Needs2Know wrote:
Oh, yeah, that post when you told everyone, “Give up! She’s an idiot!” was real respectful. :rolleyes: Gimmie a break…
Ah, that was what you meant - you never clarified yourself. Hey, dem’s de breaks - she decided to open up both topics, and I just put them together. As I already said, I didn’t have any malicious intent. You post it, they will respond - I learned that lesson long ago.
Well, shuckerdarn, we’ll sure miss yer input… :rolleyes:
Esprix
I might be finished with her but I’m not quite finished with you yet. I never called her an idiot. I don’t think she’s an idiot, as a matter of fact I have more than once hinted that I thought she seemed rather intellegent. And as for you…
Perhaps it is tradition on this board to nitpick everything everyone says and boost ones sagging self esteem by revealing small glitches in anothers argument or reasoning, fine participate if it makes you feel superior. As for your remark to Pepper that was simply in poor taste. IMHO, you simply come across as a sad little man desparate for validation and acceptance. I’ve never been able to make myself feel compassion for pathetic, insecure people who can only validate themselves by attempting to humiliate or accuse others.
Need2know…now I’m done.
Wait, let me applaud…
pepper, you go girl. 
Esprix
Am I the only childish juvenile giggly person who wanted to ask about Temple Garments instead of church doctrine?
If that’s too personal a question, you can tell me to bug off. But I can’t help but be curious about it!! 
Cranky: my mother-in-law says when you tell us about your underwear, then maybe it’ll be your business if you learn about temple garments.
She said its a private thing.
vanilla wrote:
“Mother-in-law-to-be,” don’t you mean? Or has it happened?
Esprix
we decided not to tell the notnice people who don’t wish us well, so you’ll have to hear about it from someone else.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Need2Know: you’re stepping reeeal close to the line, if not over it. If you want to flame Esprix, use the Pit. However, I think both of you would have been better served to refrain from the little “did not!” “did too!” bit we witnessed.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
And I can’t be the only one who found “I’ve never been able to make myself feel compassion for pathetic, insecure people who can only validate themselves by attempting to humiliate or accuse others,” delightfully ironic.
As usual, Gaudere, I defer to your wit, wisdom and insight. 
Esprix
My sympathies, pepperlandgirl, for what you’ve had to put up with in this thread. (Although you DID ask for some flack, setting up an “ask the Mormon” thread.) I grew up Catholic – last generation of altar boys to learn the Mass in Latin – but I roomed with an LDS guy in grad school, went to Ward dances, and served as best man at an LDS wedding (not a Temple Sealing, obviously). Then I moved out to SLC and was immersed in he culture. It is definitely an experience.
I was impressed with the LDS spirit of cooperation and organization. When the Valley flooded in 1983 and 1984 they built two sandbag dikes to form a river down Main Street, diverting the flow harmlessly into the drains. They did it all with volunteer labor. A month later there wasn’t a race of sand or a sandbag on the street. Try doing that anywhere else in the USA!
Nevertheless,the Mormon religion never held any attraction for me. It was far too alien to the beliefs I was raised in, and by that time I was agnostic, anyway. I was fascinated with it, and studied about it. I was in just the right place at the right time, with the right background to appreciate the Hoffman Document Scandals.
So – What do yo think of the Hoffman case? And about the Tanners and the Utah Lighthouse Ministry? This all bears directly on the early history of the Church. I was, myself, prepared to believe Hoffman about the McClelland documents, and I find it telling that it was Jerald Tanner, the anti-Mormon, who wrote the first piece critical of Hoffman and all his finds.
I don’t post much around here, but tonight I am a little insomniac.
I have enjoyed reading some of this thread because I find it entertaining to watch The Mormon Gal! make a concerted effort to dispel myths about her religion. I am a nearly nonpracticing Jew, and I constantly get questions like the type pepperlandgirl initially set out to answer. (What’s the deal with the hats? What is an Ashkenazi? What do they do with the foreskin afterward? Hole in the sheets?)
I’d just like to say that it is not fair to try and change this forum into an attack. pepperlandgirl set out to answer questions from a traditional Mormon viewpoint, not to defend the religion against its transgressions. All religions are supposed to be expressions of God passed through human hands. Humans tend to grub these things up.
It’s sickening to see the loaded questions and open antagonism. You will never change a believer over by telling them to open their mind and look at all the evils that their church has committed. A true believer looks past these missteps of humans towards the expression of God which lies underneath. That is what The Mormon Gal! is trying to express (and to clarify day-to-day proceedings of her church). I believe she did not open this forum to defend the actions of any given human, for as we know from the Old Testament, even prophets tend to do dumb things like second-guessing God and ending up in the bellies of whales.
CrankyAsAnOldMan wrote:
This is a legitimate question, I think. Here’s a link to a web article on LDS garments:
Thank you Edwino…that is what I was trying to say, and I admit that I am simply not that eloquent. I was guilty of doing that very thing and caught myself. When Pepper opened this thread I was really more interested in all the controversies surrounding her church than the doctrine. I had read about some of it and found it to be very complicated, similar to Catholisism in that it takes years to learn the ins and outs of all the rituals. Right away she set me straight that she was not posting to address any questions that dealt with these stories. I can respect that. I can also see that it would be hypocritical of me to assume that what she believes is false when so many people (especially on this board) would feel the same way about what I might believe. Not that I’m even sure I believe anything anymore.
