quote:

---

Originally posted by Hoosiernan:
Hi, Sauerkraut! This has nothing to do with Mormons.

I'm just wondering if I'm not the only "Ship's Lutheran" anymore, since we both have the same avatar.

---

You would be correct. I was wondering when I would run into a fellow Lutheran on this board.
 

---

Posted by Saint Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
I live in Salt Lake and while individual Mormons are, well, individuals (good, bad and indifferent) I loathe the LDS Church. I've also run into a great many Mormons who don't even know some of the more bizarre teachings of their Church, though they all know there is a Heavenly Mother. They are genuinely bewildered to find that most other Christians don't consider them to be Christian, but then, they don't seem to get much exposure to orthodox (little "o") Christianity, here.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Mormons on the convert trail may be the ultimate exponents of "The end justifies the means." Very scary.

They've been trying to buy their way into legitimacy for years now. Most converts know little or nothing of their true history or beliefs. And, of course, their beliefs can be very hard to pin down -- they tend to quote Bruce McConkie, but once you try to use him against them, their cry becomes, "That's just one man's opinion!"

And the fact that the cult has now managed to get control of the only newspaper in Utah that dared to stand up to them is very bad news indeed.

Rossweisse // once "friendshipped," twice shy
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Sebastian, do you know anything about reports of Episcopal churches in Utah and Idaho that supposedly join in celebrating Mormonism? The Mormons get them to recognize a particular event, then use that as evidence that Episcopalians accept the cult as Christian. I find that REALLY frightening!
 

---

Posted by Lady A (# 3126) on :
 
I once had a set of mormons come to my door, but I was headed out to pick up my kids. They told me they were from the Church of Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ. I told them as I was leaping into my car that I thought it was wonderful that they were calling on the name of Christ, that their calling on Him was going to change their church around! They actually watched me drive away with both their mouths hanging open!
I wonder if that the power in the name of Christ which they seem to be using is subversively infiltrating the church. I wouldn't be surprised if Christ was gaining the upper hand! Maybe we will have to make room for them eventually. Just because the "religion" has a certain agenda does not mean that the people are falling for it, or can't change.... If the people lead, the leaders have to follow.
 

---

Posted by Sauerkraut (# 3112) on :
 
Saint Sebastian, I really do feel for you, having lived in Utah. Actually, I would love to go back because it's such a beautiful area, but I'm not sure I could take the LDS "vibe" for too long. I, like you, found Mormons run the gamit from good to bad (my favorites were always the "Jack" Mormons). I also dispise the Mormon Church. I could rant about the church for hours and hours on end. I too found most Mormons had no grasp of their own theology. It's sad when you think about it. By the way, I lived in Spanish Fork. I swear Provo, not Salt Lake City, is the center of the Mormon universe.

quote:

---

Salt Lake City (send help)

---

May I try to cheer you up. This story is definitely hellish. In San Diego (where my family moved after Utah), the night before the new temple was to be dedicated, a thunderstorm came through. Thunderstorms are rare in Southern California. This thundestorm just happened to send a lightning bolt down and struck Moroni and melted him. If that isn't a message from God, I don't know what is.
 

---

Posted by Saint Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
Ross,I haven't heard that about the Episcopal churches and con-celibrating with Mormons, but nothing would surprise me. A mormon co-worker gave me a book once that is or was given to missionairies that clearly outlined a lot of their beliefs (like God having a wife, having once been human, etc)but I've seen mormons deny or play down those beliefs. I think the religion may be becoming a bit diluted by real christianity (or the grace of the Holy Spirit), perhaps.

Sauer, I was living in San Diego when that temple was dedicated. I went through the tour and all and I do vaguely remember the hearing about the lightening strike.

I have an acquaintance who's a hospice nurse (or something like that. All her patients are dying, anyway)who says that without fail her experience has been that her Mormon patients are terrified as death approaches. Which is both sad and telling.

The thing is, so many Christians nowadays don't really know or understand basic Christian theology, or don't think it matters, making them very vulnerable to mormon proselytizing.
 

---

Posted by troy (# 2516) on :
 
Disclaimer: I have massive problems with the theology of Mormonism.

That all said, I must say that having known several Mormon families, I find myself continually impressed by both their committment to fostering strong, loving families and their committment to religious calling. However skewed their theology might be, its translation into social action (with regard to mission and family) is very positive. Without adopting their theology, it wouldn't hurt to try to figure out exactly why that is, and whether it is worthly of emulation.

.....that and every mormon female I've met has been unbelievably attractive!!! What's with that?!?!?!
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Of course the question is why should the Mormons be rejected from 'Churches Together'? Since we allow people with no beliefs in (Quakers) there's no objective reason for keeping them out....
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by troy:
That all said, I must say that having known several Mormon families, I find myself continually impressed by both their committment to fostering strong, loving families and their committment to religious calling. However skewed their theology might be, its translation into social action (with regard to mission and family) is very positive. Without adopting their theology, it wouldn't hurt to try to figure out exactly why that is, and whether it is worthly of emulation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...we allow people with no beliefs in (Quakers)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course the question is why should the Mormons be rejected from 'Churches Together'? Since we allow people with no beliefs in (Quakers) there's no objective reason for keeping them out....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by troy:
...having known several Mormon families, I find myself continually impressed by both their committment to fostering strong, loving families and their committment to religious calling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Most admitted that the hardest thing to give up once they joined the church was a nice cup of tea!

---

!! Give up tea...nooooohhhh that is strange (to me)

On the other hand i donno if it's true but i always thought it sweet that Mormons find as many names of people (regardless of religion) who have died around the world and put them into a big cavern hewn out of a mountain side somewhere in Utah, in the hope that they'll reach heaven that way, is that right? Doesn't sound very logical but nice nontheless.

To me the church seems a little eccentric but essentially harmless, though I don't know that much about the CLDS to be honest and i may be being naive!
 

---

Posted by Hoosiernan (# 91) on :
 
The Mormon families I have known (through my homeschooling support group) have been great to their children. But they are not so great as far as treatment of the mothers.

My closest acquaintance who is Mormon has 4 living children, ages 14 to 6; one daughter who had multiple birth defects and died very young; at least two miscarriages (that I know about); and she looks pregnant again, but I can't be sure. She's well into her forties--isn't enough, enough?

I am not good at pregnancy--one miscarriage, one emergency C-section, one scheduled C-section that had very bad complications. I had the sense to get a sterilization operation. This poor woman--how many pregnancies, miscarriages, child deaths is she supposed to go through?
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
I agree, enough is enough.

Actually, I did refer a fair few grandly multiparous Mormon ladies for tubal ligation (most younger than 30 years old) mainly because none of the husbands could come at a vasectomy. I did ask all these ladies what their bishops thought about sterilisation and in fact , there did not seem to be any objections from above.

Maybe the Oz Mormons are a bit more relaxed than the ones in the US-after all, Utah is a long way off!



[fixed a Freudian slip "the one sin the US" to "the ones in the US" since it was probably more accurate--if not less honest]

[ 12 August 2002, 02:28: Message edited by: tomb ]
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
No, multipara, Utah is not a long way off. The current myth is that the drought Colorado is suffering through is because last winter's cloud seeding in Utah to insure sufficient snow for the winter Olympics prevented the snow from falling on our much nicer (and MUCH higher) peaks.

Of course, I wasn't aware that Utah was seeding the clouds, laboring as I was under the assumpting that Alta and Snowbird received quite enough snow, thank you very much, without stealing it from Aspen and Vail.

Of course, if Utah really Did.It., I'm quite willing to believe that it was a Mormon.Plot., having no love of that particular religion.

Nevertheless, as a Shipmate and not a host, I feel compelled to point out to the Aesir, Shipmates, Apprentices, and the usual hangers-on Dregs of any internet site, that Mormonism is as legit as any other religion in the United States of America. We guarantee it in our Constitution.

So when anybody posts any European Chauvinism about Mormons not being "legit"--presumably because they're not "orthodox" (small "o", Alex, and pace) I wonder if I should mention some of the other weird-ass religions I've encountered.

Naw. Better not. Let 'em enjoy their four TV channels.

And guess what? All those scrubbed vacant-eyed testosterone-challenged missionaries they send out from Salt Lake are convincing a lot of people of the Truth of their religion. I daresay they've got a better track record than all the Anglo-Catholics cowering in their tat-infested boxes, not to mention the sanctimonious Lutherans and their conversion-by-luetfiske.

God forbid that any of y'all, convinced of the power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit, would set out to invite anybody into a relationship with the Living God.

Much more comfortable to slag a "cult" because it's doing a better job than you are.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by papillon:
... To me the church seems a little eccentric but essentially harmless, though I don't know that much about the CLDS to be honest and i may be being naive!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
I think it is put on after baptism because I don't recall any of their multitudinous kids wearing such a thing. Molly, bless her heart , shot back that after all , Oz is mission country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hoosiernan:
The Mormon families I have known (through my homeschooling support group) have been great to their children. But they are not so great as far as treatment of the mothers.

My closest acquaintance who is Mormon has 4 living children, ages 14 to 6; one daughter who had multiple birth defects and died very young; at least two miscarriages (that I know about); and she looks pregnant again, but I can't be sure. She's well into her forties--isn't enough, enough?

I am not good at pregnancy--one miscarriage, one emergency C-section, one scheduled C-section that had very bad complications. I had the sense to get a sterilization operation. This poor woman--how many pregnancies, miscarriages, child deaths is she supposed to go through?

---

I would have ignored this post on any other board, but this is Hell.

Just what is your point? I'm sorry that your personal experience with pregnancy has been difficult, but please don't project it onto others in such a flippant manner.

I say this because my mother had five living children over a period of 17 years, plus one child (the second) who died (at age 2) of birth defects, and at least one miscarriage that I know of. She had the last child at age 42.
You seem to be saying that there is something intrinsically wrong with this scenario no matter how it came about.
But she was a Unitarian married to a Baha'i, so even back in the Dark Ages of the '40s and '50s, she wasn't subjected to any blatant subjugation.

If your point is that the CLDS is somehow oppressing women, please find some better examples than the fact that some women have more than two children, even in this day and age.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Well, I'm not exactly certain that I would throw over my entire world view based on my underwear.

But then, maybe I would. Does it vibrate?

---

Oh, good Lord!

I've corrupted Tomb!

What have I done??

David
oops
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

They are generally polite, but will never agree to my suggestion that if I undertake to read a chapter of the Book that they will come to High Mass at St Mary's Cathedral with me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
A woman at my church in New Hampshire once brought two Mormon missionaries to our midweek Eucharist.

She had told them that she would attend a service at their church if they would attend a service at hers. They agreed.

I don't know whether they violated Mormon policy in doing this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
<snip>
Yet if we try to treat atheists with some respect, why not Mormons? Not saying that I agree with their doctrines -- but the attitude of "They are all cackling evil nasties with a hidden agenda" strikes me as kind of inappropriate, even for Hell...

I know if I were a Mormon and saw this thread, I sure as Hell wouldn't want to bother getting to know people here, or hear the orthodox Gospel from them. <snip>

Personally, I've wrestled with whether or not Mormons are even Christian. (I've come out on the "they're Christian but very heretical, like the Arians, as opposed to being Buddhists or somesuch" side.)

---

• Mormons are being given as much, or more, respect as evangelicals, fundamentalists, young-earth creationists, etc. - all of which are subgroups of Christianity.
  
• Mormon teaching is not Christian. Therefore, Mormons are not Christians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by troy:
Disclaimer: I have massive problems with the theology of Mormonism.

That all said, I must say that having known several Mormon families, I find myself continually impressed by both their committment to fostering strong, loving families and their committment to religious calling. However skewed their theology might be, its translation into social action (with regard to mission and family) is very positive. Without adopting their theology, it wouldn't hurt to try to figure out exactly why that is, and whether it is worthly of emulation.

.....that and every mormon female I've met has been unbelievably attractive!!! What's with that?!?!?!

---

Wow! Now I know why so many people keep asking me if I am Mormon...Troy...wink-wink-nudge-nudge
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Sorry Troy...I couldn't help it...going out and buying "the Way you look tonight" since I don't think you would appreciate Peter Frampton sung on your front lawn.
 

---

Posted by Barmint (# 3174) on :
 
Squirrel: I think your informant was a little confused regarding the National Council of Churches thing. A check of the NCC website shows that they list the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Christian denomination; I didn't see anything there about a cult.

Given that the NCC is an ecumenical movement, I suppose the LDS church would not want to participate for the same doctrinal reasons as the Catholic Church. (I believe Catholics are observers at NCC, not participants.)

> They now want to be calle dthe "Church of Jesus Christ

There was actually a press release from the LDS church on this, I can probably dig it up if you need it. The church prefers to be known by its actual name, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" (rather than "Mormon," which is a nickname). If you need a shorter form, "Church of Jesus Christ" is OK by us. :-)

> Their missionaries are showing up in local mainstream churches

That's nothing new - we certainly were doing that 20 years ago when I was a missionary. It's good to get out and learn about others' beliefs.

> Mormon missionaries are now doing a lot of community service work

Again, nothing new - we used to help out at soup kitchens back in the '80s, when I was a missionary.

Saint Sebastian wrote:
> they don't seem to get much exposure to orthodox (little "o") Christianity

Actually, the LDS church offers a wide variety of educational classes to its members, free of charge. I attended two courses recently, one on Christian denominations in general, and one on non-Christian denominations. The teacher was a student working on his PHD in Humanities, did an excellent job of presenting the material. The goal was to learn about others' beliefs, but not to tear them down.

