Indexes
November 21st, 2009
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- The country's mess is our fault (170)
- Obama is not a moderate (130)
- Public health care is a Christian option (79)
- Sarah Palin's book hits the shelves: Locals react (73)
- Lodi City Council plans to cap number of taco trucks at 22 (52)
- The haves should help the have-nots (31)
- Tokay in, traveling to unbeaten No. 3 Grant for football playoffs (25)
- Government-run health care is a bad idea (25)
- Young woman fatally shot at Acampo home (18)
- Sierra Adventure store to close after four years in Downtown Lodi (17)
ADVERTISEMENT
Mormon missionaries Elder Abeyta of Salt Lake City, Utah, right, and Elder Hatch of Lacombe, Alberta, Canada, pedal down Daisy Avenue on Wednesday. The pair have been together since their training and have completed 23 months of their missionary work. Abeyta is on his fourth bike during the mission. He had one stolen in Stockton, gave one to a boy who had his own bike stolen, he has one at his apartment and he built one from parts of other bikes. (Jennifer M. Howell/News-Sentinel)
'On assignment to teach'
Mormon missionaries: Who are they and what do they do?
It's a frequent sight in Lodi and other cities and towns across the nation: A team of two young Mormons, dressed in sharp, black slacks; white shirts; ties and bike helmets.
They peddle across town looking to talk to people about their faith and about joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The young Mormons who serve their two-year mission when they turn 19 must give up quite a bit while telling people about Jesus Christ and the Book of Mormon.
They don't drive for two years unless they're in a rural area, such as Amador and Calaveras counties, where it's too difficult to get around on a bicycle.
They aren't allowed to see a single television show or movie for two years.
They are allowed to phone home only twice a year — on Christmas and Mother's Day.
They are allowed to write letters to friends and loved ones once a week.
They must also give up their first name.
Eight missionaries peddle on their bicycles in Lodi, and four do the same in Galt. They introduce themselves as "Elder" followed by their last name, and they address each other that way.
"In Lodi, nobody knows our name," Elder Payne said.
"It's to give up our past life (for two years)," said Elder Zurita, who came to Lodi from Chile. "We're on an assignment to teach other people (about the faith)."
The missionaries, serving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Lodi and Galt, come from such places as Utah, Atlanta and Chile. Three of those serving locally are from the Canadian province of Alberta. They talk to 50 or 60 people a day in the Lodi area, and five to eight of those people eventually become baptized as Mormons, Elder Payne said.
How missionaries are assigned to a location
When they turns 19 years old, church members have the opportunity to serve a two-year mission. They send their personal information to church headquarters in Salt Lake City, according to Elder Payne.
While most missionaries whom people see out in the field are young men, the church does have women and older missionaries. Women, however, don't ride bikes.
Church leaders ask missionaries questions about their knowledge of the faith, if they have read the scriptures and their opinions regarding different topics, Elder Zurita said.
A special committee of apostles and current church Prophet Thomas S. Monson assigned the Lodi group to the California-Sacramento Mission. From there, the Sacramento Mission president, known only as President Jardine, assigns missionaries to communities in San Joaquin, Sacramento, Calaveras, Amador and El Dorado Counties.
Mormon missionaries pose for a picture outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Church on Ham Lane on Wednesday. From left: Elder Lindeman of Atlanta, Georgia; Elder Bench of Ogden, Utah; Elder Rasmussen of Airdrie, Alberta, Canada; Elder Losser of Salt Lake City, Utah; Elder Zurita of Antofagasta, Chile; Elder Abeyta of Salt Lake City; Elder Hatch of Lacombe, Alberta, Canada; Elder Hull of Syracuse, Utah; Elder Payne of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; and Elder Robison of Richland, Wash. (Jennifer M. Howell/News-Sentinel)
After six weeks, missionaries are considered for reassignment to another community in the five-county area. For example, Elder Payne has served in Sacramento, Cameron Park and Stockton before coming to Lodi.
Missionaries are in groups of two, with one of them having been in the community longer than the other. That way, he can acclimate the newcomer about what Lodi is like, for example.
Daily routine
6:30 a.m.: Wake up, exercise for 30 minutes.
7 a.m.: Eat and get dressed.
8 a.m.: Study alone.
9 a.m.: Study with one's "companion," as the bicycle partner is referred to in the church. They share ideas with each other.
10 a.m.: Those studying Spanish take their lesson to communicate with Lodi's and Galt's Spanish-speaking community. Others go out on their bicycles for the day, where they meet and greet people and share the gospel.
11 a.m.: Those who took their Spanish lesson at 10 began their bicycle trip, which lasts until 9 p.m. except for lunch and dinner breaks.
They bicycle around looking for people to teach the gospel. It could be someone at the street corner or working in their front yard.
9 p.m.: Plan the next day's itinerary.
Day of rest
Monday is their day to go grocery shopping for the week, do laundry, play basketball or other games and write letters home (they're not allowed to write any other day). Usually it's by snail mail, although some elders will e-mail from a computer at the Lodi or Galt library.
Loneliness
"Of course, it's natural," said Elder Bench of Ogden, Utah. "But our families know what it's like."
It's not any different from the loneliness servicemen and women experience, he said.
"The Lord blesses us, so it doesn't bother us," Elder Payne said.
The purpose of not being allowed to communicate with family and friends except on Mondays is to avoid being distracted from missionary work.
"It's important not to get lost on what you're doing here," Elder Lindeman of Atlanta said.
Missionaries only have church-issued cell phones, and their parents, girlfriends and other friends don't have access to the phone number.
If a family emergency like a death in the family takes place, their parents still can't contact the missionary directly. Instead, the call goes to the California-Sacramento Mission, and word is relayed to the missionary.
To compensate for lack of contact with family and friends, there are great people in each community who become your family, Elder Zuniga said.
Why do they dress in suits?
Missionaries wear standard business attire, including white dress shirts, dark slacks, usually black, and sometimes a dress coat. They all wear ties, but of different colors.
"We represent Jesus Christ," Elder Payne said, explaining why they dress so formally. "We are going to be united in what we wear."
Elder Bench added, "We have to give our best."
Church leaders recommend that each missionary has eight to 10 white dress shirts, three to four pairs of slacks, two matching suit jackets and two pairs of shoes.
Who pays for their shoes and bikes?
Missionaries pay for their own supplies, including food, rent, clothing, bicycles and other items. They don't get paid for their work, so they save money a few years in advance. Church leaders recommend saving $10,000 toward the two-year mission.
Missionaries give their savings to the church, which then metes out the money as needed. The Lodi missionaries live in apartments and the rent is paid by the church out of the missionaries' savings. Galt missionaries share a house.
Elder Rasmussen said he began saving money from jobs as early as his high-school years.
Elder Abeyta, from Salt Lake City, has used four bikes during his mission. One bike was stolen in Stockton, he gave another bike to a boy who had had his bike stolen, another bike is at his apartment and he built one bike from spare parts.
Dealing with rejection
It's something they have to learn to deal with, Elder Abeyta said.
"If someone slams the door in my face, I know I did my part," said Elder Rasmussen, who added that he was once sprayed with a garden hose.
Elder Hull said they want people to notice them, so if someone yells or swears at them from a car, at least they knew who they were.
Elder Zurita said he has twice been threatened by a knife in Stockton.
Only five to 10 percent of the people missionaries talk to invite them for a return visit to discuss the faith, Elder Rasmussen said.
Elder Abeyta said their job is simply to invite people to learn about the Latter-day Saints faith, not to coerce.
Confusion about polygamy
Most people realize that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe in polygamy and that polygamy is practiced by a different sect with a similar name — the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints, Elder Hatch said.
"Some of them say, 'I don't want to hear from you guys. You believe in polygamy,'" Elder Robison said. "They just want to get you riled up."
Elder Rasmussen added, "We ask them to read the Book of Mormon, come to church and pray to God and ask him if it's true."
Elder Hatch cited Jacob 2 in the Book of Mormon, which says that marriage is limited to one spouse.
Unique aspects of Lodi, Galt
"The smell of General Mills," Elder Hatch said. "It was awesome. I was thinking, 'What is this heavenly place?'"
Elder Rasmussen said he is intrigued by the Galt Market because he gets to talk to people from a large area. One day, he met someone who drove from Reno to shop at the flea market.
Elder Lindeman was impressed with Lodi's Farmers Market.
Elder Payne was impressed with how many churches Lodi has. Lodi has more churches than any town he has seen.
"They are the nicest people in Lodi," Elder Abeyta said. "It's like Pleasantville."
People, not necessarily Mormons, sometimes invite missionaries to stay for dinner or give them water for the road because they appreciate the missionaries for spreading God's message, Elder Abeyta said.
Contact reporter Ross Farrow at rossf@lodinews.com.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
voter wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:27 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:05 PM:
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 19, 2008 1:03 PM:
"Please be aware that people who worship animal deities and all manner of spiritual beings report the same experiences."
I am highly offended by this comment. Who are you to say what individual people feel spiritually? My point was that I felt God's love when I was in a different Christian denomination. I now feel that same love, only stronger, from the LDS church. To me, that's all I need to know that God lives and Jesus Christ is our Savior. I don't need to see them to believe it. Truth is testified to us by way of the Holy Ghost, which it sounds to me as if you've never allowed yourself to listen to the spirit of the Lord. "
voter wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:26 AM:
I just checked the FSM website and it looks as if a number of noted Ph.d.s and scientists are now endorsing Pastafarianism's version of creation as on an equal par with creation science and intelligent design. "
nylodian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:01 AM:
Seriously now, we were AGAIN visited by LDSers this morning. We have asked them, respectfully, not to come back on several occasions. It got to the point where we even called their church to complain and threaten trespassing charges. That worked for a few years, but now they're back. It's not like we're in a suburban neighborhood - we live out in the country. "
voter wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:30 AM:
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:29 AM:
For myself, I came to know I had a belief in God and Jesus Christ around junior high school. Then when I studied the BOM and LDS church and was truly open to its truthfulness, I received a very strong testimony from the Holy Spirit. I know it was the Holy Spirit because it was the same feeling I used to feel before the LDS church, only stronger.
