The Truth about Mormons

[Liability]

Just call me Angel of the Mormon, Angel!

 

[emilynghiem]

Or when Parley Pratt tried to kill an injured captive in Missouri, or when Bill Hickman or Orrin Rockwell was on the loose, or at Mountain Meadows. Or when Joseph Smith broke his wife's heart. I agree that God sheds tears over all his children's misdeeds in a church's cause.

You're missing the mark. Even though the cases you brought up are quite questionable it remains irrelevant to the doctrine. The mere pointing out of the sins of an individual in a church who goes against the teachings of his religion does not damage the religion itself. It only leaves a poor reputation for the person committing the crime.

Everyone commits sins. Don't blame the doctrine. The doctrine doesn't teach anyone to commit sins.

Dear Truth: Would like to see consistency here.

If the good teachings of a particular Mormon leader are taken as a good reflection on "another" person or member who claims affiliation,
can you then selectively choose "not" to associate when a negative observation is made.

That is fine if you are going to hold each person individually responsible, and not as representing a group, but then also credit people individually and not by association by group or with the actions or teachings of others in the same group.

I just ran into this same issue with JW members on another forum.

Anytime anything good could be said about what "other JW members did" they wanted to share credit as a group. But whenever anything bad was reported, then they did not associate themselves with those members or exmembers who were "individually responsible."

As long as you are consistent, as you seem to be level headed and fair, that is my concern here. The most common fault of any group is to become so used to defending your reputation that you lose objectivity in acknowledging and correcting shortcomings or areas where improvements could be made.

Groups that are sectarian, in believing their way is right as opposed to other ways being wrong, or having unequal or no ability to give input into the decisions of authorities within their own group are more liable to let errors go unchecked.

If there is not equal accountability throughout the whole group, but the authority is uneven, there is a greater chance for problems to go uncorrected and result in abuses.

So even though individuals ARE ultimately responsible for their own actions or violations, having an imbalanced or unchecked organization can be a key factor in religious abuse.

The idea that the elders are "infallible" almost sets people up to fail, whereas groups that acknowledge the equal authority and responsibility of all people do not concentrate all power at the top to cause an imbalance, that too easily corrupted in larger institutions.

 

[emilynghiem]

How ignorant you are of scripture and history. There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century. Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.

Let you in on a secret, gang. The Lord Christ does not your advice.

Which, of course, is why Paul stated that Christ would not return until after there was an Apostasy. And why John saw that the Saints were overcome by the adversary until the Lord sent an Angel carrying the Everlasting Gospel to the people to prepare them for the judgments of God. Or Amons prophecied there would be a Famine of the Word and God and man would travel throughout the land and be unable to find it. Or why Isaiah prophecied that men would break the everlasting covenant and change the ordinances.

Or why there are thousands of different Christian Churches teaching different doctrines. Or why there ceased to be scripture and revelation. It must be because God has changed rather than because of man turning from Him.

Quite frankly, I dont buy it.

I don't see how anyone could study the history of Christianity and not see that the teachings of Christ totally corrupted during the Middle Ages. The choices are: Christianity was false all along, or the Christian church had to be restored through prophecy.

The only way Christianity can be right, and Mormonism wrong, is if the prophet is yet to be born.

Dear Avatar and Skeptick (also JakeStarkey and Truthspeaker):
(A) Have you read "Saving Paradise" by Rebecca Parker.
The book traces the history of early Christianity which DID present Jesus as bringing peace on earth and brotherly love. That period was followed by the introduction of crusades and killing in the name of the Cross, the first crucifix dating to 963, about 1000 years into church history.

So maybe this is the apostasy or antichrist phase kicking in.
In the Bible Satan is bound for 1000 years and then let loose again on earth.
So maybe this refers to that stage, that there is a falling away from the spirit of the laws, and then it is restored after that.

It is not necessarily "justified war" that it is "God's will" that all this killing and coersion and genocide take place, but that the Bible gives a warning that certain stages will occur. The rising of the antichrist, or those who come in the name of Christ but are against the spirit of the law, is certainly not in keeping with God's ideal will. I understand this in terms of a learning curve of humanity, or also a grief process where certain stages have to pass in order to heal and come to spiritual resolution, although the losses and suffering are not the goal or good in themselves, they serve a purpose in the bigger scheme of life.