Troy wrote:
> every mormon female I've met has been unbelievably attractive!!!

I'll mention that to my wife. :-)

Rossweise wrote:
> their tendency to write out of the family any members who leave the cult

My sister woould be surprised to read that. She's not participating in the LDS church any more, but she's still my sister!

> Their view of women is particularly appalling.

I imagine you could find a number of "strange" ideas if you looked at what any of our churches said in the 19th Century. However, also in the 19th Century, the LDS Church taught that men should lead their families with love, patience and tenderness - sort of ahead of the times, I think.

> bear in mind that these boys all believe that they will someday get to be gods, having constant, cosmic sex with their harems of lovely Mrs. Gods.

Speaking from experience, I can tell you that the *last* thing a missionary dwells on is sex. For goodness sake, they are celibate for two years, no dates, nothing. Imagining cosmic sex would sort of undermine the celibacy thing.

Hoosiernan wrote:
> how many pregnancies, miscarriages, child deaths is she supposed to go through?

Yes, we tend to have lots of children - as do members of other cultures and faiths - but there's nothing in the religion that requires that. I happen to come from a 2-child family, myself.

tomb wrote:
> So when anybody posts any European Chauvinism about Mormons not being "legit"--presumably because they're not "orthodox" (small "o", Alex, and pace) I wonder if I should mention some of the other weird-ass religions I've encountered. <

Not to mention asking the Protestants when the Catholics granted *them* legitimacy? :-)

Moo wrote:
> She had told them that she would attend a service at their church if they would attend a service at hers. They agreed.
> I don't know whether they violated Mormon policy in doing this.

Not at all. Our local missionaries here in town were attending with the Pentacostals occasionally, invited by the minister and some of his congregation (they were also studying with the missionaries).

Sharkshooter wrote:
> Mormon teaching is not Christian

All of us have different opinions on what Christ taught. That's why different churches exist. I believe in Jesus Christ with my whole heart.

Hope this was helpful...
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Barmint,

Welcome to Hell, and thank-you for a gracious and well-thought-out reply to a provocative thread.

Enjoy your time here, and I hope each post is as calm and well-thought-out.

Viki, hell-host
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Barmint, thanks for your thoughtful replies to everyone's posts.

Now I would like to ask you...

Can you confirm for me if the LDS Church believes the following:
1)Jesus is Satan's brother
2)You too can become a god!
"ALL EXALTED MEN BECOME GODS. To believe that Adam is a god should not be strange to any person who accepts the Bible. When Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God, he answered the Jews: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods*? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"- Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.97 - p.98
3)Father God begat Jesus with Mary, who is the Heavenly Mother

*from Psalm 82:6, I believe this verse to mean "judge" in meaning for the word "el-o-heem", not "deity"- duchess
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hoosiernan:
Jennifer, I know that many women have lots of children, and do well with that. But to have a policy that one should have constant pregnancies, whether or not the family finances can justify it, whether or not the woman can physically cope with it, is something that is, in my opinion, not a proper way to treat women.

There are many groups--not just Mormons--that oppress women by making it part of their religious duty to be baby-makers. It is, in my opinion, much better if a realistic assessment is made of the family situation and a limit placed on how many children is desirable.
<snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
Sorry Troy...I couldn't help it...going out and buying "the Way you look tonight" since I don't think you would appreciate Peter Frampton sung on your front lawn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I have no doubt that we will be pleasantly surprised by whom we find in heaven, and I suspect that some Mormons will be there. And they will be there, as we will all be there, because in fact they were trusting in God's grace to forgive them rather than because of the 'boxes that they have ticked'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I bow to the majority (and, of course, to the host's ruling) who think a reasoned debate is the way to go.

---

Well, I think a reasoned debate is always the way to go...

Sorry to see you leave the thread, sharkshooter; if you want to come back and engage in reasoned debate I'm sure we'd love to have you...

*hugs*

David
 

---

Posted by Saint Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
Barmint,

Welcome to the ship! I was discussing this thread with Molly yesterday (see "Miss Molly" thread in All Saints)and we were saying that we wish there were Mormons on the Ship. I hope you stay! I appreciate your lack of defensiveness, too; you'll be able to add an interesting dimension to the discussions.

I don't know if this will (or should) start a thread of it's on, but since some of us don't believe Mormons are Christians, or that they are, just heretical ones, can someone explain why it matters? Actually, why heresy matters. If they aren't Christian, just a religion using Christian terminology with very different meanings, then I guess I can see why it matters. If they are heretical Christians, when push comes to shove, what difference does it make? They clearly (well, the devout ones) lead decent lives and follow Christ as they understand Him and His teaching, so where's the harm if they are mistaken on a great many things? I have an inchoate sense of why it matters, and will say if I can ever get it sorted out in my head so it makes sense, but I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks (including you, Barmint, since from your perspective we are the ones who've got it all wrong). Is it that it affects their/our eternal salvation? Is it that they/we don't experience the fullness of . . . God, or His love or something because we aren't dealing with the truth (reality, what-have-you)?

IanB once posted on the ship "...every single heresy represents a dimunition in the witness of the church, and for every dimunition the universality of the message is dimmed and someone, somewhere, loses hope." Is that the crux of it?
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Personally, I've wrestled with whether or not Mormons are even Christian. (I've come out on the "they're Christian but very heretical, like the Arians, as opposed to being Buddhists or somesuch" side.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
A check of the NCC website shows that they list the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Christian denomination; I didn't see anything there about a cult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
That's nothing new - we certainly were doing that 20 years ago when I was a missionary. It's good to get out and learn about others' beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
((Their view of women is particularly appalling.)) I imagine you could find a number of "strange" ideas if you looked at what any of our churches said in the 19th Century. However, also in the 19th Century, the LDS Church taught that men should lead their families with love, patience and tenderness - sort of ahead of the times, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
All of us have different opinions on what Christ taught. That's why different churches exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
I believe in Jesus Christ with my whole heart....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
...I think to claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is outside the "Christian" box is wrong, if only because the base being built on is a Christian one rather than anything else....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I'm really sorry to see that this has been removed from Hell, because I think it's a decidedly hellish topic. But...

---

But it has been. Why are you sorry that it's entered the sphere of reasoned debate (and debate with a real, live Mormon! ) rather than angry ranting? Isn't that a step up?

Myself, I've been aware (for years now) of all those examples you give, and I still maintain that while I believe Mormon theology to be heretical from an orthodox point of view, it is still a Christian heresy as opposed to something wholly apart, like Buddhism. (And the reason I classify it as a heresy is precisely for the reasons you give -- as opposed to a more minor variance in doctrine.) Not sure what else to say in response.

David
Soon to appear with Ender's Shadow in a surprising issue of Marvel Team-Up: "Against the Apocalypse!"
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
...Why are you sorry that it's entered the sphere of reasoned debate (and debate with a real, live Mormon!) rather than angry ranting? Isn't that a step up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Myself, I've been aware (for years now) of all those examples you give, and I still maintain that while I believe Mormon theology to be heretical from an orthodox point of view, it is still a Christian heresy as opposed to something wholly apart, like Buddhism. (And the reason I classify it as a heresy is precisely for the reasons you give -- as opposed to a more minor variance in doctrine.) Not sure what else to say in response.

---

But it goes so far from any remotely Christian belief in so many areas; it's much further removed from Christianity than Christianity and Islam are from Judaism -- and yet it claims to be the only REAL Christianity. I don't think I'd have nearly the problem with Mormonism if they would simply admit that this is a whole different ball game and not pretend to be "Christians, just like you," as the missionary laddies are taught to put it.

By the way, I always enjoy your tag lines -- especially the "minty fresh" one.

Rossweisse // for truth in advertising
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Rossweisse, if you were a man, I would stalk you, but since I am 100% straight, I will applaud you.
<clap! clap! clap!>

YOU GO GIRL! YOU ROCK! YOU ARE AWESOME!
So well put! So thoughtful...and so TRUE!

I am so blown away and happy!

Say it like it is, sister. And with such grace!
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
It6 strikes me, though, that the Mormons are probably more Christian than, say, inspired by Eastern religion, simply because they are a homegrown American religion, and so drew from the Christian heritage there. Belief wise, though, they are far removed from Christianity.

I actually used to know someone who had been brought up Mormon,then officially excommunicated when the Church found out he was gay - now that's something else they share with much of the rest of Christianity.

The largest growth for the Mormons in Britain cane during the time of the Osmonds. I distinctly recall an eleven year old friend become a Mormon at around that time.I don't think her parents had a clue what the church she went to believed!

And I do have a book of Mormon. Brought to me by two stunningly handsome young men when I lived in Huddersfield, who I gave a glass of milk to and who told me all about what they believed
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Bottom line, Mormon's aren't trying to go legit, just trying to appear legit. Until they jettison all their crazy doctrines that contradict the creeds and councils, they will not be legit.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
Rossweisse, if you were a man, I would stalk you, but since I am 100% straight, I will applaud you.
<clap! clap! clap!>

YOU GO GIRL! YOU ROCK! YOU ARE AWESOME!
So well put! So thoughtful...and so TRUE!

I am so blown away and happy!

Say it like it is, sister. And with such grace!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Bottom line, Mormon's aren't trying to go legit, just trying to appear legit. Until they jettison all their crazy doctrines that contradict the creeds and councils, they will not be legit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
[QUOTE]... and yet it claims to be the only REAL Christianity. I don't think I'd have nearly the problem with Mormonism if they would simply admit that this is a whole different ball game and not pretend to be "Christians, just like you," as the missionary laddies are taught to put it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Many lies have an element of truth. That is why people believe them. Many cults have an element of Christianity. That is why people are drawn to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Many cults have an element of Christianity. That is why people are drawn to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
...Other Point being: no matter who's "right" or "wrong", it wouldn't do us orthodox Christians a bit of harm to try to recall how it felt for our forebears to be excluded from the religion they reckoned they were bringing to fruition through new revelation. ...
...By all means, let's talk about the differences in epistemology (of which there are many), but provided we all recognise those differences, let's get away from who's Christian and who's not....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
<snip!>
Either way, I'm not sure it's productive for anyone, mormon or orthodox, to stick their thumb on their nose and go "nyah, nyah, nyah, we're Christian and you're not". That just obscures the issues ... not least because of the hard feelings it causes on *both* sides. (witness some of the attitudes displayed on this thread -- and don't forget, as recently as the 20th Century, we christians generally were still punishing the Jews for, amongst other things, not letting Us or Our Messiah into Their club.)

---

quote:

---

Beware of Catholicism with its false Christ, its false gospel, and its false spirit. And don't be fooled by the biblical terms and evangelization programs being promoted by some Catholic groups. Catholicism knows nothing about the true Gospel and Bible evangelism.

---

quote:

---

Many people don't know anything about Catholicism. They may believe that there is not that much difference between "Catholic Ritual and Tradition" and "Grace by Faith". Unless these people are informed, they may accept the Roman Catholics as fellow Christians and deny them the true gospel by not witnessing to them. There is a twofold reason for my articles on Catholicism. To witness to Catholics and prove to evangelicals that Catholics are lost. It is worth the effort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:

Either way, I'm not sure it's productive for anyone, mormon or orthodox, to stick their thumb on their nose and go "nyah, nyah, nyah, we're Christian and you're not". That just obscures the issues ... not least because of the hard feelings it causes on *both* sides. (witness some of the attitudes displayed on this thread -- and don't forget, as recently as the 20th Century, we christians generally were still punishing the Jews for, amongst other things, not letting Us or Our Messiah into Their club.)

By all means, let's talk about the differences in epistemology (of which there are many), but provided we all recognise those differences, let's get away from who's Christian and who's not.

---

quote:

---

...Are Mormons Christian? The question was taken up by Father Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, the Journal of Religion and Public Life.

In an essay published in March 2000, Neuhaus said the issue may point to future change within the Church of Jesus Christ.

While it is a Christian derivative, he wrote, the church "is in radical discontinuity with historical Christianity." ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
You are saying Mormons are Christians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:

whilst I rather agree that the LDS and orthodox Christianity are not really the same religion; there is an (imperfect) analogy to be drawn between the relationship of judaism and christianity, on the one hand, and christianity and "restoration gospel" Churches (of which the LDS is *not* the only one), on the other. There is undoubtedly a kinship. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:

Of course, Rossweise is right: they aren't Christians "just like us". And I'm not convinced they do their own faith any favours by saying such things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:

they are, in some sense, Christians "not just like us".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
[QUOTE]this is well-meaning-crack-pipe-blowing-smoke.[/URL]

---

... and another thing: I was trying to raise a serious few points, and i'd appreciate it if you'd keep comments like this one above in Hell, where they belong. Last I checked, this thread had been moved to Purgatory.


 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
Last I checked, this thread had been moved to Purgatory.

---

• 1. This thread is in Purgatory now and
• 2. We have at least one adherent -- who thus far has conducted himself very gracefully under these sorts of statements -- as a Shipmate?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
[QB]Duchess,

The second link you provided comes from a site which also "warns" its readers to

[QUOTE]Beware of Catholicism with its false Christ, its false gospel, and its false spirit. <snip!>.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
Just out of curiosity ...

Hands up, who here has actually read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price? Whole thing, right the way through.

Hands up, who here has actually sat through (or even read through) the entire set of Mormon missionary discussions with real missionaries?

