I cannot believe it. I had heard Chick Tracts mentioned before in other threads, but I had NO idea they were so… utterly ridiculous! A hoot? That doesn’t even begin to describe it! Although it seems to me that such a tactic could very easily be used against the beliefs that the Chick folks hold…
Some people handed out a copy of “The Visitors” on Halloween day to all the nice lil Mormon children. That and another one, but I can’t remember. I don’t know. I think it’s way out of line to give those things to children.
I assume the microphone was not on when I posted my queries. Assuming it’s on this time, could one of our Mormon friends address them? Thank you.
Jodih love, sorry. Didn’t mean to skip over you. Could you repost them please? Sorry for the inconvience. I’ll get on them ASAP. Again, sorry, sorry sorry.
No problem, Pepperlandgirl. Here they are, as posted:
<sarcasm on>
Gosh, PLG, what could be wrong with giving children pamphlets like these? Sure it may scare them, but, golly! if it saves just one innocent little Mormon heretic from burning in the pit for all eternity, isn’t that worth an itsy, bitsy scare?
<sarcasm off>
I find Chick’s stuff simultaniously disgusting and fascinating (like a traffic accident) He’s done some fairly vile tracts about my religion too. See, the only reason Jews don’t accept Jesus is that we’re bitter, snotty, and a little bit dim (and, apparently we all have huge noses…)
See http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0054/0054_01.asp
and
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0014/0014_01.asp
At least some of you Mormons get to be e-vil and part of a secret conspiracy. 
Fenris
I don’t think it should be a problem. As I said before, we don’t believe that baptism automatically means salvation, and batism for the dead does not force anybody to join our religion. If that were the case, the whole free will, and agency idea would be negated. That goes against everything in we believe. Let’s say I’m baptized in your name Jodih. Well, you don’t HAVE to accept. You can just as easily say “Thanks but no thanks.” Everybody has the right to either accept or reject Christ and, after they die, their baptism or other Temple work. Also, the majority of the people who are being “baptized” are people who lived and died before the Church was established. They never had the oppurtunity to learn about the Book of Mormon or the Church, let alone be baptized into it. We believe in giving everybody the chance and the oppurtunity to reach the Celestial kingdom.
Even if it’s done against somebody’s wishes, as stated before, they can decline it.
The thing is, Father’s are important, however, you really only need one for about 30 secs of ejaculation to create life. A woman as her child grow in her body, attatched to her, a part of her. After the child is born, a woman is the primary care-giver (In general. I realize that some mother’s suck and the father’s are the most important in some families. I’m speaking IN GENERAL) Women are creators with the aide of men. Not the other way around.
It doesn’t bother me that I can’t hold the priesthood or be a bishop etc. I believe that men and women are equal but different. There are some things that men can do that I simply can’t. And there are some things women can do that men simply can’t. Men get the priesthood. Women get to have children. Men get the priethood to make up for the fact that women get to have children.
I don’t agree with that completely. Who has affected your life more? Your parents (Especially your mother) or a man who is elected for four years that you will never meet? People make changes, not the leaders. That’s why it was so important for women to have the vote. And if women as mothers raise their children to be good, loving, humble people, they will grow into adults that change the world for the better. That’s the rational behind it, and I tend to agree with it. Leaders only have as much power as the people give them. If the people are good people, the changes that are effected will be for the better.
Women and mothers right now hold more authority and power in the Church than any priesthood holder or bishop. We have the power, authority, and are able to minister. We just don’t need the titles. Which is more important to you? A title that means nothing? Or the ability to operate behind the scenes and make the changes that need to be made?
Somebody also made the comment that women can only get to heaven if they are married and hanging to some man’s coattails. That’s not the case. Men cannot enter w/o wives. Women cannot enter w/o husbands. They need to be 2 people equal, and one.
Also, I believe the same person said that women are segregated away to learn how to make crafts. Sorry you feel that the Relief Society is just about “making crafts”. There is more to it than that. The majority of the time they are working on various charities, planning fundraisers, and preparing to help those in need. If that seems insignificant to you, well then I’m sorry for you. I can’t think of anything more important than helping those in need.
Here’s a good understanding of the Relief Society http://www.lds.org/conference/o1997en/o1997en_6_4_monso.html
Here’s a few quotes from it
These are also the goals of the Relief Society
These may seem unimportant to all the women who are “Feminists” but they are very important to the women in the Church, and the Church itself.
Marie Osmond used to wear or was said to wear, a white tshirt 24 hours a day. What’s the scoop?
That was probably her Temple garmets. Here is the link Snark already posted regarding that
Thanks, Pepper, for taking the time to answer. You will probably not be surprised to learn that I disagree with you on both the issues I raised, but you have requested that this thread be a “Q & A” and not a debate. Certainly I respect your beliefs, and I appreciate you sharing them so honestly.
You still haven’t answered my question in the first page of this thread.
But while I wait, I have another question. In a previous Christian thread you started about 2 months ago, you stated that you belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Is this religion the same as Mormonism? Are the terms synonomous with each other?
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints = LDS Church = Mormon Church. The first name is the name preferred to be used. CoJCoLDS is an internet shortcut, at least on one LDS newsgroup I’ve seen.
Oh.
Well, um, thank you, Snark.
Is this your question?
If so, sorry I missed it. I don’t think I ever saw it. Anyway…
You see, the Mormons temporarily settled in New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. In all of those places, the good “Christians” would mob together and attack the Mormon settlements. Of course, they killed many more men than women. Let’s not forget the Extermination Order issued by Governor Boggs of Missouri. That was a particular high point in history. Another good one was the Haun’s Mill Massacre. Also, men were sent on missions, usually for extended amount of time. For the most part the young men were protected because they were doing God’s work, but many never made it home again. Some were killed, some died due to illness, some died due to accidents. Then on the way to Utah, many men marched off to join the US Army in the war with Mexico. Many of those young men didn’t return either. All of these things combined made it difficult for young women to find young men to marry.
When I answered one of his/her questions which s/he had addressed to pepperlandgirl, vandal wrote:
I just wanted to clarify that although I didn’t start this thread, pepperlandgirl had previously invited me to participate in answering questions if I knew the answers to them, which I did in some cases. I didn’t mean to muscle in on her territory or anything.
Pepperland - I am still waiting for my question to be answered about JS and all those wives. I still don’t get it.
22 (or more) wives and no kids. If he wasn’t supposed to try to have kids, why did he marry them? Why did he (presumably) have to “consumate” the marriages if kids were not going to be part of the picture?
I just keep on thinking, why so many marriages, and NO kids? Was it OK for him to defy what I presume was God’s wishes, and “refuse” to father children by all these wives? What was the whole point? Was he being disobedient to God by not trying to have kids? (And I think we can all agree that he obviously couldn’t have tried.) Why be “obedient” to God’s commands and marry these women, and then turn around and be “disobediant” by not trying to father any kids? Why deny all these wives their chance to be mothers? Isn’t motherhood a major big deal with Mormons?
I’m just really confused.
Ahem. Joseph Smith, Jr., did have at least one child. His son was selected by the organizers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Reorganized) to lead them. BTW: Commencing January 1st, 2001, that particular church will be known as Community of Christ, but will retain the RLDS moniker for legal purposes. http://www.rlds.org, if you’re interested.
On an unrelated note but tangential to this whole topic: PLG - trying to explain the “why” of religious matters just doesn’t seem to work. I’ve tried to get that across to many of the testifiers on this board but, alas, not much luck there. I have said that I am happy to discuss the mechanics of the religion, though. The “why” is a personal issue, whatever one’s religion.
Let me give you a parable, if you will.
There are two teams playing a game of Baseball. One player on the batting team is running from Third Base to Home Plate. One player on the fielding team throws the ball to the Catcher. The runner decides to slide into Home. He stops just short of the plate. The Catcher has the ball in his hand and tags the runner.
Now, does the Umpire lean over, and in his best umpiring voice, say “Why?”
Monty - yes, I know about Joseph Smith III, who started the RLDS church. That’s been my question - JS Jr. was able to father kids, had kids with Emma Smith, but obviously refused to father kids with all these other umpteen wives he was “commanded” to marry.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, the RLDS church claims (steadfastly) that JS Jr. did not have any other wives other than Emma. And they claim to have their own evidence to back this up. Of course, the LDS church also claims to have evidence to back up that LS did have many wives. Pepperland is speaking from the LDS point of view, so as far as she is concerned, JS did have all those wives.
But, if this is so, I’m curious how the LDS church explains JS’s lack of kids by all these other wives. Also interesting is that way back when, there was a court case to decide which church (LDS or RLDS) got to keep Kirtland Temple. The judge awarded the RLDS ownership of the temple. (I gave a link with info on the judgement earlier on this thread.) One thing that the judge used to decide which church was to keep the temple was which one of the churches had kept the “original” tenets of the church. He decided that Polygamy was not an element in the “original” (pre-JS-death) church. The LDS church tried to bring forth some of JS’s “wives” to prove that JS did practice polygamy, but I believe only two showed up, or maybe they didn’t show up. Anyway, the evidence the LDS church provided was far from convincing. This brings up another interesting question - why did the LDS church not provide more compelling evidence during that trial to prove that JS did practice polygamy? Why didn’t all these wives show up to testify? There were certainly plenty to choose from. The LDS church lost an important temple (something they did not want to happen, I am sure) because they could not provide convincing evidence that polygamy was part of what JS advocated during his lifetime.
It’s just a curious tidbit. I don’t expect Pepperland to have all the answers to why the LDS church lost Kirtland - I don’t think that many LDS members know much about it. (I suspect that the LDS church is a little embarrassed to have lost the temple.) I also don’t expect her to question whether or not JS did or did not have the wives. She’s already stated, according to the LDS, he did. Not going to argue with her about that.
So, since she steadfastly believes that JS did have the wives, my original question is - why no kids? Why “obey” God in the commandment to marry all these women, but (I assume) “defy” God and refuse to father children? Why deny these wives their opportunity to become mothers? I’m confused, and curious to hear the LDS explanation for that.
YB, somebody has posted links, albeit anti-Mormon links, that said that JS had children. I’ve seen evidence that he did have children with his wives. I’ve seen evidence that he didn’t. My main evidence that he didn’t is that when I went to the geneology library and looked up his wives, no children were listed. All that could mean is that nobody has done the work yet. I looked it up when the library first opened in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, and that was quite awhile ago.
As I previously stated in this thread, I am uncomfortable answering questions about JS’s wives and sex-life, or lack thereof. I wasn’t there. You wasn’t there. The only people who have the answers are long dead, and they aren’t going to reveal anything now. Right now, I have only heard speculation,from both sides, not fact. A lot of “Well it could be this, it could be that. It might have been this.” I haven’t heard anybody say “This is how it is.” That’s not to say that person doesn’t exhist, it just means I haven’t met him/her yet.
Pepperlandgirl,
You are invited to join a panel of experts assembling here in Great Debates.