Show of Hands

what interests you about Judaism?

I was seriously thinking about it. I've been reading a lot about it lately and I really love that faith.

Very close to where I'm at. I was raised in a Protestant church. Not a lot of emphasis on Jesus. I became a Christian was part of the Jesus movement. I haven't attend a church in a long time. I am the mother of a gay man and I will not disown my son.

I love your testimony.

Thanks Tops! 😊

Thanks Tops! 😊

I agree! Great testimony!

thanks for posting the question Political!

Beautiful testimony! I'm following you!

What 4JC said!

Are you a member? (LDS)

Flowbro, who are you asking this question to?

Sadewt

I am lds actually, I'm going to BYU-I right now

My parents weren't hostile toward religion. But our stories are very similar. I was a freshman, also. Check out mine below! Lol

Nice question btw.

I was born again in the Catholic Church

Coolio

I notice that we typed out ours at about the same time. I don't know where I was going with this but that's a fun coincidence.

I didn't realize that, Okie. I think I tagged you into a poll today concerning faith. So sorry.

I saw that. No worries. Now you know why I didn't respond. No problem.

Is your conversion to Mormonism too personal?

Parts of it would be.

I am proud to call you friend.

Thank you.

And ditto back at ya.

Okie, we're debating teaching Creationism in schools, in addition to the theory of evolution. Someone said the following and I wanted to get your take on it, since you're a Mormon. I almost tagged you into the convo, but realized you also might not be willing to state what you believe about this in a poll in which they might be derogatory to you. But I've NEVER heard any such thing about Mormons and need to find out if Mormons do believe this. I'll copy and paste what this person said in the next comment.

.

Here's what the person said:

"In Mormon Mythology they believe that humans will eventually become gods and repopulate new planets and reseed that planet (like Genesis 1-2). They believe before God became God, he came from another planet and there was a God for that planet. The cycle never ends."

This person is claiming that if we teach Creationism, we should also teach other "theories" that others believe. Thanks!

.

I believe Mormons believe that Genesis should be interpreted figuratively, which yields the interpretation that the "days" are actually periods. Therefore, evolution is compatible with Genesis. Correct?

4JC - that is true from my understanding of Mormonism.

I think Mormons believe that each person has the opportunity to become a God because they do not believe in original sin. If you live a sinless life, you can live with God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost who are three completely separate. Is this correct, Okie?

First, we are creationists, but not "young earth" creationists. We would be okay with the earth being very old. Secondly, we interpret the 6 days of creation as 6 "creative periods." Again, we are not evolutionists. Thirdly, we believe the countless references in scripture, including the Bible, to us being children of God, is not just a metaphor or a trope. We believe that we are children of God and capable of ultimately doing Godly things. For now, however, at this point in our existence, just learning to be obedient children is about all we can muster.

Lastly, the reference to Mythology may or may not have been a pejorative. All religion is categorized as mythology in the academic sense, but some religious bigots like to pretend their religion doesn't require faith while everyone else's beliefs are just myth. I hope that person's usage was academic in nature. Aside from that, what was said is generally accurate.

Now to Poli, we believe in original sin so far as it means we live in a mortal, fallen world, but we don't believe that babies are born with sin or that they need to be baptized. Babies aren't sinners until they sin which can't happen until they have a knowledge of what right and wrong are. "Yes," the three parts of the godhead are distinctly separate intelligences, but together form "God." Were this not true then you have a real problem with scripture where you have Jesus praying to Himself, calling himself "God," multiple personalities, and the performance of magic tricks where at His baptism he tricks everyone by having his voice come down from heaven saying "this is my beloved son........" we don't believe Jesus was a ventriloquist who tricked people into thinking that the Father was in the clouds talking when really He was in the river Jordan. Lots of literary confusion if you make all 3 the same actual being.

.

Oh - so y'all do reject evolution. Catholics are the ones who accept evolution.

Some other examples: Jesus saying He came to do the will of the Father and not His own. Jesus praying for the cup to pass, nevertheless not His will, but the Father's be done. It's clear that in the garden of gethsemane Jesus' will was different than the Father's, but that He subjected Himself to the will of the Father. A single intelligence or person that has multiple and conflicting wills (desires, plans, etc) would be mentally ill, not God.

Correct. A catholic priest formulated the theory of evolution.

Wow, that's a lot of info, and a bit overwhelming, as I'm not doing all that great today. Can you please just answer this part? Do you believe:

We become gods and repopulate new planets and reseed that planet & that God was on some other planet before Earth?