It has also really gotten my goat to so often see so many people itching to argravate the Christians. I thought about this last night. Wondering if I didn’t feel this way because basically that is what I am or that is where my religous values stem from. But after I thought about it I realized that among the few times I have posted it has usually been to defend some principle I feel strongly about, affirmative action being one. Otherwise I don’t say much because like I have stated on several occasions I am not educated and not necessarily that smart. One thing I do feel strongly about is religous tolerance. If it works for you then great! Whatever you believe. Studies have shown that people who have a belief system live longer, generally happier lives. Whether or not this is some false sense of security makes no difference to me. I say live and let live. Why would I want to score someones faith and perhaps even shorten their life!?
As for my comments to Esprix, I did get a little personal. But then I saw that he was using something personal that Pepper had revealed in another post to pretty much call her a hypocrite. She called him on it with a very forthright and honest answer. She told him that she no longer practices her religion because she feels in conflict with it’s doctrine and that is one of the very reasons. I just didn’t think it appropriate that she should have to defend herself in that way. But I’m sure that she and Esprix have debated the sex and Bible thing between themselves and she didn’t need me to come to her defense.
Gaudere…yes you did have a right to put your moderator hat on with that one. I agree and bow to your authority in this matter. However your closing remark was obviously a “hat off” remark and very much off base. You or anyone else I have ever come into contact with cannot accuse me of putting someone else down in an attempt to make myself feel vindicated. While my self esteem suffers as much or more than anyone else’s might, I have never used anothers character flaws or mistakes in an effort to justify mine. No, I am by admission just another one of your run of the mill, plain old, self depreciating, underachievers. I’m hard enough on myself without trying to drag someone else down with me.
Need2know
Needs2Know wrote:
First of all, if she didn’t want people to know things about her private life then she shouldn’t post them on a public message board, should she? She knows that. Secondly, as I’ve already said, I was not doing it to call her a hypocrite, I was asking a legitimate question.
pepperlandgirl and I already have debated and discussed a variety of other topics in other threads, so we already know who the other is and that we’re just fine with each other. Obviously you don’t know our history, so thank you for butting in, misreading my intent, and then lambasting me for it.
Esprix
Couple questions:
How much of a member’s earnings (percentage wise) has to go to the church per year?
Why are the guys who stand on street corners with their bikes and bibles called “elders” when they are clearly teenagers?
SaxFace wrote:
Faithful Latter-day Saints pay 10% of their gross income, called “tithing,” to the Church.
“Elder” is actually an office in the higher, or Melchizedek, priesthood and doesn’t necessarily reflect the age of those who hold it.
Hi, I’m back for like 2 secs before my BF finds out I’ online. (this place is like a drug, I can’t stay away! HELP ME!)
First off, thank you edwino. You hit the nail precisely on the head. I simply wanted to clear up the day to day practicings of the Church because that’s what I’m most exposed to. Also, I’m naturally curious about how other religions practice their belief. I think it’s fair to think other people are curious about the practices of certain Churches. Especially the LDS Church because it’s steeped in myths, and surrounded by misconceptions.
N2K, Esprix was not out of line. The more I think about it, the more I think he wasn’t trying to make me look bad, he just wanted to know what my Church would think about my actions etc. It’s a legit question no matter what I have believe or faith I practice. We do have a history of sexual discussions and it’s religious implications. We also have a history of various other discussions. I’m very comfortable with his questions and points, I can only assume he feels the same about mine.
10%. You can do what my sister does and give 10% per months. (She only makes $40 a month so she only has to pay 4) Or you could do what many others do and give 10% of the whole year as the end of every year. I personally perfer giving at the end of every month. It all equals the same, but it’s easier to make small payments.
The money is used for various things. It’s used to buy food and other things for the Bishops Storehouse. (People who need help go there and are welcome to what they need.) Some money goes towards the upkeep up the Temples and the individual wards. Some money goes to the building of the Temples, churches, and most recently the new Assembly Hall. Little goes to the people in the Church, since the majority of them do not get paid for their time.
“Elder” is their priesthood title. All missionaries have to be Elders in order to be missionaries. It means they have certain powers, have gone through the Temple, and are prepared to share the gospel and the blessings of it and the spirit, as well as bless and baptize. The missionaries are 19-21.
CalMeacham, thank you for your sympathy. I cannot answer your questions right now due to time constraints, and the largeness of the answer. I will answer them soon though.
Ok, I’m off again, trying to stay away from this place. Yesterday I did a pretty good job, I was only on for a total of 30 mins. That’s down from 6-8 hours! Yay! I’m getting my life back!
I apparently have at least one misconception about Mormons because some are contradictory. Please help me determine which one(s) it is.
My understandings - from limited readings, admittedly - include the following as LDS beliefs:
Multiple gods, i.e., a righteous man, when he dies, can become a god.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each separate gods.
From the book of Mormon, Alma 11:28-31: “Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and Amulek answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’”
Jesus is a “spirit brother” of Lucifer.
Mormonism says to have the “fullness of the everlasting Gospel”. According to the Mormon Doctrines of Salvation “By fullness of the Gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom” (vol 1, pg 160). Yet some of the more arcane Mormon beliefs (like 1 and 4 above) don’t appear to be in the Book of Mormon.
Please don’t take this as a challenge - I’m probably missing something in my research. I really respect your attempt (and your grace in that attempt) to address this topic. Being Catholic, I fully empathize with having to deal with people making outrageous claims about your religion. (Do Alberto Rivera and Chick Publications have similar vendettas against Mormons?)
Oh yeah; and anyone who’s not his particular stripe of Christian. Check out The visitors. I take it you’ve encountered The Death Cookie? Oh man, was that a hoot.
MattStL wrote:
Hope these links help. They’re all from a comprehensive web site on Mormonism called “All About Mormons” which is located at http://www.mormons.org .