What I've learned about LDS, Protestants, Catholics, etc

[Xru]

Some did leave the church. Some believed that Joseph had lost his way. They never recanted their testimony to seeing the angel or the plates.



Their were claims that he was a con-man but accusations are not facts. And simple con men do not do for their con. Some have died because a con went bad. But not for the con.



Yes



Could be. I think it is very organized. What exactly about the structure do find confusing?



I don't know about upper echelons of the administration. Temple rights yes, but one does not have to be in the upper echelons for that.



It's not like a vote like we vote for a president. It's more of an who accepts and who doesn't. Frankly the choice really isn't ours who is prophet, the choice is whether or not we will accept the fact.



I imagine any faith will try to correct misconceptions that are made about it. Christians have an extensive apologetic system going all the way back to the apostles that defends it's beliefs from those pesky apostates like Marcion or Gnostics.



I believe all faiths have doctrines that are hard to explain or not fully understood. For instance, the Trinity. Christians for 1800 years have been trying to explain that one yet still hasn't progressed from a mystery.



This seems to happen sometimes. I would answer that if it was church sanctioned, then the Church produces bad fruits, but since this was a one time thing by some who gave way to fears rather than reason and doesn't happen on a regular bases, then it really claim it's bad fruits of the Church.

Thanks for your input . . .

Are you a sockpuppet . . .

[Xru]

Xru,

I found a research article about Mormonism, that is not done by Mormons, but by the Pew Research Group. It's called "Mormons and Civic Life" It will tell you a lot about LDS culture, volunteerism, and practices of our faith. I found it to be a good article and a fair representation.

It is quite long and extensive. But I hope you and others can read it, and we can discuss it's findings.
http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Mo...ivic-Life.aspx

Sure . . . thanks Bro

[TrueBlue?]

Thanks for your input . . .

Are you a sockpuppet . . .

?????

Did I state something that wasn't factual? I think for myself. There is a reason for the question mark at the end of my user name.

[Xru]

?????

Good answer so you probably aren't . . . just halfway joking

Sockpuppet is someone who is already a part of a Forum re-registering under a different name so as to post in a disguised way and not be associated with the real individual.

Kind of an in joke here at Tweb. No offense intended TB.

[Xru]

Some did leave the church. Some believed that Joseph had lost his way. They never recanted their testimony to seeing the angel or the plates.

k

Their were claims that he was a con-man but accusations are not facts. And simple con men do not do for their con. Some have died because a con went bad. But not for the con.

k . . . not so sure about whether or not it was a fact or not or even care . . . . but okay

Could be. I think it is very organized. What exactly about the structure do find confusing?

Everything from the community church system, to prophet holders or whatever they are called . . . I'm reading up on lds.org and the main Mormon site so hopefully I'll know more. If you are interested in enlightening me I will post questions when I get stuck.

It's not like a vote like we vote for a president. It's more of an who accepts and who doesn't. Frankly the choice really isn't ours who is prophet, the choice is whether or not we will accept the fact.

k

I imagine any faith will try to correct misconceptions that are made about it. Christians have an extensive apologetic system going all the way back to the apostles that defends it's beliefs from those pesky apostates like Marcion or Gnostics.

Absolutely . . . .

I believe all faiths have doctrines that are hard to explain or not fully understood. For instance, the Trinity. Christians for 1800 years have been trying to explain that one yet still hasn't progressed from a mystery.

Once again agreed . ... I started off a OP mentioning that the Resurrection was no more odd than someone looking into a hat to translate scriptures.

This seems to happen sometimes. I would answer that if it was church sanctioned, then the Church produces bad fruits, but since this was a one time thing by some who gave way to fears rather than reason and doesn't happen on a regular bases, then it really claim it's bad fruits of the Church.

I was more concerned with illustrating stonewalling really. Of course, as you point out, individuals of a Church can do bad things. After all we are all sinners . . . but that doesn't necessarily make the Church bad.

You seem like a rather reasonable person . . . if you are not careful you may become well liked among all twebbers.

[TrueBlue?]

Good answer so you probably aren't . . . just halfway joking

Sockpuppet is someone who is already a part of a Forum re-registering under a different name so as to post in a disguised way and not be associated with the real individual.

Kind of an in joke here at Tweb. No offense intended TB.

Learn something new every day.

[TrueBlue?]

k




k . . . not so sure about whether or not it was a fact or not or even care . . . . but okay




Everything from the community church system, to prophet holders or whatever they are called . . . I'm reading up on lds.org and the main Mormon site so hopefully I'll know more. If you are interested in enlightening me I will post questions when I get stuck.






k




Absolutely . . . .




Once again agreed . ... I started off a OP mentioning that the Resurrection was no more odd than someone looking into a hat to translate scriptures.




I was more concerned with illustrating stonewalling really. Of course, as you point out, individuals of a Church can do bad things. After all we are all sinners . . . but that doesn't necessarily make the Church bad.

You seem like a rather reasonable person . . . if you are not careful you may become well liked among all twebbers.

If I don't know an answer I will say so, the thing about being liked, YIKES!

[OtherCheek]

Everything from the community church system, to prophet holders or whatever they are called . . . I'm reading up on lds.org and the main Mormon site so hopefully I'll know more. If you are interested in enlightening me I will post questions when I get stuck.

The Leadership of the Church is comprised of different quorums of the Priesthood.

Maybe you have seen this already, X, but you can click on the link on the left of the page to read about the function of each Priesthood Quorum (or group) and the duties of members of that quorum.
http://www.lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng

Local geographical organization and leadership is described here:
http://www.lds.org/church/organizati...nized?lang=eng

[Xru]

The Leadership of the Church is comprised of different quorums of the Priesthood.

