Is this what Mormons really believe?

[UtahBill]

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:
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.

That is the comment, thanks for repeating it for me...
and repeating is the problem, especially when you don't personally know what you are repeating to be true..
You insist on lumping all together under one word, even tho the LDS have nothing to do with FLDS, or other offshoots. That is the insult, and you justify it by referring to a book written by an excommunicated LDS writer. You are more than willing to give credibility to someone who hates the church, but not the church itself.
Really, you don't think Krakhuer has an agenda? How about profit motive?

 

[Andalublue]

That is the comment, thanks for repeating it for me...
and repeating is the problem, especially when you don't personally know what you are repeating to be true..
You insist on lumping all together under one word, even tho the LDS have nothing to do with FLDS, or other offshoots. That is the insult, and you justify it by referring to a book written by an excommunicated LDS writer. You are more than willing to give credibility to someone who hates the church, but not the church itself.
Really, you don't think Krakhuer has an agenda? How about profit motive?

Then you need to harden up a bit and quit with the faux ignorance. Firstly, I lumped no one together. The Krakauer book is about the FLDS and the LDS, but you wouldn't know that because you keep claiming you haven't read it. You are taking your opinions from others, exactly the criticism you are making of me.

Secondly, Krakauer was never an LDS member, so could never have been 'excommunicated'. His praise for many aspects of Mormonism shine through in the book, he looks at both sides of the coin however and hence the criticism he received from the LDS heirarchy and the FLDS people in SW Utah and NW Arizona. If you take him at his word (I'm sure you wouldn't) his agenda is this:

As a child in Oregon, many of the author's playmates, teachers, and athletic coaches were Latter-day Saints. Although he envied the unfluctuating certainty of the faith professed so enthusiastically by these Mormon friends and acquaintances, he was often baffled by it, and has sought to comprehend the formidable power of such belief ever since. The upshot of this lifelong quest is UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN, in which Krakauer examines the nature of religious passion through the lens of Mormon Fundamentalism.

If you read his response to the LDS criticism of his book in full, it may answer some of your questions. If you want to debate with me further on the book, you're going to have to read it first. I'm always happy to debate in good faith.

 

[UtahBill]

Then you need to harden up a bit and quit with the faux ignorance. Firstly, I lumped no one together. The Krakauer book is about the FLDS and the LDS, but you wouldn't know that because you keep claiming you haven't read it. You are taking your opinions from others, exactly the criticism you are making of me.

Secondly, Krakauer was never an LDS member, so could never have been 'excommunicated'. His praise for many aspects of Mormonism shine through in the book, he looks at both sides of the coin however and hence the criticism he received from the LDS heirarchy and the FLDS people in SW Utah and NW Arizona. If you take him at his word (I'm sure you wouldn't) his agenda is this:

If you read his response to the LDS criticism of his book in full, it may answer some of your questions. If you want to debate with me further on the book, you're going to have to read it first. I'm always happy to debate in good faith.

I misspoke, happens occasionally, what I meant to say comes from the following from Wikipedia....
In response, Krakauer criticized the LDS Church hierarchy, citing the opinion of D. Michael Quinn, a historian who was excommunicated in 1993, who wrote that "The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials." Krakauer wrote, "I happen to share Dr. Quinn's perspective."[4]

 

[Dittohead not!]

I misspoke, happens occasionally, what I meant to say comes from the following from Wikipedia....
In response, Krakauer criticized the LDS Church hierarchy, citing the opinion of D. Michael Quinn, a historian who was excommunicated in 1993, who wrote that "The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials." Krakauer wrote, "I happen to share Dr. Quinn's perspective."[4]

Which, of course, is something that has never, ever happened with any other church. After all, they are only repeating God's word, so how could they possibly misrepresent the history of their churches?

 

[UtahBill]

Which, of course, is something that has never, ever happened with any other church. After all, they are only repeating God's word, so how could they possibly misrepresent the history of their churches?

repeating is easy, understanding is hard...
IMO, we should measure churches for the good they do, but that doesn't mean we totallly disregard the bad. Likewise for governments....

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

I read ~10 of the "popular" buddhist books in the late 90's ... so maybe I don't have an accurate perspective, but buddhist felt like philosophy class in college; lots of wishy-washy "maybe this, maybe that" statements.

Nothing concrete enough for me to dedicate to beyond the stoned meditation sessions I would have, which were honestly more about listening to pink floyd and "emptying" my mind than anything else.

Not a fan.

The Analects of Confucius was much more interesting.

