MamaSheep Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I'm not asking you to do anything. I am just trying to understand. I'm glad you're not asking me to do anything, because I have no plans to change my mind on this. It doesn't sound to me as if you are going to understand my point of view, and that's fine, I'm perfectly happy to just agree to disagree. :) And while you think my quotes are cherry picked, they are, in fact, quotes of your prophets. The people you mentioned above did not sin in the name of the Lord. Of course all men sin. But the difference is that Brigham Young said the things he said as a direct revelation from God. People looked to him as a voice of God. And it was by no means just Brigham Young. The church has a VERY long history of being extremely racist. Brigham Young said those things, but they were never accepted by the church as scripture--otherwise, they'd be in our scriptures, and they're not. Members of the LDS church understood, even at the time, that as Joseph Smith taught, "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such." Those statements are not now, and never have been, accepted as scripture among the LDS church. It is true that a prophet's personal opinion can carry significant weight with LDS people, but it is not automatically regarded as scripture from God just because it came out of his mouth (assuming the transcriptionist who took those statements down got them right). I have already admitted that the history of race issues in the church is a complicated one. Yes, there's a history of some racism. There's also a strong abolitionist history. There have been black church members since the early days, and at least one black man who was ordained to the priesthood by Joseph Smith. Does that make everything better? Of course not. But the church is rapidly moving past that, and it seems to me to be being held back more by outsiders who can't let it go than by members. But that's just an opinion and I understand if you don't share it. I suspect if you look into the history of your new denomination you'll find some history of racial tensions there as well. It's certainly not unique to the LDS church, especially in the U.S. It's difficult for me to talk about race issues, because my mother married a black man and was excommunicated from the LDS church. I dont find president Kimball's message comforting at all because I find the events leading up to his revelations suspicious. If you research it, you will see the public pressure from outside the church (possibility of losing tax exempt status, boycotts of sporting games from other teams, a new temple in Brazil where most people were of mixed race, therefore the old statement of, "The Church had publicly stated that people could not enter the temple if they "had even a drop of negro blood" was causing difficulties, as was pressure from the boy scouts) could have caused this revelation. It's not comforting to me because I know what it's like to lose all your friends because your mom is with a "negro". So, yes, the back ground of the church's stance with regards to race IS truly important to me. All revelations take place in a historical context, and many are responses to the current needs of God's people. I don't see that as new or suspicious. One could easily label the early New Testament church as racist as well, because they were so exclusionary in the beginning that they would not even preach the gospel to anyone who wasn't the "right" race (Jewish), and they certainly would not allow them to be baptized or enjoy any other benefits of church membership. One could certainly come to the conclusion that Peter's vision regarding allowing the gospel to be preached to the Gentiles was "conveniently" invented because the Jewish leadership was growing increasingly hostile toward the Christians and implementing ever harsher measures to keep them from preaching to the Jews (such as stoning Stephen), whereas an increasing number of Gentiles desperately wanted to be preached to. Cornelius was even a prominent member of the community and would bring a certain level of positive publicity and legitimacy to the Christian movement. But I think (perhaps naively) that Peter's vision was legitimately from God. My opinion about the revelation to President Kimball falls (for me) along the same lines. I was only seven when the announcement was made, but I still remember my father calling us all into the living room to watch the solemn assembly on TV (we lived where a tv repeater picked up an Idaho station, which was nice because it meant we didn't have to drive two hours to the stake center to watch conference sessions). I remember him standing in our living room and raising his hand to participate in the vote, which was reported to be unanimous in the tabernacle, and as far as I could tell as the camera panned the crowd. I remember seeing the tears stream down my Dad's face because he was so overcome with joy. My dad is a very reserved man, and one of the reasons the memory stands out so much to me is because it was one of the few times I ever saw him so overcome with emotion. After the assembly he sat us down and gave us a big lecture about why this was so important and what a big deal it was and how we should feel so privileged to live on the Earth at the time when it happened and we should never, ever forget. It was a really big thing in our family. I'm sorry your mother had bad experiences. For what it's worth there are several mixed-race couples in our Utah County ward and neighborhood and as far as I can tell they're very much loved and accepted here. One of our best neighbor friend couples is a black man married to a white woman with a whole pile of cute kids. The husband is currently serving in a bishopric in the church, and he and his wife have held a number of leadership positions over the years. My friend who is my visiting teaching supervisor is an incredibly kind Korean lady married to a white man who is serving as the scoutmaster of the ward. Another white friend in our ward was recently married to a black man from Virginia. Our bishop happily married them and they have plans to be sealed in the temple in a year. They didn't have much money or time, and the ward pulled together to throw them a nice reception. It was never my intentions to hurt your feelings. If you look from my point of view, and try to prove the BoM through the bible, its almost impossible. It is different for you because you're reading the bible through the lens of the BoM and other church doctrine. To ME it seems like the LDS teachings add and twist a lot of biblical scripture. I do understand that your point of view is different from mine. Again, that's fine. I won't bug you about your beliefs if you don't bug me about mine. Like you keep saying, it's a difference of opinion. It doesn't hurt my feelings that you don't agree with me. (sorry, this got long so I'm going to have to finish it in another post) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't know if this is a logical place to put this, or if anyone's still reading this thread anymore, but I just wanted to share this. I'm a Mormon living in a country where there are very few other Mormons. There are no Mormon kids my boys' ages. They go to a Christian/international school in the afternoons for after-school activities like art and PE. I was nervous, especially after hanging out here on the WTM boards for nearly 10 years, that people at the school might be uncomfortable with us as Mormons, and when we moved to this city I desperately hoped that wouldn't happen because my boys needed some friends. I've been so happy that my boys have made friends and one family in particular has been very kind to us. I know this will seem small to many people, but tonight when we were eating dinner at their house they asked us to pray. I so much appreciated that they allowed us to pray in their home. Neither of us are interested in changing each other, or think the other is religiously wrong, and it's so nice to be able to support each other spiritually. I've also experienced this many times with Muslim families in many parts of the world. That's really all I'm asking for- just mutual respect and support. I don't care if you don't think I'm Christian, or if you think Mormons believe strange things. I'm okay with my kids hanging out with yours no matter your religion. I don't want to tell you that you're wrong because I don't think that, nor do I think you need to be a Mormon. I want to support you in your spiritual journey and I need your support in mine, and I don't want my only support to come from other Mormons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) I understand the LDS faith comes into question a lot, but I'm not some random person who went poking around online one day. I pull my beliefs from real life experiences. Just the other day I had 2 young men over for dinner, who told me they were not invited to their families Christmas because they no longer wished to attend church. My son was excluded from so many preschool events we eventually pulled him out of school. People here only associate with non mormons on their own turf. Yes, you can come play with my son, but only if you come to "insert whatever church function" with us!. Or "yes, lets hang out! my ward is having a bbq!". Its a complete dismissal of other's rights to their own beliefs. In fact, we've not been able to join a homeschool group because they're ALL LDS related. I'm on a secular homeschool mailing list and just the other day got 4 emails pertaining to those in apostasy. I do understand what it's like to have your faith come under attack, constantly, every day I'm here. I'm not some random person poking around on the internet either, and I have had my own real life experiences. I'm aware that some LDS people, especially in Utah, can be unkind to non-members. I am also aware that some people in Utah who are not Mormon are a little prickly about associating with Mormons, and are willing to associate with Mormons only on their terms. I find it interesting that it's not a one-way street. For example, what is generally intended as a friendly invitation from a busy family to come along and join the rest of the neighborhood at the church for a BBQ and get to know the neighbors is mistaken by some people for a "complete dismissal of others' rights to their own beliefs", and a friendly gesture is met with hostility and resentment, which doesn't encourage future friendly gestures. It can become difficult to have a desire to invite someone to any neighborhood or family activities when you know your invitation is going to be taken completely differently than it was intended. It can get very tense from both sides. Again, though, for what it's worth, one of my good friends here is Catholic, and our girls play together all the time. I don't run down the pope, and she doesn't run down the prophet, and we get along just fine. It sounds like you've found some friends too. That's great. As for homeschool groups, I know it's probably hard for you to find a group of like-minded homeschoolers around here. I know it was hard to find social groups that liked Mormons back when I lived in Georgia. Have you tried going through the Utah Christian Homeschool Association? They might be able to point you toward a group in your area. I gather they have a convention every year, and you could probably meet others there. I know they're out there because I've met non-LDS Christian homeschoolers around here, and I don't actually participate in homeschool groups these days myself. :) I know that people in all faiths often misrepresent their church's teachings. I'm not trying to pin it as being a distinctly LDS issue. It is difficult when there is an outward refusal to admit any wrong doings on the part of the LDS church however. I truly hope I did not hurt your feelings. I dont think it's fair that the LDS church is becoming some sort of sacred cow, where people can't disagree with the teachings without it turning into an issue of persecution. People do, at times, have to just agree to disagree. I said it in my first post, I dont have any intentions of changing anyone's mind. I go to family functions all the time and never say anything. I love my grandparents and cousins and aunts and uncles very dearly. We just choose to realize we disagree, and we're still able to love each other. Um...you know what, I have been representing my church's beliefs accurately as I see them, and I have already "admitted" that prophets aren't perfect, that racial issues have been a problem, and that church members do sometimes fall short when it comes to social tact--we're certainly as human as any other group of people. I completely understand that you see these things differently, and I have already stated as well that