Mormonism, LDS, I'm trying to learn about them

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: bobbybe01

Polygamy dates back to the time when the Mormons first settled in Utah. It was a long journey from Illinois to Utah, and many of the pilgrims walked the entire way (in winter, no less). Many of the men died pulling hand carts across the plains. When they finally got settled, there was a disproportionate number of women to men. Plural marriages were allowed so that all the women had a roof over their heads. Once the population evened-out, the practice was banned.

Not true. Polygamy started a few years before the pioneers left for Utah. But what you said does make sense and I tend to agree with that. Women back then were not allowed to buy/own property, either.

In the Mormon book of the Doctrine and Convenants, Joseph Smith tells that he had a vision where Chirst told him that the Catholic church was corrupted with the "Mother of All Abominations".

Actually, Joseph Smith was told that: "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight." There's a difference. Please refer to the Doctrine and Covenants section (here) verses 52-54. Note the key phrase here: "Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church." This was documented in the summer of 1828, about two years before the LDS church was officially organized. The LDS faith believes that although the original church of Christ in the New Testament fell away, thanks to the Catholic church and others, the Christian faith was kept alive and therefore, when the time was right, the restoration of all truth could take place.

Bingo, the main difference between LDS and other christian faiths is the Apocratha(sp?) where the "authority" was taken away from man when Jesus and the deciples died because everyone left wasn't worthy to keep it because they sinned.

So then Jesus came to early America and gave the "authority" (which in the LDS church is passed down in the priesthoods) to Joseph Smith. Well actually John the Baptist and Jesus gave it to him but that's not important.

They don't think other religions are wrong, just that they aren't right.

In other words I was baptised in the Presbyterian Chruch. They don't think anything I did there was a sin or wrong but when I joined the LDS church they baptised me because I hadn't been "truly" baptised by someone with the "proper authority".

They believe that when you die you will be preached to by a mormon and that you will be either able to accept the faith or not. If you do you're baptised and can go to heaven, if not you stay till you do.

I stated it in church one day and got reemed for it "they believe only mormons will go to heaven." They say "no, you don't have to be mormon, you just have to be baptised by someone with the right authority" but since that only includes mormons, jesus, the apostles, god and john the baptist odds are you will have to become mormon to get in.

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Mormons are a little weird to me though. Not the religion itself -- though the excommunication frenzy that I've seen is pretty strange -- but their reaction to Catholicism(sp?). When I mention I'm Catholic, or at least that I was raised Catholic, they sort of shy away like I'm Satan embodied. Bizzare.

In the Mormon book of the Doctrine and Convenants, Joseph Smith tells that he had a vision where Chirst told him that the Catholic church was corrupted with the "Mother of All Abominations".
Clearly, according to the Mormons, God has not yet forgiven the Catholic church for its grevious sins of the Dark Ages (indulgences, inquisitions, wars, empire in the name of God, etc.).
Otherwise, the 2 churchs are very similar in basic doctrine, although the Mormon church doesn't have any of the pomp and paganism that the Catholic church is rife with. The Mormon church also does not believe in such not-in-the-Bible garbage doctrines like Original Sin and Infant Damnation, to their unending credit.

there are lots of Catholics on ATOT, including me.

the churches doctrines are not at all alike.

"Original Sin" - read Romans 5:12.

Infant damnation - NOT a Catholic doctrine.
according to the Catechism:
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: waitman
Yes they came to see me Probably 20 years ago and told me I would have to go before their tribunal and they would decide if my name would be removed. I made it perfectly clear that no matter what they said or did it had absolutely no meaning to me. They haven't visited me since. They also asked why I was baptized if I didn't believe the doctrine. I was 8 years old at the time and scared more of what dad and mom would do to me if I refused.

This brings up one of the things I think the Catholic chuch has absolutely right: Confirmation. See when you're a kid you're Baptized, but then when you get older -- about 16 or 17 -- you go through Confirmation. Basically it's like being Baptized, except this time you actually understand what's going on. Baptism is assumed to be more like someone (Parents or Guardian) vouching for you. Confirmation is you vouching for yourself.

Not that you can't be intimidated by your parents at age 16, but it's not like at age 8.

 

[bobbybe01]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: azazyel
I can't believe that there are so many morm0ns here. Kinda wish it wasn't such a busy day at work. Things that amuse me about Mormonism.

- The underwear

Okay, I don't care how busy you are, you have to explain this one to me.

