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.
A single statement response I made to Tired of the Nonsense ("Mormons believe that God lives in Heaven, which is, incidentally, also what the Bible teaches.") has been interpreted as an attempt to hijack a thread. Transponder wrote that "it would be interesting to find out" the truth about whether we're trying to downplay our actual doctrines in favor of teachings that are more "Christian-sounding."
Since it never was my intention to hijack anybody's thread, and since several statements that were made by three different individuals are worth answering, here's a thread where we can do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
I misspelled Kolab. The correct spelling is Kolob.
Had you merely misspelled Kolob, I would have corrected your spelling and left it at that.
Quote:
Also I stated "Mormons also claim that God Elohim lives on a planet named Kolab."
And I stated that God lives in Heaven. Latter-day Saints believe that Heaven is a real place and not merely a state of mind. We claim that Heaven is where God resides, and the Bible bears this out. There are well over a dozen references in the New Testament to our “Father which is in Heaven.” If we are right in how we interpret the Bible, and if Heaven is, in fact, real, then there is a spatial relationship between it and other places. In “The Pearl of Great Price” (one of the four volumes of scripture in the LDS canon), Kolob is described as “the star nearest unto the throne of God.” There has never been anything revealed with regards to the location of either Heaven or Kolob, but in the context in “The Pearl of Great Price” in which they are mentioned, it is clear that they are not one and the same.
Quote:
There is a difference between what all Mormons believe, and what the LDS church teaches.
It goes without saying that not all 16 million members of the Church believe everything the Church teaches. Not all Catholics believe everything Catholicism teaches. Not all Lutherans believe everything Lutheranism teaches. But, this much is fact: We know what our doctrines are, and where we can go for clarification if we are unclear about how “the Church” interprets them. You will find a greater range of interpretation with respect to those doctrines of lesser importance than you with respect to what I would call the “core doctrines.”
Teachings about Kolob are few. There are not even enough to comprise material for a sermon, and in my nearly 70 years in the Church, I have yet to hear a sermon on the subject. As a matter of fact, I am 100% sure I could count on one hand the number of times during my lifetime that I have even heard it mentioned in any LDS worship service. There is one hymn in our hymnal about Kolob. We sing it perhaps once every 15 or 20 years. I think all of these things combine to indicate that our belief in a star known to God as Kolob is definitely a very, very minor doctrine, regardless of how it seems to be the focus of so much speculation among people outside our Church.
Do you also deny that Mormonism teaches that God Elohim had numerous wives, many many children, and that Jesus and Satan are brothers?
Just to clear one thing up before I answer that question: We do refer to God the Father as Elohim on occasion, but this is to distinguish Him from His Son, Jesus Christ (whom we also consider to be "God"). We have absolutely no doctrine whatsoever that would imply that God had/has “numerous wives.” We do believe that He has one. One LDS hymn refers to our Mother in Heaven, and an official statement of the Church known as “The Proclamation on the Family” states, “All human beings – male and female – are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny."
Heavenly “parents” is plural. We believe that our Father in Heaven has an eternal companion, a woman who is our Mother in the same way that God is our Father. The Bible speaks of God the Father as being the “father of spirits” and refers to us as “His offspring.” To answer your question as to whether He has many children, yes, He does. We believe that we as human beings are His spirit offspring, in other words, that He was the creator of our spirits. We are not the physical offspring of our heavenly parents; rather we are the physical offspring of our mortal parents. We also believe that before our birth here on earth, when we existed as spirit beings without a corporeal body, we all lived in His presence. We were spirit brothers and sisters and are all part of God’s family. I will mention at this point, that while we believe we have a Mother in Heaven, we have been told nothing about her other than that she exists. We do not pray to Her or worship Her. She is occasionally, though not frequently, mentioned in our religious studies. To us, it’s simply logical that where there is a Father, there is a Mother, and we understand the reference to our “Father in Heaven” as being far more than a meaningless label.
