What do you think of Mormons?
Following the death of the president of the LDS church (Prophet) Gordon Hinckley, along with the controversy of the campaign of Gov. Mitt Romney, the world more or less has its eyes on the Mormon faith. The Mormons are seen by the outside world in a strange manner; it seems people either misinterpret their personal doctrines and beliefs or are completely misinformed of their practices entirely.
So, what do you think of the Mormons?
So, what do you think of the Mormons?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jamie a.k.a. Slightly-Mad Science on
-
Religion, huh? That's a good way to start a flame war. :D
With respect to Mormons specifically, I'd just say that the very public affairs of the FLDS groups (even though the LDS church proper is not affiliated with them) will likely stain the view of many who don't personally know Mormons or are familiar with their beliefs. It's created an association in their minds that will be difficult to dispel.
In general, I think all religions have their good and bad sides, as do their members. The larger the religion, the greater the scale and variety. I think everyone has their right to believe what they like, as long as they don't infringe on others rights or take advantage/abuse others that cannot defend themselves. I think some faiths have better histories than others. For example, I've never heard of a Buddhist or B'ahai killing others or blowing people up over their faith (yet)...Christianity and Islam can not say that. But you never know when a "true believer" of anything (religious or not) will justify acts against others in the name of a idea.
If they leave me alone to not agree with them, I'll leave them alone to not agree with me. If they try to restrict my right to change any aspect of my life in accordance with theirs, I'll stand for my rights.
Dunno if that's what you're looking for, but that's my two cents (adjusted for inflation).
-
Permalink Reply by Henroshi on -
Well I was looking for your opinion on Mormons as opposed to a synopsis of religion in general, but that's alright, you made some good insights and I highly respect that. Also thanks for addressing the FLDS, I almost forgot about that issue.
The way Mormon church history is taught is either very informative or edited for certain content to an extent. I forgive the head historians for suggesting certain parts of the history be left out of general lessons given in Sunday school/seminary, because 1) if those said questionable parts were taught to those who do not have the ability to judge with both adamancy AS WELL AS arbitration those certain objectionable things they have found of their own faith, this content would put their faith in question and they would be against it; and 2) they don't censor the content to the point that they burn the objectionable parts of the records out of the archives. Much like removing misinformation about the LDS faith to begin with, finding untaught aspects of the church's history is as easy as seeking after it yourself. Young members of the church are taught nothing in seminary about Orrin Porter Rockwell, the notorious gunman that was believed to be a hired assassin for the church and personal bodyguard to Joseph Smith, Jr. But as I said, due to the nature of his character, it was probably suggested that he not be mentioned in the prepared lessons. Anyway, that's all I can really find that could even be interpreted as wrong that the leaders of the church do. Everything else just seems generated by misinterpretations and misinformation.
-
-
The Mormons don't seem to have much of a presence in the public eye outside of communities where they're in large numbers. The exception is rumor, ungrounded speculation, satire, and the periodic presence of missionaries. I have made a study of religions in general, but was previously raised Southern Baptist. What they said about the Mormons was clearly intended to paint a negative picture.
The history you refer to is taught within the LDS church, and is not really common knowledge. And it's understandable for a faith that has it's questionable elements to be "left out" of the curriculum. Most teachers within faith are not quick to point out their flaws or question themselves openly. You wouldn't see the Catholics teaching in depth about the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades during Catechism. From my personal observations, most within faiths are quite content to receive what's been handed down by their elders/priests/teachers. Fewer are those who actively seek outside the "mainstream" teachings and/or question what's been handed down.
Sorry about the general nature of some of my statements, but there are many commonalities between faiths - and those traits I felt relevant I didn't want to imply were solely the realm of the LDS. And all I state isn't fact, but essentially observation and "opinion".
-
Permalink Reply by Henroshi on
-
I've heard there's a great disagreement between Southern Baptists and LDS. I've never understood what they have against the Mormons. If it's at all possible, I'd like to find out exactly why, and how they justify such a bitter attitude towards an "opposing" faith.
Also, just so I can get an idea of this picture, what things (not just negative, but I don't expect a whole lot more than that) did they say about LDS?
Oh yes, and on the subject of questioning what's been handed down, in seminary the youth have always been taught that Joseph Smith, Jr. once ran for President of the United States. However, I have found no outside historical evidence to support this, I've heard no slight mention of it from the high authorities of the church, and there are no records of him ever being a recognized candidate. I can't say that it's a lie, but then again I can't really say it's true. But it does sound just like one of those things some member of the LDS faith decided to make up one day for no good reason.
