the south because of its opposition to slavery.  In fact, part of the mob that martyred Joseph Smith belonged to an anti-Black group known as "Knights of the Golden Circle."  (They later formed a new organization called the "Ku Klux Klan.")  In 1868, the LDS Church condemned the KKK and called upon the U.S. government to "destroy" it.

Joseph Smith gave a horse to a Black man so that he could purchase the liberty of a child.  When another Black man had stolen some goods and was whipped by a white man (when Joseph was justice of the peace), instead of letting the white man off as was the custom, he fined the Black man for the theft and jailed the white man for his violence.

White men in the south absolutely hated Joseph Smith in the south exactly because he called for equality of the Black man.

To put it simply, our early church was reviled because of its stance in favor of Blacks.  It is simply inaccurate to paint the portrait you are giving.

Not inaccurate. These quotes are from the presidents, and an apostle of the LDS church. I understand mistakes, (example witch trials of the catholic church) But it is not inaccurate to say they were prejudice, and led others to believe so as well.
This message was lightly edited by the GM at 03:17, Fri 10 Sept 2004.

So what about Brigham Young?  Brigham Young, the 2nd President of the Church, held the same view of "Negroes" as did the great majority of white Americans in his day (probably a simple cultural hangover). He held the very same view as did the American President Abraham Lincoln.  He considered "Negroes" to be "inferior", but that they should be treated "like we treat our own children" and not like beasts of burden; as they were then treated as slaves in the South. Brigham Young said:

"Negroes should be treated like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites shall be cursed, unless they repent." (Journal of Discourses 10:111)

"The Lamanites or Indians are just as much the childen of our Father and God as we are. So also are the Africans." (Journal of Discourses 11:272)

He also said:
"Men will be called to Judgment for the way they have treated the Negro." (J.D. 10:250)

So Brigham Young personally held certain beliefs about "inferiority," but never as a prophet did he receive revelation about that, which is why it is important to stick to the canon of scripture, not offhand remarks.

and not worse than dumb brutes

I'd love to be treated better than a dumb brute, but it'd be terrible if they treated me worse than one. ????

Your using that as a show of his non racist attitude?

As the president, did he or did he not run the LDS? (did he run it with that attitude, or not?

I'm not trying to twist words here Heath, he was a racist.

It is important to remember that the mark on Cain was his "protection," not his curse.

There is actually no official view of the LDS church (now or ever) on the origin of the Black Man.  This publication is not by any means in the LDS canon.  His comments are pure speculation.



You are taking this out of context.  He is saying that the Negro may be a servant here, but even as a servant, he can still get into the celestial kingdom.  It's not saying that he will go there and remain a servant.  He simply goes as a servant.

You're obviously misreading his statement.  He is saying that the white men of the time were treating the Blacks worse than dumb brutes, and that doing so was sinful.  For doing so, they would be cursed.  How is that racist?  Isn't that the opposite?

Considering the context used in that same book you used that quote, plus the context of the other quote, I don't think I mixed it up.

What context?  It's a collection of quotes from various people.  Also, the English is clear as day and his actions throughout his life speak for themselves.  I think you're way off base on this one.

Just to be clear:

(1) I don't know if Brigham Young was the prophet when he made that or any of the above statements, but the Journal of Discourses is not LDS canon anyway.  (We quote from it for support, but it is not considered the Word of God.)

(2) He came from a culture of Blacks being inferior, and so his personal opinion was shaped by that.  Yet he believed they should be treated as tenderly as we treat our children and "like human beings."  (Truly a revolutionary idea for that day and age.)

(3) Under your definition of "racist," Abraham Lincoln was also a racist.  So was almost every American of that day and age.  Under your definition, God is a racist because he has preferred races throughout the history of the Bible.

(4) The issue is that B.Young believed in treating them like humans.  He may have believed them to be a disadvantaged and an inferior race in the sight of God as pertaining to spiritual blessings (and there may have been scriptural support for that as well), but unlike most people of that day, he believed they were of the human race and should be treated as such.

(5) Brigham Young made many personal speculation comments that were just plain wrong.  He was human and influenced by his culture.  The important thing was that he (a) led his people righteously and according to God's will, (b) that he not let them fall astray into sin, and (c) that he act as a spokesman for God when God wills it.

(6) Joseph Smith is revered a little more highly.  He ushered in this dispensation and as such was privy to many revelations, visions, and visitations.  He once said to the other church leaders that he was privy to revelations and knowledge which, if he disclosed, would cause even those on the stand (the church leaders!) to seek to take his life.  Joseph Smith was foreordained with stewardship over this entire dispensation (whereas Brigham Young was simply the prophet of his people during that time, as our current prophet is over us and our time). Therefore, every person in this dispensation (including us) must account to him before passing on, just as Peter watches over his dispensation.

Therefore, I look to Joseph Smith as my prophet for this dispensation and the living prophet today as my prophet for my time, but Brigham Young was a prophet to his people and a prophet of our past, just as Moses and Isaiah and the others were for their people.
This message was last edited by the player at 04:56, Fri 10 Sept 2004.

If you have any questions, you can post them here.

here we go:

Heath, you said, speaking about the "golden plates":  "There were also other witnesses who actually saw and handled the plates.  You do not need to be left to his word alone.  And a rubbing and analysis of his translation were authenticated by an expert."
who was this expert? can you give me some kind of verification of this?

you said: " Each person will be judged individually according to his own understandings and limitations and given the chance to accept or reject the fullness of Christ's gospel and repent, whether in this life or in the next. " is this in conflict with what it says in the bible (old/new testament), specifically that we can receive salvation after we die? rogue, i'd be interested in your input on this.

" We do not believe in a literal hell except in one instance:  Outer Darkness, which is where Satan and his minions and a few who lived on this earth will be." who are these few? what are the conditions for being sent to outer darkness?

"We existed before being born and are in the exact position we are on earth today (whether talented, blessed, or persecuted) based in part on what we did before we came to earth. " where were we before being on earth?

there was an interesting idea that i believe you were putting out, regarding statements that church leaders made which you said were incorrect: that disinformation is a deliberate part of the spiritual selection process, to weed out those who don’t hold with the standard works.  a spiritual survival of the fittest?

 http://www.saintsalive.com/mormonism/templechanges.htm
is this correct, and do you have anything to say about it?
(note: PM me if you would like more details about what goes on in these ceremonies)

"The church has never done anything out of social pressure."
i must say i disagree with this statement. giving blacks the priesthood, the end of polygamy as a legitimate LDS practice, the changes to the temple rituals: all of these, i would say, resulted directly from social pressure.  of course, you could say that they were divine dispensation, but they happened at times when great social pressure was being exerted for them to occur.
This message was last edited by the GM at 11:25, Tue 22 Feb 2005.

It was Dr. Charles Anthon. See http://www.geocities.com/scott_norwood/AnthonC.html
Some discussion by an LDS scholar and the Biblical prophecy thereby fulfilled can be found at: http://www.bnanto.net/the_bibl...k_Elder_McConkie.htm
Basically, it is said:



I don't understand your question.  Of course every person is judged and can progress.  But "salvation" in the Bible is different from "exaltation" in the LDS church.  Many people are "saved" who are not exalted.


Only by denial of the Holy Ghost.  This is a situation where a person has been in the presence of God (i.e. a sure knowledge, so faith is irrelevant) and denounces Christ and would have crucified Christ.  We only know of one person (and I'm not sure if that's even totally accurate), and this is Cain.  I think you could probably count them on one hand.  They would be people who have done everything and taken all the covenants for exaltation and then denounced them, committed murder, and joined Satan.


We existed with God as his spirit children.  However, we were not yet matured because we did not have physical bodies.  Thus, one of the three or so primary goals of coming to earth is to gain a physical body and be tested with it.


There is no deliberate misinformation.  You misunderstand the nature of things.

All of us, whether prophets or infants, grow step by step, precept upon precept.  Prophets are human and have their human understandings.  They are not always in direct contact with God.  Instead, they are given stewardship over the church, like a pastor over his congregation.  Yes, because of this special relationship, they are privy to things which I am not.  But there is no sudden flash of light making them omniscient.  Just as any human, they work with their own understandings.  But just as any human, they are sometimes wrong in their interpretation.  That's the miracle of it.  The church grows.  It is living and learning and changing for the better all the time.  It is not for us to accept things in blind faith but instead to pray and receive confirmation by the spirit.  If the prophet is wrong, he will be accountable for his wrongness, not us.

This is why it is important to have canonized scripture and also the Holy Ghost to work in our personal lives.  As Joseph Smith says, he (the prophet) doesn't "govern" the church; he teaches correct principles and lets them govern themselves.

___

As I mentioned in a PM to you, will not discuss the details of any temple ceremonies, as it is considered sacreligious to us and a violation of our covenants with God.

Have there been changes?  Yes.  But of what importance is that?  The ceremony is symbolic in nature.  Look at baptism.  You say a few words and dunk someone under water.  But the ceremony of baptism is much more powerful than just those few words.  And different people are baptized in different ways.  Some small variations don't matter.  We grow and learn and do things better all the time.

___

</quote>
Not giving blacks the priesthood was never a part of scripture.  It was part of social practice that somehow got tied into policy.  I link to some sites above discussing this.  But remember that the prophet was very disturbed by this practice of denying them the priesthood, so he and the apostles prayed about it and received inspiration that all worthy males should be able to receive the priesthood.  Lesson:  If you don't pray about it, you don't get an answer.

Plural Marriage did not end because of social pressure.  But it did end in part because of what would happen to the people and the temples due to the use of free agency of non-Mormons seeking to destroy the practice.  So God had to weigh whether the practice would continue even though it would mean the temples would be burnt down and the brethren of the church imprisoned, or whether its purpose was enough fulfilled that it could be stopped.

