Ask the Mormon Gal!

Great Debates
61

Esprix that was completely uncalled for and had nothing to do with this thread. I am sorry for the fact that your sexual orientation causes you pain. Perhaps you’ve even gotten into it with Pepper over the Biblical implications of your lifestyle, so what? The remark has noting to do with this thread. Go back to monitoring your Gay Guy thread and give it a break.

Like I’ve said before you guys are barking up the wrong tree here. Pepper can witness all you want her too but she obviously knows very little about the controversies surrounding her church. It wouldn’t be very civilized of us to pound her with questions she simply cannot answer.

Need2know

62

Pepperland - Diane and I are still waiting for more clarification on JS’s wives! (Just being a nag!)

While I was awaiting your response on why the RLDS own Kirtland temple, I easily found this link:
http://www.qni.com/~jwinship/templelot.htm

It is titled “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of LDS verses the Church of Christ - FEDERAL REPORTER Volume 60 pages 950-955”

Apparently there was a court case, where a judge decided which “side” was truer to the “original” church that JS had formed, thus deciding who should get the Temple that was built before JS was killed. (I guess each side claimed ownership of it, so they had to settle it in court.) A small quote: (apparently written by this judge)

Another quote from this document:

I am assuming that since the RLDS church had Joseph’s son, Joseph Smith III, as their leader, that this judge felt that this was more in keeping with the original intent - that “succession should descend lineally, and go to the first born”.

It goes on and on. Quotes from the Book of Mormon and other scripture. I’m sure this link is from a RLDS source, which makes this whole issue more interesting. I am curious to see what an LDS source would say about why Kirtland Temple does not belong to the Mormon church. Would both accounts match up?

63

Yeah, apparently this is pretty standard Christian doctrine. Remember Jimmy Carter’s comment about “sinning in his heart”(paraphrased). Same thing. I think there’a a NT verse that says something like “committing murder in your heart” is(almost?) as bad as actually doing it.

Fenris

64

Needs2Know wrote:

Excuse me? What are you talking about?

Um, ok. Why are you sorry for something that doesn’t exist? :confused:

Esprix

65

Yes, thinking about it is sinful
Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultry with her in his
heart

                 Psalms 81:12
                 So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices

                 It's not everyones knowledge, but these are what the majority of the people in the world know.

                 3 Nephi 12

                 1.[28] But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed
                 adultery already in his heart.

                 Mormon 9

                 1.[28] Be wise in the days of your probation; strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may
                 consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but
                 that ye will serve the true and living God.

Esprix, in order to prove you are truly sorry for the sins you are repenting for, you have to go to the Bishop, confess your sins, but the bishop DOES NOT forgive you. Telling the Bishop is a step towards full repentance, and he can aid you and help you decide what would be the best way to repent. Also, I can’t get married in the Temple unless I’ve repented and told the Bishop. Telling the Bishop is not always expedient in order to repent, but it’s usually what needs to be done.

Yosemitebabe, thank you for doing all this extra research for me. You save me all kinds of time and headaches when you answer your own questions. You wanna become my personal assistant :wink:

Needs2Know, I’m not here to witness. You asked for how I felt about the LDS Church. You asked that I not include “The Official stance of the Church.” That’s what I did. I can’t always clear up the surrounding alleged problems with the Church or it’s leaders. It’s hard to discern which is the truth, and which is propaganda, for both sides. I could do that kind of research for the rest of my life, and still won’t be able to answer your questions. But if you want to ask about doctrine or scriptures, or policies, I could probably help.

Esprix, I don’t have to explain myself to you or anybody, in anyway. If you are curious about the repentence process, by all means ask. But I’m not going to answer any more personal questions. I’ll provide personal examples, but at my own discretion.

66

Fenris wrote:

Actually, it most certainly is not - “standard Christian doctrine” (or, more accurately, “mainstream American Christian rhetoric”) is that it’s ok to be gay (have gay thoughts), just not to do those gay things (have gay sex). You can be an openly gay priest, for example, as long as you honor your vow of chastity.