 

[Dittohead not!]

repeating is easy, understanding is hard...
IMO, we should measure churches for the good they do, but that doesn't mean we totallly disregard the bad. Likewise for governments....

Exactly. I doubt that there is an example of either one that doesn't have a few dark chapters somewhere in the past.

 

[Andalublue]

I read ~10 of the "popular" buddhist books in the late 90's ... so maybe I don't have an accurate perspective, but buddhist felt like philosophy class in college; lots of wishy-washy "maybe this, maybe that" statements.

Nothing concrete enough for me to dedicate to beyond the stoned meditation sessions I would have, which were honestly more about listening to pink floyd and "emptying" my mind than anything else.

Not a fan.

The Analects of Confucius was much more interesting.

You're probably right, it's not for those seeking moral certainties and concrete assertions. Confucius is a very stimulating read, as is Lao Tzu.

 

[Captain America]

I mean no disrespect UtahBill or Andablue, but, listening to you guys go back and forth reminds me of the time, in the Navy, when two shipmates of mine nearly came to blows regarding some powers one character had over another, in a Dungeons and Dragons game.

Does it matter? Think outside the box. Just give it a try once. Try taking an approach from a reality point of view, just for a second. (It won't hurt, I promise.) Does ANY of that religious mumbo jumbo REALLY matter? It's MUMBO JUMBO for crissakes!!! repeat after me... "Mumbo....Jumbo....

Arrrrggghhh!!! Why do I even bother?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

so for a whole year new converts are kept in the dark about what is REALLY going on? Yeah, right.....

Do you think converts are told the details of the temple ceremony?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

close, but no cigar.....not dark skin, but african blacks....people of the south pacific were not considered "black", no matter how dark....

This is inaccurate. The Lamanites were cursed with dark skin for their rebellion against God. This belief extended to ALL dark-skinned people.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

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.

I was Mormon and was married in the Salt Lake Temple.

 

[UtahBill]

Do you think converts are told the details of the temple ceremony?

eventually, but it isn't just the long gone "secrecy" of temple ceremoney that you were talking about.
Like was said, you get a lot wrong about the LDS, maybe you slept thru the ceremony? BTW, WHICH CEREMONY are you talking about...?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

eventually, but it isn't just the long gone "secrecy" of temple ceremoney that you were talking about.
Like was said, you get a lot wrong about the LDS, maybe you slept thru the ceremony? BTW, WHICH CEREMONY are you talking about...?

Have you been through the temple? If so, you'd realize that the temple ceremonies include baptisms for the dead, the endowment ceremony and being sealed for time and all eternity to my former husband. I've participated in all three. Not only did I participate in being endowed & sealed myself, but also performed these ritually for other people.

My guess is that you're only superficially familiar with LDS doctrine.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

I'll tell you what, Utah Bill. Do a little reading on the phrase "white and delightsome" in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. There were multiple references to people of faith being "white and delightsome" in the BOM. Most specifically, God cursed the Lamanites with dark skin for their disobedience.

In 1981, the LDS Church replaced the phrase "white and delightsome" and "skin of darkness" with "pure and delightsome" and "scales of darkness". You don't know the LDS church as well as you think you do.

Second LDS President Brigham Young stated in 1859 that Lamanite (Native American) skin color was related to their sinfulness:

"You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336).

Spencer Kimball, October 1960 LDS Church Conference, affirmed these comments:

"The Indians are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation...These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."
(Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3).

The belief was that the Lamanites (native Americans) were cursed with dark skin by God for rejecting the words of Nephi. This belief also extended to Latinos, Hawaiians/Islanders, etc. Having a white skin was a sign of being valiant in the pre-Existence. People with dark skin were also believed to become whiter as a result of accepting the church.

You can find multiple examples of rhetoric on this subject online from key church leaders.

Here's a clipping of one of the relevant passages from LDS scripture:

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the
mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of
their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of
Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. And their
brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God
set a mark upon them...And it came to pass that whosoever did
mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his
seed. Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites
was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him. And it
came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites,
but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and
also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the
commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of
Nephi, from that time forth. -Alma 3:6-11

 

[Slartibartfast]

the endowment ceremony

Mormons invented Extenze?

 

[Coronado]

Mormons invented Extenze?

I guess they have to let out the holy underwear a little in the crotch.

 

[Ned Racine]

repeating is easy, understanding is hard...
IMO, we should measure churches for the good they do, but that doesn't mean we totallly disregard the bad. Likewise for governments....

