The Mormon boys came to my door...

[Philothea53]

Yep! That sounds very much like the description of the moslem “heaven” found on another thread. Looks like females are doomed to be just breeders or servants for all eternity. Don’t mormon women have a clue?

Actually Joe’s wife, Emma, was pretty powerful. Joe and some of the others were meeting at the Smith’s and Emma complained about it to Joe. So Joe prayed about it and got a revelation that smoking is bad for you. Boy, it is who you know, isn’t it? There’s a similar reason why hot drinks are forbidden. The word among the female faithful is that Emma just got sick and tired of making coffee and tea for all those meetings of the Bishopric. :coffeeread:

That lady wielded some power. :tsktsk:

 

[anon]

Whatever you do, don’t try to start a fight with the Mormons. They can kick butt!

youtube.com/watch?v=fZxlyWd1CFk

 

[Allweather]

In every religion there areas of theology that are controversial, about which it is possible to have more than one opinion. My understanding of LDS doctrine is that premeditated murder is unpardonable (see D&C 42:79). Others may justifiably disagree. Bear in mind that there are different kinds of murder. Not all murders are of equal severity in the sight of God. Maybe that is what they have in mind.

Yes, that is probably true. Heck, just defining “premeditated” is probably a good deal more complicated from both legal and psychological points of view than most people imagine.

You would have to ask that question from the author of that article. I am not responsible for what other people write, nor feel obliged to defend or explain them, nor am I bound by what they have said. I derive my understanding of LDS doctrine directly from the standard works of the LDS Church; and that is the only source of LDS theology and doctrine that I would feel obliged to defend or explain.

zerinus

I understand. The article I referenced is found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which is a project of the LDS church via BYU. According to our friend Alma, at whose recommendation I bought a copy, it is as close to an authoritative source of Mormon doctrine as is possible to find. I absolutely do understand the variability possible among interpretations. I also understand that there is a wide field of opinon among Mormons as to meanings, and your statements here confirm this.

 

[Allweather]

Actually Joe’s wife, Emma, was pretty powerful. Joe and some of the others were meeting at the Smith’s and Emma complained about it to Joe. So Joe prayed about it and got a revelation that smoking is bad for you. Boy, it is who you know, isn’t it? There’s a similar reason why hot drinks are forbidden. The word among the female faithful is that Emma just got sick and tired of making coffee and tea for all those meetings of the Bishopric. :coffeeread:

That lady wielded some power. :tsktsk:

Yes, I read an article about her recently in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. She must have been a tremendous woman, probably more woman than JS, Jr deserved. While JS was incarcerated during the winter of 1838-39 in Liberty Jail, she WALKED ACROSS MISSOURI with two babies in her arms, and two more at her skirts. She carried manuscripts of JS, Jr’s bible translation hidden in pockets in her clothing. She walked to Quincy, Illinois.

In 1842 she was installed as the president of the Relief Society upon its founding. Two years later, the Relief Society was suspended because she had been using it as a forum to publicly oppose the plural marriage doctrine her husband had concocted (this according to John Taylor, who succeeded Brigham Young as prophet).

 

[zerinus]

BTW, Zerinus, how do you like my new avatar? Thanks for finding it for me.

You should use the whole image. You look a lot better in that!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I understand. The article I referenced is found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which is a project of the LDS church via BYU.

Actually, it was a project of the publisher, as far as I know. The publisher wanted to do it, and the Church agreed to cooperate with him in doing it.

According to our friend Alma, at whose recommendation I bought a copy, it is as close to an authoritative source of Mormon doctrine as is possible to find. I absolutely do understand the variability possible among interpretations.

That is a good book. Most of the articles that are in it are very well written. But there are also some theological errors in it. I wouldn’t describe it as, “as close to an authoritative source of Mormon doctrine as is possible to find”. I would reserve that description for the standard works of the Church.

I also understand that there is a wide field of opinon among Mormons as to meanings, and your statements here confirm this.

It is not as big a divide as in some other established religions; but Mormons can disagree about doctrine like people of other faiths can.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

Actually, it was a project of the publisher, as far as I know. The publisher wanted to do it, and the Church agreed to cooperate with him in doing it.

