I had another post planned for today, but this is just too hot. Big, big changes have been made to the 2009 edition of Gospel Principles, especially in the last chapter (“Exaltation”). I am slowly compiling the changes here:
http://www.mrm.org/gospel-principles
Commentary is forthcoming. “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (John 7:24)
One questioning Mormon summarized some mixed feelings and suspicions that others probably have over these changes:
1st off, I was quite angry as I read this this morning; as I told my wife, the Bishop stood right here in this living room and told us we were forfeiting our blessings and rejecting precious truths. Truths that are now crossed out. These very things that won’t be taught anymore, were weapons to be held against us last year and this year.
2nd, after that I felt a profound sense of relief. If this is not going to be taught then the Bishop can go eat sand. If these vital teachings can no longer be held inviolate, then the brethren have no right to demand my allenience and I can resign with a clear conscience.
3rd suspicion. Will these teachings get sprung on people once they commit? Or, are people going to join the church and be denied the same teachings, promises and expectations that we had? And if so, why? Is this the day when the very elect will be deceived?
And, could I be punished for teaching new members things that the manual has changed?
Despite this all, these teachings are false anyway. It is important to get rid of them. They are enslaving, they are not biblical, and they are a cause of contention between us and other faiths. But still, if the church was the authority on spiritual matters, it would not adopt the outside world view.
Nevertheless, just this Spring our Bishop stood here in this living room and condemned me and my family for rejecting the things that are now crossed out.
Doc, I will allow the link since you are responding to an evangelical request for it. For now on, accompany any such link with a summary in your own words.
As for the Newsroom article, it doesn’t clear anything important up, but uses more weasel words that just open up more cans of worms. Also, it begs the question of whether the venue of the Newsroom has the kind of permanent stamp of authoritative declaration to irrevocably establish what constitutes official doctrine, or if superior institutional channels with more authoritative stamps of approval may supplant that particular standard with another one.
I also find it ironic that they title the article “Approaching Mormon Doctrine”, since not even Mormon leaders themselves seem to understand what constitutes something that has arrived at “Mormon doctrine”.
Jason,
If God is all powerful which i know for a fact. Then the answer is yes. If God wanted to “propagate” God sure can. But this does not mean that God has a gender. Remember that God’s ways are not our ways. My God has the power to do anything. That does not mean that God will “propagate” just because God has the power to do so.
“And you ask why would God do this but that doesn’t matter as you have now opened the door to the fact that he may very well have done so.”
God said that he knows of no other gods besides him self so the answer to your statement above is No.
So we see from the beginning of the sect, one of the tactics used in Mormonism was to hide information from people that they (people) might find not only alarming but replusive. Hence Joseph Smith slowly expanded the circle of people that he let know about the “principle” of plural marrage, taking into confidence his most ardent and loyal leaders. The excuse that something is much too “spiritual”, “too deep”, or way to “complex” is a self deluding rationalization for what is known as lying, plain and simple. This is a legacy of Joseph Smith who followed the father of lies. Mormons who accept this tactic as normal and acceptable will not be convinced other- wise by logic or even shame. That’s why Mormonism is flipped up-side-down and has it’s own form of logic.
Since Mormons have accepted a lie, the path to the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is blocked. Some get it and get out. Others accept this strained “logic”, which is clouded in deceit, and miss the true and living God.
The Mormon program is a lie that is perpetuated by lies authored by the father of lies. That it appears as normal to Mormons is evident of twisted thinking.
Doc, That was an interesting an enlightenning article. So basiclly what I learned is that “Modern Day prophets”, are really stewards of a position.
“A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.”
How am I to know what is a single statement when they NEVER say this is from God, this is my opinion. To me its all single statements. And here is the proof…
“This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price)” None of these books have changed in the last 100 years or so.
The way that the church conducts business is deceitful and manipulative. Why not tell the truth and say, Hey we don’t talk to God, it’s our feelings that make the decisions for us, and by personal revelation you should do the same, like if you feel you should beat your wife and kids, murder your friends wife (because God told you to) marry another woman who is ALREADY married, cause thousands of girls to have an eating disorder, cause fearmongering, power hungry, egotistical, immodest (Because of the way LDS’rs treat other people, driving that spiritual Cadillac), Persecute others (The LDS does more then its fair share), well, its pathetic.
So to call the old white rich men who run the church prophets is erroneous. Heck I could be a Prophet of the church. I proclaimed yesterday that today it would rain, and guess what, it did at 5:30 am, so saith the Lord. Now to collect my stipend of $300,000 a year.
