Slashdot Mirror

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

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

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

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

Just so you know, no one is required to pay anything to go to the LDS temple. The requirements are simple: live as Christ taught one should live. Yes, it is generally required that one pay tithing; however, because tithing is 10% of your income, if you make no money, you pay no tithing. It is voluntary. The church does not look into anyone's financial statements or anything to find out whether they are actually paying a full tithe (as does, I believe, the CoS, but I may be wrong). It is a simple "Do you pay a full tithe?" and the answer you give is accepted. (I do not condone lying to get through the interview, I am simply saying that no coercion is used.)

The early temple ceremony did involve an oath on one's own life - the Jews in ancient times had a nearly identical practice. (The Jews believed that if you swear on something, and you are found to have broken that oath, you lose the thing you swore on. Jews swore on their lives for certain things.) The temple oath was, however, symbolic in nature; it was not taught that an angel would actually come and slit one's throat if the oath was broken (nor that church leaders would do it), instead it was meant to remind a person of the importance of the oath being made. It was decided at some point that this particular oath distracted from the purpose of the temple and was therefore removed.

The temple is similar in nature to baptism - baptism is a ceremony that one performs to obtain certain blessings (entry into heaven, assuming one has repented), and the temple ceremony is performed to obtain additional blessings (live with one's family in God's presence forever). No new doctrines are taught in baptism, and no new doctrines are taught in the temple. Doctrines are reinforced in the temple; but those doctrines are available in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, both of which are publicly available free of charge in their entirety (as I have proven by linking to them). The Journal of Discourses also contains a wealth of teaching (though I do not have a link at hand, I believe it is available online for free).

The LDS Church does own a lot of land and many companies and corporations, most of which are non-profit IIRC. It re-invests money earned in this way; no money goes to church leaders except a few full-time church leaders who do not have enough savings and receive a small stipend with which they can pay bills and such. It is certainly not enough to make those few people wealthy. As a member of the church, I have no quibble with the manner in which the church spends its money. It has three main purposes: build new church buildings in areas where they are needed, maintain existing church buildings, and help people (relief efforts for disaster victims, food for those who have none, and so on). I assume you do not object to the church using its money to help people, nor to the church using its money to build buildings for those areas where church members do not have buildings in which to meet (or where existing buildings are becoming overcrowded).

As I have said to others, please don't regurgitate what you've heard anti-Mormons say.

Just so you know, no one is required to pay anything to go to the LDS temple. The requirements are simple: live as Christ taught one should live. Yes, it is generally required that one pay tithing; however, because tithing is 10% of your income, if you make no money, you pay no tithing. It is voluntary. The church does not look into anyone's financial statements or anything to find out whether they are actually paying a full tithe (as does, I believe, the CoS, but I may be wrong). It is a simple "Do you pay a full tithe?" and the answer you give is accepted. (I do not condone lying to get through the interview, I am simply saying that no coercion is used.)

The early temple ceremony did involve an oath on one's own life - the Jews in ancient times had a nearly identical practice. (The Jews believed that if you swear on something, and you are found to have broken that oath, you lose the thing you swore on. Jews swore on their lives for certain things.) The temple oath was, however, symbolic in nature; it was not taught that an angel would actually come and slit one's throat if the oath was broken (nor that church leaders would do it), instead it was meant to remind a person of the importance of the oath being made. It was decided at some point that this particular oath distracted from the purpose of the temple and was therefore removed.

The temple is similar in nature to baptism - baptism is a ceremony that one performs to obtain certain blessings (entry into heaven, assuming one has repented), and the temple ceremony is performed to obtain additional blessings (live with one's family in God's presence forever). No new doctrines are taught in baptism, and no new doctrines are taught in the temple. Doctrines are reinforced in the temple; but those doctrines are available in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, both of which are publicly available free of charge in their entirety (as I have proven by linking to them). The Journal of Discourses also contains a wealth of teaching (though I do not have a link at hand, I believe it is available online for free).