I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree. And it does hurt my feelings for you to suggest I have been misrepresenting my church's teachings. I know I see things differently than you do, but it doesn't follow that I'm LYING, I just have a different point of view. I'm sorry you're not comfortable with the church's popularity where you live and that you seem to be having some discomfort with associating with people who believe differently than you do, and are having a hard time finding like-minded people to hang out with. I'm sorry you don't think it's fair. That can be a tough way to live. I hope things get better for you soon. I think you and I have both had our say on this, and if we're both really fine with agreeing to disagree this would probably be a good time to step back and talk about other things so we don't wind up beating the poor dead horse and annoying everyone else on the thread. :) Edited January 17, 2012 by MamaSheep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangermom Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Well said, MamaSheep. I'm late to the party and don't have much to add anyway, so maybe I'll go do some homeschooling instead. The LDS Church certainly has had some racial issues, I don't think anyone is going to deny that. But as has been said, we're trying to move forward. FWIW, interracial marriage is quite common and has been for some time now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I dont have any intentions of changing anyone's mind. I go to family functions all the time and never say anything. I love my grandparents and cousins and aunts and uncles very dearly. We just choose to realize we disagree, and we're still able to love each other. That is wonderful. Not all who apostatize from their former beliefs have that choice. Count your blessings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 That is wonderful. Not all who apostatize from their former beliefs have that choice. Count your blessings. :grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I agree with Mama sheep. I will add that they do have a camp book that has certification. They learn things like first aid, hiking, astronomy, and the like. I am sure can look over it ahead of time as well. The camp manual is here, for your convenience! :lol: I was one of the crazies who LOVED camp! We always went to Mia Shalom. The bath house did have flush toilets and showers -- unheated, with water straight from the glacier up the hill. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Well, dang it...we'll just have to stay at the Grand America and call it Girls' Camp. ;) We wouldn't even need a reservation! We could just move into that HUGE restroom down the hall from the conference rooms. That mirrored powder room before you even get to the stall/sink area could accommodate 30 of us easily. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DianeW88 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 We wouldn't even need a reservation! We could just move into that HUGE restroom down the hall from the conference rooms. That mirrored powder room before you even get to the stall/sink area could accommodate 30 of us easily. :D I'll bring the tents!! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAMom Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Some of the items on the list ARE things on which the LDS church does take a position, though. For example, the church absolutely teaches that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, and that the Holy Ghost was involved in the conception in some miraculous manner that is not clearly explained. We do, however, affirm that Jesus' literal physical father is God the Father, not the Holy Spirit. I've seen several non-LDS publications state that Brigham Young taught that God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus. However, every time I've looked up the references (when they bother to give them) the statments made by Brigham Young have all said things to the effect that the Father was the father of Jesus in the same sense that any mortal father is the father of his children. Some (non-LDS) people evidently interpret that to mean that Brigham Young thought sex was involved, but I've never met an LDS person who interpreted it that way. I've had (non-LDS) people ask me how the Father could literally be the physical father of Jesus when it was the Holy Ghost who impregnated her, but I've always thought it a silly question, particularly in a day when fertility doctors frequently assist in the conception of babies. The doctor's facilitation of the process doesn't make the doctor the baby's father any more than the Holy Ghost's miraculous facilitation of Jesus' conception makes the Holy Ghost the father. Again, LDS doctrine is very clear that Jesus's father is The Father, that the conception was facilitated in some unexplained miraculous manner by the Holy Ghost, and that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and born. I know I'm into this discussion way late. Sorry about that. I was reading it and then had a forced board break last week when I worked over 40 hours over 3 days at my dd's speech and debate competition. :) Anyway, to the LDS moms: Thank you for always being willing to explain your beliefs with patience and grace! Mamasheep, can I ask you about the above? If LDS believe that the Father is the literal father of Jesus, does that mean you think the Father is human with a body? Does he actually have sperm? And, do LDS believe that He's omniscient and omnipresent? I'm just wondering how that would work if He's confined to a human body. I knew that LDS believed that the Father was the literal father of Jesus but I just hadn't thought it through much until now. Thanks for indulging. I do want to understand the actual position and not be guilty of just inventing what I think LDS believe. And, if this question has already been answered beyond your post, don't worry about answering. This is as far as I've read.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xuzi Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Not MamaSheep, but I'll answer. :) My comments in red. I know I'm into this discussion way late. Sorry about that. I was reading it and then had a forced board break last week when I worked over 40 hours over 3 days at my dd's speech and debate competition. :) Anyway, to the LDS moms: Thank you for always being willing to explain your beliefs with patience and grace! Mamasheep, can I ask you about the above? If LDS believe that the Father is the literal father of Jesus, does that mean you think the Father is human with a body? Does he actually have sperm? And, do LDS believe that He's omniscient and omnipresent? I'm just wondering how that would work if He's confined to a human body. He has a body of glorified flesh and bone. No blood. Sperm? Haven't a clue. What exactly the differences are between a glorified body and our mortal bodies isn't spelled out in Doctrine, except that His is in every possible way utterly perfect, immortal and Eternal; and that no human in a mortal body can stand in His presence and live without first being Transfigured. I would imagine that it is those differences in mortal vs. glorified body (as well as the power He has by just being GOD) that makes it possible for Him to be everywhere He needs/wants to be. I knew that LDS believed that the Father was the literal father of Jesus but I just hadn't thought it through much until now. Thanks for indulging. I do want to understand the actual position and not be guilty of just inventing what I think LDS believe. And, if this question has already been answered beyond your post, don't worry about answering. This is as far as I've read.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esperella Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Yes, I know that now it's totally fine for there to be interracial marriage. The official reason for the excommunication was that my mother and step father were living in sin. They lived in our house, in separate rooms, for a VERY short time before they were married because he'd just come home from the marines and had nowhere to stay with his daughters. She was excommunicated so quickly, it was very shocking considering how involved in the church she'd been since she was born. I'm sure it's understandable to see how people in Idaho in the early 80's could still harbor racist thoughts. It's not a huge leap to make. Again, I'm not understanding why a disagreement means I'm being disrespectful. That seems to be a huge theme in this thread and if it's something I've done, I'm not representing my thoughts well, because that is not my intention. This is one of the difficult aspects of living in this area; if you dont agree fully then you're attacking and automatically being mean. I'm around people every single day who think I'm in apostasy. In other religions my belief in Jesus means I'm going to hell. Before I was Christian the majority of my friends were atheist. I know they think I'm stupid and small minded for converting, when it comes to religion. But we're perfectly able to put our religious differences aside for our friendship. It's not as if I just showed up here and started saying bad things about Mormons. It's a thread about whether the LDS are considered Christians, and I thought we were having a discussion. And since I dont agree, somehow that has turned into my flitting around being disrespectful therefore losing my right to an opinion. I'm very grateful for the questions and testing of my faith, because it's helped me to understand more about what I believe and bring me closer to God. I also try to operate with the understanding that people have a right to think for themselves, and that their rejection of my faith is not a rejection of me personally. In the end, what you, or anyone else thinks of my beliefs does not change the outcome or purpose of my relationship with God. The bible tells us to question everything. So I dont view "attacks" on my faith as a negative thing. I do really find it upsetting you're saying my issues here with members were caused by my unwillingness to do things in a church setting. As I said, I had researched GREATLY rejoining the church after we'd been here about 6 months. It reminded me so much of how happy life was for me when I was a kid (before the excommunication, of course) and of my grandparents. I had missionaries over many times. Even the bishop of our ward. So by NO MEANS have I been "prickly" to church members. In the end, what made me start researching church history was just how horribly people treated us here. It is not biblical whatsoever to treat non believers the way that people treat non LDS here. I saw the way people were afraid of us, how they believe anyone who doesnt believe what they do are unenlightened, not as smart as they are. And of course, this isnt Official Church Doctrine, but it is things I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears while living here. Again, you're putting the way I was treated by members back on me, and taking any responsibility on them away. I most certainly did not return invitations to the church rudely. I worked very hard to assimilate. The division of LDS and non LDS is such a non issue in Boise, where I'm from, this whole thing was really strange for me. But there are only so many times I can say that I dont want to go to your church. I shouldn't have to go to church with you so you will let your kids play with mine. I have met a few LDS friends here. We just dont talk about religion at all. But when it comes to who people let their kids around, it seems to be a completely different story. I think living in an area that is 87% LDS affords you the privilege of picking and choosing friends for your children based on faith, and it is done constantly here. It's also confusing to me why I have to do everything through the church in order to be accepted, if my religious beliefs were accepted. I know for a fact my family members wouldn't go to another church's service. Ever. My aunt and uncle wouldn't even let their children go my mother's baptist church choir events. I also dont think that you're lying or misrepresenting your faith. You misunderstood what I was saying, or trying to say. I know when I've talked with family members about how I've been treated here they're heartbroken. To them, the people who act that way are misrepresenting the LDS faith. I wasnt speaking of you. I just have a different point of view. I'm sorry you're not comfortable with the church's popularity where you live and that you seem to be having some discomfort with associating with people who believe differently than you do, and are having a hard time finding like-minded people to hang out with. I'm sorry you don't think it's fair. That