Mormonism - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/26/2008 05:32:09 PM · #51

Originally posted by classycam:

Here's a question for everyone: Since there are many polygamist groups out there and in the news lately, along with the TV show, Big Love, don't you all think polygamy will become legal again someday? This question is out of curiosity, not from my belief system. ;)

Not when Western Culture has built up two to three thousand years of negative connotation. At the very best it may one day be tolerated through ignoring the practice, but I doubt it would ever become accepted in the mainstream. Just my personal view though. I'm no fortune teller.

JopperTom

Nikon D700

02/26/2008 05:34:31 PM · #52

Originally posted by option:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey Zeuss

Jesus?

Very funny!!! I did not catch that. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM Lens

02/26/2008 05:35:50 PM · #53

I had a literature professor that was from Nigeria. He had only one wife, but he told us about his brother back in Nigeria who had 5 wives. My professor's comment to the class about his brother was, "I don't know how he does it, I have enough trouble keeping one wife happy."

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

02/26/2008 05:44:44 PM · #54

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

FIVE WIVES!! That's a whole lot of shoes and every 28 days is going to me a nightmare:)

hihosilver

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/26/2008 05:52:04 PM · #55

Originally posted by classycam:

Although I'm a firm believer that "the truth is out there" (in ref. to your Sci-Fi humor...;-)..)...I would be very surprised if the truth of polygamy became a legal reality. Even from my view in the peanut gallery, polygamy strikes me as somewhat of a cultist section of Mormonism more than the norm of the religion...am I incorrect in this assessment? Also, I do believe that the media has an extraordinary way of highlighting the more freakish aspects of our society and not necessarily for our betterment in the name of good entertainment.

classycam

Nikon D2X

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5D

02/26/2008 06:02:29 PM · #56

Originally posted by hihosilver:

Originally posted by classycam:
Here's a question for everyone: Since there are many polygamist groups out there and in the news lately, along with the TV show, Big Love, don't you all think polygamy will become legal again someday? This question is out of curiosity, not from my belief system. ;)

Although I'm a firm believer that "the truth is out there" (in ref. to your Sci-Fi humor...;-)..)...I would be very surprised if the truth of polygamy became a legal reality. Even from my view in the peanut gallery, polygamy strikes me as somewhat of a cultist section of Mormonism more than the norm of the religion...am I incorrect in this assessment? Also, I do believe that the media has an extraordinary way of highlighting the more freakish aspects of our society and not necessarily for our betterment in the name of good entertainment.

Yes, you are correct in your assessment. I totally agree with you about the media, Hihosilver!

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/26/2008 06:44:42 PM · #57

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"My final question would be then whether you live with the great fear that you cannot live up to the standard set before you? What makes you think you are "good enough" for the Celestial realm and not at risk of losing your status by the shabby things we all tend to do? And what if that standard suddenly changes? In the mid to late 1800s the standard included plural marriage. It no longer does, but that tells me that perhaps 5 years from now the standard could be different from where it currently stands. Isn't this frightening? "

Wow... tough question. I know my own failings all too well. Am I "good enough"? If I am, I'm afraid it would be more by the grace of God than my own ability to correct my own faults, though I recognize the need to keep trying to do my best.

I'm not so sure about standards changing... at least, not the saving ordinances (having more than one wife doesn't save you ... although I think if you manage to survive having more than one, you're a better man than I).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Outside Mormonism, I have never, ever heard that God was man before becoming God or that we can progress to Godhood (or whatever description you want there). In fact, there seem to be lots of passages in the Bible which seem to contradict this.

John 5:19-20 is where you will find this:
"19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel."

In essence, Christ, on this earth, is doing that which the Father has done before him. (remember that we view these as two separate and distinct beings)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And here is where things get sticky. When I talk to missionaries who come to my door and ask how the Book of Mormon stands besides the Bible, the answer is always they are different revelations of the same ideas. The Bible is presented as standing equal to the Book of Mormon. Only when pushed will they tell me that's not really the case. Why do they present it one way and then change when I ask questions? When I specifically ask, "Does the Book of Mormon reveal thruths that the Bible does not?" the answer is always "no" other than the historical data which is not contained in the Bible. Maybe these are young kids doing their best and giving me incorrect answers, but it seems fairly consistent in responses I get and I don't quite know what to do with that information. "

We do view them as companion scriptures. We call the Book of Mormon a "second witness of Christ". It complements, but does not replace the Bible.

