Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:


I've been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for years. I still wonder how people do not think us Christian since we believe in Jesus as the son of God and through his sacrifice we are able to gain redemption if we strive to follow his example.

Generally speaking, there are certain passages of the Bible that basically, or rather bluntly state that adding to, or taking away from "this" book is basically blasphemy. Most other Christian denominations view the Book of Mormon as falling under those passages. Whether or not they are ignorant in assuming that this particular book forms your central belief system or not, it is how it's viewed.

A lot of people cite the "adding to or taking away" passage, but that particular piece of scripture refers to the book of Revelation. The bible itsel is a collection of individual books that were put together centuries after they were written. The book of Mormon is an account of God's dealings with the ancient American people, much like the Bible gives account of his dealings with people in the Holy Land.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@d-usa, no worries, I caught what you meant, bro.

A quick google search found 3 other passages within the bible talking about the same thing, and not in relation to Revelations specifically. And, like most religious writings, is down to interpretation of individuals and "individual" congregations. But, that is ultimately a whole different topic.

The fact that it is mentioned in other parts of the Bible would condem those who wrote the later books if taken in the context of adding to or taking from as used by those who say members of the LDS faith are going to hell because of the Book of Mormon.

Ironically the Bible itself was pretty heavily edited from it's initial inception with the Roman Catholic church setting the Bible's "Canon" in the Middle Ages. thirteenth century was the final form off the top of my head. The canon set then is the same Bible that you can get any where today. Protestant, Catholic or any other variant, the translations differ but the canon remains.

This was mainly done to suppress books of the Bible or gospels the Church didn't like or they thought went "off message" like the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas... or more controversially the Gospel of Judas Iscariot.

Relapse wrote:
I still wonder how people do not think us Christian

Really? It's not like it's a secret:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Protestant, Catholic or any other variant, the translations differ but the canon remains.

Nope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons

And especially not regarding Mormons.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Ironically the Bible itself was pretty heavily edited from it's initial inception with the Roman Catholic church setting the Bible's "Canon" in the Middle Ages. thirteenth century was the final form off the top of my head. The canon set then is the same Bible that you can get any where today. Protestant, Catholic or any other variant, the translations differ but the canon remains.

This was mainly done to suppress books of the Bible or gospels the Church didn't like or they thought went "off message" like the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas... or more controversially the Gospel of Judas Iscariot.

This again?

Do we really need to go over this yet again?

I'll ask you like I ask the others who keep making this "editing" claim..please prove that the bible was "heavily edited" before making such a widesweeping casual statement, as though it were true, without doing any of your own research on the subject.

And again..gnosticism was not and is not Christianity, the gnostic gospels you pointed to were rejected due their unorthodox view of God.

And yet again...the classic definition of a nonchristian cult is how far it deviates from orthodoxy, I.E. do they believe in the virgin birth, the trinity, original sin...etc...etc (The classic mormon church doesn't believe in any of those).

The Roman Catholic church while deviating from the gospel with some of their traditions is still an orthodox member of the universal church, which would include most reformed denominations(baptists, anglicans, lutherans, methodists, pentecostals...etc..etc.) and the eastern orthodox church.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
The Roman Catholic church while deviating from the gospel with some of their traditions

LOL whatever.

 generalgrog wrote:


I'll ask you like I ask the others who keep making this "editing" claim..please prove that the bible was "heavily edited" before making such a widesweeping casual statement, as though it were true, without doing any of your own research on the subject.

I think the idea stems from the various Councils of Nicea, where the overall doctrine of "universal Christianity" were discussed and decided, and ultimately certain divergent books of various people were removed from the "Bible". As you alluded to in your post, the reason that many of these books were deemed unfit for Christianity as full gospel was because the views and experiences expressed were too far removed from the rest of the collected works. Some of them live on as "additional research" texts and are known to be "apocryphal works". IIRC, the Old Testament books were largely non-debated, as those are viewed as being in the Jewish traditions, and therefore are set without additional input.

 Manchu wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I still wonder how people do not think us Christian

Really? It's not like it's a secret:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Protestant, Catholic or any other variant, the translations differ but the canon remains.