(B) As for requiring another prophet or prophecy,
the final stage of the Holy Spirit is supposed to come with the return of Christ.
So you could consider that a third and final stage of spiritual development to maturity.

The Muslims believe Mohammed was the last prophet and fulfillment.
But the Bahai came out of that culture and are bringing out healing between races, religions and nations, with faith in the "oneness of humanity" which is more like how I would envision the last stage of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth as in heaven.

It may seem like a "new" teaching but the process of forgiving past conflicts, divisions and injuries, and renewing the "spirit" of the laws is like establishing the message all along.

In Christ all things are "made new" but that means true to their original purpose from the very beginning. We are mostly having to "unlearn" or expand upon the old ways we have been taught which do not have to be a source of division.

As for the comment "Christianity or Mormonism" has to be right or revised,
I find that ALL denominations have equal contributions and corrections to exchange with one another in order to have God's complete universal truth.

There is no one righteous except "Christ Jesus" so no one person or no one group is going to be 100% complete. Otherwise why would the others exist.

(C) As for Avatar, if you do not ascribe to any of this Christian teaching, I was not brought up with this either! I just say that "IF" some one or some group is going to teach Jesus and the Bible, then teach it in a way that includes and corrects all people and all groups equally; and does not make any one more right or wrong than any other.

I believe the spirit of the laws, both the divine laws of churched tribes and the natural laws of gentiles and secular humanists, are both fulfilled in Christ Jesus who represents the establishment of "restorative justice."

So not just one group has a monopoly on teaching the laws.
Even the Buddhist laws or Dharma are fulfilled in the spirit of Christ.
And the natural laws made statutory and written into the Constitution and its amendments.

Any group or person can take the spirit of the laws, based on the love of truth, to heart by conscience and be one with Christ in following the cultural ways of their tribes or elders.

You do not judge by the letter of the law, or appearances, but by the spirit by which people are guided, to see if it is one with Christ or working against Christ. Often appearances are misleading, as even Jesus used the example of the Samaritan as being a neighbor in Christ, at a time when Samaritans were most avoided as unholy people.

If you treat your neighbor with charity, especially having forgiveness, with no condition or reward expected but just for the sake of good faith relations and good will, then that is the spirit of Christ and God, to do all things with love, and especially speaking the truth with love.

So the Christians and theist religionists have just as much to learn, if not more, about forgiving and loving all neighbors as one in Christ as those who are secular in philosophy.

This way, not any one path has an advantage over any other.

As Jake pointed out that we should seek the narrow gate of righteousness and not
the broad path of destruction. ANY person or group can easily become sectarian and declare "my way is right, your way is wrong." And we can all go to war or to hell that way.

But it takes a very discerning conscience to focus on how EACH person or group has some truth to offer that benefits the whole, and has shortcomings or omissions that another can correct with their contributions. In this way, all are equal as a key part of God's creation.

And again, only where these different paths intersect or agree in "Christ Jesus" then that union is supreme, the whole is greater than the sum of any parts by themselves.

So this would make all people equal, while also acknowledging our diversity and different purposes.

Avatar, you may not believe in Christianity, especially the way it has been taught.
But there are ways of teaching it that fulfill and include all other ways even secular.
So that is how I recommend that meaning of Jesus and the Bible be taught.
If God is all powerful and all knowing, and Jesus is the universal messiah for all humanity, then all people and all paths should be included in salvation.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

How ignorant you are of scripture and history. There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century. Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.

Let you in on a secret, gang. The Lord Christ does not your advice.

Which, of course, is why Paul stated that Christ would not return until after there was an Apostasy. And why John saw that the Saints were overcome by the adversary until the Lord sent an Angel carrying the Everlasting Gospel to the people to prepare them for the judgments of God. Or Amons prophecied there would be a Famine of the Word and God and man would travel throughout the land and be unable to find it. Or why Isaiah prophecied that men would break the everlasting covenant and change the ordinances.

Or why there are thousands of different Christian Churches teaching different doctrines. Or why there ceased to be scripture and revelation. It must be because God has changed rather than because of man turning from Him.

Quite frankly, I dont buy it.

I don't see how anyone could study the history of Christianity and not see that the teachings of Christ totally corrupted during the Middle Ages. The choices are: Christianity was false all along, or the Christian church had to be restored through prophecy.