---

I have the Book of Mormon but have not read it all the way through due to extreme boredom. I have discussed issues with "real missionaries" but nobody has wanted to discuss things much further. I have driven away sisters of the LDS church by telling them "what I object to is that your church believes Jesus is Satan's brother and that the Heavenly Mother and Father had spirit children...". The other experience was a young lad who tried to pick debates with me at work but was unable to really know his own Theology enough to make much headway. He demanded I go visit a group of Missionary friends of his to "discuss my disilliusionment" and I declined the offer due to time constraints and the pushiness of the young lad. The young lad told me "You would make such a good little Mormon girl!" I don't know if this was a compliment or not...
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
<snip>

We're really not usually like this, Barmint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
Texas.Veggie, I am sorry for the calling your analogy crack-smoking. Please accept my apology, I thought you knew me enough by now to take a little ribbing, I did not think through enough how it might come across..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Oh? Jump into the shoes of an (almost)-fundamemtalistic, conservative, Calvinistic, inerrentistic, sola-scriptural young-earth creationist. It isn't easy being there either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
I have the Book of Mormon but have not read it all the way through due to extreme boredom.

---

quote:

---

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

heresy

SYLLABICATION: her·e·sy
PRONUNCIATION: hr-s
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. her·e·sies
1a. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member. b. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine. 2a. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science. b. Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.

ETYMOLOGY: Middle English heresie, from Old French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, a choosing, faction, from haireisthai, to choose, middle voice of hairein, to take.

---

(I'd also add a defition; c) amusing and common mispelling of "hearsay" guaranteed to annoy law professors, but that's beside the point)
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
First we're not nice enough for Hell. Then we're not PC enough for Purgatory.

I thought I knew who the hosts were, but perhaps I have lost track.

On to the topic...

Is it fair to define a heretical branch of Christianity as one which originated in the Church, but has adopted beliefs which are contrary to the generally accepted standard? By this definition, LDS fits into the category.

The problem comes when we try to classify LDS as a "Christian church" rather than a "heretical offshoot of Christianity". To do the former is to deceive by way of omission, in my opinion.

scot
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
...The doctrine that Jesus was the devils brother seems to be cited to imply that LDS are one step away from diabolism....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
...My point is not, that I think that there is no difference between orthodox Christianity and LDS doctrine. I think that there are a number of important distinctions. However, I do think that it would be better to debate these distinctions rationally and calmly and to try and understand each other's positions. Perhaps we could even do something as breath takingly rational as open up a dialogue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
... it's one thing to say "I believe Mormon theology is untrue," and another entirely... (to say) Joseph Smith was not merely incorrect, he "stole the "British Israelites" and Indians-as-Hebrews bits" -- Mormons don't really consider themselves (the only true, or the truest, or some other thing) Christians, they just "pretend to be ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
Just out of curiosity ...

Hands up, who here has actually read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price? Whole thing, right the way through.

Hands up, who here has actually sat through (or even read through) the entire set of Mormon missionary discussions with real missionaries?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
...The problem comes when we try to classify LDS as a "Christian church" rather than a "heretical offshoot of Christianity". To do the former is to deceive by way of omission, in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
[QBI think you're taking my comments out of context. The Smith remark about "stealing" those ideas was in contrast to saying that he'd invented the rest of it. And I didn't say that they don't consider themselves Christians -- I said that they pretend to be "Christians just like you," when there is no way in the world that they could believe such a thing.

I thought this thread belonged in Hell not so that we could behave like savages, but so that we could have an honest, open discussion without getting called on the carpet for being too honest. Surely there's room somewhere for that?[/QB]

---

But re "stealing," do we usually use that word in neutral contexts? If one church learnt a doctrine (true or not) from another, would we normally use the word "stealing"? Unless we're deliberately baiting someone, would we say that Christianity "stole" monotheism from Judaism? (I've known people who say things like that, and it is never meant in a bridge-building way.) And my gripe is not with the "Christians" vs. "Christians just like you" (which I abbreviated in the interest of space), but with the word pretend. It's phrases like "they sucker people in" which -- as we have at least one Mormon Shipmate who is part of this discussion -- seem inappropriate to me. I mean, for goodness' sake, words like "insinuating," "perversion," and "hateful," in one post alone?

Oh, and Purgatory is not meant to be "PC," Scot -- just "courteous." And no one as far as I can tell is saying that debating about whether Mormon teaching is heretical, by orthodox Christian standards, is a problem -- it's the tone of the argument. One can even argue that something is mistaken without impugning the motives of its believers.

David
pitiful, mewling orthodox guy
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
About ten years later I happened on a book about cults, and I recognized my experiences as if someone had taken notes at my elbow: the preying on unsure kids, the heavy pressure, the smiley friendliness that turns to vicious disapproval, the control. It's no doubt very easy for anyone who has not lived through the experience to discount it, but I think that's a mistake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
...And my gripe is not with the "Christians" vs. "Christians just like you" (which I abbreviated in the interest of space), but with the word pretend....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
...It doesn't prove, or disprove, doctrines at all -- and it certainly doesn't mean that any given member of a given group must believe that actions taken by other members is right. this space for rent

---

I've read too much (their own handbook for missionaries, for starters) to think they don't think it's right.

But I'm not sure we're getting anywhere with this discussion. I think we shall simply have to disagree on this one, David -- courteously, lovingly -- but if you're ever interested in knowing more about Mormonism and its methods of proselytizing, I will be happy to point you toward some helpful sites. (And I say that not to be sarcastic or to imply that you are in some way ignorant, but in all sincerity. I hope you will take it in that spirit.)



Rossweisse // who lived it
 

---

Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[QUOTE] But the thing is -- people with more orthodox theology have also practiced "the preying on unsure kids, the heavy pressure, the smiley friendliness that turns to vicious disapproval, the control."

---

quote:

---

And I also think this thread was better placed in Hell.

---

After careful consideration of the OP and seeing that the thread was not bedding down well into Purgatory, so do we. We've decided to shift it back to Hell.

If people want to have a Purgatorial discussion of what Mormons believe then they are welcome to start a new thread.

For the rest - the rules are about to change again - please check the Hell guidelines before re-engaging (remembering that we have a Mormon shipmate).

Thank you

Louise

host mode off
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
I have deleted the previous hellish iteration of this thread that was locked and sinking into blessed oblivion.
 

---

Posted by Saint Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
I suppose we've driven Barmint away (at least this thread).

I don't see much point in the "they are Christians they are not" debate, especially among our non-Morman selves. It's not like anyone is likely to change their minds on that. It would be much more interesting to discuss the similarities and divergences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity (Barmint, if you're still around, want to be the Defender of the Faith? )rather than the failings of individual Mormons (or even the institutional failings of the LDS Church, since what Church doesn't have those?). I have a Morman friend (convert from Catholicism, which boggles my mind) and we used to "argue" theology. We never got mad, since neither of us was aiming to convert the other (though teasingly I would call her a raging heretic and she would call me a heathen). We would just debate the why's and wherefores of believing A over B. Of course, we would always reach a place where we didn't have enough common ground to continue (for instance, nothing Joseph Smith said carries any weight with me but she, of course, sees him as a Prophet of God). I did get her on "who created God, then?" thing. To me, worshipping a created being is a form of idolatry. You should worship whatever created that being (or whatever created the being that created that being etc etc ad infinitum). She just said "we haven't been given revelation on that" which pretty much closed that line of discussion. Where was I going with this? Oh forget it.
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
Just as a somewhat hostly warning to wannabe posters: read the thread (yes, the Whole Damn Thread) before posting if you aren't familiar with the arguments previously posited. If the debate (however Hellish) becomes circular, I'm sending the whole shebang to Dead Horses. Or maybe I'll just lock the damn thing. Nothing's interested me here since the underwear.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

quote:

---

to discuss the similarities and divergences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity (Barmint, if you're still around, want to be the Defender of the Faith?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Just as a somewhat hostly warning to wannabe posters: read the thread (yes, the Whole Damn Thread) before posting if you aren't familiar with the arguments previously posited. If the debate (however Hellish) becomes circular, I'm sending the whole shebang to Dead Horses. Or maybe I'll just lock the damn thing. Nothing's interested me here since the underwear.

---

1) AMEN...[peon-non-host-peanut-galley]Read the whole thread, even if you wish not to and dismiss it by saying "well, I didn't read the whole thread but..." ARGGHGH!!! [/peon-non-hostie-peanut gallery]
2)[rant] Tomby, that underwear thing is just plain WRONG. So wrong! NO MORE UndERwEAr discussion men...I am cracking up...no-no-nope...nada..zip...zilch [/rant]
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
An invitation from the duchess....

Barmit, I challenge you to go through all the things I posted and respond to them. This is an opportunity for you to shed some light, dude, not something to shy away from. Since 2 of my good friends are Mormon, I really honestly would like to know your thoughts on these topics. Thx.

PS: I mean the above sincerely cross my heart.
 

---

Posted by Saint Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
You're right, Louise, that was a purgatorial direction to try and shift a thread in Hell. Sorry. I'll leave it up to Barmint to start such a thread. Without a Mormon there wouldn't be much point.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
This moving back and forth is making me feel distinctly seasick....



...but I do think the trip back here was for the best.

Duchess, I'd be interested in Barmint's responses to my points, and yours as well.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
[friendly aside to Rossweisse: the Ship does seem to lurch around at times, doesn't it. ]
 

---

Posted by Timothy L (# 2170) on :
 
First off, welcome to Barmint! Hope you keep posting.

A site such as this, devoted to "Christian Unrest" is much more ideal to hashing out some of this stuff than is the Nat'l Council of Churches.

Personally my experiences with Mormons have been very positive. I spent many of my formative years in a Mormon Boy Scout troop (after being kicked out of another one...another story). BTW I was never proselytized.

What is Mormonism? My take on the LDS is it's 19th century rural american gnosticism. Like any viable movement, it keeps reinventing itself. And it's certainly a viable movement.

Maybe it can reinvent itself towards what we think of as orthodoxy.

I hope Barmint will come back into this discussion!
 

---

Posted by Barmint (# 3174) on :
 
Whoa, I'm gone for a few days, and we've been to Purgatory and back already?

I'm pressed for time at the moment, so pardon a hasty response:

Someone asked what the fundamentals of Christian belief would be. I would suggest the following:

* belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ
* belief in the resurrection
* belief in the atonement (redemption from sin)

Someone wants me to say something about who is Christ's brother. As we understand it, all of us are. We are the spirit children of Heavenly Father. That includes Jesus, all mortals born on this earth, and even the devils (who rebelled and thus didn't make it this far).

So, is Lucifer a brother of Christ? Yes, we believe so. Does that lessen Christ? We don't think so. Am I less Christian if *my* brother or sister falls away from the gospel? Course not.

Someone else asked about if we believe that people can become gods. Yes, we believe so - that's what Christians become when they live Christian lives. After all, Jesus commanded us to be perfect. How perfect? "...even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48

However, it's a lot like humility. A wise man once said that if you think you're humble, you're not. Similarly, if your goal is to become a god, you probably won't get there. But if your goal is to become Christlike - perfect love, service, compassionate - then you will.

(I've never heard an LDS sermon about how wonderful it will be when we're all gods! But I've heard lots on repentance, charity, loving your neighbor, etc....)

The original poster had a concern about LDS thinking that other churches are "abominations." That's putting a spin on something that I don't think is there in the original.

The source is one of the accounts which Joseph Smith wrote concerning the "First Vision" when he saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Joseph's purpose in praying was to ask which of the local churches he should join. He was told not to join any of them, that "their creeds were an abomination in [Jesus'] sight."

Our understanding is that the original Christian church fell into apostacy, just as the scriptures predicted. True beliefs became contaminated by pagan beliefs and philosophies (Martin Luther would later say that his struggle was to remove the "greek" from Christianity).

It's interesting to note that modern scholarship has verified much of this since Joseph Smith's time in the 19th Century. The Apostles Creed, for instance, is generally recognized now as having no known ties to the ancient apostles - it seems to date from the 5th Century. The Nicene Creed appears to have been a political deal as much as a statement of faith.

Do members of my faith believe that we're the "only" Christian church? No. Will only "Mormons" be saved? Of course not. But something very interesting happened, starting in 1830's New York, and that gives us a special message that we like to share with our brothers and sisters. If Jesus Christ really appeared to Joseph Smith, and if you believed it to be true, wouldn't you want to share the good news? We try to do so politely and meekly.

Your servant in Christ,
Barmint

P.S. Someone also mentioned that LDS missionaries seem more active in "good works" lately. It occured to me that this may seem to be true only because there are more missionaries now than before. When I served a mission 20 years ago, there were about 25,000 missionaries; nowadays, 65,000 missionaries. So maybe we seem more active simply because there's more of us now.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
* belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ
* belief in the resurrection
* belief in the atonement (redemption from sin)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
Someone wants me to say something about who is Christ's brother. As we understand it, all of us are. We are the spirit children of Heavenly Father. That includes Jesus, all mortals born on this earth, and even the devils (who rebelled and thus didn't make it this far).

So, is Lucifer a brother of Christ? Yes, we believe so. Does that lessen Christ? We don't think so. Am I less Christian if *my* brother or sister falls away from the gospel? Course not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
Someone else asked about if we believe that people can become gods. Yes, we believe so - that's what Christians become when they live Christian lives. After all, Jesus commanded us to be perfect. How perfect? "...even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:48.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
The original poster had a concern about LDS thinking that other churches are "abominations." That's putting a spin on something that I don't think is there in the original.

---

quote:

---

LUCIFER-GOD DOCTRINE

Since the founding of the Mormon Church there has been a sharp separation between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity. In 1842 the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith made this serious division between Mormonism and other churches very plain when he claimed that Jesus Christ Himself told him that he "must join none of them [i. e., the other churches], for they were all wrong; and... that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight ((emphasis added)); that those professors were all corrupt;..." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:19) A decade after Joseph Smith's death, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt answered some questions about other churches:

Q. Who founded the Roman Catholic Church?

A. The Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God...

Q. But did not the first Protestant Reformers receive their ordination and authority from the Catholics?

A. Yes: and in this manner they received all the authority that their mother church was in possession of; and the mother having derived her authority from the Devil, could only impart that which his Satanic majesty was pleased to bestow upon her. (The Seer, page 205)

In 1958 Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote the following under the heading "Church of the Devil":

1. All churches or organizations... which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God; and 2. The Roman Catholic Church specifically — singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being "most abominable above all other churches." ( 1 Ne. 13:5)... There is no salvation outside this one true Church,... Any church or organization of any kind whatever which satisfies the innate religious longings of man and keeps him from coming to the saving truths of Christ and his gospel is therefore not of God. Such agencies have been and are founded or fostered by the devil who is the enemy to all righteousness. (Mormon Doctrine, page 129)

Apostle McConkie went on to call the Catholic Church a "satanic organization" and demonstrated that the Book of Mormon said that "the devil" was "the foundation of it." He cited 1 Nephi 13:1-10 to prove his point. McConkie's writings greatly offended the Catholics and in later editions the comments which specifically mentioned the Catholic Church were removed. He spoke only of "the various branches of the great and abominable church." (1979 printing, page 138) Although the Mormon Church is now more subtle about its attacks on other churches, the secret temple ceremony still gives the impression that their ministers are working for the devil and that at least some orthodox Christian teachings come from him....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
Our understanding is that the original Christian church fell into apostacy, just as the scriptures predicted....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
It's interesting to note that modern scholarship has verified much of this since Joseph Smith's time in the 19th Century. The Apostles Creed, for instance, is generally recognized now as having no known ties to the ancient apostles - it seems to date from the 5th Century. The Nicene Creed appears to have been a political deal as much as a statement of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
Do members of my faith believe that we're the "only" Christian church? No. Will only "Mormons" be saved? Of course not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
Your servant in Christ

---

Ah, but -- once again -- WHICH Christ? The One True God, or the Devil's half-brother?

Rossweisse // servant of and witness to the Living God (accept no substitutes!)

[Long posts are bad. Long posts with blown code are worse. Understood?]

[ 15 August 2002, 09:20: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Whoa! The boldface and quotes got a little funky in my last post. Please pardon my inadequacies on the technical side (or the foul efforts of the Hypertext Gremlins) and Read for Meaning. Grazie!
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Barmit, interesting theory...that explains a lot more than I expected. Thank you for explaining more than any Mormon I have ever met. I disagree with everything you said, but I am glad to know a little bit more of what Mormons believe.

PS: I am woefully shamefully inadequte compared to Ro in knowledge...but ditto to everything she so once again and graciously put.
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 
Barmint ...
thank you for a long answer. I'm glad you're on board, and I'd look forward to exchanging views with you.

Rossweisse ... thank you for explaining where you're coming from. that makes quite a difference.

For what it's worth I too was once a particularly vulnerable teenager, though in my case the leadership figure who betrayed me was a southern baptist. Which is to say: I've been through my own hell of a similar sort, and truly feel for you on this one.

Though in fairness to the thread and to the Mormons, I should point out that that my experience of Mormon missionaries was quite different.

In my case, I just got curious one day ... so I rang up the number on the telly and invited them over. Never pretended I was going to convert: I knew my faith, and could articulate it. So I told them this and they took that at face value, although they did clearly hope that hearing their Gospel might change my mind in the end, as any missionary might.

Went through about 3 or 4 months' worth of discussion ... long enough, in fact, for more than one of the missionaries to rotate out of that locality! And this was all for no reason other than that I wanted to hear (from the horse's mouth) what they had to say and know what they believe.

Of course, there was quite a big difference between you and me: you were a vulnerable teen, and I was a mid-twenties postgraduate theologian. So I knew right off the bat to ask hard, hard questions and to insist on having a copy of ALL the Mormon scripture -- the Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price and not just the Book of Mormon. I also was in a position to tell them firmly that they weren't to expect a conversion from me ... but that if they wanted to talk about their faith and have a good discussion, they'd have in me a ready and sympathetic listener, and if they needed a break or a meal, they'd have my hospitality.

Over the months, I cultivated a friendship with them. They drifted away eventually, but I didn't find them harsh or demeaning when it became clear (if it hadn't been before) that they really weren't going to make a Mormon of me. Indeed, they stuck around much longer than I expected them to do. They answered every single question I asked - many of those very hard indeed and very deeply theological - and did so with a good deal of grace and poise ... and if they didn't know the answer, often they came back to me with one the next week. They visited my church once on a Sunday evening, at my invitation. (Unfortunately, I worked there, so never had a chance to go to theirs to return the favour - still feel bad about that!) And they clearly used their discussion with me as a means of honing their own theological understandings: I have a pretty extensive background, and they always tried to answer me at my level.

I've had other, more casual experiences with Mormon missionaries, as well. (Live in central London long enough, and they're bound to knock on your door a few times!) And, of course, with that many of 'em running round with so many different backgrounds and personality-types, there are bound to be very few hard and fast rules.

But invariably, I've got on best with the ones who will take me at my word ("I'm not going to convert") and talk a little theology with me as I offer them a de-caf cuppa. But even the ... shall we say? ... less laid-back, and less cerebral ones ... you know, the chappies who make up for their lack of imagination with an overabundance of piety ... who are sure that if they give the missionary discussions word-for-word, just so, then they can make a convert out of anyone. Even those never struck me as anything more than naive, well-meaning kids who were out of their dept, and it was simply a question of talking at cross-purposes, not really any malice on anyone's part.

(But then, again, a few of those latter types - i.e., some not all - might be the same type who then would "turn" when confronted with someone more vulnerable, like you say you were as a teen. I've seen that kind of thing happen elsewhere.)

Again, Rossweisse, I'm not saying that in any way to denigrate your experience. Just pointing out that mine is very different, and as a result, I've come to have a great deal of respect for Mormons ... and indeed for their belief-system, even though I don't share it in the least! ... (whilst yet retaing suspicion over the autocratic nature of the LDS's higher circles of institutional rule).

Since we're sharing, I just thought it might be worth it for you to know where I was coming from as well.
 

---

Posted by Pheonix (# 2782) on :
 
Ok, After struggling to read everything, and finding it all very interesting, and having learned a lot... A few questions for those out there...

I read (most of) a book a while back (sorry can't remember the name) about a mormon who saw the light and converted to what everyone else regards as Christian. Although the book is his view on mormonism and as he converted it is going to be biassed, but it still raises some interesting points which I hope barmint or others can answer... (questions are things I remember from the book. I'll try and get title and author soon and post that info on here)

Mormons shun alcohol and caffeine, and yet there was evidence that Joseph smith drank a lot both alcohol and caffeine and wasn't particularly nice to his wife(ves - can't remember which). However, after his death the mormon church sanitised his life to make him into a clean cut american and condemmed anyone who said otherwise as a heretic. What was he really like? and I'm asking for hard evidence not just the handed down view in the mormon church.

Also he felt it necessary to re-write the new testament... Hello... what was wrong with what we had? Alright some of the translations at that date had errors in, but they've got better since then. Surely the books in the new testament were given by divine revelation and the holy spirit living in the authors of those books. To suggest that they were wrong suggests that they weren't written by direction from God or the author made a mistake in writing it down. If that is the case then surely the same thing can be said for the 'revelations' given to joseph smith. Is there any way to test them? Has anyone even tried?

Surely the test for scripture is consistency. The new testament is consistent with the old testament, and the prediction about Jesus, his life and death and what is said about the devil and relationships between God, Jesus and the devil are all consistent between the testaments. The only difference is the new testament being the new covenant has grace in it and gives us a manual for living as christians and a promise of salvation. Can the same be said for the mormon literature? How consistent is it with what has come before, and how do the mormons reconcile these differences?

Pheo
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
...For what it's worth I too was once a particularly vulnerable teenager, though in my case the leadership figure who betrayed me was a southern baptist. Which is to say: I've been through my own hell of a similar sort, and truly feel for you on this one.

...(M)y experience of Mormon missionaries was quite different. ... Of course, there was quite a big difference between you and me: you were a vulnerable teen, and I was a mid-twenties postgraduate theologian....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pheonix:
...Mormons shun alcohol and caffeine, and yet there was evidence that Joseph smith drank a lot both alcohol and caffeine and wasn't particularly nice to his wife(ves - can't remember which). However, after his death the mormon church sanitised his life to make him into a clean cut american and condemmed anyone who said otherwise as a heretic. What was he really like? and I'm asking for hard evidence not just the handed down view in the mormon church....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pheonix:
Also he felt it necessary to re-write the new testament... Hello... what was wrong with what we had? ...

---

Aside from the fact that it said to beward of false prophets and those who would add to the Bible?



[beware false UBB code]

[ 15 August 2002, 16:40: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 

---

Posted by bak2basics (# 3161) on :
 
Rossweisse--

Please explain the "burning in the bosom" you mentioned. I too have had both good & bad experiences with Mormons -- even had one as a boss & that's definitely a whole other discussion.

Thanks for the in-depth defense -- wish I could've said it that well myself.

Barmint -- please keep posting as we need to hear from you to understand Mormons better.
 

---

Posted by bak2basics (# 3161) on :
 
Folks--
 

---

Posted by bak2basics (# 3161) on :
 
Folks--

Darn those "fat fingers" of mine!!!

I apologize to Barmint & any others I offended with the wrong similie -- I meant to put -- NOT the one that sticks out his tongue.

Sorry -- obviously I didn't wait long enough to see all the actions from that particular figure.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Nothing's interested me here since the underwear.

---

[skipping and squealing with glee]
Oh, I have corrupted Tomb! I'm ever so pleased!
[/skipping and squealing with glee]

I think I've said pretty much all I can for now on the Hell-version of this thread. If I can think of anything appropriately Hellish to post here -- as I've argued quite enough for tolerance -- I guess I will. But I can't think of anything to say other than what I already have, apart from this...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
But I'm not sure we're getting anywhere with this discussion. I think we shall simply have to disagree on this one, David -- courteously, lovingly --

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pheonix:
... yet there was evidence that Joseph smith drank a lot both alcohol and caffeine and wasn't particularly nice to his wife(ves - can't remember which)....

---

I neglected to mention that the long-suffering Emma Smith (who once shoved an extraneous concubine down the stairs in a fit of pique -- and who can blame her?) returned to Christianity, specifically the Methodist Church, after Smith's death.

Emma is also famed for having picked up and moved the famous wooden box containing the famous "golden tablets" from which Smith allegedly "translated" the Book of Mormon. Given the weight of gold, it's been noted that Emma must have had a physique to make Schwartzenegger look wimpy; the box would have had to weigh hundreds of pounds!

( sorry, couldn't resist!)
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bak2basics:
Please explain the "burning in the bosom" you mentioned. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
... I just wish you would be willing to courteously and lovingly disagree with your fellow Shipmate Barmint, who has responded with considerable grace to the treatment he's gotten here....

---

David, dear, I HAVE been as courteous and loving to my fellow shipmate Barmint as the facts of Mormonism and Mormon proselytizing allow. But if someone comes in here and makes the outrageous claim that (for example) the Apostles' Creed dates only from the 5th century, he can expect to be corrected -- and I'm surprised I was the first one there on that one, frankly. Barmint has actually dodged quite a bit, which I certainly understand. There's a lot that's dodgy in Mormonism...



Anyway, sorry that you feel that way.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Anyway, sorry that you feel that way.

---

Oh, my feelings are irrelevant here -- I believe that acting courteously is the Right Thing To Do In This Situation... ah well.

Hugs all, even in Hell.

David
minty, gimpy, but not wimpy (and ironically has not, in fact, seen "Pulp Fiction")
 

---

Posted by Barmint (# 3174) on :
 
OK, let's see how much I can cover in *this* session. :-)

Rossweise wrote:
> How many gods do you think there are? (Not just "the gods with whom we have to do," but total.)

Paul let the matter rest at "many."

1 Cor. 8: 5
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)"

> What does the Resurrection mean to you?

I believe that all who have lived on the earth will be literally resurrected, regaining their bodies.

Job 19: 26
"And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:"

> How do you define the word "atonement"?

Quoting from my bible dictionary...

"The word describes the setting “at one” of those who have been estranged, and denotes the reconciliation of man to God. Sin is the cause of the estrangement, and therefore the purpose of atonement is to correct or overcome the consequences of sin.

"Jesus Christ, as the Only Begotten Son of God and the only sinless person to live on this earth, was the only one capable of making an atonement for mankind...[By] his divine Sonship, his sinless life, the shedding of his blood in the garden of Gethsemane, his death on the cross and subsequent bodily resurrection from the grave, he made a perfect atonement for all mankind. All are covered unconditionally as pertaining to the fall of Adam. Hence, all shall rise from the dead with immortal bodies, because of Jesus’ atonement. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15: 22), and all little children are innocent at birth. The atonement is conditional, however, so far as each person’s individual sins are concerned, and touches every one to the degree that he has faith in Jesus Christ, repents of his sins, and obeys the gospel. ...The scriptures point out that no law, ordinance, or sacrifice would be satisfactory if it were not for the atonement of Jesus Christ (Heb. 10: 1-9; 2 Ne. 9: 5-24; Mosiah 13: 27-32).

> Smith, Young, et al taught that "Jehovah" had physical sex with the Virgin Mary and tons of other concubines.<

> But does God have sex with his creatures? What a revolting, primitive thought.<

I don't know if He did or didn't, but I also don't find sex as "revolting, primitive" as you do. :-)

> We are blessed to be the children of God in a sense that Smith just didn't get, not "gods in embryo."

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but you don't seem to have found any scriptures which contradict what I said.

> Oh, I think it is! Check this out; it cites "The Pearl of Great Price"

Um, hello? I cited the Pearl of Great Price in my original post (it's the book where Joseph Smith's account is published).

> and good old Bruce McConkie

(do I detect a patronizing tone? not very Christian of you...)

McConkie gave his own opinion - it's not certified as doctrine by the Church.

Note, however, McConkie is only condemning organizations (which he defines in that article as "political, philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic, OR religious") which are "designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws" - surely, we can all agree on that?

> in later editions the comments which specifically mentioned the Catholic Church were removed

In the second edition (1966). I find it curious that you feel the need to quote the 1958 edition, if you know McConkie himself backed off that position later. Obviously, it's not therefore the position of the church today (and probably not even back then).

> He cited 1 Nephi 13:1-10 to prove his point.

Did the devil have a role in the corruption which occured historically in the Catholic Church? I think so - he's the author of corruption, in *any* church. Thus came the Protestant Reformation, as well as the reform movement within Catholicism. (Nobody is selling indulgences anymore, are they?)

However, the scriptures in 1 Nephi about the "church of the devil" do not refer to a particular literal church, but to all followers of Satan in whatever form they are organized. I suspect that includes Nazis, some flavors of communists, etc.

You also quote Orson Pratt, who also is entitled to his opinion - but again, not endorsed as Church doctrine. 19th Century LDS authors, having suffered major persecution including the death of many family members, some of which was incited by ministers of other faiths, are sometimes harsher than modern authors.

As with most churches, there's a procedure for determining which beliefs are canonical or required, and which aren't. Similarly, a Presbyterian minister wrote an interesting book asserting that Jesus was married, yet no one would claim that "Presbyterians believe that Christ was married!" based on one book.

> the secret temple ceremony still gives the impression that their ministers are working for the devil

We don't regard the temple ceremonies as "secret," but rather, "sacred" and we don't speak much of them outside of the temple. I can tell you that I'm aware of nothing in the current temple endowment which resembles your claim.

> Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would never leave us, and that his Church would endure forever.

It's helpful in a discussion like this if you can cite scripture to back your point, otherwise it's liking asking us to "take your word on it."

Speaking of the apostacy, I would start here:

2 Thessalonians 2
1 NOW we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

I'm using the King James version, by the way (which is what the LDS church uses).

> The Apostles' Creed in fact dates from c. 150 AD

I think most scholars would disagree with you on that. Here are some quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia (the entire article is of interest, but due to length I'll cite the URL and you can read it separately):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm

"Throughout the Middle Ages it was generally believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed our present Creed between them, each of the Apostles contributing one of the twelve articles. This legend dates back to the sixth century..."

Speaking of the legend, the articles states that "the intrinsic improbability of the story, and the surprising silence of the New Testament and of the Ante-Nicene fathers, leaves us no choice..." but to regard the legend as unhistorical.

The Presbyterian Constitution also concludes that the Creed was "not written by apostles." They state that the Creed was an outgrowth of an earlier Roman Creed - "Around A.D.180, Roman Christians developed an early form of the Apostles' Creed to refute Marcion."

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Apostles_Intro.htm

"It is universally admitted, even by those who believe that the apostles were instrumental in formulating the early Christian Creed, that the wording of it was not absolutely identical in all Christian congregations, and that in the course of time various changes and additions were made."
quoted from Historical Introductions to the Symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/bente/conc-int-02.html

While the Apostolic origin of the Creed cannot be proven, it also cannot be disproven - some claim that it was passed by oral traditon. "As a conclusion from this evidence the present writer, agreeing on the whole with such authorities as Semeria and Batiffol that we cannot safely affirm the Apostolic composition of the Creed, considers at the same time that to deny the possibility of such origin is to go further than our data at present warrant."
(Catholic Encyclopedia)

"The Catechism of the Council of Trent apparently assumes the Apostolic origin of our existing Creed, but such a pronouncement has no dogmatic force and leaves opinion free. Modern apologists, in defending the claim to apostolicity, extend it only to the old Roman form (R), and are somewhat hampered by the objection that if R had been really held to be the inspired utterance of the Apostles, it would not have been modified at pleasure by various local churches."
(Catholic Encyclopedia)

There is no definitive version of The Old Roman Creed - the Catholic Encyclopedia article provides three variants. The earliest version may have simply stated:

"I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the resurrection of the flesh."

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txc/apostles.htm

"...no uniform type of Creed can be surely recognized among the earlier Eastern writers before the Council of Nicaea, an argument which has been considered by many to disprove the existence of any Apostolic formula..."

"As we do not find in any earlier document the full form of the profession of faith, we cannot be sure that it is identical with our Creed, but, on the other hand, it is certain that nothing has yet been discovered which is inconsistent with such a supposition."

"It is highly probable that the Creed was originally nothing else than a profession of faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of the baptismal formula."
(Catholic Encyclopedia)

Something similar to portions of the Creed may have been used as a series of questions - a worthiness interview - by the ancient church, perhaps administered to baptismal candidates.

"Instead of the continuous prayer as we have it today, each line was rather in the form of a question to which the catechumen gave assent indicating he both understood and believed. This form is similar to the form found in the Easter Liturgy for the renewal of the Baptismal promises. Eventually this question and answer style was modified into the prayer form as we have it today. A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who recite the Symbolum Apostolorum."

http://www.unidial.com/~martinus/thesaurus/Symbola/Apostolorum.html

The Apostles Creed in its current "standard" form includes additions made under the authority of the Popes of the Catholic Church:

"The Apostles' Creed underwent further development. In response to the question of readmitting thse who had denied the faith during the persecutions of the second and third centuries, the church added, "I believe in the forgiveness of sins." In the fourth and fifth centuries, North African Christians debated the question of whether the church was an exclusive sect composed of the heroic few or an inclusive church of all who confessed Jesus Christ, leading to the addition of "holy" (belonging to God) and "catholic" (universal). In Gaul, in the fifth century, the phrase "he descended into hell" came into the creed. By the eighth century, the creed had attained its present form."

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/aps_int.htm

Catholics are content to let the Apostles Creed rest on the authority of the popes, but perceive that Protestant theologians are uncomfortable with that foundation:

"Catholics have generally been content to accept the Creed in the form, and in the sense, in which it has been authoritatively expounded by the living voice of the Church. For the Protestants who accept it only in so far as it represents the evangelical teaching of the Apostolic Age, it became a matter of supreme importance to investigate its original form and meaning. This explains the preponderating amount of research devoted to this subject by Protestant scholars as compared with the contributions of their Catholic rivals."
(Catholic Encyclopedia)

The evidence suggests that the Apostles Creed (and Roman Creed) in their various forms cannot be shown to be the authoritative statements of the early church, and so I agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia when it states that "...how incomplete is the evidence provided by mere quotations of the Creed, and how cautiously it must be dealt with."

Keeping in mind Matthew 7:24-27, therefore, caution would be advised when dealing with the may version of the Apostles (and Roman) Creed. It cannot be taken an authoritative statement of core Christian beliefs in its own right, but only so far as it can be sustained by the scriptures.

> [Long posts with blown code are worse. Understood?]

I have no idea what you're talking about - blown code? No HTML in my posts here so far. Email me privately and key me in.

Outta time!

Your Servant in Christ,
Barmint
 

---

Posted by Barmint (# 3174) on :
 
> the long-suffering Emma Smith (who once shoved an extraneous concubine down the stairs in a fit of pique -- and who can blame her?) returned to Christianity, specifically the Methodist Church, after Smith's death.<

Um, better recheck your history.

Emma and her children helped to found one of the *other* Mormon churches, originally known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (They've had a name change recently - apologies for not knowing the new name.)

Whether Emma was briefly Methodist in between, I don't off-hand know.

- Barmint

oh, do you have a source on the concubine story? I'm not familiar with that one.
 

---

Posted by Barmint (# 3174) on :
 
Rossweisse wrote:
> It's a psychological trick that goes with praying the "Prayer of Moroni." The pray-er is set up to experience this "burning" feeling, and that's supposed to prove that Mormonism is true

That's an interesting spin to put on it!

When someone is learning about our church, we always ask them not to take our word for anything, but to pray about it.

James 1
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

If you think that's a "trick," then you've undermined a foundation of Christian faith: prayer and the ability to communicate with God.
But I have faith that God is capable of answering our prayers.

Luke 11
9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

>in spite of all the historical, archeological, anthropological, etc evidence against it.

I'm not aware of this evidence you mention, perhaps another thread should be started to discuss this?

There is, of course, much archeological and anthropological evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon...

- Barmint
 

---

Posted by Barmint (# 3174) on :
 
OK, one more post and I really have to go.

Rossweise wrote:
> But the Christian belief is that Jesus IS God, One Person of the Trinity, which is Three in One, not three separate gods.

I think you're confusing the Nicene Creed (and its interpretations) with Christianity.

The scriptures certainly claim that there is a Trinity - Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Ghost. And the scriptures state many times that they are "one."

What does that one-ness mean? The only scriptural definition I am aware of is in John 17:

20 Neither apray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

The scripture explains that Christians are to become one just as God is. This means a "oneness of purpose," not a "oneness of identity."

I'm not aware of a scripture which specifically backs up the "three in one" doctrine - if there were one, I suppose the Nicene Creed wouldn't have been invented.

(No offense meant to those who believe differently...)
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
If anyone wants to start a thread aimed at discussing this within the constraints of Purgatory - courteous debate, back up what you say, no throwing around stuff like 'crazy' 'lies' or 'cult' (unless you're going to very carefully support that with evidence), then feel free to do so in Purg.

---

Done!

David
minty, gimpy, also not blimpy, perhaps a tad pimply, not too dimply... orthodox guy, put simply

{why not be orthodox with your use of UBB code?]

[ 15 August 2002, 19:01: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 

---

Posted by Barmint (# 3174) on :
 
Before going to Purgatory, I guess I should answer one more "Hellish" question.

Rossweisse wrote:
> Smith, Young, et al taught that "Jehovah" had physical sex with the Virgin Mary and tons of other concubines.

Not aware that Joseph Smith taught that. Brigham Young speculated on the matter, but it's never been endorsed as Church doctrine. Members of the LDS church are free to come to their own conclusions on the matter (and do).
 

---

Posted by Barmint (# 3174) on :
 

quote:

---

When we attain the Presence of God, then we can hope for perfection -- but certainly NOT on our own account!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:

((How many gods do you think there are? ))

1 Cor. 8: 5
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)"

---

quote:

---

((What does the Resurrection mean to you?))

I believe that all who have lived on the earth will be literally resurrected, regaining their bodies.

---

quote:

---

((How do you define the word "atonement"? ))

Quoting from my bible dictionary...

...(Heb. 10: 1-9; 2 Ne. 9: 5-24; Mosiah 13: 27-32).

---

quote:

---

I don't know if He did or didn't, but I also don't find sex as "revolting, primitive" as you do.

---

Oh, I don't find sex the least bit "revolting" or "primitive" in context! I assure you that I am happily married.

But, as Christians know, "God is a spirit, and we worship him in spirit and in truth." Your god is more akin to Zeus, it seems to me, hanging around mortal beds for salacious purposes. Zeus and his chums are, of course, not Christian deities.

We can't blame Smith particularly for his misunderstandings and misconceptions; he was uneducated. But he was also terribly limited in his ideas of God and Heaven, etc., and that's still evident in Mormonism.

quote:

---

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but you don't seem to have found any scriptures which contradict what I said.

---

quote:

---

McConkie gave his own opinion - it's not certified as doctrine by the Church.

---

quote:

---

However, the scriptures in 1 Nephi about the "church of the devil" do not refer to a particular literal church, but to all followers of Satan in whatever form they are organized....

---

quote:

---

We don't regard the temple ceremonies as "secret," but rather, "sacred" and we don't speak much of them outside of the temple. I can tell you that I'm aware of nothing in the current temple endowment which resembles your claim.

---

quote:

---

It's helpful in a discussion like this if you can cite scripture to back your point, otherwise it's liking asking us to "take your word on it."

---

quote:

---

Speaking of the apostacy, I would start here... 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

---

And whom do YOU think the "man of sin" might be? AS the Oxford Study Bible observes in a footnote, "The search for 'the' historical person or institution fitting Paul's prediction has been fruitless."

If one were of an apocalyptic mindset -- which I am not -- I think one could make an excellent case for Smith, given his propensity for rewriting Scripture, adding to it, coming up with multiple versions of the supposed "first vision," and so forth. (But this is a purely theoretical speculation!)

quote:

---

((The Apostles' Creed in fact dates from c. 150 AD)) I think most scholars would disagree with you on that. Here are some quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia...

"Throughout the Middle Ages it was generally believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed our present Creed between them, each of the Apostles contributing one of the twelve articles. This legend dates back to the sixth century..."

---

quote:

---

Barmint quoted 1cor8:5 "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
((the long-suffering Emma Smith (who once shoved an extraneous concubine down the stairs in a fit of pique -- and who can blame her?) returned to Christianity, specifically the Methodist Church, after Smith's death.))

Um, better recheck your history...

oh, do you have a source on the concubine story? I'm not familiar with that one.

---

Better recheck yours!

Emma's return to Methodism is noted by Mormon historian Samuel W. Taylor in "Nightfall at Nauvoo." But she was supportive of Smith's sons when they broke with Young and founded the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which recently changed its name to the Community of Christ. They're the ones who own the supposed site of the expected second coming.

The concubine in question was Eliza Snow, one of Smith's "plural wives," and the incident is noted by both Taylor and Brody. Smith had the gall to keep this particular mistress right in his own house. Emma caught them smooching in the hall, and, finding herself so betrayed, took a broomstick and beat Snow, causing her to fall down the stairs and driving her out of the house.

Glad to help!
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
Emma and her children helped to found one of the *other* Mormon churches, originally known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (They've had a name change recently - apologies for not knowing the new name.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
...If you think that's a "trick," then you've undermined a foundation of Christian faith: prayer and the ability to communicate with God.
But I have faith that God is capable of answering our prayers.

---

quote:

---

((in spite of all the historical, archeological, anthropological, etc evidence against it.))

I'm not aware of this evidence you mention, perhaps another thread should be started to discuss this?

There is, of course, much archeological and anthropological evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon...

---

I wouldn't want to accuse of you of asking us to take your word for it! But why don't you give us some of your "evidence" -- and not just the occasional coincidence of name, or whatnot.



Meanwhile, Smith populated his version of early America with people and animals who didn't live here, cities for which there is no archeological evidence (no, it's not the ruins in Mesoamerica), and devastating wars for which no evidence has ever been found. The science of DNA isn't helping his cause, either! And, of course, in the plagiarized bits, Smith incorporated errors from his copy of the KJV.

[UBB code isn't rocket science. Or even DNA science.]

[ 16 August 2002, 18:57: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Personally I like the Nicene creed since it was formed at the council of niea 325 AD as the collective thought of the early church. the apostles creed may well be earlier and as Barmint pointed out much of it is later....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
...However - question - are you sure that Emma herself was involved? I don't know about whether she joined the Methodists; but my understanding was that she did remain strangely quiet about the LDS after his death, and apparently wanted to put the whole thing behind her. I could, of course, be wrong. My source was a website that i can neither remember, nor can I recall that it had good citations itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
<snip!>

Rossweise wrote:
> But the Christian belief is that Jesus IS God, One Person of the Trinity, which is Three in One, not three separate gods.

I think you're confusing the Nicene Creed (and its interpretations) with Christianity.

The scriptures certainly claim that there is a Trinity - Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Ghost. And the scriptures state many times that they are "one."

What does that one-ness mean? The only scriptural definition I am aware of is in John 17:

20 Neither apray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

The scripture explains that Christians are to become one just as God is. This means a "oneness of purpose," not a "oneness of identity."

I'm not aware of a scripture which specifically backs up the "three in one" doctrine - if there were one, I suppose the Nicene Creed wouldn't have been invented.

(No offense meant to those who believe differently...)

---

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: - Matthew 28:19 King James Version
 

---

Posted by Saint Sebastian (# 312) on :
 
I went on a tour of Brigham Young's mansion, which is now in downtown Salt Lake. It's quite something. There's a large house attached to it, called the Lion House, where several of Young's wives and their children lived (his first wife having a room in the main house). The poor guides are not very comfortable with the polygamy chapter of church history and try to gloss over it or avoid the topic, but they will answer if you ask them directly. I don't know about Young and Smith, but that polygamy thing was quite a trial to a great many LDS men at the time, from what I've read (i.e., it wasn't just first wives who didn't like the idea. Many husbands weren't too keen, either). I'm given to understand (sorry, no sources, just what I've picked up since I've lived here)that many of the marriages were considered "spiritual marriages" and not consumated (though Young's clearly were, given the number of progeny bearing his name). It seems there was theological reason for spiritual marriages but I forget what it was.

Oh, Brigham Young was Joseph Smith's successor, in case you don't know.
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Duchess,

I think Barmint's point was the Scripture alone won't furnish you with the explicit Trinitarian claim that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three divine Persons of one essence - God.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Duchess,

I think Barmint's point was the Scripture alone won't furnish you with the explicit Trinitarian claim that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three divine Persons of one essence - God.

---

Which is okay because "scripture alone" wasn't preached before the fifteenth century, and the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out in the 4th.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
The Camp of Theology, the Trinity, can be totally backed up by Scripture...

Scripture totally suppports and backs Jesus being the Son of God and also the Holy Spirit being part of God (assuming you agree with this point).

I might say how can you "grieve the Holy Spirit" if He is not a live active entitiy?

"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. -Ephesians 4:30 KJV

Since Exodus 34:14 and other verses make it clear we are not to "worship other gods", it is clear that the Holy Spirit is not another God, but part of God.

Likewise for Jesus.

Now, I will say that I believe Calvinism is another Camp of Theology that helps us understand the bible and is supported by Scripture...but I am not interested in yet another debate since we all have been through a lot of that lately and hopefully taking a break from that. I am more interested in Tomb describing his underwear than heading down that path again.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
I am more interested in Tomb describing his underwear than heading down that path again.

---

quote:

---

duchess posted
... The Camp of Theology, the Trinity, can be totally backed up by Scripture...

---

Perhaps. But it was by the authority of the Church that the doctrine was promulgated and the nature and interrelationship of the three divine persons of the one God were defined.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Yes, tomb...agreed. I never said that the church did not come up with this camp of theology, nor that they didn't decree it, I only said that Scripture can totally back up this decree.


[name of shipmate corrected for clarity]

[ 17 August 2002, 09:12: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 

---

Posted by Barmint (# 3174) on :
 

quote:

---

Rossweisse wrote:
Better recheck yours!

Emma's return to Methodism is noted by Mormon historian Samuel W. Taylor in "Nightfall at Nauvoo."

---

quote:

---

Was Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith Jr., a member of your organization?

Yes. Emma Smith Bidamon (three-and-a-half years after Joseph's death, on December 23, 1847, she married Lewis Crum Bidamon), accompanied her son Joseph Smith III to the pivotal conference at Amboy, Illinois, on April 6, 1860. According to the conference minutes, she was received into fellowship by unanimous vote. As was the custom then, many persons became members of the church on the basis of their baptism in the early church. The most respected book on Emma Smith is Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery's Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, second edition, University of Illinois Press, 1994.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
I am more interested in Tomb describing his underwear than heading down that path again.

---

So am I, but that's beside the point and says nothing about the path as such.
But really that deserves its own thread...

David
was an object ("find something unusual") in a scavenger hunt at the Bear Games dressed in his underwear
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
...Samuel Taylor was a novelist, not a respected historian. He had a tendancy to "make things up" - that is, to write down as fact what he imagined historical people thought. (Fawn Brody has the same failing, which is why her biographies of Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Smith are not taken seriously.)

Also, it would be more accurate to describe him as "former Mormon," considering that he founded his own religious movement in his old age....

---

Sorry, but you're wrong about either of these books being inaccurate. Taylor may have been primarily a novelist, but "Nightfall," a meticulously researched book, was taught as a textbook in one of my history classes at a respected college -- and he had not yet been excommunicated, despite telling the occasional awkward truth. (I have to say, I always wondered how long he'd last with the LDS given that tendency.)

Naturally, Mormons who are promoting their cleaned-up image of Joseph as the gods' prophet don't like reading about his keeping the only bar in Nauvoo, or his predatory sexuality, or his private army, or his hit man, the late Mr. Rockwell (whom Brigham kept on, and kept using) and the rest of the terrorist "Avenging Angels," or the way Joe had the printing press smashed, and so on, and on, and on. It's bad for the marketing effort. But it's still the truth, and the truth does, in fact, set us free -- at least if we have ears to hear and eyes to see.

As I remarked earlier about Brodie, I don't care for her tendency to psychoanalyze her subjects. (I didn't much like Erikson's "Young Man Luther" for the the same reason.) But her facts are accurate, which is no doubt why she gives Mormons fits: "NMKMH" is a devastating portrait of one of the world's most successful con men.

Finally, as regards the long-suffering Emma: I already said that she backed up her boys (after Brigham overruled Joseph's stated preference in favor of a coup on his own behalf), and of course the former RLDS maintain that she belongs to them. But she was remarried, to a Methodist, and seems to have preferred genuine Christianity when it came to her personal worship.

(Religious humor: please skip if you're easily offended by irreverence concerning cults!
Q: What's the difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh? A: Koresh was a better musician.)


 

---

Posted by Pheonix (# 2782) on :
 
Ok on another tack.. You mentioned that for the mormons on mission (and I take it you mean those that do 2 years at 19 or so) that they are told it is ok to lie because of the milk before meat ideas that they have...

Do they actually deliberately lie about what they believe or are they genuinely unsure themselves?

I know Aidan before he came to england to found lindisfarne in about 670 coined a famous milk before meat phrase in regards to giving people what they can handle rather than trying to beat them over the head with it. I've heard that taught today, and fail to see how that arguement can be used to lie about what you believe....
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
Yes, tomb...agreed. I never said that the church did not come up with this camp of theology, nor that they didn't decree it, I only said that Scripture can totally back up this decree.

---

No, you're wrong. There is nothing in Holy Scripture that describes the *relationship* of the three persons of the Holy Trinity. So Scripture cannot "totally back up" the nature of the trinitarian God. It took the Church several ecumenical councils to get there, and there is still a quarrel between the East and the West about at least one point--the procession of the Holy Spirit.

This is the same ecclesial authority, by the way, that defined the canon of Holy Scripture (through, presumably, the agency of the Holy Spirit). I mention this only to annoy you, since you seem to be one of those persons who believe the Bible sprung fully fledged out of the mind of God.

[I so enjoy correcting tomb's mistakes]

[ 17 August 2002, 09:16: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I am quite aware that the Canon was decided by the Church. I stand by what I said about the God in 3 persons trinity being backed up by Scripture.
Here is a little of what I know about the history of the bible...

-Original Manuscripts from around 1500 BC to 100 Ad
-385-404, the Vulgate, Jerome's Latin translation
-700-1000: Various Anglo-Saxon partial tranlations
-1382 Complete translations by John Wycliffe "what about them bones!!!" and followers
-1525-1535 First printed translation by William Tyndale
-1535 Coverdale's translation
-1537 Matthew's
-1560 Taverner's and Great Bible translation
-1560 Geneva Bible
-1568 Bishop's
-1610 Rheim's-Douai
-1611 The King James Version
------More Discoveries of Greek Manuscripts----
-1885 English Revised Version
-1901 American Standard Version
-------1947 Dead Sea Scrolls------
-1952 Revised Standard Version
-1960 New American Standard Version
-1966 the Jerusalem Bible
-1971 Living Bible (Paraphrase)
-1973 The Common Bible
-1973 New International Bible

Yes, I am quite aware that the Bible are Canonical Books.

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason -- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other -- my conscience is captive to the Word of God... God help me! Here I stand." - Martin Luther 1521
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
I am quite aware that the Canon was decided by the Church. I stand by what I said about the God in 3 persons trinity being backed up by Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pheonix:
Ok on another tack.. You mentioned that for the mormons on mission (and I take it you mean those that do 2 years at 19 or so) that they are told it is ok to lie because of the milk before meat ideas that they have...

Do they actually deliberately lie about what they believe or are they genuinely unsure themselves?....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pheonix:
Ok on another tack.. You mentioned that for the mormons on mission (and I take it you mean those that do 2 years at 19 or so) that they are told it is ok to lie because of the milk before meat ideas that they have...

Do they actually deliberately lie about what they believe or are they genuinely unsure themselves?....

---

Let me put it this way: I have been lied to by Mormon missionaries on points of doctrine and ritual. Either they did it deliberately, in the spirit of "milk before meat" or, more cynically, "the end justifies the means," or they were sent out to make converts while themselves in a shocking state of ignorance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
So, you're making broad statements about a very large group based on a person experience with only, what, maybe half a dozen? a dozen at most? And assuming the worst about them?

---

No, I used to have quite a lot of discussions with Mormons on an online service, and this was a consistent tendency with them as well as the face-to-face chaps. So I'm making statements based on personal experience with well over 100 Mormons. And I assume they're doing it either out of ignorance or because they truly believe It's For Our Own Good.



(So, you hear anything from Brunnhilde lately? She doesn't come around the Valkyrie rock much anymore...)

 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Either they did it deliberately, in the spirit of "milk before meat" or, more cynically, "the end justifies the means," or they were sent out to make converts while themselves in a shocking state of ignorance.

---

quote:

---

Either they did it deliberately, in the spirit of "milk before meat" or, more cynically, "the end justifies the means," or they were sent out to make converts while themselves in a shocking state of ignorance.

---

quote:

---

Rossweise wrote:
Emma is also famed for having picked up and moved the famous wooden box containing the famous "golden tablets" from which Smith allegedly "translated" the Book of Mormon. Given the weight of gold, it's been noted that Emma must have had a physique to make Schwartzenegger look wimpy; the box would have had to weigh hundreds of pounds!

---

quote:

---

In an interview with her sons a few months before she died, Emma bore testimony: "My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity. I have not the slightest doubt of it. … Though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates … and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder,’ as much as to anyone else."

Describing her experience, she said: "The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth which I had given him [Joseph] to fold them in. I once felt the plates as they lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book."

---

quote:

---

texas.veggie wrote:
are you sure that Emma herself was involved [with the RLDS church]? I don't know about whether she joined the Methodists; but my understanding was that she did remain strangely quiet about the LDS after his death, and apparently wanted to put the whole thing behind her.

---

quote:

---

I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction. - Emma Smith Bidamon, 1879

---

Both quotes are from an interesting article I found, originally published in an LDS church magazine and now available online. It's a biographical sketch of Emma by one of her descendants:

http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1992.htm/ensign%20august%201992%20.htm/my%20greatgreatgrandmother%20emma%20hale%20smith.htm

That article in turn is quoting from a document: Emma Smith’s Last Testimony, Feb. 1879, Community of Christ (former RLDS) church archives.

Hope this was helpful.
 

---

Posted by Barmint (# 3174) on :
 

quote:

---

Pheonix wrote:
I feel pity for a church that can't let the facts stand for themselves and has to resort to lies and manipulation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barmint:
I can tell you from my personal experience, I never lied to anyone when I was a missionary, nor did anyone ever ask me to lie. I just taught the gospel of Jesus Christ to the best of my ability, and God took care of the rest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak...." To me, he is saying you believe in different Christ than everyone else outside the Mormon faith and that Joseph Smith knew more about God than anybody else who is a "Man of the Cloth". What do you think Hinkley is saying here, Barmit...your thoughts?

---

Betcha Barmy says it's "just Hinckley's personal opinion"!

 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I fear that I must confess that I was most mischievous with my last encounter with two young Mormon missionaries from the southwestern US.

I had somewhere (I wish I had kept the reference) that there was a teaching that the US Constitution was divinely inspired, or partook of inspiration. They admitted that there was a teaching to this effect and I kept them there for an hour trying to lead them to the conclusion tha this was an error, and that it was the Canadian Constitution which was superior, on the grounds that we had a sacramentally-anointed head of state while the US President benefitted by no such rite. We spent much time searching through First Samuel on this: they must have had an interesting report to the Mission supervisor.... they never did come back.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I fear that I must confess that I was most mischievous with my last encounter with two young Mormon missionaries from the southwestern US... they must have had an interesting report to the Mission supervisor.... they never did come back.

---

<heh heh!>


 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Can we wrench this back to the important stuff, like underwear? Whether Tomb's or someone else's, I'd far prefer to discuss that...

I've checked on eBay from time to time for Mormon underwear, but unfortunately have never been able to find it, which is a pity as I'm fond of one-piece suits (sometimes called "all-in-ones" in the UK).

How, exactly, do Mormons go swimming in those things?

David
would like to find fundoshi, too, but so far has not
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Can we wrench this back to the important stuff, like underwear?... I've checked on eBay from time to time for Mormon underwear, but unfortunately have never been able to find it...

---

On your next visit to Mecca....er, Salt Lake City... go to the department store (I want to say it's called the Beehive? something like that) at Temple Square and tell the nice lady behind the counter what size you take, decide whether it's cash or charge, and stroll off with your package.

However, I would suggest divesting yourself of any earrings or other such Decidedly Non-Mormon Accoutrements first. I'm pretty sure that "temple recommends" are not forthcoming to those who wear them, even if they DO show the bishop their income tax returns with 10% going off the top to the Proper Authorities.

Rossweisse // who is pretty sure that God doesn't care about our undies
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Is Barmit ignoring my post? Perhaps he needs time to search through the archieves for that issue to verify it. I was very serious in wanting to verify that statement. If it is taken totally out of context, he could verify that as well. I may disagree but I am a stickler for trying always get to the nitty-gritty of things.

Please...no more underwear in here.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Duchess, are you saying we should remove our underwear before posting in here?

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Clyde (# 752) on :
 
The removal of underwear on a public bulletin board is not allowed.
( No sex please we're Brtish)
 

---

Posted by Clyde (# 752) on :
 
Should have read 'British'
(Typing mistake due to the excitement)
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
Oh, good. For a moment there, I read it as "Brutish."
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Okay, hands up - who's going commando?
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Okay, hands up - who's going commando?

---

Certainly not any Mormons.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Okay, hands up - who's going commando?

---

Certainly not any Mormons.

Reader Alexis

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
Is Barmit ignoring my post?...

---

I think poor Barmy is getting overheated with the whole discussion; he's becoming decidedly snippy in his responses on the Purgatory board. I fear that, any moment now, I shall once again find myself condemned to the fiery lake for eternity for having the temerity to (a) find this stuff risible, and (b) actually laugh at it.

Ross // oh, well!


 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I'm feeling better now, thanks to some prayer by some kind people. More on that another time, perhaps. Where were we? Ah yes, commando. Bleah. Trés dull. I've never found that a turn-on. I actually do find the concept of holy (not holey) underwear kind of cool, though I don't agree with the whole (not hole) Mormon take on it. But a short-sleeved one-piece bodysuit works for me!

Mind you, most of theirs are probably not made of silver-grey spandex with black mesh panels in ... interesting places. A pity, really. (Come to think of it, those panels probably count as holes, only lots and lots of very small ones. I suppose this would be the whole holy holey underwear thing.)

eBay. Germany. Olaf Benz. Works for me!

David
thinks he is back to his old silly kinky self again, rather than brimming over with needless angst, and appreciates the prayers from concerned parties

(On the other hand, if he'd been wearing more than Y-fronts when he was cooking the other day, he probably wouldn't have gotten burned so badly with hot cooking oil, but at Siegfried's suggestion, has bought an apron, a nice blue and white stripey one, from Ikea)

(... which, admittedly, could be considered a sort of sign -- "Thou shalt wear short-sleeved bodysuits only, O foolish one." Except it wasn't his *breast* he felt burning in ... though happily -- perhaps due to the Y-fronts -- it wasn't as far down as it could have been. )

(But, yeah, the prayers probably helped with the stress. Blessings upon everyone who prayed...)

(So, where were we? Oh right, Mormon underwear... the bits about Masonic symbols I think. Can I make a pun about mesons and quantum physics here? Can I? Can I can I can I? I know, I make too many puns, it's one of my little quarks. Er, quirks. )

(Oh my God! I can't stop the parenthetical italic postscripts! meee...)

David
very, VERY silly orthodox (but kinky!) guy
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Sure, David! Go for the puns, the cleverer the better.

Underwear jokes are also acceptable, if you feel so, er, moved.
 

---

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
Is Barmit ignoring my post?...

---

I think poor Barmy is getting overheated with the whole discussion; he's becoming decidedly snippy in his responses on the Purgatory board. I fear that, any moment now, I shall once again find myself condemned to the fiery lake for eternity for having the temerity to (a) find this stuff risible, and (b) actually laugh at it.

Ross // oh, well!

---

Well, posting only as a Shipmate (not a host on this board)--
Referring to Barmint as Barmy is a bit rude, as most folks have a right to be called the name they choose for themselves. Other than that, the only other thing I would think a bit beyond the pale is referring to Joseph Smith as 'goatish'. But, other than that...

Sieg
 

---

Posted by Pheonix (# 2782) on :
 
Do we have to talk about mormon underwear? The thought of having religious underwear is vaguely nauseating...


 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pheonix:
The thought of having religious underwear is vaguely nauseating...

---

• 1. Why? It's clean!
• 2. But -- this is Hell. Isn't that where we put nauseating things?
• 3. Underwear should be free to be religious -- if I don't wash mine often enough it's able to walk to church under its own power
• 4. The *thought* is -- but is the *reality*?
• 5. Only vaguely?
• 6. Ah, you prefer skyclad then?
• 7. Erm, I can't think of any more. (It's a quarter to seven and I just woke up, late, without even my morning tea yet)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
...Referring to Barmint as Barmy is a bit rude, as most folks have a right to be called the name they choose for themselves. Other than that, the only other thing I would think a bit beyond the pale is referring to Joseph Smith as 'goatish'. But, other than that...

---

quote:

---

informal or slang terms for mentally irregular [syn: balmy, bats, batty, bonkers, buggy, cracked, crackers, daft, dotty, fruity, haywire, kooky, kookie, loco, loony, loopy, nuts, nutty, wacky]

---

 

---

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
(Does this mean I can't call you Sieggy? Even though Rossweisse is Siegfried's aunt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't suppose it might be, not because it was shortened, but because barmy means

quote:

---

informal or slang terms for mentally irregular...

---

... Naaahhhh...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
(Does this mean I can't call you Sieggy? Even though Rossweisse is Siegfried's aunt?

---

No, you may not. As you may notice, I sign myself as either Sieg or Siegfried. Those are what I prefer to be called. An obvious abbreviation (for me, SF would be one, S possibly even) is one thing. A dimminutive form (Barmy, Sieggy) is quite another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
...despite this, from your profile:
http://home.pacbell.net/sieggy

---

quote:

---

Very well. Humor-impairment noted; demand will be honored. (Be careful to unpuff just a little bit, or you won't be able to make it through the door.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Ok I’ve read the whole thread (it took me an hour and a half) and whilst at many times on the ship I have been forced to look at things in a new light nothing said here has made me think any more highly of Mormonism.... So whilst we have ex-Mormons and ex- all sorts in our congregation many who never darken the door of any church again have been so abused of the notion of God’s love as to live in a spiritual wasteland made by the indoctrination of churches with cultish tendencies. Forever condemned to live in fear. Makes me weep. At least in the C of E people leave because they are bored!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
...And I'll ignore the insult for now.

---

I'm sorry you feel insulted, and I'm sorry that I had no way of knowing before that the "sieggy" was the result of necessity rather than choice. I'll even stop making Wagnerian references, since they seem to be unappreciated. Sorry, sorry, sorreeee.....



Rossweisse // sheesh!
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
...And I'll ignore the insult for now.

---

I'm sorry you feel insulted...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Your post was designed to insult, at least have the cojones to stand up and admit it.

---

No, it was intended to poke a little friendly fun. I realize now that this concept is unknown to some hereabouts.

And I don't have "cojones." I have ovaries.

Do you always just wander the boards seeking out people to bite?

In any case, this thread has gone severely off-topic.

Rossweisse // double-sheesh


 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Some people are just BEGGING to be bitten, dearheart. Who am I to deny them?

But I will help you out, since you haven't quite got the hang of things yet: poking friendly fun is reserved for, um, friends.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Some people are just BEGGING to be bitten, dearheart. Who am I to deny them?

---

quote:

---

But I will help you out, since you haven't quite got the hang of things yet: poking friendly fun is reserved for, um, friends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
You should take care lest they start biting back.

---

quote:

---

I do realize that this is the Hell board, and that pomposity and egregious free-floating hostility are Hellish traits.

---

quote:

---

But we WERE having a discussion of sorts here before it got derailed by all this nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
(Does this mean I can't call you Sieggy? Even though Rossweisse is Siegfried's aunt?

---

No, you may not. As you may notice, I sign myself as either Sieg or Siegfried. Those are what I prefer to be called. An obvious abbreviation (for me, SF would be one, S possibly even) is one thing. A dimminutive form (Barmy, Sieggy) is quite another.

---

...despite this, from your profile:
http://home.pacbell.net/sieggy

Very well. Humor-impairment noted; demand will be honored. (Be careful to unpuff just a little bit, or you won't be able to make it through the door.)

Aunt Ross // just part of the far-flung Wotan family

---

quote:

---

Rossweisse // under the impression that hosts were supposed to keep things on-topic, not knock them further under the refrigerator

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Rossweisse // under the impression that hosts were supposed to keep things on-topic, not knock them further under the refrigerator

---

quote:

---

Rossweisse wrote
Rossweisse // under the impression that hosts were supposed to keep things on-topic, not knock them further under the refrigerator

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
to allow his belief in so many impossible things at one time

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I can have sympathy for those who at a particular stage in their life need the ultra protectionism of such a binding religions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Some people are just BEGGING to be bitten, dearheart. Who am I to deny them?

---

(waving hand in the air wildly, in a not-too-bad impression of Arnold Horschack from "Welcome Back, Kotter")

OOOH! OOOOH!! ME!!! PICK ME!!!!



David

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled Hellfest.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Here's an exercise for you: how about you cite where tomb, Nightlamp or sarkycow "knocked things under the refrigerator".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Neither I nor either of the other two hellhosts have "swept under the refrigerator" even one of your ill-tempered and ill-mannered posts.

---

I wasn't talking about you, but about the local exemplar of Putorius fœtidus and the crocodilian, who, when it comes to "ill-tempered and ill-mannered" have the rest of us beaten quite handily, it seems to me. I don't know why you would think that, except that Erin dragged you in for reasons of her own.

"Swept under the refrigerator," in this context, means knocking a thread off-topic. I'm sorry if that was confusing.

My apologies for any misunderstanding. I've enjoyed your posts (well, most of them), I am grateful to you for fixing UBB code when it goes awry, and I am startled and annoyed by this development.

Can we PLEASE get back to the holy underwear?



[UBB code tidied up]

[ 23 August 2002, 00:03: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Oh, I get it. You can be the passive-aggressive victim, but OTHER people have to hold to different standards.

Holier than thou? Nope. Hypocrite is a bit more accurate.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
On this board Sarkycow tomb and myself are the hosts the others are effectively shipmates.

As far as see it, you are one of the main culprits for making this thread go off subject.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Oh, I get it. You can be the passive-aggressive victim, but OTHER people have to hold to different standards.

Holier than thou? Nope. Hypocrite is a bit more accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Oh, get off the friggin' cross, Rossweisse...

---

And you're administrator for a Christian board because....?