I asked pepperlandgirl to clarify that because she seemed to imply that thinking about sin is a sin itself, which would be contrary to other mainstream Christian denominations.

Esprix

67

Pepperland, I am glad that you appreciate me doing my own “legwork” in regards to some of my questions. (I do love looking up reference links, I confess!) But I have to ask - did you read the link I provided? It does not look upon the LDS church with favorable eyes! This judge disputes BY’s right to be leader of the church, he disputes the idea that JS advocated polygamy, and on and on.

68

Actually thinking about sin is part of mainstream Christian doctrine. It’s called “sinning in your heart”. Makes perfect sense to me. According to doctrine you should not lust, covet, etc. etc. even in your heart. Now I wouldn’t take this to mean that if you saw a good looking guy/gal and had a passing thought about them you’d go to hell. It would be dwelling on sinful thoughts to the point that your mind can no longer focus on God that is considered sin. At least that’s my take on the situation. But I’m sure many would interpret to mean any unclean thought.

Need2know

69

pepperlandgirl wrote:

Huh. OK.

Huh. OK. Is it like a confessional, anonymous thing, or do you really have to lay it on the line face-to-face?

You and Needs2Know seem to think I’m here to bash you, which I’m not - I’m just asking questions. If you’re going to interpret every question as a personal attack, sweetie, then you never should have started this thread. I’m not asking you to explain yourself, nor defend yourself, I’m just asking questions about Mormonism and your personal experiences with it. Wasn’t that what this thread was all about? I don’t recall asking you any personal questions above what you’ve already revealed on this very message board.

Sheesh. Y’all got hair triggers around here. I’ll stop asking questions now if it’s too much trouble. :rolleyes:

Esprix

70

What are your thoughts on the RLDS church? And, how much do you know about it? The beliefs of the RLDS church are significantly different than those of the LDS (No Adam/God theory, non-priests and unmarried women can go to heaven, recently women in the priesthood). They have the same Book of Mormon and a large part of the same D&C but they interpret it differently. Eleven of the twelve apostles plus all of JS’s family (uhh, I’m not including the secret wives) were RLDS. I’m fairly sure that Wallace B. Smith (great-grandson?) is still the current Prophet of RLDS. (IIRC, he has no sons but has at least one daughter. I wonder if the women in the priesthood thing is really well timed here.)

What I like about both of these churches is that they believe that God speaks to people - today - personally. I love the “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of it” scripture. Though my faith is on a serious downturn currently, I know that I could never join a religion that did not believe in modern day revelation. I suppose I could believe in a God that was here but left but why would I worship him/her?

The only strong evidence that I see that the Mormon church is corrupt is that they define tithes as 10% of income rather than 10% of profit. I think, though, that they are willing to make some allowances for the poor who really try to fulfill this requirement.

Anyway, it seems strange to me that Brigham Young’s ideas would differ so greatly from the rest of the church leaders of the time. That makes me want to examine the differences. As I said my faith in general is at an all time low, so this is not high on my priority list, but, because I find this discussion interesting, I wonder how you feel about it. Also, I wonder how much modern Mormons know about the RLDS church. I know that RLDS children are encouraged to learn about the Mormon church becuase I was one. I know once I met Mormons who had never heard of RLDS and it shocked me.

Dang it. I’m rambling. I’ll quit.

71

You asked a legal question “Why does the RLDS own the Kirkland Temple.” You found the legal answer. It doesn’t really matter if the person who judged disputes BY’s right to lead the Church. The LDS Church believes God will NOT send us a false prophet, or a false leader. We have that faith in God. So, AFAIC, BY was chosen by God to lead the Church in a very trying time. BY did a great job, and accomplished the things he need to accomplish.
It doesn’t matter when men believe about who should lead the Church. It’s up to God, it’s in God’s hands. Therefore, we sustain our prophet.

As far as the BofM I already gave the scripture reference in the OP. It said that it’s a sin to have more than one wife, unless God commands otherwise in order to “raise up seed unto me.” Jacob 2:29-30

72

I can’t keep up with you people! :slight_smile:

It’s face-to-face. You admit the sin, own up to it, and ask for guidance.

