"Mormonism is an amateur religion, a religion founded by people who had no
training in religious theology or organization or anything like that," --- Wasn't Sidney Rigdon a preacher prior to hooking up with Joseph
Smith?"Mormons are reticent to go and become defensive and bash
people,"--- You haven't read the online comments posted by
Mormons."Bigotry in religion, when it comes to Mormons, has
been winked at and tolerated â and it shouldn't be."---
Mormons have winked at, tolerated and participated in bigotry against GLBT
people. Mormons have no room to complain. --- You reap what you sow.
"You cannot be a secretive faith and be in the mainstream," Bowman
said. "Americans just will not tolerate that."Yes.Apropos of that, can anyone tell me what the scriptural or doctrinal
warrant is for the rule that non-Church members can't enter a dedicated temple?
Barring non-member family members of temple-married couples (like Ann Romney's
family) does, in my experience, account for an awful lot of the perception that
Mormons are excessively secretive.I understand the requirement for
sacred secrecy for parts of temple worship, but I don't see any scripture or
other doctrinal source that necessarily bars non-member family members from the
marriage ceremony. I understand that the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples were open
to non-members. Can anyone point to a binding doctrinal source for the
change?If there is something fundamental that requires the Church to
maintain its present policy, by all means let the Church stick to its guns. But
if this is not a matter of doctrine, but only of policy, I hope it's been
considered whether the policy's benefits are worth their cost.
A question to Mormons who claim to reject the doctrine of the Trinity: Mormonism teaches that Jesus is God (see the title page of the Book of
Mormon) and that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are "one
God." (D&C ch. 20.)How is this not Trinitarianism?The classical doctrine of the Trinity is usually misunderstood by
Mormons. We've got it mixed up with Modalism -- a doctrine that the early
Church fathers rejected, which taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were
simply aspects of the same person wearing different hats at different times.
The *actual* doctrine of the Trinity (which even a lot of Protestant pastors
don't understand) is careful to emphasize that the Godhead does consist of three
distinct, individual personalities, who are equally divine, and who are so
united that they can be called one God, but who are not the same. The classical
Athanasian Creed warns specifically against "confounding [i.e., erasing the
distinction between] the Persons." As far as I can tell,
Mormons believe in a variety of Trinitarianism that's known as Social
Trinitarianism. That's a perfectly respectable interpretation of the Trinity,
and may even be the majority interpretation among modern theologians.So what the heck are we fighting about?
Dear Duck,Thoughtful questions, indeed.As to the temple
and non-members, a simple equivalent would be the Temple in Jesus' day. Sacred,
and for Jews only.As to your view of the Trinity -- God, Jesus and
the Holy Ghost separate individuals, one in purpose -- that is exactly the LDS
Civil --I understand the parallel to the ancient Temple. The
question is why do we echo the ancient Jews' practices? We don't follow their
customs with respect to lobster and bacon (thank heaven!) What is the actual,
latter-day scriptural (or non-scriptural doctrinal) warrant for keeping
non-members out of dedicated temples?Anyway, have the Brethren got
the keys of the Kingdom, or haven't they? We temporarily de-dedicate temple
buildings for renovations. Why not delegate to a temple worker the authority to
temporarily de-dedicate a "bubble" of space following non-member
parents of an LDS couple up to the sealing room and out again?As to
"one in purpose," I wonder if we might not re-think that traditional
shorthand. Not because it's wrong, but because it may tend to lead to the
misperception that the unity of the Father and the Son is less than perfect and
complete. And from Scripture, it clearly appears that there is something
special and sacred about the Godhead's unity, similar to (but surpassing) the
way in which a married couple are said to be "one flesh." Speaking of misperception, the Catholic Church recently re-translated the
language of the Nicene Creed, changing the phrase "one Being with the
Father" to "consubstantial with the Father." The explanation
given is that the former translation, while true, tended to give the impression
that the Father and the Son are not separate persons, when the original Creed
was meant to underscore that Christ has the same divine nature as his Father.We really do need to dial back our potshots at the Trinity, because (1)
most of us have no idea what it is we're criticizing; and (2) we really are not
that far apart.
TheProudDuck | 1:20 p.m. Feb. 6, 2012 Newport Beach, CA "You
cannot be a secretive faith and be in the mainstream," Bowman said.
"Americans just will not tolerate that."============= Unless you are a Republican, Utah, Mormon, in the State
Legislature....Then "Secret" is the name of the game and
The Lord's advice about trying to satisfy everyone's demand for openness can be
found on Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye
your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you.Those that are sincere about their search for the
truth will find it through earnest prayer and searching for the help of the Lord
not through demanding to see what they are not ready for.
The purpose of the Church is to bring people unto Christ. I'm not sure how
these "debates" accomplish that. Testimonies of Christ and his sacred
work come through scripture study, prayer, faith and then repentance. We know
some like to bash our religion, but we must be careful to never bash anyone
else's, as it is not Christlike.
@Town Crier ,I would be particularly interested in how these scholars would explain the meaning of Moses 7:8 (chapter 7 verse 8) found in the Pearl of
Great Price. According to the book of Abraham the descendants of
Cain were to be denied the priesthood of God (Abr. 1:23-27).". The Pharaohâs lineage was invalid do to Cain. Also the decedents of
Ephraim or Manasseh their mother was of the lineage of the pharaoh as
well. See (Genesis 41: 48-50)
Good article. It is worthwhile to have issues out in the open. Most people who
use the word "cult" have no idea what the word means and use it only
as a pejorative. They think it makes their insults seem more credible and
compelling. Obama's pastor's anti-American liberation theology and JFK's Papal
primacy weren't an issue with enlightened voters and hopefully Romney will be
judged by his record and platform, not theological fine points.
@Town crier, In the P.of G.P., Abraham 1:27 Now Pharaoh being of the lineage by
which could not have the right of the Priesthoodâ¦Most Mormon when
they receive a blessing are they are descendants of Ehpraim or Manasseh. Their
mother was of the same lineage as the pharaohs(Genesis 41: 50-52). According to
Mormon theology, prior to the 1978 revelation most al Mormons were barred from
holding their own priesthood..
@ Donn, Owl,"Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On
bare unto him."I have read in Jewish litetature, that Asenath
was an adopted Israelite daughter of Potipherah. The fact that the descendants
of Ephraim and Manasseh have held the Priesthood, indicates there is truth in
that Jewish tradition.
Get out, read a book, go to a Christian bookstore, check out the "Cults
& Apologetics" section that is in every one of them. Then you'll
understand that evangelicals have no personal vendetta against one denomination.
It is plain and simply following the Biblical mandate to be obedient to
Christ's call to preach His gospel and to expose false ones.You'll
find Jehovah 's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Bahai, Moonies and several
others, listed with their unbiblical doctrines. That's it. No conspiracy, no
bigotry, no hatred. All the good aspects of each religion's lifestyles are
listed, a full history of their leaders teachings, changes, unfulfilled
prophecies if they were given, and a clear explanation of how to understand the
semantic differences between their religious definitions and Biblical ones.
(Example- salvation).Those who claim the Name of Christ should be
united in pursuing truth and sharing it with the lost. Those were Christ's last
words of adminition to His followers: Go and preach the Good News. Make
disciples.Only the evil one wants us to attack each other and take
our eyes off of Christ. Let's get back to praying for each other and listening
to each other.
For every 1 book that purports to show the LDS Church is a cult, there are
probably 20 that claim Christianity itself is wishful thinking, and another 40
that 'proves' monotheism is bunk. Each one written by an author who believes he
has exposed the truth, and read by a consumer who thinks he/she just read the
definitive word on the subject. I willingly agree to reading any anti-Mormon
book suggested, but only if the person making the suggestion agrees to read
David Hume or Frederick Nietzsche while I do so. That usually ends the argument.
It seems to me that people who approach Mormons and offer
unsolicited advice, the foundation of which being 'you aren't a real Christian
and I'm here to help you,' are usually those most in need of it. A question of
manners. I call them Keyboard Crusaders.
Moontan,Who are you calling Keyboard Crusaders? Every missionary on
my porch, every invitation to Sacrament mtng, every gift of the Book of Mormon
is a crusade against anyone non-LDS.If you know your religion,
that's your message.
Semper Fi.... Your original post mentioned 'semantic differences'. We're dealing
with such here. Missionaries giving you an 'invitation' and 'gift' -
your words - are hardly conducting a crusade. They don't claim you're headed to
the fires o' hell because of your wrong beliefs. They willingly leave when told
to. They'd water the plants on your porch if asked to. They don't keep coming
back like a bad dream asking if you are sure you don't wanna be saved, or show
up at your blog with condescending comments trying to make you see their light.
There is nothing patronizing in their personal interactions.