General Religious discussion

[Frog]

I agree with you writerainge.

It is difficult to judge the tone and meaning behind a written post and it is so easy to take offense. You took offense because you felt that Karen was comparing you to a drug addict thorough a generalizing statement (though I sincerely doubt that was her intent) and I could just as easily take offense to the fact that you seem to be implying that you know more of our doctrine and feelings than we do and that our belief is based on ignorance or immaturity through generalizations as well (I have lived in many states, where is this ‘real world’ you speak of where everyone lives the way you do?). If our purpose in having this discussion was to actually convert anyone to our own line of thinking, it would be a colossal waste of time. It just isn’t a good medium for it. Conversion is an individual process and as there are often many questions, misconceptions and individual circumstances (including all the ones you mentioned), it is better for someone that is truly willing to listen go to those that do this fulltime and can meet them in their home (the missionaries).

The only reason I took part in this discussion was to answer honest questions, and maybe clear up a few misconceptions; not to convert and not to preach. I am sorry if any of my comments lead you to believe otherwise or if you felt like you were being attacked (though really there were just as many people outside the LDS church taking part in the discussion as there were inside it). I would just say again that we would never attest to having perfect members (though we all give it our best!) and many of the principles that you base your own happiness on our ones that we also hold dear.

I would love to continue to answer questions, but it may be better if I left off for PM on that if anyone is interested as it is so easy for a forum like this to erupt into flame.  Otherwise I would direct you to the church sites (www.mormon.org, www.lds.org) and, of course, the missionaries. Thanks all!

[Hamster]

EDIT: Okay, I definitely see your point, JadeKnight, and subsequently I've deleted this post. I was not attempting to bait anyone here, and I have a lot of respect for everyone here and their beliefs, so I apologize for any offense that I may have caused. I'll take a look at that website, thanks for that link.

[The Jade Knight]

I find these misconceptions common among Mormons...  There are people in my neighborhood who will not let their children into my home because I have alcohol and coffee there.  Mormons tend to think that if you drink at all, you are a party animal.  What they don't realize (especially if they've never lived out of Utah) is that MOST people in this world drink a glass or two of wine/ale/microbrew/or other alcohol with their evening meal and/or relaxing after work or before bed on occasion.  Your view of drinkers is the "girls gone wild" type, and in this sociological climate, you sort of do get one or the other in Happy Valley.  But if you stepped into the real world for a moment you would see that moderation reigns.   It has been proven a glass of wine  a day will help you to fight off obesity, live longer, and promotes overall well being.  (Read; "Why French Women Don't Get Fat." By Mireille Guiliano)  This is the type of drinker that I am and my family is.  We are amateur Somolier's and study the science behind wine and the pairings with food and they way that a fine wine will enhance the flavors of your meal.  This is a growing trend in the US and has been long standing tradition in Europe.
Also, Since beginning a regimen of regular morning coffee along with green tea and other herbs and a healthy diet.  I have cured the ulcers that I have been plagued with since childhood and dropped 60 pounds and maintained that healthy weight for 2 years.   The roasted coffee bean is quite medicinal and will help you to stave off diabetes, stroke, kidney/liver damage, and recently found to help Parkinson's disease.  (plus it tastes like heaven in a CUP!)   I understand how Alcohol can be destructive force in many people's lives, but I find that anything in excess (including food as I watch my corpulent Mormon neighbors trundle to work) can be destructive.

And there's just as much evidence going the opposite direction, as well, though I'm certain you're not interested in it, and I'm certainly not interested in getting into a spat over it.  I once spent (weeks or months) arguing with a friend about this very topic some 10 years ago, throwing research back and forth at each-other, etc.  Eventually we both gave up trying to convince each-other when we realized that the argument was fruitless.  A year later he changed his mind and agreed with my position, but he didn't during our debates, and there was so much contradictory research that making any appeal to the
"literature" useless.

Of course, any Saints you know who are corpulent should probably re-read the Word of Wisdom, which specifically discourages gluttony.  However, I fear a great many Saints don't take their religion quite that seriously—very few, for example, even ponder over what is meant by "eat meat sparingly".  This is true for all religious practitioners, of course, and while, demographically, the Saints seem to be on the better end of the rule, they are still quite human and often fall woefully short of the mark (myself included, I'm sure!)

We are the rule, not the exception.  People who have drunken parties every night are usually the lowest common denominator and are not a realistic way to gauge how the rest of us live.  Being compared to a drug addict or compulsive partier is somewhat offensive, but something that I run into a lot because of people's ignorance.

No, if you have a marriage that happy, you are most certainly and emphatically not "the rule".  Congratulations on having such a strong life, however.  At the same time, I'm not going to suggest that getting wasted is the rule, either.  Naturally, it is somewhere between these two extremes.

