• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is this what Mormons really believe?

UtahBill said:
Santa is vacationing in Bermuda, but he has hired me and a few others to watch in his absence....and SOME of you guys are in trouble...
Click to expand...


Not as much trouble as Santa is in for vacationing in the islands during hurricane season.
 
UtahBill said:
The LDS are not responsible for what the FLDS do or say, just as the SBC is not responsible for what Rev. Phelps does or says...
FYI, the OP is about LDS, or Mormons, not FLDS. I am not familiar with the book you refer to, but there is an official LDS response to it, saying it is a work of fiction.
I have never heard about God living on the moon, and the LDS leaders can not make substantial changes to the faith as easily as some may think....
Click to expand...

Obviously the LDS doesn't condone the actions of the FLDS, I never tried to even attempt to make that sort of connection. He just writes about a paticular infamous murder back in the 90s in which two brothers who were members of the LDS church found there way into FLDS and eventually ended up murdering their youngest brothers wife and infant child because they believed God told them too. The Moromons, at least in earlier times, believed strongly in the practice of speaking to God. They often describe it as actually an audible conversation but the funny thing is God always told them what they wanted to here..Such as Joseph Smith with plural marriage, he wanted to marry more than one woman so he made some **** up so he could do so.
 
Andalublue said:
The OP is about what Mormons believe, not exclusively the LDS, being just the most prominent authority of Mormonism. What the FLDS believes is just as relevant.
.
The book is terrific, btw and Krakauer has no axe to grind, no vested interest in the issue. Unlike the LDS spokespeople.
Click to expand...

The so called "FLDS" are not Mormons. Mormons follow the direction of the church leaders in Salt Lake City. FLDS do not.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Yes. The LDS Church teaches that people who have dark skin were less valiant in the pre-existence.
Click to expand...
I was taught as a child that blacks were born to be slaves to the white race....and guess where protestants got that idea....from Catholics....so it was hardly original to the LDS....
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Yes. The LDS Church teaches that people who have dark skin were less valiant in the pre-existence.
Click to expand...
close, but no cigar.....not dark skin, but african blacks....people of the south pacific were not considered "black", no matter how dark....
 
Dittohead not! said:
The so called "FLDS" are not Mormons. Mormons follow the direction of the church leaders in Salt Lake City. FLDS do not.
Click to expand...

thanks, but some here have their minds made up and trying to educate them beyond what they heard from evangelicals is futile...
 
BCR said:
Obviously the LDS doesn't condone the actions of the FLDS, I never tried to even attempt to make that sort of connection. He just writes about a paticular infamous murder back in the 90s in which two brothers who were members of the LDS church found there way into FLDS and eventually ended up murdering their youngest brothers wife and infant child because they believed God told them too. The Moromons, at least in earlier times, believed strongly in the practice of speaking to God. They often describe it as actually an audible conversation but the funny thing is God always told them what they wanted to here..Such as Joseph Smith with plural marriage, he wanted to marry more than one woman so he made some **** up so he could do so.
Click to expand...
The FLDS are not the first offshoot, read up on the LeBaron family, some seriously sick folk there....once had a neighbor named Lebaron, and he was actually from Mexico where some of the Lebarons did their things. He looked hispanic, spoke perfect englilsh, and his wife was caucasion. They were legal immigrants, did all kinds of construction, he and his brothers, cousins, etc.
If it were me, I would have changed my name....
 
Andalublue said:
If all your Googling gained you was that the book is about the FLDS (it isn't) but you still call it BS, then I'm guessing you have an agenda for saying so. I also note you didn't answer my question as to whther you are a practicing Mormon. I'm pretty sure, given that you don't answer, that you are.


To whom are you referring? Krakauer was never a Mormon. He just grew up around them.


Because this is the OP... "Is this what Mormons really believe?" Not just 'is this what FLDS Mormons really believe?' nor 'is this what LDS Mormons officially believe?' It's the title to the thread and the OP contains a cartoon. That's what kick-started this whole discussion. What's your beef?



