| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/27/2008 12:33:38 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by classycam:
One thing that bothered me recently is this:
The Book of Mormon teaches that the native American people and those of South America are descendants of the Jews. Recent DNA testing has provided information that shows this is not true. This was quite a shock to a lot of Mormons....
I see that love with the LDS people, and of all the groups I've known, I'd rather be with them than any others. It has nothing to do with my salvation. It does have a lot to do with life on this earth. |
::Stifling the urge to mention the Alien Autopsy Video and risking the dreaded  DrAchoo boot...starts to busily polish halo::
I have to say on a serious note that I commend and admire your devotion to your personal religious beliefs. Certainly, the controversy contained a lesson and I (for one) have learned much today from this thread. Although the DNA test revealed a scientific flaw, the religious aspects still hold true for your heart and the spiritual aspects forgive the resulting upheaval. If your devotion is a reflection of the Mormon core beliefs...every religion should be so fortunate to have members who reflect the positive aspects more so than the negative ones. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 12:35:35 AM · #102 |
From DrAchoo:
Whoa. Ya, that's wild. I've often wondered how my own faith would be shaken if we found life on other planets. This isn't even a revelation that counters my beliefs as directly as the info you post above, but it would be enough to give me serious pause for thought. I think ultimately I would get through it (as you seem to have), but it does make you wonder.
I have always heard that The Book of Mormon has scant archeological evidence to back it up while the Bible has a strong body of general evidence (no, we don't have an ark, but we do have Jericho and the Romans etc.). What does the church say about this? [/quote]
The temples in Mexico and South America that have been unearthed in recent years seem to tie in well with the Book of Mormon, according to the church. I had the great privilege of visiting the Chicheniza Temple (Myan)in Mexico last year. During my tour, the guide pointed out one engraving that was 2000 years old. The only one they know about. It was a picture of a bearded white man. The myan people didn't have beards. The legend says that he visited the people there 2000 years ago with a promise to return. Now this coincides perfectly with the Book of Mormon teaching that Jesus appeared to people in the Western Hemisphere during the days of his death and resurrection, and set up a church on this continent. Remember when Jesus said, "I have other sheep that aren't of this flock and I must go to them." No, the guide didn't mention that and wasn't teaching Mormonism. :) I found that to be incredibly exciting and interesting. THere are probably other examples, but that happens to be a personal one. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 12:36:38 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by Nald:
As far as revelation changing or being altered isn't the world we live in constantly in a state of flux? Revelation that was applicable years ago isn't now and vice versa. Again as far as MAN has correctly translated or interpreted it, man being the weak link here not the Lord. |
I guess I'd worry that in a scant 75 years such a big thing as plural marriage went from "the thing to do" to the thing that will get you excommunicated. Even on earth 75 years doesn't seem that long, but in the scope of eternity, why is God changing his mind so frequently?
As far as translation goes, if you are thinking that the Bible has been translated in the fashion of the game "telephone" where you whisper the message in the ear next to you and see how different it winds up, then you are incorrect. Modern translations use the same texts (and in cases even older texts that have since been found) to translate the Bible as older translations. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls were not found until 1965. Neither Joseph Smith nor the King James translators had access to them. If anything modern translations should be more accurate (perhaps more faithful is the proper word) in getting down what the original documents actually said.