With respect to Jesus and Satan being brothers... I'm not going to deny that, but I am going to clarify what we mean when we say that.
In the third century, the Christian writer, Lactantius, wrote:
“Before creating the world, God produced a spirit like himself, replete with the virtues of the Father. Later He made another, in whom the mark of divine origin was erased, because this one was besmirched by the poison of jealousy and turned therefore from good to evil. He was jealous of his older brother who, remaining united with the Father, insured his affection unto himself. This being who from good became bad is called devil by the Greeks."
As I have already explained, like Christians anciently, Mormons believe that all human beings are the offspring of God and that He is the Father of our spirits. Unlike traditional Christians, we believe that all of us lived in God's presence prior to being born. We were spirit beings at that time, without bodies of flesh and bones. As the spirit sons and daughters of God, we were all brothers and sisters to each other. In this context, God the Father is the father to all of us and Jesus Christ is our elder brother -- as explained below.
Unique among all the sons of God was the one we know as Jesus Christ. Unlike the rest of us, He was with His Father in the beginning. Unlike us, He was perfect in every conceivable way and had all of the divine attributes and qualities His Father had. The shared a unity of will and purpose to such an extent that together, they were known (along with the Holy Ghost) both individually and collectively, as God. Finally, even though we were all the spirit offspring of our Father in Heaven, Jesus Christ was also His Father's "Only Begotten" Son. Under His Father's direction, Jesus Christ created our universe. He was chosen prior to His birth in Bethlehem to be the lamb who would be slain for our sins.
Another of the spirit sons of God was one named Lucifer (aka Satan, at least to members of my church). He was a proud and rebellious son who sought to exalt himself above his Father and who was cast out of Heaven for attempting to do so. When Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, he was disowned by his Father, and lost his right to ever again be known as a son of God (or a brother to the greatest of God's sons, Jesus Christ). If Jesus and Satan were sons of the same Father, they were spirit brothers, a fact which in no way reflects positively on Satan or negatively on our Savior.
It would be a very interesting thread. I know that you are (as well as a nice person) an eloquent defender of LDS.
Thank you. I try to be. I also try to make it clear when I disagree with my Church’s leadership on matters of policy that this is the case. For instance, I am not in agreement with their present position regarding same-sex couples and their children.
Quote:
I also have heard that LDS leaders are not always honest about what their teachings are - or were.
When you stop to think about this statement, it really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. There is absolutely no conceivable reason why they would not be honest about what our teachings “are” (present tense), as all one would have to do to prove that they are being dishonest is to attend LDS worship services and religion classes for a period of time. What our leaders say our teachings are is what you will hear taught in our churches worldwide every Sunday of the year.
About their not being honest about what our teachings “were” (past tense), I think this may simply be a matter of misunderstanding. In 2007, the Church’s leadership issued a statement entitled, “Approaching Mormon Doctrine.” Here is one paragraph from that statement:
"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted."
Mormonism is still fairly young. It will be just 200 years old in twelve more years. It is led by men we as members believe to be called of God. The man who stands at the head of the Church is considered by its members to be a Prophet. We do not, however, consider him to be infallible, and no one who has ever held this position (seventeen men, including Joseph Smith) has ever claimed to be infallible. Several have stressed that they are not. The President of the Church/the Prophet has two counselors. Together, they comprise the “First Presidency.” In addition to these three men, twelve others are known as “Apostles” and are believed to have the same authority held by Jesus Christ’s original Apostles. We believe that they, like Peter, James, John and the others, are inspired. That does not mean that we believe them to be perfect. They make mistakes. They have opinions of their own about certain doctrinal issues that may or may not be correct. Sometimes they are outspoken in saying what they believe, and some Mormons (I know of several personally), who seem to think that anything that comes out of their mouths is directly from God – despite the fact that they have repeatedly acknowledged that this is not the case. So, the bottom line is this: The LDS Prophet and Apostles are human beings. They teach what they believe to be true, and members of the Church are encouraged to measure everything they say against that which is found in the LDS canon or the “Standard Works” and to ask God for confirmation of anything that they believe to be amiss. The fact that some Mormon leader over the past 188 years (and there have been literally hundreds) said something doesn’t make it “Mormon doctrine.”
