LDS oppresses its members (worship, baptism, bishop, Catholic)

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by imbobbbb

.You complain endlessly that the lds church is rigid and insular and clannish and resists change and oppressess its members.....while at the same time trying to say that it 'changes all the time to appease critics'.

Well they are rigid and if there was money to be made by allowing gay marriage then they would be right there changing up the rules.

The same was they changed polygamy because the Gov't would not allow them to become a state until they ditched that horrid practice, and low and behold A REVELATION- Polygamy is bad. WOW what timing- huh? Almost like it was PLANNED.

Yeah Other churches do the same stuff. They all deny it.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

The same was they changed polygamy because the Gov't would not allow them to become a state until they ditched that horrid practice, and low and behold A REVELATION- Polygamy is bad. WOW what timing- huh? Almost like it was PLANNED.

Either you believe it or you dont. That is the bottom line.

Just like any religion. I wonder what you hope to accomplish? Do you imagine that these little strange posts are going to upset Mormons or make us feel bad? I hate to break it to you but uh, no.

[PaulMcNabb]

LIYF, What makes it so funny is that you miss the point of the post. People accuse the Mormons of being all heavy-handed and oppressive. Mormons respond saying that when they joined the Church they found that that sort of negative stuff was simply not true.

And then your response? Mormon's change doctrines to satisfy critics!! It is so bizarrely off-topic and so transparently an attempt to simply criticize the Church that it becomes a humorous non sequitur.

One of the strange things about this accusation is that it is a fundamental belief of LDS Christians that God leads their church through modern revelation. They emphatically declare that God is going to be giving them more information and more instructions through the years. They accept as a fundamental principle that doctrines will be clarified and refined over the years as God continues to talk to His people and reveal Himself and His purposes.

So we have to chuckle a bit when inerrantist Protestants try to impose their rigid, petrified view of theology on us and then declare us to be inconsistent with Protestantism.

The New Testament Church also went through a radical change after a revelation to the chief apostle. The Gospel was not being taken to the Gentiles, then God revealed a change through His prophets and apostles, and then the Church headed out in a stunningly new direction. All this is recorded in Acts chapter 10.

So LDS Christians view it as evidence of God's directing the Church when we have revealed changes in policies and practices to adapt the Church to the societies and cultures where it is being sent.

But I'll look at the changes that you specifically mention (keeping in mind, of course, that all of this is off-topic relative to the issue of the supposed member oppression).

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were polygamists, but now a polygamist is not allowed in the temple.

That is quite correct. Plural marriage was started by revelation and ended by revelation. This is a perfect example of God directing His church.

LDS racism was abound when the Mormons considered dark skin a curse.

Well, racism was abound everywhere during that same time. Surprisingly, Mormons were one of the few churches that had integrated congregations from the very beginning. The "doctrines" of the cursed dark skin and the "curse of Cain" were all inherited from the Protestant converts to Mormonism that brought that with them from their old churches. Mormons had their share of prejudice and bigotry, but they also had some very progressive views relative to some others in their society at the time. In 1978, God revealed that His Church should allow all worthy men to receive the priesthood, something that nearly all LDS Christians received with joy.

You really need to read up on this and stop relying on biased and inaccurate anti-Mormon websites. Try reading about all this on Blacklds.org.

the book of mormon claimed that native Americans were the descendants of the mythical people in the book, but changed it to "among" the descendants after science proved them wrong.

Now this one is a real knee-slapper, LIYF! LDS always have, and still do, consider Native Americans to be descendants of the Lehites, not that the Lehites were the sole ancestors. In 1981 (note the year!) a statement was added to the explanatory introduction of the Book of Mormon that the Lehites were the "principal ancestors." Last year the introduction was changed to read that the Lehites were "among the ancestors." Both are quite true. I think that most LDS Christians would consider the Lehites to be the "principal" ancestors of Native Americans no matter what percentage of their family tree traced itself back to Lehi. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any "science"; and there has been absolutely nothing even as evidence, let alone "proof," that the LDS view is wrong. There has been no "scientific discovery" that has had any negative bearing on the Book of Mormon and no "scientific discovery" has proven anything wrong about the Book of Mormon. Again, you've been reading too many shoddy anti-Mormon websites.

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 461)

Yup. We believe that the Book of Mormon is a fantastic book that leads people to God.

They also used to excommunicate gays just because they were gay, before this 'celibacy or forced straight marriage' exception came in.
Gay Mormons see change, stagnation in church

Wow. It is simply incredible how you can misread things. We all know you are grasping for straws, but don't you feel even a little bit embarrassed by your constant misreading and misusing what you find?

You found a single story of a person who was excommunicated quite recently for "being gay" and the Church rescinded that action by the bishop. And you want us to interpret that as being that the Church used to excommunicate people for just being gay and now has changed?? Incredible! What the story tells us is that the Church's official policy seems to be that you can't get excommunicated just for what you think or feel, only on what you do. This story directly supports everything the LDS Christians here have been telling you, yet you misread it and present it as evidence for your side of the argument.