Please link to a post of mine that attacks any religion?
Click to expand...
No, Krakhead was not a mormon, but he got a lot of his "truth" from an excommunicated mormon, or did you miss that? I don't recall you asking, but I am a mormon, not practicing all of it, so maybe jack mormon. And I know I asked you your religion, and you prattled on about some buddhist something or other, avoiding giving an answer.
YOU are the one with an agenda. You read one book and use it to smear mormons, true mormons, not offshoots of the LDS church.
It is just like lying about your political opposites, you tell more about yourself than anything else. There is plenty of TRUE things to discuss, but you want to muddy the water with lies. That means to me that you know nothing on your own, just what you read that you want to believe.
That is called being prejudiced. Some people spend years in college and all they learned in that 4 or more years is what supports the prejudices they started with.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
The FLDS are not the first offshoot, read up on the LeBaron family, some seriously sick folk there....once had a neighbor named Lebaron, and he was actually from Mexico where some of the Lebarons did their things. He looked hispanic, spoke perfect englilsh, and his wife was caucasion. They were legal immigrants, did all kinds of construction, he and his brothers, cousins, etc.
If it were me, I would have changed my name....
Click to expand...

"Under the Banner of Heaven" mentions the LeBaron family here and there, as I understand it they have/had ties to many other sects of FLDS. They would often exchange young girls for marriage with sects in Utah, Arizona, Oregon and even Canada. I believe there still may be a large FLDS sect that lives north of the Grand Canyon, a town of 10,000. I can't recall the name and it could very well be defunct but in the 90's it was a prominent sect that was left alone by authorities. The prophet had complete control of the people's lives outlawing television and controlling the education children received. People enjoy there lives there for the most part according to the book, whatever floats your boat I guess.
 
BCR said:
"Under the Banner of Heaven" mentions the LeBaron family here and there, as I understand it they have/had ties to many other sects of FLDS. They would often exchange young girls for marriage with sects in Utah, Arizona, Oregon and even Canada. I believe there still may be a large FLDS sect that lives north of the Grand Canyon, a town of 10,000. I can't recall the name and it could very well be defunct but in the 90's it was a prominent sect that was left alone by authorities. The prophet had complete control of the people's lives outlawing television and controlling the education children received. People enjoy there lives there for the most part according to the book, whatever floats your boat I guess.
Click to expand...

The community you refer to has been in the news a lot in the last few years. They have not been left alone. Their leader, Warren Jeffs, has been convicted of child rape and is in prison. I think Texas is after him as well, as they have a community there.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Yes. The LDS Church teaches that people who have dark skin were less valiant in the pre-existence.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Cat almost everything you say regarding LDS is inaccurate. You've read a lot of anti-Mormon stuff and have extreme bias imho. The LDS scriptures teach in the pre-mortal existence some of God's children showed high faith and good works and they were given special missions to serve mankind on the earth. It also teaches expressly that God is no respecter of persons black or white. The most righteous people in the Book of Mormon were the dark skinned Lamanites when they converted, and the lord directly admonishes the Nephites for their racism. Brigham Young instituted a ban on the priesthood given to anyone of African descent with a statement that one future day the priesthood would be universal but the time had not come. Biblically the priesthood has always been given to certain lineages and denied to others, and then vice versa. For instance it was given to the patriarchs first born sons, then in Israel to just the tribe of Levi, in the NT the apostle had a revelation that granted the priesthood to the gentiles, who previously never had the opportunity. In the LDS view the priesthood was taken from the earth shortly after the NT apostles were killed, and so no one, jew or gentile, black or white had the blessing of the priesthood. The reason for the ban on Africans(lineage not skin color as everyone else asians, hispanics, samoans, have always had access to the LDS priesthood) has never been given. A few people have theorized that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence but there is no canonized reason. Brigham Young may have believed that everyone who lived on the earth who didn't have access to the priesthood n its history, black or white, jew or gentile, were less valiant. But it has not been revealed, no new scripture from the prophet that states why there was a ban, just as there is given no reason in the Bible why different races were excluded. My own theory is the priesthood requires free agency, and the Lord waited the shackles of slavery, imperialism, and civil rights to be enacted.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Yes. The LDS Church teaches that people who have dark skin were less valiant in the pre-existence.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Cat almost everything you say regarding LDS is inaccurate. You've read a lot of anti-Mormon stuff and have extreme bias imho. The LDS scriptures teach in the pre-mortal existence some of God's children showed high faith and good works and they were given special missions to serve mankind on the earth. It also teaches expressly that God is no respecter of persons black or white. The most righteous people in the Book of Mormon were the dark skinned Lamanites when they converted, and the lord directly admonishes the Nephites for their racism. Brigham Young instituted a ban on the priesthood given to anyone of African descent with a statement that one future day the priesthood would be universal. No official reason was ever given why there was a ban. Biblically the priesthood has always been given to certain lineages and denied to others, and then vice versa. For instance it was given to the patriarchs first born sons, then in Israel to just the tribe of Levi, in the NT the apostle had a revelation that the gospel was to be preached to the gentiles, whereas previously it was restricted to them. In the LDS view the priesthood was taken from the earth shortly after the NT apostles were killed, and so no one of any race or lineage had access to it. The reason for the LDS ban on Africans(lineage not skin color as everyone else asians, hispanics, samoans, etc have always had access to the LDS priesthood) has never been given. Why anti-Mormons state the LDS church teaches that dark skin means less valiance in pre-existence is that a few Mormons believed that everyone who lived on the earth who didn't have access to the priesthood in its history must have been less valiant in the premortal existence. So they use that opinion and non official doctrine as the LDS church teaches it, which is blatantly false. My own theory is the priesthood requires free agency, and the Lord waited the shackles of slavery, imperialism, and civil rights to be enacted.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
The community you refer to has been in the news a lot in the last few years. They have not been left alone. Their leader, Warren Jeffs, has been convicted of child rape and is in prison. I think Texas is after him as well, as they have a community there.
Click to expand...