Quote:
I suppose that it would have to start with a few video -explanations, countered with some by LDS spokepersons. Then some from Ex - Mormons who would explain what they were taught and they found out this was not what the doctrines actually are.
But, as I just finished explaining, we teach our doctrines. What earthly purpose would we have for teaching something that isn’t our doctrine and not teaching something that is? That simply doesn’t make sense at all, particularly since everything the ex-Mormons “discover” is readily available to anyone (Mormon or non-Mormon) who wants to find it. It’s not under lock and key. Let’s say a Catholic decides to leave Catholicism. It really doesn’t matter what the reason. If he leaves, it was because he was no longer happy with his church’s doctrine, leadership, fellowship or policies. Once he leaves, he feels a certain amount of pressure to justify himself. He may just say, “It just wasn’t for me. They taught things I couldn’t believe.” Such as? Well, the Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation, which means that the substance of the Eucharistic elements (i.e. the bread and wine) are actually converted in to the body and blood of Christ. In other words, they are not symbols of His body and blood, but are actually his body and blood. So, if this ex-Catholic is asked why he left Catholicism and if one of the reasons is that he doesn’t believe this doctrine that is so crucial to Catholic theology, he may respond --particularly if he left with a bad taste in his mouth for Catholicism -- by saying, “Catholics preach cannibalism, and I don’t believe God approves of cannibalism.” Based on the definition of “cannibalism,” the case may be made that he’s right. But no Catholic I’ve ever known believes himself to be a cannibal.
Quote:
I suspect that the Planet Kobold and the Alien race -stuff is actually the doctrines but they have been quietly dropped in favour of more Christian -sounding teaching.
Well, I’ve already explained how Kolob figures into our doctrine. I’m not sure what you even mean by the “Alien race” stuff, so rather than just guess, I’ll invite you to explain what you mean. When you do so, I’ll be happy to answer.
Here's a question I have. It's been a while since I did any reading on this, but what is the deal about some South or Central American Indian tribe...and what non-LDS archaeological evidence backs that up?
I thought Mormons are no longer to call themselves Mormons? Or call the church LDS?
It's not a matter of being "allowed" to. I just referred to us as "Mormons" and I can assure you there will be no repercussions. The correct name of my church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." A couple of weeks ago, the President of the Church, Russell M. Nelson issued a statement encouraging us and others to use the correct name and not to refer to the Church as "the Mormon Church" or "the LDS Church." In a way, this is nothing new. There is no such thing as either "the Mormon Church" or "the LDS Church." Telephone directories (do they even exist any more?) never had listings for "the Mormon Church" or "the LDS Church" or "the Church of the Latter-day Saints." If you didn't know where to look for the correct name, you'd come up empty-handed.
He took it a step further this time, though, and asked that we not be referred to as "Mormons" or even as "LDS." Rather, he told us to refer to ourselves as "Latter-day Saints." Personally, I'm not so sure how well this is going to work. It hasn't been all that long ago that the Church itself launched a huge new PR campaign, "I'm a Mormon." I will probably try refer to us as "Latter-day Saints" when people don't know what we prefer to be called and then just abbreviate it and say "LDS" after that. I will perhaps occasionally use the word "Mormon" but I won't even say the "Mormon Church." I never have done in the past (unless it was unintentional), so that won't be an issue for me.
Here's a question I have. It's been a while since I did any reading on this, but what is the deal about some South or Central American Indian tribe...and what non-LDS archaeological evidence backs that up?
I'm really not sure what South or Central American Indian tribe you're referring to. Most LDS scholars today believe that most of the events in "The Book of Mormon" happened in either Central America or South America (probably the northern part of South America) rather than North America but I've not heard about any specific tribe being considered significant.