Taken from one of the sites I linked to in my first post:

I used to be surprised when strangers asked me about my underwear, but now I assume this is just out of healthy curiosity. It is healthy, right? Seriously, I know where you are coming from. Adult Latter-day Saints who have been to the temple make sacred covenants to follow Christ. There, they receive what is called a "garment" to wear as a personal, private reminder of those covenants. It's related to the Biblical concepts of priestly robes and vestments and "wearing the whole armor of God," with the garment itself representing the garments God gave Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. There are also other outer articles of clothing worn only in the temple.
The temple garment is modest underclothing. It's not exactly Calvin Klein, but it's not necessarily funny looking, maybe just a little more modest than usual. Promoting modesty is one of the intentions, I think, in addition to remembering covenants of integrity and virtue. You may have seen LDS garments in locker rooms without realizing it. (Tip: next time you see someone in a locker room wearing slightly unusual underwear, be sure to introduce yourself before asking embarrassing questions. It's the polite way. And be prepared to answer all sorts of questions about your underwear in return - though I'll never ask.)

If you want more info on the "garment" check this out here and here

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bobbybe01
Actually, Joseph Smith was told that: "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight." There's a difference. Please refer to the Doctrine and Covenants section (here) verses 52-54. Note the key phrase here: "Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church." This was documented in the summer of 1828, about two years before the LDS church was officially organized. The LDS faith believes that although the original church of Christ in the New Testament fell away, thanks to the Catholic church and others, the Christian faith was kept alive and therefore, when the time was right, the restoration of all truth could take place.

Sorry 'bout that. Haven't attended in some 16 years

Anyway, like I already said, the Mormon church is better than most, with very good people and a strong faith, but their lack of tolerance for individual thought is why I'm not going back.

Enjoy the rest of the thread

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: VictorLazlo

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

To get into heaven you have to meet a lot of requirements and one of them is being married.

Almost. There are 3 levels of heaven, all of which kick ass. You only have to be married (in the temple) to get into the Celestial Kingdom, which is the highest level of heaven where you get to become like God.

Women have to be married men don't.

Incorrect. VictorLazlo has it pretty much right.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. You don't have to be married to go to the lower levels of heaven but to go to the Celestial Kingdom you have to be married if you're a woman, but men don't have to be married to go there.

 

[Atomicus]

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Atomicus

OK, enough of this. It's obvious some of you are those people who are WAY too opened minded for your own good. He and his bunch were crooks; legal evidence of it and them actually evading the law unlawfully is a clear cut sign of their convictions.

And Jacob played favoritism by making Joseph his "favorite" son, and Moses killed a man, and Elisha killed a bunch of kids for making fun of his hair, and Peter denied Christ three times, and so on, and so on...

If what you say is true, then so what? Nowhere does the LDS doctrine say that the prophet must be infallible.

Peter was an apostle.... wow, stop talking.

 

[SaltBoy]

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

Originally posted by: VictorLazlo

Originally posted by: Lazy8s

To get into heaven you have to meet a lot of requirements and one of them is being married.

Almost. There are 3 levels of heaven, all of which kick ass. You only have to be married (in the temple) to get into the Celestial Kingdom, which is the highest level of heaven where you get to become like God.

Women have to be married men don't.

Incorrect. VictorLazlo has it pretty much right.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. You don't have to be married to go to the lower levels of heaven but to go to the Celestial Kingdom you have to be married if you're a woman, but men don't have to be married to go there.

Ummm... yes they do.

 

[SaltBoy]

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Atomicus

OK, enough of this. It's obvious some of you are those people who are WAY too opened minded for your own good. He and his bunch were crooks; legal evidence of it and them actually evading the law unlawfully is a clear cut sign of their convictions.

And Jacob played favoritism by making Joseph his "favorite" son, and Moses killed a man, and Elisha killed a bunch of kids for making fun of his hair, and Peter denied Christ three times, and so on, and so on...

If what you say is true, then so what? Nowhere does the LDS doctrine say that the prophet must be infallible.

Peter was an apostle.... wow, stop talking.

Ehhh... a technicality. LDS people practically regard apostles and prophets with the same esteem.

And on that note, I'll stop talking, since I've got better things to do.

MBony, I wish you luck in finding WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY! If you're positive the LDS church won't make you happy, don't join it.

 

[Lazy8s]

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Lazy8s


Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. You don't have to be married to go to the lower levels of heaven but to go to the Celestial Kingdom you have to be married if you're a woman, but men don't have to be married to go there.

