/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

theres an sld general in the catalog m8

pls dont turn this "we need to remove the weed from our folk" kinda shit.

>>3899

to /christian/ with you

>>3897

> My main problem with Mormons, and the reason why I don't consider you "Christians", is that you reject the Nicene Creed and mainly the divinity of Christ.

>mfw

I'll clear some things up here, though I would have preferred you took this to the LDS General.

Mormons are not Christians, and Christians are not Mormons. We reject the nicene creed because its heresy, but the Divinity of Jesus Christ is an essential part of LDS Doctrine, hence the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He is Jehova of the Old Testament, creator of worlds without number, performer of the Atonement and judge over the souls of men.

>Cosmological Argument

LDS theology is not compatible with the First mover stuff because it does not consider it to be important or meaningful. We've no clue who first created the universe and we'll likely never find out, it doesn't matter. We operate under the assumption that there wasn't ever a first mover, that the universe is Eternal and uncreated and there simple always were Gods and always will be.

>why worship the God immediately above you and not the God who must have started everything?

That is how you become a God yourself. He is your Father, and you are called to worship Him because He was the one that gave you life, and He's the one who created the immediate universe around you. To worship some distant ancestors in some part of the universe that essentially doesn't exist to you, for no benefit whatsoever, over some sort of (lets call it what it is) apostate doctrine would be wrong.

>My God can't be a secretary of a secretary of a secretary to the real God, from whom I would be forever disconnected with no hope of ever meeting Him.

Gods are not subservient to one another. Children are meant to surpass and improve on the work of their Fathers.

>Prophets.

You can think what you like. We believe that God has anointed President Monson to lead the Church, and that God does speak to him, when He desires.

>Your new scriptures are wrong about the Indians of America being Jewish, this much was proven genetically.

This one is a whole lotta mess, even for some LDS people. Some favor the central American model because of the architecture, some favor the Chilean model because of the records indicating there were "ancient boats" arrived in the area, and some favor the North American model because of the North American Indian tribes who've been demonstrated to have trace amounts of Israelite DNA.

I myself just dismiss the whole thing because when you've got two "jews" marrying into a tribe of Orientals, genetic drift will push these genes into oblivion. That, or the "skin of blackness" altered their DNA as well as their skin.

>More generally, the whole translating the golden codex with two stones and such

Stick around. Joseph Smith could give the Apostles a run for their money in how much he disobeyed and made mistakes when on the Lord's errand. He wasn't even allowed to take the plates for the first four years after receiving the message because the Lord *knew* Joseph Smith would probably just sell them.

>are nothing but steps in an evolution.

This is not what we believe. We believe that the Original Church of Christ ceased to be after the Apostles were killed, and that they never really passed down their priesthood authority (so Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not legitimate), the "Church" continued on in the Heavens, for there was work to be done. That's not to say the other churches had no truth, but they also added foul heresy meant to damn a man. As for Protestanism (which we aren't. because we'd have to be "Christian" in your terms to be so. And we don't "protest" anything bu the jello tax), it is seen as a "setting the stage" for the Return of the Church, but so is the arrival of Colombus, the creation of the printing press, the colonization of the New World and the American Revolution.

> Magic underwear.

Temple Garments. Be respectful. They are "holy clothes" we wear under our street clothes as to feel closer to God and remind us that we are different, separate and called to a higher purpose. They aren't magical, though they can be a conduit of faith. If you took one, it would just be a white shirt, basically.

>Temples

The Temple of Solomon, and the Temples of the Old Hebrews. There's still work to be done, and Temples are important. In there we do baptisms for the dead, endowments, sealings and other ordinances. Understand that I can't tell you everything, not because its "secret" but because its sacred. You could go on the internet and find out more about it if what I say isn't sufficient to you; its all out there; I just can't have any part in it.

>is this a fair generalisation of Mormons or did I just get lucky and met only nice ones?

We're a peculiar people. Some of us are beautiful, distsy, good hearted blond girls, some of us are cynical, dogmatic hispanic college students with reactionary leanings. Its a works-heavy religion though, so people will serve you a lot and appearances are almost Japan-tier important.

I'll answer any other questions you might have. I hope MR will show up later, I like people getting more than one perspective on these things. Pic related. We have infiltrated video games

>>3958

I don't know if that's appropriate (you're OP so I guess it doesn't matter if the thread gets derailed) for you. I mean, I thought these were the people that believe that all religions lead to God or some stuff like that.

Is this what you believe?

>>3966

>Why do you think that?

It'd make more sense than Purgatory and it's more in line with early Christianity too. It also matches much more with Christ's actual words as recorded in Greek. I'm reading a book about it lately, I'll be more informed when I'm done with it.

>This is something a lot of people are incapable of understanding, and its so true. God doesn't "send" anyone anywhere.

It'd make more sense too. Glad we have some beliefs in common.

>Go to Utah, LDS people are head over "hills" for that Brit. I thought the Screwtapes Letters were pretty ok.

Now that's a surprise! And not quite, because his books are truly amazing. Screwtape is fun but definitely not comparable to this theological nonfiction, like The Problem of Pain or Mere Christianity, which I believe to be a big reason for a lot of people to convert to the faith.

>>3903

>Mormons are not Christians, and Christians are not Mormons.

I agree but at the same time I feel like I have to throw the "official definition" in there for the sake of the Church.

"Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians." https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng

>>3904

>I hope MR will show up later, I like people getting more than one perspective on these things

There's nothing I could really add to what you've already said since you know so much more about LDS theology than me. I can pretty much just parrot LDS.org for the most part. I'll try to weigh in a bit though.

>>3897

>You have many Gods, and I can't into polytheism.

Why?

>If He does, I then start thinking it's comparable to Mohammed, who was probably contacted by a demon

He's just a man (specially chosen by God) who prays, like we do, and God answers him. The difference is that he has been chosen to be put in a position of authority to receive revelation for the whole world instead of just himself or his family. It's not as scary of a concept as people make it out to be.

>More generally, the whole translating the golden codex with two stones and such (I forget the details) sounds crazy

The burning bush, the pillar of fire and the manner through which Moses received the 10 commandments is pretty crazy too.

>As a Christian, I feel like Mormonism tends to discredit Christianity

It transcends simple Christianity to achieve an even greater Truth, continuing revelation through a living Prophet.

>Temples. They look badass

They really do. Too bad there's not one in my city.

>At the time, I virtually considered the faith simply because it seemed more alive than other Christian faiths

This has been my experience also.

>>4233

>So how would I go about this? Assuming I could legally do this?

Assuming its legal AND that the Church is ok with it (which as of today, it is not), you'd do the following:

You can't simply choose to enter into a plural marriage, you have to be called to it. You could speak to the women about it at your leisure; either at the same time or one after the other, wouldn't make a difference. They'd be LDS girls so from a young age they would have been raised to view polygamy as a holy thing, not something to be reviled or that it exists solely for masculine pleasure. Once this was done you'd go to a Bishop and ask if it would be ok for you to marry plurally, he'd either do it (if he's been given that authority) or seek out whoever the Prophet has delegated that duty to; if he hasn't done so then you'd have to ask the Prophet personally.

>Would I marry them at the same time?

You'd marry at the same time in the same ceremony unless the marriages were years apart. Even then, the first wife would participate in the ceremony and accept her sister wife. They would be "married" to each other though not in the same way they both are to you. Homosexual intercourse is out of the question, also.

>Would everything need to revolve around me?

Somewhat. They'd do a lot of the work, but you are the Priesthood holder of your household so your authority is supreme and only you could receive revelation for the household.

>If I sexxed them, would I do both at the same time or one by one?

Neither the Gospel or the Prophets speak of this. You could ask your Bishop and follow his advice; ask the Prophet if you an find him. Conversely, you may simply pray to God and ask Him to tell you the correct thing.

>Would they raise all of my children together, each of them being the "mother" of all of them?

Yes, though it wouldn't be wrong for the kids to know which is their biological mother. One wife could work outside the home while the other tends to the kids, or vice versa, the practical matters vary from household to household due to independent circumstances. It would be unseemly for both your wives to work while you stay home unless you were handicapped.

>I do not consider Slavs white, so this would be racemixxing. Is this ok?

It would only be ok if you have duable floors that can tolerate 8 or so individuals continually squatting several times a day. I'm joking, obviously. Miscegenation in the Gospel is neutral; you can be for it or against it and either option is fine. The only race-mixing pair that was outlawed by God was that of a White person (or any priesthood holding race) and a black person, but that issue was resolved when the priesthood ban ended. You may miscegenate to your heart's content or not.

>Am I going too /pol/tard here?

No such thing

>Would both of them be equal wives or is it fine to have a favourite one? Can I love her children then more than the other ones?

I think you are supposed to love them both as much as you can, same with your children. The marriage wouldn't be invalidated if you do otherwise but God would judge you negatively for this.

>>4245

>I laughed

Why? This is from uttermost importance :^)

>can your wives be homo amongst them

Computer says no.

>>4236

> Homosexual intercourse is out of the question, also.

>Humanity seems to have evolved this way: 1 man, several ladies (considering the amount of women who are bisexual).

Possibly.

>>4248

Pic forgotten.

>>4255

> if each LDS human is expected to become a God, what's the gender of our current God?

Male

>Are there universes with a female God?

Yeah, this one.

Well, its understood that most people will probably not become Gods, because its so dang hard, everyone is trying though. Ok here's the thing, God and His wife (or wives, maybe, lets not complicate this, let's say WIFE) would work like an LDS family on earth. Heavenly Father is the head but Heavenly Mother (who exists) is also a Goddess and is exalted in Her own right. She'd be subservient to Him but still incredibly powerful and have a paramount role in creation. This would happen every time at least that we know of; meaning in other universes with other Godheads. Heavenly Mother doesn't get discussed a lot within the Church, let alone with gentiles.

>How long do you stay in there if you're supposed to become a God too?

You'd stay in the Celestial Kingdom until your exaltation is completed and God tells you to get out there and create your own worlds without number. Who knows how long you'd be there? No one has been exalted and come back to tell the tale!

>Do you choose a planet and call it Kolob and live there in human form?

Lol you make your own planets, you can call them whatever you like! You should be original though. But you already lived *on Earth* in human form so no.

>Where's Kolob by the way?

Popular misconception time. Some outsiders seem to think we believe Kolob is where God lives, this is not the case. God lives in the Celestial Kingdom, and Kolob is simply the star/planet that is closest to the CK. Where is it, physically? Who the heck knows son.

>>4257

>Could I reject this then?

Yeah, you can reject any calling, but God will be upset. The Church won't do anything about it but God might spoil your milk or make you loose your job or something like that.

>What does this mean in fact?

It means this is a power to perform certain saving and exalting ordinances. You can do baptisms (for the living and the dead), endowment cessions, sealings (marriages), anointings,give people blessings, hold Church offices, etc.

