Instigator
Banned
How do Mormons refute this notorious video (rated G, don't worry)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q6brMrFw0E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q6brMrFw0E
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mormon/Ex-Mormon Thread of 3 hour blocks and salvation flowcharts
- Thread starter ronito
- Start date
Instigator
Banned
Jeff-DSA said:
Are more facts wrong or right? Is it the video as a whole or just details?
Just like Jeff just did.Instigator said:
I did a write up on this however a while back when I was still a practicing mormon. Taking each thing step by step. In short, many of the facts are actually true. However, most mormons either don't know, don't care, or the church just doesn't teach it anymore. The church post 1960s and the church pre 1960s could almost be two different churches.
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".
Brigham Young and Race mixing: True. In fact even in some circles my wife and I get comments (I'm latino and she's white) like "Such a shame she couldn't find a white boy." Or nasty looks and stuff. Once I got "Aren't you so lucky that in heaven you'll both be white?" from an old white lady.
Trillions of planets by countless gods? Not really doctrine. Conjecture at best. Yes the church does teach that there are trillions of planets (yay!) and it does teach that Jesus created the earth. And it also did espouse the teachings that there could be other gods. Now putting all that together you COULD get to realization that there could be tons of gods for tons of worlds. But it's not fomally doctrine or something the church espouses oficially anymore.
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. Of course he might've as well said with a wink wink and a nudge nudge as the church still teaches this.
God has a body: Very true. A basic pillar of mormonism.
God has many wives on Kolob Again conjecture. There is one scripture where it says God lives on planet close to Kolob. The scriptures don't talk much about a female godess. But the early church used to teach that a man could only get into heaven if he had many wives. So therefore one could conjecture that God has multiple wives. However, the church no longer believes in polygamy and hasn't for 1890 (at least on paper) and 1904 when they said "No we really mean it." So if you ask a modern mormon about this they'll be shocked and say it isn't true. If you asked a mormon back in the days of polygamy, it's possible they'd agree. Now as for polygamy in the after life mormons do believe that a man that was married to woman who then died and the man was remarried in heaven he'd have both wives. So in a way they still believe in afterlife polygamy
Celestial sex: Again sounds hawt but there's nothing in mormon doctrine about having sex to make spirit children, it just says that there are spirit children. It's conjecture (but not entirely out of place) that this would happen through "celestial sex".
Head of Mormon gods called a council: Half-true. it is taught there was a council and there was one god there.
Lucifer Jesus's brother and 1/3 that followed him: Yeah of course Lucifer and Jesus are brothers. Didn't God create both? If not then who created him? As to the 1/3 that followed him to become demons that's also true, though officially it's taught they never had bodies so they're just evil spirits.
Less valiant = dark skin: Sadly true. Prominent Apostle McConkie believed this through and through and this was even written in the first few editions of "Mormon Doctrine" which is a staple in mormon teaching. After the whole allowing the blacks the priesthood the church had this section removed and McConkie was famously quoted as saying "Throw everything that I or anyone else ever said about this away. We were speaking with an imperfect understanding."
Valiant people were born mormon: Certainly I heard this up and down until the late nineties after that the church has sorta backed away from this.
White and delightsome Very true. In fact some apostles still teach that as the african and latino races get more righteous they're getting lighter in complexion.
God came was Adam: Brigham Young was adamant about this and taught that if you didn't believe that God was Adam you'd go to hell. After he died however the church abandoned this teaching.
Elohim came in human form to impregnate Mary:
Brigham Young Said: "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 218). "The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood -- was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).
And McConkie said something similar in Mormon Doctrine "There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events..."
So the church believe that until the 60s at least.
Jesus had multiple wives: First off, it's not remarkable to think that Jesus was married they called him rabbi and rabbis were typically married. But mormon belief is that Jesus set the example for us, in getting baptized going to the temple, praying and such, so it makes sense he'd get married as that's required to get to the highest degree of heaven. As to multiple wives, well that's of course been backed off from since polygamy was disavowed. There's actually no "Offical" teaching about Jesus' wife(wives). Most mormons will just reply they don't know.
Joseph Smith saying he was a descendant of Jesus Yeah, he said a lot of crazy stuff. Technically he said he was a descendant of Joseph sold into Egypt, and the bible says Jesus descended from him so...
Jesus came to the Americas: True. Basic mormon teaching.