can be a tough way to live. I hope things get better for you soon.I find that to be completely dismissive of my experience here. I can't express to you how happy I was to be moving here, and raising my boys in a place that was so family oriented and had so many little kids! It just turns out I'm the wrong kind of family I guess. And we are looking to transfer from Utah as soon as possible. It will be great to be able wine or beer in a store, or on a Sunday ;) Thanks for the link to the homeschool group. I dont like driving to SLC (the freeways here scare me!!), but if we're unable to leave Utah soon we're moving to SLC this summer, so I'll look into it then. Again, I'm sorry if I've upset you. It wasn't my intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xuzi Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Esperella: I just want to say I'm *so sorry* LDS members in your area are treating you in the way you describe. :( You're right, it is NOT the way it should be, and it's certainly not the way the Savior would want us treating each other, no matter what our disagreements might be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maus Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I do really find it upsetting you're saying my issues here with members were caused by my unwillingness to do things in a church setting. As I said, I had researched GREATLY rejoining the church after we'd been here about 6 months. It reminded me so much of how happy life was for me when I was a kid (before the excommunication, of course) and of my grandparents. I had missionaries over many times. Even the bishop of our ward. So by NO MEANS have I been "prickly" to church members. In the end, what made me start researching church history was just how horribly people treated us here. It is not biblical whatsoever to treat non believers the way that people treat non LDS here. I saw the way people were afraid of us, how they believe anyone who doesnt believe what they do are unenlightened, not as smart as they are. And of course, this isnt Official Church Doctrine, but it is things I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears while living here. Again, you're putting the way I was treated by members back on me, and taking any responsibility on them away. I most certainly did not return invitations to the church rudely. I worked very hard to assimilate. The division of LDS and non LDS is such a non issue in Boise, where I'm from, this whole thing was really strange for me. But there are only so many times I can say that I dont want to go to your church. I shouldn't have to go to church with you so you will let your kids play with mine. I have met a few LDS friends here. We just dont talk about religion at all. But when it comes to who people let their kids around, it seems to be a completely different story. I think living in an area that is 87% LDS affords you the privilege of picking and choosing friends for your children based on faith, and it is done constantly here. It's also confusing to me why I have to do everything through the church in order to be accepted, if my religious beliefs were accepted. I know for a fact my family members wouldn't go to another church's service. Ever. My aunt and uncle wouldn't even let their children go my mother's baptist church choir events. Referring to the bolded, it's also not according to LDS teachings, but I know it happens. I saw it happen to a good friend in High School who happened to be Methodist. She had several "friends" (inc., I'm sorry to say, a distant cousin of mine) who wanted to be her friend until she made it clear she had no interest in converting. Aforementioned "cousin" actually said, "Well, I can't be friends with you anymore, then." It made the rest of her LDS friends really mad. I'm sorry. I'm sorry it happened to you; I'm sorry it happened to her; I'm sorry it keeps happening. It's wrong. It's not what we are taught, and it shouldn't be happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't know if this is a logical place to put this, or if anyone's still reading this thread anymore, but I just wanted to share this. I'm a Mormon living in a country where there are very few other Mormons. There are no Mormon kids my boys' ages. They go to a Christian/international school in the afternoons for after-school activities like art and PE. I was nervous, especially after hanging out here on the WTM boards for nearly 10 years, that people at the school might be uncomfortable with us as Mormons, and when we moved to this city I desperately hoped that wouldn't happen because my boys needed some friends. I've been so happy that my boys have made friends and one family in particular has been very kind to us. I know this will seem small to many people, but tonight when we were eating dinner at their house they asked us to pray. I so much appreciated that they allowed us to pray in their home. Neither of us are interested in changing each other, or think the other is religiously wrong, and it's so nice to be able to support each other spiritually. I've also experienced this many times with Muslim families in many parts of the world. That's really all I'm asking for- just mutual respect and support. I don't care if you don't think I'm Christian, or if you think Mormons believe strange things. I'm okay with my kids hanging out with yours no matter your religion. I don't want to tell you that you're wrong because I don't think that, nor do I think you need to be a Mormon. I want to support you in your spiritual journey and I need your support in mine, and I don't want my only support to come from other Mormons. :iagree: I'm in an area where my girls had more in common with non-mormons than with the few mormon girls their age. where they went to university, they were the ONLY LDS on the entire campus. 2dd is my social extrovert. Her best friends from college, and is still in touch with and plans to visit despite being in disparate parts of the country and in the starving grad-student financial stage, are Hindu and Muslim. (her best friend since 6th grade is catholic). Oh, and none of them are caucasion. They respected and supported each other in their own beliefs and, religious and cultural traditions. It is about mutual respect - when someone starts telling me, incorrectly, what I believe, that they are right and I am wrong, etc. I do not consider that respectful. (I confess, the last time my brother was blunt about telling me what mormons believe -as he was told by his seventh-day adventist friend - I did about fall on the floor laughing at the absurdity of it.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAMom Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Not MamaSheep, but I'll answer. :) My comments in red. Thank you!!:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Again, you're putting the way I was treated by members back on me, and taking any responsibility on them away. I most certainly did not return invitations to the church rudely. I worked very hard to assimilate. The division of LDS and non LDS is such a non issue in Boise, where I'm from, this whole thing was really strange for me. But there are only so many times I can say that I dont want to go to your church. I shouldn't have to go to church with you so you will let your kids play with mine. I have met a few LDS friends here. We just dont talk about religion at all. But when it comes to who people let their kids around, it seems to be a completely different story. I think living in an area that is 87% LDS affords you the privilege of picking and choosing friends for your children based on faith, and it is done constantly here. You now live in Utah County, right? Poor thing! I grew up in the eastern US and moved to Utah County for about 2 years, and believe me.... it was reeaally strange for me too, even as a Mormon. In fact, it was very difficult to live there. I don't have very nice things to say about the area except that it has very beautiful scenery. I found SLC to be much more... normal, for the most part. I'm sure SLC will provide a better experience for you as well. :grouphug: ETA: I'm specifically talking about Provo, not Utah. Sorry, but it was a tough place to live! There are a lot of really good people there, but a lot of self-righteousness/fakeness too. I love BYU, wish I had made the grades to get in, but there really were some serious crazies there. Bubble-people. You find them in all religions. I grew up in a Baptist bubble. Many were not nice and very exclusuve, but I found that the few did not accuurately characterize the majority. I like most Baptists. I like most Mormons. Sorry I offend people so easily. Edited January 18, 2012 by hmsmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esperella Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 - when someone starts telling me, incorrectly, what I believe, that they are right and I am wrong, etc. I do not consider that respectful. (I confess, the last time my brother was blunt about telling me what mormons believe -as he was told by his seventh-day adventist friend - I did about fall on the floor laughing at the absurdity of it.) I hope that isn't what you think I'm doing. I do have genuine questions that I am HONESTLY seeking answers to. Originally Posted by mommaduck In this particular case, a person would have to compare it to the teachings of the time that her mother got married AND to current teachings, since the LDS beliefs seem to be in a constant state of flux. Yes."From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7) "The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time." (The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949)So it is hard for me to fully understand an always changing doctrine. Unless you're saying that because you have a living prophet, doctrine can change based on the times? Because that's hard to reconcile with 1 Samuel 15:29. Brigham Young said: Quote:"I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 161.) andQuote:"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95.) So, again, I know I'm using the Journal of Discourses. And that even though it says this:“The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.“ (President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 8.)it's not supposed to be held on any high account. I'm confused as to who decides which doctrine gets to be church doctrine and which is written off as false? From the LDS site it says:Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine.I am genuinely, and respectfully, not understanding how it is chosen which parts have error in translation and which dont. You can see how this is confusing? Especially when considering the church's rejection of the trinityThe Church’s first Article of Faith is “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.†This is a straightforward statement of belief that there are three members in the Godhead. However, Latter-day Saints do reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today. For the most part, these creeds—the most famous of which is the Nicene Creed—were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. following centuries of debate about the nature of the Godhead. Consequently, it is highly questionable whether these creeds reflect the thinking or beliefs of the New Testament church.yet church doctrine is voted on by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.It just seems contradictory to me. MamaSheep-All revelations take place in a historical context, and many are responses to the current needs of God's people. I don't see that as new or suspicious. One could easily label the early New Testament church as racist as well, because they were so exclusionary in the beginning that they would not even preach the gospel to anyone who wasn't the "right" race (Jewish), and they certainly would not allow them to be baptized or enjoy any other benefits of church membership. One could certainly come to the conclusion that Peter's vision regarding allowing the gospel to be preached to the Gentiles was "conveniently" invented because the Jewish leadership was growing increasingly hostile toward the Christians and implementing ever harsher measures to keep them from preaching to the Jews (such as stoning Stephen), whereas an increasing number of Gentiles desperately wanted to be preached to. Cornelius was even a prominent member of the community and would bring a certain level of positive publicity and legitimacy to the Christian movement. But I think (perhaps naively) that Peter's vision was legitimately from God. I'm confused by this because it's pretty clear that Jesus came for the Jew and the Gentile. Matt. 28:19- 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt.24:14 14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. John 10:16 