Okay - just reading thru most of this thread can even the harshest critics admit that the present Church is substantially different than in Brigham Young's time AND that the LDS Humanitrian /Disaster/Relief coordination & services is about as Good as anything on this Earth and often goes unrecognized by the MSM ?????

 

[UtahBill]

Okay - just reading thru most of this thread can even the harshest critics admit that the present Church is substantially different than in Brigham Young's time AND that the LDS Humanitrian /Disaster/Relief coordination & services is about as Good as anything on this Earth and often goes unrecognized by the MSM ?????

Exactly, the LDS never were as portrayed by Zane Gray stories, but there are plenty of people around who only want to hear the weird and strange of other's beliefs, and disregard the good they do.
There is much in the early churches that is no longer considered true or worthwhile believing. That goes for ALL religions. The dark skin issue started with some catholic priest or pope eons ago, got carried over to protestants and the LDS.
There is only a vague connection with skin color and the "mark of Cain", which is where it all originated. Brigham Young was a racist by today's standards, but in his time his beliefs were the norm, almost everybody believed that dark skin meant that the race was inferior in God's eyes. That has been a bone of contention with me ever since my baptist days when as children we were taught, in morning sunday school, the song "red or yellow, black or white, they are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world", then in evening sermons heard the preacher teach bigotry towards people of color...
There was a time when mormons openly derided the catholics as the worst of the "major" religions, now they work with the catholics in Humanitarian causes.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

There is only a vague connection with skin color and the "mark of Cain", which is where it all originated. Brigham Young was a racist by today's standards, but in his time his beliefs were the norm, almost everybody believed that dark skin meant that the race was inferior in God's eyes. That has been a bone of contention with me ever since my baptist days when as children we were taught, in morning sunday school, the song "red or yellow, black or white, they are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world", then in evening sermons heard the preacher teach bigotry towards people of color...
There was a time when mormons openly derided the catholics as the worst of the "major" religions, now they work with the catholics in Humanitarian causes.

You're confusing the Mark of Cain, which only applied to black people, and groups who were smited with dark skin as a result of disobedience, aka the Lamanites. I don't know why you're so defensive about this. The thread isn't about what good works the LDS church has performed, but about their doctrines.

 

[UtahBill]

You're confusing the Mark of Cain, which only applied to black people, and groups who were smited with dark skin as a result of disobedience, aka the Lamanites. I don't know why you're so defensive about this. The thread isn't about what good works the LDS church has performed, but about their doctrines.

and I just explained where part of that doctrine originated...it was copied from other religions. There is much more in common with protestants that there are differences. People who seek out the differences and make issue of them are the ones who WANT to believe that their religion is superior....and all others are false...

 

[Slartibartfast]

ones who WANT to believe that their religion is superior....and all others are false...

Thats pretty much a standard feature of all religions. Including those who are non religious.

 

[Ned Racine]

Bill - As I suspect you know that some use the LDS Church as a Whipping Boy even though they come from different perspectives. Some are Ultra Liberals who despise most Mormons based on the Generalization as to how most today do Vote. Then there are those hung up in Religous Ideology - mostly Baptist or some other Charismatic Christian types who do believe the BS about Mormonism that gives the impression that it (LDS Church) has never changed.

Many have drifted away from the Church and become inactive. Two subgroups exist. Those who just want the inactivity (to be left alone from certain Church lifestyle) and those with an Axe to grind based on their experiences during their adolescence or possibly a Bad Marriage. Some even develop a super resentment against those in the Church who are seemingly prosperous and have a viable Well adjusted family .

 

[Coronado]

Bill - As I suspect you know that some use the LDS Church as a Whipping Boy even though they come from different perspectives. Some are Ultra Liberals who despise most Mormons based on the Generalization as to how most today do Vote. Then there are those hung up in Religous Ideology - mostly Baptist or some other Charismatic Christian types who do believe the BS about Mormonism that gives the impression that it (LDS Church) has never changed.

Many have drifted away from the Church and become inactive. Two subgroups exist. Those who just want the inactivity (to be left alone from certain Church lifestyle) and those with an Axe to grind based on their experiences during their adolescence or possibly a Bad Marriage. Some even develop a super resentment against those in the Church who are seemingly prosperous and have a viable Well adjusted family .

Yeah, so don't bother debating with them. Just categorize them into one of these groups and dismiss them. That's way easier than thinking!

 

[Ned Racine]

Not dismissing them . They are out there , and most do Vote. A relative small number in Iowa in early 2008 derailed Romney at a key juncture for no other reason than his being LDS. Huckabee fed into that and his quiet view today - despite being a TV host has not changed much.