Dark skinned people killed all the light skinned people and gold plates: all true
all christian creeds were an abomination True, mormonism teaches that only the mormon church has the "whole" truth.
Standing judgement before Joseph Smith, Jesus and Elohim: Joseph and Brigham both taught that they and others would be "sentitnels" or guards that you had to pass on the way to heaven, but final judgement was supposed to be between Jesus and Elohim.
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.
Joseph smith said he did more than any other man including jesus chirst for man's salvation.: Brigham Young did too.
Mormons can become gods: This used to be a central belief of the mormon church, but since Hinkley the church as backed off from this teaching with the winking and nudging mentioned earlier. I mean Hinckley himself preached this doctrine from the pulpit of conference just 3 years before saying he didn't know if we teached it or not. So I'll let you decide what to make of it.
That's an interesting question. Thankfully for the church a lot of the changes happened really early on 1830 and most were admittedly minor (a lot of them were grammar problems, lol). Since then the changes have been even more minor such as punctuation.doomed1 said:
When pressed leadership will say it's just about clarity. But really they sort of tie themselves up in a knot because this was supposed to be translated by god.
The latest changed actually happened last year. To be fair it wasn't to scripture however. They changed one of the chapter headings to be more politically correct.
funkmasterb
Member
ronito said:
Thanks for the great response Ronito!
First off, I should point out. That my point is NOT that mormons are all racists. The younger generation knows very little about the more valiant = more white doctrine and most, as seen, will disavow it. And the last time a leader spoke against race mixing in conference (where words are supposed to be like scripture) was in the mid to late 1980s. So it's not fair to have the assumption that mormons are racist and certainly not because of my anecdotes. Every religion has its nutters and it is not fair to assume that mormonism is to blame for that.Dead Man said:
However, I do feel that the white/american-centric doctrine that used to (and in some ways still does) exist certainly did nothing to help against such thoughts and only fanned the flames for some.
As to your question, it sorta went through phases. The first few times it happened it was just sorta shocking. After that there was a bit of self-hating/shame on my part. I got over that pretty quick. After that we would actually reply with stuff like "I'm not ashamed" or something like. I think my response to the wont you be happy that you'll be white in heaven was "If everyone in heaven is white, then send me to hell." Sadly the lady was old and senile and either didn't hear me or pretended not to.
Funny thing though both my wife and I got in trouble over it in prop 8. Because when people would ask us whether or not we supported prop 8 we'd both reply that just 40 years ago our marriage would've been an abomination in the sight of the church and we were incredibly happy together. How then could we of all people say someone else marriage was an abomination when the church was so wrong about ours? People didn't care much for that at all.
I will never get the time I wasted on Seminary back.
Oh god. Having to wake up at 5:30 a.m. every morning during high school to trudge to church sucked.
I actually got into a car accident one morning because I fell asleep behind the wheel and crashed into a parked car. The cop actually didn't believe me at first when I told him I was going to church.
Honestly, I'm kind of surprised I "passed" my senior year, because my attendance had to have dropped into somewhere around the 60 or 70 percent range.
Oh god. Having to wake up at 5:30 a.m. every morning during high school to trudge to church sucked.
I actually got into a car accident one morning because I fell asleep behind the wheel and crashed into a parked car. The cop actually didn't believe me at first when I told him I was going to church.
Honestly, I'm kind of surprised I "passed" my senior year, because my attendance had to have dropped into somewhere around the 60 or 70 percent range.
Instigator said:
Yes, everything in this video is technically accurate, or at least was "quasi-doctrine" at one point or another in Mormon history.
The key to remember, though, is that LDS theology is fluid and changes over time, and a lot of it has never really been codified. It's sort of like common law. You have a bunch of different judges making decisions over the years, and then higher judges will eventually overrule them or just ignore their previous decisions. Since inception, numerous LDS Apostles have said all kinds of crazy shit. Nowadays if the Church wants to distance itself from something a previous Apostle said, they will just say "I don't think that's really doctrine."
The most flagrant example of this was in 1997 when LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley was on Larry King Live, and Larry asked him about men becoming Gods. Hinkley actually said he "wasn't sure about that," or something, even though it is and has been a clear tenant of LDS doctrine.