That is true. There is heavy church involvement, including several General Authorities. BYU resources were set aside for the project. Here is a review from the FARMS website:

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=118

And here is a quote from that review by John Gee:

““The encyclopedia, however, was initially designed with nonmembers in mind. Because so many faithful intelligent members (along with a very few nonmembers) contributed so much of their time for generally meager monetary rewards, the encyclopedia, though hardly either official (see p. 1:lxii) or exhaustive, is authoritative.”” emphasis mine

That is a good book. Most of the articles that are in it are very well written. But there are also some theological errors in it. I wouldn’t describe it as, “as close to an authoritative source of Mormon doctrine as is possible to find”. I would reserve that description for the standard works of the Church.

Mr. Gee details several of the errors he finds in the Encyclopedia.

Alma147 said that about it being authoritative, and he evidently is not alone in that opinion, it being also shared by the FARMS reviewer.

I’m not trying to argue the merit or lack of merit of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. I just think that it is worth noting that the LDS church doesn’t have a catechism in which its teachings are laid out in order. This makes it very difficult for anyone, Mormon or otherwise, to establish what is or is not Mormon Doctrine. Even the McConkie book by that name has been disavowed by many Mormons, including yourself, as I recall.

This means that there is a wide field of doctrinal opinion, and that Mormons are allowed to “have their doctrine and deny it too.”

It is not as big a divide as in some other established religions; but Mormons can disagree about doctrine like people of other faiths can.

zerinus

Those “other faiths” would not include the Catholic Church. Father Hardon’s excellent Catholic Dictionary defines Doctrine, in part, this way:

““Doctrine: Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. … what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed.””

So, while Mormons may be able to believe whatever they WANT to believe as doctrine, Catholics are a good deal more systematic about what is, and what is not, doctrine. It is all laid out very nicely in an orderly fashion, so that it can be read and understood, and cannot be denied by an apologist who wants or needs to hide from it.

And, in case you’re interested, here is a more detailed article about Christian doctrine:

newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm

 

[leonie]

Ceil, did they return yet?

 

[zerinus]

I just think that it is worth noting that the LDS church doesn’t have a catechism in which its teachings are laid out in order. This makes it very difficult for anyone, Mormon or otherwise, to establish what is or is not Mormon Doctrine.

You are talking a load of nonsense. I think I have a very good idea what Mormon doctrine is, and I don’t need a catechism to tell me that.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

I think I have a more thorough understanding of Mormon doctrine, especially how it has changed over the years.I also am more willing to openly and honestly discuss it. …That’s because I’m Catholic.

 

[Lehl]

You are talking a load of nonsense. I think I have a very good idea what Mormon doctrine is, and I don’t need a catechism to tell me that.

zerinus

I imagine that’s true that you" have a very good idea what Mormon doctrine is" TODAY.

That could change tomorrow or next week and you can usually count on it with the next “prophet”.

Which is precisely WHY Mormons cannot have a written catechism because Mormonism continually changes. The Mormon publishers would be very rich constantly publishing new editions for the church It would also be catastrophicly destructive to the members’ testimonies as well.

Actually the LDS leadership is “wise” for the survival of their organization to NOT have a catechism nor have official apologetic responses to critique. It allows the church a pass and it allows members “to believe what they want to believe” so everyone appears happy.

 

[truthsilence]

You are talking a load of nonsense. I think I have a very good idea what Mormon doctrine is, and I don’t need a catechism to tell me that.

zerinus

Hello Zerinus,

About ten years ago, I took my teenage daughter and non-member husband to a Gospel Principal’s class. I was excited that they agreed to come with me because I had by then been attending church for a number of years alone.

The teacher stood and told the class that “Jesus Christ was conceived through sexual intercourse with the Father and that, because the Father would not, could not, be disobedient to his own laws, he married Mary first, before intercourse occured”. Those were his exact words - I’ve never forgotten them.

You can imagine the horror I felt. I raised my hand and turned to look at a member of the Bishopric who was in attendance. I asked “Can you please tell me where this is mentioned anywhere in the scriptures?!” The Bishopric member said “Oh, you won’t find it in the scriptures”, but he did not rebuke, correct, or in any other way try to clear up the confusion this teacher had caused.

Some of the people in attendance were apparently not disturbed at all by what was taught and in fact, one woman I spoke with afterward exclaimed how wonderful she thought it was, and that it had cleared up some questions she’d recently had about the temple ceremony. (no idea what she was talking about) Of course I did not press her about it, but I did let her know I was disgusted by what was taught and that I regretted my family being there with me to hear it. There were a few others who had a look of confusion, or perhaps even concern, but no one else said anything.

My point is this. If you can’t take your child and your husband to a class specifically designed for investigators and new members without being subject to this kind of blasphemy, where can you safely go to get "true doctrine’?