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.Peter's vision was because he was not following God's original plan, not that God's original plan had been changed Acts 10:34-35"I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him."Even in the OT it is revealed that is His plan:Isaiah 49:6 , Psalm 105:1 Psalm 96:3 and many many more. I wont be posting anymore on this because I can see it's just hurting feelings and I'm not making any friends here :001_smile: I went through a very hard journey to get where I am, and if anyone wants to talk further I'm happy to do so in PM's. I wont clog up this thread anymore :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweetPea Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I am a non-LDS living in SLC. We love it here and have found great friends for our children and our family. I have to say we pulled our children out of a Christian school and put them part -time in our public school. The children at the public school are fabulous: kinder, more accepting, convervative and high achievers. We were pulled aside at the Christian school by many teachers telling us the LDS community wouldn't accept us. This has not been our case at all - we love our neighbors and school friends. My LDS friends and I share the same values (which counts for a lot). I don't think it is my place to label who is or isn't a christian. That is God's to judge. Words and labels don't mean alot. A person's character, actions, and words do reveal a person's heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Taken from http://fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/As_doctrine_and_one_of_the_%22standard_works%22_of_the_Church Journal of Discourses/As doctrine and one of the "standard works" of the Church Criticism Critics often use the Journal of Discourses to show both nonmembers and LDS what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supposedly "really believes" to be official doctrine on subjects that have been considered to be either controversial or touchy by members of the Church. A popular example often used in the anti-Mormon community is the Adam-God theory. Critics insist that LDS once regarded the Journal of Discourses as a "standard work" or similar to scripture. See also: Citations to the critical sources for these claims Response Critics, however, will often do very little to explain or support the validity, reliability, or the history of the quotes they use from the Journal of Discourses. History of the Journal of Discourses The Journal of Discourses is a twenty-six volume set of sermons given by the early members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It was published in England between the years 1853 and 1886. Its purpose was not unlike the modern Ensign magazine in that it made much of the council of the brethren readily available to the Church in England. It also served the purpose of creating an income for George D. Watt who served as an official transcriber of the public sermons of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and publisher of the Journal of Discourses. A letter from the First Presidency was included in the first volume recommending that the Saints support Watt by purchasing a copy. Watt was later replaced as the publisher by David W. Evans, who was followed by George W. Gibbs—secretary to the First Presidency. *continued...* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 A "standard work"? Main article: Official Church doctrine and statements by Church leaders Critics are often fond of pointing out that George Q. Cannon described the Journal of Discourses as a "standard work": The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saints will certainly welcome with joy every Number as it comes forth from the press as an additional reflector of 'the light that shines from Zion's hill.'[1] Critics use this paragraph to argue that the Journal of Discourses was once an official, binding publication upon members of the Church. This is a good example of the fallacy of equivocation—the argument relies on the fact that modern members of the Church do not use the term "standard work" in the same way that 19th century members did. Joseph Smith, for example, said a Church hymnbook would "be a standard work."[2] A "standard work," then, was a book often used or a typical reference work. It did not mean that the work was canonized scripture—which is how modern Church members use the term. The Journal of Discourses was—and is—extremely valuable. It was not, however, without error. It was not without the opinion of leading brethren. And, it was not a work which defined doctrine that was elsewhere undefined or undescribed in LDS scripture. This use is clear in a variety of Church publications in the 1800s: 1849 Thomas D. Brown, [for sale] Millennial Star 11. 6 (March 15, 1849): 96. “This [pamphlet, Voice of Warning] is now a standard work, having been long tried and approved, and I would earnestly recommend all who wish to do good to lend it to the honest enquirer amongst the first of our books. How many now in the kingdom of God give thanks because they read the ‘Voice of Warning?’ 1850 Editorial [Orson Pratt], “A Word of Counsel to the Churches,†Millennial Star 12.4 (February 15, 1850): 57-59. “We strongly recommend all the officers to supply themselves with the Book of Mormon, Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and all other standard works, inasmuch as they have not already done it; and strive to acquaint themselves with the doctrines and laws of the church; and we can safely say, that no officer is capable of fulfilling his duties without the knowledge contained in these books (59). 1850 Editorial [Orson Pratt], Millennial Star 12 (August 15, 1850), 252:… except for ‘bills of Meetings, lists of the standard works of the Church which [the branches and conferences] may have on hand for sale, and conference minutes,’ any manuscript containing the ‘doctrines or sentiments of the Latter-day Saints’ that is intended for publication should first be sent to the British Mission presidency for approval [Crawley, 2. 157] 1853 “Australian Mission,†Elder Augustus Farnham, Sydney, Australia, July 25, 1853. Millennial Star 15. 47 (November 19, 1853): 766-767. President S. W. Richards…. We wish you to forward us more of O Pratt’s works complete and bound, 200 more Hymn Books, 100 Books of Mormon, 100 Doctrine and Covenants, more Voice of Warning, and Spencer’s Letters, 100 O. Pratt’s work on Celestial Marriage. You may depend upon us forwarding the money as speedily as possible. I have no doubt, that when these books come to hand, they will give an increased impetus to the work here, and it will require a constant and regular supply of the Standard Works to keep up with the movement. We hope you will be able to supply us with them. (767) 1855 Broadside by Parley P. Pratt, Millennial Star 17. 20 (May 16, 1855) announcing the “Mormon Book Depot, and General Agency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the Pacific Coast. PARLEY P. PRATT respectfully announces to the public, that he has established an Office and Book Depot in San Francisco, Cal., near the corner of Dupont and Sacramento Streets, where will be constantly on hand and for sale the Standard Works of said Church, among the most noted of which are the following, viz.--Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Voice of Warning, O. Pratt’s Works, Key to the Science of Theology, Pearl of Great Price, Spencer’s Letters, Hymn Books, And a variety of Periodicals, Debates, Defences, Tracts, &c., &c. San Francisco, March 2, 1855.†It also indicates that he is in correspondence with LDS in foreign countries, and can provide works in French, German, Danish, Spanish, Italian, Welsh. (319). *continued* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Nineteenth century leaders on the Journal of Discourses Critics also ignore other statements by LDS leaders that explain how they saw the material published in venues like the Journal of Discourses. President George Q. Cannon (source of the "standard work" quote used above) explained that the scriptures are the only source of official doctrine, coupled with later revelation to the prophets that has been presented to the Church and sustained: I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.[3] Brigham Young also noted: Brother Orson Hyde referred to a few who complained about not getting revelations. I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations—that Brigham Young has said "when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture." I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God, without any special command to one man to go here, and to another to go yonder, or to do this or that, or to go and settle here or there.[4] Brigham Young made it clear that his previous statement should not mean that anything he said was scripture, but only that which he had the opportunity to correct and send to the Saints as scripture. Reliability of the Journal of Discourses One might assume, based on how critics quote the Journal of Discourses, that it is something to be shunned, and generally ignored. It does in fact have some errors in it. However many of these errors can be attributed to the fact that the discourses given by the brethren were not always reviewed by them for errors (many gave their sermons impromptu, especially Brigham Young). This of course makes it much more difficult to determine the intent of the speaker. Such things as puns, sarcasms, and emphasis on different parts of a sentence (which can often change the meaning of a sentence) are very difficult to detect when reading sermons that would not have taken into account an audience who would never hear the discourses. In many instances, the General Authorities would give into speculation in their talks. An example of very obvious speculation is provided in a quote by Orson Pratt: I do not know what the Lord will hereafter do with this people; I have not myself a sufficiency of the spirit of prophecy to understand all the events of the future; and I doubt very much, whether there is an individual in this Church that does know; but we do know as far as the things of the future are revealed; and we may know many things by dreams and visions, but when it comes to principles, and to what the Lord will do with this people, I doubt very much whether there is an individual in the world, that knows the changes and variety of scenes through which this people will be called to pass. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 15) But if the Saints act wisely they may set an example before them that will do them good, and if there is any good or righteousness in them, an upright, holy example will bring it out. All this will take place, and there are many here that will live to see those things, and I rejoice that there is but a comparatively little time for those things to be accomplished. (ibid, Vol. 3, p. 16-17) If the first half of the quote was cut off, the passage would have a very different tone. Orson Pratt would appear to have an authoritative tone which could leave the reader rather perplexed. However, as we know, no one knows when the Second Coming will occur, and with this knowledge, it is clear to see that Orson Pratt is speculating. But at times, early General Authorities would speculate about more weighty matters, and would reach into the foggy realm of unsure doctrines, just as most Latter-day Saints do from time to time when contemplating the Church’s principles. While the General Authorities in our day are much more careful not to share their personal beliefs in public discourses, the General Authorities in the early time period were less careful. After all, practically everyone was a member of the Church in Salt Lake City and surrounding areas at that time period. They would not need excuse themselves when speculating as Orson Pratt was careful to do in the quote above. This makes it more difficult to detect when the Brethren were not speaking about the true and established principles of the Church, and were speculating instead. And in these instances, the reader who has a sound knowledge of the Church’s doctrines and a sure testimony will have no difficulty in dismissing these quotes as speculation. However, some of the writings of the Journal of Discourses are more disturbing, and are not excusable as private interpretation. One of the more common is Brigham Young’s Blood atonement. Quotes such as these often become disturbing because the reader does not understand the time period, or has not read the surrounding passage to get a grasp on context. Examples of anti-Mormon quote mining in the Journal of Discourses Main article: Use of sources/Journal of Discourses Conclusion The bind that critics find themselves in is that they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to use sources written or derived from faithful Mormons and LDS Church leaders in order to maximize the shock value of what they present; but they also can't resist the "the Church hides and/or manipulates its history" claim. In this case, the two approaches run at cross-purposes, and cancel each other out—the Church has not hidden the Journal of Discourses, but neither has it made its contents binding upon members. Even less has the Church made the (usually distorted or removed from context) claims of critics binding upon members—our doctrine is for us to declare and interpret, not the critics. Thus, the critic must insist that the Church had (in the past) treated the Journal of Discourses as binding doctrine on the level of scripture and that this has been hidden from the modern member. Neither claim is true. This is another good example of where fundamentalist critics (whether religious or secular) try to impose their mindset on the Church and its members. Critics cannot understand how the Church can have prophets that are not infallible—they assume either that these men must not be prophets, or that members must regard them and their every utterance as infallible. Neither conclusion is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DianeW88 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I am a non-LDS living in SLC. We love it here and have found great friends for our children and our family. I have to say we pulled our children out of a Christian school and put them part -time in our public school. The children at the public school are fabulous: kinder, more accepting, convervative and high achievers. We were pulled aside at the Christian school by many teachers telling us the LDS community wouldn't accept us. This has not been our case at all - we love our neighbors and school friends. My LDS friends and I share the same values (which counts for a lot). I don't think it is my place to label who is or isn't a christian. That is God's to judge. Words and labels don't mean alot. A person's character, actions, and words do reveal a person's heart. Thank you so much for your kind words. I honestly believe that your experience is the typical one for non-LDS church members living in Utah. It doesn't matter what faith my neighbors are....we do things together all the time. We regularly have neighbors block parties and barbeques and no one is shunned because of their religion (or lack thereof). I honestly don't know what most of my non-LDS neighbors believe in....and I don't care (and I mean that in the nicest way :lol:). We just want to have a fun, happy, comfortable neighborhood to live in....and we do. I'm so glad you like living in Utah. It's a great state to raise a family....no matter what your faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) So it is hard for me to fully understand an always changing doctrine. Unless you're saying that because you have a living prophet, doctrine can change based on the times? Because that's hard to reconcile with 1 Samuel 15:29. Have you read the Old Testament yet? Some things have changed since then :) This is taken from: Revelation in a Changing World, by Boyd K. Packer "There are those within the Church who are disturbed when changes are made with which they disagree or when changes they propose are not made. They point to these as evidence that the leaders are not inspired. They write and speak to convince others that the doctrines and decisions of the Brethren are not given through inspiration. Two things characterize them: they are always irritated by the word obedience, and always they question revelation. It has always been so. Helaman described those who “began to disbelieve in the spirit of prophecy and in the spirit of revelation; and the judgments of God did stare them in the face.” (Hel. 4:23.) “They were left in their own strength” (Hel. 4:13), and “the Spirit of the Lord did no more preserve them; yea, it had withdrawn from them” (Hel. 4:24). Changes in organization or procedures are a testimony that revelation is ongoing. While doctrines remain fixed, the methods or procedures do not. For instance, when the editions of the scriptures were published, many corrections were made on the basis of original or printer’s manuscripts, some of which had not previously been available. For instance, in Alma chapter 16, verse 5, the word whether had appeared. [Alma 16:5] The original manuscript for that verse does not exist. However, when we found the printer’s copy, we saw that the Prophet Joseph Smith had changed the word to whither. Whether means “if”; whither means “where.” The next verse verifies whither to be correct. Another example: in Alma chapter 32, verse 30, the words “sprouteth and beginneth to grow” occurred three times. [Alma 32:30] An obvious typesetting error left one of them out. In the 1981 edition, thirty-five words were restored. It now conforms to the original text. There were many such changes. None altered the doctrine. Each change, however small in detail, was carefully and prayerfully considered and approved by the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in a meeting in the temple. All such matters are determined that way. The Lord established that process when He gave revelations relating to temple ordinances. In 1841 the Saints were commanded to build a temple in Nauvoo in which to perform baptisms for the dead, and they were given time to do it. They would be rejected if they failed. He said: “I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; … “And if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.” (D&C 124:31–32.) The Saints did not fail. However impossible it may have seemed to them, given the terrible opposition they faced, the Lord promised to guide them through His appointed servants: “If my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place. “But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest.” (D&C 124:45–46; italics added.) Later, speaking on the same subject of temple ordinances, the Lord affirmed again that He will reveal His will to His authorized servants: “For him to whom these keys are given there is no difficulty in obtaining a knowledge of facts in relation to the salvation of the children of men.” (D&C 128:11.) That principle of revelation has been with the Church ever since. Those who hold the keys have obtained knowledge on what to do. When changes have come, they have come through that process. The Lord does as He said He would do: “I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good.” (D&C 56:4.) “I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.” (D&C 58:32.) He told the Saints that when enemies prevented them from keeping a commandment, he would no longer require them to do so. And he said: “The iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not.” (D&C 124:50.) The gospel plan was revealed line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little. And it goes on: “We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” (A of F 1:9.) There will be changes made in the future as in the past. Whether the Brethren make changes or resist them depends entirely upon the instructions they receive through the channels of revelation which were established in the beginning. The doctrines will remain fixed, eternal; the organization, programs, and procedures will be altered as directed by Him whose church this is." Edited January 18, 2012 by hmsmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I think that anyone who goes around deeming who is a Christian or not has a lot more pressing matters to deal with than other people's faith- i.e., it is time to focus on their own faith and values and not someone else's. Mormons are Christians just like Catholics and any other denomination. To me their faith is between them and God, not them and me. Period. Edited January 18, 2012 by kijipt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myeightkiddies Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I think that anyone who goes around deeming who is a Christian or not has a lot more pressing matters to deal with than other people's faith- i.e., it is time to focus on their own faith and values and not someone else's. Mormons are Christians just like Catholics and any other denomination. To me their faith is between them and God, not them and me. Period. :thumbup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixie Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Thank you so much for your kind words. I honestly believe that your experience is the typical one for non-LDS church members living in Utah. It doesn't matter what faith my neighbors are....we do things together all the time. We regularly have neighbors block parties and barbeques and no one is shunned because of their religion (or lack thereof). I honestly don't know what most of my non-LDS neighbors believe in....and I don't care (and I mean that in the nicest way :lol:). We just want to have a fun, happy, comfortable neighborhood to live in....and we do. I'm so glad you like living in Utah. It's a great state to raise a family....no matter what your faith. It has also been our experience. We live in Utah county and honestly before the move I can't count how many times I was told we were making a HUGE mistake, noone would talke to us, our kids wouldn't have friends... Turns out, we love it here, my kids do have plenty of friends (in the summer sometime I wished they didn't have as many of them eating the content of my fridge :lol:), sure religion is every where (and I have learned a lot of new vocabulary lol) but it hasn't been an issue in day to day relationships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeganCupcake Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I live in Utah county and I am LDS and sometimes I do feel like it is a bit strange here. I have had people say, "You're not from around here, are you?" :lol: I would love to meet any and all of you who live around here. My kids are pretty little, but I'm always up for meeting new people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I live in Utah county and I am LDS and sometimes I do feel like it is a bit strange here. I have had people say, "You're not from around here, are you?" :lol: I would love to meet any and all of you who live around here. My kids are pretty little, but I'm always up for meeting new people! I don't fit in here, either. I'm a California girl and am, um, less traditional/conservative than most of the locals. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSheep Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I know I'm into this discussion way late. Sorry about that. I was reading it and then had a forced board break last week when I worked over 40 hours over 3 days at my dd's speech and debate competition. :) Anyway, to the LDS moms: Thank you for always being willing to explain your beliefs with patience and grace! Mamasheep, can I ask you about the above? Of course! You can always ask. :) If LDS believe that the Father is the literal father of Jesus, does that mean you think the Father is human with a body? ... As Xuzi already mentioned, we do believe that the Father has a body, but I wouldn't say so much that the Father is "human", but rather that "humans" are modeled after the form of the Father--created in His image and likeness, one might say. ;) That being the case, there are some definite similarities between human bodies and the Father's body. For example, the Bible talks about God as having: a face - Gen. 32:30 feet - Ex. 24:10 finger - Ex. 31:18 "back parts", as well as a face which in this case was not seen, and a hand - Ex. 33:23 a "right hand" - Acts 7:56 a mouth - Matt. 4:4 We are also told that Jesus is: the image of God - 2 Cor. 4:4 in the form of God - Philip. 