thanks, dangermom, I am a happy BOY with your response. 
So if death-bed conversion are no good, what about people not initiated in the LDS faith at the time of their death? Is there any chance of salvation for them?
I am guessing that great currency is placed of Free Will then. What about people physically incapable of “doing good” such as an alcoholic or a psychotic murderer? Can they be saved?
Oh, and for the “contras” on this thread. I think that this is not a thread for dangermom to defend whether LDS tennets are right or wrong but more for the non-LDS to get an idea of what the LDS believe in, no matter if they are right or wrong.
I am mostly doing comparative theology here. If I like or dislike a LDS teaching on a particular subject, that is up to me. What I am learning here is how they stack in the universe of possible religious beliefs.
This is supposed to take us from ignorant to knowledgeable. Not from ignorant to convert.
If I choose not to believe in the LDS faith, at least now I know what I am not believing in.
[QUOTE=Sapo]
thanks, dangermom, I am a happy BOY with your response. 
So if death-bed conversion are no good, what about people not initiated in the LDS faith at the time of their death? Is there any chance of salvation for them?
I am guessing that great currency is placed of Free Will then. What about people physically incapable of “doing good” such as an alcoholic or a psychotic murderer? Can they be saved?
[/QUOTE]
Well, the basic rule is that everyone is judged by God according to the amount of light (knowledge) they had, and just about every society on earth has had some amount of truth to live by. Most people have some inner sense of right and wrong, too. Anyone who did their best to live by the truths they knew would be doing well, and so on. A person who made every effort to do wrong that he knew perfectly well was wrong would not be in such good shape. But, in the end, everyone gets a chance to learn truth and accept or reject it. Someone who tried to live by what truth they had would probably be interested in learning more when they got the chance; another person, perhaps not–but everyone gets that choice. This is why we are so big on genealogy and baptisms (as above); this life is not our only time to find truth, though it is the easiest one for those with the opportunity.
I’m not sure I would classify an alcoholic with a psychotic murderer, though. As before, we are judged according to what we do with what we have. I think an alcoholic, for example, might get a lot of credit for struggling with his condition, even if he never succeeds in staying sober. (As Lewis says, “he has learned his driving in a hard school”–once he is free of his disease, he may be much better off than those of us who have never had to struggle so hard for a little control.)
Mental illness is a more difficult issue, and I can’t say that I know much about it. But I suppose it might be similar, in kind if not in degree.
If you have ever read C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, it gives a really good explanation of some of these ideas, which Mormons agree with.
In response to the second of Sapo’s posts, I certainly hope that everyone realized that I am offering information, not proselytization. I hope that’s obvious by now.
In any case, it’s about time for me to say good night and Merry Christmas. Since tomorrow is Christmas Eve, I suppose most of you will be off doing other things, as I will be. I may check in, and I will do my best to answer any (civil, serious) questions posted eventually, but I will probably not be spending much time here for the next couple of days. Glædelig jul til alle.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
IBut the fact remains that Utah did not decriminalize gay sex until all the sodomy laws were struck down by the supreme court a couple of years ago.
So obviously, a majority of Mormons would like to see me and my partner put in jail if we have sex in Utah.
[/QUOTE]
What’s the name of this particular logical fallacy?
[QUOTE=Monty]
What’s the name of this particular logical fallacy?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, that is irrelevant. If we’d like this thread to continue as a discussion of LDS theology, then we will be better off not getting sidetracked into social issues or logic issues, concentrating, instead, on the actual theology.
[QUOTE=Sapo]
Oh, and for the “contras” on this thread. I think that this is not a thread for dangermom to defend whether LDS tennets are right or wrong but more for the non-LDS to get an idea of what the LDS believe in, no matter if they are right or wrong.
[/quote]
I can’t speak for Dangermom, but, for myself, thank you, Sapo! You get it!
I’m ex-Mormon, because I (like many here, apparently) can’t handle the mental disconnect needed to believe in so many unbelievable things before breakfast. That does not mean I can’t rationally discuss this stuff. For the life of me, I’m completely at a loss as to why certain people here are foaming at the mouth to attack the LDS religion in general (and it seems, Dangermom in particular) when this is supposed to be an informative thread. This isn’t about “we’re right and you’re wrong”, this is about what the hell Mormons believe.
So… moving back in time…
[QUOTE=Sapo]
So if death-bed conversion are no good, what about people not initiated in the LDS faith at the time of their death? Is there any chance of salvation for them?
