The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

Post by _Drifting »

liz3564 wrote:
Drifting wrote:Will 'apostate' become the new 'gospel doctrine teacher'...?


LOL! It wouldn't surprise me!

Or, at least NOMs like Consig! I would have given anything to be a fly on the wall during his Gospel Doctrine classes.


"Scott Trotter today announced that Grant Palmer will be replaced as Church Historian by D. Michael Quinn..."
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

Post by _ludwigm »

liz3564 wrote:What I mean by that is that, eventually, it will be the NOMs who are leading the Church in new ways.

Are the NOMs old enough?

There is no other way to take over the leadership than overlive.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

Post by _Buffalo »

I don't think Monson is putting out any hits on anyone, so there's one major difference from Brigham Young's Mormonism.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

Post by _thews »

liz3564 wrote:Today's Mormonism is very different from the Mormonism during the Brigham Young era, which, in my opinion, was extremely abusive.

Why is it different? Did God screw things up in the beginning when he instructed Joseph Smith to practice polygamy? Did God make a mistake by banning black men from holding the priesthood? Was the "most perfect book ever written" incorrect in using "White and delightsome" vs. dark and loathsome?

liz3564 wrote:If you look at how the Church is practiced today, particularly, how it is practiced in states other than Utah, you will find it a pretty mainstreamed Church. It is far from being Unitarian in nature, but it does closely resemble other branches of Judeo-Christianity.

There isn't one Christian church that places faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, nor the doctrine of Joseph Smith as true. Christians don't believe in Joseph Smith's truth claims to include supposed extra doctrine from Jesus Christ. Christians don't wear magical Masonic jammies. Christians don't believe in Mormon temple rituals, Mormon theology, nor the revised Bible of Joseph Smith. You can keep trying to pound the square peg in the round hole, but Christianity rejects the doctrine of Joseph Smith as that of a false prophet of God. The only religion to accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith are LDS.. they are not in any way, shape, or form the same.

liz3564 wrote:I think that is, actually, why there is such a problem with members who discover the history of the Church of the past. It is a Church they don't recognize. Even the temple ceremonies have changed significantly.

That's because it had to change, and that's because it's not true. The truth is held from LDS members, because 14 year old bride of Joseph Smith and magic rocks placed in a hat don't bode well for his truth claims.

liz3564 wrote:For those who did experience a more radical difference with the LDS Church, there is a difficulty in adjustment to the current LDS Church.

If God really did threaten Joseph Smith with a sword for failing to practice polygamy, then so should you if you believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God. If the doctrine of Joseph Smith is true, and you reject polygamy in heaven, then you will be damned.

http://institute.LDS.org/manuals/doctri ... 31-132.asp
D&C 132:3–6 . “If Ye Abide Not That Covenant, Then Are Ye Damned”

The “new and everlasting covenant” ( D&C 132:4 ) is the covenant of celestial marriage, as President Spencer W. Kimball stated: “Though relatively few people in this world understand it, the new and everlasting covenant is the marriage ordinance in the holy temple by the properly constituted leaders who hold the genuine, authoritative keys. This glorious blessing is available to men and women on this earth.” ( “Temples and Eternal Marriage,” Ensign, Aug. 1974, p. 5 .)

One can sense the importance of accepting the covenant from the number of times the Lord repeats this warning:

“All who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same” ( D&C 132:3 ).

“If ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned” ( v. 4 ).

“No one can reject this covenant and . . . enter into my glory” ( v. 4 ).

“All who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law” ( v. 5 ).

“He that receiveth a fulness [of my glory] must and shall abide the law” ( v. 6 ).

President Kimball stressed how the Saints should view this commandment (see Notes and Commentary for D&C 131:4 ). Those who reject this covenant cannot progress eternally because they do not inherit the blessings of eternal increase.



liz3564 wrote:I know that BC is going to fight me on this, and say that the Church is the same, but it isn't. The core doctrine is the same. But that core doctrine exists in MANY Christian branches. Yes, the stranger tenets still exist, but they have been massively de-emphasized. What we are left with is a Christian sect where members don't drink, smoke, drink coffee or tea, who hold voluntary callings revolving around service, and have regular opportunities to give sermons in their Church services. As someone who lives in the Bible belt, this is hardly recognized as "peculiar", except for the lack of tea consumption. ;-)
(Sweet tea is the favorite drink of choice at most social functions here in the South.)

Note how you claim the "core doctrine" exists in many "Christian" branches... that isn't true. The "core doctrine" is used only by LDS (or Mormon) churches. It's like the bogus writings of BC or ldsfaqs as they claim they actually made a point in an argument when they simply left after being painted in a corner. Does repeating the same untruth multiple times make a point? What part of Christianity rejecting Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God is so difficult to understand?

liz3564 wrote:The emphasis of the modern Church is on family, and family values. Overall, I see this as a positive.

I'll give you that, but at the expense of following a false prophet it hardly balances the scales.

liz3564 wrote:And, sorry to disappoint you, TBM's, but NOM is the new flavor of the month. More members practice Mormonism from a NOM perspective, which I also don't see as a bad thing. As a NOM, I am actually probably more committed to the Church than I was as a TBM. I just channel my energy into Church activities which are most beneficial to me, and to my family.

