For LDS only...some tricky questions

[Truth_Faith13]

Very much so! Overcoming them is different for each one. The common ingredients would be time, patience/forgiveness with myself (I can be horrible self-critic), praying, reflecting, know that it does't have to a the "classic" answer, and listening.

Thanks Jane.

Ive got another question if thats OK? Reading through some reasons why people leave the church, one I come across a lot is they believe mormonism to be a work based religion, that LDS believe Jesus didnt do enough and more has to be done on top of the atonement. They also say due to this there is a lot of pressure to be perfect and the church expects too much from its members in the form of callings etc. I have to admit, as a member I didnt feel a need to be perfect but I left too quickly?

Also many claim JS plagiarised the KJV of the bible in the book of Nephi and then made errors with changes he made eg he mentioned the Red sea instead of Sea of Galilee or Remnant instead of Raimant etc

 

[Jane.Doe]

Ive got another question if thats OK?

Questions are more than "ok", they're how we learn!

Reading through some reasons why people leave the church, one I come across a lot is they believe mormonism to be a work based religion, that LDS believe Jesus didnt do enough and more has to be done on top of the atonement. They also say due to this there is a lot of pressure to be perfect and the church expects too much from its members in the form of callings etc. I have to admit, as a member I didnt feel a need to be perfect but I left too quickly?

Everyone in Christendom agrees that faith is what saves us and it's impossible to do with only works. Christian faiths so vary in the roll works play (in addition to faith). There's a big spectrum. On one extreme, some Christian faiths believe ZERO actions are required-- including confessing faith in the Lord and repenting. More commonly Evangelical faiths believe a person must confess faith and that's it (no baptism, no forsaking sins, etc).

LDS and Catholicism both believe that "faith without works is dead" (James 2:20) means that a believer should ACTUALLY do something about their faith. Things like having faith, repenting, be baptized, caring for fellow men, etc. These believes are often misunderstood by others as "trying to add to what Christ did", when they are not: they are us accepting what Christ did and allowing Him to change us.

They also say due to this there is a lot of pressure to be perfect and the church expects too much from its members in the form of callings etc.

Matt 5:58: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
LDS actually believe this verse, and that a person show not have a dead inert faith. This belief contrasts with some Christian faiths who literally require nothing of their believers. For example, I visited a congregation (not LDS) where the pastor openly mocked the idea that a person should strive to not have sex before marriage-- and he did thus over the pulpit!!

Culturally though, I will admit some LDS people are bad at knowing when to give it a rest and say "no" when you need to -- such is a cultural thing and they SHOULD learn to rest (even God did that).

Also many claim JS plagiarised the KJV of the bible in the book of Nephi and then made errors with changes he made eg he mentioned the Red sea instead of Sea of Galilee or Remnant instead of Raimant etc

This argument always makes me laugh. "Wait: you mean God told this group of people the basically the exact same thing He told that group of people? It's like God's Truth doesn't change!"
As to the differences, it ain't copy-paste.

 

[Katzpur]

Ive got another question if thats OK? Reading through some reasons why people leave the church, one I come across a lot is they believe mormonism to be a work based religion, that LDS believe Jesus didnt do enough and more has to be done on top of the atonement. They also say due to this there is a lot of pressure to be perfect and the church expects too much from its members in the form of callings etc. I have to admit, as a member I didnt feel a need to be perfect but I left too quickly?

I'm just going to recommend a book for you. I could attempt to answer your question, but seriously, this is the best book I've ever read by an LDS author. It's an easy read and will definitely answer your question to your satisfaction: Believing Christ by Stephen E. Robinson. I simply can't recommend this book highly enough!

Also many claim JS plagiarised the KJV of the bible in the book of Nephi and then made errors with changes he made eg he mentioned the Red sea instead of Sea of Galilee or Remnant instead of Raimant etc

I'll have to get back to you on this one. I've got to stop posting for a while and help my husband with a project we started yesterday.