[/QUOTE]
This has been covered before in this thread - posts 20 through 24, roughly, with a few others possibly thrown in. The gist is, Mormons believe it is possible to learn and grow in the afterlife, and to have the chance to come to know God even if you were the worst sort of heathenish heathen. One of the ways the living Mormons can help in this is to perform ordinances for the dead, who did not have the chance to do so themselves in life. The dead are still free to make their own choice.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
have a question: What colour is the skin on the physical bodies of God the Father and Jesus Christ?
[/QUOTE]
I almost don’t want to answer this one, simply because it appears you’re itching for a fight. But here goes.
As Dangermom points out, they’re exalted - a state which is described in such a way as to make me think of them as being 100,000-watt light bulbs.
They could be white (hey, Jesus was Jewish), or for that matter Arabic in skin tone, considering the era and location where the happenings in the Bible took place (remember, Mormons believe in the Bible too). Or Greco-Roman, or Negro, or whatever. I’ve never understood the hoopla about skin color that anti-Mormon activists raise; nowhere that I’ve seen does Mormon literature come out and state “God is White”.
The closest I’ve heard to a declaration of skin tone is the Mormon belief (which is essentially the same as Christianity in general, I believe) that humanity as a whole is “created in God’s image”. Since it’s pretty freakin’ obvious that humanity includes white, yellow, red, brown, black, and every shade in between for skin tone… God must be plaid. 
Ok, seriously, Mormon doctrine doesn’t state a skin color, it simply says we are made in His image. You’re free to take that how you will. When I was in the church, I took it to mean that he appeared to be the same color as yourself, but had no fixed color Himself.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
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.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Which is exactly why we should not take seriously or dignify with questions the people who insist that these books are FACT - FULL STOP.
[/QUOTE]
But you’re not questioning someone who insists they are FACT, as you put it. Dangermom was quite clear, in her first post, that she’s well aware that there is no real evidence for the BoM and other books being factual. Here, let me show you:
[QUOTE=dangermom]
Yep, I do. Yes, I realize that there is no real archaeological evidence for the historicity of the BoM; I suspect there will not be for quite some time (probably never)–although it is interesting to me that there is more linguistic and geological evidence now than there was in 1830. If the BoM was a fake, it ought to have fallen apart as promptly and completely as Ossian’s poems did, and it certainly shouldn’t contain the linguistic and cultural elements that it does. (Of course, I’m sure you’ll disagree about whether or not the BoMdid fall apart like Ossian.)
[/quote]
She is stating her belief, which may or may not be supported by facts. People believe things all the time that aren’t necessarily backed by fact. And in the case of religion, it’s pretty hard to back any belief with hard fact – that’s why the word ‘faith’ was invented (and is used as a synonym for ‘religion’).
This thread, specifically, was started to provide informative answers about what Mormons believe, not necessarily why they believe it – though, if done properly, that sort of data can be gleaned.
Essentially, this thread is, as tomndebb points out, in here simply because there isn’t a better forum for it – so, while it’s in Great Debates, it’s not really a debate. This is a Q&A session.
Make more sense now?
[QUOTE=dangermom]
Yes, I realize that there is no real archaeological evidence for the historicity of the BoM; I suspect there will not be for quite some time (probably never)–although it is interesting to me that there is more linguistic and geological evidence now than there was in 1830. If the BoM was a fake, it ought to have fallen apart as promptly and completely as Ossian’s poems did, and it certainly shouldn’t contain the linguistic and cultural elements that it does.
[/quote]
In the years since I quit, I’ve studied a lot more about this, and I would have to say that the evidence runs much, much higher against the BoM than for. Not to say that there isn’t any evidence at all, but the amount against is really strong. The faithful won’t look at it, for the most part, or will minimize it.
Ouch. I can imagine the shit (or official warning) I would be given for labeling the official or quasi-official teaching of the Church from Joseph Smith through at least Spencer Kimball as ludicrous. However, if the majority of the modern prophets are wrong about something as fundamental as this, then who am I to criticize?
Anyway, now that you and I both agree these people were completely off their rockers, forward!
Another dissing of countless Mormons. This was the generally accepted teaching in my neck of the woods – Utah aka Zion – through the early 80s. But, again who am I to criticize the modern prophets when you’re doing a much better job at it.
Now, that is. The Church has spend a fair amount of money in the past looking for it.
I’m going to have to ask for a reference here. I’ll provide a large number of quotes by modern prophets, including one who specifically criticizes the LGT, if you can provide any evidence of this being common. I grew up in Zion, was the president of the Young Men’s Association, the Deacon’s Quorum, the Teachers’ Quorum, the Priests’ Quorum, I went through the temple, went on a mission, and taught both Priesthood and Sunday School lessons, in Salt Lake City, and I’m saying you are flat out wrong. (I’d normally say bullshit, but there seems to be special rules here which I don’t understand.) I graduated from high school and seminary in 1980, and never, ever did I ever hear the LGT taught once, although I did the traditional teaching many, many times.
