DiscussMormonism.com

So do Mormons lie about their beliefs?

All practicing Mormons must answer the question, "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" in the affirmative in order to be able to attend an LDS temple, so they are often puzzled by these statements and questions. But Mormon answers aren't really the problem. The honesty problem has more to do with what Evangelical Christians are taught about Mormons than with Mormon belief itself.

In a survey done by FAIR, over 65% of responding pastors said that they had sponsored classes at their Church on Mormonism. Most people love their church and their pastors. They have seen their pastor spend countless hours in helping people and doing their best to teach their congregations. But in teaching about Mormonism, only 2% of those pastors actually invited Mormons to explain their beliefs. The rest relied on anti-Mormon ministries and publications for theirinformation.

The goal of these professional anti-Mormon ministries is to keep people away from Mormonism. They want to protect the flock from any Mormon "sheep-stealing" missionaries. To accomplish their goal they sensationalize, distort, misunderstand, misread, and misrepresent LDS doctrine and scripture. It is from this group that we learn that Mormonism is a cult. It is this group that provides most of the information on Mormonism on the Internet. So when Evangelicals start conversations with their Mormon acquaintances, they already "know" Mormons belong to a cult, even if they can't remember why.

On the other side of this equation, we have the Mormons. Mormons have a completely different way of looking at doctrine. They tend to classify doctrine into that which is important and that which is speculation. The important things are mostly reflected in the temple recommend questions and focus on core doctrines such as Jesus is our Savior, God is our Father, keep the commandments, God speaks to us today, and the Bible and The Book of Mormon are the word of God. Other important beliefs are that we lived with God before this life and after this life we will all be resurrected and enter one of the kingdoms of glory. These are all beliefs that define Mormonism.

Mormon speculation deals with doctrinal areas where there are hints in scripture, but no explanations. These areas are less sure, less defined, and frequently completely unknown. Questions in this area would include: what was it like in the pre-existence? Where did God come from? What exactly will it be like in the afterlife? Because these areas are unknown, a good practicing Mormon is free to believe and say anything he or she wants about them. We have a long history of commenting on these areas, yet most everyone understands that theseare areas of personal opinion and speculation.

The honesty problem comes up when the Evangelical world and the Mormon world collide. The questions posed to Mormons come from a basis in anti-Mormonism meant to expose how the Mormons are weird and belong to a cult. Is Jesus Satan's brother? Is there a God before God? Where does God live? Will you be creating your own planet? While you can find something written by a Mormon somewhere on all these items, these questions fall into the speculative area and are not core doctrines of Mormonism. This means if you ask several different Mormons, you will likely get several different answers. And Mormons have no problem with that.

When the religious issue came up for Mitt Romney, Mormon honesty became a factor. The real truth is that most of the discussions on Mormonism haven't been about Mormonism at all, but a discussion of speculation, anti-Mormon issues, and bigotry. That is where we need a little more honesty.

--Scott GordonPresident

Be ye not ashamed. What are we... ashamed of our faith? Ashamed of our doctrine? Ashamed of our history?

So his point is that mitt romney wasn't lying when he said Jesus wouldn't visit missiouri during the 2nd coming? It was just mitt's opinion (which is neither right nor wrong since 'we don't know much about that')?

My problem isn't with Mitt because he is a politician. His religious beliefs in detail shouldn't be an issue because it isn't an issue for any other religious candidate.

What gets my goat sometimes is when missionaries and official spokespersons for the Church are less than forthcoming in their answers.

Scott Gordon commited several logical fallacies in his "statement".

First of all, he asks a perfectly reasonable question: So do Mormons lie about their beliefs?

He thinks he has adequately addressed this issue with:

All practicing Mormons must answer the question, "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" in the affirmative in order to be able to attend an LDS temple, so they are often puzzled by these statements and questions.

Yea, right. That makes a lot of sense. So as an apologist, when people asked me if I was honest in my answers, I immediately became "puzzled" simply because I was asked in my temple interview, "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" How exactly would that "puzzle" me unless the person asking if I were honest, were my bishop?

And just because your bishop asks you this question, doesn't guarantee you're honest.