Nope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons

And especially not regarding Mormons.

I would suggest checking this link instead, if you want to see what LDS members believe.


http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

It's kind of funny how the Wikipedia page on Joseph Smith mentions nothing of how he was a convicted fraudster, or nothing else about the run of events (which can only be described as comical in terms of how ridiculously far fetched they are) which he claims to have happened. The way in which it is all presented on the page gives it a wonderful sense of history and legitimacy - must be a really interesting example for historians and sociologists in terms of how religions are created and then gain that legitimacy.

Regarding the topic in hand does anyone think that Romney really believes this stuff? I find it slightly frightening that we could be in a situation where someone who does could be voted into the most powerful office on earth, and therefore have their finger hovering over that big red button. Brings a certain Bill Hicks sketch to mind...

 Pacific wrote:

Regarding the topic in hand does anyone think that Romney really believes this stuff? I find it slightly frightening that we could be in a situation where someone who does could be voted into the most powerful office on earth, and therefore have their finger hovering over that big red button. Brings a certain Bill Hicks sketch to mind...

The problem is of course, is that there is not a single person in the media who can legitimately ask, "Mr. Romney, are you wearing your magic underwear today?" I mean, really the first person who does that, will be demonized and probably never get work again in any media field. One would think that, at his age, and in the positions he has been in, with business and whatnot, that he believes in certain tenets of the Mormon faith, however he probably does not believe, or practice some of the more "weird" things.

Most Mormans don't practice all of the wierd stuff.

Polygamy for example is relegated to the fringes of Morman society. They may not believe its wrong, but they arn't going to openly advocate it because its really not important.

Like how the Bible stipulates that the punishment for the sin of Homosexuality, Sodomy, and Beastiality is death. But the vast majority of christians are not going to advocate the death penelty for it.

I think the idea stems from the various Councils of Nicea, where the overall doctrine of "universal Christianity" were discussed and decided, and ultimately certain divergent books of various people were removed from the "Bible".

Its rather hard to remove books from something that doesn't exist yet.

 Pacific wrote:
It's kind of funny how the Wikipedia page on Joseph Smith mentions nothing of how he was a convicted fraudster, or nothing else about the run of events (which can only be described as comical in terms of how ridiculously far fetched they are) which he claims to have happened. The way in which it is all presented on the page gives it a wonderful sense of history and legitimacy - must be a really interesting example for historians and sociologists in terms of how religions are created and then gain that legitimacy.

Regarding the topic in hand does anyone think that Romney really believes this stuff? I find it slightly frightening that we could be in a situation where someone who does could be voted into the most powerful office on earth, and therefore have their finger hovering over that big red button. Brings a certain Bill Hicks sketch to mind...

This might be a good time to remind everyone to remain polite and respectful - difficult in any thread on religion or politics - combine the two and watch out!

As for worrying about what happens if Romney gets to hover his finger over The Button...

Were you especially worried when G.W. Bush was President?

You should have been!

 LordofHats wrote:

I think the idea stems from the various Councils of Nicea, where the overall doctrine of "universal Christianity" were discussed and decided, and ultimately certain divergent books of various people were removed from the "Bible".

Its rather hard to remove books from something that doesn't exist yet.

But, it was through those councils that it was created essentially as we know it now. They were the ones deliberating over what was to be considered doctrine, and what writings fell in with that doctrine.

 Pacific wrote:
It's kind of funny how the Wikipedia page on Joseph Smith mentions nothing of how he was a convicted fraudster, or nothing else about the run of events (which can only be described as comical in terms of how ridiculously far fetched they are) which he claims to have happened. The way in which it is all presented on the page gives it a wonderful sense of history and legitimacy - must be a really interesting example for historians and sociologists in terms of how religions are created and then gain that legitimacy.

Regarding the topic in hand does anyone think that Romney really believes this stuff? I find it slightly frightening that we could be in a situation where someone who does could be voted into the most powerful office on earth, and therefore have their finger hovering over that big red button. Brings a certain Bill Hicks sketch to mind...