Temple ordinances have been changed recently as well.
"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, 'Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.'" August 2001 Ensign (page 22)

Absolutely there have been changes in the temple endowment many times over the last 160 years. We even translate it into other languages. It has gone from multiple hours in the past to about 100 minutes today. But as a believing, temple-going Mormon, I'm struggling to figure out why I should pay any attention to someone who thinks that the educational component of the Endowment needs to stay rigid over the years? What part of the temple ceremony is the "ordinance" and what part is merely instructional material? What does it mean to "alter" or "change" an ordinance? I'm remarkably unmoved by a non-Mormon trying to enforce his/her views of what my religion should be based on his/her reading of my faith's teachings.

Temple endowment changes

Made up?

Yes.

Exaggerated?

Yes.

Think harder...

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by imbobbbb

Most churches have certain moral standards they expect thier members to follow..

Yes, but most churches don't block you from attending a vital part of the church and participating in events because you have not paid your dues this week or because you had poor judgement and maybe a lapse in your faith and commited sins. After which let's say you asked for forgiveness and the LORD forgave you, but the church still finds you guilty and sees fit you continue to punish you? Yeah, most churches don't get involved in your personal reluationship with God.

Most Churches usually don't block you from attending important functions because of mistakes you made. They are not judge and jury to their congregation. The Mormon church seems to thrive as both to their members.

What is this Church modeling themselves after? A Country Club? You can't use the facilities until you pay your monthly membership dues and follow ALL our rules, no swimming in the pool after 9pm or else we revoke your membership? I just find that somewhat abusive of the name of God. Passing down judgements and Doling out sentences in the Name of God bothers me.

God is Love.
IMO - Anytime you go against Gods word that is between him and you.
The church shouldn't pretend to know how God would react to your sin, since each one of us have our own individual stories, history, and relationship with God.
Their controlling behavior just sounds shifty and abusive.

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Either you believe it or you dont. That is the bottom line.

Just like any religion. I wonder what you hope to accomplish? Do you imagine that these little strange posts are going to upset Mormons or make us feel bad? I hate to break it to you but uh, no.

NO sirree, i truely don't give a rats behind what you think about what i think.
This is just like when the mormon church cries wolf about being picked on (snore).

Everyone here is just speaking their mind on this subject, this is about MY FEELINGS regarding the MORMON CHURCH. Nothing more, nothing less.

You all have done a poor job of defending the church's rules. When defenders say things like -The sister didnt have to get married in the temple where her brother wasnt allowed in- it just shows HOW STRONG a hold the mormon church has over their families.

These people have been conditioned to believe that marriage in the temple is the best, and that even though her own brother couldn't participate or be allowed to attend due to the churchs rigid tules, the hold the church has over that family beat the family TIES themselves. She chose to marry in the church because the church is more important than family.

IMO That is not something for your church to be proud of. Breaking up families like that. You should be ashamed that you encourage that.

I dislike organized religion because i feel it distorts the true word of God.

[PaulMcNabb]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

I dislike organized religion because i feel it distorts the true word of God.

Then you would have really disliked Peter, James, John, Luke, and Paul, all of whom were notorious for creating and supporting organized religion with explicit congregations, rules, and leaders. If you think organized religion is inherently wrong (and I admit you haven't yet gone that far), then you believe in something different than what is described in the New Testament.

But then again, maybe modern despisers of organized religion have a better idea about what Jesus wanted to do than His apostles did.

[PaulMcNabb]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

You all have done a poor job of defending the church's rules. When defenders say things like -The sister didnt have to get married in the temple where her brother wasnt allowed in- it just shows HOW STRONG a hold the mormon church has over their families.

These people have been conditioned to believe that marriage in the temple is the best, and that even though her own brother couldn't participate or be allowed to attend due to the churchs rigid tules, the hold the church has over that family beat the family TIES themselves. She chose to marry in the church because the church is more important than family.

IMO That is not something for your church to be proud of. Breaking up families like that. You should be ashamed that you encourage that.

I dislike organized religion because i feel it distorts the true word of God.

Wow. You should read about some of the early Christian martyrs. Talk about breaking up families! We have stories of families pleading with their brainwashed, newly-converted Christian family members to PLEASE just pretend to follow the rules and to not shame and destroy their families. But those intolerant Christians for some selfish reason decided that what they believed was more important than their families. And that isn't surprising since Jesus and His disciples preached exactly that principle! I hope you never read the passage where Jesus talks about bringing a sword rather than peace and about setting family members against each other! (Hint: Matthew 10:32-39.)

It just seems to me, Taboo2, that if you can think of no reason why a Christian would ever find himself/herself at odds between family and religion, then you are a very shallow Christian indeed. It isn't that churches should try to cause such divisions or that churches should be happy with such divisions, but every now and then they occur, and the believer has to make a personal and difficult choice.

The LDS Church forced nothing here. It certainly encourages temple marriage, but those who marry outside the temple and are later sealed in the temple have exactly the same blessings as everyone else. There is no coercion of any kind in this matter.

I would say that the brother who committed fornication was not only sinful (and yes, we all are), but also selfish. He knew from childhood beyond a shadow of a doubt what impact his actions would have on his brother, yet he did it anyway. He put his family in a position where they would have to choose. He could have done all kinds of things to make it impossible to attend the wedding, such as getting himself thrown in jail, drinking or drugging himself into a stupor, or simply choosing that day to vacation in Bermuda. If the person getting married really wanted his family to all see it happen, then he was perfectly free to have that happen, including having the wedding in the LDS church building surrounded by friends and family.

I really hope that their family relationships were not so weak and fragile that this cause divisiveness. Sadness? Maybe. Disappointment? Probably. Family division? Hopefully not, but if that happens, it is an issue for the family.

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by PaulMcNabb

Then you would have really disliked Peter, James, John, Luke, and Paul, all of whom were notorious for creating and supporting organized religion with explicit congregations, rules, and leaders. If you think organized religion is inherently wrong (and I admit you haven't yet gone that far), then you believe in something different than what is described in the New Testament.

I go directly from the Bible, I don't need anyone who may have impure motives interpretting what it is saying and distorting the words. I don't like "spin"

I dislike modern day organized religion. I cannot speak for ancient times since I was not there. How can you? Were you there?

[LogicIsYourFriend]

PaulMcNabb, You have admitted that the changes I have shown are true. Now I admit they are a bit off-topic. Unless you take them to discredit the truthfulness of the church doctrine, and therefore discredit the basis for enforcing rules with punishment.

Oppressive: "1. unreasonably burdensome or severe; 2. Tyrannical; 3. overwhelming or depressing to the spirit or senses" Merriam-Webster "Unreasonably burdensome or severe" describes well the removal of temple privileges for something one cannot help. If a gay mormon so much as acts upon their love, the church does everything it can to keep the member from entering the temple, and performing what is necessary for the best afterlife. This severe punishment, which is a spiritual and social punishment, burdens the gay mormon with stress. Celibacy causes unreasonable stress, and burdens the spirit and senses with sexual urges that every human has (and you enjoy relieving I'm sure). Imagine if the church wouldn't let you in the temple because you were heterosexual. You would feel oppressed and discriminated against. How would you feel about remaining single and celibate your entire life, just because the church told you that is what you had to do for the "best" salvation? This hypothetical scenario is ridiculous, but necessary to see it from the gay mormon's point of view.

Since the church changes its doctrine all the time, I see it as oppressive to not change the doctrine to remove this oppression on gays who can't help who they are.

[PaulMcNabb]

Originally Posted by Taboo2

I go directly from the Bible, I don't need anyone who may have impure motives interpretting what it is saying and distorting the words. I don't like "spin"

What about people with pure motives? Did the New Testament writers have the right to interpret the scriptures in their day? Are you worried that the Bible authors, in the process of creating new scripture, had impure motives and possibly distorted the words of the scriptures? Do you like the way Paul and Matthew interpreted the Hebrew scriptures and do you consider their interpretation somehow authoritative, or do you feel free to pick and choose from their words as to which are true and applicable to you and which are nothing more than impurely motivated interpretations?

Or are you one of those people who are fine with dead prophets and apostles, but living ones are, well, just too real and multifaceted to be acceptable?

Maybe you are one of those people who think that Jesus and His apostles were fine organizing churches and interpreting scripture back then, but now you want the freedom to decide what everything means by yourself without the interference of anyone butting in to your private views about the religion you are creating for yourself?

Maybe you are one of those people who "build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.'"

Maybe you are one of those people who have their ancient scriptures and know what it all means and "don't try to tell me what is right and what is wrong, thank you very much"?

I don't know. It isn't easy to tell over a message board what kind of people all the other posters are, so we have to be careful not to judge.

I dislike modern day organized religion. I cannot speak for ancient times since I was not there. How can you? Were you there?

No, but the people that wrote the Bible created an "organized religion" with all the trappings, and apparently "organized religion" is approved by God.

If you are saying that some/many organized religions have problems, sometimes severe problems, then you probably won't get much disagreement. Or if you are simply saying that you haven't found an organized religion that strikes your fancy, meets your needs, and passes your purity test, then that is what it is and I wish you the best in whatever search, if any, you may be involved in.

But if you are saying that you are some kind of Bible-believing Christian and yet saying that a religion is bad or wrong because it is a large group of dedicated and organized people that believe the same thing and believe they should live standards that require more self-denial and self-control than the standards of the surrounding culture, then it seems you have a disconnect somewhere in your personal philosophy and theology...