CameronMO wrote:subgenius wrote:Obviously the peanut gallery failed to read and comprehend the blog link posted in the OP. The usual bandwagon of superfluous criticisms and armchair pontifications have once again fallen into the worn rut if the road to mediocrity.
Soon Brigham Young will be dusted off and paraded around as a condemnation of the church.
All style and no substance from the usual crowd of mudslingers.
So, what of the articles of faith?
Or the rather concise points from the OP link?
Why no meaningful criticism for anything of value to church or member?
Because their minds are as empty a their arguments.
You're right, subgenus, I didn't read the link provided by the OP. I was hoping he might summarize it here. But since you brought up the AoF, it reminded me of the time on my mission when, in reading the Bible, I did my own cross reference of scriptures in the Bible that supported the AoF. I don't have them with me right now. I'll have to provide that later. My point was, that the AoF are supported by the Bible.
But let's look at AoF 1. What is the official church teaching here? 1 God, as in the 1832 account of the First Vision, and in the Book of Mosiah? Adam is God? Or 3 separate beings? I'm confused by the words of all these prophets.
AoF2. Methodists also believe this, as Joseph Smith would know, since he studied (and joined?) that church. In fact, the AoF seems to be based off of the Methodist Articles of Religion adopted in 1784.
I see no need to go on with this. The AoF do not seem to be true or exclusive to the Mormon church to me.
Nothing about the doctrines of the LDS faith are asserted to be exclusive, in fact the opposite: "dispensationism" says that all doctrines have been revealed through God's prophets in the past and thus picked up by the myriad of religions down the ages. So you will find virtually all of them in some partial form or another somewhere.
The "Godhead" is not specified in the temple recommend interview questions. So my further beliefs about who/what "God Is" don't in any way conflict with the temple recommend question. And neither should anyone else's personal beliefs appended to Mormon theology as given in the scriptures and from the pulpit. Nobody is waxing specific or exclusive about the Godhead. Even Joseph Smith was all over the place with his theology, as it morphed throughout his career. This is possibly because "God Is Infinite" and no set of words no matter how clearly framed or of any length whatsoever are going to pin down "God". To do so would make "God" finite. I know Mormons whose theology is blatantly finite because of one of the doctrines that Joseph Smith taught near the end; our gospel doctrine teacher quoted it just two days ago, "the couplet" about God once being a mortal man. This "doctrine" when pursued exclusively leads to a finite conception of God the Father and therefore existence remains inexplicable. But the temple recommend question no. 1 does not go there to any degree and allows the individual to believe in the Mormon Godhead in any of its permutations and much, much more in addition.
And that's how belief in the LDS faith is in everything. Belief must lead to orthopraxy, and that will get you into the temple as sure as the sun will rise. So, only the teachings that are accompanied with resulting orthoprax behavior are essential, and they will change as the expectations change, which is to say, not that much. "Primitive" Mormons drank beer, even whisky, chewed and smoked tobacco, swore a blue streak, even killed their enemies occasionally, engaged in sexual "deviancy" but not immorality, and it was all good with God, because they sustained the prophets, defended the faith and repented too damn fast to be excommunicated. Today, those living like that and being honest will not enter the temples, but back then it was different....