Some members are so far down the rat hole, do to the manipulation of the LDS cult, that their is not even one chance of subjectively considering that Ol` Joey never talked to God, or was it God and Jesus, wait it was Nephi, oh heck, which ever first vision you believe in.
I’ve gotta agree with the Falcon here that Mormonism promotes an idea that brings people in and gets them comfortable with the doctrine before letting them know about it. The excuse that it harms them spiritually is a creative way to deal with the issue, but should alarm anyone who cares about presenting the truth. Not even our truth, but any truth. The bottom line is that it is a lie, and any group that does not fess up from the beginning about what they believe is not to be trusted. This is true whether or not it is any company, non-profit, political organizatoin, educational group, religion, or whatever. I doubt most Mormons would join any other group without fully knowing what that group believes.
Also, I have to comment about what Christians do with presenting their doctrine. I’d say we are pretty darn open. Now, that does not mean that everyone gets everything at first, but it means that we can and do tell everyone everything at the beginning. Our revelations do not expand to new converts as they grow in their faith. Our message is the same from beginning to end.
Quite a contrast I think.
Oh, another point on the growing revelations of Mormons. Does anyone else think the priveege of getting such information as a driving force for people to believe it? In other words, does such knowledge act as a badge of honor that they can use to toot their own horn to God when they get to see him at the pearly gates?
Its a matter of pride, then, isn’t it, to strive for such knowledge? This is the exact thing Christ warned against, and this is all the more tricky because it is couched in such language as to make it really sound sincere.
And I fully agree with Aarons comments about the adjusting of language to make it more pallatable to people today. Basically, it becomes a word game about how to sell people and make them want to learn more. And that’s all it eventually is is a sales pitch.
I agree with Falcon also, If the church is based on free agency (Which really means you are free to choose as long as it agrees with the first presidency), how can I make an informed decision if I do not have all the facts that are available to me? There should not be layers of information, lay out all the cards on the table and then let me decide if I like your club house rules.
It is lying by omission. Spin it anyway you want but I had the Bait and switch pulled on me when I joined, I just called in the warranty and the operator told me I would not get a refund. Now they are making the bait more attractive, more palatable, we see through the smoke and mirrors, I have seen the man behind the curtain, 🙂
Let me go pull out MY seer stone, it’s chocolate covered and O so delicious to the taste. Any one seen my ten gallon hat… anyone…
I had a very nice email exchange with Jason Rae and he offered to either mail the Book of Mormon or said the missionaries could bring it with a message. I wasn’t sure which so he suggested I ask the board to help me decide. I have never had another religious group in my home but I’m open to it so what do you think? Mail or missionaries?
mj
Missionaries. Ask them about the GodNeverSinned.com project, and whether they think Mormonism requires of its members to believe God never sinned.
Jane,
I would respond by asking a question, first. What is it you are confused about and what is it you seek through the BoM? It will help you get the answer if you know what it is you seek.
You said you are an evangelical Christian, so the second thing I would do is go to your pastor or friends and your church and present your issues to them.
At the same time, I would send you to the Bible and to prayer. God speaks to us all the time, depsite the Mormons claim to modern revelation.
To get to the final answer, I cannot answer, since I do not know where you stand and what it is you seek.
Jane – I like Michael’s response above. We aren’t sure here what the exact stuff is you are confused about. I would encourage you to ask you pastor, read the Bible and resources he recommends, and then bring the missionaries in and see if they can respond from a mormon point of view about your issue.
MJ, When I took the discussion I met 2 very nice and considerate young men. One of which I am still friends with. IMO the Missionaries will give you a very plain evangelical view of the church, a wholes some view the uses key discussion points to try and explain answer that you may have, or ones you might not have thought of yet. If you ask probing questions they might deflect, or tell you to pray about it.
Others may have a whole host of ways that you can approach the LDS organization, from personal experience I felt lied to and mislead, they call it the “the One true Church” They use the word “true” as a noun, I never got that. What does it mean to be true? I was a temple worker, I was in presidanceies, I studied the past and present culture of the church, than one day I found truth, and oddly enough it came from the LDS organization.
I didn’t leave the Morg because of counter LDS teachings, I left the LDS because of what they taught me, And this was outside of Utah where supposedly its not as strict or has the cultural pressures as Utah.
For example, in the Temple you make a covenant that, Eve (the Women)”I now covenant to obey your law and the Lord and to hearken to your counsel as you obey our hearken unto Father.” Some wordage has changed as to not make it sound so submissive, but as a temple worker we where taught that this is the proper wording. Do you feel comfortable making this kind of commitment?
The church is good at telling you how to be happy, and apparently it is the same for everyone. Its a very ethnocentric view, it you are not like us you will not be Truly happy. I found more happiness outside the Morg then inside, and I think I am a good guy, my friends like me.
