Actually, I think that Cecil’s article addressed the issue of Burton being a muslim or not. One could’ve argued that to go on the Hajj, he made the required profession of faith. If it was a valid (i.e., sincere) declaration, would be between him and Allah, is my guess.
I also seem to recall either Life or perhaps Nation Geographic having one of their photographers, who was Muslim, make a full feature report on his pilgrimage. And the Saudi Embassy site to which I provided the links in the Comments on Cecil’s Columns forum also show photos of the Hajj and provide descriptions of it. I’m guessing, and mind you it’s only my guess here, that the Muslims feel that an unbeliever’s presence on the soil defiles that soil, but that describing it is okay.
Hey, DaveW, I certainly don’t think you’re the kind of person you-know-who is. Maybe I’ve miscommunicated too. But we both agree on your point above about the trolling - and that’s certainly not you doing that.
Apparently, I can’t even make myself clear on that point. Oh, wait. Where it says “Either I’m communicating extremely badly, of the whole of the SDMB…” at the end of my big long post, the ‘of’ should have been an ‘or’. Perhaps that makes it clear that I was, indeed, shouldering all the blame for this mess, since in the next sentence I dismissed everything after that ‘or’ as being unlikely. What’s left? “I’m communicating extremely badly.”
I have my doubts about the word ‘all’. I live in a condo complex. The two entrances to the parking lot have “no trespassing” signs posted. Every building (six condos each) has a “no solicitng” sign in the stairwell. After I say “no thanks” (or when I’m in a bad mood and point out the “no soliciting” sign), the missionaries who’ve knocked on my door have always knocked on the doors of my neighbors (even 15 years ago, when I had a roommate who’d stay in his bathrobe all day on Sundays just so he could quickly get naked to answer unexpected knocking in order to scare the Jehovah’s Witnesses).
A stupid wild guess would be that the missionaries around here feel that God takes priority over such petty mortal concerns, but I really don’t know why they choose to ignore the signs. Perhaps it’s my local Mission President who needs to be retrained.
That’s a false dichotomy. I neither talk with them nor do I dismiss them “for being militant converters.” I quickly say “no thanks” to them because I know what they’re offering and I don’t want it. Just like with people calling me and offering me credit cards, talking with them just wastes my time and theirs. If I feel like converting, I know where the closest Temple is. Heck, just about everyone who drives the Western half of the Washington, D.C. Beltway knows where the Temple is - you can’t miss it - especially if you’re on the Outer Loop.
Monty wrote:
Wow. A response of this type was both entirely unexpected and quite pleasant - not that I thought that you, Monty, would be one to peg me as trolling, but instead for your grace, especially in light of what I last wrote (if it’s possible to abuse The Pit, I think I managed to do it). Since I still can’t tell if you really know why I was annoyed, and I’ve realized that blowing up over it publicly was one of my more boneheaded decisions, please accept my public apologies for the very existence of this thread, and email me if you, Monty, are still wondering about anything I’ve written.
Agreed. Call the dude and ask why the missionaries under his supervision appear to be illiterates, and immoral to boot - they’re supposed to follow their agreements. Heck, let me know what town you live in and I’LL call! Might even be gist for another article. (But you gotta wonder if doing so is helping them or not!)
That’s exactly how I handle telemarketers and the JWs (the JWs are the only ones who come by my apartment, oddly enough). I say, “No, thanks,” and wish them luck…luck elsewhere, that is.
“It’s a small world” note: the friend whom I baptized - he got married in that very temple.
'Saright. That’s what the Pit’s here for - to blow up, vent steam, hash stuff out in, shal we say, less genteel terms than the other fora permit.
No need to take it off-board. Tell you the truth, I think I understand. The root of this particular “issue” between us is that you think I misunderstood the analogy and was thus responding to the analogy itself, and not the analogized (word?) bit; whilst I thought you were taking me to task for calling the analogized bit irrelevant. You see, I think that grimpixie’s having issues at all about not being allowed into, essentially, a private party was irrelevant. I should’ve made that clear.
So, basically, the Pit has served its Purpose in this case.