The second fallacy comes when he immediately changes the subject. Suddenly, the topic is the dishonesty of the anti-Mormon world.

I wanted tp puke. FAIR ites simply don't know how to operate in an intellectual sphere without constantly making the boogeyman, some anti-Mormon ministry. This is a logical fallacy as welol, because it doesn't matter how dishonest others are, trhe question is how dishonest are you. Gordon acts as if it couldn't possibly apply to Mormons since the Bishop demands honesty from them.

What a joke.

Who Knows wrote:So his point is that mitt romney wasn't lying when he said Jesus wouldn't visit missiouri during the 2nd coming? It was just mitt's opinion (which is neither right nor wrong since 'we don't know much about that')?

Well, the big Second Coming when everyone on Earth sees him and knows who he is I have no idea where he will be. If by Second Coming you mean all the appearances of the Savior drawn from Scripture then he goes to Independence, Adam-ondi-ahman, and Jerusalem. Whether Romney has studied these things enough to have seen these....I have no idea.

dartagnan wrote:(Mormons) tend to classify doctrine into that which is important and that which is speculation. The important things are mostly reflected in the temple recommend questions and focus on core doctrines such as Jesus is our Savior, God is our Father, keep the commandments, God speaks to us today, and the Bible and The Book of Mormon are the word of God. Other important beliefs are that we lived with God before this life and after this life we will all be resurrected and enter one of the kingdoms of glory. These are all beliefs that define Mormonism.

If Scott is right about this (of course this paragraph of his could just be speculation) then I believe church services should be where people go to learn true doctrine and not speculation. Therefore, the items listed by Scott as the core doctrines can be covered in a few hours. That's a conservative estimate taking into account questions from the class members, personal experiences, and side discussions. With that estimate in mind, the LDS church could cover all the core stuff in a series of 30 minute meetings one Sunday a month for a year. That would allow 6 solid hours of nothing but core teachings. Then they can do their typical "re-teach the same crap over again" at the start of each year. This would be great because people could spend more time with their families.

THe problem with Scott's theory is the "speculation" comes from some of his vague core doctrines. On the surface, keep the commandments, seems like a simple core doctrine and it can be taught in about 1 minute. Bu this is where the speculation comes in. What commandments? Jesus's commandments, or the prophets commandments, or both? If we are to obey the prophet's commandments, what if the prophet gives a commandment that seems to be his own speculation? How about the core doctrine of the Bible and Book of Mormon being the word of God? Does that mean they are the literal word of God? IF so, does that mean Noah's global flood was literally a global flood? Did ancient prophets literally live to be hundreds of years old? So even the so called core doctrines lead to vast speculation.

dartagnan wrote:And just because your bishop asks you this question, doesn't guarantee you're honest.

Sure it does. Just like we can be sure that no teenage LDS boy masturbates because the bishop asks him about it. Bishop's interviews are where the real truth comes out. You can't slip anything past a bishop.

Who Knows wrote:So his point is that Mitt Romney wasn't lying when he said Jesus wouldn't visit Missouri during the 2nd coming? It was just mitt's opinion (which is neither right nor wrong since 'we don't know much about that')?

You must ask yourself if you believe all the Mormon speculations that have been offered in the past. If the answer is no, then why insist that all Mormons be held to the idle daydreams a past leader has uttered out loud?

I remember listening to Bob Lonsberry (the morning AM radio host of the local LDS station here) and he went on a tyraid about Wiccan and how they prey after young, impressionable teen girls, especially those with self-esteem issues. That you should do everything in your power to keep your children away from the wiccans. They are a cult, plain and simple.

I've heard LDS Sunday school teachers speak about Scientology and how weird it is and to keep away from it. Although, granted, it wasn't a specific lesson dedicated to avoiding Scientology. The conversation just kind of went there.

You know SWSU, if the "core doctrines" we shouldn't look beyond like, "be good", "let's get resurrected", and "Jesus lived", are what God went through all the trouble for. Subtly manipulating history for 2,000 years from the apostasy through the reformation and finally the restoration, it's a bit anti-climactic.