Mothers Day: Report from a Mormon ward (parish)

[MelanieAnne]

mormons just hate it when you point out the fact that the Emperor(Joseph Smith) has no clothes. Come on MelanieAnne, don’t put him on ignore, this is getting good. He was putting up some kind of defense, but you got him on the ropes so bad that now his only response is “nyah,nyah I’m right and you’re wrong and I don’t care what you say or what the truth is or if the sky falls down, I’m going to believe this claptrap if it kills me, so there.” “It doesn’t HAVE to make sense, my daddy told me so and all truth comes out of Salt Lake City.”

HoseMonkey, I find you very entertaining, I really do. But you’re obviously a better man than I.

After a while, in a discussion with another poster when the misdirection/distraction is just endless, it becomes tiresome/tedious to me. Life is too short to fritter your time away like that. Once in a while someone will seem to be open-minded at first, but eventually the programming kicks in and then they might as well be saying “I know this church is true, I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, I know that Joseph Smith restored the Gospel, I know that Monson is the prophet on the Earth today” blah blah blah… I’m sure that comparisons to brainwashing would be offensive to some people, but gosh, the comparisons are often so appropriate! It’s like at some point somebody flicks a switch and the recording begins.

I’ve decided that Joseph Smith is a Cylon. It makes perfect sense. The programming makes sense, the alternative theology makes sense. The relentlessness of it all makes sense. He’s a Cylon! From Kobol! (Close enough!)

Now, the question is, what about the rest of the Mormons?

 

[hosemonkey]

HoseMonkey, I find you very entertaining, I really do. But you’re obviously a better man than I.

After a while, in a discussion with another poster when the misdirection/distraction is just endless, it becomes tiresome/tedious to me. Life is too short to fritter your time away like that. Once in a while someone will seem to be open-minded at first, but eventually the programming kicks in and then they might as well be saying “I know this church is true, I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, I know that Joseph Smith restored the Gospel, I know that Monson is the prophet on the Earth today” blah blah blah… I’m sure that comparisons to brainwashing would be offensive to some people, but gosh, the comparisons are often so appropriate! It’s like at some point somebody flicks a switch and the recording begins.

I’ve decided that Joseph Smith is a Cylon. It makes perfect sense. The programming makes sense, the alternative theology makes sense. The relentlessness of it all makes sense. He’s a Cylon! From Kobol! (Close enough!)

Now, the question is, what about the rest of the Mormons?

So true. JWs and mormons are very similar, in fact, most control cults share the same methods and mindset. What is funny about mormons though, is their desperate need to be regarded as mainstream Christians when their doctrines and theology so radically depart from Christian thinking and practice. The assignment of totally different meanings and interpretations to standard Christian terminology separates them totally from ordinary Christian understanding. They protest that their terminology is “christian”, but as soon as you find out what they really mean, the whole thing goes off the rails. Their contention that there was a “Great Apostacy” only makes them appear more ridiculous. They remind me of the little kid brother, constantly tugging at the sleeve of the elder brother, hoping to be allowed to play with the big boys, but being rejected as being just too silly and immature. I do get a lot of pleasure watching the extreme gymnastics that they go through to attempt to legitimize their bizarre belief system.

 

[hosemonkey]

straight up, I have studied mormonism for many years. The thing that becomes immediately appearant is the fraud and deception upon which mormonism is based. The story reads like a boy’s novel, mystical appearances, buried treasure (plates) Mysterious guardians (salamanders) magical spectacles (decoder) Mysterious arcane documents (Book of Abraham) On and on and on. I would be willing to bet that Joseph Smith just could not wait to find out what he was going to invent in the next chapter! In my humble opinion, mormonism would have been just a blip on the American loony religion scene but for two factors. Firstly, Joseph smith provided the cult with a perfect martyr when he got himself shot in the Carthage jail. The second factor was the exodus to Utah where the shrewd successor to JS, Brigham Young,was able to “educate” a captive population to his will. (Witness Mountain Meadows) That fortress mentality exists to this day. Typical of this kind of thinking is the statement by one poster "Really don’t care if the BOM is true or not, I’m going to belive it anyhow. “Do not confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.”
Many so-called TBMs no longer believe in mormonism, but are trapped in the system by family, jobs, lifestyle etc. They cannot bear to lose the support system. Too bad. __________________

 

[MelanieAnne]

So true. JWs and mormons are very similar, in fact, most control cults share the same methods and mindset. What is funny about mormons though, is their desperate need to be regarded as mainstream Christians when their doctrines and theology so radically depart from Christian thinking and practice. The assignment of totally different meanings and interpretations to standard Christian terminology separates them totally from ordinary Christian understanding. They protest that their terminology is “christian”, but as soon as you find out what they really mean, the whole thing goes off the rails. Their contention that there was a “Great Apostacy” only makes them appear more ridiculous. They remind me of the little kid brother, constantly tugging at the sleeve of the elder brother, hoping to be allowed to play with the big boys, but being rejected as being just too silly and immature. I do get a lot of pleasure watching the extreme gymnastics that they go through to attempt to legitimize their bizarre belief system.

I find a few things very curious ~ first, there’s this total lack of critical thinking. The most bizarre scenarios are accepted on the basis of “feeling” and the next thing you know someone’s swallowed the whole thing. Emotion takes over and rational thought goes out the window.

Then there’s the “evidence” thing. Just show us something, even just ONE thing that is a provable, verifiable fact. And it’s just not possible, but at that point the claims of victimization begin and the request for one tiny little shred of evidence is re-characterized as a personal attack. Of course part of this comes from the training that many Mormons receive (at least all the ones that I’ve ever known) that once there is a disagreement, Satan must be involved (“contention is of the Devil”) and so they shut down. How handy. Ask for evidence and it’s perceived as an attack, the Devil makes his entrance and the Mormon makes their exit.

I agree that it seems very strange that Mormons want to be thought of as mainstream Christians. I’ve heard that wasn’t always the case. These days it seems Mormons are offended to be described as non-Christian. Well, as long as everyone is being offended, consider how offensive it is for someone to waltz in, co-opt your religion, completely re-define the theology, turn it inside out, upside down & backwards and then proceed to tell you that YOU’VE got it all wrong, even though they haven’t a shred of evidence to back up the claim. It’s just remarkable.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I find a few things very curious ~ first, there’s this total lack of critical thinking. The most bizarre scenarios are accepted on the basis of “feeling” and the next thing you know someone’s swallowed the whole thing. Emotion takes over and rational thought goes out the window.

I looked at BYU’s webpage, but I dont see a theology department.
I really wonder if they even have Theology courses as we understand them, and even if they have systematic theology textbooks.

 

[BartBurk]

When I was a Mormon, I never believed Eve was greater than Mary. I doubt there is an official Mormon doctrine teaching this. It sounds like the speaker’s own opinion. Sacrament meeting talks are given by lay members and aren’t to be trusted for much of anything.

Mormons believe humans were incapable of having children prior to the fall. They believe the fall caused sin and death to come into the world. All people have a tendency towards sin and indeed Mormons believe everyone has sinned except Jesus. They don’t believe that people have inherited guilt automatically from Adam, but are judged only for their own personal sins. Their teaching about original sin is very similar to the Eastern Orthodox in that regard. The reason that Eastern Orthodox don’t accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that Orthodox don’t believe Mary would have inherited any guilt of original sin to begin with. I found the following at an Antiochian Orthodox web site:

In order to understand the position of the Orthodox Church on this teaching we must begin with understanding the Orthodox concept of original sin, as opposed to that which prevails in the Western Catholic Church.

The Western Catholic Church’s teaching of original sin, is based in part on the writings of Saint Augustine, which states that each human being at the moment of conception shares in the guilt of Adam’s sin of disobedience.

This was based on Saint Augustine’s slightly flawed Latin translation of Romans 5:12. Augustine did not read Greek with any great proficiency. Augustine read it as saying “so death spread to all men in whom (Adam) all men sinned”, rather than “so death spread to all men because all men sinned”, which is how the original Greek reads.