For example, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants (Mormon scriptures) have gone through numerous substantive revisions over the years to change their messaging to conform with constantly evolving doctrines. This was most prominent in the early days of the Church, where the Doctrine and Covenants had sections completely re-written to make drastic doctrinal changes that were no longer compatible with the changing theology of LDS beliefs. Like, even passages that were directly quoting Jesus were completely re-written to change what he said because it was no longer theologically consistent with the changing LDS worldview.
A specific example, in 1981, the Book of Mormon was edited to eliminate the racist language, indicating that the dark skinned Lamanites turned white after getting baptized, etc. This is because three years earlier in 1978 the Church finally got rid of it's racist policies regarding priesthood within the Church.
So basically, yeah, everything in the video is historically accurate, and reflects actual or quasi-theology of the LDS church at some point, but over the last 30 years the LDS church has attempted to whitewash it's theology and doctrine, so if you brought up a lot of the stuff mentioned in that video in an LDS Sunday School class, many people honestly wouldn't have any idea what you were talking about, because Mormonism only teaches a *very* diluted and superficial version of it's history and theology to members.
And to me, that's really the key to understanding Mormons today. Honestly, most Mormons know so little about any of this historical stuff. In my opinion, the most genius thing the Church does is indoctrinate it's members from the time they are young to not believe, read, or even look at any literature or materials that are not *friendly* to the LDS Church. They have a term for it, "anti-Mormon literature." It's very effective, it basically scares Mormons into believing that people are out to get them, and there is this whole world of books, videos and pamphlets out there which do nothing but spew lies about Mormon history. The benefit for Mormons is that the vast majority of them honestly know nothing about the nutty part of the Church history. Unfortunately, you also get into awkward situations where if you present a Mormon with anything that doesn't conform to their superficial, hagiographic LDS worldview, they are basically programmed to yell "that's not true! That's a lie, that's anti-Mormon nonsense!"
Subscribing to this thread. I have family history with the Mormon church but not of the same kind as other posters here. I have relatives from the non-Mormon communities in Hancock County, IL, dating to the first half of the nineteenth century.
For those not catching the reference... Hancock County includes Carthage (where Joseph Smith was killed) and Nauvoo (the last Mormon community before the westward migration). The non-Mormon community was (and to some extent still is) hostile toward the LDS church and its followers. It was this hostility that prompted the migration, after all. I don't know that any of my ancestors played a part in the violence leading up to the death of Joseph Smith and the migration, but I do know for certain they were happy to resettle Nauvoo when Brigham Young left.
That's the point of view I was brought with. I've rejected that attitude of religious intolerance; it's destructive wherever it is found, whether the Balkans between Christians and Muslims or the Midwest between Catholics and Mormons. I'm approaching this thread with my usual critical stance toward religious claims of all kinds, but also with genuine interest in the Mormon perspective.
For those not catching the reference... Hancock County includes Carthage (where Joseph Smith was killed) and Nauvoo (the last Mormon community before the westward migration). The non-Mormon community was (and to some extent still is) hostile toward the LDS church and its followers. It was this hostility that prompted the migration, after all. I don't know that any of my ancestors played a part in the violence leading up to the death of Joseph Smith and the migration, but I do know for certain they were happy to resettle Nauvoo when Brigham Young left.
That's the point of view I was brought with. I've rejected that attitude of religious intolerance; it's destructive wherever it is found, whether the Balkans between Christians and Muslims or the Midwest between Catholics and Mormons. I'm approaching this thread with my usual critical stance toward religious claims of all kinds, but also with genuine interest in the Mormon perspective.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
I have mormon family.
Not your standard mormon neither, we're talking Spain here. Mostly catholic converts.
So I've met quite a few mormons, most of them of humble means of life but honest, working folk. A few of them tho, batshit insane and with a "I'm going to Heaven while you rot in hell" attitude.
Anyways, their genealogical work is awesome. I had some legal issues concerning a distant long-gone relative and needed to sort out the genealogy and just had to check the mormon's database.
I did find the Sunday thing overkill tho, felt like it lasted forever.
Not your standard mormon neither, we're talking Spain here. Mostly catholic converts.
So I've met quite a few mormons, most of them of humble means of life but honest, working folk. A few of them tho, batshit insane and with a "I'm going to Heaven while you rot in hell" attitude.
Anyways, their genealogical work is awesome. I had some legal issues concerning a distant long-gone relative and needed to sort out the genealogy and just had to check the mormon's database.
