|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is Mormonism a load of nonsense?
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
....My own belief is that Mormonism is not simply 'a load of rubbish' but one of those strange New World outgrowths from Christianity.
As with a lot of new religions, which it seems to have, in effect, become, it just doesn't sit together coherently enough for me.
On a historical, archaeological and anthropological level it makes no sense.
I would extend this further and make a prediction, that Mormonism is possibly going to become THE New World outgrowth from Christianity; similar to Islam growing out of the Arabic hodge podge of eariler religious concepts. Joseph Smith seems to have put it all together in a way that works better and is easier to explain than any other denom has before (or since, so far).
On the empirical evidence thing: all religions founder on this shoal, if the search for physical "proofs" of the religion are carried out too far. Mormonism is in difficulties vis-a-vis the BofM and empirical evidence. Back in the 50's through early 70's, it was beginning to look like MesoAmerican archeology was going to provide a wealth of "proofs" of the New World existence of Hebrews, their ruined cities, their language, etc. But that has all virtually gone away; to be replaced instead with a ton of unverifiable BofM internal claims that are either not shown, at, all: or else are directly refuted by recent evidence.
And so it goes, too, for the OT (especially): Levantine archeology shows the OT to be a 7th BCE creation (probably from the reign of king Josiah), with interpolations originating from the Babylonian exile era. So all denoms asserting that the Bible is a literally true historical book (the perfect and complete word of God), are in deepening waters too.
As this thread shows: pointing fingers at another religion and saying "rubbish", "bunk", or "nonsense" is likely to echo back at you from other quarters....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Margaret:
.... I've read somewhere that some liberal Mormons now believe that the BoM was actually written in the normal sort of way by JS - though they still regard it as an inspired document. I think it will be fascinating to watch what happens in the future.
Indeed.
And yes, I think this notion must grow until it becomes generally accepted. The "information highway" provided by the Internet will make the process of change much more rapid, and certain imho. There is a lot of evidence that the BofM was in fact a product of inventive writing and biblical targumizing: it is a uniquely early 19th century American creation. There is no reason to suspect it of being uninspired; if we are going to accept the Bible as inspired then the BofM is also inspired. "Scripture" so-defined may go through a redefining process as well. It isn't just the BofM that is under scrutiny (attack)!
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
As this thread shows: pointing fingers at another religion and saying "rubbish", "bunk", or "nonsense" is likely to echo back at you from other quarters....
I guess this is aimed at me ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ... Well, to be fair, I started the thread because I was happy to be shown to be wrong. Yes, some questions have been given reasonable answers, but I don't think I've altered my opinion that any Mormon who really looks into the background of his or her faith with an open mind will have some big, big questions - more than any other religion. Mind you, I'm sure Mad Geo et al would have the same opinion of my faith in Jesus (bit sad you've disappeared off the thread, was enjoying the banter ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ).
Mormonism has always stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Every other religion I've looked into seems to be at least consistent/coherent with itself and its own worldview that holds together. I think, as you say, Joseph Smith was a religious genius - I think he was also a very manipulative / influential person. But I just think there are way too many holes... I'm not really persuaded by the occult answer you gave - if God can reveal to him that the Church was apostate, surely he can reveal his thoughts on the superstitious leanings of people around him... The archaeology questions still seem way too big, and the Book of Abraham translation - well if he made that up, it follows that he likely made the rest up - especially given his 'evolving' theology (an interesting topic, and one that I wasn't aware of - thanks!).
ISTM that the only way you can be a 'reasonable' Mormon is to be a liberal one, and be content with the religious truths but not care for the historical fact. Still, that's just my opinion, perhaps 12 million Mormons can't be wrong!
By the way, I'm glad for you that despite the change in your faith, your wife has stuck with you and the church has treated you well. Having heard far too many horror stories, I'm glad things have worked out okay for you...
One last question (I promise). Having observed that the Mormon church has changed significantly from its beginnings, what are the different Mormon responses to that. The Christian Church has changed extremely significantly since Acts, and I would consider myself a member of those who think that we have lost a great deal as a result. I'd prefer that we went back to meeting in homes, with no salaried elders / apostles, living by faith a lot more etc. etc. (not trying to start another tangent here btw with people disageeing with me!). Are there Mormons that think that the Mormon Church should do the same, and be more in line with how it was in the days of Joseph Smith, or are they not bothered? (or are they unaware of how much it HAS changed?)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Scripture" so-defined may go through a redefining process as well. It isn't just the BofM that is under scrutiny (attack)!
That is some understatement, given that there's a whole school of OT scholars who believe it dates to no earlier than the 2nd century AD!
PS Not that I agree with them.
[ 17. January 2009, 20:06: Message edited by: Figbash ]
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Scripture" so-defined may go through a redefining process as well. It isn't just the BofM that is under scrutiny (attack)!
That is some understatement, given that there's a whole school of OT scholars who believe it dates to no earlier than the 2nd century AD!
PS Not that I agree with them.
Whoops! Should have been BC. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Figbash
The Doubtful Guest
# 9048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Anatoly Fomenko "History: Fiction or Science" proposes that neither part of the bible predates the 14th century, and that the NT was written FIRST! (I think the guy is just a mad Russian)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Well at least he's just a lone fruitcake. The ones I was talking about are 'reputable scholars'.
Posts: 1209 | From: Gashlycrumb | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
... Well, to be fair, I started the thread because I was happy to be shown to be wrong. Yes, some questions have been given reasonable answers, but I don't think I've altered my opinion that any Mormon who really looks into the background of his or her faith with an open mind will have some big, big questions - more than any other religion.
I don't disagree, except with the, "more than any other religion", part.
quote:
....
Mormonism has always stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Every other religion I've looked into seems to be at least consistent/coherent with itself and its own worldview that holds together.
Mormonism's strength is, ironically because of what you just said, that it holds together. (I explain a little later)
quote:
I think, as you say, Joseph Smith was a religious genius - I think he was also a very manipulative / influential person.
That's the same thing as "genius". His influence was dynamic enough to put together an entirely new church which continues to grow out from that influence.
quote:
But I just think there are way too many holes... I'm not really persuaded by the occult answer you gave - if God can reveal to him that the Church was apostate, surely he can reveal his thoughts on the superstitious leanings of people around him...
JS held the same superstitions! "God" doesn't appear to be too concerned about disabusing everyone of their silly beliefs. When "God" reveals, it seems to be specifically about ONE thing at a time. "God" doesn't leap right in and start correcting everything that's wrong.
quote:
The archaeology questions still seem way too big, and the Book of Abraham translation - well if he made that up, it follows that he likely made the rest up - especially given his 'evolving' theology (an interesting topic, and one that I wasn't aware of - thanks!).
But "evolving" is what religions always do, because of changing knowledge. For instance: the former RLDS, now call themselves the "Community of Christ." They've all but entirely dumped any references to JS and the BofM at all, and have with this latest change, joined mainstream Protestant Christianity entirely. That's quite an evolution away from their origins, and their century-long battle against the LDS.
quote:
ISTM that the only way you can be a 'reasonable' Mormon is to be a liberal one, and be content with the religious truths but not care for the historical fact. Still, that's just my opinion, perhaps 12 million Mormons can't be wrong!
What's "reasonable" about religion in the first place? It is all metaphysical experience seeking some kind of empirical interpretation.