No one else knows what I feel except myself. So to say that it was Satan giving me false promptings, that is wrong because I know I've felt the promptings of the Spirit before and I know that I feel it even stronger now in the LDS church. Why? Not because of some scientific study. But through faith, prayer, and listening/feeling the Holy Spirit. "
voter wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:28 AM:
Would you like me to begin compiling a list of all of the crazy, dangerous, and cruel beliefs and practices humans have engaged just in the last century--all in the name of blind faith? Without evidence, your faith is no more valid than those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. "
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:14 PM:
If we base EVERYTHING off of 'unbiased historical evidence' then what is the point of faith? "
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:16 PM:
http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/mormon_loyalty.htm
Please let me know if you come across any unbiased evidence to support historical ideas in the BOM. "
rick wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:27 PM:
It is insulting to say I have been "conditioned to believe what the church hierarchy" wants. It insults my faith, and the great men of faith who have believed.
I have come to know for myself, after many days of fasting and prayer. I know independent of any living person that these things are true, and though all the world should reject it, and claim it false, it would not matter one iota -I know what I know.
Go read Nibley for your evidence...but you have all the evidence you need right in your hands - the Book itself.
Don't wait too long, we do not have much time here to prepare...
Good luck, and farewell, and I hope and pray you will find that these things are true. "
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:18 PM:
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 4:08 PM:
I guess there is no God then either since there's no scientific evidence, same goes for Jesus Christ. "
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:42 PM:
rick wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:16 PM:
No, modern science has not debunked the Book of Mormon. Your opinion only, and you have every right to it, but by no means is it fact or true.
There has been mountains of evidence unearthed in support of the Book of Mormon.
Two books (of many) I would recommend for those looking for "evidence" is "An Approach to the Book of Mormon", and "Lehi in the Desert; The World of Jaredites; There were Jaradites", both written by Hugh Nibley. Nibley researched much, much harder tests than the few you mention, and in every regard, the Book stands tall.
However, the real evidence is spiritual - read, ponder, pray over it, in humility and honesty, and you will come to see that the Book of Mormon is just what it claims. I invite you to honestly and sincerely try the promise at the end of the Book - to read, then ask God if it's true, and by the power of the Spirit you will come to know it's true. It will be all the "evidence" you need, and the only evidence that will matter. "
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:07 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 18, 2008 12:50 PM:
Rick wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:56 AM:
It is useless to explain the temple - and in reality, this really isn't your problem. The real question is modern revelation.
If you knew God spake to Joseph Smith, and Joseph was the Lord's mouthpiece on the earth, then you would know revelation is a true princple, and what he tells you is truth.
The Savior himself said to Nicodemus:
"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
It was the same problem. The Savior right there in the flesh, and people couldn't accept current revelation, but clung to the old.
So, was Joseph the Prophet? The way the Lord has provided for us all to find out is to take the Book of Mormon and read, ponder, and ask God to find out for yourself.
It is useless to talk of temples, or "heavenly things" if you do not accept "earthly things". So, I challenge you to start with the Book of Mormon.
I testify it is God's revealed word today, joining with the Bible of yesterday. "
Rick wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:43 AM:
Two things struck me that need clarifying. 200 words can't address all.
There is freedom to state one's opinion, and ask, and question. You probably don't know, there was a huge debate with a member of the Quorum of the 12 and a 70 (subordinate) on the doctrinal question of the origin of man. Two powerful figures, completely diametrically opposed opinions, and the First Presidency welcomed the debate, and much good came of it.
In terms of the ultimate destiny of us all, the Savior himself said (Matt 19:29):
"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my names sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit ceverlasting life"
If you are faithful, you will receive an hundredfold of those things - and most of this is family - 100x, and more.
If you don't believe that, you do not believe the Bible.
Also - Rev 1:6 "And hath made us kings ane priests unto God and His Father.."
What exactly will you be a king of? "
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:29 AM:
Your series of posts couldn't be any further from the truth. Have you had any firsthand experience with the LDS church? "
essayjay wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:23 PM:
essayjay wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:22 PM:
essayjay wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:22 PM:
essayjay wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:16 PM:
You see, they won't tell you that "Heavenly Father," according to Mormonism, was once a man like yourself who achieved godhood through a process called "eternal progression." You'll hear great reverence expressed for Jesus Christ, yet the missionaries won't say that they believe that Jesus Christ is a created being, a literal son of a Heavenly Father that had sexual intercourse with the Virgin Mary to provide him a physical body to dwell in. "
rick wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:35 PM:
"God's Word is complete...The next revelation will occur when Christ...come(s)..."
Bry, unfortunately, the Bible does not support such positions. Those are traditions of men.
Where did you learn that the next revelation would be the 2nd coming? It's not in the Bible, and neither is the concept of the Bible being complete. The Bible does not deny the spirit of revelation - even after all the Apostles were killed.
You cannot take Rev 22:18-19 to mean such a thing. (Numerous posts on this) That only pertains to John's Revelation.
Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets"
If you believe the Bible, God will do nothing until he reveals his secret..therefore, there must be an authorized prophet on the earth to whom God will reveal the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God in preparation for His 2nd Coming.
That means revelation - which means the Bible is not complete, and the next revelation is not the 2nd coming, but will proceed it, else the scripture is broken. "
JD wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:58 PM:
What could very possibly happen down the road, though, is that the church might de-link civil marriages from temple sealings. This is already the case in some other countries where religious marriage ceremonies of any kind are not recognized--Mormon couples marry civilly in an open ceremony, and are then "sealed" in a temple some days or weeks later.
In the US, however, couples who elect to marry civilly first must wait for a year before they can be sealed. I wish I could give you a cogent set of reasons as to why this is the case, but anything I could offer in this regard would be speculation. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:28 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:25 PM:
I realize these are Mormon traditions, but maybe the church can take a look into the non-Mormon parent issue and allow the parents to be witness to their child's marriage.....someday perhaps. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:12 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:07 PM:
You are wrong, as I agree.
The problem comes in when that new chosen path rejects family at any point. THAT is dangerous territory and should be watched very carefully as there are many "groups" out there that will purposely separate the family from their members. In my opinion, this is not a healthy choice for a family. Would you be pleased and accepting if your child chose to be a member, and one of the wives, in the FLDS? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:00 PM:
What accusation? "
JD wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:50 PM:
But I am sort of hoping that we can at least put the "cult-like shunning" thing to bed. The comparisons that have been drawn thus far strike me as superficial, imperfect, and/or just plain inaccurate. "
Love For The Truth wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:29 PM:
I have observed the Mormon faith for a considerable time. Your assertion that it is a cult speaks volumes to hate, myopic arrogance and bias. I have never observed an organization that does more good individually and collectively than the Mormons. I counter your unfounded accusation, and assert that they are the most Christian Christians I have observed.
I suggest, again, that if my child has the guts to make a decision contrary to their upbringing, and tell me that the religion (or lack thereof) that I raised them in--is no-longer a part of their life, my child deserves consideration and respect. We apparently will not agree.
In Mormon families, I have observed family focus through a specific weeknight of togetherness, teachings of mutual consideration and respect; avoidance of pornography, alcohol and harmful drugs which tear families apart; focus on selfless service, which builds families up. Apparently now, also daily family scripture study and prayer?
I can say, without hesitation--that the Mormons focus on family happiness, and that spills over into whatever community they are in. I enjoy it. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:23 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:15 PM:
" Hi Lodi78-- I prefer to take Voter's and Lodian's expressed concerns at face value, as I've found them to be generally fair and open-minded in past discussions. The question of "shunning" is a valid concern, especially because it's a recurring theme among ex-Mormons."
JD: I appreciate your attitude and patience with all the discussion of Mormonism. My questions and concerns are sincere. Yes, I have my own beliefs and opinions (God only knows!), but I also have a sincere desire to learn and understand the beliefs of others. Even if I do not agree with those beliefs I can respect them. Some things though are too hard for me to respect, like this barring of non-Mormon parents at a child's wedding, so I will dig in on the issue and discuss it. I am glad you are a person of patience and intellect that does not take it personally and get upset. Thanks. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:07 PM:
Lodi78: I guess you could say that about anything. Are you spinning my comments to fit your agenda? And I'm not sure why you are suspicious that this discussion has gone on for a week. Religion has been discussed long before you were here and it will be discussed long after we are all dead and gone. Surprised? Sorry, but your comments are odd. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:02 PM:
Lodi78: Your statement couldn't be farther from the truth. I have a sincere desire for understanding what is being discussed here. And, yes, I do have personal opinions. You don't? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:59 AM:
Lodi78: Don't put words in my mouth. I am quite capable, most of the time, of expressing myself. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:55 AM:
JD wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:00 AM:
Voter hints at an interesting point when he says,
I did not realize that even younger siblings of the bride and groom are barred from the ceremony because only adults would have previously been endowed.
You see, I missed a couple of my own siblings' weddings (not the reception, but the ceremony). I was brought up to anticipate it, and it just wasn't a big deal to me--I'm still very close to those siblings. It's probably no exaggeration to say that you and I are from different subcultures with different values, and we're just not understanding each other.
I hope I haven't been too dismissive of your own values. Ultimately, whether you agree with me or not isn't my business. But I do hope that if you reject my position, you at least understand fully what my position is. To hint that Mormonism engages in a deliberate, protracted, cult-like campaign of driving wedges between Mormons and their non-Mormon family members suggests strongly that you have misinterpreted a fundamental dynamic of Mormonism. This is probably my own fault for not representing myself clearly, and I do apologize for that. "
JD wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:55 AM:
I prefer to take Voter's and Lodian's expressed concerns at face value, as I've found them to be generally fair and open-minded in past discussions. The question of "shunning" is a valid concern, especially because it's a recurring theme among ex-Mormons. "
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:37 AM:
I'm still fairly certain these two have no intention of understanding the practices of the church, rather they seem intent on mudslinging and accusatory statements.
