Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:13 am

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:36 am
Posts: 571
Location: Hangin' with the cool kids. Am I cool yet?
Droideka wrote:
Didymus wrote:
That's confusing. You don't want to know what they believe, but what their beliefs are?


I think she wants to know what a Mormon's beliefs are from a Mormon, not from a secondary source. (That's how I took it)


Indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Didy's right, I am Mormon. And so is Stu. The actual name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but I'll answer to Mormon.

PieMax wrote:
I've always been curious about something.
What do mormon's believe?
I want to hear from someone who's trully mormon.
I've only heard from non-mormons what they believe.


I appreciate that, PieMax. A lot of people are fine with getting information about religious beliefs from non-members of that faith.

What exactly do you want to know? I guess to start off, here are a few things we believe:

1. We believe in God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. We believe they are three distinct personages and that we're created after the image of God.

2. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and that he died for all our sins. We believe that without Him, no one could ever be saved.

3. We believe the Bible is the word of God.

4. We believe in all the prophets of the Old and New Testament. We also believe that God has called prophets in our day, too. We believe Joseph Smith is a prophet that God chose to help us know God's will. We also believe that there is a prophet today.

5. We also believe in the Book of Mormon, another Testament of Jesus Christ. Like the Bible was written by prophets in and around Jerusalem, the Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets in the Americas. These prophets knew about Jesus and taught the people there about Him centuries before He was born. We believe He also visited the people in the Americas after His resurrection. A prophet (who was also a historian) named Mormon took all the writings of these people and compiled them into one book, which is why we call it The Book of Mormon.

5. We believe in the importance of families. We believe that families can live together even after death.


Those are just a few things. If you (or anyone) has any specific questions, feel free to ask.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Quote:
1. We believe in God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. We believe they are three distinct personages and that we're created after the image of God.

And it's here that we orthodox disagree. If Jesus Christ is a created being, as you seem to assert, then he is not truly divine in any real sense. It is no different than the teachings of Arius that were condemned by the Church in the early centuries, particularly at Nicea. And yet, throughout the New Testament, Jesus claimed to be the ego eimi, the great "I Am."

While the orthodox understanding of the Trinity (as expounded by the Athanasian Creed) is very challenging, it is also the one explanation that takes into account all that Jesus claimed about himself. This is why we orthodox proclaim the mystery of the Trinity and dislike attempts to simplify it or diminish it: it speaks of the divine nature of God that transcends human understanding.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:18 pm
Posts: 2150
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow...
1 WE BELIEVE in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2 WE BELIEVE that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

3 WE BELIEVE that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 WE BELIEVE that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5 WE BELIEVE that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6 WE BELIEVE in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7 WE BELIEVE in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8 WE BELIEVE the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9 WE BELIEVE all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10 WE BELIEVE in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11 WE CLAIM the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12 WE BELIEVE in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13 WE BELIEVE in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

These are our Articles of Faith, our beliefs in a bundle. If you have any questions about the church, you can most likely find the answer here as long as you read each one carefully. Read them carefully and you will have your answers pertaining to what we believe. If you have a question about our beliefs that needs an answer and you can't find it here. Ask me, I will be more than glad to assist you in finding the answer. If you have a question about us Mormons that doesn't really relate to our beliefs, I will also be glad to help.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:23 am
Posts: 1132
Location: Accepting CHAAALLLEEENGEEESSS! with the Kool-Aid Man.
So basically you believe in what lots of different denominations believe except with the addition and ripping-away of somethings. I think I'll start a similar thread about my denomination, oooh gettin' luckeee toooniite!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 1:35 am
Posts: 480
Location: Planet Wombax
StrongRad wrote:
With any luck, our country will be run by a Mormon, too (and that's good news, because all we have to do is add one letter to those "Our president is a moron" banners that people have).

ROMNEY 08!


LOL! Funniest thing I've heard all day :P

And you can add me to the list of Mormons here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Quote:
So basically you believe in what lots of different denominations believe except with the addition and ripping-away of somethings.