I had heard (although this is hearsay) that Joseph Smith may have taken passages from the KJV that have the same mistranslations as the KJV. I actually don't know if that's true or not. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 12:39:25 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
sorry mom, but personally, I think joseph smith was in the woods eating those "mushrooms" when the hallucination of light and angels appeared to him. The guy was wacko. Sorry again, I am a bit drunk after attending the cheesiest academy award festival of New Orleans wedding professionals. Things like that always make me drink a few bottles of champagne. The sunshine was sure pretty, and I bet if I ate a few mushrooms, I would have seen god show me a few golden pages of lost prophecy. eeep...(running away and hiding) |
No problem, grigri. Don't you realize I somewhat understand you by now? ;) And love you exactly the way you are!! Wouldn't change a thing. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 12:39:37 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
::Stifling the urge to mention the Alien Autopsy Video and risking the dreaded DrAchoo boot...starts to busily polish halo::
|
Watch it sister! I rule with an iron fist! |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 12:41:10 AM · #106 |
::Stifling the urge to mention the Alien Autopsy Video and risking the dreaded DrAchoo boot...starts to busily polish halo::
I have to say on a serious note that I commend and admire your devotion to your personal religious beliefs. Certainly, the controversy contained a lesson and I (for one) have learned much today from this thread. Although the DNA test revealed a scientific flaw, the religious aspects still hold true for your heart and the spiritual aspects forgive the resulting upheaval. If your devotion is a reflection of the Mormon core beliefs...every religion should be so fortunate to have members who reflect the positive aspects more so than the negative ones. [/quote]
You're quite the character, Hiho! I like you and THANKS for those kind words. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 12:53:26 AM · #107 |
in all honesty, after being baptized into 500 different religions as a child, I did think that the mormon community took great care of its members. For the sake of family time, family value, appreciation of talent, intelligence, etc...they were awesome. I would say that it was my favorite of the many religions I have been baptized into. I also think they helped my mom find some focus, belief and serenity. And I still appreciate the fact that they were the only people that ever recognized my intelligence! I am NOT retarded or autistic...just ask them! I am, however, insane.
Love you, mommy ;)
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 12:57:19 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess I'd worry that in a scant 75 years such a big thing as plural marriage went from "the thing to do" to the thing that will get you excommunicated. Even on earth 75 years doesn't seem that long, but in the scope of eternity, why is God changing his mind so frequently? |
I'm not sure, I can't speak for God, you'd have to ask him. :P
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as translation goes, if you are thinking that the Bible has been translated in the fashion of the game "telephone" where you whisper the message in the ear next to you and see how different it winds up, then you are incorrect. Modern translations use the same texts (and in cases even older texts that have since been found) to translate the Bible as older translations. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls were not found until 1965. Neither Joseph Smith nor the King James translators had access to them. If anything modern translations should be more accurate (perhaps more faithful is the proper word) in getting down what the original documents actually said.
I had heard (although this is hearsay) that Joseph Smith may have taken passages from the KJV that have the same mistranslations as the KJV. I actually don't know if that's true or not. |
I am more incorrect that correct on a great number of things, religion being at the top of the list. :)
Message edited by author 2008-02-27 01:00:54.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:07:44 AM · #109 |
From DrAchoo:
I guess I'd worry that in a scant 75 years such a big thing as plural marriage went from "the thing to do" to the thing that will get you excommunicated. Even on earth 75 years doesn't seem that long, but in the scope of eternity, why is God changing his mind so frequently?
OK, let's do some serious thinking...........Suppose the revelations are coming as a way to best serve the people of the church or organization. So many men were killed during the Missouri persecutions and other perseutions, as well as dying on the way to Utah, that many, many women were left as widows. The Polygamy law helped women have a husband and children. THe children helped her with bringing in food and working the farms. Also, the children had a legitimate father (or at least they knew who their father was). As time progressed, the people would best be served by becoming part of the US. So, the polygamy wasn't that needful since many of the jobs were moving to the cities and women weren't as dependent on a husband. Plus there were many more males available by then. In order to become a state, polygamy had to stop. It was the law. THe church wholeheartedly believes and teaches in obeying the law of the land. So in this light, I can understand why that revelation was changed.
You know, something that has always bothered me was all those animals they had to sacrifice in the Old Testament days. THat seems so cruel, but I guess it was part of the plan. However, the plan changed for some reason. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:08:57 AM · #110 |
I'm actually off to watch part of Part 2 now. That should give lots of questions for tomorrow.
In case anybody is interested, you can find the documentary on Netflix. 'American Experience: The Mormons' |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:16:21 AM · #111 |
From DrAchoo:
I've often wondered how my own faith would be shaken if we found life on other planets.
Well, that is something I definitely believe will happen so "gird up your loins" so to speak. :) Here's something to think about: Would those planets go through a phase like ours where someone would need to be sent to set it straight (redemption) and would it be the same God and the same Jesus? |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:23:24 AM · #112 |
I'm curious about what "works" means. We Jews are directed to do things to help heal the world, called mitzvot. They range anywhere from helping someone who's fallen to giving money to worthy causes. There are 613 traditionally, but in modern times, at least in Reform Judaism, it really means any good deed.