Historical "fact" is problematical. I was sitting in "gospel doctrine" class just a couple of hours ago: and the lesson was on "the apostasy" and "first vision". The Mormon take on "the apostasy" first of all states that such an event occurred: denied by most or all of Christendom. Yet the "facts" are drawn from the same historical events: Mormons just see things differently. And I have to say that as I listened to the formulaic responses to the teacher's questions, I could just hear the lineup of responses to those responses: "Yes, but, I have a bigger concept in mind", or, "well, yes, but you have to consider the differing ways of looking at that", etc.
quote:
By the way, I'm glad for you that despite the change in your faith, your wife has stuck with you and the church has treated you well. Having heard far too many horror stories, I'm glad things have worked out okay for you...
I think my good fortune is a complex thing: first of all, my personal response to loss of faith in the religion of my forefathers has not resulted in animosity, argument or criticism of the church and its people in any way: there is nothing on the outside to indicate any change of perspective on the inside.
This translates to me as Dad and husband being essentially the same; if any change has manifested it would be relaxing into life more, taking things as they are without any religious angst coloring everything; and taking life one day at a time.
My wife finds me easier to get along with than I was as a religious "zealot" (although I always tried to tone down my fundamentalism, there is no comparison to how I approach relationships now: I accept everybody as equals, and only balk at injustice).
My last four children (still living at home) are getting a VERY different upringing religiously than their older five siblings did! It's almost like having two separate families: even their mother is different than she was with the older five, and part of that is reacting to (taking) my lead, and part of it is her own life-changing experience giving birth to the youngest (she almost died, and a lot of the "fire" went out of her personality; she used to be a screamer, and now she's mellow and laughs a lot and is very, very patient). Complex. But it all seems to turn out better for all of us: religious changes and personality changes too. I go to church to please the wife and don't rule my house as some patriarch....
quote:
One last question (I promise).
Don't worry about asking questions: answering questions is what I do right now.
quote:
Having observed that the Mormon church has changed significantly from its beginnings, what are the different Mormon responses to that.
Now I explain the consistency latent within the church's membership.
Most Mormons know more or less that something is out of kilter with early church history. And the responses are limited.
Most Mormons, like in any other religion, don't really study their church's history: they get "spoon-fed" the official cant, so never really are interested in a counter to that: anything coming at them from "outside" is discounted automatically as the work of apostates and servants of Satan to deceive.
Criticism or "alternate history" originating from within the church (the only kind I ever personally gave any credence to), produces unavoidable confrontation: a member who suddenly is questioning what the official history has been telling them all their lives, now has to decide if the authors of the "alternate history/criticism" are still in the church or out: as in, are they "members of the church in good standing", or are they "on the road to apostasy". Most Mormons view askance all scholarly works that bring up details from church history that jar with the official history: and they lump such scholars in with the apostates, or those who are "on the road to apostasy". They can be ignored or discounted as worthy of attention.
Then there are those like me (and my brother), who honestly go after knowledge from "the best books", as we have been counselled all of our lives to do: and the result is quite different from our expectations going in. We discover things that cannot possibly unite with the "faith-promoting history" taught by the church.
These people react first of all one of two ways: either they feel betrayed, frightened and/or angry; OR, they accept the "revelation" that the church cannot possibly be true in the same sense that they previously understood that word. The church can still be "true", but only from a changed perspective.
The changed perspectives are probably legion.
In my case, I see all religions as manmade, always and forever: "God" never did call prophets to call "the people" to repentance, or to institute an organized religion to protect and teach them en mass. The "true religion" is ALL individuals who are devoted to making the world better, and who only follow justice to make it so. (My brother's personal religion adheres to this "true faith"; but he also is one of those who feels betrayed by the church's leaders. I don't know if his anger is growing or diminishing. I think the latter.)
quote:
The Christian Church has changed extremely significantly since Acts, and I would consider myself a member of those who think that we have lost a great deal as a result. I'd prefer that we went back to meeting in homes, with no salaried elders / apostles, living by faith a lot more etc. etc. (not trying to start another tangent here btw with people disageeing with me!). Are there Mormons that think that the Mormon Church should do the same, and be more in line with how it was in the days of Joseph Smith, or are they not bothered? (or are they unaware of how much it HAS changed?)
This is another ironic point: Mormons believe that the modern church IS a restoration of the primitive church, along with all of the OT ordinances that Christ did not "fulfil" with his atonement. So meeting in homes or churches or anywhere is seen as unimportant, just meeting is important in the right spirit.
The early Mormon church per force was crude and ad hoc compared to the sleek, streamlined and wealthy modern LDS church. There are of course some individuals who believe that ALL the early (19th century) doctrines are still valid (I've been there myself). And all TBM's believe that the church is "unchanged" as far as the "saving ordinances" are concerned. Most Mormons believe that the church has not significantly changed (or essentially). It isn't my "job" to educate anyone about that or anything else.
I know the church has changed a lot. But I also know that is true of all religions. And the modern LDS church is much better than the early one.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Thanks for all your answers, Merlin. If I have more questions, I know who to ask ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm a bit sad that there aren't any 'orthodox' Mormons on the ship who can answer from their perspective. Your answers have been very helpful, but they're still coming from someone who in a very real sense has rejected Mormonism. Nevertheless, thanks very much!
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm a bit sad that there aren't any 'orthodox' Mormons on the ship who can answer from their perspective. Your answers have been very helpful, but they're still coming from someone who in a very real sense has rejected Mormonism.
I don't see Merlin as having rejected the church at all. But if you want to see how more orthodox Mormons respond to these questions just go to other discussion sites. Easy to find.
For example, I was much amused, on another site, by how lengthy and detailed questioning about the cartoon mentioned above was met by the most stony refusal to answer any questions about it. The response, in a nutshell, was that the point of view of the one making the cartoon is not worthy of any kind of response. But Merlin's cheerful response is, I'm sure, quite accurate.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
I agree Merlin hasn't abandoned the Church, but he has abandoned traditional Mormon teaching, which is what I was questioning. I have every respect for the Mormon Church - as far as I know they do a lot of good work (although as with most organisations there are negatives too). It was teaching and history I was questioning.
Would you be able to post some links to the better threads you looked at? Would be interesting...
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Would you be able to post some links to the better threads you looked at? Would be interesting...
I have one particular site and thread in mind, but for some reason I think we're not allowed to post links to other christian discussion forums. It's not one of the ten commandments, I see, so am I wrong about this?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I have one particular site and thread in mind, but for some reason I think we're not allowed to post links to other christian discussion forums. It's not one of the ten commandments, I see, so am I wrong about this?
Since no one has disagreed I'll give the link I have in mind.
It is a thread on "theologyweb" called "to Mormons Is this cartoon factual?". The stony responses to the question are amazing, and the discussion goes on for more pages than I cared to read.
To me it illustrated very clearly the absolute stranglehold on free thought that seems to exist within that religion.
To put it another way, the assertions of the cartoon are so scandalous that Mormonism surely can't be considered Christian if they are true. For example: - That Elohim is only the God of our planet.
- That we can be gods of our own planets.
- That Elohim came to earth and had sex with Mary.
- That Jesus had sex, and children, with multiple women around Him.
- That people are the result of the "endless celestial sex" of the gods with many women.
These ideas are crude to say the least.
Yet rather than deny them on that website, the mormons respond with circular arguments that reveal minds closed as tight as traps.