Um, what? Let me try to translate:

"You guys believe some stuff other churches believe and some stuff other churches don't believe."

Thanks for the insight, there. I think.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:34 am
Posts: 318
Oooo me! Memememe!! I'm Mormon! :mrgreen:

It sure is interesting what people have to say about us...

Oh, and I just so happen to go to the best school in Idaho. (BYU Idaho! w00t!) ^____^

_________________
Oh STEVEN! I think this may finally be it you guys! After 200 hundred emails I'm finally gonna get to make out with da-da-da DEAR HOMESTAR?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:18 pm
Posts: 2150
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow...
Wow!! There are quite a few Mormons on the forums! And yah' Groovy Dudette, it is interesting to hear what people have to say about us. I was on vacation a little while back and someone asked me if we Mormons all had little horns on our head!! I was like, "Do you think we have little horns on our heads?" She was like, "Uhmm,...No, I just heard that you did." I then said,"Next time you here something bad about anyone, ask yourself, is this possible or is this something that is really stupid and just made up to put someone down, usually if you ask yourself this kinda' stuff you will have your answer." She took it really well. :mrgreen:

After this little expierence, everytime I get asked something that is false about us and our beliefs, I ask them their own question. 90% of the time it works, and they realize how stupid it was that they even thought it might be true for one second.

Anyways...I'm rambling once again! =P

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:34 am
Posts: 318
MooKoo wrote:
Wow!! There are quite a few Mormons on the forums! And yah' Groovy Dudette, it is interesting to hear what people have to say about us. I was on vacation a little while back and someone asked me if we Mormons all had little horns on our head!!


I've heard of that rumor too. Not sure what to make of that one O___o;;
I mean really...that's just about as random as you can get. "So you're a Mormon...hmmm...lesse...that must mean you have horns!"

...I'm reeeeeeally curious as to how that rumor started O_o;;;

_________________
Oh STEVEN! I think this may finally be it you guys! After 200 hundred emails I'm finally gonna get to make out with da-da-da DEAR HOMESTAR?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:11 pm 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
Groovy Dudette wrote:
MooKoo wrote:
Wow!! There are quite a few Mormons on the forums! And yah' Groovy Dudette, it is interesting to hear what people have to say about us. I was on vacation a little while back and someone asked me if we Mormons all had little horns on our head!!


I've heard of that rumor too. Not sure what to make of that one O___o;;
I mean really...that's just about as random as you can get. "So you're a Mormon...hmmm...lesse...that must mean you have horns!"

...I'm reeeeeeally curious as to how that rumor started O_o;;;


My guess is that someone confused Mormons and Vikings.. Even then, it's probably not right

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:58 am
Posts: 3489
Location: Anywhere but here.
StrongRad wrote:
My guess is that someone confused Mormons and Vikings.. Even then, it's probably not right


I take it you've never heard of the Mormon Vikings. DO YOUR RESEARCH. lol j/k j/k no ban plz

(Actually, the real Vikings, IIRC, didn't have horns on their helmets. I know you were joking, obviously (and found it to be very funny!), I just like sharing little trivia bits like that.)

As for Mormons, I haven't really formed much of an opinion on them. All I know is that, while I disagree strongly with some of their beliefs, all the Mormons on this forum seem like nice people. (Then again, so do most of the other people on this forum. ;))

EDIT: For...educational purposes, here is a rare photograph of a Mormon Viking.

Image

(NOTE: Mandy apologizes for anyone she offended with this picture.)

_________________
Image


Last edited by Shippinator Mandy on Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:59 pm 
I think that mormonism is probably the most ethical religion. I have a book of mormon in my room right this minute! I've gone to mormon churches, and they're truly cool people. Too bad my friend Nate, who is a mormon, moved to Utah. :-|


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
The Joe wrote:
I think that mormonism is probably the most ethical religion.