I'm really not sure what South or Central American Indian tribe you're referring to. Most LDS scholars today believe that most of the events in "The Book of Mormon" happened in either Central America or South America (probably the northern part of South America) rather than North America but I've not heard about any specific tribe being considered significant.
Okay, I thought you were referring to a present-day tribe. Mormonism teaches that in about 600 B.C. just prior to the Babylonian Captivity, a group of perhaps a couple of dozen (at the most) Israelites left Jerusalem under the leadership of a man by the name of Lehi, a man believed to have been a prophet and a contemporary of Jeremiah. Those who left with him included members of his own family, members of another family and a single man unrelated to either family. Lehi had prophesied of the coming of a Messiah and his life had been threatened. After several years of wandering on the Arabian Peninsula, they were said to have built a ship under the direction of God and sailed across the Atlantic to arrive on the eastern coast of what is now the Western Hemisphere (more than likely near Central America). Two of Lehi's sons were named Nephi and Laman. Laman and another brother, Lemuel, were both antagonistic towards their father while their younger brother, Nephi, was fully supportive of their father.
Once they arrived here (in roughly 589 B.C.), they settled and began to raise their children. They almost certainly intermarried with other people they found already on this continent and their numbers increased significantly. At one point, the friction between the brothers and those who sided with one over the other, grew to such an extent that they split into two nations, taking on the names of the two brothers. They ultimately became known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. Throughout much of "The Book of Mormon" the Nephites were the "good guys" and the Lamanites were the "bad guys." This was not always the case, though. One particular Lamanite by the name of Samuel, has a prominent role as a prophet who preached to the then-wicked Nephites.
"The Book of Mormon" is an account of their religious and secular history. They are believed today to be among the ancestors of certain Indian groups. Since nothing in the book indicates with any certainty where on either the North American or South American continent there settled, or where they migrated to during their roughly 1000-year history, it's pretty hard for archealogists to zero in on which tribes of the hundreds if not thousands that exist today may have bloodlines that can be traced back to any of Lehi's sons.
By the way, we absolutely do not believe this small group of people who arrived on this continent are one of the "Lost Tribes." I've heard this claim from many a non-Mormon, but it simply isn't the case. For starters, a single tribe of the house of Israel would have numbered far more than a couple of dozen people.
Thanks for starting a thread on the subject. And for stating clearly what the teachings are or are not.
Now what I have seen that raises questions are articles or videos by ex - Mormons who now doubt the validity of the teachings (which is one thing) and Christians pointing out how the teachings differ from Christianity (which is another argument).
There are also the results of research that casts doubt on claims in LDS. Two examples being DNA research that shows that Native Americans in North, Central and South America (even though J. Smith seemed to refer to North America as the location of the events described) have no Jewish DNA markers, but markers that indicate a N Asian origin.
I presume that the location was placed later (in LDS thought) in S America because there were remains of ancient civilisation that there wasn't in the North. This was later made a smaller location in Central America to try to get over the lack of Jewish DNA traces, but it is simply the same problem in a smaller N. American sample - No Jewish DNA.
The other Biggie is the Abraham Papyrus which casts doubt on the claim that Joseph Smith could translate ancient languages. Quite simply this is an Egyptian papyrus that Smith acquired and 'translated' as a tale about Abraham apparently in Egypt, when it is a well known Egyptian funeral text. This was Explained in various ways, first that it wasn't what Smith had (?) the original being lost in a fire. However they hadn't and turned up later on (being returned to the LDS Church) and they are clearly the Egyptian funerary text well known from many other examples.
The other explanation was that Smith did not translate Egyptian so much as be "inspired" to recover the Abraham story while looking at the Egyptian text. Apart from this being a faith -based rebranding of making Stuff Up, Smith's journal records refers to translating the letters and these being put in a journal, each letter giving a 'translation' of an entire sentence or paragraph.