It is this teaching that led Western Catholic thinkers to create a place called “Limbo” (from the Latin word limbus, “border” or “hem”), meaning on the border of heaven. They said this is where the souls of unbaptised infants could find refuge, since though not guilty of any personal sin, they still had the guilt of original sin on their souls, and so could not enter heaven proper.

In the medieval Western Catholic Church, original sin was believed to be transmitted in a physical sense through conception. It thus became important to many that Mary be preserved from this taint. Hence the creation in the ninth century of the doctrine of the immaculate conception.

The Orthodox Church has kept alive the original understanding of the early Church as regards “original sin.” The early Church did not understand “original sin” as having anything to do with transmitted guilt but with transmitted mortality. Because Adam sinned, all humanity shares not in his guilt but in the same punishment.

We are tempted by sin and we become guilty of it through committing our own personal sins. We therefore suffer and we die. This is the orthodox understanding of original sin. It is not something that we are guilty of personally, but an action whose consequences have affected our lives as humans. As humans we sin, and our own guilt is because of our own personal sin.

In the light of this, the Western Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is redundant.

In Orthodox eyes, there is simply no original guilt for Mary to be made innocent of. Which is also why we have no Limbo for infants who die unbaptised, which was also at one time the usual teaching of the Western Catholic Church.

The entire web page can be found here:

antiochian.org.au/content/view/61/22/

I don’t find Mormonism’s teachings to be much different than the Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding original sin though I am sure the Orthodox would say that Adam and Eve could have had children without the fall.

 

[zerinus]

When I was a Mormon, I never believed Eve was greater than Mary. I doubt there is an official Mormon doctrine teaching this. It sounds like the speaker’s own opinion. Sacrament meeting talks are given by lay members and aren’t to be trusted for much of anything.

Mormons believe humans were incapable of having children prior to the fall. They believe the fall caused sin and death to come into the world. All people have a tendency towards sin and indeed Mormons believe everyone has sinned except Jesus. They don’t believe that people have inherited guilt automatically from Adam, but are judged only for their own personal sins. Their teaching about original sin is very similar to the Eastern Orthodox in that regard. The reason that Eastern Orthodox don’t accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that Orthodox don’t believe Mary would have inherited any guilt of original sin to begin with. I found the following at an Antiochian Orthodox web site:

The entire web page can be found here:

antiochian.org.au/content/view/61/22/

I don’t find Mormonism’s teachings to be much different than the Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding original sin though I am sure the Orthodox would say that Adam and Eve could have had children without the fall.

Thank you. That was an interesting quote. I was not aware of the Orthodox position regarding the original sin. I agree with your conclusion.

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

The entire web page can be found here:

antiochian.org.au/content/view/61/22/

I don’t find Mormonism’s teachings to be much different than the Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding original sin though I am sure the Orthodox would say that Adam and Eve could have had children without the fall.

Thank you. That was an interesting quote. I was not aware of the Orthodox position regarding the original sin. I agree with your conclusion.

By contrast, the Orthodox understanding is conveyed concisely in St Athanasius’ treatise On the Incarnation (318 AD). When man (in the persons of Adam and Eve from whom we all derive our human nature) first sinned, he became separated from God. This separation from God is what Orthodox understand to be original sin and it has two consequences: First, separated from the source of all good, man becomes morally corrupt, with an innate tendency to sin; secondly, separated from the source of all Being, man begins to return to his original state, the nothing from which God created him. Corruption and death come into the world.

In other words, original sin in the Orthodox understanding is not a “stain” but an absence.

philthompson.net/pages/faq/12.html

When do Catholic, Orthodox, and Mormons baptize?

If their understanding of orginal sin was the same, it would seem to me they would all baptize at the same time; either as infants or at an age of reason

 

[BartBurk]

By contrast, the Orthodox understanding is conveyed concisely in St Athanasius’ treatise On the Incarnation (318 AD). When man (in the persons of Adam and Eve from whom we all derive our human nature) first sinned, he became separated from God. This separation from God is what Orthodox understand to be original sin and it has two consequences: First, separated from the source of all good, man becomes morally corrupt, with an innate tendency to sin; secondly, separated from the source of all Being, man begins to return to his original state, the nothing from which God created him. Corruption and death come into the world.

