cooling

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

cooling's Achievements

  1. Yeah, I would say of all the "anti" literature out there only a small percentage of it is anything I would actually consider anti. I'm a huge fan of religious studies and own countless books on all the major (and a few of the minor) religions. For the past six months or so I've been studying the Mormon faith especially, and have collected quite a number of books on the subject. The only one that I would actually consider anti-Mormon is called, "What Do Mormons Really Believe" and it's written for the express purpose of informing the world that Mormons are crazy polytheists who aren't real Christians. There are a lot of books that present a less savory history of the church than the official church version, but most of those books are properly researched and likely at least mostly true. I'd use "Under the Banner of Heaven" as a great example. Aside from being a fascinating and extremely well-written book, it is very well researched. It also paints a less than heroic image of the early Mormon church which upsets some members of the church. I say there's no reason why some ugly spots in your church's history should have any effect on your faith. I think that there would be a lot less problems if the church would be a little more up-front about mistakes made in the past. I can look at something like the Mountain Meadows Massacre and feel that it was sick and wrong, but also not have that one event change my opinion of the current Mormon church one bit. The reason people get upset and leave the church when they learn of these things is because they feel lied to, and they have every right to. I have to say that I have read some amazingly beautiful wonderful things while researching the Mormon church, but one quote by a prophet was enough to convince me that this would never be the right religion for me. Elder Packer is quoted as saying, "Some things that are true are not very useful" in a speech regarding what is referred to by ex-members as "Lying for the lord." I say that all things are useful if they are true because the most useful and important thing is trust. How can I trust a church leader to tell me God's will for my life when I can't even trust him to be honest about church history? The blemishes on the church's history are so small compared to most churches in the world (see: Salem Witch Trials, Spanish Inquisition, protecting child molesting priests, etc), and I truly believe that the church would be in much better shape if the history were a little less sanitized. This is the internet age and anyone who wants to can find the information that's out there. Nothing in the history of the Mormon church holds a candle to the screw-ups of the Catholic church, so why not just stop with all the secrecy? It's not the fact that bad things happened that's making people leave. It's the fact that they find out on their own and then feel like they've been lied to and betrayed. Sorry, I did not mean for that post to ramble so far off topic. As an outsider looking in at what is essentially a really beautiful faith, I get kind of worked up over the silly stuff that officials are willing to hide from members. Just to drift back onto topic here, I find that anti-mormon literature falls into one of these categories almost every time: 1. Ex-Mormons. Their "purpose" is generally to share what was probably a very difficult experience for them, and also to educate others about what they've learned. Sometimes their literature is decidedly anti and quite angry, but a lot of the time you'll find it's pretty light-hearted and not too harsh if you're able to laugh at yourself a little. Even the super angry ex-Mormons generally aren't anti-Mormon so much as anti-Mormon church though. They almost always have loved ones still in the church who they care for tremendously and whose faith they respect, but from the few accounts I've read they generally feel like they wasted a huge chunk of their lives feeling bad about stuff they shouldn't feel bad about and trying to live up to standards they never felt good enough for. They don't write to hurt you guys, but because they think they have found the truth and that you have the right to hear that truth as well. 2. A-hole Religious Leaders -- These books upset me to no end. I understand that everyone on earth who belongs to a church thinks that their church is the right one. If they didn't, they'd belong to a different church. What I hate is hearing someone purposely misrepresent beliefs and practices in order to hurt the credibility of another church and promote their own. I have read a few books by the big atheist authors (Dawkins, Hutchens, etc) and whether or not I agree with what they're saying I can look at their reasoning and at least respect it. They say that there is no God, and here's why it's foolish to believe in a higher power. With the authors like Ed Decker though I come across stuff where in one breath he's saying the Mormons are nuts for believing Joseph Smith could have possibly spoken to an angel, and then in the next breath he's praising Abraham for almost killing his son because God told him to. It's what I call "Selective Blinder Logic," which means that they're applying this harsh reasoning only to things they already don't agree with and then give a free pass to anything that's part of their own theology.