I forgot to mention, the post above, its the women conventing to the man to obey his laws,
I now covenant to obey your law (her husband) of the Lord and to hearken to your counsel (her husband) as you obey our hearken unto Father.
You cannot make it to heaven (Celestial Kingdom, which is where every good Mormon wants to go to, there is a lot of pear pressure to be good enough to make it there) w/o out a husband
merryjane,
Could a few of us come over when you have the missionaries in. I think it would be a positive hoot. I have all kinds of questions also that I’d like to ask the boys on the bicycles. Andy Watson has had all kinds of occasions to interact with the missionaries. The last bunch basically got so overwhelmed when Andy started educating them about Mormonism that they shrunk under the weight of the information. Andy’s your go-to-guy on this. He’ll give you a list of questions for the boys along with references. When he was in the Phillipines, Andy met with two missionary girls, one from America. The poor girls didn’t even know that Joseph Smith used his magic rock in a hat to “translate” the golden plates which incidentally weren’t even present when MoJo was working his magic trick. Andy always has a bag along with all of his LDS sanctioned materials.
Let’s do this! We’ll report back to the group. We can even shoot a video. I’m really warming to the idea. I think we should all take the opportunity to have the missionaries in. It would be a great way to spend a couple of hours and as Rick B. says we’d keep them occupied and away from unsuspecting folks who they would be able to misrepresent their religion to.
I’m pumped!
I could be totally wrong, but it looks like merryjane might have been a ruse of Jason. The comments under her were coming from an anonymizing proxy.
Update: Jason denies posting under merryjane, so I’ll give him the benefit of doubt.
Does God hava gender? Of course He does. All thorugh the Bible He is referred to as masculine (ie Father, He, Him, etc). Even Jesus referred to Him as Father. Then in the evangelical/Trinity perspective, Jesus is male, and always will be because He has a resurrected body that was male. Since Jesus said that if you have seen Him you have seen the Father, it stands to reason that the Father is male as well. And it also says that Jesus was in the express image of God, so again shows that God is male. So unless Jesus lied about God being His Father and our Father, and the Bible is wrong about Jesus looking like the Father, then God has to be male. 🙂
Kevin,
Your last comment about not making the CK without a husband is incorrect and you know it. The church teaches that all people who do not get a chance to marry in this life will not have any blessings taken from them – thus they can be assured of attaining the CK without a husband. I know the wording has changed for that covenant, but if you look at the new wording it is basically the same thing. They are still covenanting to obey their husbands as long as the husband obeys God. That last part is a very big qualifier – because if the husband is not obeying God, then the wife does not have to obey her husband. If the husband is following God and receiving revelation for his family in the proper order (ie from God), then the rest of the family should follow, in spiritual matters, not all other. But if the husband is derelict of his duties and not following God, then it falls to the wife to lead the family in spiritual affairs. That is what this all means – it is not a conspiracy to subjugate wives to their husbands, although if not explained properly it could seem to be going along this line.
Ok Ralph if you are going to use the Bible as reference I will too. God said there was no other gods besides him so that would mean the teaching that the LDS do that you can become a god is false. The Idea that God was once a man must be false as well since another god must have created God when he was a mortal man? Kind of hard to be the “only true church” when you teach so much false doctrine.
Wow, this thread has really travelled a circuitous route! Let me make a few summary comments:
(I have not said my own religion, so don’t make any assumptions – just consider what I am saying without that bias.) I believe in the notion that Evangelicals finding common ground with Mormons and otherwise approaching them in a positive way will help Mormons experience Jesus Christ in their lives (leading to a born again experience), and help Evangelicals to truly practice their Christianity (see 1 Peter 3:15). Once Mormons experience this, many of the issues lamented here will resolve themselves through the Holy Spirit. I didn’t invent this idea; it’s found in writings of Craig Blomberg, and in ministries such as http://www.standingtogether.org. It does, however, assume a respect for Mormons that seems to be mostly lacking here – most folks here are either ex-Mormons with varying degrees of bitterness (not that it is necessarily unjustified, just that it’s there), or Evangelicals who specialize in confrontational approaches. The other presupposition is that Mormonism is rooted (at least) in traditional Christianity, and that Mormons views themselves as Christian. Thus helping Mormons to discover the atonement will awaken a dormant Evangelicalism that exists in the Mormon culture.
The responses tell me that most folks here aren’t interested in common ground. That’s fine. I would just suggest that those who are not too deeply entrenched in their attitudes consider what I am saying.