I did find the Sunday thing overkill tho, felt like it lasted forever.
Telosfortelos
Advocate for the People
And a remarried widowed woman in the afterlife? I'm sure the answer at least was "no", but I'm curious if this has been a controversy or something at least discussed and fleshed out a bit.ronito said:
Laurentius
Member
I just have a few things to add.
It is not Mormon doctrine that, for instance, either the church or its leaders are infallible. Neither is church culture.
For anybody here, I would recommend reading the Book of Mormon. You can get free copies online, or you can just read it straight from lds.org. Read it for what it is, in context.
In the interest of fairness, that picture isn't a good example of LDS art. That particular image, for instance, is rarely used in favor of Del Parson's much better painting of Christ:
It is not Mormon doctrine that, for instance, either the church or its leaders are infallible. Neither is church culture.
For anybody here, I would recommend reading the Book of Mormon. You can get free copies online, or you can just read it straight from lds.org. Read it for what it is, in context.
In the interest of fairness, that picture isn't a good example of LDS art. That particular image, for instance, is rarely used in favor of Del Parson's much better painting of Christ:
ChiTownBuffalo
Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
Being from Colorado, I've had nothing but positive experiences with Mormons.
There was a temple near my parents house, and I do have a question.
There are two temples in close proximity.
There is one that sits next to my folk's subdivision and one down the street. The one down the street is no different than church as far as I can tell, having driven by it multiple times.
The one near my folk's house seems different. Cursory appraisal, there isn't any overt signage saying its an LDS facility. Also, the median value of the vehicles in the parking lot is noticably higher than the vehicles at the other place.
Is this a special place?
the blinds are also always drawn. I don't think that's that big of a deal though.
There was a temple near my parents house, and I do have a question.
There are two temples in close proximity.
There is one that sits next to my folk's subdivision and one down the street. The one down the street is no different than church as far as I can tell, having driven by it multiple times.
The one near my folk's house seems different. Cursory appraisal, there isn't any overt signage saying its an LDS facility. Also, the median value of the vehicles in the parking lot is noticably higher than the vehicles at the other place.
Is this a special place?
the blinds are also always drawn. I don't think that's that big of a deal though.
Fenderputty
Banned
Several questions:
Why does a church who claims to be "Christian" not have a single Christian element outside their temples? Where' the cross?
Why does a church that claims to worship Jesus and be "Christian" have the ultimate goal of surpassing Christ in heaven? Not to be one with or equal with, but to actually surpass?
Why does a church who claims to be "Christian" not have a single Christian element outside their temples? Where' the cross?
Why does a church that claims to worship Jesus and be "Christian" have the ultimate goal of surpassing Christ in heaven? Not to be one with or equal with, but to actually surpass?
It's very difficult for a woman to be "sealed" that is married in the temple to more than one man. So in essence the answer is "No". But there have been some instances of it happening. It's not as easy as it is with men however. Women can't get to the highest level of heaven with a man. And while a man can't get to heaven without women, he can have multiple women. Whereas a woman can only belong to one man. When I asked my teachers and leaders about this, if a woman was sealed to two men they said it'd be "sorted out in heaven".Telosfortelos said:
My story in very short form:
Raised semi-active LDS.
Became inactive after graduating high school.
Started becoming semi-active again.
Fell in love with my now-wife, raised Mormon. But Iowa Mormon, not Utah Mormon.
Got married in Chicago temple.
The endowment ceremony freaked me the fuck out so hard I refused to ever go back, and planted the seeds in my mind that maybe I wanted out.
Became aware of the intense bigotry many of the members and the higher-ups in the church push. Read the Family: A Proclamation to the World as a statement of bigoted policy targeting gays. Realized I didn't want to be associated with it.
Stopped paying tithing after getting a better perspective on how rich the church is, and how they essentially use the doorway to heaven as a cudgel to extract money from people. (Wanna go to heaven? Pay up.)
Gradually drifted away. Stopped attending the meeting blocks after sacrament, hanging out in the lobby and such.
Had meeting with bishop, told him not to offer me any callings and that I was not going to be very active going forward.
Stopped attending church entirely around the time Proposition 8 passed. Go back every now and then for a cameo with the with and kids, who are still active.