The LDS Church does own a lot of land and many companies and corporations, most of which are non-profit IIRC. It re-invests money earned in this way; no money goes to church leaders except a few full-time church leaders who do not have enough savings and receive a small stipend with which they can pay bills and such. It is certainly not enough to make those few people wealthy. As a member of the church, I have no quibble with the manner in which the church spends its money. It has three main purposes: build new church buildings in areas where they are needed, maintain existing church buildings, and help people (relief efforts for disaster victims, food for those who have none, and so on). I assume you do not object to the church using its money to help people, nor to the church using its money to build buildings for those areas where church members do not have buildings in which to meet (or where existing buildings are becoming overcrowded).

As I have said to others, please don't regurgitate what you've heard anti-Mormons say.

Just so you know, no one is required to pay anything to go to the LDS temple. The requirements are simple: live as Christ taught one should live. Yes, it is generally required that one pay tithing; however, because tithing is 10% of your income, if you make no money, you pay no tithing. It is voluntary. The church does not look into anyone's financial statements or anything to find out whether they are actually paying a full tithe (as does, I believe, the CoS, but I may be wrong). It is a simple "Do you pay a full tithe?" and the answer you give is accepted. (I do not condone lying to get through the interview, I am simply saying that no coercion is used.)

The early temple ceremony did involve an oath on one's own life - the Jews in ancient times had a nearly identical practice. (The Jews believed that if you swear on something, and you are found to have broken that oath, you lose the thing you swore on. Jews swore on their lives for certain things.) The temple oath was, however, symbolic in nature; it was not taught that an angel would actually come and slit one's throat if the oath was broken (nor that church leaders would do it), instead it was meant to remind a person of the importance of the oath being made. It was decided at some point that this particular oath distracted from the purpose of the temple and was therefore removed.

The temple is similar in nature to baptism - baptism is a ceremony that one performs to obtain certain blessings (entry into heaven, assuming one has repented), and the temple ceremony is performed to obtain additional blessings (live with one's family in God's presence forever). No new doctrines are taught in baptism, and no new doctrines are taught in the temple. Doctrines are reinforced in the temple; but those doctrines are available in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, both of which are publicly available free of charge in their entirety (as I have proven by linking to them). The Journal of Discourses also contains a wealth of teaching (though I do not have a link at hand, I believe it is available online for free).

The LDS Church does own a lot of land and many companies and corporations, most of which are non-profit IIRC. It re-invests money earned in this way; no money goes to church leaders except a few full-time church leaders who do not have enough savings and receive a small stipend with which they can pay bills and such. It is certainly not enough to make those few people wealthy. As a member of the church, I have no quibble with the manner in which the church spends its money. It has three main purposes: build new church buildings in areas where they are needed, maintain existing church buildings, and help people (relief efforts for disaster victims, food for those who have none, and so on). I assume you do not object to the church using its money to help people, nor to the church using its money to build buildings for those areas where church members do not have buildings in which to meet (or where existing buildings are becoming overcrowded).

As I have said to others, please don't regurgitate what you've heard anti-Mormons say.

I know this might be a little against the slashdot grain, but I think this speaks to the idea that there is a God who is the master scientist and who inspires men and women with the secrets of His creations as a Father teaching His children. There is a speech given by a leader in my church that talks about the subject of the scientific method and how it compares and contrasts with divine revelation. The leader was a nuclear physicist for many years who helped pioneer the technologies behind nuclear submarines.

I thought it was an interesting mix of faith and science in a world where the two, for some reason, have become separated.

Or do inferior memes rule over superior memes, as well?

(Actually, there is a better way to describe this, but it's a verse of Mormon scripture: D&C 1: 19.)

"With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided." (Priesthood Bulletin, Feb. 1972, p. 4.)

Perhaps there are no dinosaurs mentioned by name but there are dragons, satyrs, cockatrice, and least we for get the very easily visualized cureloms and cumoms. Not to mention a menagerie of generic monsters and beasts. With all due respect, I'd say the mormons pretty much nailed it.