Ummm... yes they do.

Note: I took out some quotes to save room.

Maybe I was told wrong but it was my understanging they didn't. Hmm....maybe I'll look it up when I get home.

 

[VictorLazlo]

Try D&C 131

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Atomicus
OK, enough of this. It's obvious some of you are those people who are WAY too opened minded for your own good. He and his bunch were crooks; legal evidence of it and them actually evading the law unlawfully is a clear cut sign of their convictions.

And Jacob played favoritism by making Joseph his "favorite" son, and Moses killed a man, and Elisha killed a bunch of kids for making fun of his hair, and Peter denied Christ three times, and so on, and so on...

If what you say is true, then so what? Nowhere does the LDS doctrine say that the prophet must be infallible.

Peter was an apostle.... wow, stop talking.

Now who's "hating"? You're not aware that Peter denied Christ 3 times? Or how about that, under the law of men, Christ is a convicted criminal who was condemned to death and then executed on the cross?
Sorry, but the history of all prophets and holy men is rife with tales of breaking the law.
Your argument is based solely on hate and prejudice (and you sound really stupid too).

Spamela, no offense to your faith intended, but I cannot and will not forgive the Catholic church for its crimes against God during the Middle Ages, even though I have the deepest respect for John Paul II. I'm not one of those radical "Outlaw the Catholic church now" zealots (like many other AT members are), but I do disagree with them in many ways. If not for Luther, for example, would the church still require the paying of indulgences?

 

[Eavan]

There is nothing in LDS doctrine against being given a blood transfusion--had a good friend who was the daughter of and LDS bishop and she pretty much cleaned out the blood bank during an illness. Your friend either subscribed to one of the break-off sects of Mormonism or was just plain loony. it is not a sin.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Vic

Spamela, no offense to your faith intended, but I cannot and will not forgive the Catholic church for its crimes against God during the Middle Ages, even though I have the deepest respect for John Paul II. I'm not one of those radical "Outlaw the Catholic church now" zealots (like many other AT members are), but I do disagree with them in many ways. If not for Luther, for example, would the church still require the paying of indulgences?

 

[Michael]

The Mormons stopped polygamy as one of the the stepping stones to Utah becoming a state. It didn't start on the walk to Utah, it started in upsate NY (near Rochester) where the early members lived. Essentially they decided that the Constitution was divinely inspired and since it was against the law ....

In general, I like and respect them and have had many friends who are members. Other than a gentle attempt every once and a while to get you more interested, they're no more pushy than just about every other sect I've come across. If they're actually practising, they make for automatic designated drivers.

Michael

 

[waggy]

I am a member of the Mormon church.

there are some things that bothered me with the it (no alchohol, women are still sub-servents. etc) Now i don't mind the tithing or missionary work. But going to church just seemed more like a business meeting then church.

But i still agree with most of what they stand for. God, Family and country.

 

[bobbybe01]

Do Mormons Just Blindly Follow Their Leaders? This is for those who think that Mormons just do what they are told and don't think for themselves. Here's a quote from a very prominent leader in the LDS Church, Boyd K. Packer:

"Some say that obedience nullifies agency. I would like to point out that obedience is a righteous principle. Obedience to God can be the very highest expression of independence. Just hink of giving Him the one thing, the one gift, that he would never take. Think of giving Him that one thing He would never wrest from you. Obedience-that which God will never take by force-He will accept when freely given. And He will then return to you freedom that you can hardly dream of-the freedom to feel and to know, the freedom to be, at least a thousandfold more than we offer him. Strangely enough, the key to freedom is obedience."

Believe me, Latter-day Saints have are all at different levels of understanding (as you can see in this thread). We all think for ourselves. There's nothing wrong with saying "we believe." I can have personal beliefs about something, but that doesn't make it offical dogma. And it doesn't make it wrong, either. There are some things we are required to figure out on our own. Sometimes it hasn't been touched on yet by the leaders of the Mormon church.

However, you will find people that will not really look for the information themselves and gain their own conviction and understanding of it in any religion, not just Mormonism.

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Atomicus

Originally posted by: SaltBoy

Originally posted by: Atomicus
OK, enough of this. It's obvious some of you are those people who are WAY too opened minded for your own good. He and his bunch were crooks; legal evidence of it and them actually evading the law unlawfully is a clear cut sign of their convictions.

And Jacob played favoritism by making Joseph his "favorite" son, and Moses killed a man, and Elisha killed a bunch of kids for making fun of his hair, and Peter denied Christ three times, and so on, and so on...

