• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Clearing up Mormonism

Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
joeboonda said:
Thanks, jonny, I glanced through it, still wondering about the symbols, but thanks for the help.
Click to expand...
You're asking us about our underwear? :eek: I don't know about you, joeboonda, but I don't make it a practice to talk about my underwear on the worldwide web. I hope you can understand that.

Mormons, like members of various religions, have religious clothing. Ours happens to be worn against the skin. We don’t talk discuss it with people who would do not share our beliefs. We keep it sacred. It serves to remind us about specific promises with have made to our Father in Heaven. It's precious and significant to the people who wear it. If other people want to insist upon speculating about its meaning, that's their problem.
 
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
huajiro said:
http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0037-0501-1508-0504.html :

This is a Mormon church near where I live, it cost millions to build......my problem with that is millions could feed many people.....this to me is a complete waste.
Click to expand...
huajiro,

As jonny has already pointed out, this is one of our temples. I believe he said there are 120 worldwide. There are actually 121, the most recently dedicated one being in Nigeria. There are, on the other hand, tens of thousands of churches (aka chapels, ward houses) worldwide. If you had ever been in one of them, you would probably be surprised at how simple and understated they are. Furthermore, every single solitary building the Church erects is fully paid for prior to its dedication. The Church assumes no debt whatsoever on any of its buildings.

As to how many people could be fed with the funds used to build temples, I wonder if you have any idea at all how vast the Church's humanitarian efforts are. Since 1985, we as a Church have provided more than $725 million in total assistance to needy individuals in 159 countries. You can be absolutely certain that only the tiniest minority of these people are Mormons. Supplies that have been distributed include 45,247 tons of food, 5,943 tons of medical equipment, 57,227 tons of surplus clothing and 5,011 tons of educational supplies. Our Church membership is less than 2/10 of 1% of the world's population. How many organizations of its size do you know of that care for the world's needy in such a generous way.

Don't you think your criticism was just a bit hasty?
 
DeepShadow

DeepShadow

White Crow
Hokay, sorry I'm late, but now let's clear up a few loose ends:

Regarding geneoglogies: as can be seen by the use of geneology in the Bible, geneology itself is not evil. What is evil is claiming your geneology is your means to salvation. These verses warn against the same thing John the Baptist warned about:

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

As joeboonda said, salvation comes through Christ, and Christ alone. Not by geneologies, not by works.

Regarding the information from the Christian bookstore, the idea that God had sexual intercourse with Mary, and that he was a polygamist, are taken from Orson Pratt's book, The Seer, which Pratt wrote during a period of excommunication for teaching false doctrine. It has a statement on the inside of the front cover that it is not doctrine of the LDS church, but apparently some people overlook that, because it's a ripe picking ground for anti-Mormon materials. The idea that Adam was God, or that Adam sired Jesus Christ, is taken from the Journal of Discourses, which is also not LDS canon. Perhaps legitimate disagreements with LDS beliefs are not strong enough, so anti-Mormons feel the need to slip such things in?
 
D

dan

Well-Known Member
DeepShadow said:
Hokay, sorry I'm late, but now let's clear up a few loose ends:

Regarding geneoglogies: as can be seen by the use of geneology in the Bible, geneology itself is not evil. What is evil is claiming your geneology is your means to salvation. These verses warn against the same thing John the Baptist warned about:

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

As joeboonda said, salvation comes through Christ, and Christ alone. Not by geneologies, not by works.

Regarding the information from the Christian bookstore, the idea that God had sexual intercourse with Mary, and that he was a polygamist, are taken from Orson Pratt's book, The Seer, which Pratt wrote during a period of excommunication for teaching false doctrine. It has a statement on the inside of the front cover that it is not doctrine of the LDS church, but apparently some people overlook that, because it's a ripe picking ground for anti-Mormon materials. The idea that Adam was God, or that Adam sired Jesus Christ, is taken from the Journal of Discourses, which is also not LDS canon. Perhaps legitimate disagreements with LDS beliefs are not strong enough, so anti-Mormons feel the need to slip such things in?
Click to expand...
As Hugh Nibley has stated and few have understood, there is no officer within the church who's purpose is to say, "This is the way every person has to believe," or "this is how the doctrine must be understood." One of the beautiful things about our church is that it is all left up to us to find out for ourselves. So many people accuse us of blindly following the rantings of one man, but the first thing I noticed when I joined the church was a big sign upon entering my institute classroom that read "FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF." Find what out? Everything.

When I or anyone else writes a book saying "this is doctrine," you can immediately dismiss it as not doctrine. "Doctrine" is what the first presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles unanimously agree is doctrine, and there's one place to find that stuff - the scriptures. Certain handbooks contain administrative instructions, but doctrine, pure and simple, is in the scriptures (including conference reports). Anything outside of that is opinion and nothing more.
 
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Uncertaindrummer said:
This confuses me. I have heard other Mormons state that He WAS. The amount of confusing, contradicting statements I have gotten from different Mormons overwhelms me.
Click to expand...
Allow me to explain... :jiggy:

We do not believe that Jesus is the same individual as God the Father. We believe that they are two physically distinct individuals who, along with the Holy Ghost, make up the Godhead. However, we definitely do believe that Jesus is divine. We believe that He was divine from the beginning. In other words, we don't believe that He "worked His way up" to being "God," as some people seem to think we do. We believe that He was the Creator of the Universe (under His Father's direction), and that He is our Savior. He is the only means by which we may be forgiven of our sins and reconciled to our Father in Heaven.

Generally speaking, when we speak of "God," we are speaking of "God the Father." But, we also recognize that the Son is also "God." We just more commonly refer to Him as "the Lord." But when the Apostle Thomas first saw Him as a resurrected being, he said, "My Lord and my God." Like Thomas, we see Him as both of these. We see them as sharing the name/title of "God."

We understand the Father's and Son's "oneness" to be a total, absolute, perfect unity in will and purpose. They think, feel, and act "as one." There is absolutely no contention whatsoever between them. We can't even begin to understand the degree to which they are unified. It is far more than just complete agreement with one another. We just don't believe that their unity is of a physical nature. Does that help any?
 
Aqualung

Aqualung

Tasty
Katzpur said:
Allow me to explain... :jiggy:

We do not believe that Jesus is the same individual as God the Father. We believe that they are two physically distinct individuals who, along with the Holy Ghost, make up the Godhead. However, we definitely do believe that Jesus is divine. We believe that He was divine from the beginning. In other words, we don't believe that He "worked His way up" to being "God," as some people seem to think we do. We believe that He was the Creator of the Universe (under His Father's direction), and that He is our Savior. He is the only means by which we may be forgiven of our sins and reconciled to our Father in Heaven.

Generally speaking, when we speak of "God," we are speaking of "God the Father." But, we also recognize that the Son is also "God." We just more commonly refer to Him as "the Lord." But when the Apostle Thomas first saw Him as a resurrected being, he said, "My Lord and my God." Like Thomas, we see Him as both of these. We see them as sharing the name/title of "God."

We understand the Father's and Son's "oneness" to be a total, absolute, perfect unity in will and purpose. They think, feel, and act "as one." There is absolutely no contention whatsoever between them. We can't even begin to understand the degree to which they are unified. It is far more than just complete agreement with one another. We just don't believe that their unity is of a physical nature. Does that help any?
Click to expand...
Ah, thank you. I cetainly didn't mean when I said that Jesus is not God that I thought of him as just a man, and Katzpur certainly did a pretty good job clearifying it. (though I appologize for making you do it even though you told me it could be misconsrued. I should have done it myself)
 
DeepShadow

DeepShadow

White Crow
Uncertaindrummer said:
This confuses me. I have heard other Mormons state that He WAS. The amount of confusing, contradicting statements I have gotten from different Mormons overwhelms me.
Click to expand...
Any religion will have doctrines like this. We have the same Bible as you do, with the same scriptures that appear contradictory. For example, Jesus says that he and the Father are one, yet he prays to the Father, and says, "not my will, but thine be done." Two separate wills. Stephen saw Jesus "sitting on the right hand of God," yet Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

We solve those apparent contradictions with our doctrine of the Godhead--that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost are all one God, united in purpose. You solve them with your doctrine of the Trinity...which I will leave to you to explain, because I can't do it right.:D

There, you see? I've heard Catholics try to explain the Trinity, and I feel the same way you do. Each religion has its mysteries, and when all you get is the 'short answer,' it's usually incomplete.

That's why we come to religiousforums!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top