I would also note that, in LDS theology, deceased people can reject any ordinances performed on them in the afterlife. I never understand the objections. You either believe or you don’t, and to my mind that leaves three options:
It is all a bunch of hooey (which most people outside the LDS Church believe), then no harm no foul. If I knelt at my bedside tonight and said “and please bless the soul of Sean Factotum’s Great Great Aunt Tilly”, and you don’t believe in the power of the prayer, why be offended?
It is an ordinance with real “saving power” (my phrase, not the churches), but Great Great Aunt Tilly was a devout Alitopian who wouldn’t be caught dead in a Mormon Church (heh heh), well then, she wouldn’t accept the work and it is without effect.
It is an ordinance with real “saving power” and my Great Great Aunt Tilly would have accepted. Well then what’s the problem?
This is such a loaded statement that I am almost certain it isn’t a request for information, but a thinly-veiled attack. I could be wrong.
If you’re being serious, here’s my answer:
It’s not so much that the LDS religion believes women (or Blacks) are ‘not good enough’, to use your words, to be heads of the church. What it does believe is that the priesthood is required to hold certain offices – much like a corporation may decide that a degree is required to hold the office of Vice President, for example.
The downside to this is that, according to the ‘rules’ of the religion, the priesthood is reserved for males. Why is this? Well, this is one of the areas where there’s a lot of debate (or at least was, when I was a member). I don’t have a good answer, other than pointing out that it is, by anyone’s standards, a very patriarchal organization, and that somewhere along the line it was decided that only men can hold the priesthood.
I should point out that this does not mean women are required to be subservient to their husbands or that single women can’t do anything, as has been touted by critics. The LDS church is very supportive of women in general, especially with regards to education and career advancement. It’s just the religion aspect that is unequal.
From my own experiences, women who are believers in the religion (not just members of the church) accept the limitation without reservation. There are aspects of the church that men are similarly excluded from. Yes, it’s very old-boys-club, but again, only in religious matters.
Free will. God has said that people should be free to accept or reject his saving grace. By performing these ordinances on those that are dead but lived in a period where it was possible for them to choose the LDS path but rejected it, it can be seen as coercion. (And not being overly familiar with the LDS books, I’m making the assumption that the concept of free will is the same as in the traditional Bible.)
And since dangermom has already stated that what happens in the afterlife is merely speculation, and not canon as described in the BoM, how do you know you are not forcing someone to against their will to become part of the LDS afterlife?
I am sure that Dangermom, considering our previous exchanges, would have seen the humour of it. And a little levity goes a long way to keep serious topics civil. Relax
First off, I should point out that the Mormon church views the Bible as equally valid with the ‘LDS books’; the Book of Mormon and other works are additions to, rather than replacements of, the Bible.
(And for the curious: as far as I know, the King James version is considered the ‘canon’ Bible.)
So yes, the concept of free will is unchanged. Which leaves us with the (quite logical) question that, if all this afterlife junk is sheer speculation, how do Mormons know they AREN’T coercing the dead?
In essence, there’s no good answer because it all comes down to a matter of faith.
Now… a logic question for you: how can you suggest coercion (re: the ordinances performed by living Mormons for the dead) if you do not accept the validity of their afterlife?
You don’t have to answer. I’m just pointing out that, if they’re wrong, what’s the harm? As far as I know, other religions are pretty adamant that Mormons are whacked, and whatever it is they’re doing in those temples won’t affect you in the afterlife.
And if the Mormons are right… you just might find yourself rethinking whether or not the religion was the right one after all. At least with their beliefs, you’d get the chance to change your mind.
I’m not trying to proselytize here, by the way. I’m simply pointing out that, as religions go, the LDS one is pretty forgiving.
Dangerrmom, great thread and I admire your bravery in undertaking it.
Would you consider dealing with the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as understood in “orthodox Christianty” (for lack of a better collective term, and no offense intended) and in LDS theology?
Since the issue was slightly referenced. How much weight does the LDS place on the acts in life vs. your acceptance of God at death?. What I mean is, some churches are very accountant styled and keep track of every deed or sin in life. Some others care very little about that and place salvation at your acceptance of God’s presence and forgiveness at the time of death. Where in that sliding scale falls mainstream LDS?
Meaning average Non-LDS I presume and not to be confused with the Orthodox Catholic Church.
Madam, I do not ask for archeologists to discover a whole Nephite City in North America. A single inscription in reformed Egyptian would do it. And what is “reformed Egyptian” anyhow?