 

[Jane.Doe]

I'm just going to recommend a book for you. I could attempt to answer your question, but seriously, this is the best book I've ever read by an LDS author. It's an easy read and will definitely answer your question to your satisfaction: Believing Christ by Stephen E. Robinson. I simply can't recommend this book highly enough!

Oh!!! I TOTALLY second this one!!!

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Ive read the book Jane suggested in the other thread "more than the tattoed mormon". It was an interesting read and she makes some very interesting points however one thing she mentioned was the critics idea of mormonism being a "throat slitting cult". I know this refers to parts of the temple (although has now changed) and so looked to see if I could find an LDS explanation, although know its difficult as its the Temple! FAIRMORMON provides an explanation but Im not sure I can see the distinction it mentions:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Penalties

Any help?

 

[Jane.Doe]

Ive read the book Jane suggested in the other thread "more than the tattoed mormon". It was an interesting read and she makes some very interesting points however one thing she mentioned was the critics idea of mormonism being a "throat slitting cult". I know this refers to parts of the temple (although has now changed) and so looked to see if I could find an LDS explanation, although know its difficult as its the Temple! FAIRMORMON provides an explanation but Im not sure I can see the distinction it mentions:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Penalties

Any help?

I'm going to start by stating the obvious: no Mormons are not a throat slitting cult. Yes, this is obvious but people get such crazy ideas sometimes and even spread such cartoonish dramatization to other people. As to rest of your question.... would you mind rephrasing where you are confused? I'm sorry that I'm not following you fully.

 

[Katzpur]

Ive read the book Jane suggested in the other thread "more than the tattoed mormon". It was an interesting read and she makes some very interesting points however one thing she mentioned was the critics idea of mormonism being a "throat slitting cult". I know this refers to parts of the temple (although has now changed) and so looked to see if I could find an LDS explanation, although know its difficult as its the Temple! FAIRMORMON provides an explanation but Im not sure I can see the distinction it mentions:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Penalties

Any help?

I'm not sure what you're referring to by the words "the distinction." I just looked at the link you provided, but I'm still not sure exactly what you're asking.

Congrats, by the way, on being a new mom again! I don't think I ever got around to saying that. I'm so happy for you!

 

[Jane.Doe]

Congrats, by the way, on being a new mom again! I don't think I ever got around to saying that. I'm so happy for you!

You had a baby Truth_Faith13? If so, CONGRATS!!!!!!!! So happy for you!!!!

 

[Katzpur]

I'm going to start by stating the obvious: no Mormons are not a throat slitting cult.

This particular quote from the link to the FAIR website stuck out to me especially:

"Still today, our common vernacular is laced with mentions of penalties. Solemn claims are often followed with, for instance, "cross my heart, hope to die" or "may Heaven strike me dead". Obviously, such penalties are not to be taken literally (the person saying them does not literally want to die, or ask someone to kill them, or commit suicide), but rather to convey the veracity of a claim or the seriousness with which claims are made."

I'm thinking the throat slitting action was more along those lines -- an attempt to say, "Hey, these covenants are serious, folks." There have, by the way, been zero documented cases of this throat cutting ever having actually happened to anybody, and it's also a certainty that people have been revealing what goes on in the temple for many, many years. These days, it's just easier to do than it used to be. I do know that this particular part of the endowment was still in place the first time I went to the temple, and it really bothered me. I'm so glad it's been dropped.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I'm going to start by stating the obvious: no Mormons are not a throat slitting cult. Yes, this is obvious but people get such crazy ideas sometimes and even spread such cartoonish dramatization to other people. As to rest of your question.... would you mind rephrasing where you are confused? I'm sorry that I'm not following you fully.

Sorry Im being vague as I dont want to offend by stating too much that occurs in the temple but I suppose if fairmormon mentions this bit its OK?

Critics say that pre 1990, all LDS who were endowed took a penalty oath that if they were to reveal the secrets of the temple, their throats would be slit, disembowled etc. Fairmormon says there is a slight distinction in that they were not told what the consequences of disclosing would be or instructed to do this to other members. Instead it was a declaration of what they would be willing to have done ie stresses the importance of the ordinance not that it would actually happen. I suppose its semantics but Im struggling to see how the phrasing does make it mean something different (Im probably not explaining it well...the article explains better!)

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You had a baby Truth_Faith13? If so, CONGRATS!!!!!!!! So happy for you!!!!

Yes she is 8 weeks olds on Wed and my son is 19months. Thankyou

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry Im being vague as I dont want to offend by stating too much that occurs in the temple but I suppose if fairmormon mentions this bit its OK?

Critics say that pre 1990, all LDS who were endowed took a penalty oath that if they were to reveal the secrets of the temple, their throats would be slit, disembowled etc. Fairmormon says there is a slight distinction in that they were not told what the consequences of disclosing would be or instructed to do this to other members. Instead it was a declaration of what they would be willing to have done ie stresses the importance of the ordinance not that it would actually happen. I suppose its semantics but Im struggling to see how the phrasing does make it mean something different (Im probably not explaining it well...the article explains better!)

I think you and I were probably typing at the same time. Did my last post clarify the distinction at all?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I think you and I were probably typing at the same time. Did my last post clarify the distinction at all?

A little, thanks Katz

 

[Jane.Doe]

Sorry Im being vague as I dont want to offend by stating too much that occurs in the temple but I suppose if fairmormon mentions this bit its OK?

Understood, and I appreciate your efforts to be respectful.

Critics say that pre 1990, all LDS who were endowed took a penalty oath that if they were to reveal the secrets of the temple, their throats would be slit, disembowled etc. Fairmormon says there is a slight distinction in that they were not told what the consequences of disclosing would be or instructed to do this to other members. Instead it was a declaration of what they would be willing to have done ie stresses the importance of the ordinance not that it would actually happen. I suppose its semantics but Im struggling to see how the phrasing does make it mean something different (Im probably not explaining it well...the article explains better!)

The difference is whether or not these were supposed to be taken literally (aka whether you should literally slit your throat). Obviously the answer is "no". Rather, temple ordinances are VERY symbolic and the point was to say that these promises you're making are VERY serious to you.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Understood, and I appreciate your efforts to be respectful.


The difference is whether or not these were supposed to be taken literally (aka whether you should literally slit your throat). Obviously the answer is "no". Rather, temple ordinances are VERY symbolic and the point was to say that these promises you're making are VERY serious to you.

How well is the symbology explained? Im just wondering why so many would take it literallly if it was meant to be symbolic?

Or is it more a case of a disgruntled ex mormon?

Also does fairmormon explain things from a personal opinon or an official church persepective?

 

[Jane.Doe]

How well is the symbology explained? Im just wondering why so many would take it literallly if it was meant to be symbolic?

When it comes to Temple stuff, it's almost all symbolic.

Or is it more a case of a disgruntled ex mormon?

It's the case of someone being motivated by fear and hate, whether they be ex-mormon, never-mormon, or whatever.

Also does fairmormon explain things from a personal opinon or an official church persepective?

FAIRmormon is not an official Church website.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

What are your thoughts on the patriarchal blessing? Some say they are like fortune telling (and therefore bad), others say they are far too generic and the more detailed ones are due to the Patriarch knowing the individual personally? Is there a biblical basis for them?

 

[Jane.Doe]

What are your thoughts on the patriarchal blessing?

They're great.

Some say they are like fortune telling (and therefore bad)

Being told advice and course things is not intrinsically evil thing: Bible is full of such things from God. What matters in the source of these things: is it from God, or from Satan?

others say they are far too generic and the more detailed ones are due to the Patriarch knowing the individual personally? Is there a biblical basis for them?

I met my Patriarch when I showed up for my blessing. He nailed things spot on, no prior knowledge.

