Posted on 12/31/2010 9:42:57 AM PST by Colofornian
I spent much of the General Conference weekend downtown doing video interviews for my GodNeverSinned.com project. At one point I shot some video of the missionaries trying to neutralize (“hymn-slam”?) one of the jeerers outside the Conference Center.
I added annotations to the video as a way of sharing and advertising. One Mormon responded:
Some of the little “bubbles” displayed randomly during this singing are not true of our beliefs. But, that’s how satan teaches – by giving half-truths. Hail to the Prophet Joseph Smith!
I asked for specifics, and what follows is the conversation that ensued. She wrote:
Actually, I just watched it again and all of the bubbles contain misinformation. The Book of Mormon outdated? Still contains the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the foundation of the church. We also believe in continued revelation. Ruling over planets? No, we don’t believe that. We believe we can become LIKE God – eternal and perfect. Not “gods” of our own planets. That especially is not doctrine. Maybe people assume that, but it is not doctrine.
God, angels, demons and humans all being the same “species”… well, in a sense, yes I guess, (except God our Father is on a whole different ‘plane’ than we are or will ever be.) God our Father created us ALL, and us “humans” in His image. There are different types of angels – spirits who have not come to earth, those who have come here and have been resurrected, those who have come to earth but not resurrected. Demons, I assume, satan’s followers – will never gain a body and were all created as spirit children of God. Just like the rest of us. They chose to follow Lucifer and were cast out along with him and will never live on this earth.
God being a sinner? I would like to see where you come up with that? We have NEVER taught that as doctrine, EVER. God is perfect, all knowing and all loving. We know the true nature of God – meaning He is a being. Where His beginning began? We don’t know. For us, He has always existed. We do not believe that, that is an absolute flat out lie. See how all these little bubbles contain mixed up truth? And even lies?? Come on. Who do you think the creator of all that IS?
Certainly not the Lord.
—
Whether the Book of Mormon of 1830 represents contemporary doctrine of Mormonism in 2009 is a matter of opinion. On this issue I recommend this article by a respected Mormon historian.
I live in Utah, and know lots of Mormons. If you would ever like to have lunch with us, I’ll pay for your food. My Mormon friends are very up front about the future exaltation and ruling over planets as gods. Notice on this point how I appeal to “traditional Mormonism”. I chose that language as to not stereotype Mormons.
Your point about God and demons is compatible with my bubble. They are equivalent in species but varied in states and stages of development. My bubble chose careful language on this point.
On the God-as-former-sinner issue, I invite you to see a preview of my video project on that at GodNeverSinned.com. Regardless of it not being an explicit doctrine specifically promoted from the leadership, it is a mainstream (but not uniform) belief according to my research. I chose my language carefully on this, and said “many Mormons”, not “all Mormons” or “institutional Mormonism explicitly teaches”, etc.
Please tell me what you think of the GodNeverSinned.com project. It is entirely made up of video interviews with real Mormons (most of the video work so far was done this past General Conference weekend).
Take care, I look forward to your reply,
Aaron
—
I do not wish to go back and forth with you. While your Mormon friends may talk about ‘being gods” and ruling over their own planet, it is still an assumption. There is no doctrine stating that, anywhere. Again, many things you point out ARE just assumptions. Not doctrine. No matter. I am sure you are very passionate in your beliefs and that is wonderful. I know the gospel is true. This knowledge has come from the Holy Ghost who testifies of truth. Have a lovely day.
—
I responded anyway (maybe I shouldn’t have?):
I didn’t say it was formal doctrine. On many of those things I said things like, “Many Mormons believe”. You failed to distinguish between formal doctrine and actual mainstream beliefs, conflating the two, but when I pointed out that many Mormons actually believe thus stuff, you started distinguishing the two. Does that make sense?
Take care and best wishes,
Aaron
—
We are free, of course, to form our own opinions… which is where you are getting your “information” it seems – from other Mormon’s opinions… and those are not doctrine. It is just interesting to me that this is how people like you like to discredit or bad-mouth the church… not focusing on the REAL doctrine, but from assumptions and opinions of members. Giving half-truths and misconceptions. I know the difference between what Mormons assume and what is doctrine, but others do not. They will read your misconceptions and take that as our “doctrine”… that is where confusion sets in. Oh well. All I can do is share my testimony of the gospel. Satan will continue to try to confuse and mislead people until Christ returns.
