What do you want to know about LDS beliefs?

[Bishka]

How long were you a member? What sort of questions did you ask? What sort of answers were you expecting? (PM me if you want)

 

[nutshell]

bump

any other questions, folks?

 

[lovedmb]

I should apologize also. I've been a bit rude, but I'd like you all to see from the LDS point. Wouldn't you think that we know our own history and doctrines and how they are interpreted? We are the believers of the faith, not yourself. Not trying to be rude, just pointing this out.

I used to use this same arugument. And the fact is that the average member does not know much about the history of the church, and aren't really encouraged to learn it. You can observe how much discrepancy in what is and isn't doctrine by visiting boards like the one at FAIR, many members have no idea, and are often shocked to find things out from "worthy" members. Even some things I asked my lifelong member parents about were not known, and I was accused of reading "anti" sites, until I used church approved sources to show my parents that I was in fact not doing any such thing.

So while you would think that lds members know their own history and doctrines and how they are interpreted, I think that is not always the case.

 

[lovedmb]

It was a revelation received in the infancy of the church. It is in what we consider scripture, but not canon. Issues of church administration are rarely canonized. I believe it can be found in Discourses of Brigham Young.

We were asked to provide some legitimacy for the actions our church has taken, and we have provided it, but no one wants to address it, they just ask the same stupid questions over and over again; partly because they never anticipated that what was done is perfectly logical and (most importantly)in perfect harmony with the Bible. That point alone has never been addressed by a single person engaged in this debate. The other reason is because they have no argument beyond mudraking.

I would be interested in your explanation to the Biblical harmony in which this was done, and how you feel it is logical? That point hasn't been addressed by any single person including you....unless I missed it. If so, please accept my apologies, this is one big thread.....

 

[dan]

Yeah, and it moves pretty fast. The priesthood was delegated according to need. In the Old Testament it was only to be had by the sons of Aaron. As Israel grew stronger it was extended to all Levite males. Now just about anyone in Judaism performs rites previously attended to by only one family. It was never extended to blacks or anyone outside the Levite line, so which congregation is more bigoted?

In the early LDS church only Apostles were permitted to perform certain ordinances. As the church grew it was extended to others. In 1978 it was extended to blacks.

Polygamy was alive and well in the Old Testament because the Lord's people were small. More children would be born if men took on more than one wife. A man can procreate more than a woman, and women have always outnumbered men. When Israel was strong enough polygamy was abolished.

In the early LDS church there weer many more women than men and the population was small. Polygamy was established to strengthen the foundation of the Lord's people, exactly like in old times. When it was strong enough the practice was done away with. Many ignorant people quote the Book of Mormon as expressly condemning polygamy (Jacob 2) but read verse 30, where the Lord says if He needs to raise up seed to Him he will command his people accordingly. These are administrative moves and are perfectly logical. They are also perfectly biblical. I have also already said all of this.

 

[lovedmb]

In the early LDS church there weer many more women than men and the population was small. Polygamy was established to strengthen the foundation of the Lord's people, exactly like in old times. When it was strong enough the practice was done away with. Many ignorant people quote the Book of Mormon as expressly condemning polygamy (Jacob 2) but read verse 30, where the Lord says if He needs to raise up seed to Him he will command his people accordingly. These are administrative moves and are perfectly logical. They are also perfectly biblical. I have also already said all of this.

No. Actually that is incorrect, and I found this data here (which you are free to verify, though I trust the source): http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/utah_census.htm
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"One of the most popular explanations in the LDS church about polygamy is the notion that polygamy became necessary because there was a surplus of women and a shortage of men. This common belief by uninformed Mormons is complete nonsense, and is not true.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Utah Historical Society includes population statistics in their library. The source for these statistics is the United States Bureau of Census.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Utah population: 1850 total 11,380 male 6,046 female 5,334 1860 total 40,273 male 20,255 female 20,018 1870 total 86,786 male 44,121 female 42,665 1880 total 143,963 male 74,509 female 68,454 1890 total 210,779 male 111,975 female 98,804 1800 total 276,749 male 141,687 female 135,062[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The census figures after the periods listed above are irrelevant, but it's interesting to note that there were more males than females in Utah from theearly settlement until the 1960 census."[/font]

In fact this has been disputed by LDS apostle John A. Widstoe : "The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seems always to have been more males than females in the Church...The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah...This theory is not defensible since there was no surplus of women."
Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, pages 390-392



WHy this is consistantly perpetuated in the church is beyond me. There is no reason to have to give an excuse for something. If it is part of your doctrine, no matter what someone says, you (general) should embrace it fully and proudly. This attempt at a cover up, which is simple to prove false through a quick google search, makes it seem as though you have something to hide at worst, or that you just simply don't know what you are talking about at best.
This is what I was referring to in my other post, (I believe it was to Beckysoup), that you *should* know your history better, (the true history), but the truth is that it is *not* common for members to have their facts straight. This was an issue my mom had a hard time with, and thought I was just reading "anti" stuff. Once confirmed that it was verifiable through secular records of the census, she conceded that perhaps it was just a commandment that we aren't meant to know or understand in this dispensation. Fine. I don't agree with her, but at least it is honest. I don't know is always better than false information.

 

[dan]

So what of the twenty years before Utah?

 

[lovedmb]

So what of the twenty years before Utah?

I don't know. You tell me. Did you read the quote from the apostle? "...and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah."

You are making the claim. You have the burden of proof in the debate. I have shown you considerable evidence to the contrary, and you have shown none.

 

[Ody]

Nice zinger love

 

[wmam]

bump

any other questions, folks?

I'll have a go.................

What is the stance that LDS has on Islam and their prophet Muhammad? Do they accept Muhammad as a prophet like Smith? Do they accept the writings of the koran?

 

[dan]

I don't know. You tell me. Did you read the quote from the apostle? "...and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah."

You are making the claim. You have the burden of proof in the debate. I have shown you considerable evidence to the contrary, and you have shown none.

There are no records of that time. Everytime we got established the powers that be killed our people, burnt down our homes and stole our goods. Would you have been among those powers? It's hard to keep track of a census in that kind of atmosphere. That's the whole reason we ended up in Salt Lake. Your evidence doesn't say anything about the circumstances in which polygamy was established and initially practiced. These are the conditions that I pointed to earlier. I stand by what I said. It looks like, at this point, there is no empirical evidence to substantiate or contradict my statement. If you want to keep kicking against the pricks you'll have to find another argument.

 

[nutshell]

I'll have a go.................

What is the stance that LDS has on Islam and their prophet Muhammad? Do they accept Muhammad as a prophet like Smith? Do they accept the writings of the koran?

The LDS church recognizes that Islam is a huge world religion with millions of members. The LDS church does not accept Muhammad as a prophet. The LDS church does not accept the writings of the Koran. The LDS church, to my knowledge, has made no statements directly about the teachings of Muhammad and/or the Koran.

 

[Aqualung]

I'll have a go.................

What is the stance that LDS has on Islam and their prophet Muhammad? Do they accept Muhammad as a prophet like Smith? Do they accept the writings of the koran?

The Koran goes away from the teachings of Christ and brings us back down to the lower law. It negates Christ's higher and basically just brings us back to where we were before Christ, with a billion different health code laws and stuff like that. That's my opinions on him as an LDS, though, not the church's.

 

[dan]

I'll have a go.................

What is the stance that LDS has on Islam and their prophet Muhammad? Do they accept Muhammad as a prophet like Smith? Do they accept the writings of the koran?

We believe that truth is everywhere, and that God has spoken, and does speak to people of different faiths in many different ways. We also believe in priesthood and authority. We usually define a prophet as one who holds the Melchizidek priesthood, and has been called by God to guide the Church under the direction of Christ. In that sense, and in equivalency to the role of Joseph Smith in Christ's church we would not include Muhammed (peace and blessing be upon him) as a prophet. We believe in the veracity of the values he expounded (insofar as they are interpreted correctly) and we don't deny that he was inspired, but as far as administrative head of the Church of Jesus Christ (prophet), I don't feel he qualifies, or that his followers would even want him to.

 

[lovedmb]

There are no records of that time. Everytime we got established the powers that be killed our people, burnt down our homes and stole our goods. Would you have been among those powers? It's hard to keep track of a census in that kind of atmosphere. That's the whole reason we ended up in Salt Lake. Your evidence doesn't say anything about the circumstances in which polygamy was established and initially practiced. These are the conditions that I pointed to earlier. I stand by what I said. It looks like, at this point, there is no empirical evidence to substantiate or contradict my statement. If you want to keep kicking against the pricks you'll have to find another argument.

So your claim is that the apostle that made the statement about the church records from 1830-1850 is false? You believe that there were more women than men in the church while JS was prophet?
BTW, love the cliche. :bonk: I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to say what I think about your "pricks" comment.

 

[nutshell]

***************************************************
BREAK
***************************************************

Considering the plethoera (spelling?) of "Christian" vs "LDS" threads running around, I thought I'd bring this one back so any of the general observers can ask a question unrelated to those other threads.

Feel free to ask anything. Thanks.

 

[Ody]

Did (in lds doctrine) Native Americans get thier skin coloring because thier ancestors sinned?

 

[nutshell]

Did (in lds doctrine) Native Americans get thier skin coloring because thier ancestors sinned?

No. That is not LDS doctrine.

You may be thinking of the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon. Alma 3:6 says, "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethern..."

 

[wmam]

What is the LDS position on the Los Lunas inscription that was found just outside of Los Lunas in the State of New Mexico, USA of the "Ten Commandments". Also, as well as, other ancient Paleo Hebrew inscriptions found in Tennessee as well as the Mississippi Basin?

 

[Squirt]

What is the LDS position on the Los Lunas inscription that was found just outside of Los Lunas in the State of New Mexico, USA of the "Ten Commandments". Also, as well as, other ancient Paleo Hebrew inscriptions found in Tennessee as well as the Mississippi Basin?

I don't know that the Church has issued a position on any of these discoveries. Maybe another Latter-day Saint will know the answer to your question.