Polygamist Warren Jeffs' Convictions Overturned - CBS News

The Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed the convictions of polygamist leader Warren Jeffs and ordered a new trial, saying a jury received incorrect instructions before considering his role in the 2001 nuptials of a 14-year-old girl to her 19-year-old cousin.

Jeffs, 54, was convicted in 2007 of two counts of first-degree felony rape as an accomplice. He is serving two consecutive terms of five years to life in the Utah State Prison.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry for the poorly written response and double post. I should always use microsoft word and paste.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The so called "FLDS" are not Mormons. Mormons follow the direction of the church leaders in Salt Lake City. FLDS do not.
Click to expand...

You might want to debate that with members of the FLDS. You'll certainly want to get your brethren to amend Wikipedia:

"Mormonism also includes Mormon fundamentalism, a tradition that continued to practice plural marriage after the LDS Church discontinued the practice around the turn of the 20th century.[1] Mormonism further includes a few small sects that broke from the LDS Church in order to pursue a more liberal religious path."

That's first paragraph.
 
UtahBill said:
No, Krakhead was not a mormon, but he got a lot of his "truth" from an excommunicated mormon, or did you miss that? I don't recall you asking, but I am a mormon, not practicing all of it, so maybe jack mormon. And I know I asked you your religion, and you prattled on about some buddhist something or other, avoiding giving an answer.
YOU are the one with an agenda. You read one book and use it to smear mormons, true mormons, not offshoots of the LDS church.
It is just like lying about your political opposites, you tell more about yourself than anything else. There is plenty of TRUE things to discuss, but you want to muddy the water with lies. That means to me that you know nothing on your own, just what you read that you want to believe.
That is called being prejudiced. Some people spend years in college and all they learned in that 4 or more years is what supports the prejudices they started with.
Click to expand...

You need to calm down. You're the one doing the smearing and insulting. (see bolded stuff above) You throw insults at the author of a book you'd never heard of before yesterday, presumably because somebody told you to. How else are you judging the book you haven't read? Now you're throwing insults at me, for smearing Mormons. How did I do that? It must be pretty easy to go back two or three pages and quote my posts in which I smear Mormons.

And as for Buddhism, if you had studied it at all you would be aware of the fact that 'Buddhists' aren't greatly into labels, not for themselves nor anyone else. You just are what you are, no need to join gangs and clubs and churches in order to assert your identity.

Now, why don't we have a civilised discussion?
 