Sorry Esprix, I misinterpreted what you were saying. I’m not taking things as personal attacks. I’m just hot and tired and short of patience right now. I should take a break.
Don’t stop asking questions Esprix, you know I love you, and would like your participation in this thread.

Here is MY personal take on why BY was chosen. He was very intelligent, stubborn, a real go-getter, and loved God and Joseph Smith with all of heart. After JS was martyred, and the Saints were being forced out of Illinois they needed a strong, righteous leader to keep them together and reach their new destination safely. I think if things were different, and JS died of natural causes, and the Saints weren’t forced out of Nauvoo, there would have been a different Prophet. Somebody equally righteous and strong in spirit, but someone who could fit the needs of a relatively peaceful Church. Each prophet brings his own attitude towards life to the job. At that point, BY had the best attitude to match the needs of the members of the Church.
As for the RLDS, well, I of course don’t agree with their teaching. I think the church was formed because of Emma’s denial and dislike of BY and has snowballed. The fact that they are becoming more and more Protestant by the year points to the possibility that soon the only similarities will be the name.
I think people who take the time to learn about the early years of the Church (From 1830-47) should know about the RLDS. But a lot of people just don’t take that kind of time to research. And since the LDS Church thinks of the RLDS Church the same way they think of all other churches, (We are all God’s children, and it’s His job to judge, not ours) it’s not really mentioned too often.

As for the 10% tithing practice. You always get the money back in one way or another. I could recount experiences of people who had to choose between groceries and tithing. They chose to pay tithing, and somehow, some way, they ALWAYS had enough food.

73

WHOA! Hold the fort!

This is the part where I lose my mild-mannered persona :::snicker::: This propaganda is such B.S., I have a hard time accepting that even the most devout Mormons believe it.

You may have a few examples of people you know personally, but I can assure you that many people put their children to bed hungry because they chose to pay tithing instead of groceries.

I have many clients who fall well below the poverty level. These people receive assistance under a program where you can not make more than $8,989 per year for a single person, $11,773 for a couple, with an additional allowance of $1,532 for each child. This is the maximum income limits, many are well below.

In order to continue receiving assistance, they must report their income and expenses every year. Living in Utah, a large majority of these clients are LDS. Almost all of them list the 10% tithing as an expense. Trust me, they absolutely DO NOT always have enough food. In fact, just today I assisted an elderly woman who has eaten nothing but ramen noodles for the last three weeks. It sickens me to see her report that 10% tithing.

A woman who used to work in my office ate nothing but peanut butter sandwiches she brought from home during the period her husband was not working. They barely had enough to survive, but she still paid that 10% to the church. I don’t recall that they always had enough food. In fact, I remember her telling us how they didn’t turn on the heater one winter because they couldn’t afford the gas. Her kids slept in coats.

I have always considered the “pay your tithing and God will take care of you” belief to be nothing more than a scare tactic.

74

I shouldn’t have even touched the tithing question. Mainly because I don’t pay my own, and neither do my parents.
I have seen examples of what you mention Diane, and I’ve seen evidence of my example. It goes both ways. I think if someone takes the perogative to sacrfice for their beliefs, no matter what that belief system is, it deserves a great deal of respect.

75

Diane: good point! I have heard preachers(Pentecostal ones) say give lots of money to churches or them, and God will pay you back ten fold or some such.
It makes it sounds like a lottery(give some money, expect more back).
I am not working now and have No income at all, I am not tithing. I think God understands.
Pepper: You started this thread as Ask the Mormon Gal, just as Esprix’s is called ask the gay guy.
However, he is an acknowledged expert on gayness(heh), and questions of homosexuality are not Doctrine.
You aren’t the best person to start this thread.
You don’t have the answers people are asking about, and you say you don’t even live the lifestyle!
So when you repent, and get right with God, as you say, study up some and then maybe you can be qualified to answer all this. Maybe you should’ve just posted a link to a Mormon page instead.