Every year we spend an entire year studying one of the books ... we'll spend an entire year on the Old Testament, an entire year on the New Testament, an entire year on the Book of Mormon and an entire year on the Doctrine and Covenants. So in that sense, we give them all equal weighting. But we do acknowledge the possibility of errors in translation of the Bible.

Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III

02/26/2008 07:11:54 PM · #58

Originally posted by dwterry:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Outside Mormonism, I have never, ever heard that God was man before becoming God or that we can progress to Godhood (or whatever description you want there). In fact, there seem to be lots of passages in the Bible which seem to contradict this.

John 5:19-20 is where you will find this:
"19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel."

In essence, Christ, on this earth, is doing that which the Father has done before him. (remember that we view these as two separate and distinct beings)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And here is where things get sticky. When I talk to missionaries who come to my door and ask how the Book of Mormon stands besides the Bible, the answer is always they are different revelations of the same ideas. The Bible is presented as standing equal to the Book of Mormon. Only when pushed will they tell me that's not really the case. Why do they present it one way and then change when I ask questions? When I specifically ask, "Does the Book of Mormon reveal thruths that the Bible does not?" the answer is always "no" other than the historical data which is not contained in the Bible. Maybe these are young kids doing their best and giving me incorrect answers, but it seems fairly consistent in responses I get and I don't quite know what to do with that information. "

We do view them as companion scriptures. We call the Book of Mormon a "second witness of Christ". It complements, but does not replace the Bible.

Every year we spend an entire year studying one of the books ... we'll spend an entire year on the Old Testament, an entire year on the New Testament, an entire year on the Book of Mormon and an entire year on the Doctrine and Covenants. So in that sense, we give them all equal weighting. But we do acknowledge the possibility of errors in translation of the Bible.

Thanks for being willing to bite off the tough questions. I'm not sure I buy your John passage. I would count Jesus as being a special case as he was God before coming to earth (and was also God while on the earth). He could have simply been talking about himself and not us, and I don't really see the idea that God, himself, walked the earth just like Jesus in the passage.

Here's a distillation of where I see contradiction between the Bible and the Mormon doctrine of exaltation:

I hope the citations make it able for you to find if you want:
LDS teaching:
1. "We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement -- a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: 'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be.'" (LDS Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 - p.431, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)
2. " 'It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God,' the inspired word continues, 'and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did.' The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same." (LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.64, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)

Apparently contradictory Biblical passages:
Isaiah 43:10
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:8
8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:5
5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me..

Malachi 3:6
6For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

I guess I don't get how the two ideas mesh coherently?

brimac

Canon EOS-20D

02/26/2008 07:26:56 PM · #59

Doc I agree. Once Zeuss does that someone can speak to the fact that if one really looks into the christian faith it does not contradict Science, but shows that Science and Christianity are compatible. In fact, if one really looks into the depths of real science it does prove the existance of God, and many other principles that are the foudation of christianity.

mjwood0

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/26/2008 07:48:47 PM · #60

First and foremost, I'm truly impressed and glad that this thread has remained so enlightening and civil. I believe that for people of faith, it is essential we understand not only our own beliefs, but those of others.

I do have one question here with regards to the following (bold added for clarity):

Originally posted by dwterry:

Every year we spend an entire year studying one of the books ... we'll spend an entire year on the Old Testament, an entire year on the New Testament, an entire year on the Book of Mormon and an entire year on the Doctrine and Covenants. So in that sense, we give them all equal weighting. But we do acknowledge the possibility of errors in translation of the Bible.

Earlier in this thread, and spoken directly from a few patient missionaries at my door step, it appears that the LDS believe that there are errors not necessarily by translation, but because the book was written by man. It is here, that I have a hard time since the Book of Mormon was also written by a man.

