that was it! thank you pepperlandgirl
Well mangeorge, if I get there and see that God does, in fact, exist, you can damn well bet that I’d be accepting the ordinances (well, the ones I haven’t got already) and repenting for my sins. I’d have no reason not to.
And if I get there and find out I’m all wrong, I’ll be “stuck” with a psychopath forever.
Sounds like hell to me…
:eek:
Oh yeah, I want to make that clear—if the LDS God exists, I’ll accept the whole thing. If the sociopath worshipped by most exists, I’ll give him a hearty “Fuck You” as he sends me to Hell.
Here we have a well-known (to Mormons, that is) chart of the
Plan of Salvation. You can click on most of the stages, but it’s not completely running; sorry.
Here is the relevant section from the Doctrine and Covenants:
The basic idea is that people who keep all their covenants, repent, etc. go to the Celestial Kingdom. Those who never had the opportunity to hear or understand the gospel in life get that chance in the Spirit World after death, and that’s why we’re so big on genealogy and proxy ordinances like baptism for the dead; we want everyone to have the chance.
Generically good people who don’t accept all this, or who had the chance on earth and refused despite the Spirit’s testimony to them, go to the Terrestrial Kingdom.
People who aren’t very good go to the Telestial Kingdom; still a kingdom of glory, but much less than the other two.
Those who know God and Christ completely, and reject them completely, go to Outer Darkness (aptly named, since it would logically be outside all creation).
Basically, it all comes down to where you want to be, how close you really want to be to God. If you truly want to spend eternity in God’s presence, that will be what you get to do. If that doesn’t sound so great, you are free to live further away. God doesn’t force people to go anywhere they really can’t stand; they get to go where they’ll be happiest.
Dang. I pressed Submit instead of Preview. I was going to rewrite all that stuff. The problem is that we just don’t know all that much about anything, except how to get to the Celestial Kingdom; logically enough, God only tells us how to reach the highest levels. So what I’ve written there is only the barest outline, and reality is, I think, somewhat fuzzier.
What’s a ‘bobscure’?!?!
A typo. drop the ‘b’. It should read “obscure”.
Sorry, I should have read it before I copy/pasted it.
Kathy
bob, it’s a conspiracy against you, sorry.
This is a great great thread! I’m a Mormon, too (18, just about ready to go on my mission, WEEEEE!). So I have two questions:
A. If you served a Mission, where did you go?
B. Is it church POLICY or DOCTRINE that women don’t have to serve a mission… actually that raises a third question
C. Do men HAVE to serve a mission and are there consiquences if he doesn’t? Also I’ve heard that after some turn in their application, they are told (not based on worthiness) that they shouldn’t go. Is this true and if so do you have any (personal) accounts of such?
YAYAYAY great thread gnight.
Regarding the Word of Wisdom: Someone mentioned earlier in the thread vegetarians. I’m one of the LDS who’ve made the choice to be ovo-lacto-vegetarian. Here’s an interesting site: http://www.ldsveg.org. There are some lengthy (and I mean lengthy) discourses about scriptural support for such a choice.
Let me say here that I really don’t think I’m the best person to be answering your questions since I haven’t been there done that so to speak. I haven’t had personal experience to draw from or that would promt me to study the subject in great detail or cause me to retain all that I have learned about it.
I hope someone else will step in who is better qualified.
I was looking for the answer to Question B. when I found part of the answer to Question C. so this will look like an unusual source, but it says what I’ve always heard, but then again, I was in those meeting for Women 
General Women’s Meeting,” Ensign, Nov. 1986, 81
To the Young Women of the Church
President Ezra Taft Benson
Kathy
Of course I was kidding. Although I wonder if Carmen is getting extra votes from the LDS community who are supporting “one of their own.” (This idea was brought up by a couple of LDS members of another board that I participate on. Because she ain’t much of a singer.) But I’m glad to see her stick around because she seems like a nice kid and doesn’t dress like a 2-bit whore.
That brings up another question about Mormon underwear:
You stated that it’s not necessary to wear the garments under sports gear like swimsuits and tennis dresses. Are you suposed to wear them under theatrical costumes?
Also, do women wear the camisole under or over the bra?
It just occurred to me: Are there any LDS celebrities, like actors or music stars?
Kathy, you may be interested in the new policies put in place at the last General Conference–they have officially ‘raised the bar’ for missionaries. M. Russell Ballard’s talk.
On preview, I see Green Bean’s questions:
With theatrical costumes, I think it’s pretty much up to the person’s conscience and the production. There could easily be situations where it’s fine not to wear them; there could be others where the costuming is just plain inappropriate.