76

Esprix

So should a heterosexual man not be allowed to be a priest, either? I really don’t see how sexual orientation is relevant.

77

What’s with the scripture quotes? Why are there dots all over the place? Why are there words like “aJames” “aseed” “bwisdom” “abreastplate” “cseer” “ainnumerable” “cdominion” “dmansions” and “bpossessed”? At first I thought these were typos, but they seem to be too common to be typos.

78

Hey, if someone wants to take over this thread, they are more than welcome to. But no other Mormon on this board has stepped up to the myths and stereotypes that surround the Church and what it believes. Aren’t we all here to fight ignorance? If you, or Snark, or anybody feels that they are more qualified to answer these questions, then by all means, go for it! If you feel qualified to HELP with the questions, but all means, DO IT.
However, if you are just going to judge me because “I’m not living the lifestyle” I really don’t want to hear about it. I was raised in the Church, attended Church every Sunday and took two solid years of Seminary. I also studied Church History extensively, and am not frightened to do some research. I lived in the “Mormon Culture” if you will, for 16 years. I have never been what you could consider a “devout” member, however, I am not ignorant. I’m certainly not unbiased, but I have seen both extremes of religion: Complete and utter faith in everything religious, and complete and utter disbelief in everything. religious.
I have been raised with the misconceptions, lies, and myths of the Church rammed down my throat by non-members, and I’m tired of it. So I’m finally doing something about it.
Again, if you or anybody else is more qualified to do this, then do it. I’m not going to fight with you about it, as long as questions are being answered, I don’t care who is answering them.
I’m sure that somebody reading this thread so far must have learned something.

I think Esprix thought I meant it was a sin to have BISEXUAL thoughts. I meant it was a sin to have any kind of SEXUAL thoughts, because it’s the sin of the heart.

79

Pepper, how do you feel about the Mormon practice of baptizing after death people who manifestly would not appreciate it if they were alive and able to object – i.e., Jews, atheists, Moslems, and many, many Christians who do not believe in the doctrine of post-death baptism? I’m curious how the Church reconciles performing this “service” with the knowledge it has (or ought to have) that many people would decline the service if given the choice – indeed, are offended by the idea of having it done without their consent and against their wishes.

Also, do you, as a modern woman, truly believe that it is okay to bar women from the priesthood – from any position of true hierachical/political power in the Church – on the grounds that they do not need to be priests? We don’t need to be prime ministers, presidents, or CEOs, either, but leadership positions are where the ability to affect change is at, in any field. It is true that a woman may “minister” by being a mother, but it is equally true that a man may “minister” by being a father. Do you find this explanation sufficient for the continued banning of women from positions of influence or power within the structure of the Church?

I assure you that I am not setting you up or trying to “bash” you, but these is two of the positions I have wondered about myself.

80

Excess of women over men? not likely

The Mormon apostle John Widsoe de-bunked the common explanation that polygamy was practiced in order to provide homes to a surplus of women in the church:

“Plural marriage has been a subject of wide and frequent comment.
Members of the Church unfamiliar with its history, and many
nonmembers, have set up fallacious reasons for the origin of this system of marriage among the Latter-day Saints. “The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male
members in the Church, is NOT supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seems always to have been MORE MALES than females in the Church…
“The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all
available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of MALES in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States,…Orson Pratt, writing in 1853
from direct knowledge of Utah conditions, when the excess of females was supposedly the highest, declares against the opinion that females out numbered the males in Utah…
“Another conjecture is that the people were few in numbers and that the Church, desiring greater numbers, permitted the practice so that a phenomenal increase in population could be attained. This is not defensible, since there WAS NO SURPLUS OF WOMEN.”
(Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, pages
390-392)

From an LDS publication: “But then the proportion of the sexes in Utah would not, at present, admit of an extensive practice of plural marriage. When the census was taken five years ago, there were 143,963 souls in Utah Territory, not counting untaxed Indians. In this number there
was an excess of 5,055 MALES over females. This does not have the appearance of permitting an extensive practice of plural marriage,…”(Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 20, page 133)