It is important to note that plural marriage ended in 1890 in the US for these reasons, but it was stopped worldwide in 1905 because the purpose of the practice was fulfilled (and I think you can clearly say that 1905 had nothing to do with any kind of "pressure").  The purpose of the practice was to spread the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.  This occurs in two ways:  (1) having babies born into the church, and (2) missionary work.  Enough growth in the church through the practice occurred that its purpose was fulfilled.  Hence, it was stopped.  (By example, I would not be alive today without plural marriage because of my mother's side of the family.  There are hundreds in my family alone who would not be alive today.)

you misunderstood; i did not mean the the disinformation was deliberate on the part of the church leaders, but on the part of god.

god allows the disinformation to occur as a way of weeding out the unfaithful, and discovering who is able to follow the holy ghost and the scriptures to the fullest extent, instead of relying on fallible human leadership.
not necessarily mormon doctrine, i understand, but just an interesting idea to me.

Yeah, it came from a letter written from Bruce R. McConkey (who was not a prophet but was higher up in the church leadership) to a disenfranchised LDS professor basically starting his own doctrine.  The letter comes down to say, basically, that the understanding in the church is and always has been "A," so he should not preach "B" without authority to do so.  And that if there has been mistake on the part of church leadership, they will be accountable for that.

But he also stressed that the importance to God is that you have a personal relationship with Him through prayer and through listening to the Holy Ghost.  Therefore, why would God care if there is misinformation out there, so long as (1) you maintain the personal relationship you should have with Him, and (2) the misinformation does not impair one's salvation.  The throwing around of ideas and information is part of the growing process.  You generally learn more by thinking about things than by being told the answer.  God wants you to think, and he wants you to pray.  And he wants you to use the resources he's given you, which include:  (1) prophets and church leaders, (2) the Holy Ghost, (3) canonized scripture, (4) prayer, (5) your head and empirical knowledge, and (6) logic and reasoning...always exercising the element of faith at the same time.

Where in the Bible does it say cain denied the holy spirit?

Denial of the Holy Spirit is shown by his actions, which is why he was called Perdition, or the Son of Perdition.  Here's a bit more detailed info on how the LDS belief pertains to that:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mor...fe/perdition_eom.htm

Nagilsfarwake, just one more comment on the site you link to.  It is patently false in many respects.  For one, the "God Makers" was wrong in many areas.  We do not even discuss that sacriligious piece of work in our church.  We just shake our heads at the silliness, as though there's something secret being revealed.

Some examples, I think the "Protestant Pastor" reference refers to the fact that a Protestant was hired for the role of that part in the film.  Many non-LDS people are hired in many capacities, and many non-LDS people are in many LDS films and videos.  Another example, the women still veil their faces.  I really didn't read much beyond that; it's just plain wrong.

The temple ceremonies are sacred, not secret.  We do not "cast our pearls before swine," and what is done on holy ground is not to be passed around idly outside holy ground.

So in other words it's not in the bible, you have to look into the book of mormon to draw that conclusion.  Or at least their teachings (cause it didn't seem like the book of moses really talked about sin against the holy spirit)

No, it's not in the Book of Mormon at all.  I don't think there is any discussion about Cain in the BoM.  It is through modern revelation that I think most of those addressed.  I haven't performed the research, so I don't know if it is in the Bible, but I believe in Genesis it describes Cain as "Perdition" or a "Son of Perdition."  It may also be in other Jewish sources.  It's not something I've done a substantial amount of research on.

secret, as defined by dictionary.com:

1. Kept hidden from knowledge or view; concealed.

2. Dependably discreet.

3. Operating in a hidden or confidential manner: a secret agent.

4. Not expressed; inward: their secret thoughts.

5. Not frequented; secluded: wandered about the secret byways of Paris.

6. Known or shared only by the initiated: secret rites.

i'd say that all of these definitions would apply to the temple rituals, but especially the bolded ones. whether you call it secret or sacred, it means the same thing.

while you tell me that my sources are not reliable, every source i can find agrees. members of the church refuse to give out information about the rituals, so where am i supposed to get my information?

you say you "think" that the protestant pastor as agent of satan bit comes from the film "god makers", but none of the sources i've found even mention that film, and all of them agree on that aspect. I'm guessing that you would have firsthand knowledge of whether or not a protestant pastor was portrayed in this manner (i'm guessing you were endowed before '96), but i know that you won't tell me whether or not that is true, because you can't cast your pearls before swine. if i can't get information straight from a practicing mormon, i have to get it from former mormons and the like. and seeing as they all agree, and the mormons do not deny any allegations they make, i see no reason not to assume they are true.

I think at this point, Heath has made his statement. While that does leaves answers unaswered, we have to respect where he's willing to draw a line. To keep repeating a certain thing made known as a limit is somewhat unfair.

I'll give an analogy. Let's say I know a flaw in evolution. I know an evolutionist cannot answer it. So I keep using the same thing to put him back a stance, but he doesn't know how to respond any different from the first time.

Perhaps Heath could answer, and perhaps he is unable to answer that. He has made his stance known.

We shouldn't revert to semantics.  It is secret because it is sacred, and for the reason that Jesus said not to cast pearls before swine and to preserve the experience.  It is important to remember that the temple ceremony is an experience, not just a bunch of words and ordinances.  For example, isn't it a much better experience to watch a movie than to read the script?  To publish the ceremonies simply denigrates them from the spritual and sacred experiences they are.

I didn't say it was from the movie God Makers.  I meant it was from the film that is shown in the temple ceremony.  There are actors in the film who recreate certain things, including the Adam and Eve story.  So I think the actor might have been Protestant.

Where are you supposed to get your information?  You're not.  It doesn't really concern us that you get such information.  Of course, the way we would welcome you to get the information is if you joined the church and were later found worthy to go to the temple.  If you have wrong information or right information, that's up to you.

It's truly information that is not pertinent to you, so I don't see why you feel you need to know about it.  There are other things related to "principles" which are more pertinent.

Heath, there is somewhat of a part of that I disagree with. Nagil may not "need" to know the ceremony practice, but the knowing does help to understand where the other is coming from. Example, I was a christian for a fair legth of time now, but I have researched other faiths still. Part of the reason is to understand why someone feels a certain way, or how someone looks at life, or God.

Researching the religion has nothing to do with the sacred ceremonies practiced by the religion.  The principles of the religion are open to all; the principles don't change when you go to the temple.  There is nothing secret about that.  And the basic types of things that go on in the temples are also not secret, nor is their purpose or what they are performed for.  And anyone can go to a temple and walk through it up and until the time it is dedicated and made "Holy."  So there is not nearly so much that is secret as is made out.

Let me put it another way, rogue.  I presume you and your wife have sex, and sex is a sacred act between a man and a wife.  Do I really need to know the positions you practice or any more details?  No.  And I would not ask them because that is something sacred between you and your wife.

Likewise, temple practices are the covenants relating to our relationship with God and the eternal ordinances that are necessary.  The sacredness of the details of those ordinances do not leave the Temple walls.  Husbands and wives do not even discuss them outside of the Temple, nor do we discuss them with our church leaders.  We do not discuss them among members of the church at all.  We only discuss them within those four sacred walls.

One flaw with the analogy Heath. While we do not discuss exactly what goes on, we both know full well what goes on. More so, we can dicuss the process or understanding of it, or application of it, while not dicussing details of it.

Meaning, while what me and my wife do are private, we could discuss the procedure of romance, sexuality, etc. outside of the relationship.


In the case of discreetness, this is for the privacy of individuals. In God, there is no worship that must be private(perhaps want to be, but not a need to be private)

You are right, and temple ceremonies can also be discussed in generalities.


This I disagree with completely.  Your personal prayers, for example, are between you and God.  Your relationship with God is as private and discreet as your relationship with your wife.  The Temple is a place people go for such a personal spiritual experience.  The earth, also, is not a holy place, and God does not reside on earth.  God, however, can reside in a holy temple.  (Remember Moses and the Holy Ground issue?)  God is not stained by earthly imperfectioned, nor will he tolerate sacred ceremonies to be so tarnished either.

I don't understand generalities of ceremonies.

My personal prayers are between me and God. Meaning no one else has to know, but that doesn't mean they can't know. I could bring all my prayers to a prayer group, or to a men's group for example.  I'm not saying some people don't want privacy, but I am saying you also don't have to have privacy if you don't want to.


I agree, and believe the LDS have ceremonies that are kept private from non believers, (I'm not sure if there is more criteria than that). But there is nothing that matches it to that degree in bible believing christian beliefs.

Interesting stuff.

Under the Old Covenant, where the temple building played a major role(from Solomon's reign and onward, anyway...prior to that, of course, was the tabernacle) it would appear that the things that were done there were fairly public knowledge. Outsiders were not permitted in to all areas or allowed to fully participate, but any of them caring enough to learn to read Hebrew would have been able to ascertain what went on there, as it's pretty much detailed out for us.

Under the New Covenant, it's made fairly clear that WE, not a building, are the temple of Holy Ghost....and we are certainly called to do what we do in the light. The reason my faith is in the open and all I do can be seen by any who want to watch is that I have nothing to hide, and in fact fully believe that it is part of "letting my light shine"
This message was last edited by the player at 14:18, Wed 23 Feb 2005.

You guys are putting an awful light onto something that is not so.  It is precious and sacred and therefore kept within holy walls.  (Barnabas is partially accurate regarding Jewish practice, but the Jews did not have access to every part of the temple or ceremonies, and were forbidden from entering the Holy of Holies except in very tailored circumstances.  And how do you know they had access to everything?  If they kept sacred things within the walls of their temples, how would you know what it was?)

I don't think the analogy of "we" being the temple of the holy ghost is very applicable.  The LDS believe that we are the tabernacle of the Holy Ghost too, but where is the Holy Ghost most likely to manifest itself among the following:

(1)  When you are drunk.
(2)  When you are watching pornography.
(3)  When you are engaged in prayer during a football game.
(4)  When you are engaged in prayer in his holy, dedicated temple.

You see, there is quite a difference when you are inside a holy place than when you are at home or in an informal place, even a church.

We also do what we do in the light, so don't put a spin on things.  Just because certain ordinances are holy and sacred and not thrown before the metaphorical "swine" does not mean anything is not done in the light.  You are welcome to go to the temple and see it for yourself.  You just have to make yourself worthy to enter that holy sanctuary.

Is it "hidden," as you say, for a reason?  Yes.  As I mentioned, Jesus said not to cast your "pearls before swine."  Are you saying that you do not believe Jesus when he said that?

