Slashdot Mirror

The point is, we should try to have as little impact on our environment as possible, since we've shown ourselves to be clueless as to the actual effects of what we've already done.

Have you been saved by the Lord Jesus Christ? You know... I'm all for freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to whatever religious beliefs you might want to have. Just don't try to shove them down my throat. Global Warming is classic fire and brimstone religion. They don't have proof or anything resembling it. They have "a consensus" and everyone has to get in line or we're all going to Hell. Sorry. I don't buy it.

Well, this is actually, nearly as I can tell, the entire argument between atheism and, well, serious religion.

If we assume that certain ancient Greek philosophers were correct and God should meet human ideals, the atheists must be right and a person tends to make his Gods in his own image.

But guy called Isaiah and a guy called Benjamin indicated that God is a bit beyond us. This makes sense, if you think about it, if God is immortal. An immortal man would likely have views that mortals would prefer to consider less than sane. A true God would necessarily know already about quarks and dark matter (if such really do exist) and far beyond those.

If sufficiently advanced technology appears to the not-so-advanced as magic, what should we expect the wisdom of any being truly worthy of being called God to appear to us as?

Some question whether such an incomprehensible being could possibly be the object of faith, but you have to look at it the other way -- how could a person possibly be confident in a God that was entirely comprehensible? A perfect match to a set of human ideals would seem to be a dead giveaway that the entity in question must be less than the Absolute.

On the other hand, if God is not inimical to us, He would restrict anything He reveals to that which the revealee could understand, plus a maybe a little to keep us on our toes.

That's the reason faith requires trust. (For my part, I've considered both trusting and not trusting, and it seems to me that refusing to trust can have no advantage over trusting, but trusting might have some advantages.)

Well, this is actually, nearly as I can tell, the entire argument between atheism and, well, serious religion.

If we assume that certain ancient Greek philosophers were correct and God should meet human ideals, the atheists must be right and a person tends to make his Gods in his own image.

But guy called Isaiah and a guy called Benjamin indicated that God is a bit beyond us. This makes sense, if you think about it, if God is immortal. An immortal man would likely have views that mortals would prefer to consider less than sane. A true God would necessarily know already about quarks and dark matter (if such really do exist) and far beyond those.

If sufficiently advanced technology appears to the not-so-advanced as magic, what should we expect the wisdom of any being truly worthy of being called God to appear to us as?

Some question whether such an incomprehensible being could possibly be the object of faith, but you have to look at it the other way -- how could a person possibly be confident in a God that was entirely comprehensible? A perfect match to a set of human ideals would seem to be a dead giveaway that the entity in question must be less than the Absolute.

On the other hand, if God is not inimical to us, He would restrict anything He reveals to that which the revealee could understand, plus a maybe a little to keep us on our toes.

That's the reason faith requires trust. (For my part, I've considered both trusting and not trusting, and it seems to me that refusing to trust can have no advantage over trusting, but trusting might have some advantages.)

But I fail to see who a properly administered and funded program can be outstripped by bakes sales at Our Lady of Perpetual Motion.

The whole argument for supplanting a welfare system with a series of charities (religious or otherwise) is bogus because of one of the points you made. Specifically, the latter model can't scale to meet demand.

This line, of course, was changed in the 2006 edition.

It's not my definition; it's the biblical definition.

That's not quite true. At least you are making sane statements, which is far better than many in this thread.

In reguards to the original mormon belief of polygamy, you would need to refer to The Book of Mormon, which was published before the first "Mormon Church" was organized. The section I refer to is Jacob 2:23-30. Pay particular attention to verse 30. Note also that this passage talks about David and Solomon, but not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other biblical polygamists. It has always been doctrine that God periodically commands polygamy, but that it is a sin otherwise.

The question then is not one of doctrine, but of authority. Did Wilford Woodruff have the authority from God to make that declaration.

Your second accusation regarding Africans is interesting. I hadn't heard that before. It makes sense though. It was something that was going to happen eventually, and that sounds like a good trigger to me.

I only know about the LDS church's missionary work. I am also part Irish and have heard about the convert for food that happened way back when.
Service missionaries are just that service missionaries. As far as I know service is service. Our young men and women (teens) do things like plant trees and such for the local parks and recreation service. Durring the Katrina clean up it didn't matter who was in need. In fact one of the sites the worked at was a Baptist church.
One of our teachings is that if you give service to your fellow person then you will be blessed. It doesn't matter if they are members or none members or even if they are grateful to you.

In the states the vast majority of missionaries are not service missionaries. There are primary job is to teach new members and to find people that want to learn. Even then they are required to do many hours a week of service to the community. My wife on her mission worked at a food bank as a translator, an elementary school as a teacher's aid, and the Santa Barbara Institute for the Blind.
The LDS church has many aid programs. Some are just for members. There is a continuing education program for missionaries that are from poor countries. The church provides loans for them to learn trades so they can improve there lives after there mission. We also have a church Welfair system that helps members in need. That is funded by our fast offings. Every member that is physically capable fasts one Sunday a month and then gives the money that they would spend on food as a fast offering.
Outside of those programs the church has LDS Philanthropies which is the charitiey arm of the church.
Yes some programs are just for members. But when it comes to thinks like food, shealter, and medical care as far as I know we give freely to those in need without condition.
Here are some of the programs that the Church was involved in.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/measles-vaccination-campaign
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/atmit
http://www.lds.org/library/page/display/0,7098,6214-1-3214-1,00.html
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/tsunami-relief
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/neonatal-resuscitation-training
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/clean-water-projects

Yes our church helped rebuild Islamic Mosques.
Now are you asking if the members of the church are perfect? Not a freaking chance in heck. Frankly I am not helping the average as much as I should. But we do try to be good Christians and follow the teachings of Christ.
As far as the other Churches? Well most of the things that you are talking about I think happened long before you or I where born. I am not sure but I am betting that most of the major church`s have improved over time... I hope so anyway.

I only know about the LDS church's missionary work. I am also part Irish and have heard about the convert for food that happened way back when.
Service missionaries are just that service missionaries. As far as I know service is service. Our young men and women (teens) do things like plant trees and such for the local parks and recreation service. Durring the Katrina clean up it didn't matter who was in need. In fact one of the sites the worked at was a Baptist church.
One of our teachings is that if you give service to your fellow person then you will be blessed. It doesn't matter if they are members or none members or even if they are grateful to you.

In the states the vast majority of missionaries are not service missionaries. There are primary job is to teach new members and to find people that want to learn. Even then they are required to do many hours a week of service to the community. My wife on her mission worked at a food bank as a translator, an elementary school as a teacher's aid, and the Santa Barbara Institute for the Blind.
The LDS church has many aid programs. Some are just for members. There is a continuing education program for missionaries that are from poor countries. The church provides loans for them to learn trades so they can improve there lives after there mission. We also have a church Welfair system that helps members in need. That is funded by our fast offings. Every member that is physically capable fasts one Sunday a month and then gives the money that they would spend on food as a fast offering.
Outside of those programs the church has LDS Philanthropies which is the charitiey arm of the church.
Yes some programs are just for members. But when it comes to thinks like food, shealter, and medical care as far as I know we give freely to those in need without condition.
Here are some of the programs that the Church was involved in.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/measles-vaccination-campaign
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/atmit
http://www.lds.org/library/page/display/0,7098,6214-1-3214-1,00.html
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/tsunami-relief
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/neonatal-resuscitation-training
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/clean-water-projects

Yes our church helped rebuild Islamic Mosques.
Now are you asking if the members of the church are perfect? Not a freaking chance in heck. Frankly I am not helping the average as much as I should. But we do try to be good Christians and follow the teachings of Christ.
As far as the other Churches? Well most of the things that you are talking about I think happened long before you or I where born. I am not sure but I am betting that most of the major church`s have improved over time... I hope so anyway.