I think you said that you think we can become gods (which is highly surprising to me, as most Mormons claim to be Christians, but that is not part of any other Christian denomination that I know of). If we can become gods why would we need Jesus to die on the cross for our sins?

And I think you're also saying you don't believe in the Trinity. Is that correct?
Thanks!

We are Christians. The church's name is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." We believe there is no other name than Jesus Christ by which we can be saved or be forgiven of our sins. Without that forgiveness we cannot go to heaven and learn to become even more like the Father. We believe the Bible is Holy scripture, and so is the Book of Mormon. Most of our beliefs are easy to find in the Bible, but the verses are simply interpreted differently by the various sects, just like how the countless references to us being God's children are interpreted to mean anything other than us being His literal children.

You can do some research on your own if you want anything else. I don't go any deeper than this when online. To do so is pointless.

.

Right- no trinity at least not with the usual definition where the three are a single person, but three persons, but a single person, but three persons, but a single person except when there's 3 of them.

Sorry. That was disrespectful.

Thanks, Okie. I didn't mean that you aren't a Christian. If it came across that way, I apologize. Your explanation of what you believe is definitely what I believe a Christian to be--depending only on Jesus for salvation, forgiveness of sins and eternity in Heaven.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that Mormons believe we can become gods. I didn't realize that, and still don't understand why we would even need to be if Jesus died for our sins.

I don't understand what you meant about the trinity, or what you said that was disrespectful! Lol Are you saying the way you worded the trinity answer was disrespectful? If so, I didn't take it that way because I didn't understand it! Lol

Yes, my post just previous to this one was highly sarcastic.

Didn't pick up on it, Okie! I don't do sarcasm, as I believe it's the lowest form of humor--meant to build yourself up by tearing someone else down, imho. So I often don't "get" it when someone else is using it! Lol

My understanding of the Trinity is that it is much like an apple: three different parts that make up one whole, but each part has it's own purpose. In this analogy, Jesus would be the seed that gives new life, the Holy Spirit would be the pulp that feeds us spiritually, and God would be the peel that holds it all together and protects the rest.

.

Thanks again for sharing your beliefs. I really DO enjoy reading about them, and learning more about those of other faiths/denominations. And I'm REALLY sorry if I offended you! That was certainly not my intention!

.

You never offended me.

Mormons actually don't reject evolution. The church's official position is that they "have no official position"

2002 reprint of 1909 proclamation. www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

www.lds.org/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng

www.deseretnews.com/article/635188399/No-definitive-LDS-stance-on-evolution-study-finds.html

The Deseret link is trash. The LDS.org link is authoritative, but it also completely contradicts the 1909 statement. Hummmmmmmm.

Lol! Why do you think it's trash? It's talking about the BYU Evolution Packet which is required reading in all BYU biology classes.

The opinions of professors at BYU do not constitute the opinion of the church.

Of course they don't. They're not explaining their own opinions. They just gathered all of the church's own statements and showed that there are contradictions and no official remarks about where the church actually stands on evolution.

It's says they studied the opinions and reached a conclusion. The conclusion is their opinion. They can't speak for the church no matter hard they try.

Personally, I think this is one of the redeeming qualities about this church. Religious institutions have no place drawing their own scientific conclusions since they are not research facilities. It's best if religion sticks to religion and science sticks to science (as stated in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism).

Again, they're not speaking for the church. They're just presenting evidence.

So a Deseret article, which is t authoritative as a voice of the church, quoting professors and their opinions about the opinions of actual church leaders, doesn't constitute anything definitive or authoritative. Like I said, the link to LDS.org, however, would be and carries more weight than anything Deseret or BYU could produce.

Well that's what I'm saying, Kim. The question was about what does the church believe. The statements of BYU professors doesn't begin to answer that.

A NY Times comic strip is as authoritative about what the church believes as would be a "study" conducted by BYU professors.

Their statements don't answer that question, but the statements of the church that they gathered does answer that question. That was my point of linking that article.

Either way, we are NOT evolutionists.

But I think you can agree that the LDS church doesn't reject it outright either. Obviously the church believes in a creation but in my 22 years in the church, I was never once taught that evolution isn't real. I've always accepted both as working together in sync.

No, I don't agree with that. The 1909 and 1925 statements are abundantly clear. The two paragraph, unattributed statement at LDS.org that you links to, seems in direct conflict with the other, obviously more authoritative sources. The "study" from 3 BYU professors appears self-serving and obviously applies a strict, literal requirement that unless a statement is a literal rejection of evolution then the statement doesn't oppose evolution. I think that's wrong and it's a good thing their opinions about the official church statements don't mean anything.