By the way jackg, Stephen Robinson (author of Believing Christ) was quoted publicly as stating he accepted the Apostle’s Creed, and he was not excommunicated).
Thanks for the chance to comment.
Kevin: I was alway curious about something: Does the temple covenant you reference differ in substance from Ephesians 5:22-33? If so, how?
…so to bring us back to topic: I think the changes to GP are pointing in the direction of mainstream Christianity (albeit slowly) and that this is a good thing that should be welcomed by EVs, not mocked.
Aaron I do not know Jason Rae nor have I ever met him in my life. Not sure what the ruse would be.
mj
kholland,
I just did a tongue in cheek comment – or didn’t you notice the smiley face? In the Trinity perspective, God (the Father) has no body nor parts – thus is neutral in gender, whereas Jesus did have a physical body thus while on this earth He had gender, and His resurrected body has gender. So I was just poking fun at the argument being played out.
As far as your comments go, these have been answered many times in other blogs on this site. I see nothing contradictory with what I believe in and what the Bible says about one God and He being non-created. You and others might not be able to accept our answers, but that’s your problem, not mine. Also, this situation is similar to the Muslims and Jews arguing with you that the Trinity describes a polytheistic theology, because that is how many of them see the Trinity – 3 gods, regardless of how much you want to say they are one. You have your answers that help you believe they are one and you tell the Muslims and Jews that they are the ones that have the problem, not you.
At first glance, I do not disagree with anything you have said, Doc, about attitude, communication, respect, and welcoming changes that point in good directions. However, I take some issue with your generalization that most comments are mocking Mormons. Certainly some comments are, and certainly some comments are angry. Honest dialogue creates passion. And it remembers passion from prior experiences. I have not had the experiences of most of the posters here with regards to experiences within the Mormon church. I could get upset with their posts and label them as negative. However, I doubt that would do any of us any good.
Open honest communication, driven by underlying belief or perspective is a holy task. This is the crucible where issues are clarified on both sides. MC is a wonderful, loosely managed connecting point. Sure, we get out of line, but that is part of being in community. That is where feedback and correction become the next steps.
Over at standing together, they (perhaps some of our posters or managers are members of that initiative too) are testifying, but in a different fashion. I think that both places are where dialogue needs to occur. I think even some of the more raw and rank posts over at the ex mormon sites are valuable too. I guess that this is my own mess–I want to give people a place to be. I want to applaud Ralph, Jason, MJ, Kevin, Falcon, Shemawater, Andy, Sharon and Aaron, to name just a few for their efforts here. I, for one, continue to enriched and stimulated to search the scriptures and learn and grow. Upward and onward!
kholland,
I guess another comment I could have made (which I was thinking about) was – I though the Mexicans were aliens? Or is it the Canadians?
Here in Australia, at least in NSW, the Victorians and Queenslanders are the aliens. The other states are too small to worry about except the Taswegians – but they’re a different story.
Ralph, This is what I understood, If you do not have a chance to marry in this life time, you will have the opportunity to marry beyond the vail, but opportunity does not mean success, and that does not guarantee CK passport. So no marriage in this life time or beyond the vail, no CK for you.
Also, “If the husband is following God and receiving revelation for his family in the proper order (ie from God), then the rest of the family should follow, in spiritual matters, not all other.” This is so subjective, I have heard everything from house keeping to job seeking, to murder as revelation from God by LDS men, real, the guys are in a no lose situation, it all came from God, remember the women where stripped of the Priesthood in the late 1800’s.
Doc, interesting way to challenge my post on the temple endowment, Kudos to you for the way you worded your question. If the Temple where to include vrs 25 – 31
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31″For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh
it would change the whole dynamic of the covenent. But the temple ceremony does not include this type of teaching, it stops just short.
Jason Rae wrote:
It does not follow that procreation requires gender, see also Asexual reproduction then recondition your argument in the light there of.
Jason Rae wrote:
This is because you have not studied Church History or the western philosophical tradition.
Jason Rae wrote:
Frankly Jason Rae, this entire post is a red herring meant to obscure the actual issue that your god is a human being, though perhaps a bit more evolved than you or I. As to the question of Gender you have yet to give sufficient cause as to why God would need gender much less answer how both men and women image a god who is solely male.
Lautensack
Thanks for the comments.
Ward: Many comments here are, in fact, fair game for discussion; however, comments like calling the church “the Morg”, referring to its founder as “MoJo” or Ol’ Joey” (three examples from a quick scan of the last few posts on this thread), are clearly mocking. I think that someone else’s religious beliefs should alswys be discussed in a respectful tone, simply based on the fact that someone holds them as such, whether you vehemently disagree or not. That’s just common courtesy.