Okay… I’m being held up as an example. No pressure, no pressure…
(Back in this thread):
Well, how small are the mission, uh, districts? I can’t imagine they’d get smaller than, say, “Northern Virginia” (as opposed to any particular town in NoVA). Even using county lines seems a bit small to me, but then again, what do I know?
What would the question be? “Why do those pesky Mormons keep knocking on my door?” Seems like a question that’d be of wider interest would be along the lines of “why is it that some Christian faiths send missionaries to places that are already mostly Christian, while others tend to restrict missionary work to the farther ends of the Earth?” That’d allow the answer to cover the Witnesses, and perhaps others, as well.
Actually, it seems the Witnesses have vanished from my neighborhood. Has there ever been a “turf war” between LDS missionaries and Witness missionaires? Anyway, I was idly wondering last night if there were some Big Book of Mormons which kept the missionaries from knocking on doors of people who are already members. I’m fairly sure the answer is ‘no’, but the clipboards have always kept me guessing.
So did a cousin of mine - after converting to LDS. Her mother was extremely pissed that she couldn’t be there for all the ceremonies.
But still, I feel like I crossed a line.
Well, there’s part of the problem right there. Grimpixie’s “issues” weren’t really about Temple secrecy as it affects him. In that fine tradition of shifting thread topics, Grimpixie had moved from the secrecy bit to trying to understand a basic difference between his faith and LDS. Grimpixie wrote:
This, it seemed to me at first, and even more so after Grimpixie’s own aplogy and PLD’s ‘spin’, is one of the things Dex specifically allowed within the “comparative theology clause” of the “fuzzy line” post. Grimpixie was simply trying to compare his own religion to yours - Temple secrecy was the start, not because Grimpixie was feeling left out, but because Grimpixie was surprised that many LDS members don’t get to go into those private parties.
But my main issue with you, Monty, was summed up fairly well by PLD:
I’m not the only one who saw what appeared to be personal attacks in response to what appeared to be honest, if badly-worded questions (it was a tricky subject, after all). “Conduct Unbecoming an SD Staff Member” is a phrase which just popped into my head, and seems apt. As Arnold pointed out, I’m sure it’s a tough subject for you (and yes, a “well done” from me, too), but just about every time you said something to the effect of “it’s my religion, it doesn’t affect you” in the original thread, it came off as snide, contemptuous, and, frankly, a little whiny.
Again, apologies for the way I began this thread. I should have counted to 10, and then done a complete rewrite.
I’ve no idea, actually. But I’ll give a call to one of the NoVa missions on Tuesday (Sundays, the prez should’nt be in the office and Mondays are supposed to be for families) and will report back in this very thread, if I remember.
{smallish snip}
I’ll ask: “Why exactly are some of your missionaries ignoring the posted signs regarding ‘no solicitation’ and ‘no trespassing’ when they go door-to-door?” & “Does flouting the mission rules help them or not?” Fair enough?
Heck, I can answer this one right now. Some of the faiths (and not only the LDS) think that the other Christian faiths are either in error, or incomplete, and thus those other Christians need to hear the “real message” or “the rest of the story” also.
{another smallish snip}
Not that I know of. Has anyone invited both groups into their living room at the same time? If so, please report on the event.
I’m quite sure there isn’t such a book because, when I lived in my last apartment, the LDS missionaries knocked a couple of times - different groups in about six-month intervals (for the groups, not the knocking - man, that would be one long stand on the stoop!).
You know, I think that’s really why the church has the “chapel marriage” also: so the non-member relatives get to witness what they see as the traditional thing. Then, after a year IIRC, the couple can get their marriage sealed in the temple. More info can be found at http://www.ldsweddings.com concerning temple marriages. That site even has an explanation for the non-member relatives.
Don’t sweat it.
Well, access is only restricted to the temples, and that’s the only thing that could’ve referred to, IMHO. Apparently, the basic issue was the restricted access.
I think that “priesthood of all believers” equates with “the full membership of the church” and that the offices of Deacon, Teacher, Priest, and Elder are administrative offices within that membership - i.e., a “set-apart” order of priests.