I only know about the LDS church's missionary work. I am also part Irish and have heard about the convert for food that happened way back when.
Service missionaries are just that service missionaries. As far as I know service is service. Our young men and women (teens) do things like plant trees and such for the local parks and recreation service. Durring the Katrina clean up it didn't matter who was in need. In fact one of the sites the worked at was a Baptist church.
One of our teachings is that if you give service to your fellow person then you will be blessed. It doesn't matter if they are members or none members or even if they are grateful to you.

In the states the vast majority of missionaries are not service missionaries. There are primary job is to teach new members and to find people that want to learn. Even then they are required to do many hours a week of service to the community. My wife on her mission worked at a food bank as a translator, an elementary school as a teacher's aid, and the Santa Barbara Institute for the Blind.
The LDS church has many aid programs. Some are just for members. There is a continuing education program for missionaries that are from poor countries. The church provides loans for them to learn trades so they can improve there lives after there mission. We also have a church Welfair system that helps members in need. That is funded by our fast offings. Every member that is physically capable fasts one Sunday a month and then gives the money that they would spend on food as a fast offering.
Outside of those programs the church has LDS Philanthropies which is the charitiey arm of the church.
Yes some programs are just for members. But when it comes to thinks like food, shealter, and medical care as far as I know we give freely to those in need without condition.
Here are some of the programs that the Church was involved in.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/measles-vaccination-campaign
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/atmit
http://www.lds.org/library/page/display/0,7098,6214-1-3214-1,00.html
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/tsunami-relief
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/neonatal-resuscitation-training
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/clean-water-projects

Yes our church helped rebuild Islamic Mosques.
Now are you asking if the members of the church are perfect? Not a freaking chance in heck. Frankly I am not helping the average as much as I should. But we do try to be good Christians and follow the teachings of Christ.
As far as the other Churches? Well most of the things that you are talking about I think happened long before you or I where born. I am not sure but I am betting that most of the major church`s have improved over time... I hope so anyway.

I only know about the LDS church's missionary work. I am also part Irish and have heard about the convert for food that happened way back when.
Service missionaries are just that service missionaries. As far as I know service is service. Our young men and women (teens) do things like plant trees and such for the local parks and recreation service. Durring the Katrina clean up it didn't matter who was in need. In fact one of the sites the worked at was a Baptist church.
One of our teachings is that if you give service to your fellow person then you will be blessed. It doesn't matter if they are members or none members or even if they are grateful to you.

In the states the vast majority of missionaries are not service missionaries. There are primary job is to teach new members and to find people that want to learn. Even then they are required to do many hours a week of service to the community. My wife on her mission worked at a food bank as a translator, an elementary school as a teacher's aid, and the Santa Barbara Institute for the Blind.
The LDS church has many aid programs. Some are just for members. There is a continuing education program for missionaries that are from poor countries. The church provides loans for them to learn trades so they can improve there lives after there mission. We also have a church Welfair system that helps members in need. That is funded by our fast offings. Every member that is physically capable fasts one Sunday a month and then gives the money that they would spend on food as a fast offering.
Outside of those programs the church has LDS Philanthropies which is the charitiey arm of the church.
Yes some programs are just for members. But when it comes to thinks like food, shealter, and medical care as far as I know we give freely to those in need without condition.
Here are some of the programs that the Church was involved in.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/measles-vaccination-campaign
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/atmit
http://www.lds.org/library/page/display/0,7098,6214-1-3214-1,00.html
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/tsunami-relief
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/neonatal-resuscitation-training
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/clean-water-projects

Yes our church helped rebuild Islamic Mosques.
Now are you asking if the members of the church are perfect? Not a freaking chance in heck. Frankly I am not helping the average as much as I should. But we do try to be good Christians and follow the teachings of Christ.
As far as the other Churches? Well most of the things that you are talking about I think happened long before you or I where born. I am not sure but I am betting that most of the major church`s have improved over time... I hope so anyway.

I only know about the LDS church's missionary work. I am also part Irish and have heard about the convert for food that happened way back when.
Service missionaries are just that service missionaries. As far as I know service is service. Our young men and women (teens) do things like plant trees and such for the local parks and recreation service. Durring the Katrina clean up it didn't matter who was in need. In fact one of the sites the worked at was a Baptist church.
One of our teachings is that if you give service to your fellow person then you will be blessed. It doesn't matter if they are members or none members or even if they are grateful to you.

In the states the vast majority of missionaries are not service missionaries. There are primary job is to teach new members and to find people that want to learn. Even then they are required to do many hours a week of service to the community. My wife on her mission worked at a food bank as a translator, an elementary school as a teacher's aid, and the Santa Barbara Institute for the Blind.
The LDS church has many aid programs. Some are just for members. There is a continuing education program for missionaries that are from poor countries. The church provides loans for them to learn trades so they can improve there lives after there mission. We also have a church Welfair system that helps members in need. That is funded by our fast offings. Every member that is physically capable fasts one Sunday a month and then gives the money that they would spend on food as a fast offering.
Outside of those programs the church has LDS Philanthropies which is the charitiey arm of the church.
Yes some programs are just for members. But when it comes to thinks like food, shealter, and medical care as far as I know we give freely to those in need without condition.
Here are some of the programs that the Church was involved in.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/measles-vaccination-campaign
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/atmit
http://www.lds.org/library/page/display/0,7098,6214-1-3214-1,00.html
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/tsunami-relief
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/neonatal-resuscitation-training
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/clean-water-projects

Yes our church helped rebuild Islamic Mosques.
Now are you asking if the members of the church are perfect? Not a freaking chance in heck. Frankly I am not helping the average as much as I should. But we do try to be good Christians and follow the teachings of Christ.
As far as the other Churches? Well most of the things that you are talking about I think happened long before you or I where born. I am not sure but I am betting that most of the major church`s have improved over time... I hope so anyway.

I only know about the LDS church's missionary work. I am also part Irish and have heard about the convert for food that happened way back when.
Service missionaries are just that service missionaries. As far as I know service is service. Our young men and women (teens) do things like plant trees and such for the local parks and recreation service. Durring the Katrina clean up it didn't matter who was in need. In fact one of the sites the worked at was a Baptist church.
One of our teachings is that if you give service to your fellow person then you will be blessed. It doesn't matter if they are members or none members or even if they are grateful to you.

In the states the vast majority of missionaries are not service missionaries. There are primary job is to teach new members and to find people that want to learn. Even then they are required to do many hours a week of service to the community. My wife on her mission worked at a food bank as a translator, an elementary school as a teacher's aid, and the Santa Barbara Institute for the Blind.
The LDS church has many aid programs. Some are just for members. There is a continuing education program for missionaries that are from poor countries. The church provides loans for them to learn trades so they can improve there lives after there mission. We also have a church Welfair system that helps members in need. That is funded by our fast offings. Every member that is physically capable fasts one Sunday a month and then gives the money that they would spend on food as a fast offering.
Outside of those programs the church has LDS Philanthropies which is the charitiey arm of the church.
Yes some programs are just for members. But when it comes to thinks like food, shealter, and medical care as far as I know we give freely to those in need without condition.
Here are some of the programs that the Church was involved in.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/measles-vaccination-campaign
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/atmit
http://www.lds.org/library/page/display/0,7098,6214-1-3214-1,00.html
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/tsunami-relief
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/neonatal-resuscitation-training
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/clean-water-projects

Yes our church helped rebuild Islamic Mosques.
Now are you asking if the members of the church are perfect? Not a freaking chance in heck. Frankly I am not helping the average as much as I should. But we do try to be good Christians and follow the teachings of Christ.
As far as the other Churches? Well most of the things that you are talking about I think happened long before you or I where born. I am not sure but I am betting that most of the major church`s have improved over time... I hope so anyway.

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father-
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." (Introduction, 1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon)

I'll bite. I have nothing to lose but Slashdot karma.

