Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 13

Hal 9000 said:

Star Trek V always reminded me of Mormonism. 

God has a body of flesh and bone, right?

Yes, a doctrine many find offensive.  But we do believe that.

I know the concept of the 'burning in the bosom' has historically been important to Mormons. 

I do have an earnest question, though. The Mormons (or LDS, I apologize if I use terms or titles that would not be preferred) in recent decades have pitched Mormonism as being basically another Christian denomination. What say you about this? Isn't classical Christianity an abomination according to LDS doctrine, indeed another gospel that Paul said should be cursed? If Smith was to restore the gospel, doesn't that mean historical Christianity was hopelessly wrong? I guess my real question is... should Mormonism be lumped in the Christian camp with all its historical inheritance, or be considered something different (restoration or otherwise)? 

As a case example, classical Christianity (at least the Protestant tradition) maintains the principle of sola gracia and sola fide, or salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Can Mormonism really hold to these in order to be considered Christian in the classical sense? If something like celestial marriage is required, which is an essential element that is absent from historic Christianity, aren't the two things fundamentally distinct?

I'm not trying to get at which is true, if either. Rather, I just want to be clear about what's what. 

Your question is absolutely fair.  I don't think we have ever tried to pass ourselves off as "just another" Christian denomination.  We teach that we are a Christian denomination, but not like any other.  Many will try to state that we are not Christian, but we disagree.  We are Christian, but not like any other.  Indeed, we believe that are the most Christian denomination, because we believe that we follow the most correct form of Christianity.  To say that we believe all other denominations are an abomination, that likely comes from Joseph Smith's First Vision (v. 19 specifically, though I've given a broader highlight).  We believe that the teachings of Jesus had been corrupted after his death and the death of the apostles.  Being in a state of apostasy, their teachings were an abomination.  Scripturally, when God's people were in a state of apostasy, he did not address their teachings with the most polite language.  Note his criticism of rabbinical Judaism during his mortality.  However, I don't believe that it is our prerogative to look at those churches the same way.  Just as there were many righteous Jews living their religion to the best of their ability, we believe that most Christians are good people, teaching good, if not always correct teachings, often living very Christ-like lives.  I served my mission in Atlanta, GA, and I think I learned to be a much better Christian from those not of my faith.

As for salvation by grace through faith, that's a hot topic.  I think I addressed it at least once before, but I've got to get going.  Let me try to be brief.  Catholics are very ritualistic and do believe in the importance of works, but few doubt that they are Christian.  Many denominations, especially non-Protestant denominations (and believe me, there are many, and they all total far more than the Protestants) believe in works.  I read this article a while back and thought it was good at the time, so maybe it will clarify (it's been a while, so I'm not positive).  But let me give you a simple analogy.  If I'm drowning in a lake, and Jesus throws me a life preserver, I'm going to grab it and hang on with all my might while he pulls me to his boat.  Now I did some works there by holding on, and had to keep doing works till I got to safety.  I had faith Jesus would save me, and he ultimately did.  He saved me, in spite of me showing my faith and exerting my feeble efforts.  Salvation is through the grace of Christ, and not of my own works.  Hope that clarifies.  I'll try to get more in depth at a later time if you like, but it helps if you remind me ;)

I took a picture of the beer we bought. I'll try to remember to upload it.

Hal 9000 said:

Star Trek V always reminded me of Mormonism.

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

Hal 9000 said:

Star Trek V always reminded me of Mormonism.

Star Trek V always reminds me of a potentially good movie brought down by stupid trappings and a shitty ending.

 

I have to agree with you there.

The jokes mostly didn't work (they were clearly shoved in to appeal to the people who stumbled into Star Trek IV thinking it was Tootsie or something) and everything that happens the moment they go into the barrier is a flop but yeah it had the potential to be the best Star Trek film (as in resembling the television show but as a piece of cinema) of the lot.

They actually went to another planet or two and explored a bit.

If it had the budget of ST:TMP and a final act it would have been really something.

The ship really felt like a real ship for the first time since the first film (the interiors matched the exteriors).

And Lawrence Luckingbill of Arabia in Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccee! looked epic.

I preferred the third boob of the cat lady to the triple breasted whore of Total Recall.

Isn't the Lord of Kolob just the God of humanity though.

He isn't meant to be the creator of the universe but just the creator of the Earth and the author of the souls that dwell there.

Presumably other galaxies have other Kolobs with other Gods, or am I not getting it?

It just felt more welcoming.

Imagine you come home from a hard days work, tired aching muscles and you open the door and there is a humanoid feline breast waiting there for you.

I don't want the intellectual challenge of boob number one or the sense of needy entitlement that boob number two is sending me.

I just want to chillax with a nice cup of cocoa and my third cat boob by my side.

Ya dig?

Tyrphanax said:

TV's Frink said:

I took a picture of the beer we bought. I'll try to remember to upload it.

Is it the Polygamy Porter?

Ah, well never mind then.  We also bought a 1st Amendment Lager.

The really weird thing was we had to purchase our hard liquor (i.e. wine) separate.  The beer (4.0% wussy beer :P) could be purchased with our other items, but the wine had to be purchased through some goofy state system on a separate bill.

So much fun in this thread and so little time to respond.  Bingowings, all I can say about Kolob is that it's not very clear what that refers to or if it's literal or metaphysical or simply symbolic.  It's a term hardly used in Mormon lingo, so don't get too hung up on it.  After typing this, I decided to look up what FAIR had to say about it.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Kolob

Since we do believe in a God with a physical body instead of an ethereal everywhere/nowhere Being, it might make sense if there is a planet that he lives on (nearest to a star called Kolob, not the name of the planet itself).  However, people use this to make things rather sci-fi sounding.  My question is that since science learned that the clouds are uninhabitable, where does the rest of the Christian world believe Heaven is?  Is it another world?  If so, why does Kolob draw so much ridicule (not from you, but from many)?

As for the extent of his rule being limited to this galaxy, I suspect that is more sci-fi interpretation by those who wish to alienate us.  I can only think of one person who hypothesized that (namely, Joseph Fielding Smith in Answers to Gospel Questions I believe, which is by no means an official publication of Church doctrine).  It has been stated by apostles on more than one occasion that God rules over the universe--the whole, big, as infinite as we can fathom universe (Fielding Smith was an apostle and later a prophet, but not at the time of writing that, nor did he ever say that as far as I'm aware).

As for alcoholic beverages and tri-breasted feline humanoids in the Mormon thread, I'm a bit at a loss as to how things got off this far...oh wait...Frink had some cute little response.  Question answered ;)

Didn't Mr Smith say, "...the great universe of stars has multiplied beyond the comprehension of men. Evidently each of these great systems is governed by divine law; with divine presiding Gods, for it would be unreasonable to assume that each was not so governed."?

I believe that is the exact quote I was thinking of.  However, it occurs to me the distinction we must make in our Mr. Smiths.

The founder of this church in this day and age is Joseph Smith, Jr., the one we generally refer to as Joseph Smith.  His father, Joseph Smith, Sr., served as patriarch to the Church.  But young Joseph also had a brother named Hyrum, and this brother had a son named Joseph Fielding Smith, Sr., but generally in historical terms we refer to him as Joseph F. Smith.  He too sired a son of the same name, Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr.  We generally refer to him simply as Joseph Fielding Smith.  This final Smith served as Church historian for a time, and during this time he wrote numerous books, including Answers to Gospel Questions, originally in 5 volumes, though I have the 5 combined.  Later he became an apostle and ultimately the prophet.  None of his statements in this capacity definitively state this as far as I'm aware.

Googled your quote, and yes, that is the source.  I'll have to check out the wiki page and see how much I agree with.

So let me make a diagram to clarify again the roles of the various Joseph Smiths.

                                                 Joseph Smith, Sr.
                                                       (patriarch)
                                                       |              |
                                  Joseph Smith, Jr.        Hyrum Smith
                                (founder, prophet)     (assistant prophet)
                                                                      |
                                          Joseph Fielding Smith, Sr. (Joseph F. Smith)
                                                               (prophet)
                                                                      |
                                     Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. (Joseph Fielding Smith)
                                                      (historian, prophet)

This younger man was very outspoken, though not all he said is doctrine.  Hope this helps!

Oh, final quote before I post this:

"I testify that Jesus is truly the Lord of the universe, 'that by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God' (D&C 76:24."

-Neal A. Maxwell, apostle (a position of much greater doctrinal authority)

With regards to your first points, we actually feel very much that science and religion will ultimately harmonize.  But a personal view held by many (though certainly not all) is that not everything in the Bible is literal either.  The extent of figurative and literal interpretation is subject to debate, but I personally have no problem acknowledging that I don't know it all, nor that I will in this life.  Whatever is literal, whatever is figurative, I work within the framework of understanding that I am dealing with.  As I stated once before somewhere in this thread, if I'm taking a biology test, I feel no guilt when I answer that man evolved.  When I teach Sunday school (and I am the adult class teacher at my local congregation), I have no trouble saying Adam and Eve were the first man and woman.  One day it will fit in my mind, and the only reason it does not now is because of our limited understanding and God's limited revelation.  *Upon review, I remembered something I posted on another site over a year ago.  I quote myself here, in spite of repeating myself:

I am reminded of an article by Warren Weaver, a scientist and believer. He makes the comparison of science and religion to two scientific principles, that of complementarity, and that of uncertainty.