If it is argued that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon indeed resulted from an encounter with a heavenly messenger (Angel) and the book is therefore infallible, would that not make the books of the Bible written by apostles (appointed followers of Jesus Christ) just as infallible? If not, who decides which books (or even passages) are true and which are false?

I have a hard time believing that any one person, prophet or not, has the right to dictate his works infallible and discount, at will, any other historic texts which contradict them.

So, I suppose my question is thus: How does one decide to follow the teachings of one man who claimed he talked with a messenger from heaven over the teachings of multiple men who walked with Jesus on this earth? As Doc has pointed out, many passages from the Bible must be in error for the Mormon beliefs to hold.

This thread has definitely made my watched list. Very interesting discussion here. It's actually made me stop and think about things which I have neglected far too long.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/26/2008 08:19:20 PM · #61

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Apparently contradictory Biblical passages:
Isaiah 43:10
10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:8
8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:5
5I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me..

Malachi 3:6
6For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

I guess I don't get how the two ideas mesh coherently?

The way I look at this, is that we truly have but "one God" before us, we will never have another. There is only one God to whom we reverence and show our devotions. When the first commandment says that we shall have no other gods before Him, we take it literally, that we should not bow down or give our allegiance to any other.

And that there are gods of other worlds, before or after "our god" does not make Him any less important to us and our salvation. We will never bow to or worship another.

david_c

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/26/2008 08:19:42 PM · #62

Doc, there's some nice platitudes and feel-good links regarding the Church of the LDS. Being ever the cynic that I am when it comes to claims of intimate encounters with the "supernatural", I'd suggest a cursory search on the name Solomon Spalding.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/26/2008 08:26:24 PM · #63

Originally posted by mjwood0:

No... it is primarily errors of translation that we refer to.

I speak both english and portuguese, fluently. I can tell you that there are ideas and expressions in english that don't exist in portuguese and vice versa. When I am talking to someone who speaks both languages, we'll find that we both switch languages frequently as we talk because some ideas are simply better expressed in one language or the other.

So I can personally attest to the difficulties of getting a translation correct here and now. I can only imagine the difficulties of trying to keep the expressions correct as they are handed down from scribe-to-scribe over a millenia of time. Just try telling your neighbor something, let them pass it on to their neighbor, and so on, and so on, and by the time they get to the end of your street, I bet the story will have warped to the point of being quite different from what you originally said. (in my experience, it hardly takes more than a single retelling of a story for it to change significantly)

The difference, then, between the Book of Mormon and the Bible isn't that they were both written by men. It's that one came up through the ages, handed from one scribe to the next and translated multiple times. And the other was delivered directly to a prophet of our generation and translated only a single time.

mjwood0

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/26/2008 08:29:50 PM · #64

Originally posted by dwterry:

The difference, then, between the Book of Mormon and the Bible isn't that they were both written by men. It's that one came up through the ages, handed from one scribe to the next and translated multiple times. And the other was delivered directly to a prophet of our generation and translated only a single time.

Thank you for that clarification. Your participation in this thread is helpful and very enlightening as can be said for all of the LDS so patiently answering our difficult questions.

02/26/2008 09:23:37 PM · #65

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Thanks for that answer. It's helpful, although I still get lost in all the stuff.

What happens when one text contradicts another? Is there a hierarchy of importance?

I'm still not letting people off my questions above. Someone go up and answer them... :)

The religionists claim their holy books are inspired or written by their god. When you find contridictions then they're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and they make up answers that don't make sense, or don't really answer. The Bible is loaded with them. Were the animals loaded into the arc in 2's, or 7's? It says both. And there's 2 creation stories! So which do you believe and which do you ignore? If this book is written by God, then God is not perfect. You have to choose the one to believe because they both cannot be right. Hmmmm, where's that rock?

02/26/2008 09:24:51 PM · #66

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

Originally posted by option:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Hey Zeuss

Jesus?

LOL - that has made my day

Me too. I get that at work all the time. Got the name from my coworkers.