I know I'll get marked as a troll for this, but that is not my intent, so please try to be open minded. :-)

Likewise, I hope that you will respect my opinion and read this post with an open mind.

When someone can prove to me why one god is any more real than any other god, I'll believe.

You're not the first person to say something to that effect. There is documented history showing that people have been making similar statements for millennia. For example, I would refer you to the story of Elijah vs. the 450 priests of Baal as recorded in 1 Kings 18, except you would probably scoff and say that it's a religious text and not a historical document, although I would contend that it's both.

Until that point in time, I regard religion as a silly obsession for the weak and stupid.

What an unfortunately hasty statement. Do you really believe that the likes of Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, renowned computer scientist Don Knuth, "the father of genetics" Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday (a major contributor to the scientific field of electromagnetism), Henry Eyring (who is credited for one of the most important developments of 20th-century chemistry), and a host of other brilliant scientists are all "weak and stupid"?

(Incidentally, Eyring is a Mormon, and he has humorously but insightfully posed "Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.")

Leaking out a behind the scenes handbook thins the wall between Shepard and the flock, and may allow the sheep to think out side their assigned position in life, thus weakening the control the church has over its followers.

As other commenters here have stated, this issue seems to be much more about copyright infringement than suppressing "secret" information.

Free thinking and free access to information corrupts belief in god because, "as you know, reality has a liberal bias." (Colbert.)

Nice. You quoted Stephen Colbert in order to get a karma boost. Congratulations.

Setting aside the irrelevant Colbert quote, I strongly disagree with your claim that "free thinking and free access to information corrupts belief in god." As previously noted, some of the most brilliant scientists in the world would disagree with that assessment. Beyond that, there are whole organizations with very intelligent scholars who dedicate much of their time to in-depth research on religious topics (The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, formerly known as FARMS, comes immediately to mind, but I'm sure other readers can think of similar organizations).

There is no proof of god and there is no universal truth, any belief system that relies on such a fiction crumbles in the light of critical thinking and knowledge.

As another poster has wisely assessed, "Logically, then... your own statement cannot be universally true."

Is there proof of the existence of a supreme being? Any statistician should be able to tell you that the odds are in favor of the existence of a god.

Consider, if you will, that you're walking along a beach and happen upon a beautiful Swiss watch lying in the sand near the surf. You pick it up an examine it, and it's in perfect working condition. The time is even set correctly, to the

It's well known that Smith dictated the first version of the Mormon doctrine while reading it from a stone in his hat, with the hat placed over his face. When his associates (presumably skeptical) wife stole that copy and wouldn't give it back, Smith had to start over. Of course this time he dictated something different (presumably because he couldn't remember exactly what it was he said on the previous pass), which he explained as being a translation from a different set of documents.

"Well known" gets the raw deal here. Your account sounds strange, indeed, but the truth is that the Book of Mormon (your "first version of Mormon Doctrine") was translated with a Urim and Thummim (which has nothing to do with a hat, mind you). The lost manuscript (as the copy given to Martin Harris' wife is referred to) was deliberately not re-translated. If you read it, you'll find out that the original authors, Lehi and Nephi gave similar accounts of the same events precisely because this scenario was predicted.

Mormon history is great stuff, and it doesn't bother most Mormons in the least. This is because they figure that where it came from doesn't matter, as long as when they pray their god tells them it's all good.

Nope. Mormons believe because of... faith. It's a diminishing attribute in our modern world, but it can be found among people of all different walks of life. Even scientists. Mormon history is indeed great stuff, but as with all other religious history, looking at it with an eye of faith changes how that knowledge affects you. History doesn't change because "most people" think it's a bunch of hooey.

Please explain to me what about my beliefs is unchristian?

Explain what, exactly, is unchristian about this:

"And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." (2 Nephi 25:26)

The definition of "Christian" is "of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ". The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is most definitely based on the teachings of Jesus Christ in every way, and looks to Christ and no other for salvation, and is therefore Christian.

Notice that nowhere in the definition of "Christian" does it say "agrees with the Catholic [or Lutheran or Baptist etc] Church on all (or even any) points of doctrine". A lack of agreement on some doctrinal issues does not mean I'm Christian and a Catholic is not, or vice versa.

Because people don't realize what is going on in Texas...

The black woman in Colorado is innocent, the unfortunate victim of a beige box!

Everyone is a tool to the Internets (government, religion, and slashdot included)!

Moses 5:

    30 And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. And all these things were done in secret.
    31 And Cain said: Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain. Wherefore Cain was called Master Mahan, and he gloried in his wickedness.
    32 And Cain went into the field, and Cain talked with Abel, his brother. And it came to pass that while they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him.

    49 For Lamech having entered into a covenant with Satan, after the manner of Cain, wherein he became Master Mahan, master of that great secret which was administered unto Cain by Satan; and Irad, the son of Enoch, having known their secret, began to reveal it unto the sons of Adam;
    50 Wherefore Lamech, being angry, slew him, not like unto Cain, his brother Abel, for the sake of getting gain, but he slew him for the oath's sake.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moses/5/31,49#31

She's the 14 year old girl who Joseph Smith bullied into marrying him by claiming that it would ensure the salvation of her family. There's plenty of more examples of fraud, but as long as the topic is El Dorado that one seems to be the most poignant. Todd Compton's book has references to primary sources for her and about thirty others of Smith's wives, if you'd like to check that out. Be aware that Compton is still a believing Mormon and so some bias shows through; for example when he quotes Helen's sorrow at finding out that her marriage wasn't just "for eternity", he suggests that that must just mean that Smith wasn't letting her date, rather than that Smith was using her for what his "revelation" on polygamy said his "plural wives" were for.

You're right that the FLDS Mormons aren't the same religion as the LDS Mormons, but that's because the FLDS sect is the one that still believes in the doctrines that the LDS were smart enough to back away from.

I would just add as a member of the LDS Church that the church is often misunderstood. Take the stories about the completely separate FLDS Church in this thread. Take issues of polygamy or any other confusion. At its core, it is an organization that tries to help its members follow the example of Jesus Christ, hence the name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I would just say that given the history of being persecuted for their beliefs, it's natural to want to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding. They were forcibly kicked out of Missouri, Illinois, and other places. That's the reason they went west - to escape those who had murdered their first leader with a mob and burned their homes.

For better background information, here is a site that is for the news media that talks about statistics, core beliefs, and history. Here is a website that talks more about the basic beliefs.

So please just take in a bigger picture when deciding that they are just trying to censor or gag anyone. They just want respect for privacy like just about any slashdotter wants.

I would just add as a member of the LDS Church that the church is often misunderstood. Take the stories about the completely separate FLDS Church in this thread. Take issues of polygamy or any other confusion. At its core, it is an organization that tries to help its members follow the example of Jesus Christ, hence the name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I would just say that given the history of being persecuted for their beliefs, it's natural to want to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding. They were forcibly kicked out of Missouri, Illinois, and other places. That's the reason they went west - to escape those who had murdered their first leader with a mob and burned their homes.

For better background information, here is a site that is for the news media that talks about statistics, core beliefs, and history. Here is a website that talks more about the basic beliefs.

So please just take in a bigger picture when deciding that they are just trying to censor or gag anyone. They just want respect for privacy like just about any slashdotter wants.

As far as transgender operations one of the basic beliefs has to do with gender identity. I was shocked more by the fact that someone that had the operation could be baptized. So if you are undecided about your gender you must wait until you decide before you are baptized.
Parenthood and children and families are very important in the church doctrine so I can understand the the surrogate parenting thing as well. Adoption is HIGHLY encouraged. Voluntary sterilization? Last time I checked that was changed. I believe that Bishops are now instructed that it is between the husband and wife. I could be wrong but even under the old manual it is just a recommendation. If you get a vasectomy that is really up to you.
To be honest I am a member and I have not been a Bishop. I know several of them in my ward. Most wards will have several members that have been bishop so this isn't some secret. That book isn't a big secret and everything listed was stuff I knew except one.
I didn't know that the church would allow someone that had a sex change be baptized. I feel that is a good thing.
As far these ideas being backward or strange? Well some of our ideas are rather old. Like sending 10,000 people to help with the clean up after Katrina. Here is some of what they have been doing lately.
http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/welfare/welcome/0,7133,1325-1-9,00.html

At a surface level, that seems to be a decent argument ... but ....

From one angle ... there is precedent of the Church having materials lost/acquired by others with the intent to falsify and undermine the church. Granted, we in the church ... IaaMoTCoJCoLdS (I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) ... believe at least one previous attempt cited was thwarted through divine inspiration (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/10). And while we seek that which is good/praiseworthy (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html .. see #13), we do understand that there are those who operate with ill-intent. We understand that there are those who call good evil and evil good (http://scriptures.lds.org/isa/5#20 | http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/15/20#20).

With that all said ... if the material is privately held, copyrighted and not intended for general consumption, what is wrong with asking that it be treated as such and legally defending that? These days, it seems at times that engaging in any legal practice, that is not taking down some hypocritical leader or big company (including defending legitimate copyrights) is "bad" or at least unnecessary. I do not say that to defend big companies with little hearts or people in positions of authority who "mislead", lie, employ prostitutes or what have you.

Just because we access to the "tubes on teh internets", does it mean we have to be able to view everything? It seems no one is allowed the courtesy of confidentiality or privacy anymore? If others blatantly overstep those boundaries (and copyright is involved), what is wrong with legal action sought to correct it?

That all said ... I'm positive that there is no way to technically/practically reverse the leak with torrents etc. I'm also sure that at least two other things will happen:
1) Some people will see the lack of (otherwise expected) controversial or 'juicy' (as someone referred to it) items in it. They'll see that the church's operations and good will are genuinely Christian.
2) Some will pull things out of context from the manual and use them in anti-LDS propaganda. (again ... nothing new to the church, but preferably, we could avoid it)

Being a Christian (and pretty well educated about the origin of the LDS) I very much commend them for the work they do, but pity them for the screwed up nature of their beliefs. Make no mistake, LDS/Mormans are not Christians. Similar values, though. There is a lot of easy to obtain info and such if you're interested. I'm not trying to flame or troll. Ask one, they don't typically associate themselves with your 'typical' Christians.

This and this are pretty good writeups on how the LDS church is and is not "Christian". The LDS church maintains that it follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and is therefore, Christian. It also believes that it is not aligned with so-called "mainstream" Christianity because of the "screwed up nature of [our] beliefs". While you and I probably don't agree on the nature of the trinity (as one example) it doesn't make you a Christian and me not. It just means we have a different idea of what being a Christian means.

Being a Christian (and pretty well educated about the origin of the LDS) I very much commend them for the work they do, but pity them for the screwed up nature of their beliefs. Make no mistake, LDS/Mormans are not Christians. Similar values, though. There is a lot of easy to obtain info and such if you're interested. I'm not trying to flame or troll. Ask one, they don't typically associate themselves with your 'typical' Christians.

This and this are pretty good writeups on how the LDS church is and is not "Christian". The LDS church maintains that it follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and is therefore, Christian. It also believes that it is not aligned with so-called "mainstream" Christianity because of the "screwed up nature of [our] beliefs". While you and I probably don't agree on the nature of the trinity (as one example) it doesn't make you a Christian and me not. It just means we have a different idea of what being a Christian means.

According to their own statistical report, the Mormon church has nearly 30,000 local congregations (Wards and Branches). Each of these units change leadership about every 5 years. That leadership consists of about 5 lay clergy per congregation.

So every decade there are another 300,000 lay clergy who have to become very familiar with the content of the church's handbook.

I don't think they are trying to keep it secret.

And they don't sell it for money, so they aren't trying to protect a revenue stream.

I think they are trying to protect who can publish it so they can guarantee the content. There are plenty of people who would misrepresent its content.

That's the most obvious reason I can think of for this action.

Abraham didn't marry Hagar (at least, it's not explicit in scripture), and the birth of Ishmael was the result of Sarah and Abraham's sin in not trusting God to provide what He promised - a child by Sarah. Re-read Genesis 16. And remember who the children of Ishmael became - Arabs and their kin. Not exactly a peaceful result.

You missed my point - God promised Hagar a great posterity. Why would he bless her for doing something that you say was a sin? That runs contrary to the nature of God.

As I said, the heresy of it isn't new or original...and your assertion that Paul and Peter believe it to be so comes from misinterpretation of scripture.

Ah, so now we're mostly debating interpretation of scriptures; I did not intend to convince you that "I am right and you are wrong", only that the LDS beliefs do have scriptural backing if you accept one interpretation of those scriptures. Arguing interpretation is unproductive; it seems that here too we will have to agree to disagree.

In addition to that, I refer you to the eighth and ninth articles of faith of the LDS Church:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

There are two important things here of note. First, we believe that the Bible is not the only scripture that God has given man (he is the God of the entire world, after all, not just the God of the Jews). Second, we believe in modern revelation, and in modern prophets; as Amos said, God will do nothing without revealing what he is to do to his prophets. Therefore, if there are no prophets in our times, then God will do nothing in our times. At the same time, if there are no prophets, then either a) God has abandoned us, or b) we are too righteous to need prophets. Case b is quite unlikely considering the state of the world, and I don't like case a ;)

What you should take from that is that we are not exclusively guided by God's word to a people that has been dead for 2000+ years, instead we are guided by God's word through his modern prophets as well.

Also, if you're going to debate scripture, use something that is non-Mormon.

So now the Bible is exclusively LDS? I believe all the scriptures I quoted were in the New Testament. If your quibble is with the fact that I use the LDS Church's online scriptures to reference things, then you have obviously failed to realize that the Old and New Testament we use is the standard King James Version, word for word (though we have added chapter summaries), which has been if not the most popular, then among the most popular English translations of the scriptures.

Try reading some non-LDS material and theology.

I have read quite a bit of literature coming from non-LDS sources; I happen to disagree with much of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that if I believe one thing, I must be completely ignoring all other possibilities (that's simply not true).

Recall that the LDS Church teaches, as James (among others) taught we can, that we must pray and ask God if what we learn is true. I have done so, and have received a testi

Abraham didn't marry Hagar (at least, it's not explicit in scripture), and the birth of Ishmael was the result of Sarah and Abraham's sin in not trusting God to provide what He promised - a child by Sarah. Re-read Genesis 16. And remember who the children of Ishmael became - Arabs and their kin. Not exactly a peaceful result.

You missed my point - God promised Hagar a great posterity. Why would he bless her for doing something that you say was a sin? That runs contrary to the nature of God.

As I said, the heresy of it isn't new or original...and your assertion that Paul and Peter believe it to be so comes from misinterpretation of scripture.

Ah, so now we're mostly debating interpretation of scriptures; I did not intend to convince you that "I am right and you are wrong", only that the LDS beliefs do have scriptural backing if you accept one interpretation of those scriptures. Arguing interpretation is unproductive; it seems that here too we will have to agree to disagree.

In addition to that, I refer you to the eighth and ninth articles of faith of the LDS Church:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

There are two important things here of note. First, we believe that the Bible is not the only scripture that God has given man (he is the God of the entire world, after all, not just the God of the Jews). Second, we believe in modern revelation, and in modern prophets; as Amos said, God will do nothing without revealing what he is to do to his prophets. Therefore, if there are no prophets in our times, then God will do nothing in our times. At the same time, if there are no prophets, then either a) God has abandoned us, or b) we are too righteous to need prophets. Case b is quite unlikely considering the state of the world, and I don't like case a ;)

What you should take from that is that we are not exclusively guided by God's word to a people that has been dead for 2000+ years, instead we are guided by God's word through his modern prophets as well.