To be brief, Mr. Weaver points out that photons, electrons, and other particles at times behave like waves (which are nothing more than disruptions in a medium), and at other times like particles (actual self-contained objects). The fact that they do this is seemingly incomprehensible, as they cannot truly be both. And yet they are, and all our scientific evidence indicates that they are. We are forced to accept two different conflicting views. When it suits our purpose, we treat light, etc. as a wave, and when it is convenient, we treat it as a particle. Perhaps one day we will understand this strange dichotomy, but at the present, we just allow these two separate principles to complement each other.

With respect to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we learn as we observe electrons in orbit that the more accurately we gauge their trajectory, the less accurately we ascertain its position, and vice versa. We cannot accurately determine both simultaneously.

This leads to the author’s conclusions which I largely share as well. When I am teaching Sunday school, I will appeal to what I know from the scriptures. When I am studying for a biology exam, I will refer instead to what I know from the textbook. Are both books inerrant? While some would argue with me in favor of one or the other, I feel quite comfortable stating that both are flawed and/or limited. I understand that I am relying on mutually exclusive understandings of truth at times, and that the more closely I examine the truth in one field, the more I may part from truth in the other. I believe that one day it will all be clear and there will be no exclusivity. I don’t understand how Adam can be the first man, and yet humans evolved from lower species. But I believe that my understanding will be reconciled one day. Meanwhile, I continue to seek truth from every possible avenue, accepting their limitations and the limitations of my finite mind.

As for the literality of God having a physical body, this is not figurative.  That is a pretty definitive doctrine.  We believe that God does have a physical body, though we do not believe this limits his power in the least.  He is still omnipotent and omnipresent.  His influence and authority are omnipresent, and he can go anywhere he pleases whenever he pleases (God does not want or need a starship ;).  But we believe that numerous statements such as man being created in God's image, that we are the children of God, and that we may be made partakers of his glory are all quite literal, that we are of the same "species" as God, and that one day we may be like him.

As for the "tenet" of one day reigning on our own planet, that sounds more like another deliberate and perpetrated misrepresentation, or else just a simple misunderstanding that will seem to never go away.  I'm not ascribing any fault to you of course.  Simply put, if we may become like God, we believe that we may one day become gods ourselves.  This is not new to the Christian scene, but we are the most prominent and recent subscribers to this theology.  Many feel this is offensive and that this detracts from the glory of God, but we feel it adds to his glory as we, one day diving beings ourselves, will continue to worship God the Father in the name of Christ.  Don't limit yourself with the idea of our own planet.  We believe that one day we too can have infinite universes to reign over!

I know this sounds radical to many, and it's easy to say "cultist."  But I assure you, this is a beautiful doctrine to those who take the time to ponder it and consider its biblical soundness.  I can look up some scriptures for you, but for now I must go.  Just know that it's not the Starbase Kolob thing that the extremely inaccurate The Godmakers film portrays (don't know if anyone's seen that, but it's quite laughable).  It's a marvelous doctrine!

I think some of the scriptwriters of classic Doctor Who must be Mormons because there are instances where cosmos, universe, galaxy, stellar system, star and planet get shifted around.

So you have a description of a galaxy and it's called the universe, you get a description of a planet and it's called a star.

It's a new faith.

Medieval Christianity was full of similar wobbles, especially when it had to invent the Devil to let God off the hook for doing things people don't approve of.

I don't see it as that bizarre.  Present day science talks of an infinite universe, yet with existing parallel universes.

EDIT: Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post.  Maybe it's good ol' fashion Bingowings subtlety.  Perhaps you refer to Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr.'s non-doctrinal statement when he stood in a position of no authority to actually determine doctrine.  My point was that Maxwell was indeed in a position to make an official comment on the topic, whereas Smith at the time of that statement was merely providing his own opinion.  Does that make sense?  Am I just taking your comment too seriously?

So, I just watched this flick called "CleanFlix" about editing R-rated movies, largely a Utah phenomenon.

If I understand, the LDS leader (Prophet?) made a kind of non-binding request that LDS's shouldn't watch R-rated movies. 

My question is, isnt the MPAA kind of an arbitrary/stupid organization? Like, if you're being mindful of what goes in your mind, it's okay to hear "fuck" once per movie, or see buckets of severed heads fly through the air (PG-13 ROTK)? Is something as full of nonsense as film ratings really a good way to judge what should go into your mind? Are "Schindler's List" and "Saw 4" really morally equal?

Do you personally watch R-Rated movies? And whats your take on edited movies? 

I gave the answer to TheBoost in a PM, but I figured I would repost it here for the benefit of others who wanted to know the answer.

First, let me give you a link to an article by your favorite ;) LDS author, addressing critics to his recommendation that others see The Passion of the Christ.

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-r-rated-movie.html

The important quotes are as follows:


Orson Scott Card said:

"Only one President of the Church has made an official statement that mentioned R-rated movies. On three occasions, President Ezra Taft Benson, when speaking specifically to the youth of the Church, mentioned films so rated....Remember, President Benson is speaking to the young men of the Church when he says: 'Consider carefully the words of the prophet Alma to his errant son, Corianton, "Forsake your sins, and go no more after the lusts of your eyes." (Alma 39:9.)

'"The lusts of your eyes." In our day, what does that expression mean?

'Movies, television programs, and video recordings that are both suggestive and lewd.

'Magazines and books that are obscene and pornographic.

'We counsel you, young men, not to pollute your minds with such degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards. Don't see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. Don't listen to music that is degrading' (Ensign, May 1986, p 43).'

"The mention of R-rated movies is clearly linked to a specific goal -- keeping one's mind free of entertainment that is 'immoral, suggestive, or pornographic.' The purpose of the Prophet's wise counsel is to keep us from entertainment that will excite sexual lust in an inappropriate context....But what does any of this have to do with a beautiful, faith-based film like The Passion of the Christ? How does President Benson's counsel even remotely apply to this work of Christian art? There is nothing in this film that appeals to the 'lusts of your eyes'; there is nothing 'lewd' or 'obscene' or 'immoral, suggestive, or pornographic.'

Quite the contrary. This film inspires you to feel gratitude to the Savior and love for those that he loved and who loved him. It inspires you with a dread of and revulsion for Satan and all his ways. It leaves you with a broken heart and a contrite spirit."


Orson Scott Card has other good quotes from Church leaders in there that are useful, but perhaps this will serve best:

Elder H. Burke Peterson said:

"Again I say, leave it alone. Turn it off, walk away from it, burn it, erase it, destroy it. I know it is hard counsel we give when we say movies that are R-rated, and many with PG-13 ratings, are produced by satanic influences. Our standards should not be dictated by the rating system. I repeat, because of what they really represent, these types of movies, music, tapes, etc. serve the purposes of the author of all darkness."

Source: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/11/touch-not-the-evil-gift-nor-the-unclean-thing


In other words, like you said, there is no binding commandment not to watch R-rated films, but there is a strong suggestion. There is an equally strong suggestion to avoid PG-13 films that may be inappropriate. In reality, members of my Church are generally ascribing something like a rabbinical oral law to what is God's actual law: that we use our own judgment to determine what we watch, that we don't go by the determinations of others' vague ratings, but just as very general guidance we should avoid R-rated films. To me this means we can watch R-rated movies, but should be EXTREMELY selective. This also means we can watch PG-13 movies, but should be more selective than many of us are.

Further reading for your enjoyment:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/11/rated-a

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/04/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

In answer to your question, have I seen R-rated films: yes. Some have been rather inappropriate, but I was not so judicious or trying to live as righteously as I have since. But generally I've been selective. I haven't seen an R-rated film for at least two years. I do purchase edited movies and prefer to watch those, and generally I don't notice much difference. Perhaps some would roll their eyes while others might question their legality (a common criticism leveled towards CleanFlix and its clones). In response to the latter, if one purchases the original film, I don't see a problem (sort of like what we do with Star Wars fan edits here at this site). But in reply to the former, I just like a cleaner product, and if anyone disagrees, they are free to watch whatever they wish.

I should go finish watching my edited version of Band of Brothers :)

Hope this helps :)

[forgive the formatting, as I'm using a proxy server that won't let me format correctly]

^
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Ask-the-member-of-the-Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints-AKA-Interrogate-the-Mormon/post/567073/#TopicPost567073

If you click on this link, you find another than will give you a nice view on the subject. My understanding is that many leaders have expressed different views on the subject. Certainly the more forceful have been against it. Certainly the majority of members do not believe in it. But I am unaware of any actual binding statement that forbids believing in it or declares it true or untrue. It's really left pretty ambiguous. Actually, while people tend to feel more comfortable with definite boundaries and prescriptions, in reality much of what my church teaches is not ironclad; there is room for interpretation on a number of subjects. But don't let me mischaracterize us either. There are of course other things that are set in stone. Anyway, the subject at hand is evolution, and I am providing another link for you which includes quotes of leaders that tend to go both ways on the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution