What do you want to know about LDS beliefs?

[nutshell]

Okay, I give up. Looks like nobody wants to seriously discuss my issues. As to the person who started this thread, you failed me and perhaps others who were interested in knowing more about LDS beliefs. I'll be moving on.

I believe your questions were sufficiently answered, particularly by Dan's post. It's your choice if you accept our answers or not. None of us would attempt to "force" you to believe us. We provide the information. Either you accept it or not and we all move on.

Perhaps your inability to realize the Church has remained consistant to the teachings of the old Church has led you to fail yourself.

 

[jazzalta]

Posts #133 and #134 were not addressed. Care to comment on the anti-black policy as raised by Alan Gurvey in post 133. What are you afraid of? You provided NO information as to the revelation on anti-black policy and how it may have related to my post #134. I have rejected this Church before because of exactly this kind of double speak and elusiveness.

 

[Bishka]

Anti-Black policy, even if I say it, you won't take it. You are just that type of person. The answer is, the Lord felt it was the right time then, they could still be members of the church, just not hold the preisthood. There, that's the answer.

 

[jazzalta]

Anti-Black policy, even if I say it, you won't take it. You are just that type of person. The answer is, the Lord felt it was the right time then, they could still be members of the church, just not hold the preisthood. There, that's the answer.

I don't know what type of person you're talking about. I'm just a searcher like a lot of folks on this forum. But I do point out specific areas of some religions to educate myself and maybe even challenge a few believers. And in the past I've never had straight answers to the questions I've posed to LDS members: more like the answer you gave instead of seeing any secular involvement. Believe what you will and I thank you for your response.

 

[jazzalta]

IPerhaps your inability to realize the Church has remained consistant to the teachings of the old Church has led you to fail yourself.

Actually, it has allowed me to open my mind to more possibilities than I could ever imagine. And all by questioning, not following blindly. It is that freedom that has removed the failure I felt by conforming.

 

[dan]

Actually it was nine years Dan. But I guess the main trouble I have is in Doctrine and Covenants 132 that still seems to preach plural marriage. Are you saying the church was not pressured legislatively and did not endure church disincorportation that caused the change in declaration in 1890?

D&C concerns marriage in the Temple, not necessarily plural marriage. It is often thus misinterpreted.

I'm saying that the declaration was caused by the Lord telling Wilford Woodruff to put an end to it and nothing else. He stated himself that if the Lord hadn't told him to do it he would have happily gone to jail.

 

[dan]

So your saying g-d found african americans unfit to lead his flock in his worship until the lates 70's?

We don't know why they weren't supposed to have the priesthood, but your religion states that God found everyone but Levites unfit to lead his flock since the beginning of time.

 

[dan]

Sorry to hijack, but this is relevant. As I indicated earlier about plural marriage, there seems to be a lot of coincidences with Mormon revelations. There were a couple of incidences pre-dating the change in anti-black policy in 1978. A case of discrimination was brought against the Boy Scouts of America in 1974 by the NAACP, re the denial of a 12 year old black to be a senior patrol leader. The other was in 1976 when Douglas Wallace ordained a black into the priesthood. He was excommunicated and later sued the LDS church. Add this to the new temple being built in Brazil at the time.I don't think the Church enjoyed the publicity surrounding these events and thus a new revelation appeared shortly thereafter.

Oh, so thousands of their members being slaughtered because of their beliefs doesn't sway the church but one lawsuit buckles its knees? You gotta be joking.

 

[dan]

I want to know if it is true that they have a "plan" to take over the control of the goverment of the United States "when it fails"?

No it is not true.

 

[dan]

Well, if so, I saw the "myth" on a television documentary about the LDS church.

Well I saw a television documentary about how the moon ladnign was all a hoax, but I get my facts from research, not television.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Anti-Black policy, even if I say it, you won't take it. You are just that type of person. The answer is, the Lord felt it was the right time then, they could still be members of the church, just not hold the preisthood. There, that's the answer.

The question as to who could be a priest has occupied many Churches throughout history.
Still today most churches still do not have women priests.
In some churches it would be hard to find a white priest.
This is nothing to do with colour or sex it is a question of faith, and some times tradition.
Some religions and churches not only have restrictions as to sex;
some restrict cast's and some have restricted as to class, or even tribe.

The LDS can and have addressed these matters in a very direct way; they have A prophet who is in effect their spokesman for God.
When problems arise in the church, it is not surprising that he asks and receives advice from God in these matters.
For them it is not simply a matter of changing Gods rules, it is not in their power to do that. But it is with in Gods power to direct what should be done.
The fact that they may or may not have asked for this advice before,
could either be through lack of realization of the problem, or that God has not chosen to speak on the matter.