The catechism and trained clergy are an immeasurable blessing to the Church.

An interesting side note:

When I mentioned this incident to one of my friends, she said: “He (the teacher) is a convert from the Catholic church. Maybe that had something to do with it”. I was clueless at the time, just how incredibly absurd that assessment was!!

God Bless and Peace be with you.

ts

 

[Lehl]

Hello Zerinus,

About ten years ago, I took my teenage daughter and non-member husband to a Gospel Principal’s class. I was excited that they agreed to come with me because I had by then been attending church for a number of years alone…

You’re very right to point out that Mormons cannot have a catechism not only because it is ever-changing, but also because of these other hard-to-swallow beliefs for the new converts. When it is all laid out in black and white for everyone to analyze, their conversion rate would plummet.

So it is very convenient and absolutely crucial for them to have feasible deniability.

Mormon apologetics is a complete joke. NO ONE speaks for or represents the LDS Church and the church is completely mum on almost everything controversial. That’s why it is ridiculous when Mormons attempt to use FARMS or FAIR or any other individual Mormon apologists to defend their position on anything.

Zerinus is merely speaking his OPINION which is COMPLETELY worthless here. He will never have anything official to back any of his defenses of the LDS church or their extra-doctrinal beliefs.

I’m still waiting for an answer to the grave contradiction of a complete apostasy when the apostle John was revealed to Joseph Smith to still be on the earth in the flesh with the priesthood keys.

From FARMS site:

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship exists to
**Describe and defend the Restoration through highest quality scholarship **
Provide critically edited, primary resources (ancient religious texts) to scholars and lay persons around the world
Build bridges of understanding and goodwill to Muslim scholars by providing superior editions of primary texts
Provide an anchor of faith in a sea of LDS Studies

Then also on their site is this:

The Maxwell Institute is a research institution at Brigham Young University and does not represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

From FAIR’s site:

The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS (Mormon) doctrine, belief and practice.

Our Mission Statement
FAIR is dedicated to standing as a witness of Christ and His Restored Church.

Our mission is to address the charges leveled at the doctrines, practices and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) with documented responses that are written in an easily understandable style.

FAIR will use current scholarship, scripture, Church doctrine, historical literature and sound logic in constructing faithful, well-reasoned answers.

Then I LOVE the disclaimer:

FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

 

[Eden]

You are talking a load of nonsense. I think I have a very good idea what Mormon doctrine is, and I don’t need a catechism to tell me that.

zerinus

Do you suppose there will be a revelation on abortion some day? To this day Mormons have not received revelation from God on this topic. Yet, it is forbidden to gamble or drink caffeine. There is no “prayerful consideration”, it’s simply- NO COFFEE! Yet, terminating the life of your unborn child, “prayerfully consider it”.

 

[Lehl]

Do you suppose there will be a revelation on abortion some day? To this day Mormons have not received revelation from God on this topic. Yet, it is forbidden to gamble or drink caffeine. There is no “prayerful consideration”, it’s simply- NO COFFEE! Yet, terminating the life of your unborn child, “prayerfully consider it”.

Well, President Hinckley (their current “prophet”) did speak authoritatively on abortion in 1998.

lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7c86605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Notice at the top of this, President Hinckley says:

“My role is to declare doctrine. My role is to stand as an example before the people. My role is to be a voice in defense of the truth. My role is to stand as a conservator of those values which are important in our civilization and our society. My role is to lead.”

Then he address abortion:

Question 3: What is your position on abortion?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention there were more than 1,200,000 abortions performed in 1995 in the United States alone. What has happened to our regard for human life? How can women, and men, deny the great and precious gift of life, which is divine in its origin and nature?

How wonderful a thing is a child. How beautiful is a newborn babe. There is no greater miracle than the creation of human life.

Abortion is an ugly thing, a debasing thing, a thing which inevitably brings remorse and sorrow and regret.

While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

But such instances are rare, and there is only a negligible probability of their occurring. In these circumstances those who face the question are asked to consult with their local ecclesiastical leaders and to pray in great earnestness, receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding.
There is a far better way.

If there is no prospect of marriage to the man involved, leaving the mother alone, there remains the very welcome option of placing the child for adoption by parents who will love it and care for it. There are many such couples in good homes who long for a child and cannot have one.

However, I know many LDS will distance themselves from this possibly now and/or possibly later and assert that “prophet” Hinckley was only “speaking as a man and not as a prophet” on the matter. Isn’t it wonderful that “prophets” can completely contradict each other and no one bats an eye?