The only way Christianity can be right, and Mormonism wrong, is if the prophet is yet to be born.

Dear Avatar and Skeptick (also JakeStarkey and Truthspeaker):
(A) Have you read "Saving Paradise" by Rebecca Parker.
The book traces the history of early Christianity which DID present Jesus as bringing peace on earth and brotherly love. That period was followed by the introduction of crusades and killing in the name of the Cross, the first crucifix dating to 963, about 1000 years into church history.

So maybe this is the apostasy or antichrist phase kicking in.
In the Bible Satan is bound for 1000 years and then let loose again on earth.
So maybe this refers to that stage, that there is a falling away from the spirit of the laws, and then it is restored after that.

It is not necessarily "justified war" that it is "God's will" that all this killing and coersion and genocide take place, but that the Bible gives a warning that certain stages will occur. The rising of the antichrist, or those who come in the name of Christ but are against the spirit of the law, is certainly not in keeping with God's ideal will. I understand this in terms of a learning curve of humanity, or also a grief process where certain stages have to pass in order to heal and come to spiritual resolution, although the losses and suffering are not the goal or good in themselves, they serve a purpose in the bigger scheme of life.

(B) As for requiring another prophet or prophecy,
the final stage of the Holy Spirit is supposed to come with the return of Christ.
So you could consider that a third and final stage of spiritual development to maturity.

The Muslims believe Mohammed was the last prophet and fulfillment.
But the Bahai came out of that culture and are bringing out healing between races, religions and nations, with faith in the "oneness of humanity" which is more like how I would envision the last stage of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth as in heaven.

It may seem like a "new" teaching but the process of forgiving past conflicts, divisions and injuries, and renewing the "spirit" of the laws is like establishing the message all along.

In Christ all things are "made new" but that means true to their original purpose from the very beginning. We are mostly having to "unlearn" or expand upon the old ways we have been taught which do not have to be a source of division.

As for the comment "Christianity or Mormonism" has to be right or revised,
I find that ALL denominations have equal contributions and corrections to exchange with one another in order to have God's complete universal truth.

There is no one righteous except "Christ Jesus" so no one person or no one group is going to be 100% complete. Otherwise why would the others exist.

(C) As for Avatar, if you do not ascribe to any of this Christian teaching, I was not brought up with this either! I just say that "IF" some one or some group is going to teach Jesus and the Bible, then teach it in a way that includes and corrects all people and all groups equally; and does not make any one more right or wrong than any other.

I believe the spirit of the laws, both the divine laws of churched tribes and the natural laws of gentiles and secular humanists, are both fulfilled in Christ Jesus who represents the establishment of "restorative justice."

So not just one group has a monopoly on teaching the laws.
Even the Buddhist laws or Dharma are fulfilled in the spirit of Christ.
And the natural laws made statutory and written into the Constitution and its amendments.

Any group or person can take the spirit of the laws, based on the love of truth, to heart by conscience and be one with Christ in following the cultural ways of their tribes or elders. As long as you give and receive mutual redress and corrections, through mediation and agreement as prescribed in the Bible, you can correct any conflict and prevent any trespass; so all ways should be able to get along in harmony by putting the spirit of truth first. Even where you disagree, you can settle that fairly by treating one another as neighbors with equal respect, instead of competing for more authority or power in decisions. So this way of equality in relations is the law and love of Christ Jesus, even if known by other names such as social justice or charity or good will for all humanity.

Unless you want to be judged by appearance, you do not judge by the letter of the law, or appearances, but by the spirit by which people are guided, to see if it is one with Christ or working against Christ. Often appearances are misleading, as even Jesus used the example of the Samaritan as being a neighbor in Christ, at a time when Samaritans were most avoided as unholy people.

If you treat your neighbor with charity, especially having forgiveness, with no condition or reward expected but just for the sake of good faith relations and good will, then that is the spirit of Christ and God, to do all things with love, and especially speaking the truth with love. And as you forgive others, you are also forgiven; but if you criticize then you are also.

So the Christians and theist religionists have just as much to learn, if not more, about forgiving and loving all neighbors as one in Christ as those who are secular in philosophy.

This way, not any one path has an advantage over any other.

As Jake pointed out that we should seek the narrow gate of righteousness and not
the broad path of destruction. ANY person or group can easily become sectarian and declare "my way is right, your way is wrong." And we can all go to war or to hell that way.