I am grateful for Merlin's candid comments. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
To me it illustrated very clearly the absolute stranglehold on free thought that seems to exist within that religion.
Sigh... After Merlin giving me hope that Mormons can reasonably discuss their faith, that hope quickly fades...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Still, at least the guy likes Napoleon Dynamite (IMO Mormonism's greatest export ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) )
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Still, at least the guy likes Napoleon Dynamite (IMO Mormonism's greatest export )
Is there anything Mormon about Napoleon Dynamite? The wedding at the end?
I do like the animated avatars on that website, although in general it is a lousy set-up compared with the Ship.
[ 20. January 2009, 14:28: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is there anything Mormon about Napoleon Dynamite? The wedding at the end?
I think one of the characters wears a Brigham Young University t-shirt or something... Apart from that, just that it's produced by Mormon dudes (not sure if Jon Heder's a Mormon...)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
Have just appraoched a group of travelling-missionary mormons ouside my favourite cafe (a building which also houses an ecumenical chapel). Talked first to a chacracter called 'Elder Davis' - he didn't like me asking his what his first name was, for some reason. I took the opportunity to commend the local chapel to him, and asked him if he had made any attempt to do a group activity in there. No real answer. He tried to foist various bits of paper on me, and to organise a 'teaching' at my own home ~ I explained, as politely as i could, that i already took a keen interest in all aspects of christianity, so had no need of this. I also told him that we should be very wary about a relatively new movement, which claims to have a superior grasp of what the gospels are really all about. He answered with 'by their fruits you shall know them' - fair enough. I then said (in a genuine bid to say something more positive) that i could see the appeal of mormonism to those americans who have, as part of the 'american dream', a vision of america as the 'new promised land'. At this point, Elder Davis simply walked away from me. Another Elder (a german man, as it transpired) then leapt in with 'Well, that's not to say that europeans are unrighteous!' - but I had never suggested that they were! (a very strange mis-understanding). He showed me some pictures of what happens in a mormon service, and stated how satisfied he was that he had found the truth. So I enquired as to how many other varities of christianity he had looked into - 'have you ever been to a quaker meeting, for example?' - answer - 'No'. I urged him to try to see the goodness in the other parts of 'God's pasture'.... Then I noticed my friend back at the cafe had started his lunch, so went back in there...
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(not sure if Jon Heder's a Mormon...)
Wikipedia says he is
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(not sure if Jon Heder's a Mormon...)
Wikipedia says he is
I guess that would explain why the farmer does the wedding at the end.
One thing that has always interested me about the Mormon church is its authoritarian nature. Especially how they maintain it with a lay clergy. I would think that relatively untrained men working on a part-time basis would eventually lead to a breakdown in discipline. Guess not.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
.... the assertions of the cartoon are so scandalous that Mormonism surely can't be considered Christian if they are true. For example: - That Elohim is only the God of our planet.
No, it doesn't say that (iirc), it says he is the God of this planet. The actual belief back then, as now, is that God the Father is the God of everything created: that as the "Word", Jesus Christ created this perceivable universe under the direction of his Father (which makes the Father the Creator of All, but Jesus Christ the implementor, as the Gospel of John tells us).
quote:
That we can be gods of our own planets.
Yes, doing what our fathers have done before us. That's the "polytheism" Ross addresses. But consider that this is NT based doctrine: "sons of God", "joint heirs with Christ", "one with Christ" as he is "one with his Father", etc. Children grow up to become like their parents: it is illogical to claim that the Mormon slant on parent and children relationships taught by such language in the Bible is wrong. It is different. But no one can claim that traditional doctrine (orthodoxy) necessarily makes Mormons wrong to believe that we are all literally sons and daughters of God the Father. And that our destiny is to become glorified children of God, partaking in the same powers of (pro)creation that God has.
quote:
That Elohim came to earth and had sex with Mary.
Yep, that's what B. Young taught. He also taught that Adam was God. Neither doctrine is part of the modern church and have not been for many generations now (both doctrines are examples of the kind of Journal of Discourse's (JofD's) stuff that didn't make it into the present manuals).
quote:
That Jesus had sex, and children, with multiple women around Him.
I have no idea where this one comes from. Even in my reading of the JofD's (not complete by any means) I never came across this one. If any early leader of the Mormon church taught this, it is news to me.
I do have a memory of being taught that Jesus was married. But whether he had children was always speculation.
Such speculative subjects are not included in any of the church's curriculum.
quote:
That people are the result of the "endless celestial sex" of the gods with many women.
Well, sex seems pretty endless to me too, even here in mortality, thank "God". It's one of the three fundamental and "free" pleasures of life, after all. The notion that sex is just for mortals is about as lackluster as anything.
Remember, that JS was practicing not just polygany, but also polyandry, with other Mormon men's wives (keeping it a secret from their husbands is beside the point): and D&C 132 almost surely is beginning to explore the doctrine of polyandry (what's good for the goose is good for the gander), directly addressing Emma Smith. (I am waiting for the day that the church does a "new" edition of the D&C, and section 132 just quietly disappears altogether.)
quote:
These ideas are crude to say the least.
Which is why the church has dumped them as official doctrine. The JofD's, where all those ideas are taught by the then-general authorities, were never included as the "canon" of scripture; and in fact in the late 20th century they were not even encouraged reading. The current priesthood and relief society manuals of instruction quote a lot from the early prophets, including JofD's, but only very selectively, such that the modern doctrine of the church is supported by said-quotations: for instance, the many things B. Young said about plural marriage: not one iota of that made it to the manual on B. Young's teachings (and ironically, not a word about his having more than one wife at a time).
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Thanks Merlin.
I guess the reason that the questions are so hard to answer is that it is unclear what the "official" church belief is on any of these things. What used to be taught and stated as gospel may or may not be upheld now.
Maybe the best way to deal with it is to treat questions with withering scorn.
It does seem to me that the Mormon church contains the seeds of its own destruction, since a close examination of its doctrines and history are so embarrassing that they can't be freely discussed.
While it's true that most organizations of any kind, including huge Christian denominations, have many embarrassing episodes, the Mormon church seems to be particularly vulnerable. Hence the need for such strict discipline and the refusal to answer questions on the website I linked to.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
....While it's true that most organizations of any kind, including huge Christian denominations, have many embarrassing episodes, the Mormon church seems to be particularly vulnerable. Hence the need for such strict discipline and the refusal to answer questions on the website I linked to.
The vulnerability of the Mormon religion today stems from within; it has weathered everything the "outside" can throw at it. But in so-doing it has built up a historical perspective of itself that denies uncomfortable aspects about its founder and his successors during the crisis period of polygamy.
It is specifically these controversial issues that the modern leaders of the church "white wash" into a "faith promoting history". To have your very prophets in a state of denial, and treating contenders with "withering scorn", only works up to a point. The Internet ("information highway") has very recently made such a tenable position UNtenable. The church leaders must alter their tactics to meet the traffic on the information highway, or else get run down by it.
I believe that the shift in tactics has been going on for years by now. Gordon B. Hinckley, president of the LDS church from 1994 to 2008, was the most forward-looking president (prophet) of them all. He never focused on doctrinal issues, but rather on behavior and intent of the faithful.
