Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about in a state where gay marriage is legal?
Since the Church defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, the marriage would not be recognized, so the act of intimacy would be considered sinful.
I don't understand why a financial commitment is required to be allowed in the temple. What if your income just allows you to scrape by cause you have 12 children to feed? Do they still hold it against you if you can't pay full tithing?
Remember the story in the New Testament about the widow's mite? We believe that tithing is a commandment that applies to everyone, and while it is obviously a greater sacrifice for someone who is struggling financially than for someone who has a sizable income and few expenses, both the law and the blessings which come from obedience are the same.
What most people don't realize is that no member of the Church who faithfully pays his tithing will ever go without food, clothing or a roof over his head. If a couple with twelve children to feed cannot afford to pay tithing and support their family, they are encouraged to pay their tithing first and then let the Church help with their other needs. If this hypothetical family were to pay its meager tithing, based on the income it actually had, the Church would provide free (yes, free) food for the family, used clothing in good repair and help with the rent or house payment. It would also help the individual to find a job (or a better job, as the case may be) and get back on top of things.
Here, from the Church's official website, is more information on the subject:
As disciples of Jesus Christ, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strive to follow the Savior’s admonition to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and those in prison (see Matthew 25:35–36).
The responsibility for each person’s spiritual and temporal well-being rests first upon himself, second upon his family, and third upon the Church.
When members and their families are doing all they can to provide for themselves and still cannot meet their basic needs, they may turn to their bishop for temporary assistance.
The bishop, as a local minister, is in the best position to determine the nature and quantity of help required to meet the individual’s or family’s specific needs.
Once a month, members of the Church go without food and drink for two consecutive meals and contribute a fast offering at least equal to the value of the two meals. Bishops then use the fast offerings to care for those in need.
To assist bishops in helping members become more self-reliant, the Church has established storehouses, production projects, thrift stores, employment centers, and family services offices in many locations. Church members volunteer their time, talents, and skills to do much of the work in these facilities.
The purpose of Church welfare assistance is to help people to help themselves. Recipients of these resources are given the opportunity to work, to the extent of their ability, for the assistance they receive.
The Church also sponsors humanitarian relief and development projects around the world that benefit those of other faiths. These projects include emergency relief assistance in times of disaster and programs that strengthen the self-reliance of individuals, families, and communities.
Hundreds of full-time volunteers with skills and experience in education, agriculture, social work, business, and medicine serve throughout the world as part of these humanitarian projects.
It's funny you should mention that. I attended a conference a few weeks back (Church-related, but not Church-sponsored) and one of the speakers mentioned that non-Mormons are very confused by the term, "restored." He suggested that we use the word "re-established" instead. We believe Christ established a Church as part of His ministry, that it was changed by men (i.e. fell into apostasy), and that He has re-established it today.
In very general terms, there are four things that needed to be re-established:
1. Priesthood authority (which is the authority Christ gave to His Apostles by laying His hands on their heads and ordaining them to serve in a particular capacity).
2. The organization of the original Church, which was led by living prophets and apostles and not just based upon the writings of prophets who had lived hundreds of years earlier.
3. Ordinances. Some Christians would refer to these as "sacraments."
4. Various doctrines.
See posts #89 and #90 on pages 9 of this thread for a much more in-depth response on the Great Apostasy and the Restoration (or re-establishment) of the Church.
I can see how some of that can be beneficial and needed, I don't know if I agree that it was fully removed in the past but it may have been.
The main problems I have are: One, there is zero proof that the BoM actually happened. Two, I can't see how many of the things such as celestial marriage (and plural wives), blood atonement, God once being a man that lived on another planet, and a heavy reliance on feelings, especially when hearing contrary beliefs, have anything to do with Jesus and the original church?
Once a member of the Church has been through the temple to receive his endowment (this involves both instruction and the making of sacred covenants with God), he is to wear special underwear at all times. This underwear is called "the temple garment." Its purpose is to serve as a constant reminder of the covenants we made in the temple. It's almost always white and there are several approved styles, all of which require that they be worn with modest clothing. (I say "almost always white" because there is a khaki version for servicemen.) The temple garment for a Mormon is sacred, just like certain kinds of clothing are sacred to Muslims, Jews and American Indians.
I am starting this thread for the purpose of countering the many lies, half-truths and misrepresentations of Latter-day Saint (i.e. Mormon or LDS) doctrine I see posted here on the Christianity forum every day. Thanks to the moderators here, most of these posts are caught and deleted. Still, it’s entirely possible that many of you read and believe what is posted before they are deleted. Often these posts are accompanied by the poster’s claim that he is doing nothing more than “revealing what Mormons believe.” If, however, Mormons really did believe what these posters are saying we do, we’d be the ones posting it.
I’ve been posting on this forum for quite some time now. None of you have ever seen me start a thread with the intent to bash another Christian denomination or respond to someone else’s post by taking one simple comment someone made and using it as a springboard from which launch an attack against his religion. But that happens almost daily with respect to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Ideas and beliefs are challenged all the time on this forum. That’s the nature of debate. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest to have my beliefs questioned, challenged and even criticized. What bothers me is having my beliefs described inaccurately time and time again by the same individuals. It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I correct these people, they continue to post the same negative nonsense. And they expect you to believe it. Maybe you do believe it.
Awhile back, a public opinion poll revealed how little the average person really knows about what Mormons believe. An article interpreting the results of the poll said something I found really interesting:
“Several things are contributing to the current antagonism towards… Mormons, but the dominant factors are ignorance of [Mormon] beliefs and the fear that is generated when people do not have the facts. Rumors begin easily in an atmosphere of ignorance… even in this age of quick access to information. In fact, this abundance of information at the world’s fingertips may actually work against [the Church]. In a slower-paced era, people could entertain most new ideas that came along. However, in our fast-paced day, when people are bombarded with stimuli, they resort to a form of triage to select which among an avalanche of ideas they will pay attention to. As a first step in this sorting process, they do not ask what positive attributes merit their attention as much as they ask whether there is anything in the idea that justifies rejecting it. In other words, they look for negatives first as a quick way to dispose of less worthy claims on their time.”
When rumors and falsehoods precede the truth, the judgment process is tilted against Mormonism before members of the Church even have a fair chance to explain their beliefs.
Another LDS poster started a thread a short time ago, offering to answer questions about our beliefs. A few posters immediately launched in with all of the things Mormons supposedly believe, and efforts to respond to these statements went ignored. When the moderators stepped in and said that the denominational bashing must stop, all posting stopped. The only people interested in posting were the ones who were interesting in slinging mud. Nobody had any actual questions. Seriously, I think people are just a little bit afraid to ask questions. After all, who would want anybody to think they really were interested in learning more about Mormonis?
Well, I’m open to questions, not that I’m holding my breath expecting to get any. What I intend to do as I patiently wait, is post responses to some of the criticisms that are constantly being made against us, describing doctrines that may or may not be true. In some cases, the doctrine described is actually accurate, but it is worded in such a way as to make it abhorrent to non-LDS Christians. In other cases, the doctrine described bears some resemblance to what we actually teach but contains enough half-truths to distort it. Other times, what is presented as “doctrine” really isn’t doctrine and never has been. An idea may have been taught for a period of time, but never really was more than speculation or the personal opinion of the person who taught it. Other statements are taken out of context. When understood within the overall context of the Church’s teachings, this is clear to see. Sometimes the truth is told, but it is not the whole truth. Just enough information is omitted to cause the teaching to be shocking or offensive. Sometimes parody, satire and intentional exaggeration are involved.
It is not nor has it ever been my intent to proselytize, but I am through sitting back and ignoring the lies that are being perpetuated against my Church and its teachings. From here on out, I am going to respond in this thread to every single one of these lies, half-truths and misrepresentations. Maybe nobody will care enough to read my posts, but if even a few people do, it will have been worth it to me.
My first response to something posted yesterday will be coming within a short time.
I can see how some of that can be beneficial and needed, I don't know if I agree that it was fully removed in the past but it may have been.
The main problems I have are: One, there is zero proof that the BoM actually happened. Two, I can't see how many of the things such as celestial marriage (and plural wives), blood atonement, God once being a man that lived on another planet, and a heavy reliance on feelings, especially when hearing contrary beliefs, have anything to do with Jesus and the original church?
Is there any proof that the Book of Mormon actually happened?
No, there isn't. Is there any proof of a worldwide flood? Is there any proof that Moses ever held in his arms a set of stone tablets upon which God Himself had written the Ten Commandments? Is there any proof that God parted the Red Sea so that the children of Israel could cross safely? Is there any proof that the Nile ever flowed with blood? Is there any proof that a Virgin gave birth to God's Son or that her baby grew up to make the blind see and the lame walk? Is there any proof that He rose from the dead three full days after He was crucified?
You may say that while there is no proof, there is evidence enough that you believe. That's what I would say about the Book of Mormon. While it is true that the archeological evidence is definitely inconclusive, I have found the linguistic and cultural evidence that it is in fact an ancient document of semitic origin to be quite compelling.
And remember one more thing: Christ's Apostle, Thomas, was absent, if you'll recall, when the risen Lord first appeared to the other ten Apostles. When they told him that they had seen their Savior, that He had actually stood in the room with them, Thomas refused to believe them. Even though He had developed a close relationship with all of them, and with Jesus Christ over the previous three years, he required absolute proof that what they all said was true. It was only after he was given the privilege of touching Christ's wounds himself that he acknowledged what all of the rest of them knew to be true. And what was Christ's reaction to Thomas' lack of faith? He said, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
I don't think God wants us to simply believe everything we hear or everything we read. The Book of Mormon specifically promises us that if we read it with a desire to learn from it (i.e. not to pick it apart and look for reasons not to believe it), give serious consideration to what it says, and ask with a sincere heart, having faith in Christ, the Holy Ghost will bear witness to us that it is God's word.
I'm sure you don't believe the Bible because somebody has been able to provide you with proof that it's true. I know I don't, and that's not the reason I believe the Book of Mormon either.
How do celestial marriage, plural marriage, blood atonement, God once being a man that lived on another planet, and a heavy reliance on feelings, especially when hearing contrary beliefs, have anything to do with Jesus and the original church?
That's a lot to cover in a single post. I'm going to try to do so very briefly.
1. Celestial marriage - From the very beginning, it appears as if the relationship between a man and a woman was considered extremely important to God. Within the first few pages of Genesis, we read that He said, "It is not good that the man should be alone." Consequently, He gave Adam a partner. Marriage continued to be important throughout the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, we are reminded that "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." There is no specific mention in the Bible of celestial marriage (by which I'm assuming you mean "marriage for time and all eternity"), but we do believe it has always been God's intention that this bond be everlasting. Personally, it's one of my favorite LDS doctrines. I realize many people believe that they'll be with their spouses in the life to come, but they believe this in spite of what their church's teach. I believe it because of what my Church teaches and what we believe to have been revealed to Joseph Smith.
2. Plural marriage: I think I'm already said pretty much everything I can think of to say on this topic. I know the idea offends people greatly. Perhaps if they'd lived in a different time and place this wouldn't be the case. There is certainly nothing inately wrong with the practice, as long as it's done with God's permission.
3. Blood atonement: This has never been an official doctrine of the Church, nor has it even really been aluded to in LDS circles in well over a hundred years. Here's some background... Brigham Young and a few other LDS leaders taught, back in the 1850's, that apostasy from the Church could be forgiven only if the person willingly gave up his one life to atone for that sin. In actual practice, there is no evidence that this ever happened to anyone. As far back as 1889 (that's 111 years ago, the First Presidency of the Church issued an official declation to clear up the matter once and for all. It read, in part:
Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.
We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.
4. God was once a man that lived on another planet. It doesn't seem to matter how many times we Latter-day Saints remind people that we have no doctrine on God's beginnings, they will continue to make this statement. Yes, Joseph Smith did say something about God having once been a man in a funeral sermon he once gave. But I can assure you that that's just about the extent of it. It has never been official doctrine, and I can assure you that in our nearly 180-year history, if God has intended that it be included in the Doctrine and Covenants (which would be where we'd find it), it would be there by now. I hate to get testy, but hearing this over and over again from non-Mormons claiming that this is what we believe and teach is seriously starting to wear on me. Do you know how many times in 62 years of attending LDS worship services I have been taught that "God was once a man that lived on another planet"? None. Absolutely none.
5. A heavy reliance on feelings. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but the only feelings we rely heavily on are the feelings we get when the Holy Ghost testifies the truth to us. We're definitely not supposed to base our beliefs on a warm, fuzzy feeling alone, though. We are taught to be able to recognize the truth by both faith and reason.
Since the Church defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, the marriage would not be recognized, so the act of intimacy would be considered sinful.
What about hermaphrodites?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