Also, if you're going to debate scripture, use something that is non-Mormon.

So now the Bible is exclusively LDS? I believe all the scriptures I quoted were in the New Testament. If your quibble is with the fact that I use the LDS Church's online scriptures to reference things, then you have obviously failed to realize that the Old and New Testament we use is the standard King James Version, word for word (though we have added chapter summaries), which has been if not the most popular, then among the most popular English translations of the scriptures.

Try reading some non-LDS material and theology.

I have read quite a bit of literature coming from non-LDS sources; I happen to disagree with much of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that if I believe one thing, I must be completely ignoring all other possibilities (that's simply not true).

Recall that the LDS Church teaches, as James (among others) taught we can, that we must pray and ask God if what we learn is true. I have done so, and have received a testi

Abraham didn't marry Hagar (at least, it's not explicit in scripture), and the birth of Ishmael was the result of Sarah and Abraham's sin in not trusting God to provide what He promised - a child by Sarah. Re-read Genesis 16. And remember who the children of Ishmael became - Arabs and their kin. Not exactly a peaceful result.

You missed my point - God promised Hagar a great posterity. Why would he bless her for doing something that you say was a sin? That runs contrary to the nature of God.

As I said, the heresy of it isn't new or original...and your assertion that Paul and Peter believe it to be so comes from misinterpretation of scripture.

Ah, so now we're mostly debating interpretation of scriptures; I did not intend to convince you that "I am right and you are wrong", only that the LDS beliefs do have scriptural backing if you accept one interpretation of those scriptures. Arguing interpretation is unproductive; it seems that here too we will have to agree to disagree.

In addition to that, I refer you to the eighth and ninth articles of faith of the LDS Church:

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

There are two important things here of note. First, we believe that the Bible is not the only scripture that God has given man (he is the God of the entire world, after all, not just the God of the Jews). Second, we believe in modern revelation, and in modern prophets; as Amos said, God will do nothing without revealing what he is to do to his prophets. Therefore, if there are no prophets in our times, then God will do nothing in our times. At the same time, if there are no prophets, then either a) God has abandoned us, or b) we are too righteous to need prophets. Case b is quite unlikely considering the state of the world, and I don't like case a ;)

What you should take from that is that we are not exclusively guided by God's word to a people that has been dead for 2000+ years, instead we are guided by God's word through his modern prophets as well.

Also, if you're going to debate scripture, use something that is non-Mormon.

So now the Bible is exclusively LDS? I believe all the scriptures I quoted were in the New Testament. If your quibble is with the fact that I use the LDS Church's online scriptures to reference things, then you have obviously failed to realize that the Old and New Testament we use is the standard King James Version, word for word (though we have added chapter summaries), which has been if not the most popular, then among the most popular English translations of the scriptures.

Try reading some non-LDS material and theology.

I have read quite a bit of literature coming from non-LDS sources; I happen to disagree with much of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that if I believe one thing, I must be completely ignoring all other possibilities (that's simply not true).

Recall that the LDS Church teaches, as James (among others) taught we can, that we must pray and ask God if what we learn is true. I have done so, and have received a testi

I think you're confused. A temple is not where Mormons live, or even where most of us spend a lot of time, relatively speaking. Weekly meetings are held in relatively ordinary chapels. Also, temples usually serve between 60,000 and 150,000 members of the church.

I know you're asking how others portray us, but here are one or two sources of how we want others to perceive us. From my perspective, it's more or less accurate, depending on the members in question and other issues of context.

We aren't really all exactly the same, you know.

If that's the case, how do you explain Young's position? He adamantly proposed what I was talking about.

Perhaps he was mistaken? No one ever said prophets were perfect. In any case, please provide references that have Brigham Young teaching what you say he taught, since you are saying he taught it.

I may have to dig some into this, but everything I can tell from the Bible is that plural marriage was NEVER endorsed by God. Allowed, yes, endorsed, no. No Biblical character ever had good consequences come about because of plural marriage.

It appears you are unfamiliar with the story of how Abraham had his son Ishmael, in which the Lord promises Hagar an exceeding multitude of posterity. If that's not endorsement, I don't know what is.

IANAE (I Am Not An Egyptologist), but hieroglyphs are pictures. Not to discount the difficulty, but I imagine when faced with concentrating on their meaning, I could probably get it. Have you ever asked, "how did he get ANY of it wrong if he was divinely inspired?"

See, you ignored what I said. In any case, you cannot prove that modern egyptologists themselves are correct (since they don't even know what all the various meanings the symbols can take on are).

Charlatan!=laziness. He was a failed treasure hunter.

But he never had a goal to get treasure. He was constantly giving away his own money to his followers. He never was wealthy by any definition of the word. I read up a bit more on this "treasure hunter" accusation:

There is some evidence that [Joseph Smith's] father was involved in treasure hunting, a common activity among poor New England farmers who hoped through the use of magic to discover buried money, and it was necessary for Joseph to extricate himself from the mistaken notions of that superstition... In November 1825, Joseph and his father worked briefly with a man named Josiah Stowell of South Bainbridge (Afton), New York, who believed a Spanish treasure was located in Harmony, Pennsylvania, near the Susquehanna River. The project failed, and the Smiths gradually separated themselves from the money-digging activities of their neighbors

Calling him a "failed treasure hunter" hardly reflects the actual situation.

Ummm...that man could be as God is the first heresy.

Is it? Then why did early Christians contemporary with Peter and Paul believe it to be so, as Father Vajda's research showed?

• Jesus commanded his disciples to be perfect, even as God is perfect.
• Paul told the Romans that we are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.
• Paul told the Hebrews that we will be partakers of God's holiness.
• Paul told the Ephesians that we can be filled with the fulness of God.
• Peter taught that we are promised that we may become "partakers of the divine nature".
• John said that we will be like Christ.

Eastern Orthodox writer Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56) notes that the Orthodox church believes this as well.

This page is a good in-depth examination of this belief.

Try reading the first few chapters of Genesis - it was the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve. That man could "be like God" as it were, is no original idea and can easily be derived by mis-reading scripture (as was do

If that's the case, how do you explain Young's position? He adamantly proposed what I was talking about.

Perhaps he was mistaken? No one ever said prophets were perfect. In any case, please provide references that have Brigham Young teaching what you say he taught, since you are saying he taught it.

I may have to dig some into this, but everything I can tell from the Bible is that plural marriage was NEVER endorsed by God. Allowed, yes, endorsed, no. No Biblical character ever had good consequences come about because of plural marriage.

It appears you are unfamiliar with the story of how Abraham had his son Ishmael, in which the Lord promises Hagar an exceeding multitude of posterity. If that's not endorsement, I don't know what is.

IANAE (I Am Not An Egyptologist), but hieroglyphs are pictures. Not to discount the difficulty, but I imagine when faced with concentrating on their meaning, I could probably get it. Have you ever asked, "how did he get ANY of it wrong if he was divinely inspired?"

See, you ignored what I said. In any case, you cannot prove that modern egyptologists themselves are correct (since they don't even know what all the various meanings the symbols can take on are).

Charlatan!=laziness. He was a failed treasure hunter.

But he never had a goal to get treasure. He was constantly giving away his own money to his followers. He never was wealthy by any definition of the word. I read up a bit more on this "treasure hunter" accusation:

There is some evidence that [Joseph Smith's] father was involved in treasure hunting, a common activity among poor New England farmers who hoped through the use of magic to discover buried money, and it was necessary for Joseph to extricate himself from the mistaken notions of that superstition... In November 1825, Joseph and his father worked briefly with a man named Josiah Stowell of South Bainbridge (Afton), New York, who believed a Spanish treasure was located in Harmony, Pennsylvania, near the Susquehanna River. The project failed, and the Smiths gradually separated themselves from the money-digging activities of their neighbors

Calling him a "failed treasure hunter" hardly reflects the actual situation.