Perhaps there are no dinosaurs mentioned by name but there are dragons, satyrs, cockatrice, and least we for get the very easily visualized cureloms and cumoms. Not to mention a menagerie of generic monsters and beasts. With all due respect, I'd say the mormons pretty much nailed it.

Perhaps there are no dinosaurs mentioned by name but there are dragons, satyrs, cockatrice, and least we for get the very easily visualized cureloms and cumoms. Not to mention a menagerie of generic monsters and beasts. With all due respect, I'd say the mormons pretty much nailed it.

Perhaps there are no dinosaurs mentioned by name but there are dragons, satyrs, cockatrice, and least we for get the very easily visualized cureloms and cumoms. Not to mention a menagerie of generic monsters and beasts. With all due respect, I'd say the mormons pretty much nailed it.

Perhaps there are no dinosaurs mentioned by name but there are dragons, satyrs, cockatrice, and least we for get the very easily visualized cureloms and cumoms. Not to mention a menagerie of generic monsters and beasts. With all due respect, I'd say the mormons pretty much nailed it.

Allow me to be pedantic:

The correct name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints :)

It was also prophesied in the Old Testament (Isaiah 22:23). That would be the one that was written by the prophets who came before JC was born.

It is true that presidential candidate W. Mitt Romney has built a Mormon Temple ... near his house in Belmont, a town adjacent to Waltham.

*sigh*

Mitt Romney did not build the Boston temple. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did.

I will requote what our prophet Spencer W. Kimball said, "I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that He was crucified for the sins of the world. He is my friend, my Savior, my Lord, and my God." I thought that would be enough to clarify our position, apparently it is not.

Mormons believe that the man called Jesus in the New Testament was also known as Jehovah in the Old Testament. Therefore He was, He is, and He will ever be a God. Jesus as Jehovah spoke with Moses. He made covenants with Abraham. Through Him the world was organized. He is one of three beings that make up what Mormons call the Godhead. This roughly translates to "the Holy Trinity" as Catholics would call these beings. The difference is that we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct beings, although they are unified in purpose. I don't understand what you mean by "code-speak". I guess you can interpret the Bible however you wish, but when the Father says in Matthew, "This is my beloved Son" I take Him at His word that He is introducing His Son. In Gethsemane, when Jesus was praying, to me it sounds like He is talking to someone else, and is willing to do what that other being wants, and not what Jesus himself prefers.

I mention Gethsemane because, (unlike your insinuation) Mormons believe that Christ (by virtue of the fact that he is not only perfect, but a God) willing offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. This doctrine is repeated time and time and time again because it is central to our beliefs. If you want I can bury you with relevant quotes from LDS sources but this quote,
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/8-17#8
(read the text in yellow) explains well how and why Christ could atone or redeem us. Note, that this text is in the Book of Mormon, and Mormons believe it was written before Christ was born.

Which brings us to your very puzzling equations about Mormons believing the same thing about Christ that Muslims do. Let me be very blunt. Mormons believe Jesus is a God, Muslims do not. Mormons believe Jesus atoned/redeemed/sacrificed for our sins, Muslims do not. Therefore, according to your definition, (unless you move the goalposts) Mormons are Christians, Muslims are not. Also, no matter your grandstanding about beating dead horses and calling untruths "facts", your original statements are very wrong.

Please note that I don't feel bound at all by the Nicean creed. If you do, well that is great for you, but don't extend the creed to everyone else saying if you don't believe in my interpretation of the Nicean creed then you aren't Christian. Because then all you are saying is you aren't my type of Christian.

I believe in Christ. I also believe Christ. I believe Him when He says to follow Him, and that my sins will be forgiven, and that He will heal my "pains and infirmities". No dead person can do that, only a living God can. A God who came to earth to experience earth-life first hand. Yes, it is insulting to call a Christian a non-Christian with a whim of a definition.