I hope I have not spoken out of turn here, as I still only have a limited understanding of LDS ways.

 

[James the Persian]

Oh, so thousands of their members being slaughtered because of their beliefs doesn't sway the church but one lawsuit buckles its knees? You gotta be joking.

Why does this argument not wash with the LDS when we're talking about the so-called apostacy of the early Church? I'd genuinely love to know what the qualitative difference is between early Christian martyrs and confessors and their equivalents in the LDS that means that the former would bend the knee to an Emperor who simply asked nicely but the latter would ignore legal proceedings against them.

James

 

[dan]

Posts #133 and #134 were not addressed. Care to comment on the anti-black policy as raised by Alan Gurvey in post 133. What are you afraid of? You provided NO information as to the revelation on anti-black policy and how it may have related to my post #134. I have rejected this Church before because of exactly this kind of double speak and elusiveness.

No, it's because it's not an answer you want to hear. I've told you twice already exactly why the church did what it did. My mission president was President Kimball's assistant during the seventies and has told me that story a thousand times. I understand the church and the doctrine a lot better than you, so don't call it elusiveness and double speak. You want the facts I'll give them to you, pure and unadulterated, but don't you weakly accuse me of anything without any backing.

No one failed you here. You have no interest whatsoever in considering the merit of the church. You just wanted to get mad at some mormons because you don't understand things.

 

[dan]

Why does this argument not wash with the LDS when we're talking about the so-called apostacy of the early Church? I'd genuinely love to know what the qualitative difference is between early Christian martyrs and confessors and their equivalents in the LDS that means that the former would bend the knee to an Emperor who simply asked nicely but the latter would ignore legal proceedings against them.

James

I'm not talking about early CHristians, I'm talking about the thousands of LDS folk who were murdered during the first decades the church was around. I'd genuinely like you to do some research before you spout off.

 

[dan]

The question as to who could be a priest has occupied many Churches throughout history.
Still today most churches still do not have women priests.
In some churches it would be hard to find a white priest.
This is nothing to do with colour or sex it is a question of faith, and some times tradition.
Some religions and churches not only have restrictions as to sex;
some restrict cast's and some have restricted as to class, or even tribe.

The LDS can and have addressed these matters in a very direct way; they have A prophet who is in effect their spokesman for God.
When problems arise in the church, it is not surprising that he asks and receives advice from God in these matters.
For them it is not simply a matter of changing Gods rules, it is not in their power to do that. But it is with in Gods power to direct what should be done.
The fact that they may or may not asked for this advice before,
could either be through lack of realization of the problem, or that God has not chosen to speak on the matter.

I hope I have not spoken out of turn here, as I still only have a limited understanding of LDS ways.

Well you understand religion better than the other professed Christians who pollute this site with their litany and hate.

 

[James the Persian]

I'm not talking about early CHristians, I'm talking about the thousands of LDS folk who were murdered during the first decades the church was around. I'd genuinely like you to do some research before you spout off.

Do you have a problem comprehending English? I'll spell it out more clearly to you and see if you understand then. Several times, including here, I have had arguments with LDS where the Church was accused of apostacising under Constantine. I made the very same argument that people who were often still suffering the scars of Diocletian's persecution were hardly likely to capitulate to an Emperor simply because he asked nicely. They'd just come through the worst persecution the Church had ever seen. This was never seen as a good argument (heaven knows why) by the people I was arguing against and yet I see that you raise an almost identical argument in favour of your position now. I still want to know what the qualitative difference between an early Christian martyr and a later LDS martyr is, because there must be one if the same argument holds water for one religion and not the other. Surely? I have no need to do any research as I wasn't denying that the LDS suffered persecution, I just wanted to know what was so different between Diocletian's persecution of my Church and the U.S, government's persecution of yours. Seems like a simple request.

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Do you have a problem comprehending English? I'll spell it out more clearly to you and see if you understand then. Several times, including here, I have had arguments with LDS where the Church was accused of apostacising under Constantine. I made the very same argument that people who were often still suffering the scars of Diocletian's persecution were hardly likely to capitulate to an Emperor simply because he asked nicely. They'd just come through the worst persecution the Church had ever seen. This was never seen as a good argument (heaven knows why) by the people I was arguing against and yet I see that you raise an almost identical argument in favour of your position now. I still want to know what the qualitative difference between an early Christian martyr and a later LDS martyr is, because there must be one if the same argument holds water for one religion and not the other. Surely? I have no need to do any research as I wasn't denying that the LDS suffered persecution, I just wanted to know what was so different between Diocletian's persecution of my Church and the U.S, government's persecution of yours. Seems like a simple request.
James

Surely this is not "one or the other question"
Both churches have proved their faith in their trials and tribulations.
On their own such things do not prove Priority of belief.

Why God should Chose to create or re-establish a religion, is a question for God Alone.

I have no trouble with the authenticity of both your Churches.
There is no neeed to try to prove one false and the other true.

I am sure by looking at what each of you do believe, will infact give strength, each to the other, in God.

Terry___________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

 

[James the Persian]

Surely this is not "one or the other question"
Both churches have proved their faith in their trials and tribulations.
On their own such things do not prove Priority of belief.

Why God should Chose to create or re-establish a religion, is a question for God Alone.

I have no trouble with the authenticity of both your Churches.
There is no neeed to try to prove one false and the other true.

I am sure by looking at what each of you do believe, will infact give strength, each to the other, in God.

No it's not. You misunderstood my question. I actually think that the argument Dan raised is a good one. Why would a Church that has been through terrible persecution for their faith suddenly bow at a much lesser pressure? My point wasn't that his argument was wrong but rather that if the argument holds true for the LDS then it does exactly the same for the early Church and the believers in the 'Great Apostacy' cannot simply dismiss an argument such as I have raised. In the end, of course, it's a matter of faith as to which of our Churches is correct (though we can't both be, at least not about the 'Great Apostacy') rather than a rational argument that can definitively be shown true or false. I just deplore the intellectual dishonesty of allowing one group to use an argument whilst simultaneously denying the validity of the same argument from another group. That, and that alone, was the point of my question. I was not in any way trying to deny the suffering of certain early LDS members.

James

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No it's not. You misunderstood my question. I actually think that the argument Dan raised is a good one. Why would a Church that has been through terrible persecution for their faith suddenly bow at a much lesser pressure? My point wasn't that his argument was wrong but rather that if the argument holds true for the LDS then it does exactly the same for the early Church and the believers in the 'Great Apostacy' cannot simply dismiss an argument such as I have raised. In the end, of course, it's a matter of faith as to which of our Churches is correct (though we can't both be, at least not about the 'Great Apostacy') rather than a rational argument that can definitively be shown true or false. I just deplore the intellectual dishonesty of allowing one group to use an argument whilst simultaneously denying the validity of the same argument from another group. That, and that alone, was the point of my question. I was not in any way trying to deny the suffering of certain early LDS members. James

It is clear that both your churches disagree on the "Great Apostacy" as it directly bears on the legitimacy of your Priests.
How ever, To say one view only can be completely right is stretching things a bit far.
I would prefer to believe that the actual situation is far from clear, That either Church has a perfect understanding of God's will is unlikely.
In time I am sure that the Beliefs surrounding this matter will come more into line.
When we compare the authority of God to the authority of the priests in any church, there can only be one winner.

Why the LDS came into being is very hard to say... But I have seen in their works and teachings, and life style things of great value.
That God has had a hand in this I have no doubt., That their teachings are correct in every detail I do doubt. But to no greater extent than for other churches.

I think learning from them, those things that have a bearing and value for all Churches, is a worthwhile endeavor. While at the same time holding in reserve those matters on which you do not agree.

Terry________________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

 

[Quiddity]

It is clear that both your churches disagree on the "Great Apostacy" as it directly bears on the legitimacy of your Priests.
How ever, To say one view only can be completely right is stretching things a bit far.
I would prefer to believe that the actual situation is far from clear, That either Church has a perfect understanding of God's will is unlikely.
In time I am sure that the Beliefs surrounding this matter will come more into line.
When we compare the authority of God to the authority of the priests in any church, there can only be one winner.

Why the LDS came into being is very hard to say... But I have seen in their works and teachings, and life style things of great value.
That God has had a hand in this I have no doubt., That their teachings are correct in every detail I do doubt. But to no greater extent than for other churches.

I think learning from them, those things that have a bearing and value for all Churches, is a worthwhile endeavor. While at the same time holding in reserve those matters on which you do not agree.

Terry________________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

I can't speak for James. But I certainly agree that much can be learned from the LDS. This is what Ecumenism is all about for the RC. Although I wouldn’t exclude this to the LDS, there is plenty to learn from other faiths as well. This is why in my opinion you can see hints of paganism in early Christianity. The Church was more then willing to take in what is “good” and flush out those things that did not coincide with Church teaching. This is part of the reason there is over 50 liturgical Rites in the Catholic Church. All with different customs, forms of worship but still hold the essence of what we believe. With that said I do think we should discuss the real differences that separate us all.