Instead of this shotgun approach, let me direct you to some discussion of our temples.

First, from our prophet:  http://www.lds.org/temples/pur...11298,1897-1,00.html

This is from one of our prophets:  http://www.lds.org/temples/pur...11707,2028-1,00.html

I think the most important passage (addressing the issues above) is this:



They are sacred and are thus kept confidential lest they are given to those who are unprepared.  Preparation means making oneself worthy, not mere curiosity.

Last comment is fair. I do believe Jesus. I just don't believe there are any secrets, or hidden ceremonies.

Please see above.  It is not a secret ceremony.  It is open to all who would prepare themselves and become worthy.  You could do that yourself.

Gotcha.  I didn't mean to suggest they were "secrets" in that way, just the terms going back and forth.

So God has revealed everything to you?  You know all the mysteries of the universe?  If so, please share them.  No, God holds back knowledge and makes sure only that those who are ready receive that knowledge.  This is different from being "secret" in the connotation you guys are using.

Does Satan know everything that is happening in heaven?  Can he read God's mind?  No, these are kept from him.  God keeps sacred things secret except from those who are ready and prepared to hear them.

Out of context.  I was referring to what I do in, or outside of church, service, prayer, worship, etc.  None of that is specifically hidden from other christians. Or for that matter, non christians either. I openly pray at work, restaurants, malls, etc. And no, I don't work in a church, or christian workplace.

The word "perdition" isn't found in the genesis four account of cain and able.  The website you quoted mentioned moses 4 (book of mormon right?) where it talks about perdition and cain.

On the temple cerimonies, Barabus does have a point that when Jesus Died, for example the temple sheet was ripped in two signifying that people now didn't need any mediator to God but Jesus anymore.  But even then, people that could read hebrew could look into the law and find out what was done in the holy of holies, which only one person in all of the nation once a year could go to.

I for one felt a little excluded that I wasn't allowed to go to my friend's wedding who got married in the mormon temple.
This message was last edited by the player at 06:15, Wed 23 Feb 2005.

We do the same things.  All done in the open.  But that doesn't mean that we don't also pray in secret and have a personal relationship with God that is not open to the world, nor that we should let just anyone trample through our temples.

To refer back to a previous thread, we discussed the development of the existence of "heaven" versus "hell" and how the current idea of "hell" was brought about through the early Christian church in order to keep followers in check because they just didn't understand and would have strayed without the "fear" of hellfire and damnation.  This was called the Doctrine of Reserve.  In a similar matter, God reserves knowledge and guidance until we are ready.  Thus, anyone who is ready and "prepared" is welcome to go to the temple and enjoy all it has to offer.  It is not closed to any man or woman except those who have not prepared themselves.

what do you have to do to be prepared?

First, you have to be a member of the church.  Usually, at least a year must pass after you join the church before you can attend...as a precautionary measure, I think.  Then, if you have been worthy to your baptismal covenants and have prepared yourself spiritually, you have an interview with the Bishop (the leader of the congregation) and then an interview with the Stake President (the leader of the bishops in that general area).  Then they give you a "Temple Recommend" which you show to the patrons at the Temple for entrance.  You renew the recommend when it expires by the same interview system.

don't see anything like that in the New Convenant....for that matter, in the Old either. The reason I find it difficult to believe that there may have been secret ordinances in the Holy of holies is because Scripture already details how the Holy of Holies was to be handled. Even if there were, the veil seperating people from the Holy of Holies was torn in two from the top, indicating that the way into the presence of god is open to "Whosoever will"

That is suggestive of a slightly different view of things. Example, I believe the thief on the cross beside Jesus went to heaven after just speaking of Jesus being the savior, and him needing forgiveness.  I know you don't believe the thief went to heaven that very night, but a sort of limbo instead.

But regardless of beliefs of what really happened to the thief, I have a question. Does that mean a new member of the church will not be allowed into the sacred ceremonies for possibly a year? Would that means less salvation, or a lesser place in salvation. (I think you have stated a level system for salvation, where there are servants, and "exalted" which are gods in heaven). I had a lot of info there, so I'll try and sum up the question. Does that mean that process may prevent someone from reaching a higher salvation because they are not allowed to participate in everything of your church?

No one will be prevented.  But it is a growing process.  Before final judgment, every person will have the chance to receive all the ordinances and accept or reject them in full.  Simply speaking, if you are not ready, you cannot receive the higher law, yet everyone will have the chance to prepare themselves and partake of the fullness before they receive judgment.

To answer your other question, members of the church have received baptism.  To receive the higher ordinances, they then have to prepare themselves spiritually and cleanse their lives enough to receive them.  So the answer is "no," not all members of the church are worthy to go to the temple.  But they will all have the chance before they are judged.

ok. That clears up a pretty large question.

I think you misunderstand LDS beliefs.  The Law of Moses was superceded by the Law of Mercy provided by Christ.  The LDS church received a higher law, the Law of Sacrifice, which helps us take one step closer to becoming like our Heavenly Father.  Then when Christ returns again, he will bring with him the Law of Conseecration, which is the highest law of God's kingdom.  So even now, we do not have everything.  We simply are not prepared to receive all sacredness.

By analogy, the Catholic church has many secrets and documents in the Vatican that it will not release to the public eye.  Remember also the Law of Reserve I spoke about.  I don't blame them for not releasing their most sacred documents to the scrutiny of the world.  I commend them for standing their ground despite the criticism.

The Protestant churches are, of course, different.  They do not claim to receive revelation and instead splintered off since the declaration of Martin Luther, each group or demonination putting forth its own (human) interpretation of what the Bible means.  So of course there is nothing too sacred there to reveal since it is all interpretation of existing scripture.  In part, the Protestant churches are about "openness" because they want to interpret the scriptures, and to do so requires that openness.  But that doesn't meant that God reveals everything.  There are pearls that he reserves until we are ready.

I wasn't really satisfied with my answers above.  It is one thing to intuitively know something by experience, but another thing to explain it clearly.  So I found a couple of explanations about the secret/sacred nature of the LDS temple ceremonies and also describing the similar secret/sacred ceremonies in the early Christian church (addressing also Rogue's questions above):

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS...actices.shtml#secret

Here is also a good discussion about the masonry issues that nagilsfarwake brought up:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_masons.shtml
This message was last edited by the player at 00:28, Sun 27 Feb 2005.

Aha, I found it.  It's quite a long discussion, so I'll read through, Heath, and see if I have any questions afterward.

Quix

Heath, can you give me an explanation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and how they are related?

I understand from reading previous posts and the website you linked that the Father is the only one you worship, but that all three are said to be members of the 'godhead'.  That the Father is God, while the Son is an exalted man fathered by God.

Can you provide a more detailed description of how these three are related, yet not trinitarian?  Is the 'godhead' an office that they share?  If the Father was once mortal and became God who created this world, and the Son is fathered by Him, where did the Holy Spirit come from?  Why didn't the Son, after his exaltation, go on to create another world and be the Father of that world?

Thanks,
Quix

LDS View:  They are three distinct beings with distinct missions but are one in purpose.  The Holy Ghost is a spirit brother to us, with a distinct mission.  After Jesus' millenial reign, he will gain a body and go on to exaltation.  So Jesus and the Holy Ghost are our spirit brothers, and God is their spirit father (and half physical father to Jesus).

Trinitarian View:  They are one being with three distinct aspects.  This was the position championed by Origin.

Jesus will return for his millenial rule of the earth.  He is King of Kings and will become the "god" of this earth, just as God the Father is over Kolob.  So you might call earth his "throne" in a sense.  The earth will receive its paradisical glory and become a celestial kingdom ("heaven").  So Jesus still has work to do here.  Although I don't have any personal knowledge about whether he has gone on to create other worlds or not.  :)

I'm sorry if you already discussed this, but who or what (or where) is 'Kolob'?

The "planet" where God the Father lives.

Didn't check the accuracy of this, and it is Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob

Bet you didn't know the Battlestar Galactica trivia linked to Kolob...
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:15, Mon 06 Mar 2006.

Thanks for the answer.

The Holy Spirit, though, couldn't have been human, because He has no body, right?  So where did the Holy Spirit come from?  Is He an altogether different order of being, like angels?

Quix

None of us had bodies before we came to earth, but we were still children of God.  The Holy Ghost is in that state...i.e. a spirit child of God that will, at the end of his mission, get a body just like the rest of us.

Angels are the same...spirits.  Some are humans that have passed on and return, perhaps in resurrected form.  Others have not yet been born.

Here's from the LDS source about the Holy Ghost:  http://scriptures.lds.org/bdh/hlyghst
And from a non-official source:
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc14.html

Fascinating.

Since the Holy Spirit and Son were present at the creation of this world, they must have spent time prior to that somewhere "progressing" to the point of divinity, right?

We exist before we are born.  Is there a point at which we are created?  Or does everyone stretch backward in time eternally?

We were all present at the creation of this world and all progressed in our premortal existence.  That is why 1/3 of the host of heaven could choose to follow Satan, which stunted their progression (i.e. they will never get bodies).  We, however, all chose to progress further and thus come to earth to receive bodies and be tested, which is the next stage in our progression.  Our valiance in premortal existence affects many things related to our place on earth; we are put where we can do the most good for God's plan and progress the most based on our individual levels.

As to whether we existed eternally, we believe that we existed eternally (i.e. were not "created" by God), but that we are spirit children of God, which elevated our level of progression (just as being born to parents on earth elevated our level of progression from insubstantial spirits).  It is, of course, impossible for us to really comprehend what this eternal existence things means, or what stages we may have passed through.  I've read a couple articles about it but don't have any at hand right now.

I moved back over here, since this discussion is specifically including your other sources of scripture, it didn't seem to belong under the "Bible" thread.



Helpful.

I see no direct contradiction of my beliefs in articles 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13.  So I'm in about 60% agreement :-)  I guess I overstated with the 90%.

Of course, within that, I have partial agreement with some of the others, so the percentage should actually be higher.

I write this with a smile, as I realize a percentage of agreed upon articles of faith is fairly meaningless.

So, for a start, what leads the LDS to discard the doctrine of original sin?