A mob caused the death of one of his children on a night he was dragged from his bed, tarred, feathered, and beaten. The next day he preached a sermon at which were some of the previous nights mob. He was continually jailed on trumped up charges had several attempts on his life. He finally went to jail one last time, knowing he was going to be murdered there, even though he could have escaped. Some kind of fraudster that guy.
This was a revalation given to him while he was in Liberty jail:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/122?lang=eng

Some more accounts of the man

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=df4ba41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

Regarding the topic in hand does anyone think that Romney really believes this stuff? I find it slightly frightening that we could be in a situation where someone who does could be voted into the most powerful office on earth, and therefore have their finger hovering over that big red button. Brings a certain Bill Hicks sketch to mind...

The problem is of course, is that there is not a single person in the media who can legitimately ask, "Mr. Romney, are you wearing your magic underwear today?" I mean, really the first person who does that, will be demonized and probably never get work again in any media field. One would think that, at his age, and in the positions he has been in, with business and whatnot, that he believes in certain tenets of the Mormon faith, however he probably does not believe, or practice some of the more "weird" things.

The "magic underwear" keep hearing about is called garments and is worn to remind us of our covenents with God. It could perhaps be compared, in Protestant terms, to the collar worn by clergymen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most Mormans don't practice all of the wierd stuff.

Polygamy for example is relegated to the fringes of Morman society. They may not believe its wrong, but they arn't going to openly advocate it because its really not important.

Like how the Bible stipulates that the punishment for the sin of Homosexuality, Sodomy, and Beastiality is death. But the vast majority of christians are not going to advocate the death penelty for it.

Thank you on that, Grey, but anyone who practices polygamy is excommunicated and should not be considered even on the fringes of the LDS faith.

Relapse wrote:


The "magic underwear" keep hearing about is called garments and is worn to remind us of our covenents with God. It could perhaps be compared, in Protestant terms, to the collar worn by clergymen.

Most clergymen in Protestant religions wear a standard necktie But I get what you are saying. The point still is, reporters cannot, and will not ask Romney about whether he practices certain Mormon beliefs.


And, as a student of history, I cannot accept the account written up by the church about one of it's founders. To me, that would be like accepting the North Korean Government's story about the birth and life of Kim Jong Il as being completely and unequivocably true. I don't say this to flame bait, merely point out, that to scholars and essentially anyone who is not a Mormon, they will see these stories as being highly exaggurated, especially given how recent these events happened, given the nature of history as a whole.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


...One would think that, at his age, and in the positions he has been in, with business and whatnot, that he believes in certain tenets of the Mormon faith, however he probably does not believe, or practice some of the more "weird" things.

He was a Mormon Bishop wasn't he?

GG

 Alpharius wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
It's kind of funny how the Wikipedia page on Joseph Smith mentions nothing of how he was a convicted fraudster, or nothing else about the run of events (which can only be described as comical in terms of how ridiculously far fetched they are) which he claims to have happened. The way in which it is all presented on the page gives it a wonderful sense of history and legitimacy - must be a really interesting example for historians and sociologists in terms of how religions are created and then gain that legitimacy.

Regarding the topic in hand does anyone think that Romney really believes this stuff? I find it slightly frightening that we could be in a situation where someone who does could be voted into the most powerful office on earth, and therefore have their finger hovering over that big red button. Brings a certain Bill Hicks sketch to mind...

This might be a good time to remind everyone to remain polite and respectful - difficult in any thread on religion or politics - combine the two and watch out!

As for worrying about what happens if Romney gets to hover his finger over The Button...

Were you especially worried when G.W. Bush was President?

You should have been!

Not to worry on my part, if people's negative opinions bothered me, I would have been long ago gone. It's a good chance for me to answer some misconceptions and outright lies told about my faith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


...One would think that, at his age, and in the positions he has been in, with business and whatnot, that he believes in certain tenets of the Mormon faith, however he probably does not believe, or practice some of the more "weird" things.

He was a Mormon Bishop wasn't he?