That can only mean that God changes his mind.

And also, God apparently doesn’t deem it important enough to reveal to the LDS “prophet” when human life begins (also it would obviously contradict their already-declared authoritative position on abortion), and thus why they have no official position on stem cell research.

Fact: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official position on the moment that human life begins. Further, the Church has not taken a position on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research.

lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=42bb39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2782d93c8688f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1

 

[Eden]

Lehl, I believe this is just an authoritative statement though. It’s my understanding that the Mormon leaders say they don’t have a coherent teaching on abortion because they haven’t actually received revelation on this yet.

I may be misreading this article:

“We have no revelation on abortion”

catholic.com/library/mormon_stumpers.asp

 

[truthsilence]

Hello Lehi,

Some form of *Nihil obstat *or Imprimatur would come in handy wouldn’t it, for LDS, or at least for those who’d like to know what to trust with regards to their history/“scholarship” ?

(remembering a certain “Student Gospel Manual” containing works from former LDS leaders that Mormons on here wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole).

ldsces.org/inst_manuals/doc-gosp/manualindex.asp

Honestly, what does it take? Not trying to stir the pot - this just really bugs me.

Zerinus, you can’t possibly be this obtuse in the real world? Are you this elusive when there’s only fellowmembers around?

Doctrine Schmoctrine.

With all due respect,
ts

 

[Lehl]

Lehl, I believe this is just an authoritative statement though. It’s my understanding that the Mormon leaders say they don’t have a coherent teaching on abortion because they haven’t actually received revelation on this yet.

I may be misreading this article:

“We have no revelation on abortion”

catholic.com/library/mormon_stumpers.asp

I suppose if they haven’t received revelation when a human life begins, then certainly they haven’t received revelation specifically on abortion.

However, President Hinckley is considered “God’s mouthpiece” on earth. On LDS website www.josephsmith.net

President Gordon B. Hinckley, prophet, seer, and revelator, holds those priesthood keys today as he leads the Church and serves as the Lord’s mouthpiece.

Then I should expect what he says to “be the word of God” if I were a Mormon. The quote doesn’t say “he serves SOMETIMES as the Lord’s mouthpiece.”

So seriously, what good is this “prophet” anyhow? Why doesn’t he get revelation on truly important things like human life? Then what does it matter what he says on abortion in General Conference before all the faithful Mormons? It was all just his opinion, afterall. We all know what they say about opinions…

 

[truthsilence]

Man I am slow posting. More like cross posting/getting behind the curve.

Eden and Lehi: Thankfully, we have plenty of official statements from the Magesterium of the Church that actually makes sense. Just one more thing I love about being Catholic. :heaven: The “coffee is bad” vs “abortion is bad/however” had never occured to me. Good observation.

 

[Lehl]

Hello Lehi,

Some form of *Nihil obstat *or Imprimatur would come in handy wouldn’t it, for LDS, or at least for those who’d like to know what to trust with regards to their history/“scholarship” ?

(remembering a certain “Student Gospel Manual” containing works from former LDS leaders that Mormons on here wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole).

ldsces.org/inst_manuals/doc-gosp/manualindex.asp

Honestly, what does it take? Not trying to stir the pot - this just really bugs me.

Zerinus, you can’t possibly be this obtuse in the real world? Are you this elusive when there’s only fellowmembers around?

Doctrine Schmoctrine.

With all due respect,
ts

Yikes. I assume you’re addressing me. That would be LEHL and NOT Lehi which is actually a Book of Mormon character.

This is precisely the reason I’ve just come to realize that it truly doesn’t matter what any of these Mormon pseudo-apologists have to say here or anywhere else. The vast majority of what they try to argue/defend is simply just their opinion or someone else’s opinion. The vast majority of it is NOT based on OFFICIAL documentation and/or information from the LDS church that they can draw from to support their position.

Therefore I suggest when Zerinus or any of the other zealous Mormons here try to engage any of you over any topic whatsoever, just ask for official documentation from their standard works that supports their position. Otherwise, just say…“Thanks for your opinion… or for Daniel C. Peterson’s, or Hugh Nibley’s, or Bruce McConkie’s opinion” Apparently you can even include the Mormon “prophets” since they usually only have opinions, too.

But they are certainly welcome to try to argue the Catholic position without trying to insert the Mormon position. Because most of the time, there ISN’T a Mormon position. Just a Zerinus position, a Brigham Young position, etc.