2:6 the express image of his person - Heb. 1:3 and Jesus taught both that: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" - John 14:9 and that "A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." (He also made sure that people understood that he had a physical body after His resurrection by allowing people to touch it and by eating fish and honeycomb in their presence; He then made sure the people saw Him ascend into heaven as an embodied being.) I understand that many of these passages are understood figuratively by much of the Christian world, but we do interpret them literally and believe that the Father has a tangible, physical body, just as Jesus does, and that because the Father used His own body as a pattern for mankind, our bodies look very similar to His. Of course, there are also significant differences between our bodies and His. For example, our bodies are mortal, corruptible, susceptible to aging, disease, disability, death, and other unpleasantries, and the body of the Father is perfect, immortal, incorruptible, impervious to aging, disease, disability, etc. It is also a glorified body joined with an infinitely glorious divine spirit, whereas our spirits are immature, imperfect, and not glorified. So while we firmly believe that our bodies are patterned after His, we definitely don't believe that His body is the "same" as ours in every way. We also believe that while Jesus had a full and complete experience of mortality, complete with a fully mortal body that could experience pain, sickness, and death, following His resurrection, Jesus's physical body became immortal, incorruptible, and glorified much like that of His Father. We also believe, what Paul wrote to the Phillippians: "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (Philippians 3:20-21) In other words, we believe that through His atonement, death, and resurrection, Jesus made possible a literal universal bodily resurrection for all mankind. One of the effects of His sacrifice is that all of us will be resurrected, which we understand to mean that the body will be restored to life in an immortal, incorruptible form, and the spirit and body will be permanently rejoined. The degree to which one's body (and spirit) will become glorified, however, is related to the degree to which one has allowed Christ's atonement to work in their lives--which could be a whole other topic, but just note that when we say "degrees of glory" referring to post-mortal life we don't just mean different suburbs of heaven, we mean actual differences in spiritual and physical nature. ...Does he actually have sperm?... No idea. No revelation has been given about that at all, that I've ever heard of. As Xuzi mentioned, we have a sort of vague understanding that resurrected bodies are "quickened" by pure spirit, and don't actually have blood anymore. I have no idea about any other bodily fluids. It's interesting to speculate about, and I've wondered the same thing, but speculation is all it can be. I rather imagine that, being divine and all, the Holy Ghost could conceivably (forgive the pun) have constructed chromosomal material out of atoms and molecules already present in Mary's body, but still had the DNA (or whatever it was) match that of the Father. But really God hasn't seen fit to reveal anything about that, so who knows? It's one of those things about which there is no official LDS position and we're all free to speculate to our hearts' content (at least until God sees fit to actually fill in some of those blanks for us with actual information). But it has always struck me as odd that people who claim to believe God is omnipotent, and that He has an Only Begotten Son, will also then turn around and explain that God is incapable of so basic a function as reproduction. I dunno...definitely food for thought. And just to reiterate so we're all clear on this, all of that is my own personal little mental choo-choo train chugging down the track; the LDS church doesn't have a doctrinal position on it. (Well...other than the church does have a specific, official doctrine that the Father is the literal father of Jesus, and that the conception took place in some unspecified miraculous manner facilitated by the Holy Ghost, which left Mary a virgin until after Jesus was born. That's actual LDS doctrine. The rest of this blurb is just me....anyway...ahem...moving on...) ...And, do LDS believe that He's omniscient and omnipresent? I'm just wondering how that would work if He's confined to a human body. I'm not sure how omniscience would be affected by having a body. Omnipresence would be more of a problem, I would think. We do believe that the Father has a specific physical location, but that He is "omnipresent" in that His power and influence and sovereignty and knowledge permeate everything. There's nowhere you can go to "hide" from God. An analogy that is sometimes used is that of the sun--the sun itself has a specific physical location, but the light and heat that radiate out from it are felt throughout the entire solar system. You can "feel the sun on your face" even though the actual, physical sun is not literally "on" your face. Of course, like all analogies this one has its limitations; for example, there are things that radiation from the sun can't actually penetrate, and that's not true of the power of God. But it might help you understand how we believe that God can exist in a specific location, while at the same time His "presence" can be "felt" everywhere. Does that help? Also, as God is the master of all laws of physics and time and all that good stuff, we don't tend to think of His having a body as being in any way "confining" to Him. Rather, we view a body as a useful tool that can expand one's ability to act. I knew that LDS believed that the Father was the literal father of Jesus but I just hadn't thought it through much until now. Thanks for indulging. I do want to understand the actual position and not be guilty of just inventing what I think LDS believe. And, if this question has already been answered beyond your post, don't worry about answering. This is as far as I've read.:) It does have some interesting implications when you start thinking it through. I find it curious that people who don't think of the Father as Jesus's literal father will still refer to Jesus as the Father's Only Begotten Son. I wonder sometimes just what they think "begotten" means...but it seems rude to bring that up in casual conversation...lol.... Anyway, thanks for asking, and I hope this helps. :) Edited January 18, 2012 by MamaSheep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 My beliefs in regards to man being made in God's image: Man has Body Soul and Spirit. About Jesus being God's Son without a Father with a literal body: Isaiah makes it clear many times that there is only one God and Savior. Is it not I, Jehovah, besides whom there is no other God; a righteous God and a Savior, there being none excepting me? By my own self I have sworn—out of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not return—that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear.Isaiah 45:21-23see Phil 2:10, 11 “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?” Isaiah 44:24; Hebrews 1:8-10 “You are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and have faith in me, and that you may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no Savior.” Isaiah 43:10,11 see John 1:1 “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. And who is there like me? Isaiah 44:6 see Revelation 22:12-16 Jesus is God's Only Begotten Son: He was never created. Without him nothing was made that has been made. 1 John 1:3 and He has almighty power, the ability to answer prayers and forgive sins. Jesus is unique in all of these ways. Jesus is God's right arm, Isaiah 53 and God's Word. John 1:1 God is a Spirit. John 4:24 He is almighty and can be in two or one hundred places at once. Jeremiah 23:24; Genesis 18 Since God is a Spirit we can understand his face, backside, arm and word only in a limited way. 1 Corinthians 13:12 Jesus is both man and God. 1 Timothy 2:5; John 20:28 "The Lord of me and the God of me!" Sorry about the color, I copied those from my own Word document and can't get rid of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I think that anyone who goes around deeming who is a Christian or not has a lot more pressing matters to deal with than other people's faith- i.e., it is time to focus on their own faith and values and not someone else's. Mormons are Christians just like Catholics and any other denomination. To me their faith is between them and God, not them and me. Period. Perhaps you do not have this calling, but James and Paul did and encouraged others to as well. James 5:19,20; Galatians 6:1; 2 Corinthians 11:3,4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibbygirl Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 This thread is way too long for me to read through the entire thing so I apologize in advance if this has been asked already, but one thing that I'm curious to know is if the LDS church sees the other branches of Christian churches (non LDS churches) as true Christians and equals with LDS followers?? The reason I'm curious is because although I am not LDS I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and identify myself therefore as a Christian. When the LDS missionaries come to my door I politely tell them that I already am a believer and put my whole faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, but they still insist on giving me their card with the website on it and asking me to go on their website and wanting to make an appointment to come back another day to talk to me about the LDS church. This always confuses me because if I've already explained that I'm a believer wouldn't they just take me at my word and that they are preaching to the choir? The only reason I can think of as to why they keep coming back and asking me to go to Mormon.org and to talk to me about the LDS church is that maybe because I'm not LDS they don't see me as a proper Christian?? I really don't know. That is why I was hoping someone here could explain this to me? You all are being so patient and doing such a fine job explaining things from what I've read so far I felt safe to ask. :) Thanks to all who reply. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myeightkiddies Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Hi Ibby - I can't answer for the LDS, as I'm not part of that church, but it could be what I experience locally. Several churches go door-to-door here and leave tracts and flyers for their churches. Usually they will invite me to their church. In our discussion, they understand that I am a believer but I still get the pamphlets, invitation to their church, offers for prayer, website urls, etc. These aren't typical door-to-door type denominations, but they still go out visiting (local Baptists, AoG, CoC, and nearby Methodist). Today, a CoC church came by to drop off a magazine with their information. I think with the missionaries it may be the same thing. Even though you are a believer and may attend a church, they still will invite you to visit or give you more information about them. My oldest son usually visits with the missionaries. They will give him paperwork and an invitation to visit, but they spend a great deal of time just visiting. There was a big video game discussion one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alenee Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Thank you so much for your kind words. I honestly believe that your experience is the typical one for non-LDS church members living in Utah. It doesn't matter what faith my neighbors are....we do things together all the time. We regularly have neighbors block parties and barbeques and no one is shunned because of their religion (or lack thereof). I honestly don't know what most of my non-LDS neighbors believe in....and I don't care (and I mean that in the nicest way :lol:). We just want to have a fun, happy, comfortable neighborhood to live in....and we do. I'm so glad you like living in Utah. It's a great state to raise a family....no matter what your faith. I'm waffling back and forth on whether I should post this or not... Okay, here goes. First, I ADORE my Mormon friends and I am s.u.r.r.o.u.n.d.e.d. by them here where I live (not in UT) BUT, having said that, dh spent a considerable amount of time in UT working and one of the first things he realized among mostly men was that they were either Mormon or they hated Mormons. There seemed (to him) to be no in between. So, while I love that you are always so open and kind here and you sound like a person I would enjoy being around, your experience is not the *only* experience and you would do well to hear those people out who tend to sound as if they're generalizing. It's not usually out of spite but out of real experience. While I'm truly trying to be sincere, I realize this might ruffle a few feathers. My point is to enlighten, not to judge. We're all guilty of being exclusive at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'm waffling back and forth on whether I should post this or not... Okay, here goes. First, I ADORE my Mormon friends and I am s.u.r.r.o.u.n.d.e.d. by them here where I live (not in UT) BUT, having said that, dh spent a considerable amount of time in UT working and one of the first things he realized among mostly men was that they were either Mormon or they hated Mormons. There seemed (to him) to be no in between. So, while I love that you are always so open and kind here and you sound like a person I would enjoy being around, your experience is not the *only* experience and you would do well to hear those people out who tend to sound as if they're generalizing. It's