GG

Being a Bishop in the LDS church requires a huge commitment in time and willingness to help people physically as well as seeing to their spiritual needs. A person called to be a Bishop has usually served in other callings in his ward over the course of years that keep him continually involved in helping people.
One of my best friends is a mailman and was called to be a Bishop. This means he works from 7 in the morning until 5 or 6 in the afternoon at his regular job, then go home for a brief bit before going to the chapel or out visiting members that need his help or council. Most days for him don't end until 10 or 11 and some nights he gets no sleep at all dealing with families having problems and calling him out of bed for help.
He hears confessions and makes judgements on what he hears that are fairly heavy burdens. He also helps families in financial distress by distributing food and money.
Being a Bishop is a fairly demanding calling that usually lasts for a minimum of five years in which the person called is responsible for everything that goes on to do with running a ward that quite often invlolves a few hundred people. A person that is or has been a Bishop isthe furthest thing from being out of touch that you can imagine since they on a daily basis are helping people deal with all of the problems people can have.

You know, I think it'd be a quite a nice, accidental outcome of this election race if Mormonism became a more accepted religion. And there's a fair chance of that happening, too.

 dogma wrote:
Well, at least his youngest daughter is hot:



Unfortunately she's married to Corey Lynch, a noted douche.

She is really hot. Being married to a douche would only make the affair that much sweeter.

I tend to agree with the initial irritation of the OP in terms of Graham (again, who the hell still listens to this guy) trying to unjustly use his religious pull to simply support the side that he historically has rooted for.

Who gives a damn what religion the president is? Will he fix the economy? Will my job and benefits in place remain secure? Will gas prices go up? Will I be at risk for losing my house? These are the questions people should give a damn about, unfortunately as the average American has the intelligence of my left testicle, they aren't. The vast majority of people have their heads made up on which candidate they're voting for simply because of the color of his skin, alleged religious affiliations (true or otherwise), or they're voting this way because 1. feth the man or 2. their mommy and daddy were of this belief and so am I. The inability for actual individual thought in politics is what's led to the system being so polarized and thereby disenfranchising the population from the system itself.

With regards to the other debate in the thread, as a former Mormon (now Atheist, hooray!) I still am one to focus on the similarities of the religion to "traditional" Christianity than on the differences. Either way, both main-stream Christians and Mormons try to be good people. And even if Romney comes off as a bit of a douche due to his incredible wealth, the fact that he looks like the guy that locked you in your locker in high school, or nailed the chick that you always liked, he seems (to me, at least) like a decent human being (not saying that Obama doesn't, but he's already in office so he's got that going for him). As long as you actually give a flying gak about the people around you, who gives a damn if you're Mormon, Baptist, or Muslim?

I think I lost my train of thought on that one... meh

I think personally he should worship Slannesh. Would fit his objectives more than Mormonism.

Again, everyone please strive to remain respectful and polite.

I don't even have to say that members of the LDS faith might be reading this thread, because you already know they are!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
But, it was through those councils that it was created essentially as we know it now.

No. The Bible as we have it now was first produced (in council) by St. Augustine and his compatriots at the Synod of Carthage in 419 CE. And even then there were other versions floating around. You can't remove from something that has yet to exist.

The Councils of Nicea had nothing to do with Biblical Canon.

They were the ones deliberating over what was to be considered doctrine, and what writings fell in with that doctrine.

There were a lot more Ecumenical Councils than the two at Nicea, and the second council at Nicea did very little compared to the first, which had a lot more to do with church organization and refuting Arianism than any ordering of Biblical texts.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
But, it was through those councils that it was created essentially as we know it now.

No. The Bible as we have it now was first produced (in council) by St. Augustine and his compatriots at the Synod of Carthage in 419 CE. And even then there were other versions floating around. You can't remove from something that has yet to exist.

The Councils of Nicea had nothing to do with Biblical Canon.

They were the ones deliberating over what was to be considered doctrine, and what writings fell in with that doctrine.

There were a lot more Ecumenical Councils than the two at Nicea, and the second council at Nicea did very little compared to the first, which had a lot more to do with church organization and refuting Arianism than any ordering of Biblical texts.

This.Nicea was a big because it formalized a lot of proto-Church doctrine and standardized a fair amount of beliefs across the Church and decided the divinity of Jesus. You may have heard of the Nicean creed, and you've definitely said it once or twice if you were raised Roman Catholic.