I guess that depends on your take on ethics and the individual Mormons you encounter. BYU is criticized by people outside the church and school for its strict guidelines on dress code and behavior.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
People say the same thing about the Citadel Military Academy. My answer: if you think the place is too strict, don't go there. The last time I checked, BYU still had students, so there must be some people who don't mind the strictness.

Mormonism is a very ethical religion. The only problem is that religion isn't always about ethics.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:18 pm
Posts: 2150
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow...
The Articles of Faith are our beliefs, all of our ethnic standards are set by the First Presidency. These standards are to help us lead a good life and have many blessings. Think about it, we don't have all of these standards for no reason. We keep our hair trimmed nice and neat, not all over the place and dyed blue, green, and pink! Simply because people will treat you better if you don't have a wild look. Yes, that is true. And for all of you people that think you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, I agree 100%, but we can't always wait for the good of people to come around, 95% of people will judge you by your appearance. So we dress nicely and modestly.

I'm trying to make a point, but I'm not sure if I am going about it the correct way. The above is an example that we are not an Ethnical Religion, but we just want to be treated with respect. Ya' know what I mean? Here something else:

There are many things that we are kinda' strict about, a lot of people believe that we have this thing about caffeine, it is true. We don't drink it if possible because it is an addicting drug. If you don't believe me, go without a caffinated drink for a week. It's hard. We can drink it, its not a sin, but we are advised not too. All of these things are for our benefit, but we don't fret over them if we go against what we have been advised not to do.

There are a few things though that we do fret over. The biggest being Chaste. Which means to be Morally clean. Others include smoking, drinking, and drugs.

It's hard for non-members to understand some of this stuff, becuase we have a different plan of salvation then pretty much all other religions. And that's where all of this Ethnic stuff comes from overall.

Are we going to Hell because we did this, or are we going to heaven because we didn't? That's where all of the ethnic stuff comes from and it's not right! Well, I guess you could argue otherwise, but you have to understand what we belive to be the "Plan of Salvation" to understand, why we have all of these ethnic standards.

I don't wish to be proceliting to you guys and gals, but I just want to try and set some of the facts straight.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Well, the plan of Salvation laid out by Scripture is basically (to use Luther's summary):

Quote:
I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord. Who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned person, purchased and won me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil; not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, that I may be His own and live under Him in His kingdom and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, just as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 8:18 pm
Posts: 2150
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow...
Image

This is an outline of our "Plan of Salvation". We have this through Modern Day Revalation. As you can see, there is more to just Heaven and Hell. This isn't an exact diagram, but it adds the point that I am trying to make.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
MooKoo wrote:
The above is an example that we are not an Ethnical Religion...

...And that's where all of this Ethnic stuff comes from overall.

...

That's where all of the ethnic stuff comes from and it's not right! Well, I guess you could argue otherwise, but you have to understand what we belive to be the "Plan of Salvation" to understand, why we have all of these ethnic standards.


Ethic, not ethnic. Sorry--once I can forgive, but a chronic typo like that I felt compelled to point out.

But to toastpaint: I've heard a couple rumors myself that I'd like some help validating/dispelling. Namely, I hear that certain things the Church of LDS has strictly forbidden in the past (such as caffeine) are things they lighten up on whenever they invest in stock that promotes such things (such as Coca-Cola). To me, that sounds really fishy and more like you're trying to make a buck instead of being concerned about what you believe will help save your soul.

Another rumor I heard is that Mormons, while it is openly known their stance against homosexuality, will occassionally treat some gay members of their church to shock therapy to try to make them straight.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Yeah, well I don't find this "modern day" revelation very trustworthy. Particularly since it introduces a lot of very odd concepts, such as God needing a wife, and doesn't anywhere make Jesus the key to escaping judgment.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:34 am
Posts: 318
PianoManGidley wrote:
MooKoo wrote:

Another rumor I heard is that Mormons, while it is openly known their stance against homosexuality, will occassionally treat some gay members of their church to shock therapy to try to make them straight.