I know the gospel is true and that Joseph Smith was his prophet in this last dispensation, and that he restored the fullness of the gospel to the earth. I know the Book of Mormon is scripture, and that Joseph translated those ancient plates through the power and gift of Almighty God. I know Jesus Christ is my Savior and Redeemer and through Him, all things are possible.
Have a great day.
—
Thanks for writing back.
If a majority of church members believe something bad, and it happens to be fostered or implied by the rest of the traditional Mormon worldview, the LDS Church leadership still has a responsibility not to acquiesce to it. Otherwise they are complicit to a degree in the continuance of the belief among lay members, all the while having the ability to reverse the popular belief.
Also, what matters to outsiders like me is not merely abstract official doctrine (whichever of the varying standards you use to define that; Mormons themselves simply disagree over what constitutes official doctrine), but also what beliefs are actually held among members. I know it is embarrassing that many Mormon members believe that God the Father could have been a sinner, but the Mormon worldview and historic leadership have something to account for that. They are not off the hook just because they haven’t put it in a recent First Presidency statement, etc.,
Take care,
Aaron
—
Well, you are free to form your own opinions, that’s fine of course.
I have never been embarrased by what others assume – even in the LDS church. They are also free to do so. I know the doctrine and THAT, the doctrine, IS what matters. It actually doesn’t matter what other members speculate about… because it is just that, speculation.
No matter. The gospel is true.
Have a great day.
Sure, I'll play along. The original claim was that "Mormons believe." Being a Mormon, I say that the statement attached to the claim was wrong, and requested a source.
Ha ha, funny, now you ask for a source on my claiming the original statement was wrong. The source is me.
BTW, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Pretty much the same way the men's quartet I sang in for sacrament a few weeks back did - straight from the hymnal. And, yes, before you ask, they are the traditional words.
For what it is worth, I grew up in a "small" town (of 100k+) outside of Los Angeles. When I was on my foreign mission and people asked me where I was from, I told them "LA" and not the name of the small town that they likely never heard of before. You see, I used a reference that they were familiar with in order to facility comprehension.
The statement of yours that I pointed out was "mentions of the Cross are deleted from the mormon versions [of hymns]."
Since that statement is not true, as shown further down-thread, it was being presented as an example.
So we have only a few remaining options. Either you were misinformed (or assumed incorrectly) or you were knowingly lying. Deeper in that thread you stated "Well, I'll be...thanks for correcting me. I didn't have time to go through ALL the hymns, and am glad to see that you haven't done away with the Cross in some." So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - you were misinformed. So while you may not have been intentionally lying, it certainly was an un-truth.
As for responding to other more meaningful doctrine, I (and others) have tried in the past. In the end any attempt at civil discourse falls apart into spamfests or subject changing (alas, often from both sides).
My schedule prevents me from stepping into these threads much anymore, but when I see something blatantly incorrectly on such a base level, I will attempt to correct for it. While we may never agree on the nature of God, a suggestion that Mormons refuse to sing about the cross implies something much more evil than nuances on salvation.
Sorry; but the TRUTH is that some DEMON (PERSONAGE) spoke to JS; not the LORD.
Why do you continue to tell an UNTRUTH taught to you by MORMONic teachers?
Actually my response really was a reaction to the implying that we are not Christian because we do not sing Christmas carols. There are enough differences in doctrine that we do not have to stoop to inaccurate implication to prove Mormons teach some things differently.
So my statement that we do TOO sing Christmas carols (I think I called them hymns) was really just pointing out the lie. I would think that is enough, and that a more vigorous defense was not needed.
Maybe I mis-estimated the logic facilities of the audience.
Nope: this is a lie continually being told by the MORMON Religious Organization based in Salt Lake City, Utah.
It's very own PRINTINGS clearly show that a PERSONAGE of UNKNOWN name did all the 'talking' to Joseph Smith.
Are you now claiming the LDS printed reports are WRONG?
Oh, so you can have an opinion based on... whatever and use IT to challenge something.
Ok; I've just never heard of that tactic in debating a subject.
No need to; as she LOVES it!