I, personally, didn’t see it that way. But that’s just my opinion of course.
Thank you; however, perhaps the badly worded question about being restricted came across as being a little whiny to me. Maybe I should’ve mentioned that, albeit in other words.
A note: I tried to write the Staff Report as an impartial observer of the event would. Rereading it, I think it came across that way. Of course, my viewpoint may be tainted in the matter.
'Saright. I’ve learned interesting stuff even in MPSIM threads.
I meant “what would the question be for another article?” All SD articles begin with a question, no?
Well, yeah, but there’s obviously some difference of priorities. Catholics see Protestants as being “in error,” but I don’t find Catholics on my doorstep.
<snippity>
Yes, I’m sure that’s the reason, but my cousin’s mother didn’t really give a damn - she wanted in on all the pomp. This was, after all, the first wedding of any of her children. Actually, the next wedding to take place amongst her kids probably did her in worse - my cousin Mike eloped.
But Monty, Grimpixie doesn’t appear to want to get into the Temples, since he doesn’t even appear to want to be a Mormon. The basic issue, it still seems to me, is the difference between whatever his faith is, and yours. Since you’re both Christians, shouldn’t even the “administrative” bits be mostly identical?
<snippertido>
Since my rap over the knuckles I have relegated myself to silent reader on these two threads, but it seems as if it might be safe to emerge now…
First of all, can I state that I publicly distance myself from vanilla and his attitudes and shoulder-chips. The question that I originally was (very badly) asking is as DaveW has phrased it above. I have had my eyes opened to the fact that LDS believers, who consider themselves to be Christians, have very different beliefs and practices to myself. I knew that there were those who disputed the LDS claim to be “Christian”, but it seems that the differences are greater than I had thought.
This I can accept and understand - are the Temple ceremonies then restricted to the deacons, etc. - along with invited members of the congregation in good standing with the Church?
Other questions that are knocking around inside me:
[ul][li]What is the relationship of Jesus to God? Equal or in submission to?[/li][li]What is the LDS attitude toward other Christian denominations? Should a Baptist or a Catholic preferably join the LDS Church, or is it OK to continue as they are?[/li][li]Is it true that faith (via grace) gets you into paradise, but your “ranking” (wording???) is determined by your list of “good works”?[/li][li]What is the reason for “baptising” those who have passed on?[/li][/ul]
Not exactly. The short answer is that everybody can go to the temple, as long as they are members in good standing and have been members for at least a year. You don’t have to be invited, because you make the decision yourself as to whether you want to go.
Jesus is Heavenly Father’s Son, and his power flows from the Father. Anything deeper than that I’m not qualified to answer.
We believe that while other Christian denominations are good, and are doing the best that they can with the light they have, we have been given a little more light, and would like to teach others about it. So we have respect for other religions, but we also believe that we have more truth, and we proselyte everyone who isn’t LDS already.
Erm. Certainly we are all saved by grace, by Christ’s atonement. There isn’t anything we can do to ‘qualify’ for heaven. Once we have been baptized/born again/saved, we are expected to live up to our end of the bargain as best we can by living Christ-like lives. But we won’t, so we still have to repent all the time, and ask for forgiveness and grace. That’s pretty much all there is to it, I think. It’s not my job to think about where in heaven I or anybody else ends up, and I prefer to leave that up to God.
We believe that baptism is an essential ordinance for everyone, that God has commanded us to do. Even Jesus was baptized. Baptism is a physical ordinance; it can’t be done by spirits, so we, the living, have the responsibility to be baptized by proxy for those who didn’t have the opportunity while they lived. Once someone has been baptized by proxy, we believe that their spirit becomes free to learn more about the gospel in the next world. Therefore, God’s plan is failsafe for those who never heard of Christ while they were alive; they can still learn about the gospel even after they’re dead. It’s not unprecedented; Paul mentions it in 1 Cor. 15:29.
I’d like to reiterate my recommendation for How wide the divide? Many of your questions will be answered much better than they can be handled here.