Ummm...that man could be as God is the first heresy.

Is it? Then why did early Christians contemporary with Peter and Paul believe it to be so, as Father Vajda's research showed?

• Jesus commanded his disciples to be perfect, even as God is perfect.
• Paul told the Romans that we are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.
• Paul told the Hebrews that we will be partakers of God's holiness.
• Paul told the Ephesians that we can be filled with the fulness of God.
• Peter taught that we are promised that we may become "partakers of the divine nature".
• John said that we will be like Christ.

Eastern Orthodox writer Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56) notes that the Orthodox church believes this as well.

This page is a good in-depth examination of this belief.

Try reading the first few chapters of Genesis - it was the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve. That man could "be like God" as it were, is no original idea and can easily be derived by mis-reading scripture (as was do

If that's the case, how do you explain Young's position? He adamantly proposed what I was talking about.

Perhaps he was mistaken? No one ever said prophets were perfect. In any case, please provide references that have Brigham Young teaching what you say he taught, since you are saying he taught it.

I may have to dig some into this, but everything I can tell from the Bible is that plural marriage was NEVER endorsed by God. Allowed, yes, endorsed, no. No Biblical character ever had good consequences come about because of plural marriage.

It appears you are unfamiliar with the story of how Abraham had his son Ishmael, in which the Lord promises Hagar an exceeding multitude of posterity. If that's not endorsement, I don't know what is.

IANAE (I Am Not An Egyptologist), but hieroglyphs are pictures. Not to discount the difficulty, but I imagine when faced with concentrating on their meaning, I could probably get it. Have you ever asked, "how did he get ANY of it wrong if he was divinely inspired?"

See, you ignored what I said. In any case, you cannot prove that modern egyptologists themselves are correct (since they don't even know what all the various meanings the symbols can take on are).

Charlatan!=laziness. He was a failed treasure hunter.

But he never had a goal to get treasure. He was constantly giving away his own money to his followers. He never was wealthy by any definition of the word. I read up a bit more on this "treasure hunter" accusation:

There is some evidence that [Joseph Smith's] father was involved in treasure hunting, a common activity among poor New England farmers who hoped through the use of magic to discover buried money, and it was necessary for Joseph to extricate himself from the mistaken notions of that superstition... In November 1825, Joseph and his father worked briefly with a man named Josiah Stowell of South Bainbridge (Afton), New York, who believed a Spanish treasure was located in Harmony, Pennsylvania, near the Susquehanna River. The project failed, and the Smiths gradually separated themselves from the money-digging activities of their neighbors

Calling him a "failed treasure hunter" hardly reflects the actual situation.

Ummm...that man could be as God is the first heresy.

Is it? Then why did early Christians contemporary with Peter and Paul believe it to be so, as Father Vajda's research showed?

• Jesus commanded his disciples to be perfect, even as God is perfect.
• Paul told the Romans that we are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.
• Paul told the Hebrews that we will be partakers of God's holiness.
• Paul told the Ephesians that we can be filled with the fulness of God.
• Peter taught that we are promised that we may become "partakers of the divine nature".
• John said that we will be like Christ.

Eastern Orthodox writer Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56) notes that the Orthodox church believes this as well.

This page is a good in-depth examination of this belief.

Try reading the first few chapters of Genesis - it was the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve. That man could "be like God" as it were, is no original idea and can easily be derived by mis-reading scripture (as was do

If that's the case, how do you explain Young's position? He adamantly proposed what I was talking about.

Perhaps he was mistaken? No one ever said prophets were perfect. In any case, please provide references that have Brigham Young teaching what you say he taught, since you are saying he taught it.

I may have to dig some into this, but everything I can tell from the Bible is that plural marriage was NEVER endorsed by God. Allowed, yes, endorsed, no. No Biblical character ever had good consequences come about because of plural marriage.

It appears you are unfamiliar with the story of how Abraham had his son Ishmael, in which the Lord promises Hagar an exceeding multitude of posterity. If that's not endorsement, I don't know what is.

IANAE (I Am Not An Egyptologist), but hieroglyphs are pictures. Not to discount the difficulty, but I imagine when faced with concentrating on their meaning, I could probably get it. Have you ever asked, "how did he get ANY of it wrong if he was divinely inspired?"

See, you ignored what I said. In any case, you cannot prove that modern egyptologists themselves are correct (since they don't even know what all the various meanings the symbols can take on are).

Charlatan!=laziness. He was a failed treasure hunter.

But he never had a goal to get treasure. He was constantly giving away his own money to his followers. He never was wealthy by any definition of the word. I read up a bit more on this "treasure hunter" accusation:

There is some evidence that [Joseph Smith's] father was involved in treasure hunting, a common activity among poor New England farmers who hoped through the use of magic to discover buried money, and it was necessary for Joseph to extricate himself from the mistaken notions of that superstition... In November 1825, Joseph and his father worked briefly with a man named Josiah Stowell of South Bainbridge (Afton), New York, who believed a Spanish treasure was located in Harmony, Pennsylvania, near the Susquehanna River. The project failed, and the Smiths gradually separated themselves from the money-digging activities of their neighbors

Calling him a "failed treasure hunter" hardly reflects the actual situation.

Ummm...that man could be as God is the first heresy.

Is it? Then why did early Christians contemporary with Peter and Paul believe it to be so, as Father Vajda's research showed?

• Jesus commanded his disciples to be perfect, even as God is perfect.
• Paul told the Romans that we are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.
• Paul told the Hebrews that we will be partakers of God's holiness.
• Paul told the Ephesians that we can be filled with the fulness of God.
• Peter taught that we are promised that we may become "partakers of the divine nature".
• John said that we will be like Christ.

Eastern Orthodox writer Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56) notes that the Orthodox church believes this as well.

This page is a good in-depth examination of this belief.

Try reading the first few chapters of Genesis - it was the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve. That man could "be like God" as it were, is no original idea and can easily be derived by mis-reading scripture (as was do

If that's the case, how do you explain Young's position? He adamantly proposed what I was talking about.

Perhaps he was mistaken? No one ever said prophets were perfect. In any case, please provide references that have Brigham Young teaching what you say he taught, since you are saying he taught it.

I may have to dig some into this, but everything I can tell from the Bible is that plural marriage was NEVER endorsed by God. Allowed, yes, endorsed, no. No Biblical character ever had good consequences come about because of plural marriage.

It appears you are unfamiliar with the story of how Abraham had his son Ishmael, in which the Lord promises Hagar an exceeding multitude of posterity. If that's not endorsement, I don't know what is.

IANAE (I Am Not An Egyptologist), but hieroglyphs are pictures. Not to discount the difficulty, but I imagine when faced with concentrating on their meaning, I could probably get it. Have you ever asked, "how did he get ANY of it wrong if he was divinely inspired?"

See, you ignored what I said. In any case, you cannot prove that modern egyptologists themselves are correct (since they don't even know what all the various meanings the symbols can take on are).

Charlatan!=laziness. He was a failed treasure hunter.

But he never had a goal to get treasure. He was constantly giving away his own money to his followers. He never was wealthy by any definition of the word. I read up a bit more on this "treasure hunter" accusation:

There is some evidence that [Joseph Smith's] father was involved in treasure hunting, a common activity among poor New England farmers who hoped through the use of magic to discover buried money, and it was necessary for Joseph to extricate himself from the mistaken notions of that superstition... In November 1825, Joseph and his father worked briefly with a man named Josiah Stowell of South Bainbridge (Afton), New York, who believed a Spanish treasure was located in Harmony, Pennsylvania, near the Susquehanna River. The project failed, and the Smiths gradually separated themselves from the money-digging activities of their neighbors

Calling him a "failed treasure hunter" hardly reflects the actual situation.