>b-but I like them… is this literally all? Just saying, even as a Catholic you can marry any woman.

Right now in the LDS church you could marry a gentile. Its frowned upon and sad, but you can do it. This carries a lot of consequences for you guys (spiritually, pragmatically, not like the chruch will shun you) that I can go into if you like.

>I do not think I could do that :^(

This webm is for you.

>>4259

>I assumed so, but how do we know?

Cause He told Joseph Smith He's a male.

>Did Jesus look like God when He was a human?

I mean, maybe? I don't know. Last time I tried to know the face of God, I created /intl/ this is a joke. I think they looked different, Joseph Smith saw them both and I feel he would have remarked if they were identical. I think if any man has ever looked like God, it would be Adam.

>Can you look better when you go to Heaven?

You definitely will. even people who go to the Telestial kingdom will get resurrected bodies (of a Telestial level), which are much better than what we have now. Free of illnesses and stuff. What race you'll be in Heaven is controversial.

>>4260

Noooooooo

>Our God did, did He tell us anything about the process?

Good catch! He's said how we can get there and be exalted and stuff but not that detail of how long you stay in there until you get to be a free roaming God.

>>4262

>If necessary I can do any of this without being a priest atm

Not according to the Restored Gospel, unfortunately. Also I'm fairly certain Catholics don't do Baptisms for the dead, endowments or sealings. Anointings maybe, its when you bless people using consecrated oils If you say yes then Protestants are right and we are both Satanic ;^)

>So if polygamy was allowed again, could I marry several LDS girls?

Maybe.

>Do not mix up real Jesus with Mormon Jesus.

>mfw

I almost forgot it was you, discipulus-sama!

>Do you pray to her?

Some feminist women do in secret, but this is heresy and its bad to do, so no I do not do this.

>>4263

>The Trinity

It ain't real. God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three distinct beings united in purpose collectively known as the Godhead.

>>4284

Heck no, you did freaking great. You stood your ground and did not yield one bit, all the while actually getting people to engage you with actual Scripture and not just silly memes. Super good.

One thing though that maybe I should have cleared up. The stuff about the blacks in heaven being neutral and all that, that's not Scripture, that's one of Bruce R. McConkie's theories. He was pretty well respected back in the day, although his popularity has waned a bit. I personally do believe this could be the why for the priesthood ban, but even McConkie stated that it may be something else. Simply put, we don't know why it happened. That takes me to this other one.

>Because they were still unworthy. Now they are just barely worthy to be priests (which is a position of service, not leadership). They will never be worthy to be an apostle or prophet.

I couldn't help but notice you mingled personal feeling with the Gospel here. It happens, you get so into those debates, its like being in the Colosseum fighting lions, you don't want to hesitate for even one bit, but unfortunately this is not true.

The Priesthood is open to every man alive today, and every man in the church, when he comes of age is given the priesthood; it is a prerequisite to hold any church office. That is to say, being a priest is not a service or servile position, its an honor and something we all share: Thomas S. Monson holds the same priesthood that your Bishop holds, and the missionaries hold, and that I hold and that you will hold soon. As for blacks in positions of leadership, well, there's entire wards and stakes in Africa were the Bishops are black, and most of the stake administration is black. Naturally, many Americans or Europeans get sent there to oversee and help with things as well, but I hope I never gave you the impression that all blacks need to be babysat.

Take for instance these two men, Elder Dube and Elder Sitati, they are members of the Quorum of the 70, the organization below the Quorum of the 12. Each of these men is technically ready and qualified to take the place of any of the Quorum of the 12. These are positions of leadership, and great spiritual merit.

Now, will a black man ever *actually* be called to be an Apostle or the Prophet? I doubt it, personally. But to make such definitive claims on the matter is dangerous when we have no way of knowing that to be a fact, and honestly not that much *actual* Scripture on the subject.

Again, other than that, I am thoroughly impressed, I know you reached some people today.

>>4292

>The problem with Mormonism is that the more you know about it, the more you realise it's not the truth.

Sadly, that's how I feel about every denomination; God help me.

LDS have prophets. Are they just like the prophets of old? Are they also reluctant prophets? (That's usually how you know they're not faking it.)

How often do they get contacted by God and what are the messages?

Are these made public or is it restricted to Latter Day Saints?

If restricted, why?

How are they chosen?

How do you verify that they're the real deal?

Is it a lifelong thing?

Can you have many prophets at once?

How often do they add/change rules?

>>4328

> Are they just like the prophets of old? Are they also reluctant prophets?

They bear the same mantle but Thomas S. Monson today has different roles and responsibilities than Moses did. Also, its possible that God communicates differently with them; at least as of yet the Prophet has not claimed to see any divine messengers or the like. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are the modern prophets who would most resamble the ancient ones.

Some are reluctant, many of them make mistakes and take their job with various degrees of seriousness. This can be a cause for concern for me sometimes, but its not my place to question him because God knows his heart and will judge him fairly (and twice as harshly as everyone else).

>How often do they get contacted by God and what are the messages?

Simple things are presumed to happen all the time, the Prophets only reveal these things at General Conference and its often nothing earth shattering. It has to do more with how to manage the church than anything else. Revelation with a big are used to happen with frequency in the days of Joseph Smith and has steadily diminished; the last big Revelation was in 1978.

>Are these made public or is it restricted to Latter Day Saints?

>If restricted, why?

They are restricted to Latter-Day Saints because that is how the Lord wants it, and He has set in motion this plan for Prophets to come to power seamlessly.

>How are they chosen?

Currently, the Apostle of the Quorum of the 12 with the most Seniority will take the mantle of prophecy upon the death of the current Prophet, and assume leadership of the Church.

>How do you verify that they're the real deal?

If he leads the Church astray, then he is not a real prophet. The Holy Ghost would testify to you whether he's real or not.

>Is it a lifelong thing?

>Can you have many prophets at once?

Yes. No.

>How often do they add/change rules?

Pragmatic things change all the time. What the Ensign will say, how missionaries will be distributed, what countries need to me ministered to, how chocolates are to be eaten by the Apostles jk, this last one never changes, its Seniority. Big Changes in Practice, like plural marriage or the priesthood ban, have only happened a select few times in the history of the Church.

>>4333

>So how is he the prophet?

Because he is the spiritual and legal leader of the LDS church.

> Even if God told me I didn't eat enough cheese, I'd be impressed all the same!

I get that. I'd be pretty impressed if it happened to me personally, which it never has. I do know people with the ability to pray and receive crisp answers, and I imagine the gift of Prophecy is similar to that to a higher degree, to the point where you receive revelation about how to manage the entire organization.

>Anything directly from God would be amazing.

Yeah, we do believe that he receives revelation from God. He's not like Joseph Smith though, different Prophets for different times. He's yet to have an angel appear to him with a drawn sword and tell him to stop messing around.

>How do you have prophets without revelations?

Good question. The could have Revelations with big R anytime, but to not have them doesn't diminish their importance as our prophet. He's meant to guide *us* a people, and the only way he can do that is through continuing revelation from God.

> Are these minor revelations actually revelations or more like the prophet thinks he got a message but in fact just had an idea he thought was inspired?

As you can imagine I believe the former, though when I get down I do consider the possibility that the actual prophet might be some polygamist guy from Manti. I just have faith in President Monson, though I yearn for the days to come when we'll be called to defend the faith and prophets like Joseph Smith or Mormon will lead us again.

>What was the 1978 revelation? Was it about black people?

Yes. It was the revelation that the prerequisites had been met and that it was time to extend the priesthood to all able-bodied men regardless of race.

>Does your Church go back on Christ's words about spreading the gospel to the whole world?

What do you think? Pic related.

> If you select him yourself via these parameters, and on top of that they receive no revelations, are you sure it's a prophet at all?

That is the system that He bid us use, when He sent a Heavenly Messenger to Lorenzo Snow in the Salt Lake City Temple in the 1890s. Like I said, they receive revelation.

>Who's to say what's "astray" and what's not?

That's the question. Do you follow your heart, your mind, your brain? A combination of all would be ideal. You do what you do and hope that you've chosen right pretty much, there's no sure fire way of doing these things. I mean, to me at least, but maybe because I've only received one I downplay the importance and tend to not rely on Spiritual witnesses.

I don't get your first statement though, about Christ being a "Jew". Do you mean I'd reject Him because of my personal feelings on Jews or something like that?

>How so? (I thought LDS didn't like the Trinity, did I get this wrong?)

We still believe in the Holy Ghost, just that He's part of the Godhead and not physically the same entity as God the Father or Jesus Christ. Supposedly, you feel a burning in the bosom, and a sense of peace of mind and surety come over you, and that's how you know. I could only tell you here-say since its only happened once to me, and I even doubt that sometimes.

>>4455

>The Gospels have some non-Hebrews who see Christ as Who He is: centurion, goy woman, etc.

They weren't the majority though.

>That is not true.

This is congruent with what I said, OoLF. To those who knew, really knew, the ones who stayed, it *was* clear as day. To those who rejected Him for one reason or another, it wasn't and they became the Jews. This wasn't the original issue in any way though.

>You don't get to choose it, you have to choose it.

Heck yes. There's no neutrality when it comes to the Gospel.

>How does the spirit testify to you?

Its supposed to be, again, this burning in the bosom. This "feeling" that transcends physical emotion or intellect, and is tangibly a third "aetherial" type element. You know something to be true by extra sensory perception, to put it in common terms.

Its annoying as heck when you can't get it also. Might actually be more annoying when you *do* get it and then have to reconcile it with your other senses.

>How do you know the difference between the two?

You'd have to make sure you are righteous first, and you do this by making sure you are doing all you can do. This website sums it up nicely.

http://www.afterallwecando.com/

Then, if you're certain you're doing all you can do, and you think you've received a spiritual witness, then you have to take a leap of faith and hope for the best. This is usually a pretty reliable method, taking into account no one has ever died and returned to tell the tale of how it all works behind the curtain.

>So Christ isn't the same God as your Heavenly Father? They're all just "a" God?

There's no "just" when it comes to Godhood, its not some dime-store feat. Christ is a God, independent physically from His Father, God the Father. They are distinct because they each have a physical body, which the Holy Ghost does not have. They are indistinguishable in action to mortals and absolutely united in purpose.

In an odd "trinitarian-esque" twist, the God of the Old Testament is Jehova, who is Jesus Christ.

Posting in new bread. I'll catch up to the discussion in a minute.

Only Bump in case anyone has any questions or desires to discuss something related.

>>6427

Fundamentalists might be up to something, they always are, but I couldn't rightly say yes.

I'm hoping I'l get to see it in my lifetime honestly. Even just a Rhode-Island sized theocracy would do it for me. I can see it now, full of blonde girls and Jello and folding chairs. Mormon paradise.