I have NEVER heard of that before O_o

_________________
Oh STEVEN! I think this may finally be it you guys! After 200 hundred emails I'm finally gonna get to make out with da-da-da DEAR HOMESTAR?!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Quote:
Yeah, well I don't find this "modern day" revelation very trustworthy. Particularly since it introduces a lot of very odd concepts, such as God needing a wife, and doesn't anywhere make Jesus the key to escaping judgment.


Do you feel that the very idea of "modern day" revelation is completely unnecessary? Or do you just disagree with what we believe has been revealed?

And regarding "God needing a wife" I have never heard that taught exactly in that way. In fact, I've never heard any leader in my church teach that. It is generally believed, but it's not something we find essential to salvation.

What exactly do you mean by "escaping judgment"? We believe that we will still be judged, but due to Christ's merits and atonement, as well as our own repentance and acceptance of Christ, we can be found worthy and clean before God.

Quote:
But to toastpaint: I've heard a couple rumors myself that I'd like some help validating/dispelling. Namely, I hear that certain things the Church of LDS has strictly forbidden in the past (such as caffeine) are things they lighten up on whenever they invest in stock that promotes such things (such as Coca-Cola). To me, that sounds really fishy and more like you're trying to make a buck instead of being concerned about what you believe will help save your soul.

Another rumor I heard is that Mormons, while it is openly known their stance against homosexuality, will occassionally treat some gay members of their church to shock therapy to try to make them straight.


Regarding caffeine: The LDS church does not forbid its members from drinking it and it never has. I've heard rumors that the church owns stock in Coke, but I've never seen it proven.

I've also never heard of shock therapy being used by the church in its official capacity to treat homosexuality. I'm not saying it's never happened, especially because back in the 50's and 60's that kind of stuff happened quite a bit all over the place, but I'd be very surprised if it had been condoned by the church any time in the last 20 years.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
lahimatoa wrote:
Do you feel that the very idea of "modern day" revelation is completely unnecessary? Or do you just disagree with what we believe has been revealed?

I'm saying that so-called "modern day revelation" is not to be trusted if what it reveals is contrary to the Scriptures themselves.

Quote:
And regarding "God needing a wife" I have never heard that taught exactly in that way. In fact, I've never heard any leader in my church teach that. It is generally believed, but it's not something we find essential to salvation.

I was only going by the chart Mookoo posted. It says right there on that "plan of salvation" that God has a wife.

Quote:
What exactly do you mean by "escaping judgment"? We believe that we will still be judged, but due to Christ's merits and atonement, as well as our own repentance and acceptance of Christ, we can be found worthy and clean before God.

By "escaping judgment," I meant "escaping condemnation." Imprecise terminology: my apologies. Again, I was going by that chart Mookoo posted.

But there is one thing I do find interesting about that chart: it doesn't mention other Christians. So, what does the LDS Church have to say about other Christians?

Quote:
Regarding caffeine: The LDS church does not forbid its members from drinking it and it never has. I've heard rumors that the church owns stock in Coke, but I've never seen it proven.

That is a rumor I had heard before. But, then again, if the LDS does not condemn the use of caffeine, then what difference does it make whether they own Coke stock? That would be like complaining about a Lutheran owning a brewery.

I do seem to remember Mookoo making a remark earlier about drinking. I wonder, what does the LDS teach about moderate alcohol use.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Quote:
I'm saying that so-called "modern day revelation" is not to be trusted if what it reveals is contrary to the Scriptures themselves.


Fair enough. Though personally, I've seen so many different interpretations of Bible scripture that I'm not sure how people can ascertain exactly what contradicts the Scriptures.

Quote:
I was only going by the chart Mookoo posted. It says right there on that "plan of salvation" that God has a wife.


Oh, right. Well, that chart is not official church doctrine... just a tool to help people understand what we believe about the purpose of life.

Quote:
But there is one thing I do find interesting about that chart: it doesn't mention other Christians. So, what does the LDS Church have to say about other Christians?


First of all, Joseph Smith once said (paraphrased) "We do not ask people to leave the truth they have. We invite them to bring it with them and add to it." We believe there is a lot of truth out there among all the different Christian churches. The thing that separates the LDS church from other churches is authority. We believe that people need to be baptized by someone who has the authority from God to do so in order for it to be valid. We also believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only church with that authority or priesthood. I realize this is a point many take offense at, but it is our belief all the same.

So in answer to your question, those who are not baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ by the correct authority will not be able to live with God again. All will have the opportunity to accept this if they want to, whether alive or dead.

Quote:
I do seem to remember Mookoo making a remark earlier about drinking. I wonder, what does the LDS teach about moderate alcohol use.


The church forbids even moderate alcohol use and smoking. Joseph Smith asked the Lord about smoking in 1833 and received a revelation now known as the Word of Wisdom. It forbids the drinking of alcohol and smoking of tobacco. It also encourages the use of grains and fruit and other healthy eating decisions.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Then I wonder what the Father thought of Jesus' use of wine, of his creation of wine at the Wedding of Cana, and his subsequent use of wine in the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Communion. If alcohol use is indeed a sin, then Jesus is a sinner.

Quote:
Fair enough. Though personally, I've seen so many different interpretations of Bible scripture that I'm not sure how people can ascertain exactly what contradicts the Scriptures.

I think the Nicene, Apostolic, and Athanasian Creeds do a pretty good job of it. Other than that, I'd have to say I've seen plenty of misinterpretations of Scripture that seem to cause a great deal of the confusion you speak of. I, like Luther before me, do not believe the Scriptures themselves are so obscure as to be beyond understanding, only that there are some people who, not knowing them as well as they should, or who, instead of submitting to its truth, twist what it says to suit their agendas or ideals. The solution: study the text. The whole text. Consult original languages to clarify ambiguities. I find that helps tremendously.

Quote:
First of all, Joseph Smith once said (paraphrased) "We do not ask people to leave the truth they have. We invite them to bring it with them and add to it."

In that case, why doesn't the LDS simply accept the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds?

Quote:
We believe that people need to be baptized by someone who has the authority from God to do so in order for it to be valid. We also believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only church with that authority or priesthood. I realize this is a point many take offense at, but it is our belief all the same.

So basically, you're saying that the church during the 1800 years prior to Joseph Smith was not authorized to baptize? And if that is not the case, then why should we orthodox Christians trust that this Joseph Smith and the LDS Church's authority now supersedes the authority once given to us?

Quote:
So in answer to your question, those who are not baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ by the correct authority will not be able to live with God again. All will have the opportunity to accept this if they want to, whether alive or dead.

I have been baptized in the name of the Triune God, and not into the LDS. Are you claiming that my baptism is not valid, even though it is the same baptism that our Lord gave to the Apostles?

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Quote:
Then I wonder what the Father thought of Jesus' use of wine, of his creation of wine at the Wedding of Cana, and his subsequent use of wine in the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Communion. If alcohol use is indeed a sin, then Jesus is a sinner.


However, you'll notice that I never called drinking alcohol a sin. I term "sin" as being something that is eternally and morally wrong. Something that was as wrong at the time of Adam as it is today. I believe God has laws that are for certain people at a certain time. For example, the Law of Moses. It was God's law for a long time. But is eating pork a sin?

In the same way, the Word of Wisdom applies to us today, and not to all the people who lived before it was given.

Quote:
I think the Nicene, Apostolic, and Athanasian Creeds do a pretty good job of it. Other than that, I'd have to say I've seen plenty of misinterpretations of Scripture that seem to cause a great deal of the confusion you speak of. I, like Luther before me, do not believe the Scriptures themselves are so obscure as to be beyond understanding, only that there are some people who, not knowing them as well as they should, or who, instead of submitting to its truth, twist what it says to suit their agendas or ideals. The solution: study the text. The whole text. Consult original languages to clarify ambiguities. I find that helps tremendously.


I tend to agree with you here. As a church, we have been studying the Old Testament this year and it does help to read the entire text, as you say. I'm just saying that your interpretation of what a verse means may be very different from what a Catholic thinks it means.

Quote:
In that case, why doesn't the LDS simply accept the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds?


Simply put, because we believe these creeds were the products of men and not the result of revelation from God. I'm not even sure that the councils who developed these creeds claimed to be inspired. The creeds were constructed more as a result of political expediency, if I understand correctly.

Quote:
So basically, you're saying that the church during the 1800 years prior to Joseph Smith was not authorized to baptize? And if that is not the case, then why should we orthodox Christians trust that this Joseph Smith and the LDS Church's authority now supersedes the authority once given to us?


We believe that the authority to act in God's name is given by the laying on of hands from one who already has this authority. We also believe that with this chain was broken by the death of the apostles chosen by Christ, and that the true church of God was lost from the earth. We call this time the Apostasy.

Joseph Smith, in translating the Book of Mormon, came across a verse that stressed being baptized by someone with the authority. He knew that none of the churches on earth had that authority, so as he usually did, he inquired of the Lord through prayer. In response to this question, John the Baptist, as a resurrected being, appeared and gave him, through the laying on of hands, the authority to baptize. We call this the Aaronic Priesthood, after Aaron, Moses' brother.

Wikipedia wrote:
At the time when the tribe of Levi was set apart for the priestly service, Aaron was anointed and consecrated to the priesthood, arrayed in the robes of his office, and instructed in its manifold duties (Exodus 28 and 29)


Since this time, the chain has not been broken, and every priesthood holder in the church can trace their authority back to John the Baptist.

Quote:
I have been baptized in the name of the Triune God, and not into the LDS. Are you claiming that my baptism is not valid, even though it is the same baptism that our Lord gave to the Apostles?


Again, I do not mean to offend, Didymus. But we believe that "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matt. 7:14) While mode of baptism is important, even more important is the authority with which someone is baptized. Living a righteous life or just asking for this authority is not enough.

For anyone who's still reading at this point, the Mormon faith boils down to this. Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God? If yes, then you must accept all he taught. If no, then you can ignore everything he taught. And the easiest way to find out if Joseph Smith was a prophet?

Read the Book of Mormon. Read it, and pray to know if it is true. Ask God to tell you if the book contains His words. Ask Him if Joseph Smith was chosen to be a prophet.

The Book of Mormon wrote:
3. Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.


The entire Book of Mormon is found here. I can also arrange to have a free copy sent to you (this goes for anyone) if you'd like. If you'd like two missionaries to come answer any questions you might have, I can arrange that, too. If not, we can just send the book, no strings attached.

To finish off this altogether too long post, I'm going to quote part of the testimony of Joseph Smith regarding his confusion as a young boy about religion.

Joseph Smith wrote:
Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester (New York), there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.

For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.

I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.

During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was bright and who was wrong.

My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.

In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be aright, which is it, and how shall I know it?

While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.

After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

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.”

He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?


I know Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer and Savior of all mankind. I know the Bible is the word of God and contains the words of prophets, men called of God to teach His people the truth. I also know the Book of Mormon is the word of God and contains the words of prophets just as the Bible does. I know Joseph Smith was called of God to restore the fullness of the gospel of Christ to God's children today. I know that everyone who asks God through prayer whether this is all true will receive an answer. The answer may not come immediately, but it will come.

And I know it's up to each and every one of to ask.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Didymus wrote:
lahimatoa wrote:
Regarding caffeine: The LDS church does not forbid its members from drinking it and it never has. I've heard rumors that the church owns stock in Coke, but I've never seen it proven.

That is a rumor I had heard before. But, then again, if the LDS does not condemn the use of caffeine, then what difference does it make whether they own Coke stock? That would be like complaining about a Lutheran owning a brewery.


My point was that, according to how I heard it, Mormons forbade drinking caffeine up until the church bought a significant amount of stock in Coke, implying that their pecuniary interests dictated the change regarding the religion's rules.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
Quote:

My point was that, according to how I heard it, Mormons forbade drinking caffeine up until the church bought a significant amount of stock in Coke, implying that their pecuniary interests dictated the change regarding the religion's rules.


And if that's how it went down, you'd be right.

The church has never forbidden its members to drink (or eat) caffeine.

Many members choose not to due to the addictive property of caffeine, but if you do, there's no condemnation.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
You are right on this one thing: it all boils down to whether or not Joseph Smith is to be considered a prophet of God.

But here's the thing: I have taken your prescribed course of action. About twelve years ago, after being confronted with a number of different alternatives and concepts of God in general and the Holy Trinity specifically (including Mormonism), I began to study. But more importantly, I prayed. I asked God to show me where the truth of his being lay. And it took about a year to receive my answer, and that answer was the Nicene Creed. And keep in mind, this was all back when I was a Baptist and didn't even know the Creed.

One of my professors in college had introduced me to a composer named Arvo Part. There were two pieces of his music that captured my imagination in particular: one called Te Deum and the other Magnificat. When I purchased a second album by him, I discovered yet another piece of his that captured my imagination, one called simply Summa. As with the other two, I found myself memorizing the text of this composition in the Latin, and gradually, over a period of time, I found that it wasn't just a text of a song, but my own confession, my own proclamation of God. I found it was exactly the answer I had been seeking. And that was all back when I was still a Baptist, too, so, as you can imagine, it reshaped my whole piety.

G. K. Chesterton was once asked, "Why are you a Christian?" He found at the time that he could give no simple reason; there was just too much for him to say. He said it was as if someone had asked him, "Why would anyone want to live in the modern age?", and the reply offered was, "Why just look at the the toaster, and the books on the shelf, and everything else around you!" My reasons for being, not just a Christian, but one of the orthodox, liturgical variety, are so complicated as to escape simple exposition. It may have started with a piece of music (and actually I am pretty sure it started well before I ever even heard it), but there is too much for me to set down here in any simple form. Suffice it to say that, the revelation I received from a simple piece of music has been confirmed and reaffirmed in too many places for me to simply abandon it now.

Quote:
We believe that the authority to act in God's name is given by the laying on of hands from one who already has this authority. We also believe that with this chain was broken by the death of the apostles chosen by Christ, and that the true church of God was lost from the earth. We call this time the Apostasy.

We have a similar belief. We call it Ordination. And, what's more, I myself have been properly ordained. Where I disagree with you is that I'm not convinced that the apostolic authority has been broken within non-Mormon circles. Ultimately, the authority to baptize is Christ's, and I see no reason to suppose that I have not received it from him.

One thing that you seem to have missed is that, from a careful study of Scripture (particularly Acts 19), it is clear that the Baptism Jesus gave to his disciples supersedes and is greater than the baptism of John the Baptist. Therefore, based on Acts 19, I submit that, if we are to follow the authority model you present, then John the Baptist is not authorized to bestow a new baptism to supersede Jesus'.

Quote:
Simply put, because we believe these creeds were the products of men and not the result of revelation from God. I'm not even sure that the councils who developed these creeds claimed to be inspired. The creeds were constructed more as a result of political expediency, if I understand correctly.

I will agree that these creeds are products of men and are not direct revelations of God. However, they were composed by men who were well versed in the Scriptures, and they serve as an adequate exposition of the central teachings of the Scriptures. I do not appeal to these creeds as authoritative except in so far as they are accurate expositions of divine revelation, and therefore serve as a defining line between orthodoxy (correct teachings) and heterodoxy (other teachings). To put it simply, my own exegetical exploration of Scripture confirms rather than denies the Ecumenical Creeds.