not usually out of spite but out of real experience. While I'm truly trying to be sincere, I realize this might ruffle a few feathers. My point is to enlighten, not to judge. We're all guilty of being exclusive at times. I have a friend who was born in Portland OR in a VERY liberal family, joined the LDS church, has lived in Princeton NJ (where one woman taught her child to throw rocks at her windows), NV, CA, outside the US. Despite going to BYU and loving it, actually living in UT as an adult was an entirely different experience for her. Her comment was the "best people in the world live here. and the worst people in the world live here" (she was referring to mormons - some definitely not living their religion. but my grandmother didn't live hers either. I choose to see my grandmother as an exception rather than an example of baptists. anyway, I digress.) dh lived there for 10 years - he was very happy to get back to the NW (fil was stationed here and they stayed when he retired). That was also his experience, some great people, and some who "had a *lot* to learn". I think part of it is, when you are surrounded by those who purport to share the same beliefs, it's very easy to become complacent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alenee Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Hi Ibby - I can't answer for the LDS, as I'm not part of that church, but it could be what I experience locally. Several churches go door-to-door here and leave tracts and flyers for their churches. Usually they will invite me to their church. In our discussion, they understand that I am a believer but I still get the pamphlets, invitation to their church, offers for prayer, website urls, etc. These aren't typical door-to-door type denominations, but they still go out visiting (local Baptists, AoG, CoC, and nearby Methodist). Today, a CoC church came by to drop off a magazine with their information. I think with the missionaries it may be the same thing. Even though you are a believer and may attend a church, they still will invite you to visit or give you more information about them. My oldest son usually visits with the missionaries. They will give him paperwork and an invitation to visit, but they spend a great deal of time just visiting. There was a big video game discussion one day. Yes, this is partly why they keep talking to you, but it is a little different from other Christian denominations. Since we're not a grace-only church, there are specific ordinances we believe are important. Even though grace is vital and without it, the works mean little or nothing, with His grace they are important. This does not mean we think you will not be saved (we believe everyone will be resurrected). Nor does it mean that we think that people of any other sect or religion are wrong. It simply means that we believe we have something in addition to what you already have to share with you. If you don't need anything else, feel free to send those missionaries on their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibbygirl Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Hi Ibby - I can't answer for the LDS, as I'm not part of that church, but it could be what I experience locally. Several churches go door-to-door here and leave tracts and flyers for their churches. Usually they will invite me to their church. In our discussion, they understand that I am a believer but I still get the pamphlets, invitation to their church, offers for prayer, website urls, etc. These aren't typical door-to-door type denominations, but they still go out visiting (local Baptists, AoG, CoC, and nearby Methodist). Today, a CoC church came by to drop off a magazine with their information. I think with the missionaries it may be the same thing. Even though you are a believer and may attend a church, they still will invite you to visit or give you more information about them. My oldest son usually visits with the missionaries. They will give him paperwork and an invitation to visit, but they spend a great deal of time just visiting. There was a big video game discussion one day. Yes, this is partly why they keep talking to you, but it is a little different from other Christian denominations. Since we're not a grace-only church, there are specific ordinances we believe are important. Even though grace is vital and without it, the works mean little or nothing, with His grace they are important. This does not mean we think you will not be saved (we believe everyone will be resurrected). Nor does it mean that we think that people of any other sect or religion are wrong. It simply means that we believe we have something in addition to what you already have to share with you. If you don't need anything else, feel free to send those missionaries on their way. Thank you both for your replies. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 My beliefs in regards to man being made in God's image: Man has Body Soul and Spirit. About Jesus being God's Son without a Father with a literal body: Isaiah makes it clear many times that there is only one God and Savior. Is it not I, Jehovah, besides whom there is no other God; a righteous God and a Savior, there being none excepting me? By my own self I have sworn—out of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not return—that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear.Isaiah 45:21-23see Phil 2:10, 11 “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?†Isaiah 44:24; Hebrews 1:8-10 “You are my witnesses,†is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and have faith in me, and that you may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no Savior.†Isaiah 43:10,11 see John 1:1 “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. And who is there like me? Isaiah 44:6 see Revelation 22:12-16 Jesus is God's Only Begotten Son: He was never created. Without him nothing was made that has been made. 1 John 1:3 and He has almighty power, the ability to answer prayers and forgive sins. Jesus is unique in all of these ways. Jesus is God's right arm, Isaiah 53 and God's Word. John 1:1 God is a Spirit. John 4:24 He is almighty and can be in two or one hundred places at once. Jeremiah 23:24; Genesis 18 Since God is a Spirit we can understand his face, backside, arm and word only in a limited way. 1 Corinthians 13:12 Jesus is both man and God. 1 Timothy 2:5; John 20:28 "The Lord of me and the God of me!" Sorry about the color, I copied those from my own Word document and can't get rid of it. Thanks for taking the time to share your beliefs with us. If you have any questions about what Mormons believe, feel free to ask! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live2Ride Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ah Girls Camp! I'm gearing up for it right now...I'm the director...yay me, lol. Although this year I am supposed to get two assistants so I can actually function while there...dropping into bed at 1 am and then up at 5am makes for long days. It's a lot of fun though and every year I say, "not again", after coming home and sleeping for two straight days, but here we are again, going on year four. Maybe next year I'll get to go as a leader and not the director :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xuzi Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'm waffling back and forth on whether I should post this or not... Okay, here goes. First, I ADORE my Mormon friends and I am s.u.r.r.o.u.n.d.e.d. by them here where I live (not in UT) BUT, having said that, dh spent a considerable amount of time in UT working and one of the first things he realized among mostly men was that they were either Mormon or they hated Mormons. There seemed (to him) to be no in between. So, while I love that you are always so open and kind here and you sound like a person I would enjoy being around, your experience is not the *only* experience and you would do well to hear those people out who tend to sound as if they're generalizing. It's not usually out of spite but out of real experience. While I'm truly trying to be sincere, I realize this might ruffle a few feathers. My point is to enlighten, not to judge. We're all guilty of being exclusive at times. Oh I hope no one thinks we're completely disregarding non-LDS persons' negative experiences in Utah. :( No doubt they DO happen. And it is 100% shameful that it does. I think what other posters are trying to get across is that there are also very welcoming members of the LDS faith living in Utah, and they are, hopefully, becoming more of a majority than their more "isolationist" peers. It's a shame that the PP who had a negative experience ended up in a neighborhood filled with the negative ones. :( Like a previous LDS poster said, it's easy to become complacent when constantly surrounded by those who think, act, and believe very much the same way you do. There's a reason why Utah County is referred to as "The Bubble" among LDS. We recognize that a whole different mindset exists there among many of the members, because there is such a *high* concentration there. And also, you have to recognize the history behind the settlement of Utah. The LDS church didn't go there completely voluntarily. We were driven out (often violently) of several states, and went to Utah to get away. BUT, the US Army followed those early Saints out there, and after the railroad came in and more non-LDS started settling in the area, tensions still persisted (look into the history of Park City, UT, which was settled by non-LDS settlers. For the first several years of its existance it was *illegal* for companies there to hire a Mormon) So there's a long established history of "us vs. them" thinking in Utah that, sadly, still exists among some of the members, particularly those who've been there for generations. I'm not trying to excuse their behavior, and like I said, it's my hope that those people will eventually become a very small minority and that LDS and non-LDS neighborly relations can be like those in other parts of the country that I've experienced. Just trying to give a bit of background to understanding where those LDS persons who don't like associating with non-LDS came about their thought-processes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Thanks for taking the time to share your beliefs with us. If you have any questions about what Mormons believe, feel free to ask! :)Thanks.:grouphug: When you say everyone will be resurrected, what do you mean? Does it involve Romans 6:7 by any chance? Do you believe in the rapture or something similar? (How would you explain 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 17) Also, who are the dead in Christ that will rise first? Are these already in heaven and if so, how will they rise first? (These are questions I recently had answered and was wondering how different your views are. The answer I got for 1 Thessalonians was from John 6:54 and the definition of resurrection. :)) Edited January 18, 2012 by Lovedtodeath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DianeW88 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'm waffling back and forth on whether I should post this or not... Okay, here goes. First, I ADORE my Mormon friends and I am s.u.r.r.o.u.n.d.e.d. by them here where I live (not in UT) BUT, having said that, dh spent a considerable amount of time in UT working and one of the first things he realized among mostly men was that they were either Mormon or they hated Mormons. There seemed (to him) to be no in between. So, while I love that you are always so open and kind here and you sound like a person I would enjoy being around, your experience is not the *only* experience and you would do well to hear those people out who tend to sound as if they're generalizing. It's not usually out of spite but out of real experience. While I'm truly trying to be sincere, I realize this might ruffle a few feathers. My point is to enlighten, not to judge. We're all guilty of being exclusive at times. No worries....I understand that not everyone has a perfect experience here in Utah and that there are people who feel alienated and left out. We are members of a faith that permeates into every corner of our lives and our community as well, and that may feel exclusionary to some...and I don't blame them. I grew up back east and when I came out here to Utah, I felt like I'd been dropped on Mars. :lol: And I'm LDS. And for those members of my faith who act judgemental, self-righteous or are in any way less than what they should be and what they are taught to be.....I apologize. No non-LDS person who lives here should be made to feel less than, and I hope they don't. I guess my point was that if you can ignore our quirks, and be assured that every invitation to a church event is NOT a ploy to try to get you