Anyone who wants to discredit the church can take any area of it and spin it to support their own agenda. I suspect that's what we're dealing with here. Why else has this discussion gone on for well over a week? "
JD wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:08 AM:
The killer is that non-mormon parents of the bride would not only be barred from the ceremony, but then would be expected to pay for it as per tradition.
Well, Mormon temple weddings are free. I suspect you mean the reception--in which case, according to "conventional culture" you're probably right (though Mormon wedding receptions, in many ways, are a culture unto themselves--don't get me started!)
They are specifically asked if they have associated with anyone whose practices are in opposition to church teachings.
The question is technically whether one affiliates with any group or individual. I actually asked my bishop about this question some years back, and his reply was that the practical emphasis is on "groups". You've probably heard of the FLDS and other Mormon offshoot groups that still practice polygamy. Oddly, some of those groups believe that they must get their marriage solemnized in mainstream Mormon temples, and thus would try to maintain official membership in both the mainline Mormon church (whence they would apply for a temple recommend) and their own polygamous splinter group. The question was designed specifically to weed out these individuals. "
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:47 AM:
Thank you for proving my point :) "
voter wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:36 AM:
You wrote, "After all, if you want to buy a Ford you don't go ask a Chevy dealer what they think do you? "
If I wanted to buy a Ford, I certainly wouldn't limit my information to only that given by the Ford dealer. I would check neutral sources and would be stupid to ignore negative reviews, especially when they all pointed to the same serious issues. "
voter wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:28 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:20 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:14 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:23 PM:
Love the truth: I don't appreciate you belittling my stand on this issue. If, as a parent, I would have to change religions or miss the wedding I would definitely be working on getting my daughter out of such a cult. The truth is that a church/religion that professes to value family yet rejects non-Mormon family members is something much less than a healthy place for my children. It's not something I can remotely agree to support. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:16 PM:
What I am hearing from you is that to be allowed into the temple to stand beside my child at his/her marriage I would have to change my religion??? That's beyond ridiculous. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:13 PM:
"Lodian--If I were a parent who had successfully raised a child that I must accept some of the credit/blame for their strength in making a commitment as an adult."
Love For The Truth: I would be incredibly disappointed if my child allowed his/her parents to be banned from the wedding. We have raised our children that family is important and we stick together. I would have to concede that I did something wrong in raising my child if he/she allowed such a ban of parents from such an important day...or any day just because the church says so. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:06 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:26 PM:
A mother or father in a healthy relationship with their son or daughter is not a bad influence, so why shun/bar them from the wedding, and other significant events in the couples life?
In talking about "bad influences", I was not referring to exclusion from temple weddings or limited contact during missionary service. I was responding to Voters apparent implication that Mormons are routinely "commanded" to cut non-Mormons out of their lives on an ongoing, perpetual basis. Again, there is no express direction from church authorities to do this. A local church authority who encouraged this course of action would be way out of line. "
JD wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:19 PM:
"...see it in the same ballpark as "come and live on our compound. Oh, and by the way, your parents are evil--dont contact them anymore." "
JD wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:17 PM:
Cults and abusers divide and separate families on purpose to get a better hold on their subjects.
Granted. But, while not wanting to downplay the pain inherent to such a situationabsence from a fifteen-minute marriage ceremony, followed by an opportunity to be present at a three- or four-hour reception (that often includes a formal exchange of additional vows and rings) held that same day, followed by a lifetime of continued opportunities to perpetuate a conventional family relationship, is only divisive if the parties involved allow it to be so. I just dont see it in the same ballpark as come and live on our compound. Oh, and by the way, your parents are evildont contact them anymore.
so why shun/bar [non-Mormon parents] from the wedding, and other significant events in the couples life?
Once the wedding ceremony is over, there are no other significant events from which the couples non-Mormon family members would be barred. Again, it's hard for me to call Mormonism "cultlike" because its policies tend towards isolation for two years and fifteen minutes of a decades-long relationship.
(to be continued) "
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:53 PM:
His posts are full of heresay and speculation. It appears most of his "research" is from the Internet (the worst possible place).
Voter, if you REALLY want to learn about the LDS church...invite the missionaries to your home. Learn about the church from them. Read the Book of Mormom. Pray to Heavenly Father with an OPEN heart and mind of its truthfulness. Then make an informed decision on whether you wish to convert or continue along your way.
After all, if you want to buy a Ford you don't go ask a Chevy dealer what they think do you? "
Love For The Truth wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:52 PM:
If I were a parent who had successfully raised a child that I must accept some of the credit/blame for their strength in making a commitment as an adult.
If, perhaps, they chose to be a part of another faith--I would feel some pride in the fact that they have become autonomous adults--capable of self-management. What joy that would be, whether I agreed with the decision or not!
So, as a parent--in supporting my child's strength of decision, I would now have a choice to make. I am certain that I would know well in-advance of the wedding, where it would be and what needs to be done to participate. I envision, that I would need to move my pride aside, and do anything (including baptism) to be there with them on that day.
Alternatively, if the wedding was Hindu, in Sri Lanka, I could not expect them to move the island closer to my home. I would need to pay the price to get there, or miss it.
For me, that is what love of a parent is about. "
JD wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:40 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:34 PM:
You may want to take a look at the Church Handbook of Instructions, which was placed online recently at Wikileaks (over the church's objection). It gives details for (among other things) the grounds, process and consequences of excommunication hearings. In short, you cannot be excommunicated for simply coming home and saying, "Mom, Dad, I think I'm gay". Nor does excommunication impute a duty on the part of church members to "shun" the individual. "
Love For The Truth wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:31 PM:
Remember, that the Mormons are not a 'business venture' religion, like most churches with paid clergy. There is not one person that receives a salary or bonus for ecclesiastical work. Participation at all levels is SERVICE of time and effort, a 'lay-clergy'.
Prophet v. profit.
What would the basic motivation be of the control you express concern for? If the leaders don't profit from my offerings--why would they care if one is there or not? Or paying tithing or not? There must be something more to the principle of tithing--than profit.
It still comes down to the principle of faith.
"...prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." Malachi 3:10
My GUESS, is that the lay clergy actually has faith, that the blessings of tithing are real.
The motivation I see, is faith. "
JD wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:17 PM:
The tensions between the hard-line, wrath-of-God Mormonism of my great-grandparents and the warm-fuzzy Mormonism as generally practiced today certainly raises questions. But then, it evokes a similar tension in Christianity vis a vis the Old and New Testaments. Yeah, oaths of vengeance raise red flags. But I have to look at it in light of my larger experience with Mormonism. If that experience allows me to accept that God could slaughter Ananias and Sapphira because they misled Peter about their contributions, it also enables me to accept that a lot of Mormons were kind of pi**ed about the Illinois government's basically handing Joseph Smith over to his killers on a silver platter. "
voter wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:08 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:58 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:56 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:52 PM:
The Mormons I know are all good people; however whenever there is a mandate for absolute submission to a group's dogma, there is cause for concern. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:51 PM:
JD: A mother or father in a healthy relationship with their son or daughter is not a bad influence, so why shun/bar them from the wedding, and other significant events in the couples life? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:45 PM:
When a group, any group or person (church, organization, club, man or woman) forces the exclusion of a person's family from ones life especially when celebrating significant events in that person's life then there is something seriously wrong.
I would definitely start in with investigations of cult status if this were to happen with my children and I'd try to get them out! NO ONE should separate a son/daughter from his or her healthy mother/father relationships. To me, that is a glaring sign of trouble and an unhealthy engagement with the group in question.
Cults and abusers divide and separate families on purpose to get a better hold on their subjects. This makes for an easier transition into what that group/person wants out of their subject.
It's unfortunate that the Mormons feel this is okay in their book. I believe it is fundamentally wrong and I would never stand for it.
Honor thy father and mother. "
JD wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:40 PM:
There are literally hundreds... of accounts of Mormons commanded to shun family members...
I don't dispute that many Mormons tend to be overly judgmental, and choose to refrain from associating with "bad influences". But speaking for myself--over three-quarters of my extended family either never were or no longer are Mormons. No ecclesiastical leader has *EVER* suggested (let alone "commanded") that I, or my immediate family, shun these individuals. I've never heard of it happening elsewhere, either.
or they have been ordered to continue tithing when they have lost a job, are sick, and children are hungry.
Again, I've never heard of this happening. First, Mormonism generally interprets proper tithing as ten percent of one's income. Ten percent of zero is zero. No income = no tithing.
Moreover, the church has an extensive welfare system for members in need. You may hear "widow's mite" stories from the early days of the church, but in my experience it's simply unthinkable that a modern-day Mormon faces a dilemma between paying his tithing and feeding his children. "
voter wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:15 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:39 AM:
In short, after a Mormon receives an ordinance called the "endowment" at a Mormon temple, the Mormon wears a special type of underclothing called the "garment of the holy priesthood" (usually shortened to "garments") which is designed to remind him/her of the covenants made as part of the ordinance. I consider it analagous to the tallit katan worn by some Orthodox and Hasidic Jews.
There are Mormon urban legends about the garments having some kind of protective power (eg "I was trapped in a burning building and everything burned off except my garments). I'm pretty skeptical of this kind of thing, but stories like this lead some to refer to garments irreverently as "magic underwear" (an appelation I find somewhat offensive, but which as per Educamation, some Mormons do adopt). "
Love For The Truth wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:59 AM:
From my Mormon friends, I have only heard teachings of love, and caring.
I do find your arguments interesting choices, however:
The world is flat? Wasn't that the scientific teaching of the day?
Pre-Colombian languages the same? Hardly. As I understand, even the Book Of Mormon teaches otherwise.