Kevin – my point was that the temple ceremony snippet you quoted is straight out of Ephesians in spirit…at least it sounded that way to me.
By the way Ward, I was not suggesting that you were discourteous.
I am not used to typing comments without a chance to review, spell checker, etc., and sometimes my first draft (which needs refinement) gets posted – with no opportunity to revise. That’s why an earlier post of mine got moderated – I inappropriately (and inadvertently) used a word to characterize my thought that was against the rules here, and stronger than I really intended. I’m glad Aaron gave me a chance to rewrite the post.
Doc,
My point is that the Temple Ceremony, the part we are discussing, focuses on the subordinate relationship that a woman has to a man. Eph 5,22-24, when taken out of context is no different then the Temple Covenant. BUT when you look at the WHOLE scripture you will see the bigger picture. The temple ceremony never talks about 22-31. The temple ceremony only addresses the milk, but not the meat.
I will admit to using the term Morg, and Ol` Joey, and at your request I will refrain from that on this board. Although I see it no more disrespectful then someone calling my God a Hermaphrodite.
Doc, it is obvious that you take careful thought and consideration in what you post, and I was not mocking you when I said that I liked the way you challenged my posting, maybe you where mocking me? Anyway, as you have seen that their are Mormons on here that seem to not have any respect for others who are not Mormon. As a matter of opinion, it seems that it is the Mormons who are hostile most of the time. I do tease and poke fun, mostly because I know the side workings of the LDS organization, (Obviously to a certain extent). So if you want to curtail the negative rhetoric I suggest you address both sides of the issues, empirically, before you point to many fingers.
Completely fair – I agree that Mormons are equally to blame.
0Not that it matters, but I have not said if I am a Mormon or not).
I definitely was not mocking you.
I agree that the temple snippet is only partially reflective of the passage in Ephesians. I really was confused about it and I see your point.
Time for bed…
Postmodern sentiments neuter people from having hearty conversations. They are distracting from the real big issues. There is nothing inherently wrong with using pejorative (definition: expressing disapproval) phrases like “Morg”, “MoJo”, and “Ol Joey”. Not to mention, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course'” (Luke 13:32) and “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7)
The question isn’t “whether” to use such negative language, but “when”. And the question of “when” is an all-things-considered kind of question, and I refuse to let the postmodernism-inclined dictate with a courteousness-police and respect-police mentality on these issues. Better to take counsel on this issue from people who have a more realistic view of the rough-and-tumble nature of public religious discourse.
We’re talking about the nature of God here, people. If you’re more offended by “MoJo” than by the Mormon teaching that God became a God, then there are some serious value system problems here. Don’t get me wrong, Christians don’t have a license to callously and heartlessly use hot language just because we’re discussing big issues. Hot words should be pointedly used like arrows, not like like bullets in a machine gun. We’re trying elucidate the nature of things, not distract from them.
To be like Jesus means to sometimes thoughtfully and concertedly offend people, yet to have a super-abounding love for people—to have a heart that is both frustrated, angered, and compassionately grieved for unrepentant sinners at the same time. Postmodernism incapacitates a person from being emotionally dynamic like that.
Dr. PoMo claims,
Doc, consider the words of shematwater, spoken above,
Merryjane, I see you’re posting from the East Coast of America now instead of from the proxy in the UK. Did you take a quick flight to see your friends in the States? 😉
I’m reminded of a quote from Calvin’s “Institutes”: “…with regard to all with whom we have intercourse, our behaviour will be not only moderate and modest, but courteous and friendly. The only way to which you can ever attain to true meekness, is to have your heart imbued with a humble opinion of yourself and respect for others.”
Doc, if you think Calvin’s idea of “respect” was to refrain from negative language and biting religious criticism of his theological opponents, then you are lacking historical context. Also, it simply isn’t always appropriate to act meek (in the popular sense) and courteous to people equally at all times. There is a time for boldness, and there is a time for being docile. There is a time for being empathetic, and another time for being critical. There is a time for mocking and even being sarcastic, and another time for being irenic and ultra-amiable.
You can’t put the Jesus of the gospels in a box (including any boxes Calvin had), nor can you put the great historic men of God in a box of Victorian, academic, irenic manners.
If you want to be like Calvin yourself and focus on the biggest issue here, the nature of God, by all means, go for it. But you are no Calvin, picking at little phrases and losing a sense of the deep horrific tragedy of the heresy of anti-monotheism.
I have far more respect for Jason Rae in his use of biting language of a God he despises than a postmodern who wants to dismiss biting and non-irenic language altogether.
Ironically, it is to the postmodern-inclined that I am most disposed to use biting and non-irenic language. Postmodernism is for people who have lost a fierce passion for the big things in life.
To quote wisdom from a man who did not know God and who ironically was a literary postmodern (I am more so above speaking about the philosophical inclinations),
To those who are here to use strong but measured language about big issues, I welcome you. Just be measured enough to keep a focus on the substance. To those who are here to whine about the strong language being used, or about the passion of other side over important issues, please, find some other place to pollute a discussion thread.
Lautensack, So a completely genderless God decided to create humans with gender in his image? Of the apparent billions of ways the genderless God could have created people why do it this way if wasn’t the result of some natural process that “in his image” exactly implies?
To come at this from a different angle: Isn’t it evangelical doctrine that the original state of Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden is what God intended for man? I think it is. So we’re on pretty solid doctrinal ground when we see that Adam and Eve were immortal and married in the Garden of Eden and that in that immortal married state God commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth. (sounds a lot like the temple sealing ceremony to me)
Clearly if that is the case God sees gender not just as some earthly mechanical propagation method but rather as an eternal attribute with profound utility throughout eternity.
I would agree with Aaron probably because I’m one of those who writes here who is often accused of….what(?)…..being sarcastic…or something. Some of you may be aware of the fact that one of my retirement gigs is to teach at a local college. I have to warn all of the students the first day that if they’re easily offended they need to go and drop my class. I’m constantly trying to light a fire under the students and the problem is, there are way too many of them there just to get their ticket punched and move on to the next class on the reqirement list. I’ve had to require them to write short reflection papers at the end of each class session so I can get some idea of what they’re thinking and that’s where the passion and strong opinions generally come out. Very few of them will express themselves verbally and expose how they think and feel about a topic. These are young adults so maybe they haven’t figured much out yet besides where the next party is at.
I will readily admit to our readers here that I don’t have any respect for Mormonism. Now if our Mormon friends want to personalize that, it’s OK with me. Why would I respect a religion with a founder who claimed, taught, propagated and did the things that Joseph Smith did (and throw Brigham Young in the mix also). Due to Joseph Smith, we have a whole bunch of people who have accepted as true, that which is an obvious lie. I grow increasingly frustrated with a mentality that can’t see through this-I must admit-because the stakes are as high as they get.
So when we see Mormonism try to hide what is believed and taught (i.e. recent changes in the manual), I get furious almost to the point of an uncontrolable rage. Because it’s the continuation of a fraud and deceit that was the foundation of Mormonism and is it’s legacy to this day. The whole point of the ruse is to keep the truth from potential recruits.
So if I call Joseph Smith MoJo, there’s a truth behind that label.
Wow. So, Aaron, how do you really feel about it? Excellent posts! I especially love the Jack Kerouac quote. Doc – I was not saying I thought you thought I was discourteous. I was arguing from the perspective that I saw you as chastising posters for being passionate about their experience in Mormonism and calling out the Mormon posters for misrepresentation and hedging, among other traits. You might want to have us shut down all passion and focus on nice. Not only does that throw significant dialogue out the window, but it forbids people to grow. Iron sharpens iron. People are valuable — and because God made us so, it matters to us what others do with their lives.
Now I’m wondering if I speak loud enough… 🙂 I tend to prefer a style that is strong and the pointbut lacks the firey rhetoric. I see a place for that, and can and have used it before myself, because it is sometimes necessary.
But applied to a discussion like this I agree with Aaron that keeping a conversation on such matters “happy”, focusing only on positive things, and only seeking to find common ground is really an idea, which comes mostly from Mormons, is to shut the debate down. If getting contentious is off limits, then it is impossible to get to the heart of the matter– that Mormons follow a false prophet towards a false God and ultimate damnation.
Christianity is in many ways becoming too soft, and I think that is a mistake. Christians need to be bold and speak out. Of course, we are to be respectful, and to be everything to everyone, but we cannot cease being outspoken about our faith. Applied to witnessing to Mormons, that must include being forthright and say things they will not like.
To all Evs:
Isn’t it evangelical doctrine that the original state of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is what God intended for man? Are we not on solid doctrinal ground when we recognize that Adam and Eve were immortal and married in the Garden of Eden and that in that immortal married state God commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth?
~
Aaron, love the Kerouac quote. Well said.
FALCON
Maybe you ought to just retire as a teacher. Seems your bias here, ranting off topic as you do so, could be a very good reason your students clam up in expressing themselves, ya think? Loosing one’s anger to the point of rage is the mark of one who makes choices based on feelings and little on fact and evidence.
Just a thought, Richard.
Jason,
I’ve been thinking about your God-as-alien claim, and what I’ve concluded is that if you want to call him and alien, have at it. The purpose of the label you’ve given is to make him seem like an eery image out of Close Encounters of the Third Kind or Independence Day. And that is dishonest and a tactic used by atheists and others who wish to disprove God (others have said that last point, before).
But, given as God is not the same species as me, “alien” works. And it is a bit of a joke to me that you continue to use such language because you use it in such an outrageous and dishonest manner. Its hard to take you seriously when you use the word.
God’s gender is a fun topic, but I think when we, as humans, try to put a gender on God, we try to put “him” in a box that we understand. The truth of the matter is we can’t, and nor can you. Under your faith, reason would dictate that ultimately there’s either and endless line of mom and pop gods, or there was one that started it all. I don’t think you believe in an endless line of gods necessarilly, and the question is unsettled in your faith. The reality of that conclusion is you end up in the same place we do. Who created God?
Of course, we think God has always been and always been present. This concept is hard to imagine, though true. And since it is true, we easily conclude that God is genderless.
The argument as to why we typically call “him” “Father” I would say would be two fold. First, we had to call him something, and second, “Father” has a lot more reverence in ancient times than “mother”.
In the end, if you wish to call him an alien, have at it.
It might shock some/most of our readers that one of the classes I teach (and probably my favorite one) is in the area of applied human relations. Part of the course is discussing values and how to deal with differing values in our personal as well as work life/environments. As part of an exercise, I have the students come up with a visual model to represent the continum of responses a person can have to another person’s value choice.
So I give them these words: reject, tolerate, support, embrace, clebrate. They are free to come-up with other descriptors that will denote a response we might have to another’s values. Unfortuately, I believe that young people have been taught not only to respect “differences” in values and life-style choices, but they must support, embrace and celebrate those differences. So I talk to them about two hot button issues, abortion and homosexuality. We also talk about religious differences and moral choices and what we are “required” to do in terms of personal response by society today.
Now when I meet Mormons, I’m very respectful to them as people. Even if we were to get into a discussion of religion, I’d be very “soft” in my approach as far as my choice of words, my body language, facial expressions and over all deamenor.
But on a discussion board like this one, I take an entirely different approach. To shock and provoke folks, you bet. If I can get someone angry to the point that they are going to go and “look it up for themselves”, I’ve accomplished my mission. That passion that I’ve stirred will act as a catalyst to digging in and uncovering what needs to be known about Mormonism. As we have seen in this discussion on the “manual”, the Mormon church isn’t really much interested in presenting the truth to folks so they can make an informed decision. Those tactics need to be exposed as well as the information that is being hidden.
What mission or should I say agenda is that? May I make a obvious observation, you can not make another person mad or angry, it is literally impossible. Anger, rage, is a choice of the individual who is provoked. The options are really very clear, do the research to satisfy yourself that the person making the accusations is off base,
or creditable. But I see little benefit coming from uncontrollable rage, when you loose it to that point, you actually become irrelevant.
r.
Michael, the alien term to describe God is an outgrowth of the repeated use of “non-human species” by evangelicals to describe God. Close Encounters of the Third Kind has it exactly right. A third kind, a non-human species. An alien. The alien it seems can take any shape or form it wants no matter how absurd: your God might have 8 eye balls one day and wear beefcake pantyhose the next. You leave the door open for some crazy alien things. Remember, you can’t put him, err.. “it” in a box.
That concept, as Joseph Smith said so well, “lessens man” to the point of nothing really – no eternal growth prospects, no divine nature, no theosis, no real purpose to life and family and on and on.
Michael P is just the fiat creation of a bored alien thug with a penchant for torture. A thug that required you to roll around on the floor with your eyes glazed over during a 5 minute prayer to “accept him” or he would poke you in the eye for eternity with one of his long alien appendages.
It’s all nonsense.
Does it lessen man? I don’t know what God looks like, and won’t pretend to guess. If he’s a hideuous 8 headed creature with 70 eyes and spider like legs, does that make him less of a God? I don’t think so, and nor should you.
But then you hit your problem with the idea right after. “That concept, as Joseph Smith said so well, “lessens man” to the point of nothing really – no eternal growth prospects, no divine nature, no theosis, no real purpose to life and family and on and on.” Saying God can be anything other than human would mean that you can’t become him, and that is a core of your belief. But we don’t share that, because God is God, and we are mere men and women. If he’s an alien, so be it. Keep on calling him that…
I absolutely love your last paragraph about following a thug. See, now you’ve thrown a name that invokes some mob hit man who would play with someone before killing them. You obviously have no idea about what you are talking about, and all you want to do is paint a negative picture of our God. Rolling around and saying a five minute prayer is nothing at all what the prayer requires. Has nothing to do with being on the ground, on your knees, or anthyhing like that. Have no idea where you get that, and the prayer can really be anything that allows Christ/God into your heart. It can be a moment, a realization, or a thought out and deep emotional moment. Believe it or not, many Christians have never had that huge emotional moment even though at some point in time, they got it and allowed God into their lives.