Your line of argument is typical of the irrationality of religious belief. It is the old argument used by “people of faith” everywhere.
When people ask what kind of evidence you or others have for their claims, they simply say, “Oh, there is no point in showing you hard evidence because you do not have faith, and if you do not have faith, no amount of hard evidence can give it to you.”
That is a cop-out and I suspect that deep down in your rational being, you know it is!
Well, dangermom, we all know that Santa is on his way. So what if I told you I believe in Santa Claus? What if you pointed out that this belief is absurd, and that a single person cannot go up and down chimneys and deliver toys to millions of children in a single night. Well dangermom, if you have no faith, no amount of proof that I offer will give you faith. Makes a lot of sense, right? :dubious:
Here you have a book claiming that there existed a widespread Christian civilization, writing in “reformed Egyptian” in the Americas in the first 4 centuries of the Common Era, or A.D. They apparently practised the Christian religion, had a very developed civilization, fought great battles with mighty armies, etc. Indeed, the pictures in my Book of Mormon show guys with horned helmets and swords kind of like Vikings. I realize the BofM does not necessarily describe these pictures, but the Church of LDS apparently approved these illustrations in their book.
Archeologists regularly discover pre-Columbian settlements in America. Sometimes they were no bigger than a village with a few dozen people. We know that the Vikings had a tiny pre-columbian settlement in L’Anse aux Meadows Newfoundland because we have found the foundations of their huts and even some viking swords and other implements.
But where are the remains of the swords and other weapons of the Nephites? Where is there a single stone or scrap of wood insrcibed in “refomed Egyptian”? Where is there a single place of worship showing the existence of a Christian religion in America in the first four centuries?
I realize that the Book of Mormon does not say exactly where the Nephite civilization was located in the Americas. But Moroni MUST by your own admission have been in New York State at some point, or else how could he have buried the golden tablets in the Hill Cumorah? Were there not Nephite settlements somewhere nearby?
You say I would not believe in the BofM if somone discovered a whole Nephite City with inscriptions in “reformed Egyptian”? How do you know what *I * would or would not believe in if you presented me with the right evidence?
And what happened to those gold tablets anyhow? The angel took them back? How terribly convenient.
Valteron, this thread is for discussing (or even challenging) LDS theology, as I have already noted earlier in the thread.
If you wish to bash the LDS on points of history, archaeology, or whatever, you are free to use the thread to which you have already posted. If you wish to challenge the theology of the LDS, (either as “not Christian” or as internally inconsistent), feel free to engage here. However, you are not to hijack this thread with a different discussion when an existing and active thread already addresses your off-topic points.
Really?? I’m trying to put that together with what I already know of LDS theology, and it makes no sense whatsoever.
Let me see if I can summarize my understanding of relevant LDS theology, so you can correct me if I’m wrong:
Christianity in the Eastern Hemisphere was vibrant for a century or so after Christ, but kinda lost its way after that.
After his resurrection, Jesus preached the Gospel to the descendants of the Jews in the Western Hemisphere. Some of them (including those who wrote the tablets that Joseph Smith found 14 centuries later) kept to the true faith. Which is what the LDS faith is today.
So given that, one would think that from the Mormon perspective, the canonical Old Testament would be a Hebraic version, not an English one, given the LDS’ claimed Hebraic heritage. And the canonical New Testament would be a version much closer to the time of Christ, rather than a version corrupted by 15 centuries of a faith having gone off the track.
Mind you, I don’t even understand why as many Protestants as do, regard the KJV as canonical. But since they believe that the Christianity of that time was part of the true line of descent of the faith, they’ve at least got a toe to stand on, if not a leg. But LDSers believe the true path of transmission of the faith avoided medieval and post-medieval Europe entirely, so their accepting any European version of the Bible as the true version makes no sense to me at all.
Tomndeb, I fail to see how in all fairness you can impose this artificial distinction. You are telling me I cannot discuss the irrationality of LDS beliefs in light of archeology. But dangermom, who started the LDS theology thread, wrote extensively about LDS theology and the lack of archeological evidence in her own posting!
She is allowed to say that finding an entire Nephite city with inscriptions in “reformed Egyptian” would not change non-believers, and I am not allowed to respond to that ???
I’m back! I spent a lot of the day sitting in traffic, whee. The good part is that I got to go the homeschool store and buy stuff. Now I’m tired, so I don’t know how much I’ll manage before I shut down for the night.
Yes, that’s true. It was (and still is) an important idea; but that doesn’t mean that the Native Americans are entirely of Hebraic heritage.