In other words, original sin in the Orthodox understanding is not a “stain” but an absence.

That’s exactly what Mormons believe.

philthompson.net/pages/faq/12.html
When do Catholic, Orthodox, and Mormons baptize?

If their understanding of orginal sin was the same, it would seem to me they would all baptize at the same time; either as infants or at an age of reason

I don’t see how when they baptize has anything to do with their understanding of original sin. It’s very clear that Orthodox and Catholics have a different view of original sin and that Orthodox’s position is very close to Mormonism’s position. Orthodox don’t baptize infants in order to remove the guilt of original sin because they don’t believe such guilt exists. They baptize infants so they are infused with God’s grace through the sacrament of baptism:

In his article What About Infant Baptism? Mark Copeland presents some common Protestant arguments against the historic Christian practice. The author makes two major points: (1) Infant baptism is not “real” baptism, because it is not immersion. This is erroneous, because all persons baptized in the Orthodox Church, whether as infants or as adults, are baptized by full immersion. When our son Garrett is baptized, he will be immersed in water not just once, but three times, in the name of the Holy Trinity. (2) Babies “are not lost and in need of salvation.” Copeland interprets the doctrine of “original sin” to mean that babies are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin, and he rejects the doctrine on that basis. This, however, is a misunderstanding of original sin. What we inherit from Adam is not personal guilt but a fallen nature that is subject to death. “God created man for incorruption” (Wisdom of Solomon 2:23), but “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men” (Romans 5:12). Thus, the author’s case against infant baptism is based on two errors – a factual error and a theological error.

Orthodox Christians understand baptism to be a sacrament or a mystery – a visible means by which the grace of God is communicated to us.

This quote came from the following article:

ephesus.com/Orthodox/InfantBaptism.html

Orthodoxy would insist that depriving infants of baptism denies them the grace which comes through reception of the sacrament. This to me seems to be a very powerful argument for infant baptism. Baptism involves more than just having sins forgiven – it also includes the power which comes from God through the sacrament itself.

 

[majick275]

mormons believe that baptizing infants is a serious sin.

 

[BartBurk]

mormons believe that baptizing infants is a serious sin.

That’s true. They are depriving their children of God’s grace by refusing to baptize them as infants. Christ said the little children should not be hindered from coming to him. Mormons will argue that since infants aren’t guilty of personal sin they don’t need baptism, but I would argue that eight year olds aren’t guilty of personal sin either if you believe they don’t reach the age of accountability until then. Why baptism them then? Why not wait until they’ve had the chance to commit a lot of personal sin? And how many Mormon eight year olds are freely choosing to be baptized? My kids all just were baptized at eight because that’s when kids get baptized. Very little choice was involved.

Infant baptism makes much more sense in my humble opinion.

 

[zerinus]

That’s true. They are depriving their children of God’s grace by refusing to baptize them as infants. Christ said the little children should not be hindered from coming to him. Mormons will argue that since infants aren’t guilty of personal sin they don’t need baptism, but I would argue that eight year olds aren’t guilty of personal sin either if you believe they don’t reach the age of accountability until then. Why baptism them then? Why not wait until they’ve had the chance to commit a lot of personal sin? And how many Mormon eight year olds are freely choosing to be baptized? My kids all just were baptized at eight because that’s when kids get baptized. Very little choice was involved.

That is not the LDS position. LDS teaches that baptism must be preceded by genuine repentance before it can be of any effect (“He that repenteth and is baptized shall be saved”); and infanct cannot repent until they arrive at the age of accountability. We believe that the mercies of God are extended to little children who die before the age of accountability, therefore they are saved because of the Atonement of Christ without the need for baptism. We do not even perform vicarious baptisms for children who have died without baptism, because we believe they are saved without the need for baptism.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

That is not the LDS position. LDS teaches that baptism must be preceded by genuine repentance before it can be of any effect (“He that repenteth and is baptized shall be saved”); and infanct cannot repent until they arrive at the age of accountability. We believe that the mercies of God are extended to little children who die before the age of accountability, therefore they are saved because of the Atonement of Christ without the need for baptism. We do not even perform vicarious baptisms for children who have died without baptism, because we believe they are saved without the need for baptism.