You have to get very legalistic in your definitions and very literal in the analysis of writing in order to carve-out a position that the church doesn't take a position on evolution. I'll post some examples and links to the statements to illustrate the problem.

“Any theory that leaves out God as a personal, purposeful Being, and accepts chance as a first cause, cannot be accepted by Latter-day Saints. … That man and the whole of creation came by chance is unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable that if man came into being by the will and power of God, the divine creative power is limited to one process dimly sensed by mortal man.”

That was from here: www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng&_r=1

“I am grateful that in the midst of the confusion of our Father’s children there has been given to the members of this great organization a sure knowledge of the origin of man, that we came from the spirit world where our spirits were begotten by our Father in heaven, that he formed our first parents from the dust of the earth, and that their spirits were placed in their bodies, and that man came, not as some have believed, not as some have preferred to believe, from some of the lower walks of life, but our ancestors were those beings who lived in the courts of heaven. We came not from some menial order of life, but our ancestor is God our heavenly Father.” (George Albert Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1925, p. 33.)

“Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent—absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both."

“… I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. …"

I could paste many, many more similar statements, but as the BYU professors pointed out, none of the statements make a literal statement akin to this: "The theory of evolution if incorrect, wrong, and Charles Darwin was wrong." So............the BYU professors concluded that the church isn't opposed to evolution. See the problem??????????????

So the 2 paragraph, unattributed statement that you linked to at lds.org seems wholly contrary to everything else that has been given and actually IS authoritative in the Mormon religion. The BYU "study" is NOT authoritative nor is the Deseret news article ABOUT the "study." ALL that is authoritative (except the 2 paragraph, unattributed statement) says that the evolution of mankind is not true.

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular.

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles...; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.

^ there are plenty of other quotes from general authorities that are contradictory. From what we've both shown, I think the conclusion that the church doesn't have an official stance is pretty set in stone.

The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world, and much of the talk therefore about the philosophy of Mormonism is altogether misleading.

Some people object to the slightest hint of being related to the rest of the animal kingdom, particularly the hairy apes…. I've kind of enjoyed what little I've seen of them…. Animals seems pretty wonderful to me. I'd be content to discover that I share a common heritage with them, so long as God is at the controls.

Can you link to the source you quoted above? I cannot find it.

They're from various people...church leaders, general authorities, church magazines. Here's the link I got them from... seems to be a pretty comprehensive list of LDS quotes on evolution.

www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/evolution.htm

You cherry picked. All but two of the quotes on that site conform to my understanding. The first quote you gave cannot be substantiated as real. I cannot find it outside of the Mormonthink site you linked to. The "modus operandi" quote is real, by incomplete and without context.

[continued]

In the modus operandi quote, the author was trying to get beyond the discussion altogether because it's not a doctrinally significant issue. A person's belief about evolution has no impact on their salvation. I'll paste the full quote in the next comment to illustrate the problem.

"President Joseph F. Smith was concerned that discussions of the theory of evolution only left the young people of the Church “in an unsettled frame of mind. They are not old enough and learned enough to discriminate, or put proper limitations upon a theory which we believe is more or less a fallacy. … In reaching the conclusion that evolution would be best left out of discussions in our Church schools we are deciding a question of propriety and are not undertaking to say how much of evolution is true, or how much is false. The Church itself has no philosophy about the modus operandi employed by the Lord in His creation of the world. … God has revealed to us a simple and effectual way of serving Him.”

They believe it is a fallacy as was articulated by the First Presidency in 1909 and again in 1920 and then 1925 and then again in 2002 when the 1909 statement was reprinted to help students studying the Old Testament.

Now the only statement left on the mormonthink site, which is not an official church site, is the Widstoe quote which is from a private book he wrote. That quote cannot be found in any church magazine or source. Likewise, the Eyering quote was in a personal book and cannot be found in any official source. You do realize, I hope, that people's books do not constitute positions of the church. The proclamation from the First Presidency and signed by their hands, from 1909, however, IS as official as anything possibly could be.

As to official positions of the church, you should know that even Brigham Young's Journal of Discourses isn't considered a church source. Both he and Wilford Woodruff had some private opinions that have NEVER made it into any General Conference address or teaching of the church, and for very good reason. It has NEVER been the position of the church that what church leaders say in private represents the church or an apostolic position.

Lastly, ever quote that I've given in this discussion came from General Conference, the Ensign, or an official church publication. In fact, everything I quoted above comes from the student handbook (which quotes other sources) which I linked to.