For me, these are two killers for the truth of Smith's writings. Whether it differs from Christianity doesn't bother me as i find both sets of teachings incredible an unhistorical, but the fact is that 'Heaven' and 'spirit' are different things in LDS teaching from Christian. LDS heaven is a planet (in Space) and spirit is a solid boy of a different kind of matter, not the disembodied matterless minds that Christians seem now to have in mind, though they often do seem to slip into an idea of a solid body than can flit about and walk through walls. But there we are.
I saw in a recent video that the idea of a one god in a trinity was rejected by Smith who taught that God was
the father of Jesus (and Satan, too) by his wife, and both God and Jesus had to die to be raised to 'perfection'.
There are also doubts I (and others) had about things referred to in LDS scripture that didn't existin America. Catle, Chariots, Horses too, probably. Even if (as I recall Katz arguing) 'chariots' mean some kind of wagon, the wheel itself was not known in America. Nor were cattle or horses except perhaps in prehistoric form.
The system of currency in the Book of Mormon doesn't make a lot of sense, either.
I know this covers a lot of problems unrelated to the claim I referred to that some say that these problems, discrepancies and teaching of J Smith that are not taught to the faithful and others that are taught that are not in J Smith, but I just touch on reasons to doubt the truth of LDS teachings by me or by Other Christians, which is what the thread will come down to in the end, I doubt not.
I would probably have to pick a couple of videos with people explaining these points rather than me explaining them,. but, if so, I would hope to post them with a summary of the points made, rather as I do in this post.
The matter of Polygamy is going to have to come up, too, as this was a fact and a practice up to the time Utah dropped it in order to join the US Union. I was surprised to hear that many Mormons don't know of this.
Okay, I thought you were referring to a present-day tribe. Mormonism teaches that in about 600 B.C. just prior to the Babylonian Captivity, a group of perhaps a couple of dozen (at the most) Israelites left Jerusalem under the leadership of a man by the name of Lehi, a man believed to have been a prophet and a contemporary of Jeremiah. Those who left with him included members of his own family, members of another family and a single man unrelated to either family. Lehi had prophesied of the coming of a Messiah and his life had been threatened. After several years of wandering on the Arabian Peninsula, they were said to have built a ship under the direction of God and sailed across the Atlantic to arrive on the eastern coast of what is now the Western Hemisphere (more than likely near Central America). Two of Lehi's sons were named Nephi and Laman. Laman and another brother, Lemuel, were both antagonistic towards their father while their younger brother, Nephi, was fully supportive of their father.
Once they arrived here (in roughly 589 B.C.), they settled and began to raise their children. They almost certainly intermarried with other people they found already on this continent and their numbers increased significantly. At one point, the friction between the brothers and those who sided with one over the other, grew to such an extent that they split into two nations, taking on the names of the two brothers. They ultimately became known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. Throughout much of "The Book of Mormon" the Nephites were the "good guys" and the Lamanites were the "bad guys." This was not always the case, though. One particular Lamanite by the name of Samuel, has a prominent role as a prophet who preached to the then-wicked Nephites.
"The Book of Mormon" is an account of their religious and secular history. They are believed today to be among the ancestors of certain Indian groups. Since nothing in the book indicates with any certainty where on either the North American or South American continent there settled, or where they migrated to during their roughly 1000-year history, it's pretty hard for archealogists to zero in on which tribes of the hundreds if not thousands that exist today may have bloodlines that can be traced back to any of Lehi's sons.
By the way, we absolutely do not believe this small group of people who arrived on this continent are one of the "Lost Tribes." I've heard this claim from many a non-Mormon, but it simply isn't the case. For starters, a single tribe of the house of Israel would have numbered far more than a couple of dozen people.
And if that's what y'all believe, that's fine. But as I feel about bible passages (and for that matter Buddhist writings) with no independent verification...I have trouble buying it. Not that it matters what I think about it.
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.