-
-
One thing about the Southern Baptists churches I went to that indulged in a rather extreme version of something I see in many religions. They want to discourage looking at other religions, otherwise they may lose some of their faithful to a "competitor".
Examples from mine:
"The Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, Jesus was the last prophet, so they're all going to hell."
"The Catholics venerate saints and have statues of Christ, that's idolotry, and so they're all going to hell."
"Jews don't believe Christ is the messiah, so they're all going to hell."
"Jehova's witnesses believe that some of them will get to be gods themselves...that's blasphemy, so they're all going to hell."
Notice a pattern? Despite the fact that a human being could never know if someone's going to hell or not - or quite frankly - if hell even exists as a fact rather than faith. People frequently misconstrue reality to fit their own prejudices. If a pastor believed that Baptists were "the right" religion, he felt justified in demonizing all others, because if he's right, everyone else has to be wrong somehow - it's an easy way to make you feel secure. Pluralism is too difficult a concept for someone like that to handle.
-
Permalink Reply by Henroshi on
-
That sounds an awful lot like what politicians do--instead of creating appeal to their own station, all they have the capacity to do is make the other candidates look worse. Once observed, that logic seems utterly upside-down. Why must we change the views on every other religion just to make ours look better, when we could just make ours look better by not only creating genuine appeal for it, but by not putting other religions down? This is not a direct opposition to everything the Baptist faith stands for, but I cannot believe that a religion is true if it uses prejudices as a tool for their denominational appeal.
- "The Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet; Jesus was the last prophet, so they're all going to Hell." Aside from the fact that no one is going to Hell for believing in something as harmless as that, Mormon doctrine justifies this belief. According to the Doctrine and Covenants (the written revelations of the earliest latter-day prophets) the two Priesthoods (Levitical* & Melchizedek) was restored to the Earth after being taken away for thousands of years. I don't remember the exact recalling of it, just that two of the disciples of Christ, who held the keys to the Priesthood came down to Earth and laid their hands upon Joseph Smith, Jr. and two of his closest advisers (who I forget the names of at this present time), giving them the Keys. This gave the church leaders the authority to ordain Joseph Smith, Jr. as a living prophet. Other than that, the Mormons do not refer to Jesus Christ as a "prophet". He was more than that. Prophets were/are people who testified of Christ and gave ordinance and commandments to the children of Israel as an agent of the Creator. Christ however, was the Savior of all mankind, the Son of God. Certainly he had the same authority to perform "miracles" just as the prophets did/do, but He had so much more power than that. Anyway, that's all about personal belief. There's a better way to explain it to a person who's familiar with the in-depth explanation of the way the ranks and files of the Holy Order of the Priesthood works, but take it as somewhat of a hierarchal tower in which the highest authorities still have the power and ability of the lower authorities. Christ is the highest authority (second only to our Heavenly Father, who has supreme infinite power), followed by the Holy Ghost, then the 12 Disciples, then the Prophet, then the Angels & Apostles, followed by the high Quorum, then stake Presidents, followed by ward Bishops and their clerks and counselors, then High Priests, followed by Elders, which is then followed by Priests, and then Teachers, and finally Deacons. I have a strickening feeling I didn't really need to explain it that much, but you get the idea.
- "The Catholics venerate saints and have statues of Christ; that's idolatry, and so they're all going to Hell." Another word on the "they're all going to Hell" statement: Why would they all go to Hell? Not every single Catholic (and there are several dozen million) is building statues and making stain-glass windows portraying the saints. Not being Catholic myself I'm not sure what their best explanation against that is, all I know is, it's more of an artistic thing than a strictly religious thing. Religious art I find is some of the best art in the world. That's one of the reasons I choose to be religious, because, if the ideas built upon theology can inspire people to make artwork that influential and that stunningly beautiful, there's got to be something undeniably good about this whole God thing. And I'm not talking about paintings and sculptures. I'm also talking about music. Some of the greatest music of all time was written because of "inspiration from Heaven". If Handel's Messiah is idolatry, then all church hymns are devilspawn, and I refuse to believe in such nonsense.
-
Permalink Reply by Henroshi on
-
- "Jews don't believe Christ is the Messiah, so they're all going to Hell." What does that matter? They still believe in a Messiah anyway, and of his brilliant powers of healing afflictions and calming the tempered elements, so why would they go to Hell? What does it matter whether or not he's already come or if he's coming again?