02/26/2008 09:29:41 PM · #67

Originally posted by classycam:

Originally posted by Zeuss:
Hereâ��s some interesting facts about Christianity in general: ..........
There may very well be a god. But be cautious of any religion. They are all man made and they serve that manâ��s purposes.

I do agree with the above. If I followed only my logic, I think I would be crazy by now. Even if all religions are myth, they satisfy some need that most people have to serve something beyond themselves. When I purchase a car, I study the different brands and ask the dealer about the one it sells. I don't go to Ford to ask about Chevrolet. That's just a simple example but I believe it applies to searching for a personal religion or group. Some people don't need it, but some people do. Some religions have done extreme damage and harm to civilization. Again, every person needs to read, study, ponder and go within to find the answers.

You should be commended. This action requires you to question religion, and you probably started with your parent's religion. The religion probably calls that act blasphemy and would condemn you for it, but that's the first red flag. If the religion stands up under scrutiny, than it might be a good one. I haven't found one yet...

02/26/2008 09:32:08 PM · #68

Originally posted by dwterry:

I think I understand you. The only pertinent God to us is the God we know. But still there are problems that can't be glossed over. The idea that God progressed seems to be contradicted by Psalm 90:2:

"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

Arcanist

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/26/2008 09:32:52 PM · #69

I'm confused, DW...

If there is a God, being the one and only true God; Creator of Heaven and Earth and He has reigned supreme for all eternity, how can anyone who believes in that one God come away from the commandment "You shall have no other Gods than Me," as being a declaration that there actually are/were other Gods in existence?

One God, a jealous God at that, would be CRAZY to create other Gods to rule over other planets, systems etc. Wouldn't He? That's just setting people up to go serve someone other than the real McCoy.

As a Christian (spelled Roman Catholic in my case) who has very much admired the discussion so far, I am not trying to provoke, but there has never been a question in my mind or any of the other RC's that I know that the First Commandment was an indication to us that we should never 'elevate' anyone or anything to His status because he is the ONLY God. To even consider that there might be others seems somewhat blasphemous in context of the command.

02/26/2008 09:44:49 PM · #70

Originally posted by brimac:

Then how is it that there was light before the sun was created to shine it?

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5D

02/26/2008 09:54:14 PM · #71

Originally posted by Zeuss:

Originally posted by brimac:
Doc I agree. Once Zeuss does that someone can speak to the fact that if one really looks into the christian faith it does not contradict Science, but shows that Science and Christianity are compatible. In fact, if one really looks into the depths of real science it does prove the existance of God, and many other principles that are the foudation of christianity.

Then how is it that there was light before the sun was created to shine it?

Carl, I'm dead serious. Start your own thread. I love talking to atheists, but not on this thread.

While you are doing that though, you can read Wiki's article on the Timeline of the Big Bang specifically the time from 3 minutes post Big Bang to 380,000 years known as the "Photon Epoch"...

classycam

Nikon D2X

02/26/2008 09:55:55 PM · #72

Something to ponder;
God said, "Let us make man in OUR image."

02/26/2008 09:58:35 PM · #73

Originally posted by classycam:

Something to ponder;
God said, "Let us make man in OUR image."

But that doesn't make sense with what DW said also, because he says the gods are of other worlds.

It IS an odd word though, isn't it? Conventional interpretation is God is speaking as part of the Trinity or to the holy court of heavenly beings (angels and such instead of other Gods).

EDIT: typos

Message edited by author 2008-02-26 22:08:21.

Arcanist

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/26/2008 10:07:34 PM · #74

Ah. Thus the distinction, I think I understand. Do LDS not recognize a trinity per se?

I have always interpreted the 'in Our likeness' invocation as God, the Father, speaking to God, the son (Jesus - who is the word made flesh and through whom all things are made) and to God, the Holy Spirit...basically God talking to Himself in His manifestations. I've never had an issue with the trinity thing as we are told that Abrahm is met by three men (who later turn out to be God) and he serves them a meal before they (He) tells Abram of the promise he has for Israel.

So without recognizing a trinity as one Godhead, there exists the interpretation that 'others like Him' may exist, before the creation of man. Yes? No?