  2. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but it does bother me to hear everyone saying, "They CHOSE to be gay." While the jury is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic or based on early childhood experience or both, the only choice in the matter is whether to act on those desires or not. Your gay friend can choose to accept his sexuality or he can choose to try and fight it. If he's not a member of the church and thus doesn't consider same sex attraction to be a sin then there's no reason at all for him to fight it. It definitely sounds like he needs support and friendship, but please don't treat him like he decided to be gay because his life was in a downward spiral. It's possible your friend is bisexual, but if he's strictly gay then the pressure of trying to deny who he is might have been a major factor in his turning to drugs in the first place. While I personally don't agree with the church's stance on homosexuality, I absolutely respect your right to feel the way you do about it. Just please, don't think that someone just wakes up and chooses to be gay the way someone can wake up and decide to start drinking or smoking pot. I had two gay friends in high school who tried to kill themselves (one succeeded) and it was because they were trying so hard to CHOOSE to be straight and it just wasn't possible. The amount of fear and self-loathing that your average gay teenager goes through is something I wouldn't wish on anyone. Whatever your religious views on his sexuality, telling him it's wrong and it's a choice will just make him want to distance himself from you. Good luck on your mission. Sorry if any of that came off as harsh. You sound like you have the absolute best intentions. I hope everything works out for you and your friend.
  3. So then do you think it might be a test of your agency? Because God was clearly able to give Joseph Smith a clear set of rules back in the day, and if he wanted to clarify it'd be pretty easy to do. I'm just theorizing here based on what Alexis just said, but I think there might be something to the idea that things like this are left vague in order to test how we use our agency when we aren't using it to obey. Are we smart enough to figure out what God really wants us to avoid, or will we fear thinking for ourselves and just adhere to the exact word of the WoW even when common sense says there's room for interpretation? Maybe little things like this are his way of making sure that we can think and judge for ourselves. I'm not saying that absolute obedience is easy, but you have to be able to make wise decisions when there's no one telling you what you're supposed to do as well. I also agree with Alexis in that it can be a good test of how judgmental and pompous someone can be towards other people. No one should assume that the person sitting next to them in church is any less faithful just because they treat themselves to Starbucks every now and again. Especially if knocking back a Red Bull while you stare disapprovingly at them Well now I'm rambling. Sorry. It's kind of a fun theory to ponder though.
  4. Actually, I've felt the whole burning in the bosom everything is peaceful and right and wonderful in the universe feeling. I've definitely experienced feeling like I was being told something and the words came from somewhere outside of me. I'm wondering what makes these experiences I've had, which seem to fit the exact mold of what a testimony is, different from an actual testimony. I've never had one in regard to any organized church or religion, so I know it wouldn't be called a testimony per se. I always described it as feeling like I could see into the soul of the universe. Not like that makes a ton of sense either... It is actually really hard to describe spiritual and religious experiences without sounding like a crazy person. Okay, update to my question: How do you KNOW it's a testimony as opposed to whatever other spiritual experiences make you feel similar things. Had you felt that sort of feeling before? If so, what made your actual testimony stand out as different?
  5. I guess specifically I'm curious as to what constitutes a testimony. I know what a testimony is by church definition, and I've read a bunch of testimonies online, but I feel like either that word is used to mean two different things, or there's a disconnect somewhere that I'm just not quite grasping. Is a testimony from the Holy Ghost the same thing as a testimony that you would bear? I'm confused because when I first read of testimonies from the Holy Ghost I always heard them described more as a deep sense of peace or a burning in the bosom or occasionally even as a voice giving testimony. Is that accurate, or am I way oversimplifying it? So my assumption was that listening to or reading testimonies would be a lot of accounts of how the Holy Ghost testified to you and what you felt and how you came to believe and have faith, but all I've ever really seen is basically a couple variations of, "I know the church is true, I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc..." I understand that standing up and saying that you know the church is true is the end result of having received a testimony, but can someone tell me more about what those testimonies actually felt like? I know it's different for everyone, but I find it absolutely fascinating and I'm having trouble finding a whole lot of specific information on the subject. Thanks guys
  6. That actually is really helpful. Thanks. I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt or anything. It's just really confusing sometimes because I hear so many different answers to the same questions. Is the church's official stance only no coffee/tea/alcohol on this particular issue?
  7. Maybe it's because I'm an outsider and all, but I'm confused. It seems like half the responses are saying the WoW is all about obedience and that's why it's in place, but the other half is saying you have to decide for yourself and it's not up to the church leaders. If you're interpreting direct I can't find anything at all about coffee or tea flavored ice cream. Ice cream is about as far from "hot drink" as you can get. On the cooking of alcohol (from a recent study by Ochef): "The conventional wisdom accepted by just about everyone in the food world is that all the alcohol you add to a dish evaporates or dissipates during cooking. It’s wrong. In fact, you have to cook something for a good three hours to eradicate virtually all traces of alcohol. And some cooking methods are less effective at removing alcohol than just letting it stand out uncovered overnight. A study conducted by the US Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Data Laboratory calculated the percentage of alcohol remaining in a dish based on various cooking methods. The results are as follows: Simmered for 15 minutes 40%, 30 minutes 35%, 1 hour 25%" Just a heads up. I only know this because I had a friend that absolutely could not have alcohol in his system for health reasons (he couldn't even use mouthwash) and we looked up the cooking times needed to eliminate it completely. Eventually we decided it wasn't worth the risk.