>>6432

Well, a man might be called to teach primary, and he might enjoy it, its not like there's a gender specific calling in that regard (although there are such, most of them are). I'm just saying since most Mormons are women, its no surprise that's the most popular calling.

>Do you wear a ctr ring? How many generations back can you trace your family tree?

Yes I do. Up until my Great-grandparents. I'm a convert and a foreigner so I'm late to the party as far as family history goes.

>What's up with Steve martin who is he?

He's a comedian. For some reason some members think he's Mormon, probably because many of his movies have clean humor and most Mormons avoid raunchy and blue humor.

>What's up with Steve martin who is he?

Temple Garments, if you don't mind. And yes.

>>6433

>If salvation is free why they are so tight when asking money from people? To the point you can't enter a temple if you don't give your offrends

Salvation is free, all you need for Salvation is Baptism. Temple is a different manner, but even then you don't have to pay. I've barely payed any tithing in my time in the church and I'm a habitual Temple goer.

Its all about your situation. God expects you to give 10% of yourself to the Church. Could be money, could be trade or service. There's no regulation to check that you're doing this, 'cept for God. Of course, you can always lie at the interview but what good is that? The Temple only means anything if you go there honestly, and there's nothing at the Temple for you if you don't believe in the God that appeared to Joseph Smith.

>>6435

Its quite good really, though if the wording is an issue you could try a different language. I can vouch for the Spanish BoM at least. Other than that, some chapters sound different. I personally prefer the wording and style of the Doctrine and Covenants myself. More sermon-like, more personal rather than story-telling like most of the BoM.

>>6450

Traditional Christendom, you only have Heaven or Hell. Either you do the right things or believe the right things and you go to Heaven, or you don't and you go to Hell. Not so in Mormonism

We believe, first, in the Spirit World, a purgatory type of place. Then, in the Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial Kingdoms, and finally the Outer Darkness. Excepting the last one, all these kingdoms are pleasant and better than Earth, but of course one ought to aspire to the Celestial.

The default one is the Terrestrial Kingdom, that's were the vast majority of folks will end up because most people are horrible. However, only those who've been baptized can go to the Celestial Kingdom. This is what it means to be saved in Mormonism.

Pic related. (Spirit World not present here for whatever reason)

>>6459

>Can you marry after you're in the celestial kingdom.

No. You can marry while you're in the Spirit World if you haven't on Earth, but once you go to the Kingdoms, you stay like that. Telestials will be genderless too, btw. That's what they get for being naughty.

Mind you, that's as far as we know, but I don't foresee a revelation saying "Marriage in the Celestial Kingdoms are happening" anytime soon.

>Since God is matter then I guess those kingdoms are too right? Like, if we had a telescope big enough or travel far enough then you could see it?

In theory Yes. In practice, well, God will only let you see Him if He wants. Again, for example, the knowledge of Spiritual things, knowledge in general is considered matter in Mormonism. A physical thing in your body, but obviously beyond the reach of modern medicine or the scientific method.

The rest of your post was accurately answered by Cathbro.

>>6460

>How this circle started? No answer, Mormons do not ask this question for whatever reason. Will it ever end? Same.

If I understood it correctly.

You have. However, some Mormons do ask that question, there's just no definitive Answer. Some Mormons believe the Universe is eternal and uncreated, that matter always was and always will be, and that Gods are simply a highly evolved species inhabiting the void of Space, arranging and assembling life as they desire. Others have adopted Christian belief in a First Mover, and suppose that we all have one First Mother and Father from where all other Gods come. I belong to the former category.

Heavenly Mother yeah? We have one, or several. Also up for debate.

>Are these kingdoms yet to be created or do they already exist? If the second, then this is a valid and interesting question.

They are already in existence, and were so before the Earth came into being.

>Where is Jesus atm according to mormonism?

Jesus Christ also has a physical, material body and resides in the Terrestrial Kingdom. Always the philanthropist, He can go to the Celestial Kingdom anytime He likes, but He resides with the masses of the Terrestrial Kingdom, to look after them. Most human beings will live with Jesus Christ after their deaths. He's either there, or doing mission work in the Spirit World. Everyone needs a chance to meet Jesus face to face before they can move on to their proper degree of glory.

>>6461

>So Jesus is the actual Son of Elohim that he created by having sex with marry?

Close. Jesus Christ was a being long before that, and He had a main role in the creation of this plane/worlds/universe. What was created through the union of God and Mary was His physical body here on earth, but His Intelligence, His Spirit was God quite some time previous.

>But isn't Mary his daughter too? Wouldn't this be incest?

Yes. Although, since we're *all* His children in the same manner, all sex is incest. Allow me to delve into the esoteric and, somewhat speculative. The condition of incest is a direct result of us having imperfect bodies; part of the plan of course; due to the Fall of Adam. This causes that blood-relative offspring come out like they do, looking like they lost an argument with Darwin. This is also the cause for many illnesses after this kind.

Mary was a one of a kind woman, full of grace and sinless through Divine intervention. Heavenly Father, Elohim, is a resurrected being with a perfect, sinless body. Simply put, they've got none of the issues that would normally cause incest to produce negative traits in the finished product. Their union was, by all accounts, remarkable, unique and an exception to the rule; which you may accurately judge by its finished product.

>Also Jesus existed pre earth, but how does this work if everything is material?

Elaborate on this question before I go further. I'm not sure I understand the question.

>Pic related. Jesus creating some cool planets and stuff.

>>6466

>Can you die in one of the kingdoms?

No, or at the very least not that God has revealed to us.

>is dis an official position of hte church or its you r personal opinion?

This is my own explanation of a theological aspect of Mormonism. Essentially, trying to explain why exactly this one instance does not carry the negative results of more common place instance.

>m guessing he means, since Jesus got his body in this earth bout 2000 years ago,

Good question then. Like the Holy Ghost, Jesus was a God even before He got a body. How this occurred is not known to us. He is, as always, the exception to most rules.

>Can people travel planets and stuff in the kingdoms?

As I understand it, you stay in the kingdom that you're assigned. You certainly can't go on vacation to a higher on. Whether you can travel through space a la Star Trek is something I hope we can do, but do not know.

>Is there any chance that there are mormoms in Jupiter right now?

Highly unlikely. If that's the case though, it would be a planet like this one, meaning not a "Heaven" but just a planet where people die and kill each other and sin constantly.

>Temple

The Temple is very sacred, and its nature is complicated. Firstly, the Lord has simply demanded a higher standard for anyone wishing to take part in Temple ceremonies. It means you have to keep all the basic commandments of the Church. It is the House of God and He prefers it to be cleaner than the rest of the world. This goes back to the days of the OT.

On top of that, there's the nature of the ordinances. The ordinances are meant to bring the man closer to God, and thus you have to have a bare minimum level of righteousness first. These are the more "advanced" procedures, after one's Baptism. If you don't meet the criteria at first, then that's ok, your Bishop will help you get there if you want it.

More importantly, a Mormon only does Temple ordinances for himself *once* in his life, the rest you are doing them for a deceased person. Even in the Temple, a human being cannot interact with the Divine without the Holy Ghost, and this one will not dwell in an unclean Tabernacle. See the importance?

Doesn't mean people have to be utterly sinless, but you need to avoid the big sins that will keep the Holy Ghost 100% away if you want to go to the Temple: observe the word of wisdom, pay your tithing (anyway you are able), no pre-marital sex, no willfully evil acts towards family members or fellow humans, no involvement with overtly sinful groups (gay causes, pro-abortion, pro-legal drugs, etc.), sustain the Prophets, believe in God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

These are God's expectations for us if we go to the Temple as far as I can recall the, hopefully I've helped explain myself a little better.

>also, where is the spiritual world in the cool pic?

You'd have to ask the artist, I don't know. We believe Jesus created "worlds without number", so could be earth or could be human world #567. Your guess is as good as mine.

>are mormom apostates the only one who will go to the darkness world?

No, but its a lot easier for me to go to Hell than it is for you. An apostate has a knowledge of the truth and still rejects it, that's pretty bad. A gentile would have to actively be a bastard and a scoundrel and reject Christ' freely given love in order to end up in the Outer Darkness.

>>6480

>have you ever enter a temple?

>Have you ever been ordained ir melchizedek or aaron ?

Yes I have entered a Temple, and I do hold the priesthood. You get the Aaronic priesthood first, usually when one is really young, and the Melchizedek priesthood once one is 18 or so. Depends on the man, and of course I do mean *man*.

>Are you white?

>Have you seen a black person in the church/temple personally?

I am Latino, and I have white, indian and black blood in me, which you could easily see if you saw me. I have only seen a handful of blacks in the Temple in my time.

>Will the Holy Ghost leave if you don tithe?

No. Its not as serious a sin as the rest, and really the sin would be to shirk your duty here. God has given you 100%, and he expects you to use 10% of that to strengthen the church. If you have something and you willingly choose not to fulfill this, then you will not have these blessings, but it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be denied the gift of the Holy Ghost. Well, for example, I don't have an income so my expected tithing amount is zero, money wise. However, if I don't fulfill my callings, don't help people when God sends them to me or shirk my other duties, I believe God will withhold blessings from me. What "blessings" mean is up to personal interpretation.

>isnt it kinda weird that humans will be juding who are worthy to enter the temple?

Well, here's the thing, we don't believe it to be quite as simple as that. To get to the Temple, you need a Temple recommend. To get a Temple recommend you need to pass an interview. These interview questions, about 10 or so, we believe to have been inspired by God and delivered through the Prophets, and these have been almost completely unchanged since the construction of the first Temple (Word of Wisdom requirement was added during the 50's iirc). Also, the Bishop doesn't research your case and make sure you're telling the truth, he';; say "Are you following the WoW?" You respond. He has no way of knowing whether you really aren't drinking coffee or not, and really that's not his job. It's between yourself and the Lord, and if you're lying to get into the Temple then you're doing it wrong.

There's no incentive to lie to go to the Temple when you're not ready. God will know, and you can't lie to God. Its not like a Mission, when kids with weak testimonies and spotty records put on a face to be Missionaries, even if they really don't want to. That's pubic, and maybe their families expect them to, their friends, girls, etc. No such social pressure with the Temple, in fact people barely talk about it at all when you're not inside. Part of the the whole thing this.

>Hey, are you a theology student?

I'm a college student focusing mainly on History, but I study religion as well. Since I don't go to BYU, all of my LDS theological research is independent.

>>6490

>What order are you part of?

Explain further, I don't understand what you mean.

>Can you visit more than one temple? How many have you entered? Could you tell me which ones? How are they inside?

I've only entered one in my lifetime, the Kansas City Temple. So long as they aren't being renovated or anything like that, I could go to any Temple on Earth. They are extremely beautiful, and there is a constant feeling of peace and tranquility inside. They always try to incorporate local elements into the Temple as well as importing fine materials from elsewhere. The KC Temple for example contains wood from Adam-Ondi-Ahman, a place that is sacred to LDS people and is in neighboring Missouri.

>Where do you find qt mormom grills to marry?

Your local LDS ward would be a good place to start. There's a search engine in the LDS.com website that could help you find it.

A caveat though, that the vast majority of Mormon women would not marry outside the Church. There is a stigma against it, and plenty of doctrinal reasons why it is to be avoided. I'm sure they'd be nice to you all the same though.

>>6497

>an any body enter a ward? Or do you need permission?

Anybody is welcome, investigators and non-members are actively encouraged to come to Ward activities and services (food, games and the like).

>Why is forbidden to Mormons to talk about temple stuff?

Technically, only some of the Temple elements are forbidden for discussion outside of the Temple, and these we swear not to discuss when we do ordinances. Its because of the Sacred nature of that knowledge, that is only supposed to be given to those while will have the wisdom to make use of it properly.

Mind you, its 2015, there's no secrets or privacy any longer, but the principle remains the same. *You* can go and find all out about it via profane sources, but *I* can't have a thing to do with that or God will mess me up.

>Are you married?

>mfw I'm not

>>6501

>Explain the 40 dead thing

Now that I'm doing the math is probably more than that,but I didn't want to sound boastful. It just means I've done a decent amount of Baptisms for the dead, considering, which we believe are essential for the salvation of mankind and for an individual to be able to move on from the Spirit World unto the degree of glory that's appropriate for him or her.

Mind you, people who were born in the church probably have 10 times more than that under their belt at my age, even more so if they are adults or older than that. That goes to answer the other question too. I was not born in the church, I converted at 20 and have been in it for about a year and a half now.

>Why do you inky go to temple every couple of months or so? If I could entered I probably would do so every day.

It would be admirable if you could, though that'd depend also on where you live. Basically, life gets in the way. Just to do Baptisms you have to put aside at least 4 hours in a day (for me specifically). About two hours to travel back and fourth, 1 or so for the actual ceremony and another one for the sermon or two you might hear, as well as the ritual preparation, putting on the clothes and cleaning up afterwards.

Between school and studies and my other church activities, it would just be impossible for me to travel there every day and still get things done. Once a month is my goal, but sometimes stuff happens.

If I lived in Utah or in really close proximity to a Temple, I might go more often; though I count myself fortunate that I live just an hour away from one unlike many Saints. Many have to basically go on vacation to go to the Temple because its so far, and others have to travel to other countries. Got some friends in Egypt now, their closest Temple is in freaking Switzerland.

Is the Journal of Discourses considered scriptural? Are Brigham Young's discourses scriptural? Brigham Young said they were.

"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264, see also p. 95).

>>6510

Is it considered Scriptural? Well, somewhat. Now, its not an official church publication because it was created by a man named George D. Watt, Brigham Young Secretary. He made his living by selling transcripts of LDS sermons in Europe, and this is the Journal of Discourses. This was ok'd by BY, but its not like he double-checked each translation all the way from Utah. Now, the church today claims that some of these discourses were translated inaccurately, and as such it cannot be considered Scripture, thought there is spiritually positive value in them. I'd think of it similarly to the Bible: sure, it has mistakes, but its mostly good and; as long as its interpreted in *harmony* with the rest of Latter-Day Revelation; its a good thing for you to read.

What does this mean? That when the JoD is inspiring and good and cool, its appropriate. When one turn of phrase or an odd sentence makes you doubt core doctrine, you are misinterpreting it, or it is translated incorrectly, insert another reason here. You understand?

Also, more practically, the Church couldn't very well acknowledge a set of documents that clearly showed support for Plural Marriage, while the gov't was breathing down its neck and threatening to turn Utah into a state of white slavery. That's a part of it too. The whole affair is very romantic, very dramatic. Read the Official Declaration #1, you'll see what I mean.

I'm glad you're getting into the more nuanced and difficult aspects of Mormon History and theology. The plain and simple things are good, the staff of life and what gives men sustenance. The Deep doctrine and the more esoteric history gives that life a much richer flavor, in my opinion. We need another Bruce R. McConkie, another Joseph Fielding Smith, an Ogden Kraut who won't be seduced by fundamentalism. Haven't had a "People's Scholar" in a generation. Many great speakers and philosophical leaders, but no great teachers of the hidden, the complicated, the nebulous and the easily forgotten.

Dubs btw.

>>6511

Thx for the response and check'd.

>>6664

>Was there a part about it that you found objectionable?

Jesus called talmudic jews sons of the devil and said that they belong to a synagogue of satan. As far as I'm concerned any Jewish ceremony is the same as a demonic ceremony in the eyes of God. If I am to take upon myself the name of Jesus Christ then I think it's obviously necessary for me to adopt the same attitude toward talmudists that Christ had.

If all churches but the LDS church are abominable to God then how much more abominable are the practices of the sons of the devil to God?

Cook participated in a perverted version of the Sabbath with demonic Jews and their perverse ceremonies.

>muh extreme persecution of Jews over the centuries - Q L Cuck

He's sounding too much like mike cuckabee right here. People need to either rebuke the wicked Jews or shut the fuck up about them and stop pandering to these demonic kikes.

"Clearly honoring the Sabbath has blessed the Jewish people."

Too bad they are incapable of ever truly honoring the Sabbath when they adhere to a holy book that says Mary was a literal whore and that Christ is boiling in feces in hell. They also "honor the Sabbath" on the wrong day anyways. God must be repulsed by them on every level possible at this point.

They are the ultimate apostates and the most wicked people on Earth and if this Apostle thinks that God is blessing them through their perverse, non-Mormon ceremonies then he is not even a fucking Mormon at all.

Mormonism is the Kingdom of God on Earth, NOT TALMUDIC JUDAISM. No blessings from Elohim could ever be derived from any demonic practices of the talmudic Jews. They reject Christ, the Gospel and the Prophets and thus they forfeit the blessings of God on Earth. Any so called "blessings" they are receiving are from their father, the devil.

"I say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die…Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put on the line, and righteousness to the plummet." -Brigham Young

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them… -Joseph Smith History 1

And yet today an Apostle joins with the sons of satan and worships in their abominable way, disregarding God's commandments. /jewrant

>>6665

Very. Its a pretty good chunk of Saturday, and there will be another one tomorrow, though only half as long.

>>6666

I very much like that Idea, though only if we can get the BO on board. If not, I'd be fine waiting until we have at least 4 or 5 guys here and then we can make a different board for that purpose as to not be hindered by lack of control of a board.

>>6667

Well, thanks for sharing that. I'll get the unpleasantness out of the way, since I feel conflicted because I agree with some of your post but strongly disagree with other elements of it.

I think you're way out of line in your attitude. Of you're a baptized Latter-Day Saint, you ought to know by now that Quentin L. Cook is an Apostle of Christ, handpicked by the Prophet to fulfill his duty, and he is well within his rights to have done as he did and spoken about it. Its not your place, ever, to call him a cuck or question his commitment to the Restored Gospel. If he;s wrong about anything, that's for God and president Monson to deal with, not you.

> If I am to take upon myself the name of Jesus Christ then I think it's obviously necessary for me to adopt the same attitude toward talmudists that Christ had.

The problem here is that you seem to take in all of Christ's well placed dislike for Talmudic Jewry and none of the compassion and love for man. Your entire post, as much as I agree with you in the status of Talmudic Judaism as an overall negative thing (if not THE negative thing), is devoid of love, just hatred.

We can't be all Deus Vult like others, your reproach of Judaism or anything else should be done in a loving manner. Not necessarily what the secular world would call love, but certainly not this.

>Cook participated in a perverted version of the Sabbath with demonic Jews and their perverse ceremonies.

Must be opposite that, because I never, and I mean never, defend Judaism, Jews or their craft, but I think I'm just about to in a way. Simply put, there's nothing wrong with Elder Cook participating in this stuff as ecumenical work. Building relationships with other faiths is an essential part of missionary work, and every opportunity to participate in their ceremonies is an opportunity to preach the Gospel. "Ah, that's interesting, I noticed you do this; see, in the Church we do it like so. You see?

Its all strategic, not giving approval and legitimacy to it. Even more, remember the audience. This is a sermon for Mormons, so the vast majority of it what iirc, about what we can do to to improve out own Sabbath experience.

>"Clearly honoring the Sabbath has blessed the Jewish people."

At least in ancient times it did. Nowadays, well, there are more "earthly" blessings to be received by keeping the Sabbath, and even if most of their faith is horrible, people can still benefit from abstaining from certain behaviors at certain times.

I feel somewhat uneasy getting too specific without having a transcript to quote and revise the actual words of the Apostle, so I'll leave it there for now.

Remember, you're free to disagree, but you can't talk like that about an Apostle, even if you think he's wrong. They're not infallible, but still.

I like your fire though, too many people in the Church don't know a thing about Jewry and think its a very pleasant thing, essentially the same religion the old Hebrews had, but we know better, don't we? Come to think of it, that might be relevant to the case, but having to do with how few Jews actually know the rotten core of Judaism and worship on a very superficial level.

I'll leave you this piece by Bruce R. McConkie, I think you ought to read it. Some excerpts:

>Oh, that they had believed and obeyed in the day appointed for their salvation, in the day which was the times of the Jews!

>Glory and honor and blessing, peace and joy and salvation—for them and for their children—was offered to them, offered without money and without price. They were invited to feast on the good word of God and to drink of the waters of life. But they would not.

>They rejected the gospel, gave no heed to the Divine Voice, and crucified their King—all because their deeds were evil. And so God sent upon them sore destructions. Their house—both the temple and the city—was left unto them desolate; they were scourged and slaughtered and slain; they were condemned and cursed and crucified. And a remnant, a few captives of a once great nation, was scattered upon all the face of the earth and among every people.

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/McConkie,%20Bruce%20R/McConkieBR_TheTimesOfTheGentiles.html

>>6668

>Quentin L. Cook is an Apostle of Christ, handpicked by the Prophet to fulfill his duty,

So was Peter and Paul rebuked him.

>and he is well within his rights to have done as he did and spoken about it

Well within his rights to worship a false god who rejects Christ alongside the demonic Talmudic Jews? I think not! He was deceived by them and you know it.

>Its not your place, ever, to call him a cuck or question his commitment to the Restored Gospel.

The articles of faith says we follow the admonition of Paul, who hated judaizers. To worship in the way of the Talmudic Jews is a cucked thing to do and thus the title cuck is an accurate one. I don't question his commitment but he was deceived and now he is leading others to believe that the way Talmudic Jews worship is literally granting them blessings from our God. Paul would not allow the judaization of the Church and neither should any Mormon. This meshing of the false Jewish god and our correct God is an abomination.

>that's for God and president Monson to deal with, not you.

I'm sure one of them will. I'm only speaking my humble opinion as a fellow Mormon.

>and none of the compassion and love for man.

Let's be clear here, I have plenty of compassion for man. That post was about rebuking the false teaching of Talmudic Judaism and when you rebuke something you do it out of love for those who are being deceived.

>is devoid of love, just hatred.

In Psalms it says that those who love the Lord should hate evil. Paul tells us that love has to be sincere and that we should hate that which is evil while clinging to that which is good. Don't mistake my hatred of evil for lack of love for good things. The articles of faith says we seek after the virtuous, lovely and good and Talmudism is the exact opposite of these things.

>Simply put, there's nothing wrong with Elder Cook participating in this stuff as ecumenical work.

I fundamentally disagree unfortunately. He should have attended the dinner but refused to participate in their ceremonies. We should be projecting the power of the Kingdom of God on Earth not kowtowing to others in an attempt to sway them to our religion. Would Christ have participated in a ceremony of the Canaanites to their false god? No. He would have rebuked them and preached the word of our Heavenly Father to them instead even if he got kicked out of their house as a result. Which Christ and his disciples did, many times.

>every opportunity to participate in their ceremonies

Again, Christ did not participate in demonic or pagan ceremonies in His ministry and neither did Paul.

>Its all strategic, not giving approval and legitimacy to it.

I am beginning to see that, however it offends me to see an Apostle participate in such a thing and give praise to it. It confuses people and makes them think Jews worship the same God that we do.

>so the vast majority of it what iirc, about what we can do to to improve out own Sabbath experience.

You're absolutely right but it only takes a few words to lead the whole Church astray into some judeo-christianity identity confusion.

>Remember, you're free to disagree, but you can't talk like that about an Apostle, even if you think he's wrong. They're not infallible, but still.

Trust me I am being a bit gentler with how I speak in person. Although I did tell some people that there is no way that Talmudic Jews were blessed by our God and that only Mormons were blessed. There's no way in hell I would call an Apostle a cuck in the middle of a ward full of people. I'm not trying to get my ass kicked. I still think participating in ceremonies and giving them false legitimacy is cucked though.

>too many people in the Church don't know a thing about Jewry and think its a very pleasant thing

So yeah, I was probably being too harsh on the Apostle himself considering he was as deceived as most people. But this really just needs to be openly addressed. Talmudists are evil according to Christ. We can't forget this.

>>6669

It means the Apostles are not infallible and they make mistakes like people do. There's not that much to it.

>>6670

You seem passionate about this, enough that I feel this has to be further addressed. If you'll give me some time to wait until the transcript gets released, I'll be glad to revisit the issue.

Again, I'd like to be able to read and quote exactly what it is that Elder Cook said, because the accusations that you're making are pretty serious, but they do have the possibility of being true.

You seem to have your head on straight though, about how to go about expressing your disagreement. Tact would be the key then, since criticizing General Authorities in such a way is wrong, even if the criticism is true (Dalin H Oaks). We're not Paul, or Jesus. You can rebuke me and everyone else but Apostles are simply different.

Well, that's the difference between open criticism in your Ward or to the world, and just a conversation between you and I (the latter being mostly ok). Keep that in mind though.

>You're absolutely right but it only takes a few words to lead the whole Church astray into some judeo-christianity identity confusion.

It takes a little more than that I think. Conversely, putting Elder Cook's comments aside, I think that's already happened, way before Elder Cook was born. By en large the bulk of Mormondom, along will most people within the sectarian churches believe that Jews (and sometimes Muslims) worship God as we/they do. They see Modern Judaism as a direct continuation of the old Hebrew traditions, instead of being a completely divergent phenomenon. Jews just "stopped" after Christ came, instead of overhauling the whole system into something unrecognizable. Addressing that as a separate issue would be more productive than tackling Elder Cook's comments directly, because especially around this time, people are on high alert for "heresy" or really anything negative towards GA's.

How long have you been in the church?

Daily reminder than the apostles and Jesus himself were jewish

check out the webm i made.

>>6671

>It means the Apostles are not infallible and they make mistakes like people do. There's not that much to it.

why cant you talk shit about them? there are many catholics how vocally show their disagreements with the pope, why the apostles are above criticism?

>>6672

>John Green

Adventistbro, pls. He is a hack. There is a huge difference between the Hebrews of the Scriptures and the Jews who killed Christ and rejected Him to boot. Their religion is built on opposition, slander and hatred of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for taking the time to make that webm though. I do appreciate your contribution to both the thread and /christ/ as a whole.

>why cant you talk shit about them?

We aren't Catholic. Apostles are hand-picked by the Prophet (with the assistance of the Quorum), and to doubt the good judgement of the Prophet is simply poor form and shows an intrinsic lack of faith. Its not so much about objective reality, the Apostles and even the Prophet are humans and *can* make mistakes, its about rank and position. Its simply not *our* place to rebuke them.

Doesn't mean you can't disagree. Smith knows I have a long list of things, both practice and protocol, about the church that I'd very much like to see amended, but you always need to account for the X factor. The X factor being the knowledge that the GA's receive from God that they do not share with us, which informs a lot of their decisions. So I may dislike how (this is just an example) how we don't use wine for the Sacrament and would like to see that changed, I even have Scriptures to back me up, but perhaps if I had the X knowledge that the Apostles have I would look at this decision with a different mind and agree with them.

Sometimes things are just matters of opinion and its okay to disagree, which is not the same as criticize. Some members today (those who are knowledgeable about church history at least), for example, think that J. Reuben Clark (a member of the first presidency for three Prophets) was way too harsh on the Jews, that he shouldn't have had copies of The Protocols in his possession and that his views shaped the Church's amicable stance with Nazi Germany until the War started (Hindsight is 20/20 and a cheap shot). I disagree with these members, but its fine for them to disagree with Elder Clark's views on Organized Jewry.

>>6674

>and who can rebuke them?

Eachother, and the Prophet. In the 1800's this was done quite publicly, looking similar to what goes on in the Scriptures. Apostle X tells Apostle Y that he's the devil and he's wrong, they might get into a public argument, maybe on get's excommunicated and eventually comes back and they all hug and make up. With time this has become more and more private, to the point that today you only hear about it after the fact and many Mormons "know" it can happen but only in the back of their minds, not actively. Bruce R. McConkie regularly rebuked his contemporaries, so much so that he was pretty unpopular with some within the Church and even the Quorum. Same with Joseph F. Smith. J. Reuben Clark and David O. McKay did not really get along for a while, though I imagine the more public confrontation ended after the latter became the Prophet. Our beloved Elder Packer (recently deceased) and Elder Oaks also disliked eachother, as Packer was a staunch, strict fundamentalist while Elder Oaks favors a more moderate, legalistic approach.

>could you name them?

I don't think I should get into all of them with an outsider to be honest, but I'll tell you of one.

I do believe that the Church is putting too much emphasis on Baptism and not enough on retention of members, and that investigators are invited to baptism *way* before they are ready to even begin to understand what a serious ordinance it is, the magnitude of that decision and the consequences it entails. Some folks have been baptized without so much as knowing about the Articles of Faith, a basic history of the church or even really knowing much about Theology.

I disagree with this practice. I disagree with the huge emphasis on Baptism period. I'd much rather see the mission budget cut in half, the number of missionaries cut in half and have individuals use their money to get married and start families early, and have the church give them money to further that endeavor. More babies than baptisms, I'd like to see, and those who have the the truth abide in them will be drawn to the church even so.

>whats dis

General Authorities. Its the title for people within the church who are Seventies and Apostles for example.

>what do you use? how often do you do the sacrament?

We use bread and water like pic related and we do it every week on Sunday. Technically Sacrament wine is the only exception to the Word of Wisdom and is ok to use, but it fell out of favor first because people used to poison it when they knew Mormons would use it in the early days, then in Utah it was part of an initiative to get people to actually obey the WoW (a ton of early Mormons continued to drink and smoke during the 1800's for various reasons, one of which being that the 1800's sucked immensely).

> I just wished this board was more active so that more people would see them/make them

I'd like more traffic but only insofar as it improves the qualities of the posts and the board. We don't need hordes if all its going to do is turn the place into an echo chamber and a place of vain repetitions.

>>6670

For the Author of this post:

The transcript of Quentin L. Cook's talk is out, and as promised I'm willing to discuss it further now if you are interested. Here is the transcript.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/shipshape-and-bristol-fashion-be-temple-worthy-in-good-times-and-bad-times?lang=eng

>>7247

I really had to think about this one to come up with something decent. I'll preface it by saying that I agree with the vast majority of what you're saying. I think that the statements were misleading because they do seem to indicate that there's something worthwhile about the Jewish-specific rituals when there isn't. Likewise, this part of the talk was very, well, mormon, in that it says one thing but its trying to engender feelings and ideas not mentioned here. I'll explain more.

I'd propose that, like the WoW, keeping the Sabbath can have blessings for anyone who does them, not necessarily just for LDS folks, because its an eternal principle intrinsic to the way in which God designed the universe, not simply a metaphysical test of our obedience. There is a physical process by which obedience to the commandment= better life, but like all things spiritual it defies scientific observance.

This doesn't mean that Jews get blessed for lighting candles or washing their hands or whatever nonsense that isn't mentioned in any of the Scriptures, that's pointless. But, avoiding work on that day will bless the person, even if they are an atheist; like the plant which will grow when watered regardless of the intention of the man doing it.

> They do these things because they are (falsely) bound to the fulfilled law but we are bound to Christ.

This is true, although just for the record (In case this is what you're saying, but maybe not) we're also commanded to perform rituals and ceremonies on this day, all of which have spiritual value. Works, essentially, and we'll be blessed by them. Like going to Sacrament meeting and the rest.

>Needless kike pandering.

I think this is one of those "really but not really" instances very common in conference talks and mormon stories, but maybe kinda weird for others. Once I read the whole thing, it became pretty obvious that this is about Mormons. He was drawing a comparison between the two and using a familiar narrative of victimhood to create the connection between being faithful, resisting opposition (which will never cease) and being blessed for it. I've seen it used with other faiths before, like the one where Parley P. Pratt says he wished Europe was conquered by Muslims because there's more truth in heathenism than something claiming to be Christ when it isn't (read: non-Mormons who believe in Jesus).

>The fucking Jews do not fulfill scripture whatsoever.

This one is actually pretty tricky, and I'm not going to be able to answer it right away. As you know there's different rules for different people. We're supposed to pray and worship and behave one way and then the rest of the world is a different way. Which is to say, God goes easy on a Buddhist monk who's never heard of Joseph Smith and interacts with him differently (yes, listens to prayers and gives limited blessings). Same with any other religion outside of Mormonism. Obviously, we signed a contract so to speak to do things in His proposed way to reap much higher benefits.

A catch though, ignorance is the key. Most people would say Ignorance means simply not being a member of the church, but I think the Jews are interesting because they could qualify as a third group in the "laws" of God. Mormons, Gentiles, and Jews. Since their religion is based on the rejection of Christ, not like Buddhism which is *ignorance* of Christ, they would be cut short from all blessings. God can work with you if you say "Allah, bless me", because Jesus loves you that much. He can't do a thing if you explicitly say that you don't want anything at all to do with Jesus and you seriously dislike Him, that's equivalent to saying "Literally do not bless me", as Christ is the intermediary between God and us.

So, you might be right about the Jews. I personally think that you are, but remember this doesn't apply to everyone.

Needless to say, this is from the Mormon perspective. I noticed you've no flag so if you've since changed religions then I believe mainline Christendom offers plenty of evidence for what you're saying.

>>7268

Can't give a factual answer since its never happened, but my hypothetical might satisfy you.

Plural Marriage is like a calling, meaning you don't get to take more than one wife because you love her and she loves you, that's irrelevant. You take more wives when commanded to by the hierarchy for practical/spiritual purposes.

So, ideally, if there aren't enough women to go around, the Lord wouldn't command men to take too many wives. More realistically, look at Salt Lake City today, look at all the fair-weather mormons, chameleons, pseudo-protestants, judaizers, mormon gnostics and flat out heretics. Many of the hypothetical men might simply not deserve to be married, at least not to a good woman, and they would have to make a change in character.

>>7275

This could be another posibility. Again, I'm dubious it would ever happen because in the entire history of the Restoration, there have always been more women than men in the church, always. This is true today still, there ware wards in Utah which are almost entirely female and have to receive transplanted key males to perform all the priesthood duties.

Basically, if plural marriage came back there would likely not be a lot of single men due to lack of wife, but rather many good single women would finally escape spinsterhood due to lack of worthy males, which is the current situation since men are commanded by God to only take one wife.

>>7276

>we're also commanded to perform rituals and ceremonies on this day

Oh, I know. I am not attacking the concept of Sabbath ceremonies, just the concept of a Mormon participating in non Mormon ceremonies and suggesting they have some sort of value to God.

>it became pretty obvious that this is about Mormons.

I can see what you mean, but he should have said "They, like us, have suffered persecution over the centuries etc etc." in my opinion. I just don't see the purpose of this endless pandering to the fucking Jews. I'm just very, very sick of it quite frankly. I don't want Mormonism to turn into Judeo-Mormonism.

>I noticed you've no flag so if you've since changed religions

No way, I am a Mormon now and through eternity. I just forgot to turn the flag on.

>>7277

>I'm dubious it would ever happen because in the entire history of the Restoration, there have always been more women than men in the church, always. This is true today still, there ware wards in Utah which are almost entirely female and have to receive transplanted key males to perform all the priesthood duties.

That appears to be slightly less drastic in my region. Women are definitely still the majority but men are very close in numbers compared to Utah it seems. My guess would be 1.5 maybe 2 women for every man.

My ward is a family ward too so it is a bit different I suppose.

>>7279

Pic related.

>>7286

The other anon answered your question pretty thoroughly, but feel free to ask more. Basically, its because Joseph Smith said so and because of the great apostasy, and it has more to do with what's not in the Bible than what's in it and in error.

> u married m8?

>tfw no TBM 8/10 qt to be sealed to for time and all eternity.

No

>shocking to not see tithing in that list

That's covered by "continue faithfulness".

>>7293

Lol not even close. Mormons by en large are kind of wary of muslims since they are so alien, especially utah mormons. Then again, they are wary and kinda off about anyone who is too weird.

When I first read that, I thought it was interesting and I kind of agreed, but only on the condition that muslims were the civilized, kind and intellectual people out of a 13th century dream that he described them as, not how they *actually* are in real life. I think he was thinking too doctrinal rather than practically, and he was really upset about the "idols" of Christendom (which no one cares about today btw, every ward is replete with pictures and stuff) and their degenerate behavior, whereas muslims were seen as more civilized and having no religious art.

Mind you, he never actually went to the Middle East. Orson Hyde, a contemporary in the church actually did, and iirc he described it as a horrible place full of savage and backwards people. To each his own, I suppose.

>>7298

>could you talk more about why was the bible like it is today

Not entirely sure what you mean. Could you clarify a bit more?

>and why do you think its necessary to have another?

I'm still somewhat young in the faith but I will do my best to answer correctly.

The Book of Mormon is not a replacement for the Bible. Here is an excerpt from the title page that explains the purpose of the book:

>Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations…

In other words, it is another record that testifies to the truth of the Bible, Gospels and of Christ as the Messiah and that we believe was written by ancient Jews and translated by Joseph Smith.

We believe that Mormon compiled these ancient writings and that his son, Moroni, later appeared to Joseph Smith in a vision. From the introduction of the BoM:

>The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon.

>After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in the Hill Cumorah. On September 21, 1823, the same Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record and its destined translation into the English language.

So what do my fellow Saints here think about the blatantly Trinitarian point of view of the Book of Mormon contrasted with the words of the Prophets up until this very day?

Phrases like "The Son, God the Father and the Holy Ghost, which is one God" are sprinkled throughout the reading and each time I glance over it I wince a little bit because, well, its simply not true.

How do you all approach this?

>>7333

Chain ended with John, aprox. so it would be about the beginning of the 1st Century A.D. Wherever he died. Because the Apostles were unable to pass down the proper authority and the church was corrupted from the inside.

>>7333

I kek'd, really.

No, we're not.

I also made this banner, for fun. I've always personally really liked this image.

>>7341

>Do you mean Stephan?

Maybe, if he was the penultimate to die then yes, I need to look it up.

>The roman church says that Jesus was talking to Peter when he said the gates of … etc

Yeah, so that the gates of hell woud never prevail against the Catholic Church, but obviously we interpret that verse differently. So, the LDS church never went away after Christ founded it personally while He was "human" on Earth, but it pretty much didn't exist since the authority was gone and the whole John business.

>What, where can I read about this batman.

No, you can't. You can go on wikis and read basically what I said earlier in different words, but any specific stories you'd have to get from real-life Mormons who, unlike me, actually believe in that stuff. John has become part of Folk Doctrine, like the Three Nephites or Cain. He's a mythical figure to whom random acts of kindness or miraculous aversion of disaster might be attributed, as well as "out-of-nowhere" inspiration. Like, for example, an old person gets lost in the wilderness and is led back to civilization by a mysterious light, a whisper in the ears or seemingly normal human beings who disappear mysteriously after the deed is done. That's the kind of stuff you'll get from John. Maybe it was him who told Colombus to steer right instead of left and ended up in America instead of India, huh? You get the picture.

>Why 1830?

Don't know, but that's when the Book of Mormon got printed and the Restoration began. This guy tries to basically look at the history of the world and track down why he thinks maybe God did things the way he did, but these are his own beliefs and speculations. The official position is that we don't know why.

http://colterreed.net/spokenwrit/media/Why%201820.pdf

>What are your others least favorite things?

Folk doctrine in general I dislike. GA worship, over-reliance on prayer and "spiritual" feelings, "Mormon-Gnosticism", the vagueness of the pre-mortal life, meddlesome leadership, to name a few.

>>7369

Not quite kabbalah because its not a rigorous study and has no texts, its not magic or a philosophy. Its literally just belief in supernatural beings that help people out now and then. Protestants don't really have an analogue for it so I'm not sure I can explain it.

I guess its kinda like the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus maybe? Except people actually believe in it. Let's end this here though before Pic related happens

>On this, why cant we remember the back then?

Kinda. I mean more like I would like more doctrine detailing how life was back then, and instead we have some confusing, vague and sometimes contradictory creation accounts, and not even that many. I'd just like to know more because then people start gnosticizing and being all "Oh this person and I were lovers in the pre-mortal life" "Oh God told me I was a blacksmith and my name was Jor-El and that's rad" and all I do is roll my eyes.

>do you go to hispa?

Aha. Hablas algo de espanol entonces me imagino. inb4 you are Venezuelan anon

'Sup saints of latter days. Presbyterian anon here, still investigating. Gonna catch up with the thread after Institute.

>>7400

Can't, I swore before God not to reveal it. It has nothing to do with your birth name, they are all Biblical names I think. Like many of these things, you could certainly find it on the internet, so its not secret really, God will just make me sorry for it if I personally tell it to you.

>should i post them too?

Yeah dude

>>7403

Glad to have you, anon. Feel free to comment and ask whatever questions you still have.

>>7399

>I still have my ups and downs with the church obviously, and its a down now,

What's got you down?

>>7422

Spiritual things, or rather, lack thereof. I basically have a very hard time experiencing such a thing, and its disheartening because its a pretty important part of the Gospel. I could usually be satisfied just studying doctrine and history, but there's only so much you can learn plus life takes me away from that often, then I get messed up with this stuff. Add to that the expectations from the other members regarding this stuff, and its just frustrating.

So I basically vacillate between feeling pretty good, good enough that I'm willing to give my pleasant feelings the benefit of the doubt and attribute them to the Spirit, and feeling sort of neutral, then bad and frustrated and angry at myself and the Church and God.

Then days like today that are just more…cold and apathetic. Days when I think very concretely and clearly that Joseph Smith was an opportunistic fraud, that Jesus was just one of the countless Jewish nationalist malcontent pseudo-philosophers of Roman Judea, and Paul a mirror image of Joseph Smith: a cult-leader who capitalized on the name of a dead man; and that God is a superstition.

So, you know, its not fun, but it happens and I'll bounce back, probably.

What Temple is that? The Layout looks like the Alaska Temple but those trees up front look Tropical.

>>7426

Sounds like you had a faith shattering experience.

>Then days like today that are just more…cold and apathetic. Days when I think very concretely and clearly that Joseph Smith was an opportunistic fraud, that Jesus was just one of the countless Jewish nationalist malcontent pseudo-philosophers of Roman Judea, and Paul a mirror image of Joseph Smith: a cult-leader who capitalized on the name of a dead man; and that God is a superstition.

Whoa, brother, you've forgotten the most important revelation of our time:

memes are magic.

These things are as real or as imaginary as you choose to make them. If you start thinking this way you will turn into miserable atheistic Jew. Except you won't be rich or have Jewish connections so it will actually be much much worse than being a Jew. Just a miserable atheist neet like smiley or illyrian, shitposting all day long. Fuck that. You do not want that life.

>What Temple is that?

Columbia, South Carolina.

Any of me fellow Mormons see any similarities between the Soviet Union and the Church?

Starts off hot with a young charismatic leader who defines the more idealistic side of the thing and brings in the numbers. Lenin and Joseph Smith.