Shun my own flesh, or pay a tithe when my children go hungry? Here is a cognitive dissonance for you. I see this EVERYDAY through the ugliness of abandonment, divorce, deadbeat parents, drug and alcohol use...all atrocities that apparently the Mormon faith opposes. Do you see the point?
Unfortunately, I cannot so-easily blame a fear of religion for my concern for atrocities. That argument, to-me is absurd.
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices."--Voltaire "
Doc Hollywood wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:54 AM:
voter wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:42 AM:
"If they CAN get you to believe absurdities, they CAN get you to commit atrocities."
Wise indeed. "
voter wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:39 AM:
" Mr. Voter--
I am impressed at how highly you value your own opinion. I apologize that I mis-understood your comments as if you were one seeking information, rather than one with an agenda."
I began this discussion seeking information and found plenty (both from the posts and quite a lot of fact finding on my own). This allowed me to form an opinion--and yes, I do value it. Other opinions differ. I accept this.
Your contention that cognitive dissonance is a badge of honor is simply astounding. Rejecting observable science and historic fact to align your "reality" with that demanded by church hierarchy is dangerous. What is the limit? If you are willing to believe that the world is flat, snakes talk, and pre-Columbian peoples in the Americas all spoke the same language, will you be willing to shun your own flesh if they require it? Kill? Lie? Give them their tithe when your children are hungry?
Voltaire-- "If they cant get you to believe absurdities, they can get you to commit atrocities." "
JD wrote on Jul 13, 2008 8:30 PM:
It's hard for me to know, without more, what you mean by the "my way or the highway" business, though I will agree that generally the church institutionally can be very inflexible on certain positions--and its members, even more so.
The church-operated employment agency is named (creatively enough) LDS Employment Resource Services (I think the nearest branch to you would be in Sacramento). Their website is at http://www.providentliving.org/channel/0,11677,1703-1,00.html; and their services are open to anyone regardless of religion. "
edumacation wrote on Jul 13, 2008 7:24 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 13, 2008 6:07 PM:
I'm having a really hard time distilling a point out of your last post.
If it's just a question as to what the liahona was, about all we know about its description and function is in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi chapter 16 and Alma chapter 37. A cottage industry in the manufacture of Mormon ephemera has sprung up in the last few decades, and your neighbor's "liahona" is part of that--a novelty, but certainly not a "holy relic".
Mormon defensiveness regarding temple garments arises from Mormon defensiveness about pretty much everything else--we don't like seeing things that are important to us being intentionally misrepresented or being made into the butt of a joke, and it happens frequently. The "magic underwear" angle--which you yourself perpetuated on this very thread a couple of days ago--is a prime example of that. "
Edumacation wrote on Jul 13, 2008 5:53 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 13, 2008 4:48 PM:
In re-reading my post, this is overly hyperbolic and I apologize if I've offended any Catholics.
However, I trust you get my point. "
JD wrote on Jul 13, 2008 4:47 PM:
That is not my opinion. I want to believe you're engaging in this conversation in good faith, but you're making it very hard for me to persist in that belief when you twist my statements as you have done.
See also Meridian Magazine.com (an LDS journal) where he teaches lessons about this.
Meridian Magazine caters to Mormons, but it is *not* sponsored or run by the LDS church. You may as well call the Mafia a "Catholic fraternity" as call Meridian an "LDS journal".
"If you could hie to Kolob?" What does this song mean, if it is unimportant...
Read the lyrics at http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/music.htm/hymns.htm/special%20topics.htm/284%20if%20you%20could%20hie%20to%20kolob.htm#JD_Hymns.284. I think you'll see that the song's primary focus is to emphasize the greatness and glory of God and His creations.
I know Mormons and they talk about Kolob frequently.
Huh. The Mormons I know don't. To each his own...
As well as they being Gods and Godesses of planets some day.
So? "
edumacation wrote on Jul 13, 2008 4:29 PM:
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/1999/laws.html
He does not share your opinion that asking questions about the location of Kolob or Oliblish are asinine.
See also Meridian Magazine.com (an LDS journal) where he teaches lessons about this.
"If you could hie to Kolob?" What does this song mean, if it is unimportant Quoting you "...something more relevant to the gospel". I know Mormons and they talk about Kolob frequently. As well as they being Gods and Godesses of planets some day. "
JD wrote on Jul 13, 2008 3:53 PM:
For what it's worth--in twenty years of Sunday school lessons, I can recall that text coming up in a discussion approximately twice. Both times, the upshot was "we don't know what the heck it means; let's move on to something more relevant to the Gospel".
Every religion, I suppose, has its theological oddities--Mormonism certainly has its share. The "astronomical" passages you cite are no more a part of Mormonism's core than some of John Calvin's more draconian views on child-rearing are "core" to Christianity. For the most part we look at the writings, we think, "that's interesting; I wonder why it says that"; and then move on. "
Love For The Truth wrote on Jul 13, 2008 3:48 PM:
I am impressed at how highly you value your own opinion. I apologize that I mis-understood your comments as if you were one seeking information, rather than one with an agenda.
Suggesting that "rigorous science, free access to historical documents, and critical thinking" are the foundation of your arguments--is clarifying to individuals of faith who have monitored this thread.
As-such, 'cognitive dissonance' is not a negative accusation, but a badge of honor. Ever to try to explain how Jesus Christ worked His many miracles? They cannot be easily evidenced through cognitive reasoning or logic. They happened, and faith is the basis. Faith is the power.
Again, these willing servants mentioned in this article--and those who work with them, are welcome to bring me their message of peace. It may not always be accepted, but I have found that it can resonate with those of us who continue in a search and love for the truth. "
JD wrote on Jul 13, 2008 3:44 PM:
I haven't seriously studied that text, so I'm not the right guy to talk to. Off-the-cuff, I would observe that 1) there's legitimate debate as to whether that text is even supposed to be interpreted literally as an astronomy lesson; 2) The text itself does not identify Kolob as a star where God lives; and 3) my rudimentary understanding is that there are about 300 billion stars in this galaxy alone, only a fraction of which scientists have even gotten around to naming. To hint, as you do, that finding Kolob (assuming it's a real place) is just a matter of searching a few astronomical databases is (to put it bluntly) asinine. "
edumacation wrote on Jul 13, 2008 2:13 PM:
I am still trying to locate these planets: Kolob, Enish-Go-On-Dosh, or Oliblish. Some Mormons claim Kolob where God resides is near Sagitarius A East which some astronomers speculate to be the remnants of a black hole. Any comments? Do you have other references? "
JD wrote on Jul 13, 2008 11:49 AM:
JD's refusal to admit that promoting families and then denying access to family in both crisis and times of joy are incongruous.
You may have overlooked part of my earlier comment to Lodian:
All I can say is that while the church does try to promote family togetherness, it is one of several competing priorities for the church. One of those priorities is what it sees as a strict commandment to keep its temples holy.
Lodian--
Part of the problem with this format is the 200 word limitation. Each of my posts goes through several drafts, and parts inevitably get cut out.
What I should have included--but didn't--is that while my children are not yet grown and it would indeed be difficult for me to be excluded from their wedding; I would hope my attitude under similar circumstances would be similar. "
voter wrote on Jul 13, 2008 8:46 AM:
As world religions go, some rituals seem bizarre until you realize that they "fit" with the culture and reality where they occur. Explanations fit consistently with tradition. Not so with many religions in the West, where rigorous science, free access to historical documents, and critical thinking are highly valued. None of that would make any difference if members were encouraged to make their own choices and given full information, but this seems not to be the case. "
Bry wrote on Jul 13, 2008 12:15 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 12, 2008 11:38 PM:
When you say, regarding your parents at the wedding, "...That is what my relationship with my parents is based on--not on their ability to be present or absent on a particular occasion."
You may not have missed your parents, but I guarantee you that they would have been heartbroken to miss such a huge event in their son's life. You cannot get that day back, ever.
Most would find the exclusion of the non-Mormon parents as dismissive due to their non-Mormon status. As I said before, I find this disrespectful and cruel. How awful that the parents of the bride/groom sit outside while others are beside their children on one of the biggest days of their life. Other Mormon guests can attend and witness, but the parents cannot? In my personal opinion, this is completely a wrong way of thinking. "
voter wrote on Jul 12, 2008 10:08 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:50 PM:
While it's wonderful to be together at weddings, I think it's easy to overstate their impact on the extended family. Let me put this as gently as possible, and please understand it in the spirit with which it is offered: Mine and my wife's parents were all present at our wedding, but frankly, neither of us remember much of them (or of that day in general).
What we do remember is the love, support, and sacrifice they gave us--both before and since our wedding. I remember my parents helping me with my homework, taking me on numerous trips, nagging me to do housework, teaching me to budget, helping me to move... ad infinitum. That is what my relationship with my parents is based on--not on their ability to be present or absent on a particular occasion. "
JD wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:44 PM:
Mormons are under covenant not to discuss certain aspects of the temple ceremony. I can't give a complete answer as to why those parts must remain secret; as I don't fully understand the issue myself. I have some ideas, but they would be inappropriate speculation and certainly wouldn't satisfy most of the people watching this thread.
What I will say is that, if you parse out the actual promises, only about five or ten minutes' worth of the two-hour endowment ceremony is truly "secret". Many Mormons, in my opinion, apply this secrecy with an overly broad brush. (I tend to be on the liberal end of the spectrum in terms of willingness to discuss temple ceremonies, but even I have my limits--see my post to Lodian at 10:16 today). I'm happy to email you on the subject, but there's no way I'm getting into specifics on this forum.
Preparation for temple ordinances is a topic handled by local church leaders, and some address it better than others. For my part, I had a pretty good idea what would happen before I went in and nothing took me by surprise. "
friend wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:37 PM:
friend wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:31 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 12, 2008 6:58 PM:
In my reading and travels, I have come across many religious practices which seemed strange to me, but perfectly normal to the faithful. This practice does not bother me per se. What seems unusual/troublesome is the secretive nature, even to members, of some of the rituals they are about to participate in. What is the explanation for the secrecy? "
voter wrote on Jul 12, 2008 6:39 PM:
"You know, if I wanted to know if a restaurant was any good--I would not ask a disgruntled, former employee."
Maybe not, but you might be wise to listen to thousands of former customers who had become ill after eating there.
You said, "Get information from . . . the lds.org website:"
Did that. But I guess the public face of the church would not give an objective view or full accounting of church history and practices, would it?
You said, "There are always questions which use the word 'cult' around any religion that hopes for commitment. That argument is a cop-out."
Are you suggesting that no cults exist? How would you define a cult?
You said, "It is getting harder to find people who are have the guts to say that pornography is evil, fidelity is good, lying is wrong, and integrity is right."
That's blatantly insulting to every law abiding citizen. Do you really feel that all of us non-mormons are evil, pornography loving, lying adulterers with no integrity????? "
Lodian wrote on Jul 12, 2008 6:06 PM:
rick wrote on Jul 12, 2008 12:58 PM:
An example of this non- sharing is in the scriptures by the Apostles.
After the Savior was resurrected, he appeared to His Apostles. Acts, 1:3:
"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God"
For 40 days, the Resurrected Savior speaks unto them "of things pertaining to the Kingdom of God", but we don't have one word of it. Why? Of all the things to share, surely it should be this special instruction by a resurrected Being ?
These Apostles had been taught for three years the "things pertaining to the Kingdom of God", yet this special time it was fuller, deeper, more sacred. What were they taught? We don't know. The inspired writers don't say anything about what they were taught during this 40 day period.
It would seem those things were too sacred, too beautiful, and we are not ready to receive them.
We just have their beautiful statement: "...the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" "
JD wrote on Jul 12, 2008 10:16 AM:
" JD wrote...
"I don't feel comfortable discussing specifics of the temple ordinances in this forum..."
Why?
For me, it's something intensely sacred and personal--like the birth of my children, or the day I proposed to my wife, or the day my grandfather died. I don't mind discussing it in detail with people I know and trust. But not here, where some will poke fun or deliberately misrepresent what I say. It's too important to me.
"Also, why is it that a non-Mormon relative of the bride/groom... is not allowed in the church when her daughter/son is getting married?
That applies only to weddings in LDS temples. The rationale is twofold: 1) The LDS temple wedding ordinance builds on knowledge received in previous ordinances. To the uninitiated outsider, it would make no sense and just seem bizarre. 2) Temple worship is not a spectator sport. Those who enter are those who are going to--or have previously made--specific covenants. Mormons would view it as a defilement of the temple for someone to enter who had no intention of making or keeping those covenants. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 12, 2008 2:05 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 12, 2008 2:01 AM:
"I don't feel comfortable discussing specifics of the temple ordinances in this forum..."
Why? "
s & W 500 wrote on Jul 11, 2008 11:53 PM:
I will state my opinion, but I will not knock on your door! Forbid OBAMA/Billary getting elected!
No means no! Or does that not apply to people who are "ASSIGNED" neighborhoods from their elders?
How does the word "no" translate in "their" language when it comes to other aspects? "
JD wrote on Jul 11, 2008 8:31 PM:
Missionaries frequently vote absentee through their home jurisdictions, and there's no explicit prohibition on reading campaign materials. Certainly the church won't tell a missionary how to vote.
There is no church policy forbidding a missionary to return home for the funeral of a close family member. For practical reasons local leaders may suggest the missionary remain "in the field", but the decision remains the missionary's and the mission president cannot penalize the missionary for acting contrary to his advice. (Restrictions on contact with family are waived during periods of family crisis.)
Bear in mind that Mormons have been sending their kids on missions for a hundred and fifty years, and they generally managed family dynamics just fine even before airplanes, telephones, e-mail, or weekly mail service. That doesn't mean that we don't care about being together at major events, but we try to emphasize family bonding through numerous little, mundane, day-to-day events and traditions when the family is lucky enough to be together. When we're not, we just try to face it stoically and wait for a time when we can be together again. "
JD wrote on Jul 11, 2008 7:41 PM:
Re "naked anointings"--that is essentially untrue. I don't feel comfortable discussing specifics of the temple ordinances in this forum, but if you want to post your e-mail address I'll shoot you an e-mail with a slightly fuller explanation.
Re missionary behavior--in practice, unfortunately, it just isn't true that Mormon missionaries represent only themselves. During my missionary service I had the misfortune to serve in a couple of areas previously occupied by missionaries who engaged in a variety of problematic behaviors. People remembered those guys; they remembered the institution they represented; and they assumed that I was just the same--it showed in the way they treated me.
(to be continued) "
Love For The Truth wrote on Jul 11, 2008 7:02 PM:
While there--members meet, they learn, they serve ancestors.
You know, if I wanted to know if a restaurant was any good--I would not ask a disgruntled, former employee. Get information from the right source. One example from the lds.org website:
http://www.lds.org/temples/purpose/why/0,11581,1953-1,00.html
There are always questions which use the word 'cult' around any religion that hopes for commitment. That argument is a cop-out. Anyone that reads the Bible recognizes that we "cannot serve two masters, God and mammon". There is great strength in experiencing what life is like 'serving the Lord' 24X7. It only lasts 2 years--then they return to choose what kind of man they wish to be.
It is getting harder to find people who are have the guts to say that pornography is evil, fidelity is good, lying is wrong, and integrity is right.
Again, thanks missionaries for setting a great example. "
voter wrote on Jul 11, 2008 5:44 PM:
Rick wrote on Jul 11, 2008 5:01 PM:
The Savior himself gave the same counsel to disciples going out on missions (Luke 9:59-62)
"And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
61 And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."
I can see why you might think so, but speaking from experience, it was very wise to have that separation. I served in Germany, and it would have been a very difficult distraction to have one foot if you will still at home, and trying to establish another foot in the mission field where it demanded more concentration and effort than i had ever given before. It made me a much better man, much stronger, for future life. "
voter wrote on Jul 11, 2008 4:24 PM:
Will these young citizens be permitted to vote in the November election? How will they make an informed choice if their information is so severely restricted? Or will they be told how to vote? "
dogbark wrote on Jul 11, 2008 4:09 PM:
And the 9 foot deep grave for missionaries; that's just the standard 6 foot deep for the casket and the other 3 feet are for the bike. "
JD wrote on Jul 11, 2008 2:10 PM:
Voter, the role of missionary service generally in cementing one's own attachment to the church is openly acknowledged by Mormons.
To the degree that this is "cultlike", I can't say. What I can say is that rules missionaries follow are not imposed merely to accustom them to taking orders. For pretty much every rule in the "white bible" I mentioned earlier, there was a missionary somewhere who did not observe that rule and made a heap of trouble for himself and the church. "
JD wrote on Jul 11, 2008 2:04 PM:
Wrong again. The word "necessary" does not appear in D&C 132. Google it and do a text search if you don't believe me. And if, after that, you still hold on to the "necessary" story, please explain why even even at the height of polygamy no more than one-third of Mormon adults actually practiced that form of marriage?
As for "everlasting", there is debate in Mormon circles as to whether that refers specifically to polygamy, or the covenant of marriage (as made in Mormon temples) generally. "
Rick wrote on Jul 11, 2008 11:07 AM:
A question for you - how will you know if a new revelation is from God? Clearly, all His revelations cannot be contained in a mere 400 pages.
What if God gives a new revelation, something that has never been touched on, or expands much greater the previous, will you reject that because it wasn't written down 2000 years ago?
Peter, John, James, and Paul received revelation from God, they were authorized, and they wrote them down.
Why can't that happen today? Frankly, our day is the most distressful, trying time. If the world ever needed living, real-time revelation, it is now.
Just something to think about, but what would you have done, if you had lived in the days of Paul, and he wrote down revelations, or Peter, or John, how would you have come to know it's from God? "
Rick wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:55 AM:
Therefore, the scriptures are clear that God allowed plural wives at times. Mostly he has said absolutely no. We live in such a time today.
Rev 22. That only refers to the Book of Rev. Many books were written after Rev. Are those wrong? See Deut 4:2 - no one should have written a word after Moses? But obviously many did, and a lot changed over time.
The early saints never held the Bible as the ultimate authority they never had it - they held to revelation through Apostles from Christ. Where did they get the idea to do away with Circumcision? Not in the then-current scriptures, but from revelation.
The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthews Gospel, does not say, All authority in heaven and on earth is given to the books you are all going to write, but rather All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me. In other words, Scripture itself points away from itself and to the fact that final and true authority belongs to God himself.
(Cont) "
Rick wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:23 AM:
David is an interesting example - it is very interesting what the Lord said to David after his great sin:
"And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy masters house, and thy masters wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite..., and hast taken his wife to be thy wife...(2 Sam 12:7-9)
David's great sin was killing Uriah and taking his wife to be his own. No question.
Note - The Lord himself gave David all of Saul's wives...and would have given more "if that had been too little"
Up until Bathsheba, David is justified. "
Rick wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:08 AM:
First, I want to be clear - I am not advocating practing polygamy under any circumstances today. God today does not allow it, and law of the land is it permissible.
However, I am advocating that in the scriptures, it was a just principle, accepted by God, when He permitted it.
Was Abraham justified in having plural wives? Was Israel? Were other prophets?
The answer must be yes to that - God would never have allowed an adulterer to be the example, for thousands of years to his people as the example of God himself and faithfulness. And then, if Israel continued the wicked practice, and did something expressly forbidden by God, why did the promises continue with Him, and why did he prosper miraculously, and God said he was with Him? With this man, Israel, the Lord made his covenant, through his plural wives, the Lord coventanted and established the House of Israel - 12 tribes, and even the Lord himself would be born into?
So, do you believe that Abraham and Israel sinned in the eyes of God?
(cont) "
Audi 5000 wrote on Jul 11, 2008 8:46 AM:
As Metric pointed out, there is no Bible passage where God commands plural marriage.
How do you know who's telling the truth? "
The Blimp wrote on Jul 11, 2008 8:13 AM:
Bry wrote on Jul 10, 2008 6:16 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:46 PM:
Rick wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:45 PM:
There are two reasons why we dont practice polygamy any longer. 1) The Lord commanded it, and 2) the law of the land forbade it.
An article of faith of the church:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
So, why do you not believe that the doctrine of plural wives was taught and practiced, with the sanction of God, in the scriptures? Ive shown many examples where this was true. Why will you not believe this?
The Savior said once to Nicodemus:
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? (John 3:11)
How will you ever be able to believe heavenly things, if you refuse to believe earthly things? Heavenly things must mean new things at a minimum. How will you ever come to believe new revelation?
For the love of truth: Your points are wonderful, and I love the verse you quote. Thank you for your insights and sharing. "
Doc Hollywood wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:06 PM:
For me, I don't care what the LDS missionaries do. Maybe they are an annoyance to some, but they really aren't hurting anyone by trying to share they views with others. "
Love For The Truth wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:02 PM:
You do not appear to have any experience in translation. Let me share mine. The basis for translation is in education. One will translate based upon their own knowledge and understanding. I am convinced that Joseph Smith translated the book, and the basis was his education. He did not translate it into French, or German, or even Chinese--because that was not his language of education.
Do an experiment--have a paragraph translated by 10 people. In all likelihood--you will get 10 different translations--all correct, but with perhaps different emphases or vocabulary.
The term 'translation' has never been a concern for me--based upon my experience.
"And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins."
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 25:26)
And what can be wrong with that? "
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 10, 2008 11:13 AM:
Just like in the D&C 132, it says polygamy is necessary and everlasting. Why isn't polygamy now being practiced if it was to be everlasting? The so-called cult Mormons are the ones who are truly following the teachings of the founding Mormons. "
JD wrote on Jul 10, 2008 11:05 AM:
you seem to proof-text the Bible when convenient, yet disregard most other parts that are an offense to your beliefs.
And that practice would differ from any other Christian sect . . . how, exactly?
;-) "
JD wrote on Jul 10, 2008 11:04 AM:
He didn't even follow his own book.
If you're referring to polygamy, we already had this discussion a couple of months ago on the thread accompanying the FLDS article. I hope you have simply forgotten the discussion; it would be quite disingenuous of you to deliberately attempt to revive an interpretation of the Book of Mormon that you know to be incorrect.
Rick--
Good points, but I need to correct you on one issue. The 1890 Manifesto did not end the Mormon practice of polygamy, except insofar as it was "contrary to the law of the land"--e.g., within the United States. In the Mormon colonies in Mexico and Canada, it continued into the first decade of the 20th century--the church really began cracking down on polygamy around 1905. "
Audi 5000 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:57 AM:
JD wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:56 AM:
I'd just like to respond to a couple of MTS' comments:
1) If all Smith did was a copy-paste of the Bible, he did a pretty poor job of it. Try comparing any given "Isaiah chapter" in the Book of Mormon with the actual text of the KJV. The differences--though often minute--are numerous.
2) To my knowledge, Smith never claimed that he received the text of the Book of Mormon verbatim. On at least one occasion when he was asked specifically, he refused to answer; later analyses suggest he may have only been given general ideas which he had to transcribe into the vocabulary available to him.
3) While our CSI-bred generation tends to put blind faith in the term "DNA evidence", there are numerous problems with the studies that have thus far been done. The church's own website (www.lds.org) as well as a number of unofficial apologetic websites (see, e.g., www.fairlds.org) deal with these issues in detail. "
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:53 AM:
Rick wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:11 AM:
Joseph Smith
I fear that you have drunk from the bitter anti-mormon wine that is full of hatred, jealousy, and prejuidice and lies.
Instead of nitpicking silly things (grammer errors, etc.), how about giving it an honest chance? How about being fair, tolertant and unbiased, and read and consider his side? Or the side of his dear friends?
Joseph was the finest man who lived since Jesus Christ. I've spent years pouring over the records, both good and bad, and it is clear that he was as fine a man that ever walked the earth, and an honest one. He was a prophet of God. You sir, have been blinded.
Did you make honest inquires among his friends to find out his character? Or did you run to his enemies? Clearly the latter. If i want to know about your soul, who would I go to? YOU!
Go read his words, his writings, and you will see. But honestly, you don't want to see, do you? "
Love For The Truth wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:11 AM:
I Timothy 3:16,17 says: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine and reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
I have read the Book of Mormon, and recognize it to be 'profitable'.
Interestingly Paul precedes his instruction with a caution in I Timothy 3:12,13: "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse, deceiving and being deceived."
My appreciation to 'Metric Time System' and others. You have shed more evidence of truth on this situation than you might consider to have done.
I will welcome these young men in my house, and hope my children can demonstrate a similar commitment. I thank them for their good works. "
Rick wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:57 AM:
Clearly, you have misunderstood the Bible in regards to polygame.
Are you saying that Jacob (Israel), or Abraham, sinned in God's eyes?
Abraham received fabulous promises of God, as did Jacob. Abraham was known as "Father of the Faithful" and was forever upheld as THE great example of faithfulness to Israel. Do you really believe he was guily of Adultery, and God just happened to overlook that?
Moses in the law reveals the Lord's will with plural marriage (Ex 21:10, Deut 21:15).
The scriptures bear out that plural marriage was approved by God at certain times, but not always. Hence the need for revelation - but at times and with certain people, definitely.
Those who were not authorized committed adultery.
Today, no one is authorized to do this. That does not mean it won't be allowed again. "
Rick wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:46 AM:
Where did you get the idea that God does not change his mind or commandments? It is a great error.
God said one time do not talk to gentiles. Then he said talk to every one of them.
God said one time all male babies are to be circumcised. Then later he said no more circumcisions.
God says do not kill. Then later he says go kill.
Each case, whatever God commands is right. It takes faith in Him to follow. If you lock yourself to what he said once, and then receive not the new commandment, you will be guily of the exact same thing the Jews were when they rejected the new revelation, God's own Son (although he had been preached by all the holy prophets before).
How will we be saved, if we don't have the revelations of Jesus Christ?
God gives us line upon line, precept upon precept according to our ability to hearken and obey. "
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:31 AM:
Joseph Smith can not be trusted. "
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:19 AM:
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:10 AM:
RIck wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:02 AM:
I am sure it was a very difficult thing for the early day saints to accept such new concepts such as no more circumcision, or taking the gospel to the Gentiles. How it must have streched and gone counter to their own traditions!
These concepts were completely foreign to the believers of that day. It took revelation to change. If they would have relied solely on the O.T. they NEVER would have come to those auhorized changes that the Lord made.
We are no different today. If you rely on the Bible only, albeit it is the word of God, but reject the living water he is revealing today, is it not the same colossal mistake those of old made?
The Book of Mormon is new revelation for our day. The Lord has given all the chance to test him, to feel and see for themselves. I have read it many times, fasted and prayed over it to come to know if it is true, and i can say without any doubt, I know it is what it claims to be. "
RIck wrote on Jul 10, 2008 8:47 AM:
A very fair question you have on polygamy, and why for years after Joseph was it continued.
First, if you believe the Bible, you must accept the principle of Polygamy was practiced by holy men, and accepted by God. Various examples of that in the scriptures. It is a true principle, when commmanded by God for his people. Revelation is the key here - God commands, prophets reveal, and people are obligated to obey.
Second, When the Lord revealed the principle to Joseph, there was no law in the U.S. against it. It was completely lawful to practice.
Third. Once Joseph was killed, the Saints were driven out of the United States into the Utah Terrirtories. Again, there was no law against it.
Fourth: In 1890 the Manifesto was issued halting the practice - by revelation. From that date forward, no authorized plural marriages were performed. Spliter groups broke off, but they were not part of the church.
The overriding principle here is revelation - God speaks today and commands. It was the same in the Savior's day, in Peter's day.
(cont) "
Audi 5000 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 8:32 AM:
People are saved by Grace, and if you don't understand Grace, you don't understand God's gift to us and His plan for us. Investigate. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 6:30 AM:
I don't think they've cornered the market on long-windedness. There are many non-Christians who talk (or write) simply to hear themselves speak.
That being said at least most of the discourse on this particular blog is civil, somewhat interesting and surprisingly respectful of others' points of view; not a common occurrence when discussing religion or politics. "
Bob Loblaw wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:58 PM:
edumacation wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:30 PM:
Bry wrote on Jul 9, 2008 9:16 PM:
RIck wrote on Jul 9, 2008 3:46 PM:
So, if you are going to hold everyone to Revelations 22:18-19, then you must hold all prophets after Moses to the same standard, for Moses said virtually the same thing as John - see Deut 4:2:
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
So, was Joshua, Isaiah, Daniel, Jerimiah, Ezekiel, and all after Moses condemned because they "added unto the word" - No, certainly not.
Actually, a correct reading shows that continuing revelation was the pattern - scriptures were added all through time. Only when the original 12 Apostles were killed did the scriptues and revelations cease.
Further, if the Bible was "it", the early day Saints had a much different view. They had living Apostles among them, revelation guided them. Only when the Apostles were murdered - did the flow of divine revelation stop.
Christ has restored His gospel to the earth today, with Apostles and Prophets, and true to form revelation continues again. "
RIck wrote on Jul 9, 2008 2:56 PM:
So, if you are going to hold everyone to Revelations 22:18-19, then you must hold all prophets after Moses to the same standard, for Moses said virtually the same thing as John - see Deut 4:2:
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
So, was Joshua, Isaiah, Daniel, Jerimiah, Ezekiel, and all after Moses condemned because they "added unto the word" - No, certainly not.
Actually, a correct reading shows that continuing revelation was the pattern - scriptures were added all through time. Only when the original 12 Apostles were killed did the scriptues and revelations cease.
Further, if the Bible was "it", the early day Saints had a much different view. They had living Apostles among them, revelation guided them. Only when the Apostles were murdered - did the flow of divine revelation stop.