The "general authorities" when they speak in the semiannual conferences of the church tend more and more to focus on topics of general good intent, on giving advice (rather than educating Mormons on their church's history): such as family relationships, getting along with our neighbors, acquiring and holding onto personal faith, repentance, forgiveness, etc. and etc. They do NOT bring up church history (except in passing annecdotal ways), the defense of peculiar doctrines, or defending the church's stand vis-a-vis controversial topics. They stay safely in midstream, consistently mainstreaming the church. This all comes under the heading, "preach/teach nothing save faith and repentance unto this people". "Of tenets though shalt not speak." "The mysteries" are for private study, not general conference or the general congregation, etc.
The membership, especially in the USA, especially-especially in the Intermountain West (the heartland of Mormon fundamentalism), is years behind the vision of Hinckley, et al. the progressive Mormon leaders. Only over the course of time will the method of not referencing the past too much produce a mindset of acceptance: that the church is not set in stone, that it changes to suit the needs of the modern members, and does not exist to adhere to some archaic past paradigm: that the past does not need to be defended, because "that was the church then, and we should talk about the church now"....
[ 22. January 2009, 16:59: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Only over the course of time will the method of not referencing the past too much produce a mindset of acceptance: that the church is not set in stone, that it changes to suit the needs of the modern members, and does not exist to adhere to some archaic past paradigm: that the past does not need to be defended, because "that was the church then, and we should talk about the church now"....
Thank you, that does seem to explain people's experience with the Mormon church. Most church's spend their time urging people to behave and inspiring them with direction in their lives - not explaining their history. So the Mormon church enjoys a positive reputation and people have positive experiences with Mormons.
There are certainly parallels to Christianity. Much of Christian history is easily criticized - whether the misbehavior of the popes, the savagery of the crusades, the repression of thought, or the domination of European governments.
The difficulty with the Mormon church, however, is that these things especially mark the founder himself and the entire founding structure - lending credibility to the suggestion that he never had the visions he claimed, or read "reformed Egyptian", but was simply a gifted storyteller and accomplished philanderer.
It is one thing for a denomination to modify and modernize its doctrines. It seems like it would be more difficult to distance itself from its founder.
[ 22. January 2009, 23:07: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
....It is one thing for a denomination to modify and modernize its doctrines. It seems like it would be more difficult to distance itself from its founder.
The difficulty is because of how recent the founder was alive, and the wealth of documentation.
I don't expect our "era" to largely vanish into undocumented obscurity like the period that the primitive Christian church was growing: but that's just imaginitive speculation.
What the real situation is presents problematic comparisons: critics tend to focus on what you cared to single out (and other negative things about JS), whereas believers, or at least those with a neutral attitude (speaking of myself) will defend JS on the basis of his humanity. TBM's of course want a heroic level to JS, almost perfection. He could not possibly be remotely close to that. But his good qualities were at least equally large, and more of his character, as his negative qualities. Anyone who has studied JS in depth knows this is true.
What shot my efforts to believe the church's claim on divine authority (that there is really such a thing in the first place), was finding out the full skinny on JS's "philandering", as you put it. First of all, his sexual relations were anything but casual liasons: he was an intensely religious person who required his sexuality to have righteous definition: thus the "restitution of all things" included OT partriachal marriage, a la JS style (i.e. through "revelation" just like everything else).
The trouble was, his M.O. was at variance with my concept of sexual morality: and I cannot believe that "God" would not only condone such behavior, but command it, by sending an angel with a drawn sword to threaten JS if he didn't at once enter "the practice" of patriarchal marriage. (He used this coercive story on several of his youngest and most impressionable marks; in addition to claiming, Swedenborgian style, that he and the girls were soulmates from the preexistence, and that not even all the demons of hell could keep them apart in this life, etc. Another tactic of coercion to get a balking girl to "marry" him, was to threaten her with dire events in the future if she did not follow his offer/advice/command: and in at least one situation, where the already married woman refused to marry him polyandrously and later had a misfortune, he told her that he had known it would happen and it was because she had not obeyed his counsel. Etc.) His evident behavior in tactically maneuvering both girls and their parents into agreeing with him and in keeping his "marriages" with already married LDS women a secret is what finally put me off entirely. It was the straw that broke my back.
The resulting world view does not include any dogmatic claims as other than manmade. "God" does not make up churchs or religions for masses of people. But, "God" does work within such orgs, as within everything we human beings do. That does not validate anything we make up.
Many or even most religions have founders that are easily criticised. So getting beyond their founder isn't exactly a unique challenge for Mormons.
What does pose a unique circumstance is the Mormon claim that JS and his successors are prophets of God, bearing God's priesthood in a unique calling within only the LDS church: that claim is huge, and requires something more than a protestant founder's objections with the mainstream RCC church to back it up.
And as you will agree, the Mormons cannot handle criticism of JS like the kind I have offered above: it undermines the morality of the church if its founder resorted to such tactics to secure the women he had his mind set upon. But the very women themselves are the witnesses of his tactics and words to them. This, of course, is NOT taught or discussed within the church. Even though I learned about it from Tod Compton, a member in good standing at the time (and as far as I know he still is): his book on JS's polygamous wives will never be a source one can refer to in church without garnering animosity from the TBM's there. It is too much.
The solution, salvation, lies in the adaptability of people. Once this kind of knowledge is widespread enough to include virtually everyone in the church, JS's flawed humanity will be accepted. His genius as a religious innovator will become his most admired trait.
What this acceptance will do to modify (moderate) the church's claims on unique, divine favor and authority, I can only guess: and I guess that it will go away just like polygamy did, without destroying the church's attraction as an org that promotes strong family values and religious community solidarity.
Back in the late 1800's, many general authorities claimed that without the active practice of polygamy the Mormon church would cease to exist: recently, Jeffrey Holland (a current apostle) said almost word for word the same thing about priesthood authority; without it we would cease to be a church. He has also said that if JS was not exactly all he claimed to be, then he and his church should be consigned to hell.
Such statements reveal, imho, an insecurity even near the top: and such statements are no more valid than the ones about polygamy over 100 years ago: the church is still here, despite the virtual destruction of its original family way of life. If that didn't destroy the church, I seriously doubt that a revision of what exactly the church means by "priesthood authority", will have even an equal effect upon its members' allegiance.
A church is more than its doctrines: it is the sum total of its parts, and the most important parts are its people....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
What shot my efforts to believe the church's claim on divine authority (that there is really such a thing in the first place), was finding out the full skinny on JS's "philandering", as you put it. First of all, his sexual relations were anything but casual liasons: he was an intensely religious person who required his sexuality to have righteous definition: thus the "restitution of all things" included OT partriachal marriage, a la JS style (i.e. through "revelation" just like everything else).
The trouble was, his M.O. was at variance with my concept of sexual morality: and I cannot believe that "God" would not only condone such behavior, but command it, by sending an angel with a drawn sword to threaten JS if he didn't at once enter "the practice" of patriarchal marriage. (He used this coercive story on several of his youngest and most impressionable marks; in addition to claiming, Swedenborgian style, that he and the girls were soulmates from the preexistence, and that not even all the demons of hell could keep them apart in this life, etc. Another tactic of coercion to get a balking girl to "marry" him, was to threaten her with dire events in the future if she did not follow his offer/advice/command: and in at least one situation, where the already married woman refused to marry him polyandrously and later had a misfortune, he told her that he had known it would happen and it was because she had not obeyed his counsel. Etc.) His evident behavior in tactically maneuvering both girls and their parents into agreeing with him and in keeping his "marriages" with already married LDS women a secret is what finally put me off entirely. It was the straw that broke my back.