No, I don't want to just "be a bitch." I'll leave that to you. There is none sharper-toothed, sharper-tongued, sharper-tailed, fouler-mouthed, more squamous (sorry, Tomb), more irritable, more unreasonable or more generally unpleasant. I can't compete; I don't want to compete. Thank God for the last of these.

I'd tell you to go to Hell, but you seem to be already permanently encamped. Have fun.

Cheers,

Ross


 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 
Oh, Jesus Fuck.

Somebody just shut this Godforsaken thread down, wouldja?
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Here's a clue for you, Rossweisse, since you seem to be thick as a plank: the people here are hosts and admins because they get what the Ship is about. If you find yourself consistently at odds with them, YOU are the problem.

If Nightlamp wants to shut this down, I have no objections. I also have no objections if he chooses not to.

[ 23 August 2002, 11:09: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
I have been tempted to close this thread down for a bit due to the fact it is has become pointless and off subject but Hell is partly about vitriol and this thread certainly has that.

There is a whole new exciting thread here about the arguments that have come from this thread so maybe you would like to take your beef there.

I will leave this thread open for now in the expectation it may head back towards subject or at least develop some reason for existing if it doesn't I will close it.

Nightlamp
Hellhost
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
or at least develop some reason for existing

---

It has one!

Underwear!



Smut! I like smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut!
If it's uncut!
And unsubt-
-tle!
-- Tom Lehrer

But I should keep my posts on that brief lest I find myself in a boxers' match; perhaps if we try we can all be in union with each other -- after all, it takes at least two to tanga, and we don't want to step-in to any trouble or slip up.

David
I guess it's just one of those thongs
 

---

Posted by David (# 3) on :
 
A question.

Abraham, a 2nd-millenium BC ANE goatfarmer could write?????

Heaven spare me from such idiotic question-begging anachronism.

[typo. If I'm going to use words with more than 2 syllables, I should spell them right]

[ 23 August 2002, 13:45: Message edited by: David ]
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I think the allegations about Abraham and the goat are unsubstantiated. It's one of those things that just tittillates (sp?) people, but there's scarcely any reason to bring it up in polite conversation.

Oh wait. You said goatFARMER.

Nevermind.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
...If you find yourself consistently at odds with them, YOU are the problem....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
or at least develop some reason for existing

---

It has one!

Underwear!



Smut! I like smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut!
If it's uncut!
And unsubt-
-tle!
-- Tom Lehrer

But I should keep my posts on that brief lest I find myself in a boxers' match; perhaps if we try we can all be in union with each other -- after all, it takes at least two to tanga, and we don't want to step-in to any trouble or slip up.

David
I guess it's just one of those thongs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess [green]:
God help us all! I will never think of Mormon underwear the same way again!

---

just out of curiosity, how did you think of it before?
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
But I'll let you have the last word. Go ahead, give it your best shot; I promise I won't respond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess [green]:
God help us all! I will never think of Mormon underwear the same way again!

---

just out of curiosity, how did you think of it before?

---

Men and their underwear...
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess [green]:
Originally posted by texas.veggie:
just out of curiosity, how did you think of it before?
(duchess):Men and their underwear...

---

Yes, but is this a good or a bad thing?

Obviously I like it ...

David
Olaf Benz doesn't make them, though
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Yes, but is this a good or a bad thing?

---

Underwear: It's a Good Thing.

But one-piece undies are a major pain, and, besides, I wouldn't ever want to wear underwear with holes in it. What would Mother say?

 

---

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Wading into a thread which already has a very long evolution with several interesting excurses...I'm quite interested in how Mormonism is trying to go 'legit'

Pentecostalism went legit
The Seventh Day Adventists went legit

Why wouldn't the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses want to go legit?

I live in a neighbourhood occupied largely by about five different arms of Hassidic Judaism viz Beltzers, Lubavitchers, etc. Their particular brands of Judaism include a well developed belief in Spirits, transmigration of souls (verging on a doctrine of reincarnation) that were never part of Judaism prior to Isaac Luria and later modifications of Luria's thought by Israel Ben Eliezer (the Ba'al Shem Tov). What holds them in the same envelope with other 'Orthodox' Jews is, surely, 'practise' and not 'belief'. You can believe a rather wide range of things and still be an orthodox Jew.

What about Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventists, British Israelites, and the lot....? If we're going to dump on the Mormons......?

helpfully (thank me, please by private message!)

Raspberry Rabbit
Montreal, QC
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
What about Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventists, British Israelites, and the lot....?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
I wasn't aware that British Israelites had "gone legit", actually.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
What holds them in the same envelope with other 'Orthodox' Jews is, surely, 'practise' and not 'belief'. You can believe a rather wide range of things and still be an orthodox Jew.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:

For orthodox Christians, the prime act of worship is the Eucharist

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
...But my general conclusion after a somewhat amusing and revealing couple of hours in regard to Mormons going legit can be summed up by the old phrase “ a snowball’s chance in Hell.”

Their beliefs in regard to women, people of non-white races, the nature of God, the planet he lives on (yes seriously), sexuality, baptizing of dead people, the sanctity and pedigree of their holy books, the reasons why they try and convert existing Christians……. the list goes on, are bizarre. I have skimmed through the Mormon “Church Handbook of Instructions” found here and can honestly say the “rules” are astounding (well I’m astounded). In my opinion this is not a church to free the spirit but a dangerous religion that could easily (and in my personal experience has) broken people and left them frightened and confused.

---

quote:

---

We ought at some point to have a discussion about “people who call themselves Christian but are not.” ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden_key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:

For orthodox Christians, the prime act of worship is the Eucharist

---

Ummm, FYI: many, many Protestants view communion (Eucharist) as purely symbolic, as a remembrance, and their churches only have it a few times a year.

---

FYI, I grew up Baptist!

Your points notwithstanding: even in the Zwinglian sense, it remains the prime act of worship, in that, together with Baptism, the Eucharist is the distinctive public proclamation, summation, and distillation of the entire Gospel message - the tangible sign that it has come/is coming/will come to be:

Baptism = death and resurrection with Christ
Eucharist = eternal communion with God and humanity.

One need not hold to a Real Presence doctrine for this to be so. This was certainly the gist of what I was taught growing up as a Baptist, as well.

(Although, obviously, I was negligent in not mentioning Baptism in my previous post. I should have said there's a dual axis of sacraments or some such thing.)

As for frequency, it's interesting. Some Churches take communion every week, because they believe it's so very important that it should not be missed. Others do it once a month or quarter, because it's so very important, that they don't think it should be taken for granted. Either way, though, in my experience the emphasis - whatever the practice - has always been on doing the thing thought most appropriate to the character of the sacrament ... or ordinance, if you prefer.
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
One need not hold to a Real Presence doctrine for this to be so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arietty:
...If, as it appears, the LDS and 'mainstream' versions of Christianity vary both in the scriptures they accept as holy and in their core doctrines, I cannot understand (but would really like to understand) why LDS wishes to be recognised as part of the mainstream, any more than I wish to be recognised as part of LDS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
It sounds a bit like the Freemasons.

---

Yes, Smith borrowed his rituals from them wholesale. I assume that the secrecy aspect came from them too, or perhaps that was just to keep the "gentiles" from noticing the similarities.

When I was 8, a group of us had a "secret club" with secret handshake, greeting, etc. But we outgrew it.


 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
It sounds a bit like the Freemasons.

---

Yes, Smith borrowed his rituals from them wholesale. I assume that the secrecy aspect came from them too, or perhaps that was just to keep the "gentiles" from noticing the similarities.

When I was 8, a group of us had a "secret club" with secret handshake, greeting, etc. But we outgrew it.

---

When i was 18, we called it a greek-letter fraternity and had all those same things ... plus beer in kegs.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Yes if one had to choose between joining Lambda Delta Sigma and the Latter Day Saints, the beer might just tip the scales towards the fraternity.

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Yes if one had to choose between joining Lambda Delta Sigma and the Latter Day Saints, the beer might just tip the scales towards the fraternity.

---

yup ... no "Word of Wisdom" there, mate, I assure you!
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Yes if one had to choose between joining Lambda Delta Sigma and the Latter Day Saints, the beer might just tip the scales towards the fraternity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Well there's that too.

---

Oh, yes, indeed. There's that too.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
When i was 18, we called it a greek-letter fraternity and had all those same things ... plus beer in kegs.

---

Beer in kegs might JUST make it bearable -- but only if it's a decent beer. (No Bud Lite allowed, even if we ARE in Hell!)

 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Yes if one had to choose between joining Lambda Delta Sigma and the Latter Day Saints, the beer might just tip the scales towards the fraternity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
(No Bud Lite allowed, even if we ARE in Hell!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by texas.veggie:
oh, honey: life's too short for light beer.

---

quote:

---

Besides, the fraternity isn't going to insist on seeing your tax return to make sure you've forked over 10% of the gross before they let you take part in those oh-so-cool secret ceremonies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Another reason not to take them seriously, I suppose. They can't figure out how to cook the books and forge a tax return.

---

But if they did and the honchos found out, they'd be excommunicated. There'd go that future planet and harem, right out the window!


 

---

Posted by Pheonix (# 2782) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Yes if one had to choose between joining Lambda Delta Sigma and the Latter Day Saints, the beer might just tip the scales towards the fraternity

---

The beer only? Not also the cuties over at Zeta Tau Wow?

---

I wonder which would have the strangest initiation rites though? My money is on the Latter DS having the weirder ones, but the Lamda DS being far more fun and amusing...

Oh for some ZTW cuties
 

---

Posted by texas.veggie (# 2860) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pheonix:
Oh for some ZTW cuties

---

I'd bet I could dig you up some old phone numbers.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Pursuant to another thread, but trying to keep the Wicked Thoughts here where they belong:

In the event that after my death someone undergoes "proxy baptism" into Mormonism, purportedly on my behalf, I hereby resolve to haunt that individual.

What do you think would be most effective? The pale and silent shade wagging a bony finger in reproof? A little classic poltergeist activity? (Tossing around the contents of the Holy Undies drawer, or messing with the treatise on how to "friendship" the neighbors, perhaps?) A hollow voice at midnight, offering disquisitions on the really bad art that adorns the most common edition of the Book of Mormon? (My favorite is the dude in the Trojan-Viking helmet.)

What are your thoughts?



Rossweisse // happy with my present affiliation, thank you very much
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pheonix:
I wonder which would have the strangest initiation rites though? My money is on the Latter DS having the weirder ones, but the Lamda DS being far more fun and amusing...

---

I can testify that some groups with "Lambda" in the name have some most exotic initiation rites.

And we like it that way, too!

(PS: Uncontrollably giggling at Rossweisse's suggestion of haunting... first Ender's Shadow and now this. Doomsday is nigh...)

David
has far, far more unusual underwear, too
 

---

Posted by Pheonix (# 2782) on :
 
texas.veggie - Could ya?
 

---

Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Pursuant to another thread, but trying to keep the Wicked Thoughts here where they belong:

In the event that after my death someone undergoes "proxy baptism" into Mormonism, purportedly on my behalf, I hereby resolve to haunt that individual.

What do you think would be most effective? The pale and silent shade wagging a bony finger in reproof? A little classic poltergeist activity? (Tossing around the contents of the Holy Undies drawer, or messing with the treatise on how to "friendship" the neighbors, perhaps?) A hollow voice at midnight, offering disquisitions on the really bad art that adorns the most common edition of the Book of Mormon? (My favorite is the dude in the Trojan-Viking helmet.)

What are your thoughts?



Rossweisse // happy with my present affiliation, thank you very much

---

I'm thinking the most frightening apparition would be the ghost of the professional critic, pen in hand, dispensing written commentary on everything from the contents of the tossed underwear drawer to the art in the Book of Mormon, one's choice in music, haircut, whatnot. Reams of writings, appearing out of thin air, most unsettling.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Equinas:
I'm thinking the most frightening apparition would be the... written commentary on everything from the contents of the tossed underwear drawer to the art in the Book of Mormon, one's choice in music, haircut, whatnot. Reams of writings, appearing out of thin air, most unsettling.

---

Don't forget the hideous fashion crime -- apparently mandated for Boy Missionaries -- of wearing ties with short-sleeved shirts. (If a tie is worn, the shirt should have long sleeves; if it's short-sleeved, it's not a dress shirt. And if you don't believe me, check with Paul Fussell, author of "Class.")

Come to think of it, somebody ought to be haunted just for that one fashion atrocity alone.


 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I saw a pair of mormon missionaries-on-bicycles yesterday, and they actually were wearing long-sleeved shirts. This on an 85F+ day. I was impressed! Maybe I'll convert! (jK!)

Reader Alexis
 

---

Posted by Equinas (# 2907) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I saw a pair of mormon missionaries-on-bicycles yesterday, and they actually were wearing long-sleeved shirts. This on an 85F+ day. I was impressed! Maybe I'll convert! (jK!)

Reader Alexis

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Equinas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
I saw a pair of mormon missionaries-on-bicycles yesterday, and they actually were wearing long-sleeved shirts....

---

Maybe they bought the book.

---

quote:

---

Now hear it. O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He is Michael, The Arch-angel, the Ancient of days! about whom holy men have written and spoken- He is out father and our God and the only God with whom we have to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pheonix:
...Also it clearly states that God is in the singular and only one. How then can they believe in more than one God i.e. men are resurrected as such? ...
It seems that the leadership of the mormon church must be blessed with some special Godly insight that allows them to change and contradict the scriptures as they please...

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0