If what you say is true, then so what? Nowhere does the LDS doctrine say that the prophet must be infallible.

Peter was an apostle.... wow, stop talking.

Now who's "hating"? You're not aware that Peter denied Christ 3 times? Or how about that, under the law of men, Christ is a convicted criminal who was condemned to death and then executed on the cross?
Sorry, but the history of all prophets and holy men is rife with tales of breaking the law.
Your argument is based solely on hate and prejudice (and you sound really stupid too).

Spamela, no offense to your faith intended, but I cannot and will not forgive the Catholic church for its crimes against God during the Middle Ages, even though I have the deepest respect for John Paul II. I'm not one of those radical "Outlaw the Catholic church now" zealots (like many other AT members are), but I do disagree with them in many ways. If not for Luther, for example, would the church still require the paying of indulgences?

just FYI, indulgences are still available.

the Catholic church acknowledges that it has always had sinful members,
but we don't feel that compromises the church as as whole.

 

[bobbybe01]

Originally posted by: Michael
The Mormons stopped polygamy as one of the the stepping stones to Utah becoming a state. It didn't start on the walk to Utah, it started in upsate NY (near Rochester) where the early members lived. Essentially they decided that the Constitution was divinely inspired and since it was against the law ....

In general, I like and respect them and have had many friends who are members. Other than a gentle attempt every once and a while to get you more interested, they're no more pushy than just about every other sect I've come across. If they're actually practising, they make for automatic designated drivers.

Michael

Why did they stop polygamy? Try looking here For the record, polygamy didn't really start untill the Nauvoo period (around 1842). Keep in mind it wasn't something on a broad scale, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Nevertheless, I will grant you a few things in your statement. In the 13 Articles of Faith, we find in number 12: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Polygamy (unless it is a commandment from God) is not a requirement for anybody to be in God's presence.

 

[Electric Amish]

their views/beliefs are extreme enough that many people wouldn't consider them a sect/denomination of christianity.

Mormons have some very extreme theological beliefs, but their family values are great.

Extreme? I fail to see any real difference between them and what I know about other "christian" religions. At least with what I learned in my ~15 years being raised in the LDS church.

 

[dquan97]

Wow...this is going to be a flame-fest.

[Looking through the "Kingdom of the Cults" book]

Here are a few examples of the "God" of the Mormons:
1. "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called council of the Gods and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 349)

2. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345)

3. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's: the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit..." (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22)

etc.

 

[bobbybe01]

Originally posted by: dquan97
Wow...this is going to be a flame-fest.

[Looking through the "Kingdom of the Cults" book]

Here are a few examples of the "God" of the Mormons:
1. "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called council of the Gods and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 349)

2. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345)

3. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's: the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit..." (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22)

etc.

Are you kidding me? "Kingdom of the Cults"?! Oh I bet that book is definitely fair and unbiased and has great information. I'm having a hard time understanding what is so horrible about those statements listed above. I'm sure Walter Martin and Ed Decker will be more than happy to give you some understanding about the LDS faith

 

[VictorLazlo]

Originally posted by: bobbybe01

Originally posted by: Michael
The Mormons stopped polygamy as one of the the stepping stones to Utah becoming a state. It didn't start on the walk to Utah, it started in upsate NY (near Rochester) where the early members lived. Essentially they decided that the Constitution was divinely inspired and since it was against the law ....

In general, I like and respect them and have had many friends who are members. Other than a gentle attempt every once and a while to get you more interested, they're no more pushy than just about every other sect I've come across. If they're actually practising, they make for automatic designated drivers.

Michael

Why did they stop polygamy? Try looking here For the record, polygamy didn't really start untill the Nauvoo period (around 1842). Keep in mind it wasn't something on a broad scale, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Now I want to look deeper into this subject. I always assumed that it didn't start until after they got to Utah. If it started sooner, than I need to know why. I think I'll call one of my Utah relatives.

 

[dquan97]

Are you kidding me? "Kingdom of the Cults"?! Oh I bet that book is definitely fair and unbiased and has great information.

I'm not saying it's unbiased, but it does bring up points that are controversial for a Mormon to believe

 

[Vic]

I dislike the word "cult". Christ was executed because he was (in essence) a "cult" leader.

The entire idea of "cults" IMO is to suppress freedom of belief, faith, and religion. A religion is a religion, whether it has a billion members, 10 million members, or just 1.