Ummm...that man could be as God is the first heresy.

Is it? Then why did early Christians contemporary with Peter and Paul believe it to be so, as Father Vajda's research showed?

• Jesus commanded his disciples to be perfect, even as God is perfect.
• Paul told the Romans that we are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.
• Paul told the Hebrews that we will be partakers of God's holiness.
• Paul told the Ephesians that we can be filled with the fulness of God.
• Peter taught that we are promised that we may become "partakers of the divine nature".
• John said that we will be like Christ.

Eastern Orthodox writer Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56) notes that the Orthodox church believes this as well.

This page is a good in-depth examination of this belief.

Try reading the first few chapters of Genesis - it was the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve. That man could "be like God" as it were, is no original idea and can easily be derived by mis-reading scripture (as was do

If that's the case, how do you explain Young's position? He adamantly proposed what I was talking about.

Perhaps he was mistaken? No one ever said prophets were perfect. In any case, please provide references that have Brigham Young teaching what you say he taught, since you are saying he taught it.

I may have to dig some into this, but everything I can tell from the Bible is that plural marriage was NEVER endorsed by God. Allowed, yes, endorsed, no. No Biblical character ever had good consequences come about because of plural marriage.

It appears you are unfamiliar with the story of how Abraham had his son Ishmael, in which the Lord promises Hagar an exceeding multitude of posterity. If that's not endorsement, I don't know what is.

IANAE (I Am Not An Egyptologist), but hieroglyphs are pictures. Not to discount the difficulty, but I imagine when faced with concentrating on their meaning, I could probably get it. Have you ever asked, "how did he get ANY of it wrong if he was divinely inspired?"

See, you ignored what I said. In any case, you cannot prove that modern egyptologists themselves are correct (since they don't even know what all the various meanings the symbols can take on are).

Charlatan!=laziness. He was a failed treasure hunter.

But he never had a goal to get treasure. He was constantly giving away his own money to his followers. He never was wealthy by any definition of the word. I read up a bit more on this "treasure hunter" accusation:

There is some evidence that [Joseph Smith's] father was involved in treasure hunting, a common activity among poor New England farmers who hoped through the use of magic to discover buried money, and it was necessary for Joseph to extricate himself from the mistaken notions of that superstition... In November 1825, Joseph and his father worked briefly with a man named Josiah Stowell of South Bainbridge (Afton), New York, who believed a Spanish treasure was located in Harmony, Pennsylvania, near the Susquehanna River. The project failed, and the Smiths gradually separated themselves from the money-digging activities of their neighbors

Calling him a "failed treasure hunter" hardly reflects the actual situation.

Ummm...that man could be as God is the first heresy.

Is it? Then why did early Christians contemporary with Peter and Paul believe it to be so, as Father Vajda's research showed?

• Jesus commanded his disciples to be perfect, even as God is perfect.
• Paul told the Romans that we are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.
• Paul told the Hebrews that we will be partakers of God's holiness.
• Paul told the Ephesians that we can be filled with the fulness of God.
• Peter taught that we are promised that we may become "partakers of the divine nature".
• John said that we will be like Christ.

Eastern Orthodox writer Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56) notes that the Orthodox church believes this as well.

This page is a good in-depth examination of this belief.

Try reading the first few chapters of Genesis - it was the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve. That man could "be like God" as it were, is no original idea and can easily be derived by mis-reading scripture (as was do

If that's the case, how do you explain Young's position? He adamantly proposed what I was talking about.

Perhaps he was mistaken? No one ever said prophets were perfect. In any case, please provide references that have Brigham Young teaching what you say he taught, since you are saying he taught it.

I may have to dig some into this, but everything I can tell from the Bible is that plural marriage was NEVER endorsed by God. Allowed, yes, endorsed, no. No Biblical character ever had good consequences come about because of plural marriage.

It appears you are unfamiliar with the story of how Abraham had his son Ishmael, in which the Lord promises Hagar an exceeding multitude of posterity. If that's not endorsement, I don't know what is.

IANAE (I Am Not An Egyptologist), but hieroglyphs are pictures. Not to discount the difficulty, but I imagine when faced with concentrating on their meaning, I could probably get it. Have you ever asked, "how did he get ANY of it wrong if he was divinely inspired?"

See, you ignored what I said. In any case, you cannot prove that modern egyptologists themselves are correct (since they don't even know what all the various meanings the symbols can take on are).

Charlatan!=laziness. He was a failed treasure hunter.

But he never had a goal to get treasure. He was constantly giving away his own money to his followers. He never was wealthy by any definition of the word. I read up a bit more on this "treasure hunter" accusation:

There is some evidence that [Joseph Smith's] father was involved in treasure hunting, a common activity among poor New England farmers who hoped through the use of magic to discover buried money, and it was necessary for Joseph to extricate himself from the mistaken notions of that superstition... In November 1825, Joseph and his father worked briefly with a man named Josiah Stowell of South Bainbridge (Afton), New York, who believed a Spanish treasure was located in Harmony, Pennsylvania, near the Susquehanna River. The project failed, and the Smiths gradually separated themselves from the money-digging activities of their neighbors

Calling him a "failed treasure hunter" hardly reflects the actual situation.

Ummm...that man could be as God is the first heresy.

Is it? Then why did early Christians contemporary with Peter and Paul believe it to be so, as Father Vajda's research showed?

• Jesus commanded his disciples to be perfect, even as God is perfect.
• Paul told the Romans that we are heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.
• Paul told the Hebrews that we will be partakers of God's holiness.
• Paul told the Ephesians that we can be filled with the fulness of God.
• Peter taught that we are promised that we may become "partakers of the divine nature".
• John said that we will be like Christ.

Eastern Orthodox writer Dr. Seth Farber ("The Reign of Augustine," The Christian Activist: A Journal of Orthodox Opinion, Vol. 13, Winter/Spring 1999, pp. 40-45,56) notes that the Orthodox church believes this as well.

This page is a good in-depth examination of this belief.

Try reading the first few chapters of Genesis - it was the lie that Satan told Adam and Eve. That man could "be like God" as it were, is no original idea and can easily be derived by mis-reading scripture (as was do

The doctrine about African-Americans wasn't Joseph Smith, but it beared through several of the prophets, including Young. It was actively practiced.

I have already commented on this sufficiently here. On a related note, I spoke with my father who grew up in the church before 1978 (he was 18 at the time). His recollection is that the only thing the church taught about blacks was "Everyone on earth will eventually receive the priesthood. We just don't know when." There is nothing racist about that (quite the opposite).

On plural marriages, it was practiced in scripture but never endorsed by God - simply allowed.

God gave David and Solomon the privilege of having multiple wives. They abused that privilege, and it was taken away.

The LDS only recinded the practice AFTER government pressure, and there are still super-fundamentalist groups that practice it (and one wonders if they still would were it still legal).

Wilford Woodruff makes abundantly clear in Official Declaration 1 that he was prepared to let the church be smashed into oblivion if God didn't interfere. If it were simply a matter of peer pressure, the Church would have caved long before it did.

Looking at the book of Abraham from a non-mormon historical perspective, it's laughable how Smith - a charlatan and treasure hunter with no theological experience (proven historically) could even pretend to know how to translate it.

The "charlatan and treasure hunter" persona that anti-mormons are so fond of portraying is demonstrably not true. Joseph once had a short-term job (that is, he needed a job to feed his family) as a gold digger, a venture that was very unprofitable. And a charlatan? He was constantly working in one effort or another - whether that be traveling to preach, farming, planning and constructing a city (Nauvoo which, by the way, was way ahead of its time in terms of street layout, and formed the basis of the street layout of Salt Lake City), running said city, running a rapidly growing church... You get the picture. He never let other people provide for him while he sat around doing nothing. He never sat around doing nothing. Does that sound like a charlatan? I didn't think so.