One has to wonder why it’s called loud shouting, when people ask obvious questions. If modern prophets and apostles are claiming that the natives of North, Central and South America are the literal descendants of Lehi, and no one can find any such evidence, then publishing such studies would naturally be seen as being anti-Mormon, I would guess.
[QUOTE=Sofaspud]
They could be white (hey, Jesus was Jewish), or for that matter Arabic in skin tone, considering the era and location where the happenings in the Bible took place (remember, Mormons believe in the Bible too). Or Greco-Roman, or Negro, or whatever. I’ve never understood the hoopla about skin color that anti-Mormon activists raise; nowhere that I’ve seen does Mormon literature come out and state “God is White”.
[/quote]
I think it comes from stuff like this.
That says a lot, but continue…
Dangermom, with regard to your answers to my questions about the root of your theological beliefs (Joseph Smith’s writings, plates, etc.), would it be correct to say that you look for internal revelation and/or consistency in the core works?
As far as proof of angles, I think that is consistent with trigonometry. 
Has anything turned up in this area?
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Has anything turned up in this area?
[/QUOTE]
OJ promised to keep an eye out while he was looking for the real killers.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Has anything turned up in this area?
[/QUOTE]
AFAICR last time I checked there was the scandalous situation of new Mormon researchers pointing at locations in Mesoamerica as the most likely location for the Cumorah hill (Meaning the only places that can barely fit with the tale of the book). Problem is, the LDS church has already monuments and memorials at the Cumorah location in the USA. I’m not holding my breath for an official notice that the money [del]wasted[/del] used in the USA location will be returned.
Your own quote proves you wrong. “Do you take as literal truth the story of the golden tablets?”
“Yep, I do.”
Then it should be in IMHO (dangermom’s opinions) or Cafe Society (discussion of a fiction book.)
[QUOTE=Sofaspud]
For the life of me, I’m completely at a loss as to why certain people here are foaming at the mouth to attack the LDS religion in general (and it seems, Dangermom in particular)
[/quote]
I just want someone to answer my question about why Peter Morris was laughed at in the dowsing thread while dangermom, whose claims are much more extraordinary, is being held up on a pedestal.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
I just want someone to answer my question about why Peter Morris was laughed at in the dowsing thread while dangermom, whose claims are much more extraordinary, is being held up on a pedestal.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think he is, he has been kind enough to answer tough questions about his faith, I see this as a very educational thing, specially when others can come with evidence to rip his/her points to shreds.
The important thing to keep in mind is that the person will always have to be consider to be in a pedestal (in GD at least) but his/her ideas remain cannon fodder.
(Peter Morris turned to be a willful ignorant and a Jerk, qualities that enter into the reason why he was laughed at)
[QUOTE=Musicat]
:)Has anything turned up in this area?
[/QUOTE]
BYU FARMS. Check out their official site here..
[Here’s what Wikipedia says about them (bolding mine)
](Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies - Wikipedia)
[QUOTE=dangermom]
There has been talk about it, and it has been taught. If so, it was not during the existence of this universe (at least, so I’m inclined to think), but long before. On the whole, yes, we think so–but it wouldn’t shatter our world to find that someone got a little carried away with the speculation, either. However, this is another area where we know so very little that it’s too easy to get into speculation and get all weird.
[/QUOTE]
I asked my very Mormon mother about your posts and it’s her opinion that this is apostasy. It’s extremely interesting for me that you would think someone got carried away with too much speculation, especially since that this person would be Joseph Smith, Jr. I hope you have heard of him, are you familiar with his teachings of God the Father?
[QUOTE=someone (who) got a little carried away with the speculation aka Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church]
I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know…that he was once a man like us… (“King Follett Discourse,” Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-346, and History of the Church, vol. 6, 305-307, emphasis added)
[/QUOTE]
And, please, please, please, please tell me that this is not an official teaching of the Mormon church.
Cite? Is this Mormon theology or something pulled out of someone’s @-ss?
[QUOTE=sofaspud]
From another viewpoint, it could be seen as icky, malicious, or just plain strange. However, if nothing else, precedent exists in the legal world – heirs are presumed (from what I understand, IANAL) to have the authority to make decisions for the deceased’s estate, no? Similar logic can be extended here.