Your other specific misconceptions have been rehashed in so many ways on so many different public forums that I see little benefit in going over them here.  If you're honestly interested in answers/rebuttals, you'll find them in ample abundance here:   www.fairlds.org  I get the impression, however, that you are not interested in listening, so much as speaking.

[The Jade Knight]

Hamster:  I believe you'll find answers to every single one of your concerns over at www.fairlds.org.  I recommend you explore the site and find answers to your questions there.  I'm concerned that your post is similar to others I've seen which were attempts at baiting; I hope this is not the case, and I'll leave it as is, though I would discourage others from responding to it here (that stuff is better in PM).  However:

Let me make it clear:  This forum is not an appropriate place to hash out obscure doctrinal issues or get into heated arguments about the superiority of one relosophy over another.  If it devolves into that, this thread will be locked.  If you engage in discussion here, make sure you're doing your best to be respectful and polite to others and their views—we believe in tolerance here, and no relosophy should find itself "on trial" here.

If any of you ever feel that discussion is progressing in such a way that it offends you, or you feel that your views are being mischaracterized, contact a mod, and we'll do our best to rectify the situation (perhaps by locking the thread, if it seems appropriate).

[Reaves]

I think I might have confused myself and Reaves by extension by failing to realize that his concept of saving vs full salvation would be different than my own (duh ).

Lol wow, of course now I realize your definition of salvation would be incredibly different from mine considering you don't believe in a hell, but I didn't even think about it then That explains a lot.

Yeah, I think Ookla probably stated that better than me too. I guess I just don't see the 'chicken and egg' theories of when Heavenly Father and the Universe first existed as important to our current salvation as knowing his current state and our relationship with him. I'll be sure to ask him about it someday though. 

Okay, that's one way to look at it. However, throwing into doubt God's creation of the universe is throwing into doubt a much more important and immediate claim: the veracity of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." If you don't believe that, how can you believe anything else the Bible tells us?

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would be sinless beings, with the same moral capacity to make choices. However, I see this as being a moot point; if Adam and Eve had not sinned, someone else would have I'd like to think if I had been in Adam's place I would have made the right choice, but who knows.

So (just for clarification) you believe that Adam and Eve were fully mortal and able to bear children in the Garden? If taking the apple was the wrong choice, what would be the right one?

That depends on what you mean by fully mortal. I believe that without any sin committed, there would be no death for humans. And I see no reason to doubt that Adam and Eve could bear children. Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
And also: Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Both of these verses definitely seem to more than suggest that Adam and Eve were not neuter but fully formed as man and woman even before they sinned.
As for what Adam and Eve should have done concerning the forbidden fruit...well, they should have trusted God's promises. God said that if they disobeyed his commands regarding the tree, they would die. When the serpent spoke to Eve, it immediately struck at the truth of God's word; whether eating of the fruit of the tree would actually cause them to die, and it made a counter-promise: that eating of the fruit of the tree would cause them to be like God.

I do not believe that God the Father and Jesus are the same person. I believe they are different persons, yet are both codeity together with the Holy Spirit. All have existed eternally, yet differ in roles and authority.

Yeah, I always thought the Nicene Creed with the trinity and their concept of God was a bit confusing and contradictory, but that makes more sense.

Yeah, there is a point where everyone just has to realize that they are finite creatures and can never fully understand the nature of an infinite being.

So is baptism, for you, more of a formality or a requirement?
We all are expected to be baptized at eight or the time of our conversation after a bishop's interview where they see that we understand it's significant. We see it a chance to cleanse the slate and make our first commitment to God. We renew the commitment by repentance and the weekly sacrament. Along with it's connection to repentance, baptism by the proper authority is seen as a vital step for salvation as Jesus was baptized himself.

Alright, that is a little different from our view. We believe that while baptism is not necessary for salvation, it was commanded by Jesus and there is really almost no good reason to avoid it. If I really thought it was necessary, trust me I would have been baptized long ago  
Oh yeah, and that is another difference: we only take the Lord's Supper once every month. We just don't want it to become "old hat" something that becomes just another part of Sunday morning. I personally believe that when Jesus said: "In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me," he wanted it to be something done at every meal, analogous to prayer before eating, but that is just my personal beliefs and not representative of my church.
I'm glad we're able to have this kind of discussion. Its really helped me understand a lot more about the LDS faith, thank you for being so honest and open with me.
Its possible you'll see my next questions as loaded or confrontational, but I really want to hear what you have to say. First of all, where in the Bible do Mormons find support for the doctrine of deification, namely that we can become like God? And also, how do Mormons explain biblical references to hell?
Like I said I'm not trying to place your faith "on trial" as Jade put it. I just want to understand what it is you believe about things that seem so foreign to me. Thanks again!