Quix

Adam sinned (or I should say "transgressed") in order to bring about God's plan...to multiply and replenish the earth.  Man is naturally carnal and base in nature...as an animal...but with a divine nature if he overcomes it.  So to say that we are punished for another's actions is not really consistent with justice.  We are not "punished" because of Adam's sin; instead, we exist because of it.  Sure, we have to come down to an imperfect earth with all the other problems of life, but original sin bears with it the idea that we receive some sort of eternal punishment for someone else's sin.  I think that's the idea that's rejected.

Original sin is primarily a modern day Christian phenomena, and was not present in ancient Judaism.  Even Mosaic law proclaimed that the children are not to be punished for the sins of the fathers.

Here's a decent explanation:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...of_Latter-day_Saints

So let me make sure I'm understanding.

Adam and Eve sinned, which brought about spiritual death, seperation from God.

Their descendants automatically suffer spiritual death, seperation from God, but they are not punished for Adam and Eve's sin, only their own.  Jesus Christ's sacrifice was to repair the breech between man and God, therefore giving us spiritual life, reuniting us with God.

Is this an accurate summary?

Quix

Well, first, I would say they transgressed.  Remember what God said, that they should not partake of the fruit, for when they did, they would surely die.  Eve realized that there was another commandment, "Go forth and multiply," which could not be done in the Garden.  So they had to transgress one law or the other.  She rightly realized that partaking of the fruit was necessary...indeed, death would be necessary...to bring about God's plan.

So it brought about their "spiritual" separation from God and the difficulties of life so they could appreciate good from evil and be more like God, as well as to have children and multiply and replenish the earth.

I didn't use the phrase spiritual death.  Adam and Eve were pure and dwelt in the presence of God.  However, they had to leave that presence to truly distinguish and understand between good and evil, as we all do.  It's not really a punishment, per se, but an essential part of our spiritual progression.  So I wouldn't call it "spiritual death" except to the point where that equates to simply separating temporarily (or permanently) from God's presence.

His sacrifice allowed for us to repent and for him to take upon himself our sins.  Thus, as we begin to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, temptation and our carnal selves naturally choose evil sometimes.  So the gulf of sin makes it impossible for us to return to God.  Jesus is the mediator between us and takes upon himself our sins through the atonement.  He is basically the bridge over the gulf of our sins.  I don't equate it directly with Adam and Eve, but instead as part of his relationship to us personally.

A few questions for clarification...

Disobeying a commandment isn't necessarily a sin, but it is a transgression?  Can you tell me what the difference is between the two?

They couldn't leave the garden unless they had transgressed?  Or they couldn't leave the garden unless they ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil?

Is this the only time that God gave two commands that are impossible to both obey?  Or do others of Gods commands create catch-22's?



I see.  So are each of us then faced with that same dilemna?  Can we choose to not eat of Good and Evil?

I think I'm beginning to see a distinction between redemption and glory.  I'm using these terms because the word "salvation" has gotten us into some trouble before ;-)

I'm using redemption to mean the repairing of the breach between us and God.  I'm using glory to mean the "exalting" of us to a status beyond our current mortal ones.  As far as I can tell, the LDS belief is that the sacrifice of Jesus was required to redeem us, and once we have received that by believing in him, our good works and the temple rituals are needed to glorify us.  Does this make sense, and is it reasonably accurate?

Quix

I actually went into a deep discussion about this a year or so ago.  Maybe it's on the "sin" thread, but there are several different terms with different technical meanings.

They were sent from the "garden" --God's presence-- once they partook of the "fruit."  The transgression was a necessary step to get to that point, but not itself the cause.

Thou shalt not kill.  Go forth and destroy the [insert person/group, such as Goliath].  It is up to us to use common sense in applying things, even if that means choosing the lesser of two evils.


Yes.

We have an additional account in our canonized scripture about Adam and Eve too:
http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/3


We choose right or wrong, but we are all imperfect and sin.


Fairly close.  A long time ago I made a distinction which I called the three principles of rightness.  And that is that, in choosing a religion, you must look at the accuracy of three things:  truth, action, and ordinance.  Truths can sometimes be wrong because mortality is struggling with finding truth and God's church is administered by men.  A church should also teach correct action so that we choose good over evil.

And it should have the proper ordinances ("saving ordinances"), such as baptism.  This last is performed by priesthood power according to the dictates of God as part of the necessary progression...for example, baptism to partake of the atonement of Christ, endowments to give God the proper covenants to enter his kingdom, and eternal marriage, so that we can procreate and populate the universe.  All of these are required to become more like God.

It is this last thing that many churches do not have in full...or without proper authority, though many have proper truths and teach correct actions.  It is also this last thing which Jesus restored in full in his 40 day ministry, once he held all the keys of the priesthood.

So in essence, we must try our best, be meek and penitent, and try to progress as much as possible, while also partaking in the proper saving ordinances.  Then, through the grace of Christ, we can possibly be exalted and washed clean.  (But the process of exaltation is not made clear, even in the church.  The focus is on repenting and doing the best we can to follow Jesus because we all fall short there and require that mercy to overcome the justice awaiting us for our sins.)

All right, the picture is definitely getting clearer.

Adam and Eve transgressed, which made it possible for them to sin, as well as making it possible for all of their descendants to sin, right?  Since we all have the possibility to sin, we do.

So it was Adam and Eve's transgression that makes it necessary for us to have Christ to wash away our sins, even though it's not by direct impartation of guilt from their transgression.

Correct?

Quix

That's kind of like saying:  our parents had sex, which made it possible for us to sin, which makes it necessary to have Christ in our lives.  One does necessarily follow the other, for we cannot sin if we are never born...

But Adam and Eve's departure from the Garden was in order for mankind to exist, not in order for sin to enter the world...that is Satan's domain, and he was given temporary leave to inundate the world with sin.

An LDS scripture reads:  "Adam fell that man might be; and men are that they might have joy."  So it is really about obeying the commandment to go forth and multiply, not about having sin or Christ.  That's just a natural byproduct.

I'll take that as an answer of "yes" to my question that God does make contrary commands that force us into catch-22's.

As for your specific example, these two commands are not at all contradictory.  According to ancient Jewish culture, the commandment would be better translated "Though shalt not commit murder."  The word translated there as "kill" is never used in the context of war or sacrifice.  It also only applies to humans.  (Just for a bit of context, I am very much anti-war in the natural.  I would rather that the commandment was "though shalt not kill" in the broader sense, but that doesn't seem to be true.)

Quixotic
This message was last edited by the player at 21:09, Wed 15 Mar 2006.

You're right.  I just mentioned the first thing that popped into my head.

But ultimately, there is just one commandment:  "Do what is right."  All these other "commandments" we get are just meant to give us direction to lead us there.  So "doing what is right" for Adam and Eve meant transgressing and taking of the fruit in order to do what is right for mankind.  In other words, they made a personal sacrifice of leaving God's presence in order for mankind to exist.  What can be more "right" than that?  The commandment from God there was to protect them, not to restrain them.

So they could make the self-sacrifice, just as Christ did, for a higher purpose.  Christ himself broke many Jewish laws and talked about if the "ox is in the mire" and similar things to show that the spirit of the laws is more important than the letter of the laws.

Just to clarify, you can enter the temple at the age of 12 so long as you're a member and have been found worthy (through an interview with the Bishop and Stake Pres.), but at that time you can only participate in the ordinance of Baptism for the Dead. This does not require a full year of membership. I was able to participate in this ordinance shortly after becoming a member.

All the other Ordinances do require a full year of membership before you can participate.


While I'm not 100% sure, I believe the first interview has to be done by a Stake Pres. and Bishop, while a renewal of your recommend can be done by the Bishop and any member of the Stake Presidency.

Hence, the "usually" in my phrasing.  Baptisms for the dead go much faster so are not quite the typical or most common ordinance we think of, since there are many more that go on inside.  Also, even the 1 year requirement is not set in stone for other ordinances.  Ultimately, it is a determination by those with the authority to issue the Temple Recommend.

As an aside, I notice Jason's sig is that he's a 'latter day saint'.  Is that what members of the LDS Church seriously call themselves?  I mean, do you have Catholics, Protestants and Saints?

As an aside, some LDSers came by and I sto... err...  obtained a copy of the Book of Mormon which I intend to *eventually* read through.  Is there anything I should keep in mind while reading or handling this book?  Will it be happy stacked between Lolita and 'The Best of Dreams of Decadence' sitting on my liquor cabinet?  I don't want any trouble like when I had the Malleus Maledicturm and Church of Satan pdfs on my had drive.

The Church was originally called the Church of Christ, but there were so many of them that it had to be distinguished, so it was called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints because we aspire to be like saints (not because we think we are or anything -- far from it).  The moniker "LDS" is getting less attention these days because the Church wants to stress that first and foremost it is the Church of Jesus Christ.

Make sure you read the introduction about how it came to be.  You will probably be surprised to find that you probably agree in principle with about 99% of what's said in there.  These so called controversial topics we discuss really don't surface in that book at all.

Indeed. I wasn't trying to contradict or anything. Just giving a bit more info on the subject.

But are the adherents to the religion really called 'Saints'?  I've been saying LDSer, although I know the common moniker is simply 'mormon'.

Seriously though, not having a good adjetive to describe your group makes conversation a bit unwieldly at times!

I use the term "Latter-Day Saint" in the same manner you might call yourself a "Baptist" or a "Catholic", it's to say what church I belong to.

Generally, I shortened to just saying, "I'm LDS."

Quite a few people don't know what that means right off hand though, so when speaking to those that aren't likely to know by saying, "I'm LDS. (queue questioning look) We're also called mormons."

I don't mind being called a "mormon" though, so feel free to use it when talking to me. I'd rather you call me LDS, but if you'd rather stick to mormon, it's not going to bother me in the least.

LDS by itself works just fine, it doesn't need to be extended to LDSer. It can be both singular (Saint) and plural (Saints), and we'll know who you're talking about anyway. ;)

Yeah, "LDSer" is not something I've ever heard; that's your creation, katisara.  :)

Latter Day Saint or member of the LDS church is the most common.  For example, you would say, "I am LDS.  You are LDS" etc.  Although we have been counseled against it, we also say Mormon if we need to so that people at least know what we're talking about.

Being a bit older, I grew up with "Mormon," until they suggested not to use it anymore.

I've been doing some more reading on Joseph Campbell and a comparison he made between Eastern and Western religion (and why both are losing relevance to today's world).  I noticed one particular note which I thought was interesting given what I'd learned here.

He brought up that in Occidental mythology, we find an ongoing conflict and distance between God, man and nature.  God created nature, but nature is something for man to control and use (according to Genesis) and not in itself sacred, certainly not something to be venerated or worshipped.  Nature is important in that God made it and in that we need to live off of it for the time being.  Man is above nature because he has part of God in him, the spiritual.  However Man also is not OF God, but a distinct nature, a distinct creature who will eventually live with, but not be part of God.  When Rogue goes to heaven, he will still be Rogue, who happens to have a nice house near God's throne.  Rogue will never be God, be part of God, or be a god himself (by his own understandings).  Man has rebelled against God and thereby fallen (which has led to original sin).  And of course, man is constantly struggling to make his living out of the earth, competing against nature (the pronouncement that God makes before A&E leave the garden).

However, as I was reading, I kept thinking back to what you've said here.  I'm trying to fine tune my understandings of the LDS theology on the relation between man and God.  I understand that all men are supposed to BECOME gods by their own right.  However, what is their relationship with the existing God?  Are men part of God, as Jesus said "I and the Father are one"?  Or are we only descendants of and ultimately to be equals to God?

(Sorry for my verbose explanation earlier.  A lot of it may come into play later as I ponder things.)

If God is Omniscient, and omnipotent, that means that he is All seeing and allpowerful right? To me this equates to the fact that he is not only the creator of everything, but is in fact everything. As in, it is his will that propells all things in exsistence towards the end. And by the end, I mean the end of all things we know.

So, to think that nature is not sacred, is to me, sacrilage. All things in life are of God, and so should be treated with respect. To think that man is the master of nature, or even A master of nature is a sure road to destruction. In all our might and glory, we are but a spec to the awesome power of nature. As it would be but a spec to the creator. I'm not saying that nature should be worshiped, but it should be respected as not only a creation of Gods, but as Gods gift and bounty unto mankind.

Just another question, is it true that LDS faith believes that you will become a god of your own world apon death? If you live accordingly of course, but that is the long and skinny of it?
This message was last edited by the player at 15:11, Thu 13 Apr 2006.

This is a bit of a conflict in our texts.  Yes, God is omnipresent.  At the same time, He is a distinct entity.  We can say God is within each of us, but we cannot say God *IS* each of us (or the reverse, each of us is God).  That's a mark of gnosticism, and is considered heresey by most branches of Christianity.  I am katisara.  I am not God.  God is in me, God talks to me (perhaps), I am part of the body of God (figuratively, not literally), but I am NOT God.  When I kill an ant, I am not killing God.  When I pick my nose and wipe it on my neighbor, I am not wiping God on God.  God is distinct from all this.  God has His own body, His own place to live, His own voice, and none of it has much to do with boogers.

That belief in general is very common in the Oriental view, however (I'm still drawing off of Campbell here).  In Taoism and Buddhism it's pretty clear.  We *ARE* God (and we are not God).  Buddha consciousness is this realization.  However, the second step of this realization is the 'fact' that we are part of God (whatever that is), however our ego, the 'me' that you and I know, all my memories and values, will pass away.  I, as I know myself, am only a temporary manifestation of the energy of God.

In Occidental views, if I die, my ego (my awareness, identity, what-have-you), passes into the afterlife and remains distinct, self-aware, and not part of God.  In the Oriental view, if I die, my ego disappears and the basic matter and energy that I am composed of rejoins God which can be seen also as the natural processes of the universe.  I am a 'dew drop on the sea', part of everything and, for all intents and purposes, no longer me.



I didn't say nature shouldn't be respected, just that it isn't sacred.  It is not part of God.  God is in nature LESS than it is in me (because I have a soul and am in the image of God).  When I die, I go to heaven.  When nature dies, it just dies.  We are still distinct (and threatened by) nature, which is distinct (and will be destroyed by) God.

I beg to differ. When I say that God is everything, that doesn't mean that God is any one thing, but rather, he is a part of everything, or rather, everything is a part of Him. So, in killing an ant, one is not killing God, but rather what has been killed, was part of god. God is everything. Not everythng is God. Do you catch what I'm saying here? I do not think that I am God, or that I will become God ever, but rather what I am and do and will become is of God. I feel that God is the force behind all things. His touch can be fealt in gravity, time, life and awarreness. In everything.

I have always felt that the attempts to defigning what God is, is somewhat redunteant because we do not have it within our capabilities to understand fully such things. Just like we cannot fathom the entirety of eternity.

If God is everything, then is God hell?  Wouldn't that imply that part of God is in hell (which is oftentimes defined as 'apart from God')?  And why does God seem to have an ego, a self-identity?  Isn't a self-identity how one differentiates oneself from what is not part of oneself?  Why does God appear to people, if He is already in people?  For instance, why did God come down as a burning bush and specify that land is holy when God was already in Moses and ALL land is holy?

I understand what you are saying, but my point is that that is a specific contradiction in the bible.  Many Christians say 'God is everything', 'God is Transcendent', 'God is Yahweh', 'God is this historical character we see in the bible', 'God is in me', 'God speaks to me', etc.  Yet these are all very different definitions, and they are largely contradictory.  If God is transcendent, then God should not have a distinct personality as we see in the bible.

I was expecting those exact replies to my statement. I don't belive that the bible is the only place where we can learn about what is God. I also don't think that what it has to say is the absolute truth either.

That said. No, in saying God is everything, I am not saying that God is Hell. Heaven and Hell are possibly mans creation in my opionion. Same with all of the manifestations of God throughout history, are our way of seeing and interpretting them. All of the things that you give as reasons for why God can't be everything, are only points of view. Gods Ego is perhaps the Ego we percive him to have. God appears to people because, though we are of God, we are not God, and thusly can not see into his plan. And I mean, even concepts such as 'His plan' or '
What God wants' are merely our own interpretation of what actually is. We are talking about a Being that klnows everything. That means, at the moment he decided to create Earth in all its wonder, he knew what would happen to his children. Ie, Adam and Eve, Jesus, WWII and everything.

I see it where his presence is our exsistance. His will, which is reality, is of him, part of his living presence. We must not confine God to our understanding or rather, ability to comprehend, his exsistance.

When I say how I see things, or my idea of, understand that I am still coming to  these realizations. As in, much of what I am saying is the first time I have taken my idea's and put them to paper...er...post. Whatever. I am not saying in any way that what I say is what I actually know or anything. Its all idea's and possibilties.

It sounds then that you aren't saying the 'Christian' view is what you are describing, simply your view.  That's fine, and I'd enjoy the chance to poke and prod it (probably in another thread), but it doesn't relate to my original statements except to say that you personally disagree with the version of Christianity described.

Perhaps this should be moved to another discussion so we can keep this one clearly dedicated to the LDS theology?  I'm not sure which thread would be most appropriate, probably the one on the nature of God.

Thanks for the laugh, Katisara.  That was very funny.

Christian's do seem to have a communion with God to look forward to that far transcends our ability to relate to each other now.  You're right, the bible never says we will be God, but the relationship depicted in the bible is mind-blowing in its sense of unity with Him.

I thought it was interesting that you mentioned a people losing interest in Western religion related to our not becoming God.  There is an increased dislike of authority, and expectation that we can become whatever we want.  How does that go with eternity submitted to God, with no possibility of advancement to 'the top' so to speak?

It's interesting to note that a desire to become equal with God was what got Lucifer cast out of Heaven.

Quixotic

Actually, the answer to that completely depends on who you ask.  One tradition (I've forgotten which) felt Lucifer was sent to hell because he loved God too much; he couldn't worship any creature less than God (this, of course, is referring to man).  So while the other angels worshipped man, Lucifer decided to suffer in his love, apart from God.

Wow, I've never heard that one before.  I wasn't aware angels were required to worship men.  In fact, that seems pretty contradictory to the bible, since angels repeatedly tell men not to worship them, because they are fellow servants of God (which would imply the reverse would also be forbidden).

I believe the depiction of Lucifer's fall would be in Ezekiel's prophecy about the prince of Tyrus, which Jesus quoted about Satan.

Quixotic

Actually, as children of God, we have the potential to be like Him, and therefore his greatest gift to us is to show us how to be like him and help us on the way.  You're not "supposed" to become anything necessarily; it's just that your own inner nature probably pushes you to reach your highest potential, and God, as any loving parent, helps us along the way.

The colloquial meaning behind what Jesus said is that they are one in purpose.  It is the same Biblical usage as husband and wife being "one."  They are not one person, but two distinct beings with the same ultimate goals.  We are the same, individual beings who have been pushed along in our existence by becoming children of God.  We existed before becoming God's children, and we will exist continually regardless of any outside influences or acts on our part.

When you say descendants, I can only go back to the children of God analogy.  We believe that quite literally, and therefore can progress as any child progresses to be more like our mature parents.

On the other discussion:
For the LDS perspective, God is a distinct being.  The earth and universe were "organized," not created (which is also consistent with the Biblical wording).  God also did not create us from scratch.  He took us as intelligences and formed us into children of God.

So we would not say God is in all nature anymore than we would say Rembrandt is in a Rembrandt painting.  He did not create the matter; he organized a masterpiece from what was there.  So it is with God, the universe, and us.

Also, where does the idea of omnipresence come from?  I think that is a Catholic concept dating back to about the time of Origen explaining the Trinity, but I'm not positive.  We don't use that term in our church.

Heath - alright, well that stops my other questions before they started :P  Thank you for the clarifications.

Omnipresence certainly appears in many apocryphal texts (such as the Gospel of Thomas, although not with that word precisely).  I think a lot of it may be a recent occurence rather than an actual church teaching, along the same lines Nerdicus explained.  God sees, knows and created everything, so in a way he is in everything.  Especially with the introduction of Eastern ideas of transcendence, this line of thought has gained a lot of popularity (it's one that I personally find fascinating).

Quix - that idea is apparently held by the branch of Islam known as Sufism.  You can read up on it (in brief) at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_angel  (just ctrl-f sufism).

Bump for Deg

Deg and I are having a private conversation about the LDS idea of heaven and the degrees of glory.  Since there are other LDS members here, I thought I'd bring this out of PM.

Deg, Here are a couple of articles.  Take them with a grain of salt, as neither is espoused as official church doctrine:

http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20112.html
http://fairwiki.org/index.php/...en_kingdoms_of_glory

More about the degrees of glory:

http://www.mormonfortress.com/degrees5.html
http://www.lightplanet.com/res...answers/3heavens.htm

I thought this might also be helpful:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml

This is in response to your issues about non-LDS people after death:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gat...;f=templates&2.0

Here's another one with a good graph comparison:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mor...e/qa/heaven_only.htm

Here's about eternal marriage:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mor...eternal_marriage.htm

Thank you very much Heath, I'll take the time to read the articles... I'll get back to you later. Thanks.

I've read up on all the articles.

My problem is that my personal view was shattered when someone I respect a lot in the church presented me with a more restritive views of exaltation than what I personally believed.

I have many dear and excellent Christian friends, who may very well indeed live a more Christlike life than I am. Although, they are blinded by satan and the world and have not come to accept the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and hence not receiving the only true ordinances of salvation.

Therefore, will my friends not have an equal opportunity to achieve exaltation? We  know that the telestial and terrestial glories are a reward in itself, but they are in a sense lower glories. Don't we all want the highest glory? Even the celestial kingdom in itself is short if our goal is to achieve exaltation through the merits and mercy of our Savior and recieve all that the father haths and become as "God is".

Will their opportunity in the spirit world bring them the same opportunities as us?

I personally believe that our Heavenly father will provide everyone with a fair chance of reaching exaltation. Granted many will fall short of the highest glory, but many are striving for that highest glory within their own religions.

It is so relative to consider what is having an honest chance of accepting the gospel here on earth. My family for example have heard the missionary discussions, but the timing and the delivery of the message may have not been right. Could they not have a better chance of accepting the gospel in the spirit world?

In any case, if they are find worthy of the terrestial kingdom they will live eternally in the terrestial kingdom. Will there be no progression within glories?

Apparently there will be not, which saddens me. It is saddening to think how many spirit children will miss out on the highest salvation "exaltation". It is heartining to know that there is a reward, but can't we all enjoy eternal progression? Can't we all one day become like "God is"?

My problem is that there are a list of people that I'm very much interested in sharing the exalted glory, but they will probably miss out because of exclusive laws or views -- and I can't seem to bring myself together on that fact.

I know the church is true, and I have testimony by the Holy Ghost that the LDS church is the restored church of Jesus Christ on earth. I just wish there was more inclusive views and hope for everybody. Indeed I believe the LDS church offers much more hope for salvation than mainstream Christianity, but still it doesn't feel enough.

I guess I must bring myself to accept the fact that my family may not reach the highest kingdoms in heaven, and that there may not be much that I can do about it.

Deg, I think the answer is simpler than you may think.

1 - God's work and glory is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man (just like any parent wants the best for their children).  He wants us all to receive exaltation, and if we don't, it will be because of us (our choices and our desire) and not Him.

2 - There is cause and effect.  There are eternal laws by which a man must pass in order to receive exaltation.  We all have a chance to hear and accept or reject them.  You don't have to get baptised, etc.  God will give every person every chance possible to hear and accept the Gospel and get over those actions which have taken them in the wrong direction.

3 - Each person, when fully understanding everything, will feel he has been treated fairly and justly--because he will have been.  No one will feel slighted or betrayed by God.

4 - The road to exaltation is a road to one's greatest joy and fulfillment.  Not everyone wants that, as they are sometimes happy with less.  Take animals, for instance.  Animals will fully realize their greatest potential (or as we say, "fulfill the measure of their creation"), but will they be upset that they are not like God?  People also want to be around others like them, and if they can't or don't want to conform their behaviors as exaltation requires, then they will be happier somewhere else.  No unworthy or unwilling person would ever be happy with exaltation.  We all go where we will be happiest.

So I don't think you should put your effort on wondering if they will have the opportunities to fully accept the Gospel, but instead on helping them change their desires so that they will want to go down that path.

The most difficult thing is that we are only on earth once, so there is only one chance to be put through the refiner's fire.  That is why it is so important to learn everything we can right here and now and conform our behavior accordingly.

I can understand that some people will be content with a lower glory for all eternity, but what if someone realizes in eternity and says... "Hey I'm missing out. I want to progress now... oh but wait a minute. I'm damned myself for all eternity with no way to progress." The question is, is that fair?

Take king David who committed adultery and ended plotting the death of Urias. He is condemned to a lesser glory and will miss out on exaltation. Or take your kind neighbor that kindly rejected the gospel while on this earth and maybe even the next. When the final judgement is passed, is that it? This is your glory for all time and eternity? What happen with eternal progression?

Can he not repent some zillion years in the future and say... I want to repent now, I want a higher glory... I want to become like you dad (heavenly father), can I not partake of your heritance and become one with thy and Christ? Or must I be happy with the terrestial glory for all eternity.

I know we can not be responsable for other people's action or eternal welfare or happiness. We care enough to point out the right way, sometimes with intolerance or respect for other people point of views... "Okay, then you will end up in hell then!". I know we don't say that, but we say okay if you want a lesser glory I guess it's fine for you.

If I had it my way, I would be look... you're better off following this path (god's commandments), but if you don't want it... you can partake of it whenever you want to. God will always be waiting for you, no matter what.

It might take some spirits only an instant to turn their hearts over to the lord, but it could take other a million years or so before they turn over their hearts to the Lord, but the problem is that there is a time when it becomes eternally to late, and hence you lose or this is your eternal reward... sorry but there are no refunds and no retry's.

Am I wrong to desire that everyone be participant of "exaltation". Even if it take them an eternity to do so?

Wouldn't happen, so not a valid question.  Even if it did happen, a fair God would allow such progression.

By the same token, you could say, "What if the Devil changed his mind and wanted to be good?"  It won't happen.  When you get entrenched at a certain spot, you stay there.  So the lack of progression isn't because God says it is so but because that's how it naturally occurs with us.


That's not it.  To be honest, you are treading on deep doctrine for which the writings of some of the prophets said there could be progression, even for someone like David.  The point is you need to keep an open mind about how far you take the interpretation of scripture.  Scriptures don't give us every possibility.  They are there to steer us in the right direction for our own good, not for our philosophizing about this, that or the other.


Could, yes, but will he is the question.


Point is what they "want."  If they don't want more, why would they get more?


But sin accumulates.  It forges you.  So, for example, once you cut off your finger, it's gone.  So does sin cut off parts of the soul.  At some point -- judgment? -- it becomes more fixed so that it is much harder to partake of Christ's mercy.


You are not wrong in that.  God wants the same thing.  Problem is, they must choose it themselves.  We all have free agency.

Just to clarify.  What I meant by getting into deep doctrine was that it gets into the area of personal speculation for which we do not have clear and set boundaries on what is or is not.  So all we could say is that if it is fair and good, then God would do it.  If it is not fair, then God wouldn't do it.  For us to presume to know specifically what he would or wouldn't do for any one case is beyond our ability to speculate with accuracy.

Well, if its a subject of personal intepretation then I choose to believe that anyone that wants to progress will have the opportunity to do so.

I do agree that sin shapes you, and unless you cling on to the savior you will never be able to escape the effects of sin. Through his atonement one is able to cleanse oneself from sin, and even to point of regeneration of lost members.

Christ healings takes away even scars, and God has the power to help a soul progress eternally. I want the best for everyone, and I hope that there is progression between glories for all mankind, but it is not for me to say or even preach.

So it becomes a problem when in church you can't risk to share your personal views, because they are not doctrine and other people may interpret them as so. However, when you teaching in sunday school how can you tell people look if you don't behave you will end up in this glory without any hopes of ever progressing beyond that?

So shape up or shape out. Your choice.

I bite my tongue in church meetings.  It is not really the place for philosophizing, but instead for feeling the spirit and making your own life better.

It is typically stated that one cannot progress between glories, but there was something hinted at (I think by Joseph Smith) that it may actually be possible, but not easy.

I think the point is that the longer you take to turn yourself around, the harder it will be to do so.

I agree, the whole point is to inspire ourselves and others to do the best we can do and not procrastinate. Saying outloud that there is progression between glories gives people the impression that they can relax and it doesn't really matter how much you progress because you have an eternity to do so.

Let's just make the most out of our lives as we can, since these are the days of are probation, the rest can be for eternal progression. Thank you for philosophizing with me Heath, since I/We can't do that in church.

You can.  They'll just think you're weird.  And if you're wrong, then perhaps you've spread false doctrine.  :)

What's the difference between an LDS baptism and other baptisms?  I know the Catholic Church recognizes any baptism done in the name of the father, son and holy ghost, done with water, as being legitimate, regardless as to the denomination (although I'm sure they have rules on what specifically defines a baptism as being done like that, since some people may be baptising with a different idea of God, etc.)

A baptism must be done by immersion and by someone with the proper authority.  Immersion means completely immersed in water, and the proper authority is someone holding the proper priesthood authority (a "priest" or higher authority).

Here's a good link to common questions and more explanation:  http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Baptism.shtml

...and at the proper age of responsability, minimum 8 years old.

Yes, you must be accountable for your sins before receiving baptism.  If you can't understand the nature of the proceeding or choose for yourself, then it is not an appropriate baptism.

Bump for katisara.

Opposite to you, I actually have more interest in church history and ancient Jewish and Christian religions than in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.  I like it for its doctrines, but I think proving it true or false is next to impossible.

Also, regarding the previous issue, I think that deciding about a religion does take a leap of faith.  So if you start seeing a pattern of where your questions (and, if necessary, questions from ex-Mormons or elsewhere) are answered in a satisfactory answer, you can start to realize that probably all their questions have satisfactory answers and begin exercising faith.

Joining a religion is about belief and faith, not proof.  I get the feeling you are looking for that certain element of proof that will end all questions for you.  Don't know that such a method is in the cards or part of God's plan though.

I think this is a good place to look with answers to difficult questions:  http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page

For example, this article addresses the Book of Abraham you mentioned:  http://www.fairwiki.org/index....ok_of_Abraham_papyri

So the papyrus was destroyed in a fire in 1871, and all that is left are fragments that may or may not be authentic.

Tycho, this is probably the correct thread since the Word of Wisdom is not in the Book of Mormon.

To some extent, yes, since it is a "word of wisdom" to be smart about taking care of your body.  But the initial proclamation surely must have startled people who didn't think those things were all that bad.

But again, if you flip to the other side of the coin, you see something different emerge.  (1) Assume it was a revelation from God for your health, short and long term, and (2) then look at the way it was implemented, especially at first, as being a sort of rationalization by most to continue in their current behaviors (human nature), and then (3) see that it was put in place as a solid "commandment" later.  This looks more like God knew what he was talking about at first and that the people (not medicine) had to evolve to accept it as true.  Then medicine vindicated the initial revelation.

In other words, you must remember that the people in the church and the Word of God are two separate things.  You are mashing them together as though they are the same thing.

See above.  This is how it was implemented intitially by the HUMAN BEINGS who administered it, but decades of medical knowledge and evolution vindicated the REVELATION FROM GOD.


This is a tough question because so much of it is open to personal opinion, but there are two overriding issues that work into the equation:

1) when you join the church, you covenant with God to follow the Word of Wisdom, so you do not want to break that promise by rationalization

2) because now everyone identifies certain aspects of the Word of Wisdom with "Mormons," we should avoid the appearance of impropriety to maintain the respect of others.

For example, when I was in college at BYU, many of the people would drink "Near Beer," but I didn't want to do that because of the appearance.  By the same token, I will take medicine with alcohol when necessary.

It is very much up to personal interpretation and choice except for some major things (like smoking, drugs, and drinking).

As for the word of God vs. words of humans, I can see what you're saying, but that's the whole issue of how we interpret the words.  You see the changing interpretation of the words to match human knowledge of evidence of flawed implementation of a perfect rule (ie, humans messing up God's instructions), whereas it seems more likely to to me that it's been a human product the entire time, and the fact that interpretations of it have changed as human knowledge has changed fits that nicely.  Without more info, though, I don't guess either of us are going to convince the other. ;)

I am interested to know a bit more about some of the parts of the WoW that I quoted.  Are most mormon's vegetarians for half the year?  Do Most avoid all hot drinks all the time, even those without alcohol or caffine?  And does the part about using barley for "mild drinks" mean beer's okay?  Looking back over the WoW, it seems that only wine and "strong drinks" are prohibited.  Since "strong drinks" are said to be used for washing the body, I wouldn't think beer would count as a strong drink!  Are there mormons who take the WoW this way?
This message was last edited by the player at 08:32, Mon 23 Apr 2007.

Must members of the church interpret the Word of Wisdom to be just this summary:

1) No Coffee
2) No Black Tea (Herbal Tea is permitted).
3) No smoking
4) No alcohol (Not one drop of it, except for medicinal purposes).
5) No harmful drugs except for medicinal purposes.

------------------

Almost all members eat way too much meat, including myself and do not live up to the spirit of the law, which is to be mindful of what you eat and make sure you eat healthy stuff for you body.

It isn't until we grow old and begin to have health problems that this commandment is taken seriously.

Luckily, because we have a living prophet, we have received further guidance on the WoW and clarifications.  Hot drinks has been told to us to include coffee and tea (except herbal teas).  Some members think it means "caffeine" and so soft drinks have been eliminated.  Our former prophet, Spencer Kimball, said that it does not include caffeinated soft drinks, although he doesn't drink them and would hope others make the same choice.

As for the eating of meat, when it came out over 150 years ago, it was difficult to preserve meat safely...except in winter when it was cold.  Therefore, because that issue does not exist now and we can safely preserve meat throughout the year, that provision is for the most part irrelevant.  (I'm sure some people still see it as something to follow, but not many.)

Oh, and probably the most important part of it was that it says it is formulated so that even the weakest can follow it, meaning that it is the lowest law you should follow.  So if you have stricter health guidelines for yourself, then you are probably really following the spirit of the rule, whereas if you eat candy until you're really fat, you're probably not following the spirit of it even if you're following the letter of the law.

So it's meant for the lowest common denominator, not as the ultimate rule.

I'm going to highlight this site again.  It's an interesting graph comparison of LDS beliefs with non-LDS Christian beliefs:  http://www.lightplanet.com/mor...e/qa/heaven_only.htm

Quite the chart.  Paints a very black and white picture of Christianity though.

Yeah, I don't like the label of "anti-Mormon."  It should say "non-Mormon Christian" or something.

But that is what rogue has argued all along from the traditional Trinitarian point of view.  I think that's fairly standard of Protestant beliefs.  Not sure if Catholicism is quite that bleak, but it might be.

I know rogue, but wasn't here much when he was discussing things, so not sure what he put forth as the mainstream christian view.

I'd say you'd find the majority would hold to those views, though if pressed on it would likely backtrack off of that sort of hardline stance.

I don't know that I'd put a lot of stock in this site.

edit:  I wrote a big long reply and realized the site is referring to Evangelical Christians.  Oh well, I'll still show why Catholics don't hold those beliefs :P

Speaking for myself, I can say a number of the things seem false or, at best, questionable.  I don't know, for instance, any official Catholic document indicating that everyone in heaven gets the same reward, since we clearly see that some people (such as the apostles and Mary) sit 'closer' to Jesus than others.  Dante wrote about heaven having seven celestial levels and while that is clearly not official doctrine, I haven't heard anyone say it's heretical.

I haven't read anything saying unbelievers go to hell, it's only people who reject Jesus who suffer that fate.  The RCC, as was shown in another thread, recently said unbaptized babies don't go to limbo and definitely don't go to hell, which would clearly show that statement as false.

I do believe the official Church doctrine is going to hell is permanent, but I've never heard anyone explain why.  I don't think it's considered an absolute truth like the ascension of Mary, so it could be open to change.

Obviously, faith in God will make certain actions necessary.  The Catholic Church believes that having mortal sins on your soul warrant your going to hell, regardless as to your belief.  This is why going to confession is so important.  I don't think that stance is universal among Christians, however, but why would someone who believes Jesus' ministry intentionally kill people without remorse?

My thoughts on the link wasn't so much that it mis-represented christian views of the exclusivity of their religion (there definately christians who hold the views presented), but more that it overplayed the offense those people would take that the Mormon view would be exclusive.  The problems such people tend to have with Mormonism (at least in my experience) isn't that it's exclusive, it's that they think it's simply not true.  Since people brought up rouge4jc, I'd say that he's probably a decent example.  Most of the "anti-mormon" positions presented in the link were probably things he'd agree too.  But I don't think he was particularlly offended by any exclusivity of Mormonism.  I think he just simply thought it was wrong.

Also, I thought the "conversation" at the end of the page was pretty contrived, especially the "It's okay if I'm exclusive, but not if you are!" ending.  I don't know any christians who feel offended by the exclusivity of other religions, Mormon or otherwise.  Perhaps the author of the site has encounted a different subset of christians than me, but I wouldn't think they were representative of christians as a whole.

I agree that the Mormon position is generally less exclusive than the mainstream christian position, but I don't think the issue is really one of the differences that bothers anyone that much.

I watched about an hour of a tv show called 'The Mormons' that was on tv last night.  Interesting, though nothing earth shattering.

Actually, what bothers me about the article is more the suggestion that you should believe LDS because they're nicer.

If we take the assumption (which, of course, I don't, but...grin) that Evangelical Christians are right, then this is like saying, "Oh, sure, that narrow road over there leads to paradise, but we have a lovely scenic train route, complete with a luxury four-star restaraunt car, going off this cliff into eternal damnation - and everybody's welcome!"

From the Evangelical point of view, which would you choose?  The narrow path to Salvation, or the much friendlier path to hell?

The straight and narrow... obviously. But who says that the Mormon way of life is saying the much friendlier path to hell? - Your interpretation of the bible?

As an LDS, I have already received my revelation or should I say "interpretation" from the Spirit of god. Who could dispute that? Certainly not you... for my witness comes directly from God - according to me!!!

First, I premise this by saying that the website was just someone's personal opinion.  I just liked the juxtapositioning of beliefs to sort of see how they interact differently in matters of salvation though all proclaim to believe in Christ.


That's actually not true.  You think it's "nicer" than allowing murderers to get into heaven just by believing in Jesus as the Evangelicals believe?  The point it's trying to make (I think, if it's trying to make a point) is that the LDS version makes a little more cohesive sense in applying the principles of Christ to salvation.  I think it's looking at the logic more than the "niceness" of it.

Not, as noted, mine.  But the comparison is directed towards Evangelicals.  (Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestants, specifically.  He probably could have found a more extreme group to compare to, but it would have been difficult.)  From their interpretation of the Bible...well, you don't even have to single out the Mormon way of life.  Any other way of life is a path to hell, so saying your path to hell is friendlier than their (presumed) path to salvation seems unfair.  But I'm only saying this to kind of clarify my original point...


Looking it back over with this in mind, I can very much see that.  Starting with the premise of a loving and merciful God (which, of course, not everyone starts with), I'd say there's a very good point that the more forgiving view makes more sense, and that that could indeed be what he was trying to say.  Thanks!


As a bit of an aside, yes, on the whole.  If I understand it right (as I very well may not, of coure), the murderer will (or at least, can) also get into heaven under the LDS view - but only after spending some amount of time atoning for their sins.  From what he said, and some bits I've picked up from you, I gather your belief holds that Heaven essentially remains open to everyone, before and after death - a soul in Hell can still choose to accept the right path, and work/find their way to salvation.

That's really one of the nicest views of it I've come across.  Most of the Christian denomenations seem to hold that your behavior in life seals it - either you get into Heaven (by whatever means they allow), or you don't, but either option is forever.  I know the Lutherans allow the living to pray on behalf of the dead, so a dead soul can get redemption if they have a living person to put in a good word for them...but this is the first time I've heard of the dead having their own hope.

The LDS view does not believe in a simple heaven/hell dichotomy, but instead in "degrees of glory."  So a murderer must atone for sins but that doesn't mean he inherits as great a degree of glory as nonsinners, particularly to enter into the presence of God.

Unfortunately, it is not a simple process or discussion.


We don't believe in Hell.  After you die, you go to one of two areas (depending on the priesthood ordinances you have received) and await resurrection.  During this period, you can repent, take advantage of the atonement of Christ, etc.  Once you are resurrected (i.e. judged), you go where you go (whatever degree of glory) for good.  Theoretically, someone could repent, change their ways, and do a complete 180 and go to the highest degree of glory.

But in reality, how often do you see people change their ways?  Even if they believe does not mean that they conform their actions.  But people who already choose actions to conform with God (for example, priests of other religions) would probably very easily be able to go the highest degree of glory.


Actually, they usually don't base it on "behavior" at all, but just on belief.  If you accept Christ as your savior, then you are saved, and that's it (Evangelical Christianity).  Catholicism is more involved and at least is good about cracking down on "sin," but there too baptism is the primary ingredient, I think, not life behaviors.

LDS beliefs are different because it is exactly the "behaviors" you take in this life (and the next) that determine who you are (and therefore where you go), and you must also partake of certain ordinances.



An interesting subject explored briefly before was that the early Christians were baptized for their dead (as recognized by the Apostle Paul), so there seems to be a lot missing in much of later Christianity relating to the salvation of souls between death and the resurrection.

I claim ignorance.  Where does Paul indicate he baptizes the dead?

1 Cor 15:29.

In the English Paul says 'they' when speaking of the baptism of the dead.

In greek the word is baptizontai (or something similar, can't fully remember now) and is best translated as they- as the English translation suggests.

In my opinion Paul is not talking about himself, but rather Corinthians who, being influenced by outside pagans - namely one of the religions located in nearby Eleusis- were practicing a form of baptism of the dead.

This is all surrounding a discussion on the reality of the ressurection.

Quick Question.

Does the LDS church believe that god was a man that was exhalted on another planet and became a god and populated this planet?  And that that man (now god) was also created by another god who was once a man that became exhalted on another planet?

Is this correct LDS thinking.  I have heard it but have never had the chance to confirm it with someone who actually tell me the truth about it.

Once I get all my books back (in the middle of moving still), I can find historical references to dispute this.  They did practice baptisms for the dead, even some of the ancient Jews.

You have to keep in mind the various sects of Jews that existed when Jesus came.  He appears to have pulled his apostles primarily from the Zealots.  If I'm not mistaken, it was the Zealots who practiced baptism and baptism for the dead.

Whatever your beliefs about historical context, it is basically a proxy practice.  If you are dead (i.e. spirit), you do not have a physical body to get baptized.  So if you die without accepting that ordinance, you have to receive it some other way to receive salvation.  The practice of baptism by proxy is how this can be accomplished.  If they don't accept it after death (and before resurrection), then it's meaningless; but if they do accept it after death, they will be eternally grateful.

The saying is :  As Man is, God once was; as God is, Man may become.  People postulate all sorts of things.  What you are postulating seems to be the most logical and well-accepted scenario.  I can't say that its canonical scripture, however, if that's what you're asking.

So God went through this process of mortality and became exalted...i.e. reached the highest potential a man can reach (we sometimes also say, about living things, "fulfill the measure of its creation").  It is the necessary process that occurs throughout every universe ever created.  After all, if Man is created in God's image, then Man's potential is God.  We believe that human beings are the natural and literal offspring of God, not in physical body, but in spirit.  So just as children can become like parents after they go through all the difficult stuff, so can we become like God after going through what we need to go through.

One point of note is that God is not restricted by time; it is instead subject to him.  So it probably makes it a little hard to grasp it in its entirety.

I am not denying that the Corinthians were practicing baptisms of the dead, I am denying that Paul practiced it and that in the context of what he was discussing was not saying it was a good thing at all.

So then my question is at some point was there a beginning, or one God that started off the whole process, or has this been going on for all of time - or infinity?

I would argue that it was a common practice encouraged by Jesus and Paul and was later removed:



So it appears that the development of Christianity stopped the practice later instead of Paul having them stop it, at least in orthodox Christianity.  Of course, there were probably offshoots that didn't practice it.  That's one reason the Council of Nicea is so momentous.  It basically took all these Christian sects and adopted what it wanted, rejected the rest, and formed a universal Christian church.

But historically, it is clear that Paul was not reprimanding the practice.  If so, orthodox Christians wouldn't have practiced it for another 300+ years.

But along the lines of what you are saying:


In other words, it's not clear, even among scholars, and neither side can really be proven right or wrong definitively.

I have some research to do on this.  It might take a while, so I'll post eventually.  I wasn't really planning on going into this so....:)

Well I just spent a ton of time looking at some stuff regarding this whole baptism of the dead discussion.  In fact I fell asleep last night in my bed reading articles on it- guess perhaps it isn't the most riveting reading :)

In the end there are some interesting points on both sides of the discussion, regarding wording, phrasing, whether Paul would use an unsanctioned (in a sense) practice to be used as evidence for something he was trying to discuss (the resurrection) or not.  This one in particular was very interesting to me.

One of the most interesting points came on a discussion about Greco-Roman rhetorical techniques which questioned why Paul would not have brought up baptism for the dead earlier in chapter 15 if it was something that supported his argument so well.  I had never heard it before and it was quite interesting.

At the end of the day I feel pretty comfortable saying that there is more evidence stating that baptism for the dead was something that Paul mentioned but certainly did not condone and that it is very tenuous to base an entire church ritual on something which is included in 1 verse in the NT.

Just my opinion though.

I believe (and you can correct me on this) that there are other sources that the LDS church can go to to support baptism for the dead - though they are likely ones that I personally would not consider as valid (ie Book of Mormon perhaps)

It appears that the Book of Mormon also does not include any mention of baptism of the dead.  I think.

It doesn't, the bible is more explicit in that area suggesting pre-mortal existence and preaching to dead spirits. D&C or modern revelation is whole different story. Even then it wasn't until after 1838 when baptism for the dead was restored. I think.

Restored from when?  From the time of the Council of Nicea?

Again a debateable subject, the likes of which I'd disagree with I'm sure.  But I don't really want to go there...lol

It is not based on Paul's discussion.  We feel that Paul's discussion just shows that it was practiced and condoned in early Christianity.  More importantly, we believe that it was an ordinance given back to the earth with the Restoration of the Priesthood in the 1820's to 1830's.  It was by revelation to work for the salvation of our progenitors and fulfill the prophecy that the hearts of the children shall be turned to the fathers.

I would actually be careful to base anything too much on the epistles of Paul because they were simply letters he wrote out to different churches and I can't say that they claim divine origin, although they do give us a good idea of what was going on and perhaps, given that he was an apostle, they are divine.

I still disagree with you on the point of baptisms for the dead.  They were rituals performed by the Jews in the temples.  We believe that Christ, after his resurrection, restored these rituals during his "40 day" ministry.  However, for various reasons for which a complete book can (and has, as a matter of fact) be written, most of these ordinances were lost or corrupted or discontinued over time.  It could be, if Paul is, in fact, not approving of the ordinances, that they were doing them incorrectly or without proper priesthood authority, or in the wrong place.

It seems less likely to me that he would say, "why do you do this if the dead are not resurrected," which is to say, "the reason you do this is because they are resurrected and get to take advantage of it."  Instead, he would say, "You should not be doing baptisms for the dead.  That is not a proper Christian ordinance."  I think we have to delve into sophistry to discount that fact.

Also, I'm not sure where you were looking (some site references would be nice), but many of the sites I see if I do a quick internet search are targeted AGAINST the LDS beliefs (since I think we are the only church doing such baptisms now).  So if the sites have an agenda like that, I'm not sure how accurate they are.  I tend to read scholarly articles and books, but they are rarely online.

Yeah I guess for me, at the end of the day, there's an awful lot of work needed to justify an entire church ritual on something as vague and uncertain as this.

For the Mormons though it appears as if it's worth it.

Hence the creation of this message board. :)

Except that I have to stress that it is not based upon the Bible.



We have an organic, living church that is run by a prophet and revelation, not based upon a book that has gone through thousands of years of translations, copying, editing, etc., and one that has only limited application to today's world (not in principle, but in practice).

For example, Moses (the prophet) led the people of Israel to safety through revelation.  That's nice to study, but we're not fleeing Egypt, so its direct application to us is limited.  We prefer to have a prophet today to say, hey Doulos, your city's about to be nuked, so time to leave!  And if God needs to reveal new things or move to the next stage of His plan, he can reveal it to a prophet today, not to a prophet thousands of years ago who never even saw an airplane or car.

Moving away from origin of the practice of baptism for the dead, the logic of it is this:

1)  There is a space of time between when we die and are resurrected (i.e. judgment)

2)  Not everyone in this life gets a chance to hear and accept Christ's Gospel in its fulness.

3)  During this period after death when you are a spirit only, you may still elect to repent and accept Christ, but you do not have a body to receive the necessary baptism (since Jesus said baptism is necessary, even for himself)

4)  A means is prepared by God so that these souls can still return to His presence through a proxy baptism (i.e. baptism for the dead)

5)  This way, no man, woman or child receives judgment without first having the opportunity to (1) fully hear and accept the Gospel of Christ, and (2) partake of its fulness through the necessary ordinances of salvation.

This is from the following site about the practice:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS...Q_BaptDead.shtml#why

True, but for my purposes that's all I am willing to discuss.



I would disagree very much with this assessment of the Bible though.  I see it as incredibly practical to a great deal of things for today's world.  I also have reason to believe that it is incredibly accurate even through all of the translations etc.

Stuff like this is why the LDS church and what I believe are such polar opposites.  Not even close to being the same thing.

Yeah sounds about right with how I understood it.

Point 1 and 2 already are divergent beliefs from what I would agree with.