You're taking what I said out of context (maybe on purpose for the sake of argument?) Something doctrine related is entirely different than whatever title was used in the Book of Mormon for some king. That has no value to my eternal salvation.
I know there are a lot of LDS people here
- Thread starter green
- Start date
And I don't "gloss over" things that don't make sense to me. The are some things about the church I disagree with. To me, it comes down to choosing whether or not I can accept them. If I think it matters or has merit I study it and ponder it. Then I pray about it. If I find I can't live with it, then other steps/decisions get to be made.
b_line
Well-Known Member
Some people call this cafeteria mormon. I call it being responsible and truthful. Great view point, in my opinion.
Hey, babe!
You know what, you're right. I agree with what you're saying and it makes sense but I'm interested to know if the tax exemption status of the church affects your position or reasoning? I mean, on one hand your railing against the government's over reaching tentacles while on the other you don't even mention the churches tax status. If we're being intellectually honest, one can't mention one without the other...right?
Also, what are your views regarding community? I mean, making a child an apostate of their church/ community is rather draconian don't you think? Last I knew, children for the most part don't get to choose their parents.
Craig K. Manscill
Well-Known Member
It's true, there are a lot of things I don't agree with when it comes to our church. Many things, actually. But I like to just keep on believing. Sometimes, like bigb, I just don't care enough about the controversial things. Sure, these things might not make logical sense, but you know what? I just drift into a peaceful slumber, let the spirit wrap its arms around me, and the bad things go away.
Cafeteria Mormon? Maybe some doctrine is true and some isn't! If we just choose the things that make sense to us and cling to those, we can still stay strong members of His flock!- Craig
OK. I'll swing on this pitch.
One criticism I do have about the LDS Church is the "corporate" character, and the 501(c)3 tax status that I've been sorta suspicious about in regards to the influence government requirements have on Church decisions/business/doctrines. I don't pay a tithe to the Church because I object to their business character, so I'm not a proper "advocate" for the Church policy on that point. One of my great-uncles, however, was a primary mover and shaker back in the fifties and sixties in organizing and strengthening the Church finances, though, so I'm tainted genetically with the sins of success.
I pass by some large Church-owned ranches, dairies, chicken farms and such quite often. Behind the industrial plant I used to be a wage slave for, the whole mountain was LDS church property, a winter grazing range. . . it was a low line of hills about like the Burbank hills where "Hollywood" is. Just some juniper and a lot of grass. It's where the crickets live on wet years before they come into the fields of non-tithe payers.
Actually, I made my ranch a non-profit dedicated to the Lord, but I did not apply for the tax exemption.
My reason for taking exception from the modern LDS Church ownership of productive lands and businesses is the same reason Josepth Smith told the first LDS Presiding Bishop he'd go the Hell for if he didn't stop doing that. Edward Partridge had the notion that properties consecrated to Lord should be owned, as in the deed/title vested in the Church. But Josepth Smith said the Bishop should distribute those consecrated properties to those who could make good stewardships of them, and that the title should be vested in the "steward" they are given to, so that his children can inherit title.
donations that are given to support needy members/neighbors,and to maintain the worship facilities should be like all other church property used for strictly religious facilities, which is tax-exempt, just like public libraries and schools and soup kitchens.
However, I expect Colton to come in saying all the businesses the Church has interests in do pay taxes. My point is the original agrarian community idea Joseph Smith had, which unlike the Catholic Church and some other major religious organizations, made a point of not accumulating inordinate income property with the result that otherwise honorable and industrious people were reduced to being mere peasants/wage slaves/employees on the face of the planet God gave us.
I favor a community with a strong middle class. And one where people take care of those who need help sometimes. A community that respect property rights and other fundamental rights such as the right to have strong, even differing beliefs. A community where differing beliefs do not correlate with prejudicial harassment or inequities under employment and other legal factors like insurance and benefits accorded to domestic partners or their children.
Technically, a non-member is not considered an apostate because of who his/her parents are, or what their commitments are in the domicile. Unlike Catholics, who consider an unbaptized child in danger of severe denial of ordinary privileges in the afterlife, virtually without hope, LDS folks consider that the child will be welcomed into the arms of Jesus just like any other child, regardless of whatever problems the parents may have.
So if I were a bishop or stake president under the current policy, and a child of such parents came to me to ask for permission to be baptized, I would carefully consider the request. I would go to the home and discuss it with the parents. I would explain that my interpretation of the policy is that it is intended to settle the nerves and sensitivities of those who feel the Church is being railroaded into changing a basic concept of the faith. . . that marriage as a religious institution, if not as a legal relation, is for the union of a man and woman with the commitment towards procreation in the eternal family pattern and example of our Heavenly Father and Mother. If those parents could just say they have no agenda to change the LDS belief, and child could say he understands the distinction and will respect the ward members in their belief, I'd give him the recommend for baptism. The only justification for this is that baptism is a covenant to accept Christ and keep the commandments of the faith. If anyone doesn't intend to keep the commandments as understood from the Bible and other canonical works, I'd suggest just don't do the baptism in the first place.
In the LDS faith, while there is a premium on living the gospel in this life, it is generally understood that the time of probation extends clear down to the final judgment, where the Ancient of Days qwill sit and everyone will come forth to be judged. We love everybody, and hope that everybody will come around to understanding the commandments of God and living by them.
Personally, I teach my children to be respectful to others and treat others kindly maybe especially if they are different from us in some way. Being that sort of person is our only claim to being an influence for the better in this world.
I drive by that rainbow church in Hollywood sometimes. Nice touch. Just wish people understood what it really means.
All that said, The LDS Church joined the World Council of Churches in the early twentieth century, almost a hundred years ago. Measures were taken to conform the doctrine somewhat to make it cohere more generally to the ideas of the WCC. As you may know, one of the precepts included in that today is the notion that while we may have different churches, we should not be so rude as to imply that ours is the "right" church.
I find that to be troubling, because what it boils down to in the long run is that people are going to try to be all smiles and goodwill while a new synthesis emerges where only one certain set of beliefs will be tolerated. Sorta like reducing religious freedom to a string of franchises all serving the exact same beliefs, like McDonald's hamburgers.
Religious freedom in a community implies a commitment to tolerance of differences in belief, and respecting people who believe differently. I understand LGBT folks believe differently from me, and I give them the same respect I hope they could give me.
Last edited:
OK, for b_line's benefit then...
I think Jazzgasm's referring to the book of Jacob, where Jacob 1:11-12 says "Wherefore, the people were desirous to retain in remembrance his name. And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever name they would. And it came to pass that Nephi died."
I think I see what his complaint is. Very little is given about the rulers of the Nephites from the time period after Nephi until King Mosiah. If you look at the list given here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_rulers, you can see that the information on who ruled the people is missing. But the change back to where more details are given seems to me to be the book of Mosiah, not the book of Omni. In Omni (still part of the small plates), the only names given are those who kept the plates, not those who ruled the people (well, with the exception of Mosian and Benjamin themselves, who are named by the very final author of the small plates, Amaleki). In Mosiah suddenly a lot more info is given, with all of the rulers known pretty much from Mosiah up until the coming of Christ. But that doesn't seem especially remarkable to me, since the book of Mosiah was taken from the large plates.
Also, regarding the naming of the kings, the verse in Jacob was something like 260 years before King Mosiah, so it seems plausible that the tradition of calling their kings "Nephi" could have fallen by the wayside at some point during that time.
b_line
Well-Known Member
Here is my take on the book of Mormon and bible:
They are not historical documents, and probably were not meant to be. The Bible is somewhat more historically correct and less fictional in nature, but is still meant to be a spiritual document rather than a history book.
That said, I don't think it should matter at all. If Joseph Smith or some other person made up a story, it's no different to me than the stories that Jesus made up and people called parables.
The point to me is do the books inspire good things? Most of the time they do. Sometimes they miss the mark. But overall, Christians, Jews, muslims, we are for the most part doing good things and progressing towards being better people.
They are not historical documents, and probably were not meant to be. The Bible is somewhat more historically correct and less fictional in nature, but is still meant to be a spiritual document rather than a history book.
That said, I don't think it should matter at all. If Joseph Smith or some other person made up a story, it's no different to me than the stories that Jesus made up and people called parables.
The point to me is do the books inspire good things? Most of the time they do. Sometimes they miss the mark. But overall, Christians, Jews, muslims, we are for the most part doing good things and progressing towards being better people.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
This response makes so much sense if you simply ignore all the bad stuff that has been done in the name of those religions.
And the bad stuff people do not in the name of religion? People do bad stuff whether religious or not, and the definition of "bad stuff" has as many different meanings as there are people. If a religion encourages and teaches people to do and be "good", it does not mean the religion is bad if people who profess that religion don't always follow those teachings. People are people and will do what they want for a myriad of reasons with religion only playing a part in those decisions. Sometimes a small part, sometimes a large part.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
People doing good things is good. People doing bad things is bad. I'm pretty sure we can agree on that.
This thread is about a religion which has determined, through divine inspiration or otherwise, that children should be treated differently depending upon the lifestyle of their parents. If you are okay with that then carry on.
b_line
Well-Known Member
I think you and Moe both have points about the good and bad. Bad stuff happens. Trying to espouse good qualities is a good thing. Telling people they are bad for being gay is probably not a good thing.
In the end, to me, it's like this: There are so many great things that the church does, and a few potentially bad things here and there. Are we going to ignore the good done by so many, and the help that so many get, just because a couple of bad things happen? I don't think that's right.
The bad things need to be addressed, for sure. But keep the good and add to it.