baptized, you'll probably end up having a great time here. I think Utah has a weird dynamic, in that non-LDS people are so afraid that we're trying to get them to join our church, they don't get to know us....and, conversely, that LDS people are afraid that if we invite people of another faith to a barbeque, trunk-or-treat, or "free night for members of Ward XYZ" at our city pool, they'll think we're trying to convert them....and so nobody does anything. We stay segregated for fear of offending each other and really wonderful friendships might be forsaken in the process. We all decided in our neighborhood, that would not be the case. I do not live in a 90% LDS community (more like 50%), because I live near an Air Force base, so we have made it a neighborhood goal to make it a fun place to live. My neighbor across the street is the pastor of a local Christian church, and we always plan activities that mingle our ward members and his congregation. And we have a blast!! Anyway, my point is that I think things are different here now, and I hope people don't judge us based on how life in Utah was when their grandparents lived here in the 70s. It's not the same. And whenever I invite someone not of my faith to come along to something fun we're doing (this summer it was a trip to a "pick your own" fruit farm and making jam the next day), I always preface it with "I am NOT trying to convert you, don't worry". :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Thanks.:grouphug: When you say everyone will be resurrected, what do you mean? Does it involve Romans 6:7 by any chance? Do you believe in the rapture or something similar? (How would you explain 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 17) Also, who are the dead in Christ that will rise first? Are these already in heaven and if so, how will they rise first? (These are questions I recently had answered and was wondering how different your views are. The answer I got for 1 Thessalonians was from John 6:54 and the definition of resurrection. :)) We believe everyone who has lived on the earth will be resurrected and nearly all (the vast majority) will go to heaven. It's based more on modern revelation than any given verse in the Bible. Does that answer your question? No, we don't really believe in the rapture. We do believe in the second coming of Christ, but we believe that people will remain on the earth after His coming (and during whatever events happen before). However, I'm not entirely clear on all the different ways various Christians view the rapture, so you might want to look at this site to see if it explains things more clearly to you. We believe resurrection will happen at different times for different people. The righteous will be resurrected first at the beginning of the Millennium, and the people who die during the Millennium will be resurrected immediately. The rest will be resurrected at the end of the Millennium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Thanks.:grouphug: When you say everyone will be resurrected, what do you mean? Does it involve Romans 6:7 by any chance? Romans 6:7 (KJV) states, "For he that is dead is freed from sin." We believe that verse, and actually that chapter, are not speaking of the resurrection at all, but of conversion/sanctification. When we say everyone will be resurrected, we mean that every person born on this earth since the begining of time, good or bad, christian or not, will be saved from physical death (not spiritual death). Resurrection is the reuniting of the spirit with the body in an immortal state, no longer subject to disease or death. This is made possible throught the atonement of Jesus Chirst and is given as a free gift to everyone. Do you believe in the rapture or something similar? (How would you explain 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 17) Also, who are the dead in Christ that will rise first? Are these already in heaven and if so, how will they rise first? (These are questions I recently had answered and was wondering how different your views are. The answer I got for 1 Thessalonians was from John 6:54 and the definition of resurrection. :)) When we die, our spirits will enter the spirit world and await the resurrection. At the time of the resurrection, our spirit and body will reunite, and we will be judged and received into a kingdom of glory. The glory we inherit will depend on the depth of our conversion and our obedience to the Lord's commandments. It will depend on the manner in which we have “received the testimony of Jesus” There will be two resurrections. The first resurrection is the resurrection of the just (see scripture below for who will come forth in the first resurrection) and started when Jesus Christ was resurrected. The main part of the first resurrection will be at His second coming. The second resurrection (the physical resurrection of the unjust) will be at a later time, after the Millenium. (From the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ) Mosiah 15:20-26 20 But behold, the bands of death shall be broken, and the Son reigneth, and hath power over the dead; therefore, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead. 21 And there cometh a resurrection, even a first resurrection; yea, even a resurrection of those that have been, and who are, and who shall be, even until the resurrection of Christ—for so shall he be called. 22 And now, the resurrection of all the prophets, and all those that have believed in their words, or all those that have kept the commandments of God, shall come forth in the first resurrection; therefore, they are the first resurrection. 23 They are raised to dwell with God who has redeemed them; thus they have eternal life through Christ, who has broken the bands of death. 24 And these are those who have part in the first resurrection; and these are they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having salvation declared unto them. And thus the Lord bringeth about the restoration of these; and they have a part in the first resurrection, or have eternal life, being redeemed by the Lord. 25 And little children also have eternal life. 26 But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection. **Did I answer your question? :001_smile: Edited January 18, 2012 by hmsmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 hmsmith, I'm going to ask a question following a logical line of thought and it's not meant to stir anything up...seriously curious how it's answered from an LDS perspective: You quoted Romans and placed the LDS view on it. How can the LDS even quote Romans if they can't be certain that it's correctly translated (the Bible in as far as it is correctly translated, which some LDS have said they can't verify any of it because the original manuscripts aren't in existence...so how is it used at all?)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) hmsmith, I'm going to ask a question following a logical line of thought and it's not meant to stir anything up...seriously curious how it's answered from an LDS perspective: You quoted Romans and placed the LDS view on it. How can the LDS even quote Romans if they can't be certain that it's correctly translated (the Bible in as far as it is correctly translated, which some LDS have said they can't verify any of it because the original manuscripts aren't in existence...so how is it used at all?)? We believe that the only way for any scripture to be correctly translated can only come through revelation from God. No scholarly interpretation can compete with revelation directly from God (if you believed there were such a thing), wouldn't you agree? I've also wondered why the Christian world would assume that the Bible needed scholars to fully understand the true meaning of His word. Why would you look to scholars' interpretation rather than look to God for His interpretation? I understand that most Christians read the Bible and apply their personal interpretation to their understanding of the scriptures, and I think that is good. It is when a leader of a church interprets the Bible according to his beliefs and tells everyone else this is how everyone should interpret it, because he knows more (he's gone to seminary, he's a scholar, or whatever), yet makes no claim to have received his interpretation from God. That is something that I do not understand. Anyway, as you probably already know, we believe that the prophets and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints receive direct revelation from God concerning the interpretation of His word and the affairs of His church on the earth today. Edited January 18, 2012 by hmsmith I can't spell recieve w/o spell check :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I haven't fully answered the question yet, but I have to go pick up my kids. maybe someone else will chime in about the Bible :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 We believe everyone who has lived on the earth will be resurrected and nearly all (the vast majority) will go to heaven. It's based more on modern revelation than any given verse in the Bible. Does that answer your question? No, we don't really believe in the rapture. We do believe in the second coming of Christ, but we believe that people will remain on the earth after His coming (and during whatever events happen before). However, I'm not entirely clear on all the different ways various Christians view the rapture, so you might want to look at this site to see if it explains things more clearly to you. We believe resurrection will happen at different times for different people. The righteous will be resurrected first at the beginning of the Millennium, and the people who die during the Millennium will be resurrected immediately. The rest will be resurrected at the end of the Millennium. Thank you! When you say everyone will be resurrected, what do you mean? Does it involve Romans 6:7 by any chance? Romans 6:7 (KJV) states, "For he that is dead is freed from sin." We believe that verse, and actually that chapter, are not speaking of the resurrection at all, but of conversion/sanctification. When we say everyone will be resurrected, we mean that every person born on this earth since the begining of time, good or bad, christian or not, will be saved from physical death (not spiritual death). Resurrection is the reuniting of the spirit with the body in an immortal state, no longer subject to disease or death. This is made possible throught the atonement of Jesus Chirst and is given as a free gift to everyone. Do you believe in the rapture or something similar? (How would you explain 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and 17) Also, who are the dead in Christ that will rise first? Are these already in heaven and if so, how will they rise first? (These are questions I recently had answered and was wondering how different your views are. The answer I got for 1 Thessalonians was from John 6:54 and the definition of resurrection. :)) When we die, our spirits will enter the spirit world and await the resurrection. At the time of the resurrection, our spirit and body will reunite, and we will be judged and received into a kingdom of glory. The glory we inherit will depend on the depth of our conversion and our obedience to the Lord's commandments. It will depend on the manner in which we have “received the testimony of Jesus” **Did I answer your question? :001_smile: yes. :) and good... Resurrection is always bodily as the meaning is "standing back up" We believe that the only way for any scripture to be correctly translated can only come through revelation from God. No scholarly interpretation can compete with revelation directly from God (if you believed there were such a thing), wouldn't you agree? I've also wondered why the Christian world would assume that the Bible needed scholars to fully understand the true meaning of His word. Why would you look to scholars' interpretation rather than look to God for His interpretation? I understand that most Christians read the Bible and apply their personal interpretation to their understanding of the scriptures, and I think that is good. It is when a leader of a church interprets the Bible according to his beliefs and tells everyone else this is how everyone should interpret it, because he knows more (he's gone to seminary, he's a scholar, or whatever), yet makes no claim to have received his interpretation from God. That is something that I do not understand. :iagree:I believe that we have the Spirit as our teacher, and I will not trust scholarly sources who do not have the Spirit. There are men who have been to seminary, etc. and sages, etc. that do not have God's Spirit. I see no sense in using what they believe while we are learning. 1 John 2:27; 1 John 4:1,2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.