Ah, yes, dropping to the ridicule tact instead of addressing the actual statement. Nice comeback. Does that mean you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion?
So then...
It appears that Greyfoxx39 merely has to show a Christian hymn with the CROSS removed by an anonymous MORMON editor, and you'll change your tune?
True; we can't even agree that the demonic PERSONAGES that appeared to Joseph Smith were NOT from 'god'.
It was supposed to be written over the top so people would know it was a joke. That was not a ‘lie’ or an attempt to seriously deceive. It was a PARODY. OY.
However, that people did take it seriously, says more about the control Mormonism shows over its members than it does about us.
Re - your other comments - none of those are lies either. You seem to be holding us to a standard that Mormons don’t hold each other or their leaders to.
And your implication that I ‘lie for Jesus’ is libel. I have NEVER EVER EVER lied on this forum. Nor would I.
I guess we need to look at the level of the statements.
Some things are factual, true statements. "Many Mormons currently live in Utah" is an example of something that nobody would disagree with (at least nobody sane). They need no further explanation to put them into context.
Other things are factual, but require additional information to explain to non-informed observers. "Mormons teach that Jesus is Satan's older brother" would be an example of this. Once you include the additional information that Mormons also teach that everybody is family through a pre-earth-life creation, then it makes more sense (or at least explains the context even if you disagree with it). I see this similar as the statement "Catholics are cannibals" without explaining their teachings on transubstantiation.
Then there are statements that are flat out incorrect. "Mormons do not sing Christmas Carols" or "mentions of the Cross are deleted from the mormon versions [of hymns]" or "Mormons have horns" are examples of these (yes, I have met people who actually believe that last one). I guess we can discuss the intention of the person making the statement. To me it is a lie regardless, but if it is malicious then it fits into the "lies for Jesus" category. If it is made through ignorance or bad education, it probably would not fit in the ""lies for Jesus" category.
Then there is your letter. It was intended as humor, and was therefore not a malicious lie, and you did acknowledge the falsely claimed source. However, the thread itself records a slightly different version than you present here. You admitted it was fake in response to my pointing out that it was fake. Your replies in post 74 and 75 of that thread shows your reaction.
And here we come to my point in all this. Had I not challenged the truthfulness of that letter (and the other statements I pointed out) they would have stood as presented unchallenged, and non-informed observers might have believed them to be truth instead of "flat-out-incorrect" statements.
I apologize if my stance seems like I am implying that you "lie for Jesus." And I do not recall any malicious lies from you (and I thank you for that). But an unchallenged incorrect statement can do as much damage as a lie. If the opposite of truth is lie, then what is an incorrect, untrue statement? Even if it is said in jest?
I would love to have a civil mature discussion on our differences. Alas, this forum (and most any other public place) does not lend itself to this effort. So all I try to do, when I have time, is point out or challenge the flat-out lies - err, incorrect statements.
Ok; I've just never heard of that tactic in debating a subject.
And I have not hear your "same-to-you-but-more-of-it" request for references since third grade.
And it is not opinion. It is personal knowledge. In fact, it is straight forward logic. "Mormons teach - - -" followed by "I am a Mormon and I do not teach that." I guess you aren't familiar with logic?
Oh, and I still haven't seen the references on the original claim.
Admittedly, Greyfoxx’s statement is not an all-or-nothing statement (he didn’t say “all” mentions of the Cross are deleted), so if one can find a hymn in our hymnal (assuming that you find the “mormon versions” of hymns there), then I will stand corrected. Or change my tune, as the subject seems to lend itself to.
T.P. the reason Mormonism is not Christian has nothing to do with whether Mormons sing Christmas carols. It has to do with the fact that Christianity is a monotheistic religion and Mormonism teaches that there are many gods. There are many other differences, but the monotheism/polytheism thing is a deal-breaker.
But just because Mormonism is not a Christian religion doesn't mean we can't be friends.
No, it means that your are straining at gnats...
Pretty much the whole story of the LDS frankly...
Neither have I.
Perhaps it, too, is personal knowledge.
I guess we'll have to wait for the data to be forth coming.
I guess this COULD be logic; but it sounds more like a testimony to me; from a True Scotsman.
I sang a LOT of carols before I was a Christian!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.