I'd like to add my two cents

[_subgenius]

Bump

viewtopic.php?p=760288#p760288

[_ldsfaqs]

Littleworthen, I think in comparing the "flaws" in Mormonism with those you believe exist in other churches you are making an error in assuming that participants in those other churches see their church in the same way that Mormons see their church. For most in other churches, I believe, their participation is less about their particular church or denomination and more about the broader terms of being a Christian. There is a vast difference between an orthodox Christian viewing the "flaws" in his or her denomination and any possible flaws in the essentials of theology shared by Christians. It is difficult to see how any Mormon can separate any aspect of Mormon theology, history or belief from the very essential element of "the church" when it is all wrapped up as one entity...supposedly all true. Other churches (Catholics possibly excepted but I'll let them speak for themselves) do not claim some direct mouthpiece of God on earth the way the Mormon Church does. All this aside, welcome to the board.

Albion, you can't make that distinction... The reason you can't is because while many other Christians may not hold to a particular "entity" called a Church like latter-day saints do, they most certainly hold to "ideology" as a Church, which thus is exactly the same.

You hold to certain belief patterns that are just as "formalized" as the LDS Church is formalized. The only difference is that you have more variation in belief between individuals because you are all basically individually your OWN "churches". This frankly isn't a good thing. It's one of many things that turned me off from your religions before I learned of the LDS church. A person would go to one church, they believe various things, and then go to the same denomination but different church and people would believe different things.

That means your beliefs are of men, not God.

Further, our flaws are not even close to the flaws in the rest of the religious world. Only about 1% of the claims against us are even legit or partially legit, and those flaws are well within normal human fallibility, irrelevant to the church itself.

You take pride in being "christian" and not of a church, yet, you try to claim absolute truth as IF you are part of a true church.
You can't have it both ways.

[_Albion]

Well, I suspect we differ on defining the term church...Mormons seeing it as an institutional entity. Christ's church isn't an institution and the origins of the word support that premise. I would agree with you that various denominations have different views on a variety of subjects...Baptists, for instance, might believe that once gained salvation cannot be lost...Methodists might disagree. Either way whether or not they agree on this issue has no baring on whether either is saved. It is irrelevant to salvation essentials...the things which at their core separate Mormonism from conventional Christianity. Are there what you term "formalized" Christian beliefs? I believe there are...they are the basic salvational beliefs of Christianity and most Christians I know who participate in a huge variety of Christian churches share those core beliefs. It is why a Christian can have communion (fellowship) ( I myself have participated in small Bible study groups with representatives from more than four different denominations) in a whole range of different churches and perhaps the reason Mormons cannot have such fellowship outside a Mormon ward house.

[_Dr. Shades]

If Joseph Smith did not see anyone in the Sacred Grove, and if he did not translate characters from golden plates, would that matter to you?

no it wouldn't matter to me. i've thought about this before. honestly, if it ever turned out to be all untrue, i'd still be a happy and proud member. honestly, even if God ended up not existing, i'd still be happy where i am. treating others with love and compassion and service and loving and honoring your wife/husband and being close to your family are all thing's i think people should aspire for even without religion. The Church just gives me additional motivation to strive to do better in these aspects.

Okay, I see where you're coming from.

But can you envision a scenario wherein, if the church turned out to be untrue, some people would react in ways other than you would? Could you blame them for talking and acting the way they do on this message board?

[_LittleWorthen]

[/quote]

no it wouldn't matter to me. i've thought about this before. honestly, if it ever turned out to be all untrue, i'd still be a happy and proud member. honestly, even if God ended up not existing, i'd still be happy where i am. treating others with love and compassion and service and loving and honoring your wife/husband and being close to your family are all thing's i think people should aspire for even without religion. The Church just gives me additional motivation to strive to do better in these aspects.[/quote]

Okay, I see where you're coming from.

But can you envision a scenario wherein, if the church turned out to be untrue, some people would react in ways other than you would? Could you blame them for talking and acting the way they do on this message board?[/quote]

well yeah, of course i could see others reacting a different way than i would. when you asked the question, i was speaking for me. not everyone.

[_Bazooka]

i'm new here so forgive me if it shows.

i was just reading a lot of the posts on this site. there are a lot of honest questions, which are great! and then there are a lot of people who are just trying to vent their discontentment towards the church onto its members or the other people with honest questions.
Let me just say, i think that it is sad. It is sad that so many people try to discredit the church and take every misconception or mistake or action of one or few and use it against a happy, content group of people.

Do the recent demonstrations by "Mormons Building Bridges" and "Ordain Women" and the fact that less than 40% of the claimed membership are in the pews on a Sunday, suggest to you that the Church is a happy, content group of people? You should also know that a lot of the posters on here are active members of the Church, do they sound happy and content with the organisation?

You seem to be advocating against the following statement:
“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
Are you arguing against it?

You seem to be suggesting that groups such as "Heaven's Gate" should be left alone and not investigated if they appear to be a "happy, content group of people".
Are you suggesting that?

Second Bump

Little Worthen, is there a specific reason you are avoiding addressing my questions?

[_moksha]

There may be many adherents of churches who might subscribe to such an idea but I don't know of any churches where such a proposition is enshrined in doctrine. Perhaps you do?

Actually the UUs are the only Church that I can truly say honors good deeds over a specific profession of faith. However, many mainstream to liberal Protestant churches talk of doing good deeds. The Catholics have always been big on good deeds, although they also insist on statements of faith.

It was secondary for John D. Rockefeller to hurl those shiny dimes at the eyes of the street urchins since he was already saved on Sunday. Still, those with quick hands appreciated his charity.

[_subgenius]

Second Bump

Little Worthen, is there a specific reason you are avoiding addressing my questions?

viewtopic.php?p=760288#p760288

[_Bazooka]

Second Bump

Little Worthen, is there a specific reason you are avoiding addressing my questions?

viewtopic.php?p=760288#p760288

Are you Little Worthen?
Are you his/her official spokesperson?

If not, my bump and question for Little Worthen stands.

[_Albion]

There may be many adherents of churches who might subscribe to such an idea but I don't know of any churches where such a proposition is enshrined in doctrine. Perhaps you do?

Actually the UUs are the only Church that I can truly say honors good deeds over a specific profession of faith. However, many mainstream to liberal Protestant churches talk of doing good deeds. The Catholics have always been big on good deeds, although they also insist on statements of faith.

It was secondary for John D. Rockefeller to hurl those shiny dimes at the eyes of the street urchins since he was already saved on Sunday. Still, those with quick hands appreciated his charity.

I have no argument that "good works" are an element of faith and that many churches place great emphasis on such...but as an expression of saving faith not as something ahead of faith designed to earn that salvation. I submit that if salvation can be earned what need is there for a savior? The Salvation Army might be one group that immediately springs to mind since that is their persona...but their doctrine which is based on a holiness tradition firmly places salvation as the result of faith and not those works. I cannot speak for UU, know little about it but that little seems to indicate to me an extreme liberal perspective relative to Biblical Christianity. Do they even have doctrine as such?