After the death of this initial figure, he becomes idolized and his followers scramble to grab the throne. The ruthless, militant eccentric takes control and expands further on the doctrines while also bringing down all the ideology to earth with pragmatism. The thing flourishes under him, but his followers aren't able to replicate his rule with an iron first combined with extreme devotion from the adherents, he was like their Father. Brigham Young and Stalin.

Then you have the leaders in the post 1890 period, comparable to Brezhnev in a way: just trying to make amends with the situation outside of their control, making better relationships with the people around them and becoming even more pragmatic and distancing themselves from the boisterous, dramatic style of their predecessors. Everyone from John Taylor up until George Albert Smith could qualify.

Then the more moderate revisionists/reformists. Guys like David O. McKay and Spencer W. Kimball. They could be compared to Khrushchev. Drawing the Church away from the past and trying to meld it more with the rest of the world in order to make it survive and thrive, at the expense of doctrinal purity.

I'd say the leaders up until today would be similar to Brezhnev in a way, again, but also mixed with Gorbachev. Now they have to kowtow and deal with the outside/gentile world even more. The people themselves, meaning not the hierarchy, are clamoring for certain things outside the ideology and the leadership have to listen or loose them. Things are sort of coming apart at the seams and the older gents are doing all the diplomacy and political moves they can in order to save the ship. That, and the droning on and on of older gentlemen during church/state required speeches.

We know how things ended for the USSR? What could the Church do to avoid a similar fate?

>>7445

>Has this /fringe/ approach worked for you?

If you mean memeing something into reality then yes.

Abraham memed himself into being chosen by God, Jesus memed himself into being the Son of God, Paul memed himself into being chosen by God to structure early Christianity with his writings. Joseph Smith memed himself into a prophet.

Catholics meme the bread and wine into "real" flesh and blood every single week. That's hardcore meming.

If you meme yourself into a faithful Mormon, on a mission from God then that's what you are. Or you could meme yourself into someone who realizes that it's all bullshit and be miserable (like the Jews).

If you actually bother to look into the history of any religion and still expect to believe in it all afterwards, you're gonna have a bad time. Although Catholics seem to be able to ignore all the obvious bullshit from their religion somehow.

As for me, I'm on a mission from God to bag a hot young Mormon wife and have a shit ton of white Mormon kids. All I know is THANK GOD for Joseph Smith for making it all possible.

>>7569

>As for me, I'm on a mission from God to bag a hot young Mormon wife and have a shit ton of white Mormon kids.

Lel, you sound like me at the beginning. I honestly thought that would be enough, and that I never really needed to get into the other side of things because the material benefits of being in the Church were more than enough for me to be happy. Shame at some point the gaping hole in my heart started to make itself noticed again, and I thought that maybe the religion could be the thing to fill it, for real this time.

I guess that's why I love Joseph Smith so much, or one of the reasons anyway, we got more in common than I thought. That is, I got so wrapped up in the con that I started believing it myself.

Well, I hope there's more to life to it than that. I don't think I can "meme" myself into believing this (not to be a normie but I think the technical term is "lying to yourself") anymore, since when I did try that it just brought on a lot of heartache for me and others.

I'll stay in the church, I have no reason to leave. All the while I'll be trying to figure out what to do. I guess as long as I stay there's always hope. I'm inclined to agree with you that if I reject Mormonism and apply the same critical thinking skill to every other religion, I'll find them just as unsatisfying (that's been my experience so far).

"Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground."-President Joseph Fielding Smith

>>7573

>Shame at some point the gaping hole in my heart started to make itself noticed again, and I thought that maybe the religion could be the thing to fill it, for real this time.

It's because you aren't Mormoning right. You need to get married NOW. NOW DAMMIT NOW NOW NOW. thats what a Mormon would say right?

Don't you see we are all completely winging this whole Mormonism thing. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young left some impossibly big shoes to fill.

>I'm inclined to agree with you that if I reject Mormonism and apply the same critical thinking skill to every other religion, I'll find them just as unsatisfying (that's been my experience so far).

I'm telling you that every one of these religions is literally memeing itself into existence!

K, t.o.m., something that's been on my mind and has really effected my outlook on the Church. During sacrament meetings, will there ever be those learned members who will get up on the pulpit full of the Spirit and Steven Anderson-style preach deep things from the Bible and Book of Mormon? Or are they always sober, repetitive, business-like or feel-good talks about anecdotes or gospel principles literally everyone knows?

I don't know if it's just because I haven't been to enough sacrament meetings or been listening to enough LDS radio lately, but I've been kinda getting that latter day saint impression. I also hung out with some Mormon buddies to watch general conference earlier this month, and it was so explosively exciting that Jim and Scotty (the latter day saint an RM) started taking a nap and their girlfriends were in the corner off to the side working on a puzzle thing. I was about to take a nap myself.

Earlier on a couple years when I was more agnostic, it was actually the more sober Mormon talks that appealed to me because it was a breath of fresh air compared to bible-beating fundie lunatics I was so used to and the talks always seemed profound since the doctrine was completely new to me. Now that I'm familiar with the doctrine, though, it's beginning to grow stale.

>>7642

Nah, he was all for it. Remember that the Lamanites are truly israelites, and so are white beneath all that. In the 1830's Joseph Smith received a revelation that it was lawful and a form of proper proselytizing for LDS men to marry Indian women, thus redeeming their heritage. Brigham Young continued to encourage men to do this, although to my knowledge he never personally took an Indian wife.

Obviously a pairing of an Indian man and a white woman would be highly unlikely and definitely frowned upon unless the indian was already an LDS AND a proper priesthood holder, otherwise the children would be born dark, outside the covenant and you've just sullied a perfectly good white woman.

What's considered heresy in the LDS Church?

>>7752

>>7752

>tfw Baptists thinking he's any different than Mormons.

"And this, children, is how you achieve immortality. Its what Jebus wants, y'hear?"

>>7756

No quite an ad hominem, just straight up mockery. My responses here will usually be correspondent to the amount of effort perceived from the opposite party.

If you think that talking snake, global flood, stock miracle stories and resurrection are any more plausible than golden plates, pre-mortal life and angel apparitions, I've a word for you to look up on Websters:

Selective logic.

Also, this is 8chan. Please use webms.

>>7800

I wouldn't say most of it.

Almost of that can be supported by standard, approved Mormon religious texts. The things that are not, however are any of the polygamist aspects (this is all from the Journal of Discourses) and that thing about blacks.

That idea is not LDS canon, and I'm sure there's something about it in the JoD but the most solid doctrinal source I have for that is Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, who posed it as a theory. It gained significant acceptance after his son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie published Mormon Doctrine (mostly after the second edition) and the rest is history. Obviously the church has sort of backpedaled on a lot of that but there are still many people who believe it, though they might deny it publicly.

>>7803

They've been trying, honestly, but first you gotta understand something.

A lot of ex-mormons and anti-mormons (especially the ones who like to shill their own religion) are retarded in that they think the GA's are sitting around a table all day trying to figure out ways to fuck over the people. Its not like that. These old dudes grew up on this and they do actually believe in it, but at the same time they have to deal with all the shit normally swept under the rug.

Like you say, the internet shit on that rug and sets it on fire, and this is affecting all religions in the world, not just Mormonism. So the GA's have been authorizing these essays that deal with "touchy subjects" on LDS.org. Of course they don't advertise them much, no need for you to find out about stuff it its not an issue already, but then you can't say they aren't honest.

A lot of people *do* feel deceived however because the claims of the church seem to transform as you learn more about the history. First its "The prophets cannot lead you astray", then "Well, sometimes God will tell one prophet one thing then the opposite to another, that's fine", then "Look, prophets make mistakes, give the old lads a break eh?".

And then you wake up one day and you see that these prophets, seers and revelators haven't seen, revealed or prophetic anything meaningful since the Brigham Young days. That's when the rot sets in.

So, my guess is that the church will continue with this semi-honest approach until it figures out something else, or we all get forcibly converted to Islam.

>>7802

>beer

that's not very mormon!

>>7720

Alright, to be specific: between Lorenzo's Snow's Couplet (and other prophets confirming the doctrine) and the scriptures listed under the section "God, Eternal Nature of" in the Topical Guide, which one holds the most weight since they're both technically canon?

>>8024

This guy.

>>8055

>>8056

Thanks for the extremely autistic commentary.

>Btw, a couple sentences down in the same book it says not to eat meat except on Thanksgiving

Obvious lie.

11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving.

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

Unless you really think it's talking about the thanksgiving holiday in which case you are obviously retarded.

>>8059

>Fine, it's "with Thanksgiving"' but I liked my interpretation of "on Thanksgiving" better.

I'm sure you do but it doesn't make it any less retarded or false.

>Still doesn't change change the fact the book of Mormon tells you to be a quasi-vegetarian though.

First off, D&C is not even a part of the book of Mormon… It's almost like you are talking out of your ass. Also:

For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance D&C 49:19

It's perfectly fine to eat meat according to D&C.

I am an atheist who is looking for faith and community. Almost got sucked in by Mormonism after bumping into some missionaries in the street.

I gave them a chance because of their strong conservative values and morals, but I'm backing off because of the callings, 3 hour long + Sundays and the potential defooing of any new friends and family I would make. I was willing to ignore the Joseph Smith space religion shit and take it for what it currently is.

Sorry, but if I'm going to go to the terrestrial kingdom anyways, I'm not going to risk going all in on the celestial and apostatizing myself to the outer darkness when I inevitably get sick and tired of the bullshit the other Mormons will pressure me into.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Mormonism is true, basic game theory concludes that it's far safer for nobody to know the Mormon Jesus, because if they don't know him they'll go to the terrestrial kingdom regardless, which is basically tier 3 heaven. It's safer not to know than to know and doubt and end up in the outer darkness for it.

I haven't been baptized by them yet, but I gave them my address so they could give me a lift to the nearest church (which I cancelled). How fucked am I?

>Copied from /atheism/

Last week two Mormons that looked 16 and 14 dropped of the book of Mormon with a brochure, and promised to come back next week to answe any questions. When they came back I told them I had looked over the brochure and a bit of the book of Mormon, wasn't interested and didn't want to waste their time. As I was about to step back inside my place, the older one asked, Might I ask why?" I told him, "I don't like the idea I and my family will go to the outer darkness."

They said "That's deep doctrine. There's an explanation but its very complicated."

They then quickly gave me a confusing reply, part of which was that only those who fought God thousands of years ago will be sent there except they're gone and no longer have physical bodies. And also those who came before God in his glory and still rejected him.

I decided I could check on that later and decided to humor them by asking them where people go when they die then. Hell? So they scrambled to their car to get a brochure and hand me an lds.org card, so they could explain to me about how you either go to celestrial kingdom - (and become God according to deep doctrine), or go to heaven. But unlike other Christians when you die, you go to a kind of spiritual world that's like limbo where you have the opportunity to recognize God and still go to heaven.