I just don't get this mindset. On one hand you have to change what you claim to believe because you don't, then on the other you claim to be committed to it. Committed to what? A false prophet of God? I get the NOM perspective of playing along to keep your family together, but that perspective is based on honesty, because it doesn't require finding some way to also claim you believe in what you know to be false.

Tell me Liz, are you going to reject polygamy in heaven and are therefore damned? Will you change your mind when you get there and share your husband with his multiple wives? Is there some sort of NOM loophole where you get to decide which parts of Joseph Smith's doctrine is true and which are false?

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [lawlessness].
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
_Rambo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:43 am

Re: The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

Post by _Rambo »

liz3564 wrote:If you look at how the Church is practiced today, particularly, how it is practiced in states other than Utah, you will find it a pretty mainstreamed Church. It is far from being Unitarian in nature, but it does closely resemble other branches of Judeo-Christianity.

The core doctrine is the same. But that core doctrine exists in MANY Christian branches. Yes, the stranger tenets still exist, but they have been massively de-emphasized.


I don't know any other Christian church's that believe in the pre-mortal life. Other church's don’t do baptisms for the dead, the endowment, and celestial marriage. I really don't think those have been de-emphasized.


What we are left with is a Christian sect where members don't drink, smoke, drink coffee or tea, who hold voluntary callings revolving around service, and have regular opportunities to give sermons in their Church services. As someone who lives in the Bible belt, this is hardly recognized as "peculiar",

Really? Come on now we all know Mormons are peculiar. When I hang out with my Mormon friends they talk about the church it least half the time. My other friends don't really talk about church that much even if they have one. Also, not drinking can really set you aside as being peculiar especially when you are younger. Not drinking coffee or tea is pretty strange as well.

Don't get me started on masturbation either. Sure it was taught by other church's in the past not to masturbate but that has been de-emphasized. This is not so in today's Mormon church which highly stresses one not to masturbate. Other church's don't ask you when was the last time you masturbated.

Not having sex either before you are married is also pretty peculiar. Sure it is in the Bible not to have sex before marriage but as far as I know that has also been pretty de-emphasized. Plus if you do have sex before marriage in other churches you don't have to go confess every detail to the pastor. Sure you do in the catholic church but don't they just have to say some hail Mary's?

The other day my nephew who is just 7 said that he has to go on a mission. I don't know any other Christian church that tells it's young boys at an early age that they have to go on a mission for 2 years.

I think I could go on and on about what makes the Mormon church peculiar compared to other Christian church's. Let's not forget the time it takes up in ones life. If you truly want to obey the Mormon god then you barely have any free time. The more my non-Mormon friends know about the Mormon church the more they say how crazy the religion is.

I'm sorry I disagree. The Mormon church is a lot more strange than other Christian church's. However; I do find other Christian church's pretty strange as well but just not at the same level or commitment.

The emphasis of the modern Church is on family, and family values. Overall, I see this as a positive.

Well don't forget it rips families apart when one of the members don't believe anymore. It's only a positive if all family members are active members. So overall I see it binding people to a belief that they don't have to be bound to. If a person can not live how they truly want to live then I see this as an over all negative.

And, sorry to disappoint you, TBM's, but NOM is the new flavour of the month. More members practice Mormonism from a NOM perspective, which I also don't see as a bad thing. As a NOM, I am actually probably more committed to the Church than I was as a TBM. I just channel my energy into Church activities which are most beneficial to me, and to my family.

Do you have some evidence of people practicing as NOM's. From my observations this is not true at all. Most Mormons I run across believe every word of the prophet. Most are definitely TBM's. TBM's would see you as less committed cause I am sure NOM's can say no to a calling where TBM's can not say no to a calling. TBM's can't say no because they really believe the calling is from God.
_Yoda

Re: The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

Post by _Yoda »

Rambo wrote:Do you have some evidence of people practicing as NOM's.


I don't have any statistical evidence. I am just going by personal experience in my own ward.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

Post by _bcspace »

NOM's and DAMU's are quite rare, but like homosexuals, tend to exaggerate their numbers. Rail all you want, but plural marriage is still official doctrine.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

Post by _Buffalo »

bcspace wrote:NOM's and DAMU's are quite rare, but like homosexuals, tend to exaggerate their numbers. Rail all you want, but plural marriage is still official doctrine.


The church leadership are ashamed of that official doctrine, apparently.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Zelder
_Emeritus
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:15 am

Re: The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

Post by _Zelder »

thews wrote:If God really did threaten Joseph Smith with a sword for failing to practice polygamy, then so should you if you believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God. If the doctrine of Joseph Smith is true, and you reject polygamy in heaven, then you will be damned.


No, that's not true. Everyone is commanded to make a marriage covenant. Not everyone is commanded to make multiple marriage covenants with multiple people.
_zeezrom
_Emeritus
Posts: 11938
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:57 pm

Re: The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

Post by _zeezrom »

Maybe it is time to list the core doctrines of the church that remain the same since the old church.

i.e. what is core to a Mormon?

looking at this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/core-beliefs
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)

The Holy Sacrament.
Post Reply