#####
tl;dr
Got married in the temple, which freaked me the fuck out and drifted away when I became aware of how bigoted the church's policies against gays are. Left cold after Prop 8 passed.
Edit: non-believing heathen now, see religion as a cancer on the world.
Raised semi-active LDS.
Became inactive after graduating high school.
Started becoming semi-active again.
Fell in love with my now-wife, raised Mormon. But Iowa Mormon, not Utah Mormon.
Got married in Chicago temple.
The endowment ceremony freaked me the fuck out so hard I refused to ever go back, and planted the seeds in my mind that maybe I wanted out.
Became aware of the intense bigotry many of the members and the higher-ups in the church push. Read the Family: A Proclamation to the World as a statement of bigoted policy targeting gays. Realized I didn't want to be associated with it.
Stopped paying tithing after getting a better perspective on how rich the church is, and how they essentially use the doorway to heaven as a cudgel to extract money from people. (Wanna go to heaven? Pay up.)
Gradually drifted away. Stopped attending the meeting blocks after sacrament, hanging out in the lobby and such.
Had meeting with bishop, told him not to offer me any callings and that I was not going to be very active going forward.
Stopped attending church entirely around the time Proposition 8 passed. Go back every now and then for a cameo with the with and kids, who are still active.
#####
tl;dr
Got married in the temple, which freaked me the fuck out and drifted away when I became aware of how bigoted the church's policies against gays are. Left cold after Prop 8 passed.
Edit: non-believing heathen now, see religion as a cancer on the world.
Laurentius
Member
ChiTownBuffalo said:
One of the buildings is probably a regular LDS meetinghouse, called a chapel. The chapels are what you would consider a typical Christian church, where meetings are held on Sundays and anyone (Mormon or not) is welcome. Temples are separate buildings with a different purpose. Members go there to participate in special ordinances. For example, marriages are performed in temples, and Mormon's believe that temple marriages are for "time and all eternity" and not just for this life.
The typical Mormon response to the first question is that Mormon's focus on the resurrection of Christ, as opposed to his crucifixion. Our teachings are entirely focused on Christ, however, despite the fact that we don't have crosses.
As to the second question, it's not our teaching that anyone will "surpass" Christ. See Romans 8: 16-17:
It's not a goal to surpass Christ, but rather to become a joint-heir with him.
ChiTownBuffalo
Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
Fenderputty said:
I don't think the cross is necessary for any Christian to be honest. It was more an affectation of early Christians. Like to own something. Being crucified was an incredible shameful way to go, and they took it and made it a symbol of their faith.
Fenderputty said:
1. The Church's aesthetics are mostly a product of the time / place of it's origination. The Church doesn't use crosses because they feel it is more important to focus on the image of resurrected Jesus, not cross Jesus. It's just an aesthetic thing, really.
2. Im' not sure what you mean by "surpassing" Jesus. This seems to be a loaded question which presupposes defined roles about what Heaven is, what people do in Heaven, etc.
ChiTownBuffalo said:
There are temples, and there are churches. I've been a Jack Mormon for long enough that I have no clue where all the temples are, but I don't think it's likely you live near to two temples (I grew up in the Detroit area, and we used to have to go to Toronto to go to a temple).
Basically, a church is where you'll have your weekly Sacrament meetings, your youth group stuff, etc. It's a normal church building, and everyone is welcome.
The temple is where special services are held, and to enter you must be a member in good standing and have a temple recommend from your Bishop.
lawblob said:
We were always told it's because Mormons place a greater emphasis on the Garden of Gethesmene as opposed to the crucifixion. That, and we're celebrating Christ's life and not his death.
Well what's the dogmatic reason beyond the changes or is it just PR? Do they give a line like "God spoke to our high priest (or what your hierarchy is) and he realized that this shit won't fly these days" or is it more of a wink and a nudge and a "I have no idea what you're talking about, this is how it always was"?ronito said:
I mean, I don't have a problem with Mormons other than that one time a couple of them offered to help me cut ice one night a number of winters ago. Scared the crap out of me, thought they were gonna try and mug me right outside my own home, inner city Jersey and all
. Either way, the theology being such a tremendous train wreck, I don't think I'll ever be able to seriously look at Mormonism on a religious level. You're welcome to believe what you like, and you could definitely do worse, I'm just trying to get a clearer understanding so that I don't overstep my knowledge and say something uncharitable and ultimately stupid like many so called "academics" do about Catholicism.ChiTownBuffalo
Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
SenseiJinx said:
Cool. Thanks.
samus i am
Member
I can't get past the race stuff. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness so that's a whole nother story.