- "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that some of them will get to be Gods themselves; that's blasphemy, so they're all going to Hell." The Jehovah's Witnesses borrowed this idea from Mormonism in the first place. And our explanation for that is, we are God's children. He achieved glory, and we wanted that glory too, so He sent us all to earth to prove our worthiness of the gift of Godhood. Anyway, my only problem with the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they say that only 12,000 will be saved. They have over 12,000 members, so I reckon they have some explaining to do about that.
*The Levitical Priesthood is more commonly referred to by Mormons as the Aaronic Priesthood. It's the same thing though, and I prefer using the older more proper term for it.
-
Permalink Reply by Indur Dawndeath on -
Just to clarify, the Jehovah's Witnesses in no way believe that they can become gods. That's one of the doctrines of the Church they generally (at least in my encounters with them) criticise most. It's also incorrect to say that they believe only 12,000 will be saved. What I've been told by Witnesses themselves is that they believe 144,000 will have a place in heaven with God; the rest of the righteous will live on a paradisiacal earth.
-
Permalink Reply by Eviscerus on -
I personally think all religious sects are misguided, but that people who believe that there's an invisible man in the sky making things with a snap of the finger call a group who believe almost the same thing but with someone else as their prophet crazy is laughable at best.
I will say this, from what I have heard (and it could be wrong, but I'm supposing it's right since I heard it from Mormons) that there are some glaring holes and oddities in the mormon faith I find interesting.
Let's start with the golden tablets.
I'm going to draw a vague corollary here: golden calf... golden tablets?... I'm just trying to say that god isn't one (historically speaking) to give people golden objects, it's really not his "style"
Second off, why is it only the prophets are allowed to see them? If they exist, what's the harm in showing them to others of the faith? Seems a bit sly if you ask me.
Second let's go with the Angel of Light...
This is the angel that gave Joseph Smith the tablets... now if you look at that, the Angel of Light, also callled the Morningstar... also called Lucifer. Maybe my angelology is off, but I don't think it is there. No one questioned this? The angel that gave Joseph Smith is Lucifer, ya know, Satan, odd if you ask me.
Not attacking your faith my friend, I'm just pointing out the oddities I've seen. Feel free to prove them wrong, if you can, like I said, I might have been misinformed.
One question though... what's with the Holy undergarments? I find that a bit laughable.
-
Permalink Reply by Eviscerus on
-
*gave the tablets to Joseph Smith is Lucifer... sorry had to fix my typo, lol
-
Permalink Reply by Henroshi on
-
The "golden tablets" (we refer to them more often as the Golden Plates FYI) were actually mostly made of brass and stone. To say they were pure gold is simply inaccurate. I don't even know if any part of those records were made of gold. According to Joseph Smith's records, they had "the appearance of gold", but that's about it.
And not just Joseph Smith had seen them. He has written account and witness of at least 11 other men that had seen them, felt them, even studied them, and knew without a doubt that they were real. However, the Plates attracted a lot of attention from treasure hunters, radicals, and just a lot of people who thought Joseph Smith was a devil worshiper who didn't deserve to find such a valuable ancient artifact. According to history, as a cautionary stance against the unwanted attention Joseph Smith so commonly got, after translating them, he gave them back to the angel, who then took them to heaven, or so it is written.
As for the Angel of Light, you are radically misinformed. First of all, Satan (once called Lucifer) no longer has the authority to appear unto men and administer information.
The angel you are referring to was actually named Moroni. He was the last prophet to walk the new world (before Joseph Smith of course), and he personally abridged many of the records that are in the Book of Mormon, which were translated from the Plates.
As for the holy undergarments, I am totally stumped about that. It's one thing I've never understood, nor have I been taught that much about it. But from what I imagine, it's one thing that slipped out about our faith that honestly doesn't deserve as much attention as it's getting.
-
Permalink Reply by Eviscerus on
-
wait a second, this Moroni was an angel and a prophet? I never heard of anything like that. I figured being a prophet was strictly for humans.
So okay, if this Angel did walk the earth and was a prophet, let me ask you a question, why is it that we see no angels today walking the earth? You'd think that fantastical creatures could live today, and not be solely in the realm of history.
One good answer to the first question is that humans would slaughter them for being not only a walking poster for a religion not liked or followed by everyone, and also for being something alien to ourselves. Humans are the most xenophobic creatures ever created, it's no wonder all the fantastical creatures have gone into hiding, hehe.
Seriously though you think the giant Nephilim at least would be able to handle us and would have stuck around.
© 2009 Created by TheNinja