Different Being, but completely equal in every way.
Preferably, everybody would join the LDS Church. However I’ve always been taught that God will look at each person individually and make His decision. So I never really worry about it. It’s none of my business.
Paradise is sort of a “waiting room” where people go before the Judgement via grace. Hell is where people go who need to pay for their own sins, because they didn’t accept Christ. “Hotel Hell” if you will. On Judgement Day, God will decide which level of Heaven each person goes to. Works are important, very important, because theoretically, all the sins are already paid for.
Here on Earth, we also have to repent for our sins. I’ve always been very uncomfortable with certain Christian denominations and their style of repentence. “I’m sorry Jesus, I love you, I’ll never do it again.” and that’s it. We have to prove that we’ll at least try to never do it again. We have to live up to our end of the arrangement.
Because Baptisim is the first ordinance, or step, towards the highest Kingdom of Heaven. Baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, receiving the Priesthood, going through the Temple, being sealed in the Temple, and living a good life following all the commandments and Jesus’s example are all necessary to one day become like Heavenly Father. People who died before the restoration of the Gospel obviously don’t have all these chances. So, if we do baptism by proxy, they have the oppurtunity to accet Jesus Christ and continue with the other ordinances. They are not forced to. I repeat, they do not automatically become Mormons. They are given the choice, they are given the oppurtunity to decide.
In order to go through the Temple, men must have the Aaronic Priesthood (the very first “level”, if you will). Young Men in good standing receive that when they are about 12 or 13. When they are 19, and preparing for their mission, they go through the Temple by themselves for the first time. If, before they are 19 they get married, or go through a sealing ceremony with their family, they must still have the Aaronic Priesthood (if over 12) and be in good standing.
Young women can go through the Temple by themselves the first time when they are 21, because that’s when they prepare to go on their missions. They cannot receive the Priesthood, because it’s pretty much understood that women already have the power of the priesthood, as they are Mothers. Anyway, women must be in good standing and receive a Temple recommend. However, as with the young men, they can go through the temple sooner if they are getting married, or are going through a sealing ceremony with their family.
For example, next year if I decide to get married in the Temple, I’ll be 19. Too young to go through and receive the Ordinances and blessings, but not too young to get Sealed in the Temple.
Anybody who keeps The Word of Wisdom, attends Church every week, (for the males: Have the Priesthood) and is basically a member in Good Standing can go through the Temple.
I don’t think it makes sense to say that they’re “equal in every way”. Jesus, after all, was the one who went up on the cross. Our Father is our father, etc. I think answering this in more detail is simply difficult. It would require more space than is available or appropriate here.
And I’d disagree here too. Members of the LDS church have the duty to share the restored gospel with others, not to keep quiet about it. I’d agree more with genie that we say to other Christians, “take the good you have, and let us add to it.”
For non-LDS, I should explain that the word “Paradise” in Mormonism has a very specific meaning–the place where the spirits of the righteous await resurrection. Paradise isn’t considered the final outcome, hence PLG’s explanation.
To answer the question asked, assuming “Paradise” means an eternal reward of being with God and Christ in Heaven, etc.: Faith and works are inseparable. See James 2:17-18 for works:
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
And Ephesians 2:8-9 for faith:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Most people I have discussed this with agree that works are a manifestation of faith. If you have faith, you will do the works that said faith would indicate. That means obeying God’s commandments to the best of your abilities, and repenting when you fall short. In doing (and believing), Christ makes up the (infinite) difference.
So while we LDS say that there are certain ordinances necessary for salvation (say, Baptism), we belive that it is because of God’s commandments, our faith in Christ, and hence our willingness to obey that make the ordinances necessary. It’s not as if getting wet gives you a passport to heaven.
This isn’t quite correct. First of all, there are different ordinances performed in the Temple. Baptisms for the dead can be performed by youth 12 and older (and males must have the Aaronic Priesthood)–that is, the person standing in as proxy must be so qualified. Again, any worthy male can receive the priesthood at age 12, and all must have a degree of worthiness to enter the Temple.