Fenderputty
Banned
lawblob said:
I'm not trying to load a question. I'm not religious at all.
I noticed the first question myself as I grew up in a town with 40-50% mornmons and their churches have nothing that would lead anyone to believe the establishment is a christian one outside.
Regarding the second question. I've been told that the ultimate goal is to reach the highest level of heaven. A level higher than Jesus. I could be totally wrong on this, but I found that to be an odd goal of a christian. Growing up Catholic our goal was to always reach Jesus and be with him on his leve.
Again ... not religious.
Yes, but you can't really have it both ways. That was always one thing that really bugged me when I was mormon.SenseiJinx said:
You can't be like "This dude's a prophet speaking the words of god!" when he happens to be right. And "He's not infallible!" When he's wrong. It's like troll religion.
I mean Hinckley got up and said he thought it was wrong for women to have more than one earring per ear. And tons of women remove their second pair of earrings. He says he doesn't know if we teach we can become gods and everyone ignores him.
Laurentius
Member
I mean, I don't have a problem with Mormons other than that one time a couple of them offered to help me cut ice one night a number of winters ago. Scared the crap out of me, thought they were gonna try and mug me right outside my own home, inner city Jersey and all
In order to get a clearer understanding, as I recommended before, I would suggest reading the Book of Mormon itself.
Yeah, the "highest level of heaven" would probably be referring to the Celestial kingdom. In no way is that a level higher than Jesus.
That's a good point. It's dangerous to "cherry pick" so to speak, what you like (regard it as truth) and what you don't like (regard it as opinion). But, and here's what a lot of people aren't going to like, for me it is a matter of faith. From my own personal life time of experiences and beliefs, I do believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. And subsequently, his successors were also prophets. There are certainly things that are troubling to me that I don't fully understand, and I'm still trying to reconcile some things. I'm willing to learn and question, but I'm also willing to accept the fact that either a mistake was made by a fallible human or it's something I just don't understand yet.
GhaleonEB said:
This is exactly how I drifted away. Luckily it was in high school. My sister, my cousin and I would sneak out after sacrament meeting, hop in my sister's car and drive to Burger King. We'd then eat the food while parked at a parking garage next to the church.
Eventually had a fun meeting with my bishop where he explained that my attendance had flipped me into the "inactive" category.
Luckily my parents were pretty liberal, so while I had to do seminary, I avoided visting teaching and never was pressured to go on a mission (although a family friend did write me a letter explaining why I needed to go. I threw it on top of the fridge and never mentioned it to my family).
SenseiJinx said:
I was always taught that the Celestial kingdom is where Christ lives, and that's why you want to get there. Sure, he might make an occasional trip down to the lower kingdoms, but if you wanted to bask in the glory of his presence, you needed to reach the top.
SenseiJinx said:I just have a few things to add.
It is not Mormon doctrine that, for instance, either the church or its leaders are infallible. Neither is church culture.
For anybody here, I would recommend reading the Book of Mormon. You can get free copies online, or you can just read it straight from lds.org. Read it for what it is, in context.
In the interest of fairness, that picture isn't a good example of LDS art. That particular image, for instance, is rarely used in favor of Del Parson's much better painting of Christ:
This image is incredible because it shows the two sides of Christ. It shows justice (cover the right half) and it shows mercy (cover the left half). The effect is more apparent with a larger image.
However, this sort of image of Christ has become more and more popular among LDS people. I think they're getting closer to how he would have looked, being born in the Middle East.
The more I studied Christianity and the mormon church I think that there are such massive gaps between mormonism and mainstream christianity (works vs. grace, the endowment, eternal progression vs eternal station) that really I'd say LDS people aren't "Christians" per the mainstream definition. And actually I don't think that's a bad thing.Fenderputty said:
It should be noted however, the goal is not to surpass Jesus. The LDS church is one of eternal progression. You keep learning more and keep progressing. If Jesus is already eons ahead of us know he will always be your leader. Actually the eternal progression thing is one of the things I really liked in the church. It always seemed silly/boring to me to think that the after life you'll just be an angel. Thing I liked about the mormon church is you kept on progressing always getting to the next step. It's sorta like a child growing. You might learn more and get older but you'll never be older than your older brother, you'll never become your own father.