Yes, I cherry picked to show you that not all church leaders have stated the same thing on evolution. What would be the point of copying quotes that agree? Lol. You're cherry picking just as much as I am, and even worse so since you're completely ignoring the fact that statements like these have been made.

How do you explain away the quote that comes from the Improvement Era?? What about the last known statement on evolution by the first presidency from a meeting in 1931?? You can't ignore these things!

Good grief! The 1931 "minutes" don't support the idea of evolution at all. They simply say that it isn't an issue similar to what I was just talking about. It's not a doctrinal issue. The first Improvement Era quote comes from the 1909 statement. The second one is another attempt at saying it's not a doctrinal issue. The third one from the Improvement Era conforms to my understanding of the Matter.

Ok. I'm done with this. I have given my opinion and the OFFICIAL positions printed in official church sources. Notwithstanding the previously mentioned 2 paragraph, unattributed statement, there isn't any inconsistency in official positions. What people have said in private isn't in dispute, but it doesn't matter because those things aren't official.

That's completely my point though! It's NOT a doctrinal issue. The church is leaving evolution up to scientists and currently the majority of scientists accept evolution as real.

I'm not saying the church agrees with evolution. I'm saying that they are leaving it up to scientists and the individual members to decide whether they accept it as truth or not.

I "asked a Mormon missionary" on Mormon.org what the church's position on evolution is and here's the answer they gave me: (it's the same as my first LDS link. It's from a New Era article called "To The Point")

imgur.com/a/N9UXB

Wow! I woke up to so many notifications from this poll that a good many of them had fallen off the bottom of my SOH notifications. I'm SO glad that I have iOS notifications turned on, or I would've missed replying to a LOT of other users in other polls!

And this convo makes me SO glad that Southern Baptists believe ONLY in the Bible and that we have one document that sets forth our beliefs, based on the Scriptures ONLY. Lol I can't imagine not being sure on this issue. Don't get me wrong--I'm not denigrating y'all for having different beliefs; I just couldn't live that way, myself.

The following is the entirety of what we believe on Creation and evolution, taken from the Baptist Faith and Message. Notice that the word evolution is not even mentioned. That's because we do NOT accept evolution, only creation.

More....

.

Part 2. From the Baptist Faith and Message:

III. Man

Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation.

In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God.

More...

.

Part 3. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11.

I don't want to debate this any more, and I would really appreciate it if y'all are going to continue to argue this, if you would be so kind as to go to the top of the poll and continue your convo there, so I'm not inundated with more notifications. Thanks!

.

I was raised a baptist. Your religion isn't cohesive on every issue. The doctrine varies by location. The manual you quoted from is an opinion and interpretation of the underlying verses which are interpreted differently by different members of your own faith. Your pastors can't even agree on whether dead babies go to hell or not.

Okie, I can speak for all the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) churches that we've pastored and all of those that we've been members of by telling you that ALL of them used the Baptist Faith and Message, as did all of those that we knew of.

The SBC has adopted a broadly accepted Statement of Baptist Faith and Message, which contains 18 articles of faith and provides a broad outline of its doctrine, to which most cooperating churches subscribe. We have approximately 47,000 churches.

Individual members of churches might believe something differently, but when it comes down to what we believe, this document would be used to help guide us, as it is totally based on Scripture.

More....

.

Our members, who meet at a national annual convention, might add something to it, as the need arose, with social issues, etc., but this has only been done with a vote of all the attending members from across the nation. It was written in 1925 and has only been revised twice, in 1963 and 2000.

As to babies and hell, that is not touched on at all in that document. I've never heard a pastor say that babies go to hell, though. I asked hubby if he had ever heard SBC pastors argue over babies and hell and he said he had never heard them argue and had never heard one say that babies that die go to hell.

What I've always heard in Southern Baptist Churches is that there is an age of accountability, which is different for each child. It is the point at which they can understand they the plan of salvation.

More..

.

Part 3. Hubby said he HAS heard pastors of OTHER Baptist denominations argue that, though. You have to remember that there are several different Baptist denominations and even some that are independent and don't cooperate with other Baptist churches at all. Just off the top of my head, I can think of the following types of Baptist Churches: Southern, Independent, Northern, Free Will, National, & 7th Day.

This might lead to confusion of those that are not Baptists, who think we are all the same. We definitely are NOT! Lol But you said you were raised Baptist--which denomination or type of Baptist were you?


.

That is so good to hear. I was a Christian a long time before I came here. I am for gay rights. So I know some don't consider me a Christian. However, I had extremely poor self image before I came here. I love this place.