Note that the age 21 is common, but it’s not written in stone. Many women go at an older or younger age.
Now this is simply not LDS doctrine (the implicit priesthood part). In fact it’s the first time I’ve heard anyone claim it. It may be folk belief, but I don’t know of anywhere it’s taught by the church.
That’s incorrect. A man or woman being sealed in the temple must both have attended the temple and received the other ordinances there. The arbitrary age mentioned above is a rule of thumb, but it’s basically just that–a rule of thumb. The person’s local leaders are at liberty to decide if any individual is prepared before then. The primary reason to have a minimun age is that a certain level of maturity must exist, and the individual must be prepared to make covenants with God (and plan to keep them).
Also not true. Other minimum requirements include: being a full tithepayer, obeying the law of chastity (in general being morally clean), and (most importantly) a sincere belief in Jesus Christ as your Savior.
I tend to leave that to the missionaries. I do know someone who “witnesses” every chance she gets, and I find that annoying. It’s probably more of a personal preference thing.
That way my bad. I didn’t specify the different ordinances. I hinted at it when I referred to “going through by themselves” and “sealing ordiances”.
What I heard in seminary, is all. Though granted, haven’t been for two years.
Something else I was taught in seminary. More than once, as a matter of fact. I also think I remember hearing it alluded to at a General Conference by the Prophet himself. Though I don’t remember when, or what the context was, so that probably isn’t helpful.
Meant to add “and the other commandments”, but I didn’t. Again my bad. Of course, even that would have been pretty broad and general.
Sorry for being so unclear in my post, thank you emarkp for clearing it up for me. I do admit I haven’t been to Church for awhile, and as previously stated, haven’t attended Seminary for two years. Maybe I should just leave the more technical questions to someone else, as my memory may not be what it used to be.
You don’t know the truth. You are not better than anyone. You know everything and understand nothing. You put your God in a box–and you hide your faith there too, so that you may continue to spew hatred with impunity.
These people aren’t hurting you. They aren’t hurting your God.
(For those unfamiliar with LDS jargon, we usually use the word “testifying” where others would use the word “witnessing.”) Yes, it’s a fine line we tread. I struggled with how to define appropriate testifying as a missionary. Too direct and you may offend some people. Too shy and you may miss speaking to someone who needs to hear the message. Fostering opportunities to share the gospel and then doing so when appropriate is difficult, but it seems to be the way to go.
Also, I would occasionally knock on doors in apartment buildings in which there were signs posted on the doors that read, “We’re Catholic. The Holy Virgin protects this home. Persons of other faiths need not pursue contact here.”–that’s a rough translation. After knocking on a few doors like this, I found out that the signs were posted without the knowledge of the occupants. On the other hand, there were the generic “No solicitors” signs. That was a struggle too–the message I had was very important, so should I ignore the sign? But offending someone wouldn’t help anything at all… Eventually I decided to honor the signs, but there was no mission rule about it.
And when someone politely told me they weren’t interested, I shook hands and wished them well–that was far preferable to people who told us to come back at a different time, only to pretend not to be at home.
Heaven help us from vague teachings from seminary teachers. Don’t get me wrong–I have a lot of respect for seminary teachers, and the one I actually paid attention to was a great example for me (I only went regularly for one semester in all high school, and I fully expect to be asked to be a seminary teacher as payback someday ). But many seminary teachers wander into speculation instead of staying on track on the scriptures.
Actually, I think no apology is necessary. I would however suggest that perhaps instead of stopping your attempts to answer questions, that you could pursue understanding the gospel more clearly, so that your answers (and your own understanding) are less vague, and so that they proceed even more from your heart, and perhaps less from your memory.
Oh, and BTW I’m impressed with how civil this discussion has been, especially since it’s here in the Pit.
(On a side note, andros, though it’s somewhat satisfying to see vanilla told off like that, I think there’s no need to do so–and certainly no need for such language :), even though it’s in the Pit. Vanilla has plenty of rope to hang herself with.)
Wow. What a thoroughly hijacked thread. Kidding, really. Let it roll where it will.