I am SO glad I'm not the only one. The endowment completely freaked me out. I remember going in and thinking "My god we ARE a cult." I felt something was really wrong with me for feeling that way.GhaleonEB said:
I remember just being shell-shocked. My mom was there and told me in the car after that she was proud of me for not sprinting out of the room halfway through. (She was active, but was aware of the absurdity of it.) I refused to do the gestures or chants, just stood there like a deer in headlights.ronito said:
And yeah, the thought that I had joined a cult of some sort hit my mind. What I really thought was, "So THIS is why they keep all this so secret." The clothing! The old dude touching me with a wet finger when I'm naked and terrified! The weird videos.
I honestly think that experience traumatized me. I get rattled just thinking about it.
Fenderputty said:
The LDS church doesn't focus on symbols of Christ's death, but rather focuses on images of the Living Christ. We focus on the example Jesus Christ left behind while alive, and upon the fact that He's a resurrected being, which signifies that we'll all be resurrected after death at some point.
Images of the resurrected Christ are abundant in LDS churches, buildings, and temples. This is at temple square in Salt Lake City. It's a towering statue that you have to walk up a winding ramp to get to, and the effect is pretty powerful.
JetBlackPanda
Member
Glad to see this thread got made, at first I was a little apprehensive about it because I thought it would become an thread of bigotry and hate but most people on Gaf are cool.
Raised LDS and was never super active, married in the Temple and struggle with going every Sunday but I do however believe in the Doctrine.
thanks Ronito your the man!
Raised LDS and was never super active, married in the Temple and struggle with going every Sunday but I do however believe in the Doctrine.
ronito said:
thanks Ronito your the man!
My parents converted to mormonism after they eloped. I was never a fan of going to church + all of the other activities that seem to keep you occupied most of the week.
I never did all the super secret temple stuff but the baptism for the dead temple trips really freaked me out. I decided not to go on a mission after not really being a big believer in most of the stuff they taught us as kids, then finding out I only knew 50% of the whacky stuff we believed.
My parents eventually drifted away, I think the breaking point for them was that I (and other non-mormon relatives) would not be allowed to attend my sisters wedding in the temple or something. I kind of feel like they weren't really all that into and just went for the community aspect when they where raising a large family with no extended support from relatives.
I never did all the super secret temple stuff but the baptism for the dead temple trips really freaked me out. I decided not to go on a mission after not really being a big believer in most of the stuff they taught us as kids, then finding out I only knew 50% of the whacky stuff we believed.
My parents eventually drifted away, I think the breaking point for them was that I (and other non-mormon relatives) would not be allowed to attend my sisters wedding in the temple or something. I kind of feel like they weren't really all that into and just went for the community aspect when they where raising a large family with no extended support from relatives.
JetBlackPanda
Member
btkadams said:
perhaps that stuff can go to Pm's? I honestly have no problem with EX Lds people saying whatever they want against the church but that portion of the faith is pretty sacred.. I don't know whatever.
KingGondo said:
its a secret thing that only EX mormons are really going to talk about, it's weird but then so are a lot of ceremonies in Jewish temples etc.
If you start talking about the ceremony itself you might have younger gaf members bail out of the thread if they are practicing mormons.
btkadams said:
It's basically a series of rituals, ordinances, and instruction that are meant to prepare a person for entrance into God's presence after death. You make covenants with God there that are very specific. It's also where eternal marriages are performed in a sealing ceremony. It puts man and wife together for eternity, not to be parted after death. Any kids born to a man and woman who have been married in the temple are sealed to them as they're born under the covenant. Children who are not born under the covenant can also be sealed to their parents.
Since my dad wasn't a member when I was born, we later went to the temple as a family and were all sealed together. My parents were first married in the temple and then my brother and I were sealed to them. Since my wife and I were married in the temple, my son is already sealed to us.
It makes much more sense if you're raised in the church or at least have an understanding of the temple. Basically the idea is to get the entire human family sealed together and to receive the temple endowment. The first time you go to the temple you go for yourself. Every time after the first time, you go as a proxy for a deceased individual. They are given the choice to accept or reject your proxy work in the afterlife.
Similar threads
- Poll