Andalublue said:
You need to calm down. You're the one doing the smearing and insulting. (see bolded stuff above) You throw insults at the author of a book you'd never heard of before yesterday, presumably because somebody told you to. How else are you judging the book you haven't read? Now you're throwing insults at me, for smearing Mormons. How did I do that? It must be pretty easy to go back two or three pages and quote my posts in which I smear Mormons.

And as for Buddhism, if you had studied it at all you would be aware of the fact that 'Buddhists' aren't greatly into labels, not for themselves nor anyone else. You just are what you are, no need to join gangs and clubs and churches in order to assert your identity.

Now, why don't we have a civilised discussion?
Click to expand...
why don't you answer my question? afraid? what religion are you?
 
UtahBill said:
why don't you answer my question? afraid? what religion are you?
Click to expand...

I think I've answered that 3 times now. I practice the teachings of Buddhism, perhaps not too well, but I try. The problem with saying 'I am a Buddhist' is one of dualism. If you say, I am this and you are that, you are immediately creating a fallacious distinction between people. We are all humans and all part of nature. Was it you or someone else that made the point that you can't really call Buddhism a religion, it's more of a philosophy? It certainly doesn't have a creed or a set of orthodoxies. It doesn't have a creation story either, nor any concept of heaven and hell. There are no sins nor any omnipotent, omniscient deity.

Does that mean Buddhism is my religion? It's up to you to decide what you call it.
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
I think I've answered that 3 times now. I practice the teachings of Buddhism, perhaps not too well, but I try. The problem with saying 'I am a Buddhist' is one of dualism. If you say, I am this and you are that, you are immediately creating a fallacious distinction between people. We are all humans and all part of nature. Was it you or someone else that made the point that you can't really call Buddhism a religion, it's more of a philosophy? It certainly doesn't have a creed or a set of orthodoxies. It doesn't have a creation story either, nor any concept of heaven and hell. There are no sins nor any omnipotent, omniscient deity.

Does that mean Buddhism is my religion? It's up to you to decide what you call it.
Click to expand...

From what I have read about it, Buddhism is a philosophy, a very fluid philosphy that changes country to country, generation to generation. There doesn't seem to be a leadership that tries to make everyone adhere to an exact set of rules or beliefs, aside from the basic core that you mentioned.
I tend to like that kind of thinking. I tend to dislike those religions, or people, who attack the beliefs of others based on a few detractors who write books misrepresenting it, based only on what they think is bad about it, and without making even the smallest effort to see the good in it.
If you want to know what the LDS believe, you ask the LDS, not someone who writes a book based on the rantings of someone else, or who has a profit motive behind their actions and beliefs...
 
UtahBill said:
From what I have read about it, Buddhism is a philosophy, a very fluid philosphy that changes country to country, generation to generation. There doesn't seem to be a leadership that tries to make everyone adhere to an exact set of rules or beliefs, aside from the basic core that you mentioned.
I tend to like that kind of thinking. I tend to dislike those religions, or people, who attack the beliefs of others based on a few detractors who write books misrepresenting it, based only on what they think is bad about it, and without making even the smallest effort to see the good in it.
If you want to know what the LDS believe, you ask the LDS, not someone who writes a book based on the rantings of someone else, or who has a profit motive behind their actions and beliefs...
Click to expand...

All of which would be fair comment had I attacked anyone. As I said, it should be a simple matter to check back just a few pages to pull out the comments you believe I made to 'smear' the LDS. I can't imagine what perceived slight you think I made other than to say that I thought the Krakauer book was good. As you haven't read it and hadn't heard of it until yesterday, we can hardly debate it's contents, can we? I have entertained Mormon missionaries several times in my home, and I always have a nice a chat with very polite young men. They are a credit to their church, but, given that I simply don't believe in a creator God, we can't get very far down the road of theological agreement. The same goes with the married couple from the Jehovah's Witnesses who drop by every now and then.

In the interests of fairness, I just checked back every post I've made in this thread. the only thing you could interpret as being negative about the LDS is this:
The book is terrific, btw and Krakauer has no axe to grind, no vested interest in the issue. Unlike the LDS spokespeople.
Click to expand...
Suggesting the LDS spokepeople might have a vested interest in attacking the Krakauer book is hardly wholesale 'smearing' or 'attacking' of Mormonism. You should reread the earlier posts if you want to read attacks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom