Ok, one of the key problems about discussing mormon doctrine is that even though they describe it as consisting of eternal truths, in practice, determining what beliefs are accurate is like nailing jello to the wall. Many beliefs have been discarded, diminished, deemphasized, or are completely true but not widely discussed. "Modern day revelation" is frequently used as a Get Out Of Jail Free card, and even matters supposedly given to past leaders of the church through divine revelation are retconned as the leader "speaking as a man, not a prophet" even when they said otherwise. Ultimately, mormon doctrine is only what the current leader says it to be,
nothing more. While it is perfectly reasonable to expect that new times require new instructions and that lessons might not have been properly understood the first time, the manner in which the church shifts even on something as supposedly sacred and eternal as temple endowments, it calls into question the integrity of the organization as a whole and the raison d'être of its theology.
ronito said:
It's really interesting I always used to get asked if I thought Mormonism was a cult and certainly it was, but not more so than any other religion.
There is absolutely a difference between Smith's church of early 19th century, Young's church of the late 19th century, and the increasingly corporate church of the 20th century, however it's not as if the church has necessarily become more virtuous over this time.
A cult is defined as taking up a lot of your personal time/thought, has a charismatic leader, has rites and ceremonies, or an exclusive group.
Well that's essentially all religions right there.
I heave never heard of "cult" being defined along a "lots of time" criterium before. Obviously whenever somebody says "cult", they describing a group in a negative sense, but beyond "hur all religion is evil" there should be a classification for groups like Scientology that imply a specific distinction between them and your local Lutheran church down the road. When you examine those kinds of groups, it invariably boils down to a matter of control. It's how matters of indoctrination or "brainwashing" come into play, with members unable to make decisions for themselves. Books have been written how this works, but it all boils down in terms of a con or deception. People are given a limited set of a groups beliefs, become sold on the group as a whole, then the rest of the beliefs like writing $10,000 checks to the estate of L. Ron Hubbard or killing one's parents come in. Because the new recruit is already sold on the group, they're more likely to accept this than if they were to consider it before joining. Such groups are usually organized with multiple levels so the more you invest in the group, the more is revealed.
Groups can believe weird things, but simply believing weird stuff doesn't necessarily make them bad. They could just be regarded as silly or irrelevant. If Scientology was entirely open about its activities, then people who sign up know exactly what they are getting into and it's their choice to make. However, that would mean that the individual was in control, not the group leadership.
CDProp said:
I'm not trying to defend the LDS church. Racism was rife, no doubt, just as it was elsewhere in the country in the early years. As Mormons constantly remind us, LDS leaders are not infallible. They're a product of their time, and they sin. I have no doubt that many of them considered black people to be an inferior race, although the official rationale for the ban really had nothing to do with that.
Still, I agree with the general criticism, that someone who claims to personally communicate with the Almighty should probably know better, as it would be quite easy for God to put a stop to all of the injustice brought on by racism through revelation. The fact that the LDS Church was allowed to continue on for over a century with such a huge moral blindspot puts a lot of doubts in my mind.
It's all too easy to resolve this issue by pinning it on the leaders and claiming that what they said was revelation actually wasn't, but it was still God who cursed people with dark skin multiple times in the Book of Mormon precisely because they were a bad sort.
ImperialConquest said:
Not quite.
It's another 'letter of the law' vs 'spirit of the law' situation.
Coffee andf Tea were banned as stimulants. They didn't know what 'caffeine' was, or they would have banned that. If coke and mountain dew were around then, they too would be banned.
Since coffee and tea were banned specifically by name, modern day mormons have their loophole.
So yeah, they can say it's a misunderstanding, but it's also not too hard to understand the spirit behind the ban.
Only none of what you said is actually in mormon scripture. What were banned were "hot drinks", and this is linked to coffee and tea in the official ban
by interpretation. Caffeine is just a modern rationalization.
ronito said:
So to sorta sort out stuff between this and Maher:
Mormons believe Indians came from Middle East: True. However, their argument is that civilization was mostly wiped out (and it is in the Book of Mormon) so they'll make the argument of, of course there's no DNA they were destroyed. That and the section of civilization was so small and remote they just haven't found it 'yet".
That's what
FAIR and
FARMS would like to argue, but Joseph Smith unequivocally taught that all american natives were descendants of the people in the Book of Mormon.
Unless, of course, he was speaking as a man at the time.
Elohim born as a man There's a couplet that says "As man is God once was, as God is man can be." That's really about as far as official church doctrine goes. And even the last prophet Gordon B. Hinckley said on Larry King live that he "didn't know" if it was true.
No, he said "I don't know that we teach that." Then he went to General Conference and basically winked at his audience, saying he's perfectly aware of what is taught.
Polygamist Gods: It is true that to get into the celestial kingdom you must be married in the temple, the polygamist part of it has of course been removed. Mormons no longer believe that.
Not necessarily. Polygamy is something not to be practiced on Earth for the time being. Heaven is an entirely different matter.
CDProp said:
b) You're actually wrong about Mormon. They don't believe they are the only ones who can be saved. In fact, they are the most open religion at all because, while they consider themselves to have the Priesthood (just as the Catholics do), anyone can attain some level of heaven without it. Only a select few go to hell (outer darkness). Not only that, but there will be a period of 1000 years where everyone who have died without accepting the Priesthood and other ordinances which are necessary for the highest degree of heaven, will have an opportunity to do so.
In mormonism, those lower heavens are consolation prizes. The highest is all that matters and that anyone should ever be concerned about. Yes, the way it's all set up is technically universalist(sidenote: the Book of Mormon condemns universalism), but practically speaking the mormon church behaves under the assumption of fire and brimstone.
Oh, and
actual universalists are far more open, as are hindus and buddhists.
c) As someone who was raised in the Roman Catholic church, I know for a fact that the Catholic Catechism teaches that salvation is only possible with a Catholic baptism. In my experience, Orthodox churches are far more restrictive about membership than the Roman Catholic church. Are you absolutely positive that Orthodox Catholics teach that anyone can be saved, no matter what their religion?
By the way, whenever I see "Orthodox" in the context of christian sects I think "Eastern Orthodox" so "Orthodox Catholics" sounds completely bizarre to me.
LovingSteam said:
Honestly, the Mormon faith fascinates me almost more so than any other religion. My undergrad was in Religious Studies and my Masters was in biblical studies so that may be a reason why. The Mormon faith (if we ignore Native Americans) is the first and only world religion that originated in the states. Also, unlike other sects from the 19th century Burned Over District (7th Day Adventism/Jehovah's Witnesses/Christadelphians/etc.) the LDS has a wide reach in focusing on the scholarly aspect of the religion. Scholarly in the aspect of studying the history, looking at the archeological evidence/or lack there of, etc. Then you add in the history of its earliest members, trekking from Illinois to Missouri, and finally to the founding of Salt Lake City? It is just an extremely interesting religion and history.
Absolutely, and trying to sort out fact from fiction adds to the fun.
speculawyer said:
So here is a stupid bizarre question . . . if the dark skin is viewed as a bad thing, do some Mormons actively avoid the sun to keep their skin light? Are there very few tanning salons in Utah?
There's getting a tan and going Kirk Lazarus.
speculawyer said:
What exactly are 'privileges she had in the Kingdom Hall'? Unless it is like a club where you get free drinks and massages, I don't think that is much of a loss.
To you or most other people, no, but one thing you must understand is that these sort of things are
made important and have a bearing in their social and spiritual standing.