But it takes a very discerning conscience to focus on how EACH person or group has some truth to offer that benefits the whole, and has shortcomings or omissions that another can correct with their contributions. In this way, all are equal as a key part of God's creation.

And again, only where these different paths intersect or agree in "Christ Jesus" then that union is supreme, the whole is greater than the sum of any parts by themselves.

So this would make all people equal, while also acknowledging our diversity and different purposes.

Avatar, you may not believe in Christianity, especially the way it has been taught.
But there are ways of teaching it that fulfill and include all other ways even secular.
So that is how I recommend that meaning of Jesus and the Bible be taught.
If God is all powerful and all knowing, and Jesus is the universal messiah for all humanity, then all people and all paths should be included in salvation.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Truth: Let us focus on where we seem to agree on a positive constructive message and wisdom in this scripture

(A). can we both agree that the problems in both cases are caused by "unforgiveness."

For someone to turn and twist the blessings of Jesus and scripture to go against God and cause harm to themselves and others; if they do so with full knowledge and free will (which makes no sense to me) then they are CONSCIOUSLY not forgiving something and doing this out of spite or destruction or anger or something caused by unforgiveness. If they do so "not knowing" how to achieve the goals in their heads in harmony instead of against (which I am more likely to believe, as even Hitler and his followers thought they were championing the oppressed and doing the right thing), then there is still some factor of unforgiven conflict causing that bias in their heads making them go in that direction.

So whether the unpardonable sin manifest this way or that way, locally or globally,
can we agree the common key to prevent it is always acting and thinking with the spirit of "forgiveness" so we are not led astray by any bias or resentment that taints our judgment and would cause us to sin on either a pardonable or unpardonable level.

Can we agree on the common cause, and how it can be prevented in Christ Jesus.

See B and C below also.

Dear Truth I appreciate you also for how you started and conduct this thread in the spirit of truth, and correction with forgiveness. I believe you will succeed in sharing and establishing truth because of your pure motivations.

As for your specific qualifications on sins against the Holy Spirit, given that Jesus and the Bible are for all people, I find this is "too limited" unless you interpret what you provided more universally to apply to the "spiritual state" that is causing the unforgiveness.

If you pinpoint just one specific application, instead of the general condition and causes behind what you presented, then people would go around targeting THOSE particular cases or people, and we would no longer be equal in God's eyes. The interpretation, even of what you state, should be able to apply to any and all people equally, so we are equally at fault when we threaten to go into that state of unforgiveness which causes such rebellion and retribution; basically being so jealous or resentful of God's ways being supreme that we would seek to sabotage what is good and healed -- any action like that must STILL come from "unforgiveness". So "unforgiveness" is still the common root of the sin, and which applies to ALL people.

Now if you mean when unforgiveness causes someone else to break their faith and become unforgiving, so it causes a chain reaction, then yes, that still shows how many layers, even generations, it would take to heal the consequences of unforgiveness.

So I would also agree that makes the degree of sin multifold, and explains WHY it takes more than one world or generation before such a chain of sins is fully healed or forgiven.

So I would not agree to limit the issue of unforgiveness to just that particular literal instance, but would still look at the SPIRIT of what causes the example you gave to be such a compounding issue; and to see how other cases are on the same level of transgression, causing so much damage that it is not healed "in this world or the next."

However, by the fourth and fifth generation, even curses carried in the spirit that people in the past died without forgiving and giving to Christ; these can be given by future generations and still be brought to redemption. So there is an end to the unforgiveness.

Healing may not come in one life or the next, but once divine forgiveness in Christ is established then all truth is revealed so all are set free from the past.

From our human perspective it is NOT forgiven, since lifetimes are limited and once you die in sin that is too late to make peace. But from God's perspective, which transcends the linear limitations of human life and death, then God's love and grace conquers all over time.

I don't think this has to negate your Mormon interpretation, but just expands on it to apply the same concept of "unforgiveness" causing rebellion and vengeful destruction. I believe we agree more than disagree, because "unforgiveness" is the common factor that would cause such problems and consequences.

I think that is the better focus because the warning would be general and apply to ALL people in ALL things we do. Anything we do out of "unforgiveness" especially for those who do not forgive God and do self-destructive things to hurt themselves or others out of anger, can be seen as falling under that level of abuse with lifetimes of repercussions. Such a negative chain reaction has the SAME effect you mention of causing others to fall away or reject or lose faith, by spreading unforgiving destruction. But it does not have to be literal "teaching" as a formal minister. It can be teaching indirectly by example.

