Should read:
I read that years ago in book form. What it conceded to is still pretty much beyond the doctinal pale of the vast majority of Christian churches.
Basically, relating back to the OP- the cartoon caracatured LDS theology, BUT it’s caracatures were based on a mix of official doctrine, off-the-cuff comments by early LDS leaders & “folk” theology. Another poster has noted that only the accusation that Smith’s claimed to be descended from Jesus seems to be a complete fabrication (as far as we know).
Which doesn’t matter a whit. We don’t make the claim that we’re most Christian churches.
You left out: bold-faced lies.
Perhaps that poster is mistaken.
Answer: No, the version of Mormon theology explained by the video [in the OP’s link] is not accurate.
Note: The question was not, “Is Mormon theology valid?”
Could you be more specific?
I mean, a lot more specific, refuting the video’s misrepresentations point-by-point, and thereby tacitly acknowledging the accuracy of any points not addressed in your analysis.
When you have the time.
Is it doctrine that Smith was descended from Jesus?
What’s the Mormons’ take on Dan Brown et al?
But do you publicize the form and/or content of those ceremonies? 
In the Chickiverse, what happens in a Catholic confessional is pretty much what you’d expect – only Chick insists the priests do not take the “seal of confession” seriously, and in fact the whole sacrament is just a ploy to gather information that can be used for blackmail. I hope you can appreciate that suspicion of the mysterious Mormon rites is of a fundamentally different nature than that. I mean, you could be doing anything in those temples!
I have no problem being specific. In fact, I would have to say that I’ve been a lot more specific than you have in this thread. I’ve even pointed out some errors in the video.
I’m referring to your link to the three rules.
Which is the whole point, that the RCC does not have the same type of secret rituals. Of course, the RCC and most other Christian denominations also don’t believe that members can become gods and goddesses if they participate in said rituals.
The attempt to equate the seal of the RCC confessional to the secret ceremonies of the Mormon temples is one of the most absurd arguments I’ve heard. As other posters have noted, there is not obligation on the penitent to secrecy, where as in the Mormon temples, participants used to swear on their lives to not revel the teachings and secret signs.
Perhaps so. As I pointed out, I’m not aware of any doctrine claiming direct linage from Christ to Joseph Smith, but early Mormon apostles were given freer reign and had some strange theories. It’s entirely possible someone has a valid cite for the claim. So, I could be mistaken, and it could be a Mormon teaching, although I’ll still stand by my claim it’s not mainstream teaching by any means. If anyone has cites for it being accepted, I will stand corrected.
And to save everyone’s time here, even thought this was addressed to another poster, I will mention that everything I say, except what is fact, is my opinion. That people participate in discussion boards and share opinions on areas such as politics and religion, in addition to citing facts should not be a surprise to many, but on behalf of those who are, I thank you for pointing this out.
That is also a matter of opinion.
Good on you.
Might’ve been helpful had you been specific.
That’s not really the issue, though. My point is that both outfits have secret rituals. It’s irrelevant what the difference in type is; they’re both rituals not open to the general public.
That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Actually, that’s exactly what I think about many of your posts relating to Mormonism.
What difference does any of that make? My point still remains that some of the participants are obligated to secrecy.
What does this have to do with the video?
Glad to oblige.
Nor, to my knowledge does the Confessor publish the content of the confessions. Note that I completely agree with that practice. It’s nobody else’s business. You know, kind of like what we Mormons do in the Temple is nobody else’s business.
I think I’ll start a thread about tthe Chickiverse (cool name, btw; did you coin it?).
Well, mysterious when it comes to a Christian sect shouldn’t be surprising. Doesn’t mainstream Christianity have Mysteries? I seem to recall the expression during my catechism back when I was growing up Episcopalian.
BrainGlutton, I forgot to give you a link or two in that response.
Yeah, just ask John Conner. He seems to be afraid of becoming a sacrifice.
What else in that video is a bold-faced lie? There are exagerrations and broad interpretations and “folk theology” which was never official doctrine, but I can’t think of one other outright falsehoold besides the “Smith was descended from Jesus”.
Is Mormon theology becoming MORE Christian? I expect that the mormon hierachy may well discard most of the weirder stuff-like polygamy, the Jesus-satan brother thing, and pre-existing souls. As JS and BY fade into the distant past, the mormons will probably seek accomodation with one of the major protestant sects, and abandon most of the quasi-magical rituals that they currently employ. So, in a hundred years or so, mormon will be jsut like presbyterian.
You know, as a disinterested bystander, I’d appreciate a breakdown of which claims in the video are gross distortions, which are unofficial (or repudiated) “folk theology,” and which are outright lies.
I think I have a decent handle on which is which, but I’m afraid that watching the video may have made me stupider, as five years from now, I may remember some snippet of information about supposed Mormon theology, but not remember whether I learned it from a reliable source like Monty or that stupid video. Best to nip that in bud right now! (I had the same problem when I read The Da Vinci Code, but I’m well-enough grounded in orthodox Christian theology that I don’t think I got too much stupider.)
PS–Monty, I always enjoy reading your posts about Mormonism, and wish they didn’t usually degenerate so quickly into Mormon-bashing. (This one didn’t exactly degenerate; the OP was about Mormon-bashing.) I noticed in your last post you mentioned converting from Episcopalianism (not the first time you’ve mentioned it, or I’ve noticed it). Have you ever posted about your experiences in converting? You are obviously both intelligent and knowledgeable about your faith, and I’d love to read about what drew you to it.
I gotta say that I don’t see anything wrong with the video. Not saying I think it is an accurate representation of Mormon belief, but that I actually like the beliefs that are said in the film.
I find it more believable, and much more preferable than other Christian doctrines, and think it fits pretty well with my personal beliefs (more trans-humanistic than anything).
I think of all the brands of Christianity, Mormonism is the first I would consider joining. Of course, that is assuming their beliefs are still of the “You can become Gods” type.
The LDS Church has suspended the practice of polygamy, but the Jesus-Satan brother thing and pre-existing souls are still central to Mormon cosmology. If those went away (and they’re really part of the same big picture for the LDS), I think what was left would be hardly recognizable.
The Mormon view of the universe does make more sense than the conventional Christian one. I also find it much more appealing, personally, even though I no longer subscribe to it in its entirety.
Absolutely.
The problem is the Mormon-bashers portray the “Jesus-Satan bbrother thing” as though we elevate Satan to an equal footing with Jesus, as though we honor Satan. As you know, we don’t honor Satan and we consider him to be the brother of Jesus in the same manner as all other spirits are.
Yes, the typical anti-Mormon tactic is to take a belief that the Mormons really hold and which most Christians would find unusual (of which there are buckets :)), and then phrase it in an intentionally misleading, or at least unflattering light.
Ex-missionary here. Believe me, I know.
Of course, you certainly meant the threads–not my posts–degenerated into Mormon-bashing.
I don’t think I have ever posted the why of my conversion.
I think a couple of posters would disagree with you about both assertions about me, but we’ll just let them persist in their error.
Maybe one day I’ll post my story. Or perhaps send it to you via e-mail. I don’t know yet.