The Bible as we know it has been floating around since approximately the fifth century (the Synod of Carthage, etc) and was finalized for the Roman Catholic church as of 1545-1563 at the Council of Trent.

It's also worth noting the various translations of every book floating around. Each translation takes a work further from it's source material, one of the reasons the Quran and Torah are both kept in Arabic and Hebrew almost exclusively for actual religious purposes. The books that make up the bible have gone through translations from Aremaic to Greek (if they didn't start in Greek) and from Greek to Latin (which can be rough translations for a variety of reasons) then in to Spanish, German, French and of course finally English from there. Till the 15th century (1439 to be specific) all book production in Europe was created by hand copying text, bias has infiltrated the Bible from every single one of these monks who were copying it, copying the Bible was not the word for word precise science as well as major artform as it still is for Muslims today. Examples of this bias can be picked up easily enough, Exodus 22:18 "Suffer not the witch to live" is a rather famous Biblical verse and one that's particularly noteworthy to a pagan who wants to keep his head attached like me. "Witch" can also be translated as "Poisoner". That's a pretty divergent concept is it not? Poisoners and witches aren't even vaguely related but you can get that when going from the Vulgate Bible in Latin... but if you're in the process of persecuting pagans, and you want your justification... scriptures against poisoners really isn't doing anything for you is it?

Relapse wrote:
I would suggest checking this link instead, if you want to see what LDS members believe.

Growing up in and out of the Mormon scene (one side of my family is Mormon), I'm fully aware of what Mormons hold and believe. I also know what Nicene Christians hold and believe. They are far, far, far from the same thing. The Mormon PR machine can spin it out however they want but unless they're willing to (further) renounce their actual theology, they cannot be considered Christians in the Nicene tradition.

Yup, they are not even close to traditional christianity.

They have more in common with the various Caribbean religions that are a blend of west african and catholic, in that they are something that is really part of neither of its parent religions.

I think though, in the realm of the public eye, that Romney has done one thing right, in this regard. He may or may not have flip flopped on issues, etc. But, he has shown himself to be a man of his faith, and he will stick by it. I won't go so far as to say that Obama is the polar opposite, but to many religious folks, he doesn't show enough faith to be comfortable.

Personally, faith shouldn't come into play in politics. A clear head, and the Greater Good should be first and foremost. Naturally, a person's faith will play a role in what they believe is the greater good, but I don't think it should be discussed in those terms.

Faith is important to the voter base however.

If someone has X faith, it is a measuring stick for the candidate.

It also gives a standard to uphold the candidate too, one they have, presumably, chosen for themselves. So we can have a pretty good idea of how the candidate will act in a given situation.


They really are not inseperable, because Politics deals with moral issues. And Morality almost exclusivly comes from Religion, or system of beliefs.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I might rephrase that to "many evangelical Christians don't think Catholics are Christians" to make it a bit more accurate.

Just because you believe something, doesn't make it tru... wait a second!

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I might rephrase that to "many evangelical Christians don't think Catholics are Christians" to make it a bit more accurate.

Just because you believe something, doesn't make it tru... wait a second!

This case, however, is something like a PP fan saying Warmachine came out before Warhammer.

In a sense, the saying that Catholic Doctrine is no longer true christianity is correct.

At its core, its Christian. However many key tenants of the Catholic faith are not biblically founded. Purgatory, the idea of the Pope being Christ's representitive on Earth(when in fact the bible says ALL believers have this role), etc

And most of the practices are add ons. Latin being the language of services, vestments, and all the other ceremonial junk. Confessions are in christian doctrine, but you can confess to anyone as all believers are priests under pure biblical practices.


Sadly, many catholics are sterile follows of the faith. They go to church on Christmas and Easter whether they need to or not. Yes, I know thats a horrible stereotype and doesn't apply to many catholics, but it does apply to many. It also applies to many Protestants too unfortunately.

 Grey Templar wrote:
In a sense, the saying that Catholic Doctrine is no longer true christianity is correct.

No it is not unless you mean in a delusional sense.