So I would just interpret it more generally, in keeping with the SPIRIT of why the case you present is so critical, but not necessarily just a literal case that would not apply to all people.

Yours truly,
Emily

Emily,
Though I may not agree with everything you say regarding the root of all evil, we can agree on this statement by God:

"I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive. But for you it is required to forgive all man. For verily vengeance is mine. And I will repay."

The root of all evil is actually a lack of love for God and your fellow man. These two virtues when absent result in entirely selfish behavior and the man's deeds/crimes are limited only by his imagination.

Truthspeaker

(B) I would say the same thing but in the opposite way. Instead of emphasizing the retributive option of God's laws, that if you don't forgive but live by retribution you receive that instead of forgiveness; I emphasize the restorative side of justice, that the more you forgive others and allow correction, then you are given the same freedom to correct yourself and be forgiven at the same time, not as a condition but both together.

I believe the Old Testament shows the fallibility and corruption of living by the letter of the law, fear of retribution and abusing laws to control authority; whereas the New Testament is about living by the spirit of the law and "restorative justice" where you get the mercy you give; and so the Bible recommends that we confess our faults one to another, that we may be healed, and we rebuke and redress one another as equals to restore relations in Christ Jesus by establishing truth to free ourselves from worldly conflicts of interest.

(C) In response to your statement that the Mormons have the only teachings on the unpardonable sin, this is fine if you equally give credit to the Buddhists for teaching unique parts of God's wisdom or laws, or the Constitutionalists for prescribing equal protection of interests and due process, or the Bahai for teaching methods of shared dialogue in a healing environment, or the Quakers for teaching conflict resolution both in and out of prisons to restore humanity.

Every person or group has a unique purpose in God's plans and creation.

I believe we should well acknowledge the good contributions of all people and groups, but never one at the expense of another. Even with errors, I believe that corrections are made mutually so that equal respect is maintained at all times.

You personally do not come across to me as cliquish or cultish.
I am sure you have run into people who have already attacked you as such, just by your affiliation.

I do not judge you for that, but I look at how you try to reply to each person individually, which is the right way to establish truth and corrections.

However, by affiliating yourself with a group that traditionally teaches its members to consider their way the "only right way" you set yourself up for this line of attack.

So that part is your responsibility if you are teaching that line of thinking.

I have found the right way of teaching any tradition is to be in harmony and equally acknowledging the same propensity for strengths and weaknesses in any person and any group, and not holding any one as more or less in status than any other.

With any person who judges people on different levels by group, I have found biases and incomplete information because that perspective limits the ability to perceive universally.

You do not seem to have too much of a bias that you cannot check and balance, though it shows when you start putting "Mormon" before others instead of Christ first as purely righteous in spirit, and all others equally submitting one to another in Christ after that.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks, Emily: food thought.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Or when Parley Pratt tried to kill an injured captive in Missouri, or when Bill Hickman or Orrin Rockwell was on the loose, or at Mountain Meadows. Or when Joseph Smith broke his wife's heart. I agree that God sheds tears over all his children's misdeeds in a church's cause.

You're missing the mark. Even though the cases you brought up are quite questionable it remains irrelevant to the doctrine. The mere pointing out of the sins of an individual in a church who goes against the teachings of his religion does not damage the religion itself. It only leaves a poor reputation for the person committing the crime.

Everyone commits sins. Don't blame the doctrine. The doctrine doesn't teach anyone to commit sins.

Dear Truth: Would like to see consistency here.

If the good teachings of a particular Mormon leader are taken as a good reflection on "another" person or member who claims affiliation,
can you then selectively choose "not" to associate when a negative observation is made.

That is fine if you are going to hold each person individually responsible, and not as representing a group, but then also credit people individually and not by association by group or with the actions or teachings of others in the same group.

I just ran into this same issue with JW members on another forum.

Anytime anything good could be said about what "other JW members did" they wanted to share credit as a group. But whenever anything bad was reported, then they did not associate themselves with those members or exmembers who were "individually responsible."

As long as you are consistent, as you seem to be level headed and fair, that is my concern here. The most common fault of any group is to become so used to defending your reputation that you lose objectivity in acknowledging and correcting shortcomings or areas where improvements could be made.