Christ has restored His gospel to the earth today, with Apostles and Prophets, and true to form revelation continues again. "
RIck wrote on Jul 9, 2008 2:42 PM:
In fact, it's becoming clear that many books of the Bible were written AFTER John wrote His Revelation. There is now overwhelming consensus among virtually all biblical scholars that this verse applies only to the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible. Those scholars of our day acknowledge a number of New Testament books that were almost certainly written after Johns revelation on the Isle of Patmos was received. Included in this category are at least the books of Jude, the three Epistles of John, and probably the entire Gospel of John itself. Perhaps there are even more than these.
Source (books written after Revelation): See Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (1991), 46. The issue of canon is discussed on pages 4556. Canon is defined as an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture (Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. [2003], canon).
Source of 5,366 manuscripts: See Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Paleography (1981), 5455; see also Are Mormons Christians? 46.
If you are going to stick with the Bible, the entire pattern of the Bible was to add scriptures. "
denim0503 wrote on Jul 9, 2008 2:28 PM:
denim0503 wrote on Jul 9, 2008 2:27 PM:
First of all, here is the scripture from the King James Version of the Bible, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"
Now, I'd like to remind everyone that the Bible as we currently know it was not the way it was originally created. John, the author of Revelations, did not compile the New Testament and therefore could have only been speaking for himself and his own writings.
Secondly, in the Old Testament (roughly dated to 700 BC) Deuteronomy 4: 2-3 says "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." So if these words were taken to refer to the entire Bible as we have it today, we couldn't even be appealing to Revelations. "
loislane wrote on Jul 9, 2008 2:23 PM:
RIck wrote on Jul 9, 2008 2:23 PM:
When people state that there cannot be anymore scripture based on Revelations 22:18-19, they greatly misunderstand that important, inspired verse. It's important to understand this.
The Bible as we have it today did not exist when the inspired verse fell from the pen of John. I found out recently that of the entire corpus of 5,366 known New Testament Greek manuscripts, only 35 of them contain the entire New Testamants as we have it, and 34 of those 35 were only published after year 1000 A.D.
It is clear from virtually every biblical scholar today that John's statement applies only to the Revelation of St. John, not the Bible.
Given that, It just simply isn't true that the canon is closed. His words will never cease, and the Book of Mormon is a new revlation from God.
Frankly, of all the times in the history of the world, when we need a prophet's voice, and authorized and inspired counsel it is today. How grateful I am for that divine direction today. It has blessed, protected, and prospered me in miraculous ways. "
JD wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:23 AM:
Is the conscious, deliberate decision to have faith in Jesus Christ and to accept the correct version of His doctrine considered a "work"?
Anti-religion: I agree with you regarding Revelation 22's forbidding men from adding to the word of God of their own accord. What I disagree with are the implicit assumptions that 1) the Bible is the sole and complete repository of the word of God, and 2) God would never add to His own word and instruct man to write and distribute those additions. "
Doc Hollywood wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:18 AM:
JD wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:16 AM:
I'm not sure exactly why female missionaries don't travel by bicycle--I presume it has to do with safety issues (the church tends to bend over backwards to ensure that female missionaries are not in situations where they may be subject to assault), or perhaps simply logistical issues (just as male missionaries wear white shirts and ties, female missionaries wear dresses or skirts--I presume that would make riding a bicycle somewhat problematic).
Mormon males are generally expected to go because the vast majority of Mormon males are members of the church's lay priesthood, and missionary work is seen as a priesthood obligation. (There aren't any formal adverse consequence for the priesthood-holder who foregoes an opportunity to engage in missionary service, but there is a tremendous amount of social pressure--probably more than there should be.) Since Mormon females are not ordained to the church's priesthood, they are exempt from the duty of missionary service--they may serve if they want to, but it's not an obligation. "
the voice wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:14 AM:
the voice wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:01 AM:
anti-religion wrote on Jul 9, 2008 9:13 AM:
anti-religion wrote on Jul 9, 2008 9:06 AM:
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 9, 2008 7:38 AM:
the voice wrote on Jul 9, 2008 7:38 AM:
Bry wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:31 PM:
Bry wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:23 PM:
voter wrote on Jul 8, 2008 7:33 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 8, 2008 12:45 PM:
Wonderful! I'd like to think I have that too. "
JD wrote on Jul 8, 2008 12:43 PM:
Young certainly used inflammatory rhetoric about non-Mormons generally during the Utah War (which is the historical context of the MMM); and local leadership probably used that rhetoric to justify their actions.
But there is no evidence that Young ordered or authorized the massacre. To the contrary, Young sent instructions (which arrived too late) that the Fancher train be allowed safe passage. Indeed, in the Mormon operations against Johnson's Army later that fall (which Young did order), the overriding command was that no human lives should be taken. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 8, 2008 12:14 PM:
All it shows is that some Mormons--just like everyone else--are capable of horrific behavior when they are pushed too far.
To be fair, I think it also tells us something about Brigham Young, a man who occupies an important position in the modern LDS Church. "
Audi wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:39 AM:
Jesus does not provide an opportunity, He is the opportunity. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:22 AM:
One of the best lines in one of the funniest movies - Stripes. Thanks for the laugh! "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Jul 8, 2008 10:24 AM:
Lighten up Francis! "
JD wrote on Jul 8, 2008 10:24 AM:
All it shows is that some Mormons--just like everyone else--are capable of horrific behavior when they are pushed too far.
By the way, re the alleged child-molesting bishop--I've heard nothing about it. Was this a local incident? "
JD wrote on Jul 8, 2008 10:20 AM:
You vastly over-simplify the consequences of polygamy among the Mormons. It was certainly a mixed bag (see, e.g., Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness); but poverty was rare (as numerous non-Mormon visitors to Salt Lake in the latter 19th century generally attested) and polygamy actually provided many women with opportunities to go back east and earn professional degrees (since there were other "wives" who could care for their children in their absence). Eliza R. Snow and Zina Huntington Young were only two of numerous Mormon women who ardently defended the practice before Federal lawmakers. Notwithstanding their testimony, a number of eastern do-gooders came out to Utah to provide "safe houses" for women wishing to escape the "oppression" of polygamy--and were baffled when women didn't come flocking to their doors.
By the way, considering that polygamy was ultimately the main reason for Smith's assassination, it's hard for me to get worked up into a dither over his not being eager to teach the doctrine publicly. "
Speaker wrote on Jul 8, 2008 10:07 AM:
And how about your Bishop you had at one of your wards that was a known child molester but yet you allowed him to be alone with the children boys and girls how about that Oh I forgot you are the true church sorry my mistake what was I thinking must lost my head . "
Speaker wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:45 AM:
Speaker wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:43 AM:
Speaker wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:43 AM:
Speaker wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:42 AM:
Again avoiding the question funny how you all try to act like it never happen but yet you say you are the true church . True church of what hypocrisy .Now what kind of leadership is this huh? Explain that .You know California is letting in gay people to get married after years of fighting . So maybe we should take this in the matters they did and fight this out in court get some high price lawyer . And get a bill passed to were if found preaching or recruiting in the open the offender shall receive a fine and if repeated offence face jail time who knows maybe this could result into a way to stop you from invading my space. "
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 8:57 AM:
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 8, 2008 8:52 AM:
Doc Hollywood wrote on Jul 8, 2008 8:52 AM:
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 8, 2008 8:44 AM:
Still waiting for a response to my question to you about the Trinity... "
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 8, 2008 7:12 AM:
Smith's ego was fueled by untold number of sexual partners and the status symbol it represented.
Can all of this come from a loving God or was Joseph Smith a liar? "
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 8, 2008 6:59 AM:
A book by a proven liar shouldn't be followed. "
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 8, 2008 6:46 AM:
Any time a Mormon is backed into answering specific questions about their faith, they come up empty and have to use the safety net of "a burning in the bosom", that God has somehow given them special and personal revelation, not based, or contradictory to the BOM, D&C, Bible, or "inspired" orations from the official pulpit.
Joseph Smith's led a deceitful, duplistic life in words and actions.
Smith-fraud. BOM-fiction.
So much more. "
Leonard wrote on Jul 8, 2008 6:06 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 10:24 PM:
s & W 500 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:43 PM:
There are a lot of people like me, call me what you want. I do not care. I pray, I believe in God, I believe in the 2nd Ammendment. I am street smart, I am a fighter, for what is right!
I do not bother my neighbors with my beliefs, and I encourage everyone to do the same, without a word spoken! "
JD wrote on Jul 7, 2008 3:02 PM:
Lodi78, this is nothing. The News-Sentinel ran a story on local reaction to the FLDS about two months ago that had a lot of five-minute experts on Mormonism. Good times, that!
This thread has been, in my experience, remarkably civil (with one or two exceptions). "
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 2:54 PM:
I definitely agree with you. But looking at the negative comments posted about the LDS church I just couldn't sit by and let our faith be torn down by the ignorance of those people who loudly protest our faith but don't take the time to truly learn about our doctrine.
But, yes...a 'my church vs your church' debate is never productive for either side. My testimony is as strong now as its been since I joined the church...so that is a challenge I have...controlling my enthusiasm. Thank you for your comments. "
Bob Loblaw wrote on Jul 7, 2008 2:50 PM:
girard74 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 2:44 PM:
You should be aware that it is a deeply-held guiding principle of many religions, including Christianity to do just as you insist Lodi78 cease. It is the manner in which they attempt to bring others around to their beliefs that should be in question. Certainly anyone who would like for another to voluntarily learn about their religious faith should do so courteously and mindful that by becoming militant or otherwise 'pushy' will only cause the ones they wish to 'save' to reject them and their faith. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 2:22 PM:
I wonder who it is that should make the determination as to whose and/or what opinion(s) should be kept to 'one's self?' In my experience it is usually fear that causes people to insist that others keep their mouths shut about any particular matter or issue. Religion and politics are rife with such insistence. "
JD wrote on Jul 7, 2008 2:20 PM:
I doubt you will get very far with a Mormon by arguing that the Bible has one exclusive meaning that is readily "discernible" by the application of reason and logic alone. The differing interpretations of the Bible among different Christian denominations has convinced most Mormons of the necessity of heavenly guidance in addition to earthly wisdom when interpreting scripture. (Compare, e.g., 2 Peter 1:20-21; James 1:5; Isaiah 55:8-9).