Again do not dictate to someone what they believe. It is patronizing, and is particulary insulting when you are incorrect. And you are incorrect in your statements. I will take it on good faith that you were ill-informed by someone else who was probably just as ill-informed. But now you know what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really believes. I don't mind answering questions about Christ, His Father, or Mormon beliefs or history. You don't have to believe what I believe, just don't make stuff up. I will tell you though that if you continue to spread the falsehood that Mormons don't believe Jesus is a God or that He paid the price of our sins, then you will be lying.

The claim that Mormonism rejects other groups is false.

From the version of Joseph Smith's "First Vision" in Mormon scriptures at LDS.org:

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right ... I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

I suppose this technically only applies to sects that Joseph Smith had encountered in the early 1800s, but there haven't been any updates since to let us know that "Methodism is an abomination, but the Bahai are okay" or "Presbyterian ministers are still all corrupt, but the Adventist preachers are good folks". Don't get me wrong - even if you were to apologize for calling their beliefs abominations, most evangelical types would still call you nasty names... but at least I hope you now see where some of the acrimony started in the first place.

It might have been more accurate for you to say that the claim that all Mormons reject other groups is false. Like most other Christians (and hopefully like most Muslims, from what I've seen of the Koran), the believers are often too good to accept their religions' most evil beliefs. Even in that case, however, you'd have to define "reject" carefully. The belief that people from other religions have a good shot a heaven is more inclusive than most fundamentalists, but the belief that they can't get into Heaven until a Mormon gets the paperwork right is more exclusive than most liberal theologies.

I'm baffled whenever I see this old 'Mormons aren't Christian' chestnut brought up.

Mormons believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but while Mormonism gives Jesus Christ an important place, Mormon doctrine denies trinitarianism. Also, once again, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mormon doctrine also includes the idea that a human being from Earth can one day, after the resurrection, become a God who is a God in the same sense that God the Father is. If that is the case, then it is incompatible with the fundamental understanding of God held by other groups calling themselves Christians. (To put it in geeky terms, to "regular" Christians, God is a global variable, or a singleton; to Mormons, God is a variable with local scope, and there are different Gods depending on which function you're in.)

If those two things are true, they represent radical departures from what any "regular" Christian group would call orthodox theology.

The claim that Mormonism rejects other groups is false.

You have, perhaps, misunderstood what I am trying to say on this point. Mormons respect and work with other groups, and that is good and laudable. However, I was saying that Mormon doctrine rejects the beliefs of other Christian groups, not the people who are members of the groups. Is this not what the Great Apostasy is about? Isn't the Mormon claim that, prior to Joseph Smith, all Christian groups had gone so far astray into wrong beliefs that they had lost the true essence of Christian belief? (Or what else does Doctrines and Covenants 1:30 mean when it says that the church founded by Joseph Smith is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth"?) It is in that sense that I am saying that Mormonism rejects other groups that call themselves Christians.

On the other hand, most other Christian groups differ on several points, but if you ask (say) a Presbyterian if a Catholic has the basics right, they will say, "Sure, we disagree on the Pope thing, but that is absolutely not a core issue." As I understand it, the Mormon viewpoint is that Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox doctrine is not basically correct.

there's the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who have their own set of books of the Bible (I think they're in a 'testament' of their own, but I'm not entirely sure), an extension that most would find spurious.

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that the rest of the Christian churches have more or less lost it a long time ago (like after the original apostles all died) and the Bible is only "true as far as it is translated correctly". God, not wanting his children to be lost in darkness forever, called a new prophet, Joseph Smith, to help restore the truth on the earth. To prove to the world that this is for real, God instructed him to translate some records written by prophets who lived on the American continent over 2,000 years ago, who are descended from a prophet who was instructed by God to leave Jerusalem around 600 BC. The result of Joseph Smith's translation is the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith is also largely responsible for a book called the Doctrine and Covenants which is a compilation of revelations received by Joseph Smith, and it also includes a few things that have been added by his successors in the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Joseph Smith also translated some papyri that fell into his hands that contained writings of Abraham and Moses, some of which is very similar to the Book of Genesis in the Bible. You can find all of those http://scriptures.lds.org/here.

The Church of Jesus Christ still uses the Bible, but yes, they also have other books of scripture that they hold to be just as authoritative as the Bible, if not more so.

mormons sheesh. When all else fails the use of force is justified


    18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own asword.


I can't say I disagree ... just don't use the f word ... your bishop wouldn't approve.

Why, it must be one of the Asian countries, right?

Japan? Uh, no.

Korea? Only if you consider North--South Korea is if anything more crowded and has even less natural resources--but their economy ($20,000+ per-capita GDP) is ten times that of their neighbor ($2,000-).

Taiwan? Singapore? Malaysia? Nope, nope, nope.

India? Has a very growing economy as well as some third-worldish regions and a population problem.

How about China and its attempts to curtail population growth through government action? Oh, no, there's that whole "one-child-policy-led-to-a-preponderance-of-males" thing.

Gee, getting really, really hard to defend the conventional wisdom of so-called "intellectuals."

"O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise..."

Apparently not.

(So where's my thread?)

One thing I've noticed that some people assume about prayer is that prayer means doing nothing and hoping God will perform some miracle.

Prayer operates on the following principles:
a) we have to do everything in our power to make the desired result happen first
b) the desired result has to be God's will

When the leader of a nation at war did not send enough troops to the army, the frustrated general wrote to the leader and said:
"11 Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain."
"21 Or do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us?"
(http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/60)

That's why the 'religious' person in New Orleans who says "I know a huge flood is coming, but I'm going to just stay here and pray, because I know God will protect me," isn't going to be protected, because they are not doing all they can do to protect themselves first.

Similarly, if I get sick and say "I'm not going to a doctor; I am just going to pray to be healed!" then I am very likely not going to receive any help from God, because I am not making use of the means that He has provided for me (a doctor, medical help, etc).

I definitely know that prayer can and does work. The key is that we have to do all we can do first.

Check your facts. "Fundamentalist Mormon" is not the "Mormon Church", correctly referred to as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (or the LDS Church). These schools are not affiliated with BYU or its sponsor, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. http://lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,4038-1---16-1 68,00.html (Myths about the Church) http://lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,4043-1---15-1 68,00.html (Writer's Style Guide)

Check your facts. "Fundamentalist Mormon" is not the "Mormon Church", correctly referred to as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (or the LDS Church). These schools are not affiliated with BYU or its sponsor, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. http://lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,4038-1---16-1 68,00.html (Myths about the Church) http://lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,4043-1---15-1 68,00.html (Writer's Style Guide)

There is a proof in God, but if you want to experience the proof, you have to work it out for yourself. Like most experiments, you are part of the apparatus and the experiemtn may change your nature.

If God will manifest himself to you, then you have proof. If he does not, you still have no proof.

The question remains; are all those people who say they have come to know God (tried the experiemt) making it up? Deceived? Or have they found something really really worth knowing. They are some experiments to try THAT question, the answer (if successful) is usually "hmmmmm.... I'm listening" leading on to the main experiment.

The minor experiment is to ask from time to time about people: "Does their life incline me to think that perhaps their might be a God worth knowing after all?" When your answer is hard to give its time to try out the main experiment. Rinse and repeat till you find it.

I happen to know their is a God who loves me but the knowedge didn't come from any pure reason that I can manage, or for free.

Sam

Why don't you just say: "Being a mormon...".

"Mormon" is ambiguous since it can refer to various schismatic sects. According to an official press release of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.

When referring to Church members, the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred, though "Mormons" is acceptable

He appears to be well within preferred and accepted usage to use "LDS". Wikipedia has an interesting item on what "Mormon" refers to.

Smith didn't just write/translate/dig up/ymmv a "companion book". He also went into the Bible proper and made lots of changes (which he called corrections). The results of this effort are called "The Joseph Smith Translation" within the LDS Church. Some of his changes seem rather self-serving. For example, in Genesis 50, the Joseph who was the son of Jacob gives a rather short death speech. But Joseph Smith turned it into a much more elaborate speech wherein Joseph Smith's own career is prophesied.

The LDS party line is that the Bible was corrupted over the centuries, and that the Joseph Smith Translation (though incomplete and not official) is inspired by God and uniquely true to the original Bible. Yet there isn't any manuscript evidence for any of Smith's changes. Funny that.

Having a years supply of food is good counsel, my church has been teaching it since 1936.

You are right, it is not a matter of if, but when. And it doesn't have to be a global or even national disaster. I know many people in my church that have lost their jobs or faced a serious illness and couldn't work, and they had a years worth of food, soap, shampoo, etc. on hand.

In New Orleans the local church leaders met about 3 days after the levies broke, and out of the entire New Orleans area there were only 8 LDS families that needed assistance. The rest were able to provide for themselves because they had subscribed to the teachings of preparedness and self-reliance.

Unfortunately, the government teaches just the opposite, giving handounts and creating dependence. The old proverb is right, "Give a man to fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

but doesn't like to mention in the same discussion that he's a Mormon- a religion which used to promote treating women like cattle and marrying as many as you like.

OK, I do not live in MA so I cannot speak to your other points, but let me respond to this.

but doesn't like to mention in the same discussion that he's a Mormon

Are you normally in the custom of mentioning to which religion you belong every time you make a point? Why is his religion even an issue? Either you agree with a persons policies or you don't.

Also, both John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are Catholics. Why don't you complain when they mention their opposition to the war, they don't mention the Crusades or the Inquisition?

The LDS church publicly announced http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1 in October 1890 that no more plural marraiges would be performed. If you marry more than one woman than you will be excommunicated.

marrying as many as you like.

According to the best records we have, the vast majority of marraiges were limited to 2 wives, with three being the exception. More than three was extremely rare. Brigham Young allowed women to divorce their husbands, but never the other way around.

promote treating women like cattle

This is particularly offensive. The implication is that Romney and Mormons in general still believes women are like cattle. That wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

A visitor named Charles Farrer Brown (aka Artemus Ward) once wrote after spending one month in Utah during the late 1850's wrote "Apparently Mormon women are happy . . .I saw plurality at its best, and I give it to you at its best." He was kind of a Dave Barry of his time and began to light heartedly tease the Mormons. Much of what was written against the Mormons at the time was written by people who had not actually been to Utah or were there for only a brief amount of time (like Mark Twain who was only ther for two days.)

Women in Utah Territory received the vote in February 1870. The Federal Government took sufferage away in 1887. (It was regained in 1895).

Men are constantly reminded to treat their own wife with respect, care and love. The implication is that if you don't, you will go to hell. The women of the church belong to one of the old and largest women's organizations in the world. It is dedicated to service and education. In fact, the women of the church often know of a problem before the Bishop does. On Sundays when the women split from the men, they have their own designated room with padded chairs the male teenagers have already set up for them with an upright piano. The "chauvanistic" men meet on the basketball court with metal fold up chairs and sing acapella. The women in the LDS Church have a very important role. Anyone who tells you differently is not telling you the truth.

Next time you make an off-handed comment about Mormons, seek one out and ask questions.

I'd say the fact that throughout its history it has always been used as a scam,
It's the word "always" that troubles me here. I'm here to conradict you.

strong indicators that it's a scam
I thought we were talking about multiple occasions, I'm suggesting not all are scams.

Add in the fact that none of this would have been possible had god chosen not to speak in contradictory riddles
Now you are suggesting the riddles are a result of gods malice and not of the scam-mongers of the corrupt church. Is there a need to make this shift?

But yes, knowing what horrors in life free-choice would lead to he went ahead with it. On what terms are you willing to maintain your own freedom?
Read from genesis where the earth groans under the sin of mankind and asks God how long it will have to suffer. What is the reason horrors are permitted to be comitted and sufferred by mankind? A brief answer would suggest that for 100 years out of eternity the benefits outweight the pains; but in case you think God is callous in this realise that his son, by whom he created the earth also lived on it, and before his death on calvary suffered all the pains and ills and sins of mankind, "so that he might know how to succor his people" and in order to bring the "rights of mercy" so that ignorant mankind that wreaks the horrors may receive a change of heart, be forgiven and be new people, not condemned to live under their mistakes.

And the thing is, there is proof of god, and this is testified strongly by people who have received the change of heart.

Wwhy do you think you know what would prove god to you? You would one day say "this will prove it" and then later say "ah, no, I see now how that could be faked, I need something else". If proof were so "readily" availble to would be confused with natural every day occurances so that it would not be easily noticed "it's always been like that" or, on the otherhand if "unusual" proofs were common it would be difficult to learn anything "scientific" in such an unpredicatable world "weird magic stuff is always happening, don't try to understand it."

But there is a proof that will be to your satisfaction, and god will give it to you when you want to know. How badly do you want to know? How much are you willing to change if you find out? Or should god condemn you now with truth that you are not willing to follow. He has said "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little", we learn as fast as we are willing to obedient to what we know.

As the purpose of this life is for us to be able to change our hearts and willing choose good over evil it would defeat the purpose to force it on you and lay the evidence too plain.

But the evidence is available, and very satisfactory, when you want it; and there are plenty who have it which is why they are unswayed by your convincing arguments - they and I know something that you do not know. We *would* say what you say, if we didn't know what we did.

I testify strongly that god will reveal himself to you if you want to know.
Why "testify"? Because until you receive the evidence and try the experiment, the testimony of those who have tried it is the best evidence you have that it isn't all fakery. You can imagine that in some way I am deceived, and I know what you are talking about, but I can say of myself that its not that because I tried it and it is good.

Sam

Actually, there are writings from Moses which show he had a knowledge about life beyond earth.
Like here: http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/1
verses 33 to the end
(sorry to be an anonymous coward but i'm too lazy to register)

It is from the LDS Church site because I prefer to find out information from the perspective of the believers in an openminded way than to entertain every outraged misconception of the populace.
(read: I'll never find out what a Toyota owner loves about his car from a Ford dealership)

LDS baptisms for the dead

The lds church does a lot of family history and genealogy work. They have family history centers around the world staffed with volunteers that work to help people preserve their genealogies and family history. Locations can be found here and other resources that might be helpful are found at Cyndi's List which compiles a list of family history resources.

Somebody else here said that the Mormons are very conservative. But they allow for polygamy?

The largest Mormon church ("The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "LDS church", to use slightly more specific names) no longer allows polygamy with more than one living wife at a time - the closest they still come is the belief that serial monogamous marriages between one man and multiple women will become polygynous marriages in heaven.

Officially they declared polygamy ended in 1890. Unfortunately this declaration was phrased in a "we don't want the Feds to confiscate our temples" way whereas the start of polygamy was phrased in an "I am the Lord thy God, and reveal unto you an everlasting covenant" way. LDS leaders continued cohabiting with plural wives and conducting new marriages in secret for years. By the time the head church started excommunicating polygamists, there were splinter colonies in the US, Canada, and Mexico who believed they had been given the sacred "keys" to continue conducting plural marriage in secret, and who continued other doctrines like blood atonement, death oaths, and racism that the LDS church has mostly abandoned.

That doesn't sound very conservative! That's what I'd expect from the most hardcore, liberal hippy types!

In one sense a "conservative" is someone who sticks close to from his (possibly liberal) grandparents' philosophies, not someone who fits into any particular belief system you're familiar with. Look up "FLDS" for one of the fundamentalist Mormon groups that has been in the news lately - you'll find men with children by dozens of wives, but wives whose dress code is practically Amish.