I told them that was indeed an improvement and compared it favorably to mainstream Buddhism with its infinite chances at redemption. The older one said he knew nothing about Buddhism and asked me to explain it to him in case he talked to Buddhists. So ironically, I ended up lecturing the missionaries a little on the histories of other religions. It felt like I was preaching to the missionaries lol.

It's never a good idea to send teenagers who know little except Mormonism to proselytize to an older Atheist. They were mismatched, and they probably left questioning their beliefs more than the reverse.

Interestingly, the Mormon church's strategy can be deduced when that their brochure and arguments were geared towards converting Christians. There was no planning for the possibility I had studied other religions, was of some other persuasion, or had studied Christianity deeply.

Anyway, they told me if I read the book of Mormon and prayed I would have a spiritual feeling and proof as God came into my life. I told them I had tried that with Christianity and it didn't work, but unlike most people I asked for big things not small things, so I would have undeniable proof of a miracle.

I ended up countering their lines with a bunch of regular Atheistic arguments. I told them it didn't make sense that God would stand back and let his word be corrupted, and allow a great apostasy for 1800 years and then renew everything with Joesph Smith. Not when he could have just spoke with a booming voice from the heavens to all of us, to avoid drama, people going to hell, and us not understanding his word for that whole time.

The younger one looked at me with fiercely serious eyes and recited a long speech I couldn't follow. The older one was more relaxed though. He smiled and said "That kind of defeats the point of Christianity and having faith." You just had to be convinced God had a plan. I could see in his face that he was struggling with the depth and scope of my arguments.

Anyway, when I ultimately told them I had left Christianity because I thought it was as fake as the other religions, they seemed to immediately lose interest in a conversation that had been going for 15 minutes. We shook hands and they left. I don't think they will send any more missionaries or brochures.

But I do have a cool Book of Mormon to show for it, which I have put on a bookshelf next to my Coran. I'm on a quest to build a collection of religious texts now. Gotta catch them all.

I did told them I'd probably flip through it again for the sake of diligence, but frankly the book of Mormon has been a disappointment. The bible is way more readable and approachable, with comparatively interesting stories, and flowing with imagery directly from Genesis in less convoluted language. They badly need to make a non King James version of the Book of Mormon.

>>8274

No, although I do wish I came from a more restricted religion (preferably Family International), so I could tell better stories than the privileged Atheists who can whine about how "X" cult messed up their childhood/adolescence, but now life is so much better. They tend to score more friends.

I just find Mormonism interesting to study, and I am actually an ex-protestant. It's a religion everyone has heard something about, and which is recent enough that we still have the evidence to refute the deification of Joseph Smith. I think most Christians just dismiss Mormonism as a wacky cult, aren't interested enough to study it, and don't seriously try to refute it with arguments that wouldn't work against their own religion.

I've always been a little interested in it, at first because I wanted an argument for why polytheism wouldn't be good for society, and later because I visited Utah and caught a glimpse of their wealth and impressive facilities. My Christian family think Joseph Smith is burning in hell, and I like how ex-Mormons tend to share more extreme stories about life in Utah on the internet than most former protestants. It's like hearing someone recant a near-death experience, and now they're grateful to be alive, and take pleasure in the most simple pleasures like drinking tea without consequence.

There's lots of reasons for an Atheist to be interested in Mormonism, I've noticed a lot of Atheists enjoy name dropping Joseph Smith in debates to make points about how religions evolve, or human susceptibility even in modern times.

>>8277

I meant polygamy, not polytheism.

>>8273

>>8277

> There are a lot of lies everywhere

That's true, mainly from protestants and those who have their own myths to perpetuate. There's also a lot of truth, interestingly enough.

>It's like hearing someone recant a near-death experience

Utah Mormonism is closer to Islam in how all-encompassing it is within its given sphere of influence. Its everything and everywhere, and you can't play ball if you're not down with it, SLC being the only kind of exception.

>There's lots of reasons for an Atheist to be interested in Mormonism

You might like this then.

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2011/07/mormonism-as-hermetic-christianity-part.html

>>8274

Something like that. I was a namefag of some renown on /christian/ before it went to shit, and a good chunk of the posts on this thread are mine before I took a month off from all this.

>>8326

Damn dude you sound jaded as fuck. Sorry to hear that. I guess my experience is pretty different considering I just thought of the bible and the bom as myths from the very beginning.

That was sort of my impression of how Joseph Smith viewed the whole thing anyways. I wish he would have lived to expand on all the weird occult shit.

>>8329

>Christians weren't skeptical of books that began with totally new Moses stories?

Smith's reputation as a prophet was already established. If anything people would have questioned his role in the whole affair if he didn't produce new material.

> church was trying to distance itself from and found a crazy long rambling vision of the dead.

It wasn't that the church was trying to distance itself from anything, its the beginning of modern Mormonism. So, basically, back then, even the Brigham Young days, Mormons had to vote on revelation. Not just the leadership, but all people. That, of course, became just a formality over time how it is now, that the Prophet receives, the 12 support and the membership either takes it or leaves.

Nothing was hidden from anyone, but neither did anyone have a platform to voice objections and counter-revelations the way that members commonly did during the JS days. That's the issue with this.

Remember that Joseph F. Smith was the Prophet who had to usher the Church into not only America, but into a new, more secularized world. He was dealing with all sorts of doubts from disillusioned people who up until recently thought they were at war with America and God would destroy them utterly, not have the Yanks dominate them so completely like it happened. Add to that the Fundamentalists running rampant in Utah, still hot and strong and recruiting members, casting doubts upon the authenticity of this new Prophet who, while himself a polygamist in the past, had the nerve to deny the New and Everlasting Covenant necessary for Exaltation.

If Joseph F. Smith didn't reveal something, and if that wasn't 100% as good and valid as scripture, then what kind of a Prophet was he?

It seems like a no contest from the modern view when the LDS Church is a mainstream corporation the the Fundies are garage dwellers with ugly fucking wives, but back them Smith and the likes of Woolley were on much more equal footing, and the struggle for souls and membership was very real.

>>8335

LDS are the Roman Catholics of Mormonism. Just because they are "technically" the "true" descendants of the one Church reestablished by Joseph Smith. They are more cuckservative than they used to be because of modernism.

But let me tell you (like you don't know, kek) Joseph Smith probably carries way more emotional weight to Mormons than President Monson ever could. Grown men, women and little children cry because they love Joseph Smith, Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, not the modern Prophet.

I visited the poor people ward today so I got to see Mexicans cry about how much they loved Joseph Smith for an hour in Sacrament meeting. I think it would be really easy to meme the Church in a more Joseph Smith direction. He's just such a beloved person in Mormonism, like Mohamet to Moslems.

>>8344

>I think it would be really easy to meme the Church in a more Joseph Smith direction.

Sounds about right, although whether that will happen or not depends on the prime directive of this (and any other) church: to perpetuate its own existence.

Ever since Wooodruff, there's been a push and pull within the church, the Angel and the Beehive. A series of prophets that push the church into mainstream America and Christianity, and some that pull it back, depending on what they judge will help the church stay alive and gather numbers. Right now we've been pushed in since Benson, and its looking pretty shit considering how few people come in and how many leave.

Thomas S. Monson was a boss in his younger years, but no man can escape the ravages of time. He was already senile, getting Alzheimer and wearing dentures by the time Hinckley died. He used to say stuff like this, for example, regarding feminism.

>Such idiotic and blatantly false philosophy must not be entertained or believed. For God has spoken. Indeed, he has spoken in a voice clearly understood by those who have ears to hear and hearts that know and feel.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/01/the-womens-movement-liberation-or-deception?lang=eng

Joseph Smith will always be loved more because firstly he's been white washed to hell and back, and most people don't know how he actually was (I respect him more as an incredible conman than Jesus Junior tbh). And secondly, he was young, brash, full of spunk and vitality, issuing revelation on the regular that changed everything, a living conduit to God. Thomas S. Monson (and some others) are the "technical difficulties" slide of Prophets, its what we get until someone more "Smith like" comes along, if ever.

>>8430

Bro, seriously, go tell that shit to the CoC, the UAB, or the Snufferites (if there are any left after he got the ax). If you want to have a /fringe/ tier view of the religion, that's fine. but let's not pretend that you can alter the bulk of Mormonism just by expressing your eccentric and frankly sort of retarded opinion about it. This is a top down institution and will continue to be. The only way to change it is to reach the top echelon of the hierarchy.

I don't really have any interest in deluding myself into thinking anything other than what material evidence can prove about Joseph Smith, Jesus or God. I highly doubt you express yourself in this manner in front of your congregation if you actually have any intention of reaping the very palpable material benefits of belonging to the LDS church. If you did, you'd most assuredly not receive them, and if you don't, well, congrats I suppose on being not entirely dissimilar to Joseph Smith.

>>8433

>Don't tell me you abandoned spiritual Mormonism for materialistic Mormonism!

I joined purely for material reasons. Tried to get into the spiritual, worked for a while, fell apart, got disillusioned and now I'm back to square one.

Why are *you* a Mormon if you're so acutely aware that its factually untrue? Even /fringe/ characters sincerely believe in their magick/gnostic/hermetic endeavors

>Sound familiar? Yeesh, how does a supposed Mormon have such little faith and imagination?

I understand what you initially proposed and I'm telling you it is highly unlike. If you are familiar with the history of Joseph Smith, then you understand that you are not in anywhere near close the same situation as he was when it comes to creating your own church or even diverting people from others. Mainly, Joseph was facing an unorganized, low-liturgical, highly individualistic Protestantism. Modernism is the exact opposite of this. I can say with confidence I'm the most well read person on this board on the subject of Mormonism, possibly on all of 8chan.

What is your goal anyway? Do you just intent to brainwash yourself into "spiritually" enjoying Mormonism genuinely (and by that I mean like the average member, not this "meme" /fringe/ stuff) , or to follow in Joseph's footsteps and modify and existing religion to suit your purposes and desires?

>>4404

>>4404

>Supposedly, you feel a burning in the bosom, and a sense of peace of mind and surety come over you, and that's how you know. I could only tell you here-say since its only happened once to me, and I even doubt that sometimes.

Fucking holy shit. Unironically, after I read some of the book of Mormon, I saw a vision of Christ and then had this sensation you just described.

yfw Mormonism is real

>>8465

>>8465

>you would use those feelings to say Buddhism was real.

>yfw Mormonism is real

You're welcome.

Take 15 minutes of your time when you get the chance and go to /fringe/. Don't post, its a waste of time, they'll likely not respond unless you already know a lot about magic and hermiticism and stuff. But, its fascinating to see what these people think is dead ass reality just based on feelings, dreams. It blows the ridiculous claims of organized religion straight out of the water with even less evidence or any attempt to prove shit. Intense shit.