Since it’s rolled over this way, I’ve got some questions of my own:
I’ve got some fundamentalist relatives now (by marriage), and they talk about “accepting” Christ as well. What the heck does this “acceptance” entail? I mean, what, exactly, should I be accepting? That he is “Lord and Saviour”? What does that mean, on a practical level? I understand the whole “died for our sins” business (so no need to describe that), but “acceptance” seems to entail something other than just that part.
But, keep in mind that while I think Christ was a great guy, I don’t believe in his divinity. But I do my own best to lead a Christ-like life because it seems like the right thing to do. Am I bound for Hell, anyway?
What’s the deal with this baptism-by-proxy after death thing? Does the LDS Church gather obituaries and baptise everyone they can? Or is it just people who would have been baptised LDS? If the former, it seems to me that that would be just as disrespectful of other people’s beliefs as an unbeliever entering a Temple.
A follow-up to #1, above: It seems as though the LDS Church shares at least a few beliefs with my Pentacostal relatives, so what’s the LDS view on the Old Testament? My relatives down-play the OT as much as possible, since their idea of God is one of Love and Redemption, not Fire and Brimstone. (The way I figure it, most men mellow out when they have a child, and so did the Christian God ) They believe that no one who lived more than 2001 years ago could possibly be “saved,” since Christ wasn’t around before then (same goes for any intelligent life on other planets - they’re screwed out of Heaven, too, since Christ was born to Earth only and for Earth only).
emarkp wrote: “And when someone politely told me they weren’t interested, I shook hands and wished them well–that was far preferable to people who told us to come back at a different time, only to pretend not to be at home.” I’ve gotta ask: what did you do about the folks who answered the door naked? Ever run into one? I had another friend who bought a copy of the silly “Satanic Bible” to offer to Jehovah’s Witnesses “in trade” for the tracts they offered up - never a single taker. I guess this “question” would be, just out of curiousness: what’s the weirdest thing you, or any other person who’s done missionary work and is reading this, have run into while knocking on doors, and what did you do about it?
Andros wrote to Vanilla: “You don’t know the truth.” Ain’t that the truth? I’m so convinced that the real truth is so unknowable to me and everyone else, I consider myself (jokingly) to be a “militant agnostic” - I don’t know, and you don’t, either.
Honestly, Vanilla, you seem to have some sort of Christian faith, so why not follow Christ’s lead on humility and compassion for your fellow man (no matter what their beliefs)? The posts I’ve seen from you are quite unChristian.
Thanks pepper and emark for your intellegent and well-stated answers to my questions. A great deal has been learned. Time to share some of my own beliefs…
Yes - Christ doesn’t force anyone to believe/accept what he has done for them. Salvation is as much about the act of repentance as it is about believing. If you truly believe that Christ “died for your sins” then that demands a response. Either you must accept that sacrifice in your place and commit your life to following Him, or reject it and choose your own way - the choice is yours to make.
Here I am forced to reveal my difference with the LDS church - my belief is that God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is one entity, revealed in three persons. The LDS position seems to be “equal but different” i.e divine, but not-quite-God (correct me if wrong y’all) which is the root of the Christian/non-Christian debate.
Can’t answer that one. All I know is that faith in the sacrifice of JC in my place on the cross garuntees my salvation. As for the rest of the world, that is up to God. And a good thing too…
Your rellies are missing out on a great deal by tossing out the Hebrew Scriptures - Jesus was Jewish and a Pharasee (in his theology, although not his practice) and used the Hebrew Scriptures as the basis of all his teaching on earth. His emphasis may have shifted, but that doesn’t invalidate what went before. Many Christians neglect the Hebrew Scriptures because they find it hard to deal with the images of God that they find there, and all the “legal jargon”. I cannot deny that reading it raises some difficult questions, but that is no reason to throw it all out. As for the questions re B.C. citizens and intelligent life elswhere in the universe, see above - not our position to say…
The problem with this point of view is that vanilla seems to follow a branch of Christian faith which teaches that they do know the truth. If you want to be truly open minded then you must allow him to be arrogant and self-righteous without prejudice!!