But I would contend that you do not understand correctly: the creeds were not drafted out of political expediency, but in order to maintain correct teaching within the church. Take Nicea, for example. Emperor Constantine wanted a quick and peaceful resolution to the Arian controversy. To him, the expedient course would have been to simply ignore the controversy or to allow both teachings (Arian and Athanasian) to coexist. In fact, some scholars suggest that the emperor himself was somewhat predisposed to Arius. But the Council of Nicea knew better. Instead of giving in to the emperor's expectations of a swift and peaceful resolution, it condemned Arius and his followers as heretics. Not the most politically expedient maneuver on their part (St. Nicholas was even imprisoned for punching Arius in the face, and St. Athanasius himself was even exiled at one point, although some scholars believe it was for his own protection). Not only that, but there were other creeds in existence prior to Nicea (and keep in mind, before Constantine, Christianity was outlawed). So far from serving political expediency, what I see the creeds doing is saying, "Here is what the Scriptures teach; therefore this is what the church will teach."

Quote:
I'm just saying that your interpretation of what a verse means may be very different from what a Catholic thinks it means.

Here, I would like to take a moment to unpack this term, "interpretation." You see, the term "interpretation" here seems to be subject to interpretation, which I think can cause the casual reader a bit of confusion, and despite that, perhaps give him the impression that he is fully understanding all of what is being said. For that reason, I feel I must further define the term "interpretation" itself.

You see, when I use the term "interpretation," I typically mean "exegesis," which is the art and science of understanding what a text is actually saying. I say it is both an art and a science because, while the exegete must at times make choices that can shape the meaning he extrapolates, he is not without good tools to use in making those choices. Granted, the tools available don't always allow an exegete to perceive the author's exact intended meaning with absolute accuracy, but they can enable him to get extremely close in most cases.

Exegesis is drawing the meaning out of the text on the basis of the text itself. That is, by studying the text, examining the text, dissecting the text, understanding the language behind the text, grasping the context of the text, and knowing the culture in which the text was written. Notice that for the most part these are objective tools. Again, while it is nearly impossible for an exegete to be 100% objective, by using his tools rightly, he can get very close.

As a professional theologian, I have been trained in the use of those tools. I have studied the original languages; even though I don't speak fluent Greek or Hebrew, I am familiar enough with the languages - both the vocabulary and, far more importantly, the syntax - that I can work with them and do my own translation work. I am also pretty thoroughly familiar with the Scriptures themselves, so I can cross-reference related pericopes when needed. I also have a grasp of the culture of the New Testament, and when I'm not 100% clear on particular cultural references, I know to use encyclopedias and dictionaries to help clarify them. I also know to consult other commentators, scholars who have also exegeted the text, so I can see where my limited understanding might be sharpened by other more studied minds. And no, this is not limited to scholars one generally agrees with. In fact, it is usually better to engage contrary opinions rather than simply dismiss them, because even if you disagree, you can usually find more surety if you can defend your choices when they are challenged.

The point is, exegesis tends to be a much more objective approach to textual interpretation than most people give it credit. However, what I suspect is that, when most people say "interpretation," what they really mean is "eisegesis." Eisegesis is when someone approaches the text with a specific agenda or ideology, and instead of allowing the text to speak for itself, they "read into" it what they wish to see. Eisegesis is indeed more subjective because it subjects the text to the interpreter, rather than the other way around. This is particularly troublesome these days, because the tendency among people is to say, "If I don't like what the text says, I'll just make it say what I want it to."

So, when you see an "interpretation," the question you need to be asking yourself is, "Did this person do their homework? Did they study the text in order to gain a thorough understanding of it? Did they do their own translating work, and if so, do they competently handle the languages? Do they make good integration of the context and related passages? These are what make for good exegesis.

Sorry for the long dissertation, but I really hope this helps to clear up some of the mystery of the term "interpretation."

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:46 pm
Posts: 993
Location: In the Palace of No Wai, sipping PWN JOO Chai
I've got a Q for the Ms of the forum........

Is it true that Mormons believe(d) that Native Americans were once white, but God punished them for something by turning them brown?

I'll just say at this point that I was told this by a complete balony-merchant I know, so I'm guessing that this is probably bull. But anyway......


EDIT: Thanks for the PM, racerx.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group