Maybe you have seen this already, X, but you can click on the link on the left of the page to read about the function of each Priesthood Quorum (or group) and the duties of members of that quorum.
http://www.lds.org/church/leaders?lang=eng

Local geographical organization and leadership is described here:
http://www.lds.org/church/organizati...nized?lang=eng

k

[moreta]

...
Their were claims that he was a con-man but accusations are not facts. And simple con men do not do for their con. Some have died because a con went bad. But not for the con.

Just briefly, because it's getting to the end of my shift, and I'm losing concentration...



I just want to be clear I'm reading you correctly before I say anything. Are you saying that Joseph Smith died for his faith?

[TrueBlue?]

Just briefly, because it's getting to the end of my shift, and I'm losing concentration...



I just want to be clear I'm reading you correctly before I say anything. Are you saying that Joseph Smith died for his faith?

Yes. Sorry that wasn't so clear.

[nrajeff]

Joseph Smith's side.

Feel free to explain, as Sparko did, why you think my points are invalid.
More helpful than a 3-word response.

...if you subscribe to the idea that the Bible is your sole and totally authoritative source of doctrine--and you also subscribe to some "inerrancy of scripture" dogma--then don't you claim to be led directly by GOD HIMSELF? Or, how about the "I'm literally indwelt by a deity 24/7" claim: Isn't that a Protestant doctrine? How then can you NOT be led directly by God Himself? Seems your claim is really something even more "outrageous" than merely being led by a prophet--you claim to be led by God Himself.

[Cow Poke]

Feel free to explain, as Sparko did, why you think my points are invalid.
More helpful than a 3-word response.

...if you subscribe to the idea that the Bible is your sole and totally authoritative source of doctrine--and you also subscribe to some "inerrancy of scripture" dogma--then don't you claim to be led directly by GOD HIMSELF? Or, how about the "I'm literally indwelt by a deity 24/7" claim: Isn't that a Protestant doctrine? How then can you NOT be led directly by God Himself? Seems your claim is really something even more "outrageous" than merely being led by a prophet--you claim to be led by God Himself.

I believe you are totally misconstruing the "inerrancy of scripture" "dogma", Jeff. You're also misrepresenting the "literally indwelt" thing. The Holy Spirit doesn't totally take us over like some kind of "possession".

[nrajeff]

If it appears biased I would suggest that its because I'm lacking understanding . .. which btw I'm attempting to remedy by going to LDS.org and the main Mormon website.

That is good to know.

Can you say the same about yourself . . . ie, remedying your bias' about Tweb and us Protestant pestilence that give you such a hard time . .

I have been posting here for a lot longer than you have.

And yes it is biased . . . I wrote it that way . . . if you think I give the Protestants a break read my post on Protestants jeff .. .

Yes, I did read some of your criticisms of the Protestants, after I responded to you. In my opinion, some of your criticisms of them are unreasonably harsh, just like some of your criticisms of the LDS are. At least you are somewhat consistent, for a loose cannon. : )

Actually jeff after rereading what I wrote both about LDS and Protestants I think I was much harder on Protestants than I was on LDS!!!!!!!! Interesting that you didn't fly to the defense of Protestants for the unfair behavior on my part .

I am doing that now. I hadn't seen your attacks on them when I responded to you.

.. . and believe he I hope when I say that I consciously tried to be scathingly sarcastic toward Protestants and their shortcomings . . not a really pleasant thing to do . .

I believe you.

To me it just shows how overwhelmed in self-pity you are and how defensive you are about LDS . . .

"Self-pity" ?? LOL. As for the other charge, I plead guilty of wanting to defend my beliefs when they are attacked, and of trying to point out attacks on straw men that are purported to be my beliefs. Hope that isn't too weird....

Also, there is not one Protestant that has come forward to correct my "unfair" representation of Protestants.

Maybe they haven't seem them yet, like was the case with me.

Can they AGREE with what I've said. Maybe partially but I think part of it is that they have a sense of humor and humility that some LDS don't have and can laugh at themselves.

Here's a major life lesson for you: People are people. There could easily be the same percentage of humorless Protestants as there are humorless LDS. When you try to pigeonhole one group as being unique in a certain behavioral category, there is a real chance that you are mistaken because in the real world, groups of people are made up of people who exhibit the normal range of human emotions and behaviors. Stereotype-promoting canards such as "Jews are stingy" or "blacks steal, use crack, and are pimps" are supposed to be relics of less-enlightened times. There is a reason why Archie's prejudices in "All in the Famiy" no longer resonate with many Americans. So while I readily concede that there are SOME humorless, non-humble LDS people, you should acknowledge that ALL groups of Christians contain SOME members whom you would call humorless and non-humble. On any given day, some people just converted from LDS to Protestant, or vice verse. It would be wrong to point at a member and say "You are a typical ____."

You seem to be conspicuously absent in that ability, ie, the ability to be humble and able to laugh at yourself or at the inconsistencies in the LDS dogma.

You are a newbie so a certain amount of ignorance on your part is understandable and forgivable. That aside, the motto of TWEB is not "We laugh at ourselves and our inconsistencies here." It is "We debate theology...seriously."

Too many jokers in the forum are liable to undermine that idea.

[One Bad Pig]

Protestants feel special because we rebelled from the Domination of Faith by the RCC, a dark and evil cult that hijacked the TRUE Christians movement by pointing to a few lines in Matthew and then declaring themselves the rightful Church of all Christendom. Of course, the Eastern Orthodox repaid the favor by excommunicating the RCC AND the Protestants but that Cult is confined pretty much to the Near East and so . . . so what.

Help! I'm being confined!