NO secular translation comes close to what he proposed.

Perhaps not as a whole (from a modern secular perspective... Egyptology is a vague science at best, unlike mathematics), but how did he even get a single character right?

I quote from this site because it answers your comment better than I can (emphasis mine):

As for the Egyptian facsimiles published with the Book of Abraham (see www.lds.org for Facsimile 1, Facsimile 2, and Facsimile 3), there are fascinating "direct hits" and "near hits" that Joseph makes in his interpretation that simply were not possible for even a scholar to do in the 1830s. However, Joseph's commentary has been heavily condemned by many Egyptologists. In some cases, where Joseph Smith was obviously close to plausible interpretations of symbols based on modern knowledge, his critics amaze me by focusing on some minor point that makes Joseph technically incorrect, in their view, while avoiding the monumental question: "How did a farm boy in the 1830s even get close to interpreting a single symbol properly?" It does not surprise or disappoint me that scholars can find fault with Joseph's commentary, for there are many levels of meaning possible in Egyptian symbolism. We still don't grasp much of what Egyptian thought was all about among the multiple elite priestly groups who kept many of the records, and without that understanding, it is hard to assess the ultimate meaning intended by the author of a passage or diagram. Egyptology is not an exact science like mathema

That is right, AFAIK. No position as of yet. Whenever you let others think for you, receive revelations for you, or otherwise attempt to control you, you fall into a dangerous trap. When do you start thinking for yourself again? In Hilldale, Utah the fundamentalist-mormon prophet Warren Jeffs had the idea that women should never wear red. All red clothing was collected the next day. Later he had the idea to have the scriptures be the only reading material and burned all of the books in the town's library. Read the chilling account here. A taliban-style regime was in control in that town.

You can try to argue that the fundamentalist Mormon sects aren't Mormon, but that is a non-sequiter. But even if that group's beliefs don't directly align with yours, the bigger picture and question is this: is there ever a point where you'd refuse new edicts coming down "directly from God?" Polygamy came down through such an edict, and those would would stand in its way were threatened with destruction. Read verses 52-54 in D&C 132. I am just wondering, is there some point where you'd grab the reins and take control for yourself? Or does the teacher, bishop, and president of the church always know what is best? It's the same for anyone who lets others think for them- for mormons, for scientologists, for catholics, etc.

They are reverting back to the "Just keep 'em barefoot and pregnant" school of thought. Mitt's wife may not need to work to make ends meet. That is not reality in America today.

GA: Can I give you a side dish of guilt to go along with your job?

To pray, Issac went to the fields, Christ went to a mountains, Matthew went to the closet, Peter went to the rooftops, etc. The very idea of people congregating to pray would have been decried by Jesus' disciples. Indeed, they did not pray even amongst themselves, while they were together, instead keeping their prayers to themselves, not unlike eastern meditation. The purpose of being together was for discussion on the things discovered during prayer.

So you're saying we should not start out church meetings with a prayer? We are encouraged to pray privately and as families. It was not so odd as you claim to be seen in prayer at the time of Christ:

• During the Sermon on the Mount he gave an example prayer
• In James we are told that if we are sick we should call for the elders of the church to pray over us, i.e. as a group
• When Christ went up into the Mount of Transfiguration to pray, he brought along Peter, James, and John, so he must not have minded praying with the two of them there
• When Christ prayed at Gethsemane he was at least close enough for the Twelve to hear him and record his words
• We read of a multitude of Jews praying outside the temple in Luke
• Christ prayed at his baptism in full view of the public, who saw the dove descend and heard God's voice from heaven.
• When choosing the replacement for Judas Iscariot, the Eleven prayed together to determine which of the two they had chosen should be named an apostle.
• Peter and John prayed with an assembly gathered to hear them.
• The apostles fasted and prayed together before sending Barnabas and Saul (Paul) to teach.
  • 
    
    I trust that is enough examples?
    
    On a slightly related note, what gives you the idea the LDS Church congregates in order to pray? Prayer is not the purpose of our meetings, instead we gather to learn from the scriptures. Prayer is almost incidental to that activity. We are taught that we must pray always, in all places.

    Also, the idea of giving a standardized percent of your income, especially to religious leaders, would have made Christ's stomach turn... He followed the Pharisees laws, and encouraged his followers to do the same, but he would have much preferred that you helped the poor with your money... Instead, leadership of churches since his time have taken accounts of Jesus's giving of tithing, and twisted his words, into supporting a tithe.

    The standardized percent used for tithing in modern times is based solely on modern revelation (see D&C 119:3-5), however the concept of tithing has been around since the times of Adam (Cain and Abel offered up a portion of the fruits of their labors to the Lord), and Malachi warned the Jews that they had robbed God by not paying their tithes. The money is not given to religious leaders, as you claim; none of the leaders of the LDS Church are compensated for their service (other than a few who volunteer full-time, and are given a small stipend with which they can pay their bills). Tithing money goes exclusively toward the maintenance and construction of church buildings. I do not think Christ would be appalled by it as you claim.
    
    The word "tithing" itself means "one-tenth" (see here), so it is not at all surprising that 10% should be the percentage assigned.

    I think you, and your fellow LDS churchgoers know less of Christ's

To pray, Issac went to the fields, Christ went to a mountains, Matthew went to the closet, Peter went to the rooftops, etc. The very idea of people congregating to pray would have been decried by Jesus' disciples. Indeed, they did not pray even amongst themselves, while they were together, instead keeping their prayers to themselves, not unlike eastern meditation. The purpose of being together was for discussion on the things discovered during prayer.

So you're saying we should not start out church meetings with a prayer? We are encouraged to pray privately and as families. It was not so odd as you claim to be seen in prayer at the time of Christ:

• During the Sermon on the Mount he gave an example prayer
• In James we are told that if we are sick we should call for the elders of the church to pray over us, i.e. as a group
• When Christ went up into the Mount of Transfiguration to pray, he brought along Peter, James, and John, so he must not have minded praying with the two of them there
• When Christ prayed at Gethsemane he was at least close enough for the Twelve to hear him and record his words
• We read of a multitude of Jews praying outside the temple in Luke
• Christ prayed at his baptism in full view of the public, who saw the dove descend and heard God's voice from heaven.
• When choosing the replacement for Judas Iscariot, the Eleven prayed together to determine which of the two they had chosen should be named an apostle.
• Peter and John prayed with an assembly gathered to hear them.
• The apostles fasted and prayed together before sending Barnabas and Saul (Paul) to teach.
  • 
    
    I trust that is enough examples?
    
    On a slightly related note, what gives you the idea the LDS Church congregates in order to pray? Prayer is not the purpose of our meetings, instead we gather to learn from the scriptures. Prayer is almost incidental to that activity. We are taught that we must pray always, in all places.

    Also, the idea of giving a standardized percent of your income, especially to religious leaders, would have made Christ's stomach turn... He followed the Pharisees laws, and encouraged his followers to do the same, but he would have much preferred that you helped the poor with your money... Instead, leadership of churches since his time have taken accounts of Jesus's giving of tithing, and twisted his words, into supporting a tithe.

    The standardized percent used for tithing in modern times is based solely on modern revelation (see D&C 119:3-5), however the concept of tithing has been around since the times of Adam (Cain and Abel offered up a portion of the fruits of their labors to the Lord), and Malachi warned the Jews that they had robbed God by not paying their tithes. The money is not given to religious leaders, as you claim; none of the leaders of the LDS Church are compensated for their service (other than a few who volunteer full-time, and are given a small stipend with which they can pay their bills). Tithing money goes exclusively toward the maintenance and construction of church buildings. I do not think Christ would be appalled by it as you claim.
    
    The word "tithing" itself means "one-tenth" (see here), so it is not at all surprising that 10% should be the percentage assigned.

    I think you, and your fellow LDS churchgoers know less of Christ's