Is the Mormon concept of works similar, or are there very specific things that you mean by the term?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 02:16:22 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
I'm curious about what "works" means. We Jews are directed to do things to help heal the world, called mitzvot. They range anywhere from helping someone who's fallen to giving money to worthy causes. There are 613 traditionally, but in modern times, at least in Reform Judaism, it really means any good deed.
Is the Mormon concept of works similar, or are there very specific things that you mean by the term?
Thanks! |
I can speak in general about this. The term "works", in a theological discussion, usually implies an action that is required to gain salvation. In Christianity, this varies from the idea that no works are needed other than belief in Jesus to the idea that require such works as baptism, confession of sin, or communion to remain in a state of salvation. In a looser sense, "works" can also just mean good deeds. James says, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." In this sense, works would consist of good deeds in a lifestyle which presents as evidence of your belief that "this Jesus thing is real".
So interestingly, while I would agree wholeheartedly with Mormons that "faith without works is dead" (nearly always the first verse quoted to me at my doorstep), I also wholeheartedly disagree that works are required for salvation. (For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—) Perhaps I should let the Mormons answer for themselves, but as far as I understand, attaining the highest level of heaven cannot be accomplished without certain specific actions by people on earth (baptism, tithing, following the "words of wisdom" and not doing such things as drinking, smoking, etc).
I'll let others weigh in there though.
Message edited by author 2008-02-27 02:17:29. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 02:21:36 AM · #114 |
| Hey, I just wanted to take a moment and say this has been a great conversation so far. We are 112 comments and about 1900 views in and we are still talking about what we started talking about... :) |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 06:37:07 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey, I just wanted to take a moment and say this has been a great conversation so far. We are 112 comments and about 1900 views in and we are still talking about what we started talking about... :) |
And ... without having erupted into a flame war. I'm impressed. I credit that, in large part, to you ... for keeping everyone on topic and civil.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 06:47:15 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So interestingly, while I would agree wholeheartedly with Mormons that "faith without works is dead" (nearly always the first verse quoted to me at my doorstep), I also wholeheartedly disagree that works are required for salvation. (For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—) Perhaps I should let the Mormons answer for themselves, but as far as I understand, attaining the highest level of heaven cannot be accomplished without certain specific actions by people on earth (baptism, tithing, following the "words of wisdom" and not doing such things as drinking, smoking, etc). |
Here is another area where I think the LDS doctrines may differ from other religions. We view Christ's final hours as two parts:
1) It is in the garden of Gethsemane, where he prayed to his Father and suffered and sweat drops of blood, that he "atoned" for our sins.
2) And it is on the cross, where he willingly gave his life, that he paid the price that allows all of us to be resurrected.
The first act, the atonement, requires that we repent in order for the atonement to be effective in our lives (grace and works). The second act is a free gift to all. Every person who has come to earth and received a body will be resurrect (grace only, no works required).
So while everyone receives a perfected body and in that sense is "saved", those who return to live again with him (in the highest orders of his kingdom), may only do so by living a life according to his word, by repenting, by receiving the saving ordinances (baptism, etc). But even then, if it weren't for his saving grace, it would be impossible to do "enough" to wash the stains of sin from our lives, which is why we emphasize that we are "saved by grace, after all that we can do".
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 09:09:50 AM · #117 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, then you get the big old "for shame!". ;) Personally, I am a unifier. I hate that there are so many denominations, or rather I hate that the denominations often have nothing better to do than to fight with other denominations. I do not agree with everything Catholics claim as their doctrine, but I do know Catholics believe salvation is granted through Jesus Christ (good enough for me). Southern Baptists get under my skin more often than not, but they also believe in salvation through Jesus Christ. This is why I don't quite know what to do with Mormons. While I do think the average Mormon believes in salvation through Jesus Christ, the degree of difference on other issues is much more drastic than between, say, a Lutheran and a RC (although I'll agree with SP that it's less than say a Lutheran and a Hindi). So is there a point where those differences become important enough that ultimately they are not "part of the club"? I don't know. Luckily I'm not in charge of who gets to heaven and who doesn't. As I said before, if I see Mormons in heaven, I'm not going to be getting all mad at God because "how dare He!".