[Frog]

Reaves, I am going to answer your questions in a PM. I believe that you are being sincere and I love your interest, but I stand by Jade's and my previous statement that this open forum is not a good place for it. It becomes even clearer to me by the fact that a few of the impressions you list are not the impressions I was hoping to give off. It just became difficult to address several people with various backgrounds and views of the LDS church at the same time. I will be clarifying this in my response to you, but again I would urge those that are curious to go the sites that I and Jade have listed or ask their individual questions in the form of a PM.

[Reaves]

Like I said in the PM I sent you, I certainly understand that and I'd love to continue this discussion via PM. However, I also intend to continue a respectful discussion in this thread, though perhaps not with you in particular.

[The Jade Knight]

While I could answer your questions, I'll entrust Frog to that task, as he has already taken the discussion to PM (thank you, Frog).

One question, though, Reaves:  Where do you find the scripture "In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me", and what translation are you using?   I can't find a scripture which says this in the KJV; Luke 22:19-20 is vaguely akin, but seems to say something slightly different.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I just spent like an hour typing a reply, but it said "An Error Has Occurred! The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you." Fantastic. And I didn't copy it before I sent it, and hitting back also gives me an error.

The topic number seems to have changed from 6629 to 6859 all of a sudden, and my post is in limbo.

Ugh. Suffice it to say that we do believe in hell to one extent or another, we do believe God created the heavens and the earth, you should read 2 Nephi 2 for our view on the need for the fall, and here's some scriptures to read on your last question.

Sigh.

[The Jade Knight]

My apologies, Ookla!  I had performed a merge with a stray post; this is one of the unfortunate side effects of such things...

[Reaves]

While I could answer your questions, I'll entrust Frog to that task, as he has already taken the discussion to PM (thank you, Frog).

One question, though, Reaves:  Where do you find the scripture "In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me", and what translation are you using?   I can't find a scripture which says this in the KJV; Luke 22:19-20 is vaguely akin, but seems to say something slightly different.

Sorry, I see I forgot to put up a reference and even beyond that the post was unclear. I wrote 'Jesus said' but actually the verse was referencing what Jesus said and did not begin as dialogue at all. Anyway, that verse was in 1 Corinthians 11:25 from the English Standard Version (ESV)


@ Ookla: Oh okay, gotcha. Sorry, I misunderstood what you said earlier. When you said

Mormons believe that Jesus saves everybody in a couple different ways. We believe everyone, without fail, will be resurrected and gain immortality. And we believe that after resurrection, even unrepentant sinners will go to a very nice place, much nicer than this earth, where the only punishment is their sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and that if they had followed him they could have lived with him forever instead of just seeing him at the judgment bar. 

I took that to mean that no one went to eternal punishment. However, now this raises another question. If unrepentant sinners go to "a very nice place" what is hell?
Also the link for the LDS scripture 2 nephi 2 is broken.
Sorry your post got eaten 

[The Jade Knight]

Thanks for the reference.

My personal opinion is that hell is a state of a being, not a physical location:  It is a deep misery.  You know, that sickening feeling of realizing you've done something terribly, terribly wrong?

[Writerainge]

And there's just as much evidence going the opposite direction, as well, though I'm certain you're not interested in it, and I'm certainly not interested in getting into a spat over it.  I once spent (weeks or months) arguing with a friend about this very topic some 10 years ago, throwing research back and forth at each-other, etc.  Eventually we both gave up trying to convince each-other when we realized that the argument was fruitless.  A year later he changed his mind and agreed with my position, but he didn't during our debates, and there was so much contradictory research that making any appeal to the
"literature" useless.

Perhaps things have changed in the Medical/Heath community during the past 10 years...  I have yet to see real unbiased scientific evidence going in said opposite direction.  I, actually, would be quite interested in it if you have some cited published medical information disputing my claims.  I cited some literature already, ("Why french women don't get fat") in which many university studdies back up said information regarding Wine and spirits.  I do have more websites/articles on hand, though, as I'm a nutritional herbologist and often recommend to new mothers that they drink a glass of Guinness or other stout beer to help their milk come in... (a midwives tradition)  with which I have had much success.  Keep in mind, I am talking about the consumption of alcohol and coffee in moderation.  It is widely known that both can be harmfull in excess... as can water, food, and even many fruits, herbs, and vegetables. 

Your other specific misconceptions have been rehashed in so many ways on so many different public forums that I see little benefit in going over them here.  If you're honestly interested in answers/rebuttals, you'll find them in ample abundance here:   www.fairlds.org  I get the impression, however, that you are not interested in listening, so much as speaking.

Again, I'm not interested in public forums... I'm interested in unbiased scientific research and studdies.  I will visit your website, as I am willing to listen to new points of view.  You are mistaken that I'm not interested in listening... I listen and learn for a living.  I craft my opinions carefully and with much pondering and research.  They are changed as new things are discovered, studdied, and hypothesis proven as much as is scientifically possible for the time.