Is there a biblical basis for them?

You can actually read examples of patriarchal blessings in Genesis 48-49.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

While I was putting the kid's to bed, we had some sister missionaries knock on the door. As we were in the middle of bedtime my hubby answered and not thinking didn't invite them in (he knows I would always offer them a drink and food) but he asked for their number so I might invite them over for a chat at some point.

In my research and thinking, I have come up with some more questions, but one of them is quite long winded (mainly because I am confusing myself).

It concerns the degrees of glory. Critics claim that although Mormonism sings "forever families". This isn't the case, as only Mormons who are fully endowed and follow all the "rules" achieve the celestial kingdom, possibly leaving non Mormon relatives or Mormons who aren't worth in a lesser degree of glory. Then I thought about the work for the dead....baptisms, sealings etc so even someone like myself who is in a mixed faith marriage could hope for an eternal marriage? However then I thought, well if this is the case and there is always the option of works for the dead and them accepting the gospel... how is there three degrees of glory as any non Mormons etc who were in less degrees would simply have works done for them after they died and therefore could still attain the celestial kingdom? Does that make sense?

Speaking of marriage...it's different in the UK, but I understand in America it's expected that an LDS couple just had a temple marriage? Why is it frowned upon to have a civil wedding first and then a sealing? I'm just thinking of those people whose parents parents Mormons. I've read a lot of stories of distraught father's who couldn't walk their daughters down the aisle?

The other question I thought of is the critics often mention the prayer to avenge the blood of the prophets on America?

 

[Scott C.]

While I was putting the kid's to bed, we had some sister missionaries knock on the door. As we were in the middle of bedtime my hubby answered and not thinking didn't invite them in (he knows I would always offer them a drink and food) but he asked for their number so I might invite them over for a chat at some point.

In my research and thinking, I have come up with some more questions, but one of them is quite long winded (mainly because I am confusing myself).

It concerns the degrees of glory. Critics claim that although Mormonism sings "forever families". This isn't the case, as only Mormons who are fully endowed and follow all the "rules" achieve the celestial kingdom, possibly leaving non Mormon relatives or Mormons who aren't worth in a lesser degree of glory. Then I thought about the work for the dead....baptisms, sealings etc so even someone like myself who is in a mixed faith marriage could hope for an eternal marriage? However then I thought, well if this is the case and there is always the option of works for the dead and them accepting the gospel... how is there three degrees of glory as any non Mormons etc who were in less degrees would simply have works done for them after they died and therefore could still attain the celestial kingdom? Does that make sense?

Speaking of marriage...it's different in the UK, but I understand in America it's expected that an LDS couple just had a temple marriage? Why is it frowned upon to have a civil wedding first and then a sealing? I'm just thinking of those people whose parents parents Mormons. I've read a lot of stories of distraught father's who couldn't walk their daughters down the aisle?

The other question I thought of is the critics often mention the prayer to avenge the blood of the prophets on America?

Hi! I could give really detailed opinions and doctrine, but I don't want to bore you, so I'll keep it simple. Some people will be exalted in the highest heaven and some will not. All will have the chance to accept the truths, live the principles, receive the ordinances, be cleansed and made worthy and prepared to be there. This happens on earth for some and in the next life for others, or in some combination. I don't believe a person can intentionally postpone living and accepting the gospel in this life, and then expect to accept it and receive all of it's blessings in the next life. We all wonder what it would be like for one to be exalted in the highest heaven and yet have a loved one who is not there. IMO there will be no sadness over this. The missing loved one will be happy and all will see that things are as they need to be.

I agree it's tough for those who can't attend the temple to have to miss the marriage of their loved one. I saw it happen when my son married his convert wife in the temple and her family could not be there. I don't know if some day the church will change policy and no longer discourage a civil marriage prior to the temple sealing. I would not complain if they made that change.

I'm not sure what you're getting at on the avenge the blood of prophets issue.