The Church of Today and The Church of the Past

[Guest]

According to the article here, there are 8 core doctrines in Mormonism. I have taken the liberty to list these and following each name, indicate my relative feelings about it using my lameness score.

Lameness score:

1 = totally lame doctrine; nonsense
10 = totally awesome doctrine; completely reasonable, useful, and unique

For clarity, my definition of lame is - Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory; disabled

Restoration
1

Trinity
5

Modern prophets, continuing revelation and new scriptures
1

Plan of salvation
3

Temples and their purpose
2

Missionary program
1

Lay ministry
7

Health practices
1

EDIT: I changed the score for Trinity

[_Jersey Girl]

Liz,

Hope you don't mind a never chiming in. Like that's gonna stop me, right? I think one of the main causes for change (from outside looking in) is that the church cannot function in a vacuum. Members and non-members are learning things they could have never imagined about the church, serving to place the church under near microscopic examination--thanks to the internet.

This:

And, sorry to disappoint you, TBM's, but NOM is the new flavor of the month.

I think NOM's totally rock the house! As I stated recently, NOM's have made their evaluations, made their choices, and they DEAL with it.

[_zeezrom]

I think NOM's totally rock the house! As I stated recently, NOM's have made their evaluations, made their choices, and they DEAL with it.

Is their ability to DEAL with it the reason they rock the house? If so, would you say exmos, TBMs, jackmos also rock the house?

[_thews]

I think NOM's totally rock the house! As I stated recently, NOM's have made their evaluations, made their choices, and they DEAL with it.

Is their ability to DEAL with it the reason they rock the house? If so, would you say exmos, TBMs, jackmos also rock the house?

Zee, can you explain to me how rejecting the teachings of a prophet while claiming to believe in said prophet is "dealing" with anything? Not that you're the poster child for answering this question, but you have soft edge and I see this as complete and total BS.

[_thews]

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.

Throwing the red flag. You are in complete ignorance of the following: 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

What exactly is your point? Both Liz and harmony openly reject the above, do you? Are you part of the mamby-pamby pick and choose LDS type that just can't come to gripes with what they reject? The above stated Joseph Smith doctrine is quite clear... abide by the covenant or be damned. Please explain your argument, because you are being intellectually dishonest (in my opinion) in implying there are alternative ways to interpret the doctrine of Joseph Smith (a.k.a. LDS beliefs).

[_Rambo]

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.

Anyone else see this starting to become the norm? I didn't see this at all in my wards or it least I wasn't aware of it.

[_Zelder]

Throwing the red flag. You are in complete ignorance of the following: 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

What exactly is your point? Both Liz and harmony openly reject the above, do you? Are you part of the mamby-pamby pick and choose LDS type that just can't come to gripes with what they reject? The above stated Joseph Smith doctrine is quite clear... abide by the covenant or be damned. Please explain your argument, because you are being intellectually dishonest (in my opinion) in implying there are alternative ways to interpret the doctrine of Joseph Smith (a.k.a. LDS beliefs).

The covenant is celestial/temple marriage. Anybody married in the temple has entered into the covenant.

[_zeezrom]

Zee, can you explain to me how rejecting the teachings of a prophet while claiming to believe in said prophet is "dealing" with anything?

No, I cannot explain it. This is one of the main reasons why going back bothers me as much as it does.

[_zeezrom]

Anyone else see this starting to become the norm? I didn't see this at all in my wards or it least I wasn't aware of it.

Not happening here. But then, how do you spot an NOM? A beard? Sleeveless shirts? Coffee? A big smile on their face during Sacrament? How?

[_why me]

The Church of Tomorrow will not resemble the Church of the Past, nor the Church of Today. Mormons will claim that's the purpose of ongoing revelation. Most thinking people will notice Mormonism has just become Protestantism.

I don't think that you are correct. The church of today is certainly not a protestant church. But it still is a restorationist church witht the Book of Mormon as its cornerstone. And the way the church is setup is quite unique to mainstream religion. No other church outside the catholic church has the priesthood. Protestantism gave up the term priesthood.

Mormonism will always be out there alone among the fray.