[/QB]
This reminds me of the 'Nine o' Clock Service' scandal back in the 90's, with Chris Brain in Sheffield. Similarly to JS, he:
- Slowly moved from a Christian POV to a more New Age / off the wall view.
- Founded a whole community based around himself.
- Manipulated many women around him sexually, often using the same techniques you've mentioned.
- Was/is a very charismatic, engaging and gifted person who used that to full personal advantage.
And all this within the Anglican church ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Do you think that the Mormon Church would have grown like it has, had JS not been martyred? As far as I know, Brigham Young was the one who really established it as a religion. Do you think it would have just fizzled out otherwise?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
...
They do NOT bring up church history (except in passing annecdotal ways), the defense of peculiar doctrines, or defending the church's stand vis-a-vis controversial topics. They stay safely in midstream, consistently mainstreaming the church. This all comes under the heading, "preach/teach nothing save faith and repentance unto this people". "Of tenets though shalt not speak." "The mysteries" are for private study, not general conference or the general congregation, etc.
That sounds much like the way that the 'great and the good' in the anglican church try to operate ...
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
....Do you think that the Mormon Church would have grown like it has, had JS not been martyred? As far as I know, Brigham Young was the one who really established it as a religion. Do you think it would have just fizzled out otherwise?
B. Young advanced an already firmly established church. JS's church was a going concern long before his death. Well over half the members followed B. Young into the wilderness; the rest fragmented into various splinter sects; the largest of which was eventually the RLDS (now, Community of Christ): none of them ever amounted to even a tenth of the same membership as the main LDS church. So B. Young took what JS had organized and basically didn't fiddle with it: he tried out a few theories, such as Adam-God, but none of them went anywhere.
Had JS lived to old age as head of the Mormons, he would have done much to sabbotage his own work, imho. The main reason is because he was constantly evolving his theology. I don't see how polyandry would have gone down well: polygany had its own set of insurmountable (unnatural) problems: polyandry would have broken the church wide open. And then there was JS's evident belief in reincarnation (according to Eliza R. Snow Smith Young): how that could possibly be reconciled with the BofM's "this life is the only time we have to prepare to meet God", as in the ONLY life we get, seems impossible (Mormons believe this today: that we get this singular teensy weensy mortal span, to buttonhole each of us into a "kingdom of glory" forever).
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
If I may jump in at this late point......Mormonism, at least to my mind, seems like a rather slap-dash compilation of many of the unorthodox, off-the-wall theologies that were rampant in the 1st half of the American 19th Cent.....a little Quakerism, at dash Adventism, a soupcon of Free Masonry, a pinch of Spiritualism, etc. Joseph Smith (JS) was obviously and smart fellow and seems to have been fairly widely read, although I don't think he understood what he was reading. But I think he was at least marginally better educated than his friends and neighbors....and don't forget, his supposed ability to read "Reformed Egyptian" corresponds roughly in time with the excitement going on in Europe generated by Champollion's translation of "real" Egyptian hieroglyphs. As for his appearent hyper-sexuality, well, it makes me think of Jim Jones and David Koresh, both of whom used sex to control their followers. W
What really intrigues me about early Mormonism is why did it appear in staid, rural, upstate New York? Why was this area such a hot bed of heterodoxy?
What makes ordinary people buy into such an unordinary and frankly bizare belief system? One more thing I'll never understand.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...I hope that makes the difference in the meaning of "gods" more clear, as Mormons look at it. ...
I disagree with that -- but we can agree that Mormon theology is a constantly evolving moving target. Manymanymany conflicting views are current within even mainstream Mormonism. (Sometimes even in the same person's head!)
Frankly, it seems to me that Mormonism is even more fractured in its beliefs than Anglicanism.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...I hope that makes the difference in the meaning of "gods" more clear, as Mormons look at it. ...
I disagree with that -- but we can agree that Mormon theology is a constantly evolving moving target. Manymanymany conflicting views are current within even mainstream Mormonism. (Sometimes even in the same person's head!)
Ross
That would sound quite appealing to me ~ if it could be discussed over coffee and a cigar??
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
Yes, Ross, you Anglicans seem to allow for a fairly wide range of beliefs and practices, but they are within the traditional confines of orthodox Christianity........at least for the most part.
....and you have proposed a history of the Western Hemisphere that, at this point, seems utterly contradicted by science and history. I was recently reading about an study that attempted to find Semitic gene markers in a rather large cross-section of Meso-American peoples and none were found. Other studies have looked for traces of Semitic language and elements of Semitic writing in samples of Meso-American peoples and their glyphs but again, none appear. Now, finally being able to read Mayan glyphs, we find no mention of any of the great cities and civilizations that JS tells us existed prior to the European arrival. It just doesn't make sense.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilfried
Shipmate
# 12277
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
What really intrigues me about early Mormonism is why did it appear in staid, rural, upstate New York? Why was this area such a hot bed of heterodoxy?
Upstate New York of the time was not so staid. It was the burnt over district, a place of much religious foment where a number of religious movements were founded. In that way also JS was very much a product of his time and place.
[ 23. January 2009, 20:56: Message edited by: Wilfried ]
Posts: 429 | From: Lefty on the Right Coast | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Yes, Ross, you Anglicans seem to allow for a fairly wide range of beliefs and practices, but they are within the traditional confines of orthodox Christianity........at least for the most part.
....and you have proposed a history of the Western Hemisphere that, at this point, seems utterly contradicted by science and history. I was recently reading about an study that attempted to find Semitic gene markers in a rather large cross-section of Meso-American peoples and none were found. Other studies have looked for traces of Semitic language and elements of Semitic writing in samples of Meso-American peoples and their glyphs but again, none appear. Now, finally being able to read Mayan glyphs, we find no mention of any of the great cities and civilizations that JS tells us existed prior to the European arrival. It just doesn't make sense.
Ummm.... you're not talking to me in that second graf, I trust?
Glockenspiel, I was with you until you mentioned the cigar. <gag>
(However, I oppose the stinky phallic symbols on grounds of Bad Taste, Bad Smells, and Mess -- as opposed to God Will Hate You If You Smoke.)
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
Upstate New York of the time was not so staid. It was the burnt over district, a place of much religious foment where a number of religious movements were founded. In that way also JS was very much a product of his time and place.
I agree with this. I have read, for example, that the writings of my own church, Swedenborgianism, were regularly printed in the daily papers in Palmyra, so that Smith would have been quite familiar with them and appeared to have borrowed several ideas from them.
On the website I referred to above I found an amusing account about Joseph Smith's storytelling ability from early youth. Speaking of his childhood, his mother makes the following observation:
quote:
During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them." - Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith The Prophet, 1853, p 85.
Also
quote:
“…our sons would endeavor to get through their work as early as possible, and say, ‘Mother, have supper early, so we can have a long evening to listen to Joseph.’ Sometimes Joseph would describe the appearance of the Nephites, their mode of dress and warfare, their implements of husbandry, etc, and many things he had seen in vision.” – Lucy Mack Smith, Wandle Mace autobiography in Milton V. Backman Jr. and Keith W. Perkins, eds, Writings of Early Latter-day Saints and Their Contemporaries, A Database Collection, 2nd ed., rev. 45.
So it appears that he had a gifted imagination, and was telling stories about these things long before finding the golden tablets.
When you look into it there are lots of interesting things about Mormonism - as is probably true of every religion.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Another borrowed tidbit was "the tree of life" vision of Lehi in the BofM. Joseph Smith senior had that vision when JS was a child and told it in specific detail to his family.
As stated, the BofM is clearly an early 19th century work, borrowing from JS's personal experiences/imagination and family lore: from popular religious concepts of the day; from even the typical revivalist camp meetings (king Benjamin's address and the Nephites camped around his raised "tower" exactly mirror the way camp meetings were set up in JS's neighborhood); common views regarding the Hebrew origins of the Amerinds, etc.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
I have agreed to meet a couple of mormon elders for a chat on saturday afternoon - they went ahead with this idea, even though I did warn them that they would not be in for an easy ride. So - on behalf of all my shipmates, any questions or lines of enquiry/exmaination that you would like me to pursue??
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
I have agreed to meet a couple of mormon elders for a chat on saturday afternoon - they went ahead with this idea, even though I did warn them that they would not be in for an easy ride. So - on behalf of all my shipmates, any questions or lines of enquiry/exmaination that you would like me to pursue??
I've been on the delivering end of this. As an LDS missionary, the most disconcerting thing was getting into an argument over doctrine with someone who simply wanted to debate. Your chances of having any satisfaction from a prolonged interchange go down if you go into it intending to debate Mormonism versus mainstream (orthodox) Christianity.
That said, the most difficult parts of Mormonims, as introduced, is the incompleteness of the story as delivered. If you know things that they don't say, you could politely hit them with those details to see what they have to say. Probably they will be blind-sided by anything "controversial" that you have to offer; and will soon politely excuse themselves to go look for someone who is interested in "investigating" the church, rather than questioning or faulting it....
[ 17. June 2009, 15:56: Message edited by: MerlintheMad ]
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
Thanks for that, I will collect all suggestions, air them, and report back.
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Of course, the same approach could work with all other denominations... I still remember my high-school professor's debating with Protestants, and pointing to the sola-scriptura and anti-tradition guys the problems of their theology...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
A brief list of theological "problems" Mormonism has with mainstream Christianity:
Mormons appear to be polytheists, but the actual doctrine is an interpretation of the worthy being joint heirs with Jesus Christ of all that the Father has.
The "Prophet" is the only priesthood authority on earth to speak for God. (move over Roman papacy)
Only those married in Mormon temples will be married in the afterlife. And only marrieds will continue to have children forever.
Families "sealed" in temples are families forever, with the father at the head of his eternally increasing family.
Only men hold priesthood; women are helpmates to their husbands. But men and women are equal in the sight of God. (the popular, evolving notion among Mormons is that women don't need to hold priesthood, that priesthood is necessary for men but not for women; nevertheless, only men sit as the "general authorities" of the church; women leaders serve in the "auxiliary" organizations of the church, but never in the leadership of priesthood organization)
Mormons believe that their actions do matter in attaining salvation; action shows faith. Ultimately, no matter what we do we cannot earn salvation: but Jesus Christ saves all those who repent.
Blood atonement and polygamy are not doctrines taught in the church as they were up to the end of the 19th century. Polygamy (plurality of wives) is the true order of marriage in heaven, and God has commanded it on earth for brief periods (most Mormons do not expect the church to ever again institute polygamy on earth; and most do not like thinking about it as part of the afterlife either, but it is a doctrine of the church) Blood atonement is understood to mean that only through the blood of Christ can a person be forgiven of his repented sins, and repented sins are taken upon Christ through his atonement/suffering, sparing the repentant sinner from the effects/suffering of those sins: but unrepented sins, before they can be forgiven through the blood of Christ, must be paid for through personal suffering of the unrepentant sinner (early blood atonement doctrine seemed, to some, to mean that the apostate or murderer must shed his own blood to have his sins atoned for; but this is viewed today as having been an extreme interpretation of the prophet's teachings, and was never intended that way)
The Godhead is a physically embodied Father and Son and a Holy Ghost (Spirit) without a physical body.
Mormons are expected to give 10% of their income as tithing, and other "generous" offerings as counseled, according to their means.
Mormons do not drink liquor, use tobacco, drink coffee or tea, and are supposed to be voluntarily abstemious in all eating and drinking, especially in eating meat.
They believe that the full truth as revealed to "all the prophets since the world began" has been and is being revealed in the church through the prophets.
They believe that "when the Prophet speaks the debate is over", because his counsel comes straight from God.
Their Thirteen Articles of Faith are a good place to start in getting an introduction of the church's religious doctrines....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
In reply to Merlin, a brief list of problems lots of Christians have with Mormonism
- They look creepy. The only ones we ever see are the evangelists and they dress like 1960s IBM salesmen or evil mass murderers from very disturbing horror films. And they have name tags. No-one has name tags outside of a convention. Probably a very creepy cult-like sales convention. The JWs look a lot nicer - usually pairs of women, one nice cuddly middle-aged one and the other very often a stunner. They look like you want to talk to them. Mormon missionaries make you glad to be on the other side of the street.
- Adding stuff to the Bible looks like adding stuff to Jesus Christ.
- If they really do believe in the Trinity they could say so explicitly. They seem to vacillate.
- And its hard to know what they do believe because they are so secretive.
- the Book of Mormon is obviously full of made-up historical nonsense. They can't surely believe all that fake history of America? We suspect that they actually don't believe it but they pretend to to keep in with their temples. We really mean what we say about Jesus, we don't want to be part of a religion that pretends to believe impossible doctrines.
- The people who founded it seem to have been notorious liars
- That odd stuff about baptising the dead.
- Secrecy. Big turn-off. Why don't they let you know what hapens in their temples?
- We don't really believe they think women are equal to men. Have some women leaders and we'll start taking you more seriously. Yes, us Protestants think the same about the Catholics.
- Where is Salt Lake City anyway?
- Right-wing politics
- The religion seems totally American. Far too American. Taking it on board would be like trying to become American. If we wanted to be American we'd go to America. Even over hear almost every Mormon you actually meet is American. Even the few non-American Mormons seem to look like Americans.
- It all seems too uptight and controlled and disciplined. Its just not very attractive. Not very friendly. Like someone is always waiting for you to do or say the wrong thing. Like the scary people in a story by Ray Bradbury or Philip K Dick.
- We don't really believe they think black people are equal to white people
- Underwear. Yuck.
- Polygamy isn't really a problem. Secretly the blokes all think it sounds like an interesting idea. At least as a sexual fantasy. We don't really mind that much. What we do mind is the stories of loony weird Mormon groups taking over whole counties and exiling all their teenage boys so the older men can keep all the women. Yes, we know that's really not your fault, these are another lot and the top bosses in Salt Lake City denounced them all years ago. But we are going to blame you for it anyway. And how can we tell the nice Mormons from the nasty Mormons?
- They don't drink. Not even tea or coffee. That's weird. Even monks drink.
- Novell Netware
- Did I mention the creepy missionaries?
[ 18. June 2009, 15:06: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
They say that religious movements, like neurotics, tend to be stuck in whatever era their formation came about. To me, science-fiction cosmology notwithstanding, Mormon Godtalk, personal piety and moral discourse feels very 19th century (including their quaint insistence on using the KJV). Even their religious artwork, if you see their publications, seems schmaltzy and anachronistic.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
I realize I'm getting in to this thread late, but I've been away for a while.
To comment on the original question: Yes, Mormonism as taught be Smith, Young & Co. is a bunch of nonsense and demonstrably in error!
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
I have a clerical colleague who used to serve a mainline church in Salt Lake City. One of his deacons was a convert from Mormonism and also a Freemason. He told my friend (also a Mason) that there is a good bit of Mormon ecclesiastical ritual that is taken straight out of Masonry.
I agree with everyone here who has asserted that there is much in Mormonism that is demonstrably false, on historical, anthropological and archaeological grounds. Their theology, moreover, is about as bizarre as second-century Gnosticism: Christianity with a lot of hooey thrown into the recipe.
I would not be so judgmental as to presume that an LDS Mormon can't be a Christian --- God's Spirit can't be "contained" --- but Mormon theology decidedly doesn't square with most of what constitutes traditional Christianity.
The Community of Christ, which someone mentioned, is one of the sects --- perhaps better called a denomination in this instance --- that separated itself from mainstream Mormonism early on. Originally known as The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, they have a fair number of churches here in Maine. They're ecumenically active, their services resemble typical Protestant services of a modestly evangelical sort, and --- quite unlike the Salt Lake body --- they are officially gay-friendly. They seem to have distanced themselves considerably from their roots; I'm not even sure to what extent the central Mormon books are used by them except as historical curiosities.
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In reply to Merlin, a brief list of problems lots of Christians have with Mormonism
- They look creepy. The only ones we ever see are the evangelists and they dress like 1960s IBM salesmen or evil mass murderers from very disturbing horror films. And they have name tags. No-one has name tags outside of a convention. Probably a very creepy cult-like sales convention. The JWs look a lot nicer - usually pairs of women, one nice cuddly middle-aged one and the other very often a stunner. They look like you want to talk to them. Mormon missionaries make you glad to be on the other side of the street.
Heehee. You've only described guys: what about the girl missionaries, and the old couples? The name badges are to make sure that you DO know who and what they are immediately; so that other dark-suited pairs of guys with briefcases and books don't pass for Mormon missionaries.
quote:
Adding stuff to the Bible looks like adding stuff to Jesus Christ.
There isn't more story added, just more words in "strategically important" places: where the doctrine seems out of whack, J. Smith put clarity back in. You'd have to get a copy and compare to see what I mean.
quote:
If they really do believe in the Trinity they could say so explicitly. They seem to vacillate.
Not a Nicean Creed sort of Trinity, no: but the Book of Mormon could be held to comply with that "orthodox" kind of Trinity/Godhead, whereas the later theology ditched it, but not blatantly so that a problem is caused with the Book of Mormon! You'd have to grow up with the doctrine to get it easily. I can see the dichotomy easily, now that I am standing well off to "one side": but in the midst of the doctrine/theology, the dichotomy of 1830, 1835 and 1843 Smith theology is not readily apparent.
quote:
And its hard to know what they do believe because they are so secretive.
The only thing lending a secretive quality to the religion is the temple worship: even many Mormons who haven't been inside, yet, don't know much more than you do (well, that's probably not true anymore, with the Net having the entire endowment ceremony online, including the changes over the years). Mormons are anything but secretive: but they don't like being mocked or grilled, which they are used to being apprehensive of.
quote:
the Book of Mormon is obviously full of made-up historical nonsense. They can't surely believe all that fake history of America? We suspect that they actually don't believe it but they pretend to to keep in with their temples. We really mean what we say about Jesus, we don't want to be part of a religion that pretends to believe impossible doctrines.
The dotrines in the Book of Mormon are not in trouble with mainstream Christianity: it's the stuff that comes into the religion later that causes eyebrows to go up.
Similarly, it isn't the stories or even the made-up history in the Book of Mormon that is the trouble: but rather the claims of its origins, vis-a-vis the angelic visitations, the "gold plates", etc.
The book itself is blatantly a targum of the Bible, even of the NT, which could not be part of American history after 600 BCE (the date that the "Nephites" left Jerusalem). The ways that J. Smith worked the KJV passages into the Book of Mormon are rather clever, actually: if it weren't for the obvious 18th century errors, and the 19th century world depicted in the so-called ancient American record, one could take the Book of Mormon for something other than a manmade collection of inspiring tales and teachings.
Actually, I have exactly the same trouble with the Bible (as the "Bible Unearthed" thread shows), as I do with the Book of Mormon: manmade stuff masquerading as true history: the difference is that J. Smith's book is very new, whereas the Jewish OT is too old to immediately peg as a device created for religious and political purposes: and the NT is likewise too old to easily detect the writings as coming much later than the events and era they describe.
quote:
The people who founded it seem to have been notorious liars
I don't think "notorious" is the best adjective; because I believe that THEY believed what they claimed as revelations. Now, some things J. Smith did lie about and there was nothing about the divine being denied: he lied to protect himself and others living in polygamy. I haven't been able to see any lying about the religion-making aspects, i.e. the claims to divine visitations, etc.
That doesn't mean I believe in Smith's claims as literal and exclusive: he believed them, but so do a lot of other people believe in their metaphysical experiences: and they can't all be equally exclusive, can they? Somebody is out to lunch: or they all are together: or they are all equally valid for those who choose to follow them -- pick yer religion, sort of thing....
quote:
That odd stuff about baptising the dead.
The concept is in the NT. Smith just fleshed the single reference out to be a complete saving ordinance (this is done in the temples too).
quote:
Secrecy. Big turn-off. Why don't they let you know what hapens in their temples?
Like I said, you can get it online. The "secrecy" is actually sacred reticence: it gets back to that not wanting to be mocked or ridiculed thing.
I know EVERYTHING that Mormons do in temples; I did it for years (and still enter on occasions when family are going through to get married or prepare for missions). And there isn't a scrap of anything that "goes on in there" that would raise more than a yawn.
quote:
We don't really believe they think women are equal to men. Have some women leaders and we'll start taking you more seriously. Yes, us Protestants think the same about the Catholics.
Ain't going to happen. It is a male-led organization: very patriarchal, very OT that way.
quote:
Where is Salt Lake City anyway?
You are having me on.
quote:
Right-wing politics
Obama took the popular vote (c. 51%) in Salt Lake County: the first time a Democrat president won that in Utah in its history, as far as I know. Of course, Mormons are no longer the majority in SLC, and it won't be long before they will slip below 50% State-wide.
quote:
The religion seems totally American. Far too American. Taking it on board would be like trying to become American. If we wanted to be American we'd go to America. Even over hear almost every Mormon you actually meet is American. Even the few non-American Mormons seem to look like Americans.
Maybe it is popular among "foreigners" who like American ways, then; because over half the Mormons in the world are outside the USA.
quote:
It all seems too uptight and controlled and disciplined. Its just not very attractive. Not very friendly. Like someone is always waiting for you to do or say the wrong thing. Like the scary people in a story by Ray Bradbury or Philip K Dick.
Naw. Nobody is watching to see you screw up. But I agree, it is disciplined, tight religious lifestyle stuff: but it is SELF disciplined in its approach. Some/many people work better at being good that way. Others not. YMMV, of course, applies in making such choices.
quote:
We don't really believe they think black people are equal to white people
The old Anglo membership around Utah are mixed that way, still; but the old prejudices are fading with time. I don't know anyone personally who is prejudiced regarding ethnic origin: and as I said, over half the members are outside the USA, overwhelmingly South American and increasingly African.
quote:
Underwear. Yuck.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif) You get used to it. When I wear T-shirts in summer, I leave the top (undershirt) off: In colder seasons I put on chamois button-up shirts and don the undershirt again (I am in "violation" of the "dress code", of course, during the summer, but so what). The slick, nylon kind are almost undetectable when worn, especially in arrid conditions; there's also a "net" weave of nylon that breathes even better for humid climates. The early "pioneer" kind of cotton, tied down the front, reaching to ankle and wrist, are long-gone (thank heaven).
quote:
Polygamy isn't really a problem. Secretly the blokes all think it sounds like an interesting idea. At least as a sexual fantasy. We don't really mind that much. What we do mind is the stories of loony weird Mormon groups taking over whole counties and exiling all their teenage boys so the older men can keep all the women. Yes, we know that's really not your fault, these are another lot and the top bosses in Salt Lake City denounced them all years ago. But we are going to blame you for it anyway. And how can we tell the nice Mormons from the nasty Mormons?
You have to ask the right questions.
Actually, you can tell often by the way those isolated Fundie groups dress their womenfolk; pioneer style really stands out, the long dresses, the bunned hair, etc.
I have a real problem with polygamy: unless the female population greatly outnumbers the male it makes no, natural, sense. It doesn't work, ever: it gets top heavy, and produces the hunt for women that the FLDS have shown recently.
quote:
They don't drink. Not even tea or coffee. That's weird. Even monks drink.
It's a Protestant teetotaler thing: "demon rum" attitude, you know. Complete abstinence is the line in the sand; you can't get inside a temple without complying. It isn't for everyone, that's certain. (I don't drink, not even tea or coffee; I was raised not to, and just the smell of alcohol, even coffee, I find undesireable; spilled beer smells disagreeable). One thing's for sure, though: Mormons who live by the letter and spirit of "the Word of Wisdom" (the dietary code) are safer and have better health generally than the drinking, smoking, coffee-quaffing world.
quote:
Novell Netware
?
quote:
Did I mention the creepy missionaries?
Yes you did. I've enjoyed replying to your list, even if you are waxing satirical....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[*]The religion seems totally American. Far too American. Taking it on board would be like trying to become American. If we wanted to be American we'd go to America. Even over hear almost every Mormon you actually meet is American. Even the few non-American Mormons seem to look like Americans.
In some parts of the world I think the sheer Americanness of Mormonism is its major selling point. I remember being on a field trip with students in Budapest in 1994, when Hungary was eagerly opening up to the west, and hearing the head of the Mormon mission there saying that many people the missionaries spoke to were enthusiastic about it just because it was American.
We were talking about it after choir practice last night (I can't remember how on earth we got on to Mormonism after choir practice) and one of the choir, who's doing a PhD on business practice in Romania, said that she'd found the same attitude there - anything American was assocated with success and prosperity. I'd guess that this accounts for a large part of Mormonism's spread in post-Communist Europe and much of the developing world.
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
...I agree with everyone here who has asserted that there is much in Mormonism that is demonstrably false, on historical, anthropological and archaeological grounds. Their theology, moreover, is about as bizarre as second-century Gnosticism: Christianity with a lot of hooey thrown into the recipe.
The Mormon church leaders have made a mistaken judgment, imho, in trying to "mainstream" the religion into being accepted as a form of Christianity like Protestantism; it has always stepped away from the RCC (which, ironically, its doctrines resembles more than not), but wanted dialogue and acceptance into the Christian community. But Mormonism is not like anything else in too many ways. A better, more honest approach, would be to admit that it's a new revelation separate from Christianity (early Mormons in fact took this view; the modern push for ecumencial acceptance is a different approach from the "us and them" attitude of the early Mormons): more like Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism, and Islam was an offshoot of Judeo-Christianity: Mormonism is an offshoot, inspired as a revealed faith, like Islam and Christianity originally were. It is like a modern "refreshening" of Judeo-Christianity.
If it has concepts similar to primitive Christianity, this fits in well with the revealed claims: Mormonism claims to be the primitive church restored as it was.
quote:
...
The Community of Christ, which someone mentioned, is one of the sects --- perhaps better called a denomination in this instance --- that separated itself from mainstream Mormonism early on. Originally known as The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, they have a fair number of churches here in Maine. They're ecumenically active, their services resemble typical Protestant services of a modestly evangelical sort, and --- quite unlike the Salt Lake body --- they are officially gay-friendly. They seem to have distanced themselves considerably from their roots; I'm not even sure to what extent the central Mormon books are used by them except as historical curiosities.
The Community of Christ (recently RLDS) is indeed the largest denomination of the main Mormon faith. As far as I know, they no longer adhere to anything in the "added scripture" books of Mormonism, and follow only the Bible as doctrine.
For what it's worth, I think the mainline Mormon religion (LDS) is going the same way. Whether or not the leadership will attempt a more fundamentalist approach to keep the church from changing into just another denom of Christianity, I can't say: but even if they did, I think such a strategy would fail, because of the strong case against any historicity regarding the Book of Mormon: and also the origin stories about the church are different -- as taught by the church -- than the full history allows for: i.e. the full history paints quite a different picture of how Mormonism came to be. And that fulsome history denies the dogmatic claims to an exclusive preisthood authority given by God to the Mormon Prophets....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
Update: I was very gentle with them. We talked first about how we had, on a personal level, come into a relationship with Christ (or, at least, established some 'line of communication' with Christ!).
Things only became contentious when they started using terms like 'great apostasy' and 'restoration' - by which they meant that the Mormons had fixed a broken religion.
Curiously, the bits of scripture they referenced at this point were to do with sound teaching, or praying for wisdom - e.g, '...people will not put up with sound doctrine ... they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires ... (2 Tim).
I then used this to outline my vision of how the church should be - to wit, all the various denominations/sects being able to say, 'Maybe we have got this and that wrong, and we have something to learn from the others'.
They would not budge on insisting that the Mormon way was THE way to go ~ they 'knew' this, because they had prayed about it ~ and that was sufficient for them ~ no need at all to try and tap into the experiences/insights of other Christians.
We said goodbye to each other amicably enough. Not sure if anything was achieved.
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Amicable disengagement is always something positive achieved.
That sounds like a typical visit. Mormons BELIEVE that Christianity got broken really early. Basically everything from the 2nd century CE-on was apostasy added to apostasy. So there was a NEED for "the restoration": which I am sure they showed as a prophesied event by using biblical references. It's a quite tidy world religious historical view, actually, once you buy into it.
One thing should be always adherred to by Mission Mormonaries: they should never attack individuals in their spiritual faith: this can easily be perceived as having happened, if the MM claim in any nuances whatsoever that no prayer, Spirit presence, ordinances, validity, etc. are possible outside of "the restored gospel." What the truth actually is (and most Mormons I know believe it this way) allows ALL people to approach God individually, according to the light and knowledge that each possesses, and that God approaches all sincere seekers of the truth: that means that ALL religions and denominations possess light and truth: and although they do not possess any authority, God is merciful and leads every soul to more truth. Given the time the earth has left to stand, everyone who is a sincere seeker will eventually be convinced of the truth and accept it. This doesn't mean that they become "Mormons": it just means that they accept God's authority, by whatever name, as real and necessary in officiating within organized religion. Mormons believe that "The Church" is organized in the spirit world too; but it isn't called "Mormon" by anyone there, yet its author is Jesus Christ....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