There’s some confusion about that; Joseph had a group of people who were working on learning more about Scripture and languages such as Greek and Hebrew. Some of them also tried to put together translation materials about Egyptian, but it didn’t work (for obvious reasons). You might like to read this summary of the LDS position. It’s somewhat more detailed than I can be. If you would like more scholarly work, I can see what I can dig up.
Let’s see, what else can I cram into this post? I’m a bit overwhelmed by the length of the thread since I neglected it for so long. Luckily, the baptism for the dead question has been covered for the most part (thanks guys). However, I will talk about the ‘free will’ aspect for a moment, as that seems to be in question. To Mormons, baptismal work for the dead in no way violates free will (indeed, the concept of free will is a first principle in LDS thought). The idea is that when the work is done vicariously, it constitutes an opportunity or offer to the deceased person. They may then choose whether or not to accept. No LDS person would say that all the people that have had the work done for them have accepted it; we simply express the hope that they will do so.
Polycarp, I’m certainly willing to address your question, but it will take more time than I have right now. I hope to get to it tomorrow, but I’m sure you will understand that it isn’t exactly a small, unimportant question.
RTFirefly, we’re funny about the KJV. We are fond of it, and we do actually have a lot of respect for those people like Hus, Tyndale and the KJV translators who worked so hard to bring the Bible to people in their own language (a favorite Tyndale quotation: “…if God spares my life, I will cause a young farm boy to know more of the Scriptures than you do.”) We consider them to have been working under at least some inspiration and see them as preparing the way for the Restoration and Joseph Smith.
Anyway, we also know that the KJV is no longer the best translation around, and we like it anyhow. We like the language. And Joseph Smith worked on some commentary of the Bible that we use along with it; he died before he was finished, and it was never canonized, so it’s just included in the footnotes.
Anyway, for scholarly purposes, you’ll indeed find Mormons learning Koine and Hebrew to study the originals as far as is possible. We tend to go for those languages over Latin. Mormons are very, very enthusiastic about Hebrew in particular. But for everyday reading, we stick to the KJV, because we’re sentimental about it.
Not in the way that you are doing, which belongs in the other thread.
A simple note that that seems to be an odd claim works. Going on at length with more of the same stuff that is already present in the other thread simply distracts from any discussion that might take place in this thread.
Your approach is basically to shout down or mock out any defense of LDS beliefs. We already have a thread to handle that. This thread is to ask questions of a believer and see where those questions and answers lead. You are hardly being silenced; you are simply being asked to let this discussion follow a more civil path that the last 400 threads bashing LDS believers. It won’t kill you–you can still run over to the other thread and hammer away (staying within Forum guidelines, of course).
Wait wait wait. We have a tread examining Mormonism from a critical standpoint and dangermom here cannot handle the heat. She then starts a thread basically saying, “Come here with a default respect for my brand of baloney, check your critical thinking skills at the door, and I’ll answer [or half-answer] the questions I feel like answering.”
How is this different from Peter Morris’s recent dowsing thread? Is it simply because more people share dangermom’s beliefs then share Peter Morris’s? Because that is one of the worst possible reasons I can think of to dignify this stuff with questions.
No. We had our 400th (or so) thread simply bashing the CoJCoLDS in the midst of which dangermom offered to answer some questions regarding what that group actually teaches (as opposed to the frequent claims made by people with their own grudges that may or may not be what the church teaches).
Since opening up any similar thread in GQ or MPSIMS would wind up being hurled into this Forum by the mods in those Fora, anyway, it seemed to be a better option to just leave it here.
Since every thread regarding the LDS that I have seen has always degenerated into snark fests within a dozen posts or so, (meaning the Teeming Millions rarely get a glimpse of the LDS from the perspective of the LDS), and since we already have an active LDS bashing thread, i have agreed with dangermom that it might be nice (and informative) to have an actual Q&A thread on the theology of the LDS.
Generally, many posts before anyone gets around to talking about the relationship between God and humanity in LDS theology, the threads have long since been derailed with people slavering to be the first to describe Smith as a charlatan, Young as a murderer, and more recent elders as frauds. We already have an open thread in which everyone with that desperate need can post those assertions. For the moment, I am declaring this thread to be limited to actual theology for the novel purpose of actually fighting some ignorance and discovering what the theology might be.
If it appears that dangermom is going to use that rule to duck tough questions while proselytizing, the rule will be suspended, but I see no reason to get bent out of shape about an informative thread when we already have a thread available (and not even in the Pit) to heap all the disbelief one chooses onto the LDS.