To make one thing clear, while I am a unifier, I do not believe that somehow we are all right on our differences. That doesn't make logical sense. Some denominations will be correct on some things while others are correct on others. Infant baptism...drinking and smoking...speaking in tongues. Somehow I doubt one denomination has "all the answers" and ultimately, to me, it doesn't matter. As Paul says, simply, "I preach Christ crucified." |
Very well said Doc. This is one of the reasons that I've let my membership go at formalized protestant churches. I've attended Mennonite and even Amish services as well as many Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and even Catholic. I know where my beliefs lie. For me, the plain clothes religions (Amish / Mennonite) have a few things figured out that we outsiders could learn a lot from. Same with every other Christian service I've attended. However, I really can't agree 100% with any of them all things. This is the main reason why I'm so interested in the Mormons. From what I can tell, they are still under the belief that salvation comes through Jesus Christ. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 09:17:53 AM · #118 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by classycam:
Yes, sealing is a binding for eternity and they can be unsealed if both parties agree to it. |
I don't get this part... How can something that was bound for eternity be unbound? I mean it seriously not rhetorically... Does that mean it was not bound for "eternity" or is this using a subject use of the term? |
Frankly, this is one of the biggest problems I have with many organized religions. I'll probably get some flack for this, but most marriage ceremonies (not including the binding of the Mormons) require a couple to stand before their peers, their minister and God himself and make the vow "Till death do us part" How then does any church rectify divorce?
My answer, and admittedly this bothers me even more, is that if a church said divorce was wrong, and upheld this, they would loose a lot of members. Therefore, they would loose support and money. This, in my opinion, is the basic problem with organized religions -- bending on key issues in order to keep membership. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 10:03:53 AM · #119 |
Originally posted by mjwood0:
My answer, and admittedly this bothers me even more, is that if a church said divorce was wrong, and upheld this, they would loose a lot of members. Therefore, they would loose support and money. This, in my opinion, is the basic problem with organized religions -- bending on key issues in order to keep membership. |
Or in order to better reflect society. There is no religion in existence today whose dogma precisely resembles what it started out as. Specifically regarding your speculation about divorce, consider that the Catholic church forbids divorce among its members. It used to be that Catholics were completely excommunicated from the church for divorce. Now, they've softened up a bit, and just deny divorced persons communion for the remainder of their lives. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 10:33:48 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Now, they've softened up a bit, and just deny divorced persons communion for the remainder of their lives. |
This is not true. :)
Message edited by author 2008-02-27 10:33:59. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 10:34:10 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by classycam:
Would those planets go through a phase like ours where someone would need to be sent to set it straight (redemption) and would it be the same God and the same Jesus? |
I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy for an interesting take on this situation of how God could reveal himself to intelligent life on other planets, and that the fallen nature of man could be unique to Earth.
Not hijacking! Just a quick detour. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 10:35:27 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by Louis:
Now, they've softened up a bit, and just deny divorced persons communion for the remainder of their lives. |
This is not true. :) |
Can you elaborate how this isn't true? |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 10:35:59 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by Louis:
Now, they've softened up a bit, and just deny divorced persons communion for the remainder of their lives. |
This is not true. :) |
Really? Are divorced persons allowed communion? |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 10:40:24 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by Louis:
Now, they've softened up a bit, and just deny divorced persons communion for the remainder of their lives. |
This is not true. :) |
Hm, I should have trolled GoogleLand before writing that. God merely hates divorce, preventing communion only until you sincerely repent of the sin. It's the divorced and remarried that can't take communion.
Message edited by author 2008-02-27 10:41:53. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 10:45:12 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by Louis:
Now, they've softened up a bit, and just deny divorced persons communion for the remainder of their lives. |
This is not true. :) |
An act of conscience to some extent, I have heard of the rule, but how does a priest know if one is divorced, and if he does - will he deny you? |
|