[The Jade Knight]

Out of curiosity, why are you pursuing a History degree if you already have one in Nutrition Sciences?

(As I stated previously, I'm not interested in revisiting the alcohol debate.  Perhaps others here are, but I am not; it's been perfectly pointless in the past, and I don't expect that to change, despite claims of good faith.)

If you are sincerely interested in learning about LDS viewpoints on controversial matters, I expect you'll find more than you could have possibly hoped for at FAIRLDS.  Furthermore, if you find they're missing anything, or you still have questions, you can contact them for more detailed or complete answers from experts—they're more than willing to explain obscure doctrine, I think.

[Epistemological]

We are born with sexual orientations and if they don't fall into the mainstream then they are "evil" and must be "cured". 

The problem isn't that they are evil or deviant. There is nothing evil in being gay. But homosexual acts do a grave harm to those who engage in them, and since humans are creatures of immense dignity and worth, made in the image of the Almighty, yes, one could call it evil.

Sex is for two purposes: procreation and union (of husband and wife). Glance in the Catechism (which is available online) and you will see that the Catholic Church (the church to which I belong) teaches this; but it is also abundantly clear in a full reading of the Theology of the Body. The belief that sex must always be in-principle procreative is not demonstrable outside of Scripture or revealed truth, but that's not to say that there are not powerful -- particularly aesthetic -- arguments for it; or, e.g., teleological arguments for it. Sex lacking either the unitive or procreative aspect is disordered (and incidentally, someone who definitively can't have sex can't get married in the Church).  St Aquinas insists on the unicity of the human person, meaning that the human being is body and soul (the Church believes this now, though there was debate in the past); the bodies of man and woman are in principle procreative respecting heterosexual intercourse: they are designed so to effect the co-creation of new life with God.  Therefore even marriages in which there is irremediable infertility are in principle -- by the nature or, as it were, definition of the participants -- procreative.

We are born with healthy sex drives that can only be explored within the bonds of marriage and as a result much sexual dysfunction is created and nurtured.

You are blaming sexual dysfunction on abstinence before marriage? It seems to me that fornication has a great deal more to answer for  (e.g. teen pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases, a strong shared emotional experience with someone who plans to desert you) than abstinence ever could. Unless, of course, you are speaking to someone whose all-important desires have been temporarily frustrated.

Some religions hang your salvation and worthiness to receive certain blessings on how much money you give them  (this is not exclusive of the LDS church). 

There may be churches that do this, but I don't think mine is one, and I don't think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is either. There are good people in all churches and good leaders in many. For someone to reduce very real and honest religious convictions to nothing more than avarice and, perhaps, a desire for control, seems to me to say more about the accuser than the accused.

Most churches do not allow women to have any "Priesthood" powers and seek to take away the rights of women over their own bodies and choices.   And SOME even pacify the women by telling her the fact that she can bear children and nurture a home make her holier and more spiritual then men so she doesn't need any of that "troublesome responsibility"... and the women just accept that. 

This, right, here, is the single most inflammatory thing you've said, and it more than anything else suggests to me that you are looking for an argument  rather than answers to your questions. I assume 'bodies and choices' is a coy reference to abortion. I will not argue that subject here (goodness knows we already have enough to argue about) so let me restrict myself to this: by denying those you disagree with the possibility, in your mind, of valid reasoning for their views, you have killed any chance at meaningful conversation before you even started posting.  If any woman feels they're being 'controlled' by being taught to value life, they are probably not going to be happy with the rest of their Christian walk either. If any woman feels imprisoned by her role as mother and life-giver, then something is terribly wrong. There is no prison. There is no lack of responsibility. The responsibilities of the woman are just as substantial as those of the man, if not more so, and in many places they overlap. Both, for instance, have the same responsibilities to those around them, to set a godly example. Both have the responsibility to care for their family. Both have the responsibility, in short, to live for the Lord, even if the specifics of what that means change a little. Man and woman are equal in value, but not identical in function or purpose. Two things need not be identical to both be of worth. Both are made in the image of God and both are absolutely and categorically equal in human dignity.

Lists and lists and lists of things that make no sense but cannot be argued in a religion forum because reason and logic are not used as an argument but "revelations", "feelings", and biased sentiment born of the traditions and Dogma of the last 2000 years.  You could pick any one of these and a myriad of other issues and we could debate them all for hours and hours both sides finding studdies and instances to back up our claims.  I think that since most of us are steadfast in our convictions at this point, our opinions would not be changed.  I respect that, absolutely, and as fun as I find lively religious debates, I'm starting to think that this one might prove futile because of the dominance of a specific ideal.

Much love, though. 

I think it might prove futile too.

Praying that it won't,

E.