  8. Hmmm... From what I understood the whole WoW is in place to keep your bodies fit and healthy, right? So while copious amounts of caffeine are not good for you, one does have to remember that caffeine exists in other forms besides just coffee and tea. Chocolate has a pretty good sized dose in it. Certainly more than any green tea ice cream or coffee flavored candies. I'm not sure what the standard accepted way of interpreting the WoW is, but green tea is actually amazingly good for you. I agree with Littlewyvern that you need to just know your body. I've seen Mormons who were die-hard adherents to the WoW but loaded their kids up with dozens of orange sodas every day. I'm fairly certain that the sugar in soda (not to mention the scary chemicals in diet soda) is far worse for your body than a cup of green tea. Soda wasn't around when the WoW was written though, so it wasn't included. I say that if the church doesn't take an official stand on something like that then you should decide for yourself what feels right to you and not worry too much about what anyone else thinks. What you eat and drink is really between you and God. Oh, and I'm an amateur chef and I can tell you that very little alcohol burns off during the cooking process. I don't see cooking with alcohol as being a violation, but if it's something that concerns you there are alcohol free wines and spirits made specifically for cooking without adding liquor.
  9. Aye, okay, everyone I know who has read the book reacted negatively to it (and they're all LDS), so I made a broad "most" statement. I guess there are plenty out there who enjoy it.
  10. I read that book a couple months ago, and it did not sit well with me either. Granted, I'm not a member of the church, but when you hear about tragedies like teen suicides within the church, either due to homosexuality or getting pregnant or even being raped, I worry that books like this one could make the situation worse. I think a book with a title like, "The Miracle of Forgiveness" should do a lot less to make you feel like a terrible human being when you're done with it. It's so harsh. I know that you can take all those quotes and make them make sense (like many of you have done previously in this thread) but most who read that book decide that either Kimball is a judgmental jerk or they themselves are bad people. I've never been able to get that book to sit right either.
  11. I think I can actually provide some useful insight here, as a non-Mormon who has done a lot of investigating into the church. The first thing I can tell you is that the term "Anti-Mormon" gets slapped on a lot of things that are not decidedly anti. I have seen pretty much every group, website, book, or article that isn't in complete agreement with Mormon doctrine referred to as anti-Mormon by someone in the church. Disagreeing with scripture is not anti-Mormon. Disagreeing with practices is not anti-Mormon. Disagreeing with everything about the church and religion is still not anti-Mormon. That would be like a gay person saying that every single straight person in the entire world is homophobic. Even if you supported gay rights and marched for marriage equality, the fact that you didn't find people of your same gender attractive just made you anti-gay. It's a silly blanket statement, and I can honestly say that about half of the "Anti-Mormonism" I've encountered has been people who were not the least bit anti-Mormon, but merely believers in a different set of principles. That being said, there is definitely Anti-Mormonism out there. I don't consider something anti unless it's hateful, derogatory, or mean-spirited though. Some things poke fun at Mormonism, but I still wouldn't call them anti-Mormon. I actually would go so far as to say the musical currently running on Broadway isn't Anti-Mormon. Now granted, I wouldn't want people basing their entire perception of the church on what they saw in the play, but it's sweet and fun totally good natured. Sure, also full of horrible profanities and some silly exaggerations, but generally it's fairly accurate and well-researched. They're not trying to make Mormons look bad. They're just trying to make a funny, successful musical, which they have clearly done. So what is anti-Mormon? Well, anything by Ed Decker is decidedly anti. He's an Evangelical, and he hates the Mormons. He's written books and produced documentaries devoted entirely to tearing the religion down. I consider his stuff anti-Mormon because it's hideously one-sided. There is no doubt when you're reading something he wrote that it was written by someone who can't stand the Mormons. Every little blemish in the church history is blown way out of proportion and all the good stuff is brushed aside. There are others like Decker, but that's the sort of stuff I'm talking about when I say anti. I didn't consider "Under the Banner of Heaven" to be anti even though the book takes sort of a harsh stance on LDS history. The reason I don't think it's anti is because the author wrote it as a historical work. He's a well-respected writer in his field (he wrote "Into the Wild" which was a great read) and he based his book on tireless research. Just because he researched from lots of places that weren't church approved doesn't mean he was trying to make Mormons look bad. He was just trying his best to present what he felt was a accurate version of events. The reasons I find behind most of the actual anti-Mormonism I see are: 1. Feeling like Mormons are elitist and arrogant. A lot of Christians express the sentiment that Mormons basically came along and said that God told their prophet that all the Christian churches were an abomination and that theirs was the only one that was true. Some Christians take this personally and thus develop anti-Mormon feelings. 