zerinus

So exactly how accountable is an eight year old? And what sort of ability do they have to repent? I don’t think anyone (even most Catholics) are arguing that infants are condemned to hell or limbo without baptism – the recent pronouncements on limbo make it clear that we don’t know the fate of unbaptized children and that indeed in Christ’s mercy it may be possible for them to be saved. Most Catholic theologians rejected Augustine’s belief that unbaptized children are suffering in hell. Catholics have always believed that baptism infuses grace to its recipient, not just forgiveness of sins. As the Catechism explains:

1279 The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.

1280 Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated (cf. DS 1609 and DS 1624).

Why would we want to deprive children incorporation into the Church? Why would we want to deprive them of the “indelible spiritual sign” which comes from baptism. Why wait until they are eight years old?

I guess your answer might be that the Book of Mormon says so. And of course there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Book of Mormon was created before the 19th century so I don’t give it very much credibility.

 

[ibkc]

That’s true. They are depriving their children of God’s grace by refusing to baptize them as infants.

Since Mormon baptisms are not valid, all Mormons are deprived of God’s grace.

 

[Jerusha]

IMHO,

Since the first few years of a child’s life are formative of that child’s personality, infant baptism is a promise by parents that the child will be raised in God’s will, not knowing materialism, racism, judgmental attitudes, sexism, and all the other -isms that are the origins of so many sins, and will therefore come to know God’s grace at a much earlier age. There is no repentance involved, but rather the ease of overcoming the sins which are so common with humanity.

And given that Mormons have, in general, raised those -isms to an art form, I agree with ibkc 100%.

 

[BartBurk]

Since Mormon baptisms are not valid, all Mormons are deprived of God’s grace.

I would argue that at the very least a Mormon baptism is a baptism of desire even if it is not a fully valid baptism. Mormons are trying to follow Christ even though their understanding of Christ is erroneous. I would hesitate to make the statement that Mormon baptism is completely deprived of God’s grace though I would agree it is lacking the fullness of God’s grace which is found in a Trinitarian baptism.

 

[ibkc]

Those are good points, BartBurk.

 

[BartBurk]

IMHO,

Since the first few years of a child’s life are formative of that child’s personality, infant baptism is a promise by parents that the child will be raised in God’s will, not knowing materialism, racism, judgmental attitudes, sexism, and all the other -isms that are the origins of so many sins, and will therefore come to know God’s grace at a much earlier age. There is no repentance involved, but rather the ease of overcoming the sins which are so common with humanity.

And given that Mormons have, in general, raised those -isms to an art form, I agree with ibkc 100%.

I would suggest that many Catholics who were baptized as infants have as many of those isms as any Mormon. Very few parents seem to be able to transmit the faith in such a way that children avoid materialism, etc. especially since many Catholic parents have these shortcomings. My wife’s family were all baptized as infants as Catholics, but none of them seem to follow the Catholic religion very well at this point. I am not denying there is grace in infant baptism, but am simply pointing out that we need to be humble in our criticism of those who don’t practice infant baptism.

 

[Jerusha]

My wife’s family were all baptized as infants as Catholics, but none of them seem to follow the Catholic religion very well at this point. I am not denying there is grace in infant baptism, but am simply pointing out that we need to be humble in our criticism of those who don’t practice infant baptism.

Agreed with that also 100%. Made reference to that point in Amish thread. Catholics don’t take the promises of baptism seriously enough. Many seem to think that the “outward sign” is sufficient.

And the Amish don’t practice infant baptism, but DO reject the -isms, particularly materialism, and DO take baptism very seriously.

 

[zerinus]

I would argue that at the very least a Mormon baptism is a baptism of desire even if it is not a fully valid baptism. Mormons are trying to follow Christ even though their understanding of Christ is erroneous. I would hesitate to make the statement that Mormon baptism is completely deprived of God’s grace though I would agree it is lacking the fullness of God’s grace which is found in a Trinitarian baptism.

Mormon baptism is the only baptism that counts, because it is the only one that has legitimate authority from God!

zerinus