As to the poking in the eye for eternity, are we talking our justice, or Gods? Does the Bible tell us what the standard is to reach heaven? Are any of us, even you, Mr. Rae, eligible based on our the state of our hearts? Does God rejoice in damning people?
In the end, call him an alien if you like, but if you wish to critique our faith, do as you want us to do to yours, get it right.
Good day.
Michael, don’t take a offense. Sometimes one must be absurd in order to illustrate absurdity.
This quote is defintely going in my evangelical quote book:
” I don’t know what God looks like, and won’t pretend to guess. If he’s a hideuous 8 headed creature with 70 eyes and spider like legs, does that make him less of a God? I don’t think so, and nor should you. – Michael P. ”
If MRM posted this kind of doctrine on their Website NO ONE with any respect for life or religion would take them seriously – and certainly not the LDS kids they try to trick into thinking the gold plates weighed 200 lbs when they were only 45 or so. (Manti Pageant).
So who’s faith is more absurd? Natural progression, offspring, in His image etc or this alien business that you so well defined?
Hank – certainly one can choose to rage, but, really, have you seen rage here? Falcon rages? That is humorous. Yes, it may be your perception that Falcon rages, but it is only that. I have perceived more of that from Jason, but that is just my perspective. What about Aaron’s posts this morning? Were those rages? Or, like Jason’s quite effective baiting by stating the absurd, and when Michael gives it back, Jason pretends he has a gotcha quote for his EV quote book. Oh, so now Michael is put down or put in his place? I doubt it. Sometimes we never sound so immature as when we are pompous. Of course, that is only my perspective.
Rage is a good grenade word. You lob it into a conversation and it causes a bang. That is why I keep using passion or passionate. I think these words are more respectful to each writer. Jim, Aaron, Michael, Jason, Aaron, and you may write differently, That is great.
Regardless, so long as the moderators allow our dialogues, we will attempt to respond and query and parry.
Jason, I think you have demonstrated the absurd. Now, I’m rubber and you’re glue… 🙂 Care to discuss rationally and address the substance?
And I think Ward has it right. Mormons I think are skilled in throwing such grenades to control the coversation. Few want to be seen as mean and angry, or that they are the bad guy. Rage is such a word that invokes such images, and will put most back.
Alas.
I also think this skill even goes to how they present their gospel. They state it in a way that sounds so good and clean and uplifting. I love their commercials now that state that you’ll get love through the church. Yes, you will feel good, but that does not change the doctrine, and is an attempt to lure people in without talking about it. And I think this skill is also represented in the changes talked about above.
I’ve never seen you in a rage on Mormon Coffee, falcon.
The rage of Jesus in cleansing the temple was a controlled rage. He even sat down and thoughtfully made a whip. We could say his rage was a consuming zeal, for “His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘Zeal for your house will consume me.'” (John 2:17)
Paul’s “compassionate rage” (as John Piper calls it) in Galatians was a measured, controlled rage, mingled with superabounding heartbreak that his audience was being bewitched by the lies of the Judaizers. Paul took the time to carefully write his theological letter and pleaded from with his heart to his readers.
Cain’s anger and rage was uncontrolled, and it ended up in the tragic murder of his brother. God told Cain, “And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” (Genesis 4:7)
So uncontrolled rage definitely falls outside the biblical bounds of what is permissible, and we know that anger can be a Christ-like attribute, yet generally be a dangerous road to sin, especially when unchecked (cf. “fits of rage” in the NIV of Galatians 5:20).
Walking with you on the messy road of grace and truth with Jesus, sometimes hypocritically,
Aaron
Ward, Michael, did you not see that falcon was the one claiming the rage??
” So when we see Mormonism try to hide what is believed and taught (i.e. recent changes in the manual), I get furious almost to the point of an uncontrolable rage. – falcon ”
Those are falcons words not Hank’s.
I’m coming up on my 24 hour quote limit. Will one of you please address the below? In a round about way it cuts right to the chase of this alien business:
” Isn’t it evangelical doctrine that the original state of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is what God intended for man? Are we not on solid doctrinal ground when we recognize that Adam and Eve were immortal and married in the Garden of Eden and that in that immortal married state God commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth? – Jason Rae “