Moreover, Mormon scripture (specifically the Book of Mormon) explicitly warns against indivduals who "deny the power of God", or its role in interpreting scripture (see, e.g., Moroni 10:7-8) or "teach . . . [man] that he must not pray [for spiritual guidance]" (see, e.g., 2 Nephi 32:7-8).
Praising reason and logic while dismissing spiritual manifestations scores debating points in secular fora such as this. But it won't convince many Mormons to change their ways. Frankly, for us it confirms scriptural warnings and leads us to hold on to our "testimonies" more tightly than ever. "
s & W 500 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 2:16 PM:
Lodi78: You do not know me, please do not judge me, question my prayers to God, or try to influence my beliefs. On my front door there is a sign which states "No soliciting"! That is my polite way of saying "if you are not invited, GO AWAY!"
Your opinion is something you are entitled to, under our constitution. But sometimes it is better to keep it to one's self! Have a nice day. "
JD wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:58 PM:
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:53 PM:
If you want to get into a doctrinal debate, then why don't you explain the Trinity to me? The word and the concept is never mentioned in the Bible yet it is common throughout much of Christianity. The Bible clearly shows the LDS belief of the Godhead is correct. The Trinity wasn't created until the Nicene Creed of the 3rd century...a man-made doctrine that had broken apart the Christian church until it was restored in 1830 by Joseph "
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:19 PM:
The spirit would say these things if it were an evil spirit and not the Spirit of the unchanging, incorruptible living God. "
Mrs. S. wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:14 PM:
Metric Time System wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:10 PM:
Speaker wrote on Jul 7, 2008 1:03 PM:
I guess I was right you guys just run away from the question COVER UP story ..
Oh well nothing you can say at this point can change my mind you avoid the question and that alone proves enough for me. Thank you for the answers ..
Now I can finish my book on how not to believe the LDS. "
JD wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:47 PM:
Mormon women do occasionally serve as missionaries. However, Mormon males are raised to see missionary service as a duty, whereas Mormon females are raised to see it as purely optional. So males tend to outnumber females by a large margin.
You're also less likely to notice female Mormon missionaries, since they do not travel by bicycle. "
JD wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:38 PM:
It'd be a toss-up, Bob. Both are about the same age and former military men, but I suspect the Pope's time in the German army would give him an edge over Monson's US navy experience. "
Robb wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:34 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:28 PM:
If the missionaries were travelling any distance, they would probably a) be wearing their helmets as per mission rules, and b) be carrying books with them, which would necessitate the use of backpacks or saddlebags (neither of which are visible in the picture). "
girard74 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 12:13 PM:
I believe as I do. When anyone insists that I am wrong and that their way is better, I simply turn back to what I believe to be right. Because my faith is as strong as it is, these folks have no effect upon me. They're exercising their First Amendment rights and nothing more.
However, if your own faith is weak perhaps there is more to this other than mere disdain for someone else's belief structure. Do you possibly fear that you may be wrong in your own beliefs? That might explain the hostility. "
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 11:42 AM:
As for being "set" in your beliefs...just because in your mind you are set doesn't mean it is right. I know from experience. I was a member of another Christian church before but never had asked Heavenly Father if it was the true church. After I studied the LDS church I prayed openly and was given an answer that the LDS church is the true church on earth. Looking back two years later, getting baptized was the best thing I could have done. If you are so sure you're "set" in your beliefs pray to Heavenly Father with an OPEN heart and mind and see what happens. "
s & W 500 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 9:30 AM:
Respect for one's privacy is indeed important! "
edumacation wrote on Jul 7, 2008 9:23 AM:
edumacation wrote on Jul 7, 2008 9:23 AM:
edumacation wrote on Jul 7, 2008 9:22 AM:
Speaker wrote on Jul 7, 2008 8:30 AM:
Lodi78 wrote on Jul 7, 2008 7:57 AM:
The reasoning behind missionaries only writing letters to their families once a week and calling them twice per year is pretty simple. They are out as missionaries to teach the Gospel. If they are constantly speaking with family and friends back home then it becomes very easy for them to lose focus on what they are to be doing: teach the Gospel.
Any missionary that I have ever spoke to admits that rule is for their own good. They do miss their families when they are gone, however if they were allowed to contact them whenever they wanted they would easily lose sight of their main purpose for being on a mission. "
galt citizen wrote on Jul 7, 2008 7:18 AM:
Bob Loblaw wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:26 PM:
Live and let live - breathe in, breathe out, move on... "
Lodi wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:03 PM:
For myself, I grew up in another Christian denomination but always felt something was missing. I decided to learn about the LDS church and after missionaries taught me about the church I was baptized in 2006. I can honestly say that thanks to the two awesome missionaries that taught me about the church, me and my family have true happiness in our lives. I have no doubt that the LDS church is the restored church of Jesus Christ on this earth.
The key is to PRAY to Heavenly Father with a SINCERE heart and REAL intent. Read the Book of Mormon, ponder and pray. If you do this you will receive an answer. If the Spirit tells you to stay with your current religion, then what harm have you done? At least now you have a true understanding of the LDS church as opposed to making ignorant speculations about the beliefs. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:00 PM:
My mentioning of the helmet law was only in response to another who was suggesting that Mormons were law-breakers because they do not always wear helmets while riding their bicycles. Since your missionaries are 19 years of age and over, no laws have been broken in this regard. "
Bob Loblaw wrote on Jul 6, 2008 9:00 PM:
Good bar argument: Who would win a cage match between the Pope and Prophet Monson? "
edumacation wrote on Jul 6, 2008 7:25 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Jul 6, 2008 6:21 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 6, 2008 4:30 PM:
I over-generalized somewhat regarding non-Mormons. I'm pleased you're not offended by the practice; it's just my experience that many, many people are.
Regarding bike helmets, I probably should have specified that I was responding primarily to Speaker. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 4:26 PM:
My mentioning of the helmet law was only in response to another who was suggesting that Mormons were law-breakers because they do not always wear helmets while riding their bicycles. Since your missionaries are 19 years of age and over, no laws have been broken in this regard. "
JD wrote on Jul 6, 2008 3:36 PM:
Girard--For the record, I'm a practicing Mormon. You'd have to ask a non-Mormon why, precisely, they find the practice so objectionable; I'm just speaking from my experience.
By the way, Mormon missionaries are subject to a litany of rules that are summarized in a booklet jokingly dubbed the "white bible" (because the cover is white) and carried by all missionaries. That booklet (at least, the version we used when I was a missionary) expressly mandates that missionaries on bicycles wear helmets. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 1:35 PM:
I did a little research and found that Mormon missionaries (those folks you see riding around on their bicycles with black slacks and white shirts) are between the ages of 19 and 21, although there are those who may be older.
In Lodi the requirement for wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle ends when one turns 18 years of age. While a minor point, it does dispel the notion that they are breaking the law in this respect. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 1:29 PM:
The way that it sounded was that Mormons physically baptize others against their will. Now I believe that would be a problem. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 1:12 PM:
This mystifies me. Exactly what does this mean? "
Speaker wrote on Jul 6, 2008 12:30 PM:
Ok Just kidding about the Pitbull but do you get the point .Most of us don't want you knocking if we wanted to go to church we would and if we wanted to go to your church we be there. Do you not see how angrey and upset you guys make man/woman with your preaching . Now strap on that helmet and move on along.Remember bike helmets save lives. "
Speaker wrote on Jul 6, 2008 12:21 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 6, 2008 12:06 PM:
Basically, Mormons believe that those who didn't have an opportunity to learn about Mormonism in this life will be taught about it in the afterlife, before the resurrection. Since Mormons believe that even these people must receive the ordinance of baptism prior to the resurrection, they perform baptisms "by proxy" for dead persons--e.g., they will take a live person and, in a Mormon temple, baptize him or her "for and in behalf of" a specific individual who has already passed on. (Mormons also believe that a number of other ordinances besides baptism are necessary for salvation, and these ordinances are also done in Mormon temples on behalf of the dead.)
The trouble is that 1) since Mormons don't claim to know which of the dead have and have not accepted Mormonism in the afterlife, they pretty much try to perform the ordinance for anyone for whom they can find a record of their existence; and 2) non-Mormons tend to find this practice condescending/insulting. There have been complaints, especially, from Jewish groups because proxy baptisms have been done on behalf of some holocaust victims. "
girard74 wrote on Jul 6, 2008 10:51 AM:
This mystifies me. Exactly what does this mean? "
Jess wrote on Jul 6, 2008 7:37 AM:
napa valley chef wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:02 PM:
s & W 500 wrote on Jul 5, 2008 5:36 PM:
educator wrote on Jul 5, 2008 5:00 PM:
The two guys in the picture need their helmets. "
christian101 wrote on Jul 5, 2008 4:18 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 5, 2008 3:24 PM:
rwayne wrote on Jul 5, 2008 3:20 PM:
I have always wondered if Mormons believe that the story of Joseph Smith, the angel, the magic glasses et al is literally true. Could someone respond with the information. "
Lodian wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:57 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:55 PM:
"My son's Mormon friends respect that we remain practicing Catholics."
Mrs. S.: Yes, but they will still baptize you after death. Is that still respect for your choice in religion? "
Mrs. S. wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:16 PM:
JD wrote on Jul 5, 2008 1:09 PM:
s & W 500 wrote on Jul 5, 2008 12:57 PM:
It may be their faith, but I have my own. When I am in MY house, MY Rules apply: NO Soliciting!!!!!! "
Comments on this story are now closed.