Groups that are sectarian, in believing their way is right as opposed to other ways being wrong, or having unequal or no ability to give input into the decisions of authorities within their own group are more liable to let errors go unchecked.

If there is not equal accountability throughout the whole group, but the authority is uneven, there is a greater chance for problems to go uncorrected and result in abuses.

So even though individuals ARE ultimately responsible for their own actions or violations, having an imbalanced or unchecked organization can be a key factor in religious abuse.

The idea that the elders are "infallible" almost sets people up to fail, whereas groups that acknowledge the equal authority and responsibility of all people do not concentrate all power at the top to cause an imbalance, that too easily corrupted in larger institutions.

Don't get me wrong Emily. Reputation means nothing to the Lord. He knows whether you ARE something or you're NOT. He knows what we really are. When people start to realize that God is their judge, they cease to care too much about their reputation. Jesus had a great reputation to some and a horrible reputation to many.

What's most important is that you and the Lord are open with each other. No one ever said that our leaders were infallible. But I will tell you that the teachings they gave which were inspired of God are infallible. Prophets are as human as the rest of us. They can fall from grace just like the rest of us. So when one of them does, the blame for their actions should fall on their individual heads and not the church.

Conversely, one can only get by on reputation for so long. At the end of the day you have to walk the talk. And it doesn't matter what church you belong to. All virtuous principles come from Jesus. They are all doctrines of His church. So whenever you are abiding by any of those principles, you are practicing the true religion of Christ. Having the "Mormon" label will not save any of us at the last day.

Is that fair and consistent enough for you?

 

[emilynghiem]

Don't get me wrong Emily. Reputation means nothing to the Lord. He knows whether you ARE something or you're NOT. He knows what we really are. When people start to realize that God is their judge, they cease to care too much about their reputation. Jesus had a great reputation to some and a horrible reputation to many.

What's most important is that you and the Lord are open with each other. No one ever said that our leaders were infallible. But I will tell you that the teachings they gave which were inspired of God are infallible. Prophets are as human as the rest of us. They can fall from grace just like the rest of us. So when one of them does, the blame for their actions should fall on their individual heads and not the church.

Conversely, one can only get by on reputation for so long. At the end of the day you have to walk the talk. And it doesn't matter what church you belong to. All virtuous principles come from Jesus. They are all doctrines of His church. So whenever you are abiding by any of those principles, you are practicing the true religion of Christ. Having the "Mormon" label will not save any of us at the last day.

Is that fair and consistent enough for you?

1. Yes, as long as you hold the same standards and respect for all others, also, such Buddha as a prophet of God's wisdom wherever those teachings are also the principles of Christ.
I have found it is a common principle in Bahai and also Islam to respect all the prophets or messengers sent by God; and in Buddhism that everyone can attain Buddhahood or spiritual maturity and in Hinduism that everyone is born a Hindu or Spiritual Being.

2. As for reputation, I think the laws of justice apply to our record and the spirit in how we administer the laws. If we redress and rebuke one another as equals, in the spirit of love of truth, forgiveness, and correction, then we receive the same. Not so much our reputation but the standards and spirit we enforce. And likewise with hypocrisy that projects blame on the other party; we would get the same treatment we give to others.

I believe you stay within the spirit of the laws, which is always good to find. I much prefer corrections be made by people with a fair perspective in relation to all other people and groups, who will naturally carry their own personal biases and perspectives on truth. You seem to accept responsibility for both the positive and negative perceptions of Mormon teachings, and I support you in bringing out the best in all people, while correcting the misgivings and shortcomings.

3. If you would like to continue comparing the wisdom that different teachings, such as Buddhism or other Christian denominations besides Mormon have to offer, one of the common concepts I find key is the idea of spiritual geneaology, not just physically knowing your history but also spiritually understanding the patterns from one generation to the next. The Buddhists teach about karma that carries on beyond lifetimes; some Christians teach about generational curses and breaking cycles of abuse or addiction in Christ Jesus.

I believe more counseling, therapy, and recovery from abuse, crime, especially violence and war, will draw from the most effective applications of a combination of these spiritual teachings about how the human pscyhe and spirit work, how we carry knowledge or patterns from the past, and how we heal and recover through forgiveness and restitution.

That happens to be an area of great interest to me, as I am advocating for reform of medical, legal, and even criminal justice systems by applying spiritual methods that can be proven to work effectively in correcting abusive situations before they escalate into more serious crime and violence; as well as applying these to recovery and healing for victims.

To implement "equal protections" and access to resources to all people equally, I believe it will take enforcing Constitutional laws and principles, teaching these individually for people to adopt and uphold with the same commitment that Christians share with Biblical laws.

So that is why I look at the divine purpose of Constitutional laws equally with Christianity and Buddhism as a major factor in establishing justice and peace on earth. So whatever teachers, leaders, prophets or messengers bring out this spirit of the laws, whether through the Bible, or Buddhism, or the Bill of Rights, I believe a combination of that wisdom and natural laws with divine spirit of truth and justice will bring unity of all people.

I do not see this coming from any one source by itself, but a union and an intersection of the best that all traditions have to offer. I hoped to see this culmination in my lifetime, and at this point it looks like all or nothing, either the bottom is going to fall out and collapse, or the top is going to blow off and the solutions will rise above the fray, or both. I was really hoping the transition would be smoother, using diplomatic relations, but change has been more disruptive and violent in the past, and in comparison we have more democratic means and freedom to make innovations today without as much unrest and restistance.

Thank you, Truthspeaker, and I hope to support you in any way I can in your mission and purpose to establish truth in Christ Jesus, and understanding between people and especially between whole groups where there had been division and misperception. To overcome fear and division is the better part of the battle, and after the fear is gone it just gets easier and easier even though the challenges never stop coming. May you continue to build on your successes in working around walls, which are meant to provide structure and support, and opening paths, bridges, windows and doors for information to flow freely.

If you want to join the discussion on another forum also, another friend invited me here from backpage dot com under religion, and there is also politics which go hand in hand.

I hope you gain as much from interacting with others as they stand to gain from you.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[ItHappens]

This is a interesting topic.
Mormons certainly consider themselves Christian (followers of Christ).
In my opinion the book of his teachings they subscribe to however is false.
The traditional (non "Book of Mormon") bible talks about how God will judge the heart of mankind. Mormons certainly have and demonstrate a love of Christ.
I am not Mormon. I think their "book" is false and their faith in that misguided.
But any friends I have ever had of the faith are certainly wonderful people who really walk the walk and talk the talk.

 

[Truthspeaker]

This is a interesting topic.
Mormons certainly consider themselves Christian (followers of Christ).
In my opinion the book of his teachings they subscribe to however is false.
The traditional (non "Book of Mormon") bible talks about how God will judge the heart of mankind. Mormons certainly have and demonstrate a love of Christ.
I am not Mormon. I think their "book" is false and their faith in that misguided.
But any friends I have ever had of the faith are certainly wonderful people who really walk the walk and talk the talk.

I appreciate your sentiment and I'm sure many others share your point of view. I'm curious as to why you think the Book of Mormon is false. Surely there must be something in it that you have a problem with. What might that be for you?

I also note that you hold us in a good light with a reputation for living Christlike lives. Isn't that what Jesus said to do? Does it even matter what book that teaching comes from if it teaches people to live in a Christlike manner? How false could such a book be?

 

[Said1]

Do Mormons still wear under clothing or whatever those things are - pantaloons?

They are not called what you say they are. We do continue to wear sacred undergarments. Why is everyone so fascinated by undergarments?

All religions wear symbolic clothing. But they wear it on the outside to show how pious they are. We're not trying to draw attention to ourselves so we wear it under normal clothes. What's the root of this obsession people have with our underwear?

A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

I guess yours are in a bunch, eh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do Mormons still wear under clothing or whatever those things are - pantaloons?

They are not called what you say they are. We do continue to wear sacred undergarments. Why is everyone so fascinated by undergarments?

All religions wear symbolic clothing. But they wear it on the outside to show how pious they are. We're not trying to draw attention to ourselves so we wear it under normal clothes. What's the root of this obsession people have with our underwear?

A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

I guess yours are in a bunch, eh?

Many LDS do wear religious symbols visibly. Lapel pins in the shape of LDS temples or a CTR ring (Choose The Right).

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a interesting topic.
Mormons certainly consider themselves Christian (followers of Christ).
In my opinion the book of his teachings they subscribe to however is false.
The traditional (non "Book of Mormon") bible talks about how God will judge the heart of mankind. Mormons certainly have and demonstrate a love of Christ.
I am not Mormon. I think their "book" is false and their faith in that misguided.
But any friends I have ever had of the faith are certainly wonderful people who really walk the walk and talk the talk.

I appreciate your sentiment and I'm sure many others share your point of view. I'm curious as to why you think the Book of Mormon is false. Surely there must be something in it that you have a problem with. What might that be for you?

I also note that you hold us in a good light with a reputation for living Christlike lives. Isn't that what Jesus said to do? Does it even matter what book that teaching comes from if it teaches people to live in a Christlike manner? How false could such a book be?

If the book were religious fiction (as I believe it to be) yet held up as revealed scripture, then the problem begins with the falsehood of that.

Now remember that I am the non-member here who defends that book as a very good work of American religious fiction, perhaps the best in our history, so keep your words in context.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Do Mormons still wear under clothing or whatever those things are - pantaloons?

They are not called what you say they are. We do continue to wear sacred undergarments. Why is everyone so fascinated by undergarments?

All religions wear symbolic clothing. But they wear it on the outside to show how pious they are. We're not trying to draw attention to ourselves so we wear it under normal clothes. What's the root of this obsession people have with our underwear?

A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

I guess yours are in a bunch, eh?

Only when I play basketball

 

[Truthspeaker]

They are not called what you say they are. We do continue to wear sacred undergarments. Why is everyone so fascinated by undergarments?

All religions wear symbolic clothing. But they wear it on the outside to show how pious they are. We're not trying to draw attention to ourselves so we wear it under normal clothes. What's the root of this obsession people have with our underwear?

A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

I guess yours are in a bunch, eh?

Many LDS do wear religious symbols visibly. Lapel pins in the shape of LDS temples or a CTR ring (Choose The Right).

I guess I didn't think about those. But even the ones that wear those tend not to wear real flashy emblems. Those are small ornaments that most people wouldn't understand to peg someone as a mormon by looking at their lapel pin or ring.(everyone has a ring on it seems.)
The point is to be discreet. and most of those adornments happen in Utah.

 

[Truthspeaker]

If the book were religious fiction (as I believe it to be) yet held up as revealed scripture, then the problem begins with the falsehood of that.

Now remember that I am the non-member here who defends that book as a very good work of American religious fiction, perhaps the best in our history, so keep your words in context.

Now bear in mind that I'm not trying to change your opinion by asking this; but why do you consider the book to be fictitious?

 

[Liability]

Good MORMON Viet Nam!

 

[JakeStarkey]

A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

I guess yours are in a bunch, eh?

Many LDS do wear religious symbols visibly. Lapel pins in the shape of LDS temples or a CTR ring (Choose The Right).

I guess I didn't think about those. But even the ones that wear those tend not to wear real flashy emblems. Those are small ornaments that most people wouldn't understand to peg someone as a mormon by looking at their lapel pin or ring.(everyone has a ring on it seems.)
The point is to be discreet. and most of those adornments happen in Utah.

They are worn in Utah, for one purpose of several, I think, to identify LDS from non-LDS. Having lived in Utah off and on for eleven years (though I don't now), all no-Mos and Mos understand perfectly what they mean.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the book were religious fiction (as I believe it to be) yet held up as revealed scripture, then the problem begins with the falsehood of that.

Now remember that I am the non-member here who defends that book as a very good work of American religious fiction, perhaps the best in our history, so keep your words in context.

Now bear in mind that I'm not trying to change your opinion by asking this; but why do you consider the book to be fictitious?

We've been through that, you and me, and you and others, several times here, and no good will come from rehashing that.

But if you want to discuss it as a literary artifact, I would enjoy that.

 

[Truthspeaker]

We've been through that, you and me, and you and others, several times here, and no good will come from rehashing that.

But if you want to discuss it as a literary artifact, I would enjoy that.

No Jake, I don't think we really have. Perhaps I've forgotten any specific issues you have with the text itself. But I just can't remember any individual problem you have brought up with the book. I've only heard from you that you think it's fiction.
I won't harbor any ill will because you bring up a problem with the book. I'm here to learn just like anyone else. Who knows? Maybe you could be the one to show me the error of my ways. If you do I would certainly accept the truth and renounce a false book.