[/QUOTE]
Is that a current teaching of the Church? Please provide a cite. Really, any cite that remotely connects this with Mormon theology. As a fellow ex-Mormon, this isn’t the case.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
AFAICR last time I checked there was the scandalous situation of new Mormon researchers pointing at locations in Mesoamerica as the most likely location for the Cumorah hill (Meaning the only places that can barely fit with the tale of the book). Problem is, the LDS church has already monuments and memorials at the Cumorah location in the USA. I’m not holding my breath for an official notice that the money [del]wasted[/del] used in the USA location will be returned.
[/QUOTE]
There was this guy called Joe Smith, who got it all wrong. Actually, there were a lot of other people who got it wrong, people who had titles like Prophet or Apostle on their name cards, but they mostly had wrong impressions (perhaps inspired from the devil?) that better knowing, lay members can easily call ludicrous.
And if you get answers for that, let’s also try to get answers why dangermon can trash the Mormon prophets, leaders, and followers, but no one allowed to touch her?
[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer]
And if you get answers for that, let’s also try to get answers why dangermon can trash the Mormon prophets, leaders, and followers, but no one allowed to touch her?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not holding my breath for an answer at this point. I’ve asked 4 times and no one wants to step up to the plate. I appreciate GIGO acknowledging the question but saying that Peter Morris is willfully ignorant doesn’t do us much good because dangermom is willfully ignorant too.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Then it should be in IMHO (dangermom’s opinions) or Cafe Society (discussion of a fiction book.)
[/quote]
But if you have paid any attention to the activities of the Mods in those two Fora over the years, you will have noted that any reference to anything religious will prompt them to move the thread here, directly. (A point I already mentioned in Post #40.)
[QUOTE=Cisco]
I just want someone to answer my question about why Peter Morris was laughed at in the dowsing thread while dangermom, whose claims are much more extraordinary, is being held up on a pedestal.
[/QUOTE]
No. You want to whine and stamp your feet that you do not get to hijack this thread into the 401st Bash the Mormons thread.
No one is stopping anyone from going to the other current thread on the LDS and bashing away.
No one is stopping anyone from opening one more thread to attack the various actions of the LDS (in or out of Utah) as hypocritical.
However, as with any large movement (religious, political, or social), there are many separate aspects of the CoJCoLDS. The problem has been that any discussion of any of those aspects are typically hijacked with people demanding the right to heap scorn on Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.
Currently there is a thread exploring the concept of Transubstantiation in Catholic theology. Anyone is welcome to advance any number of reasons why that theology is wrong, from simply maintaining that all metaphysics and ontology are useless mind games to an appeal to Plato as providing a better spiritual foundation than Aristotle to the notable claim that “Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.” On the other hand, if you were to interrupt that thread to attack transubstantiation on the basis that the Council of Nicaea created a false church or that no one has a right to engage in discussing transubstantiation because the church opposes condom use in AIDS-torn Africa or because no one should pay any attention to Catholics, at all, because of the priest pedophile scandal, (any of which threads would be tolerated as separate threads), you would get thrown out of the transubstantiation thread for hijacking it.
For some reason, however, there are a number of posters who believe that any reference to the LDS makes the thread a legitimate target to be derailed into a display of why historical events are a reason to discount theology. The issues are separate and deserve their own threads.
The Peter Morris issue has no similar range of perspectives. He has a single fascination with attempting to call out Randi that is based on a single interpretation of Randi’s challenge. There is no broad range of topics to be examined from multiple perspectives setting aside other aspects of the discussion as irrelevant.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
For some reason, however, there are a number of posters who believe that any reference to the LDS makes the thread a legitimate target to be derailed into a display of why historical events are a reason to discount theology. The issues are separate and deserve their own threads
[/QUOTE]
However, if Mormons are allowed to open threads to avoid getting their fingers dirty in other threads, and they cite historical events, then other historcial events should be allowed in evidence, or one will have to question the judge of bias.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
No. You want to whine and stamp your feet that you do not get to hijack this thread into the 401st Bash the Mormons thread.
[/QUOTE]
I’m kind of curious why when in discussion Tom you so frequently need to characterize your detractors as immature little babies who are always stomping their feet or pounding their little fists or are otherwise philosophically bereft.
It’s kind of insulting and something you so frequently as to be unimaginative.
[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer]
However, if Mormons are allowed to open threads to avoid getting their fingers dirty in other threads, and they cite historical events, then other historcial events should be allowed in evidence, or one will have to question the judge of bias.
[/QUOTE]
And the moment that dangermom cites the some archaelogical “proof” that the Lamanites did thus and so, thereby establishing the need for ancestor baptism, then she will have opened the thread to rebuttal on that and similar points.
Simply noting that there are odd historical claims and that she believes them, but then going on to actually discuss the relationships within the Trinity or the need for examination without relying on the claims of history is not the same thing as declaring that LDS belief is true because of its mythology.