For bras, women vary. Some like it under, some over. Depends, again, on what you feel is right, but I think some temple matrons tell people to wear bras over the camisoles.
Gladys Knight, Steve Young, and Wilford Brimley are all LDS. There are quite a few sports players, not so many acting types.
That statement, and the following, may belong in the Great Debates, but I’m using a phone modem this I’m following your thread. Now, not only is that not respectful, it is inconsistent. Let us ignore the 3 or 4 billion or so who are not, as the Muslim’s say, “people of the book”, which is what I assume you meant. It seems pretty clear from this thread, the the Christian scriptures are Mormon scriptures. (In fact, do not Mormons categorize themselves as Christians?) It appears to be inconsistent that the Mormon God is acceptable to you, and the Christian God a sociopath. The Muslims believe JC to be a prophet, and hence accept his teachings. Their view of God is not greatly different than the Christian and Mormon God, and therefore not a sociopath from the LDS perspective. Christians view JC as the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies, and Muslims Mohommed (if I’m not mistaken) not as a retraction, so I don’t see where the Jewish God could be considered a sociopath from the LDS perspective.
Pepperlandgirl, what majority do you consider to be worshiping a sociopath?
I’d like to reiterate that I have tremendous respect for Mormons. I have never met such a large group so willing to let others debate their core beliefs. RC nuns and priests are the next closest I can think of. (I’m not RC either, by the way.)
Does anyone have an answer to Donatist question? They believed that sacrements could only be administered by saints. I’ve always assumed that’s where the “Saints” part of LDS came from. (The RC and Orthodox position being that the position, of say bishop, provides the ability to administer sacrements.)
-
Greensabre, I did not serve a mission (although I had the opportunity to do so). I chose not to go because of a combination of family opposition (I’m a convert) and lack of Church support (the bishop of the particular ward I was in was unhelpful to say the least). Since then, I’ve been a faithful and (generally!) active member, and I was married in the temple. No Church consequences for me, I think. Subsequent prayer sessions have suggested to me that God isn’t that upset with me about the issue, nobody’s ever given me guff about it, and I’m not bothered by it. Wouldn’t have met my wife if I’d gone on a mission, y’know.
-
SlowMindThinking, I can’t vouch for pepperlandgirl’s language in the thread*, but I think I see what she’s getting at. I’m not generalizing, but I’ve met way too many Christians who have told me point blank, “Publicblast, since you belong to a false Church, you are going to Hell. All your ancestors from India are already there, since they were Hindu and never accepted Jesus. Won’t you save yourself?” Again, not all Christians feel or believe this way, but some do. Gotta say, if that turns out to be the picture in the afterlife, I will enjoy the company in Hell, since most of the great folks of the world wil be there. The LDS God, in comparison, is slightly more compassionate than many Protestant sects would have it.
- Language, language! [shaking finger in annoying fashion] BTW, pepperlandgirl, we have to have lunch if I’m ever in California–we have lots to compare notes on.
Curses, hit submit instead of preview.
I wanted to add that one reason a lot of Christians consider LDS “non-Christian” is precisely because our eternal worldview is, in many ways, a softer and more forgiving one than mainstream Christianity. This isn’t good or bad on either side–just something that makes us different and another point of disagreement for everyone. The result is that the LDS can be stereotyped as “saving too many” and maintstream Christians can be stereotyped as “not saving enough.” Both are stereotypes, right?
SMT, I’ve never heard of the Donatists, but I can tell you where the word ‘saints’ in LDS comes from. The way we use it, members of Christ’s Church are saints. Thus the members of the Primitive Church in 50AD were saints, and we are the saints in the latter days. We don’t think of saints as being extra-holy people who can perform miracles, or use the RC definition of ‘saint’ as someone who can intercede with God–it’s just a term for a member of the Church.
We also believe that we have the true priesthood in the Church, and that is what gives authority to bless the sacrament and baptize and so on. Not all the latter-day saints can do that, just the ones with the priesthood authority to perform the ordinance.
What he said.
How exciting, Greensabre! You’ll have to let us know when you get your call. I served in Korea, Taejon about ten years ago, and just loved it.
Ok, could you talk a bit more about “Sons of Perdition” and outer darkness? Who is counted among the former? What kind of nasty nasty set of sins would one have to commit to earn this?
Also, what is the current doctrine about American Indians’ relationship to the Lamanites? (that’s right, right? Spelling? Lamanites killed off the Nephites, right?) I assume it differs from the pop layman’s version I got from friends in the 70’s (which was sort of like the pop layman’s 19th century explanation of blacks as ‘sons of Ham’ or somesuch)?