2. Feeling like Mormons push their religion on people. I had a friend from Provo (not a Mormon) who described Mormonism as the Amway of religion. Always recruiting, always showing up at the door trying to sell you on their ideas... People who are not members of the church but who live in the Morridor (I hope that's not an offensive term, that's just what my Utah friend calls the Idaho/Utah/parts of Arizona area) tend to find missionaries intrusive and church influence somewhat domineering. I've never lived in Utah and I've only been there once, so I have no idea if that's true, but it's definitely something I hear a lot. 3. Feeling like calling yourselves Christians is blasphemous. I know, I know. I have plenty of Mormon friends and they all say basically the same thing: "We believe that Jesus was the son of God and our savior. How are we not Christians???" I think the best comparison I can make is to tell you it's a lot like how you guys feel about the FLDS. You get angry when they call themselves Mormons, but they follow the Book of Mormon and the Doctrines and Covenants. They have the exact same faith really, but they followed a different line of prophets after the originals died, so their current practices are very very different. They are Mormons just like you are Christians. You're just not the mainstream version, and for some reason the mainstream version of religions tends to be upset by offshoots who call themselves by the same name. 4. Feeling like the church is sneaky/dishonest. I have grappled with this myself. The worst for me is some of the stuff on the FAIR site. From what I've heard the church has recently tried to distance itself from FAIR, and I think that was a smart move. I know all the apologists are trying really hard to make the church look good, and in some cases they do a great job. The problem is that when they don't have a good answer for something they just go with the best one they have, and sometimes the best one they have is completely ridiculous. There are a lot of things about the church's history that you won't find on any official LDS website, and that bothers a lot of people. Myself included. 5. Feeling that the church is a cult. Yes, I know, you guys aren't in a cult. I could go over the reasons why people think it's a cult if you'd like, but I assume you've all heard them a million times. The people who truly believe that it's a cult feel that it's dangerous and you guys are all brainwashed, and they look for ways to disprove the church because they want to show you the truth so you can escape from the evil cult that you don't even know you're in. They're not so much anti-Mormon as they are anti-Mormon-Church. They think they need to save you guys, just like you would feel if you had a family member join up with an FLDS sect and run off to live on a compound. Anyway, those are the main reasons that I've heard. I have this great Chick Tract (and by great I mean hilariously awful) called The Visitors that's all about evil Mormons, but it's at home. I will check it out later because I remember it containing scriptural reasons to hate the LDS church. If it helps though, Chick Tracts hate pretty much everyone, and the fact that there's only one tract in the whole collection about Mormons means you guys are pretty low on the list of stuff Chick hates. If anyone has any specific questions that they'd like an outside opinion on I'd be happy to chime in. I'm very familiar with this particular subject and totally happy to help.
  12. I think the thread drift is probably unstoppable at this point, but that's okay. I got a lot of answers, and more importantly, I got a lot of new insight into things that there aren't really answers to. I will probably go back into lurking mode for a while anyway, but I'll just get a new thread going if I want to discuss anymore questions. Thanks to everyone for being so helpful.
  13. Hey, no worries. I kinda appreciate what DKM was saying because I think a large portion of why I can't see myself committing to the church is because I don't trust the church. In researching there are so many things that I've found that leaders are purposely vague about. There are things they flat out lie about. Most of the stuff that the church sweeps under the rug is stuff that wouldn't have been that big of a deal to me if I hadn't had to find out for myself. I guess I'm going off topic a bit in my own thread here, but I do believe that the church as a whole would benefit from a much more open policy on the less savory bits of its history. I hope this doesn't offend anyone horribly, but I think the church that was started by Joseph Smith was a MUCH different church than the one continued by Brigham Young. He was absolutely a racist, and a lot of the black spots on the church's history happened under his rule. The fact that he did bad things doesn't make the church any less true, but the church lying about or downplaying what he did do does make the church less trustworthy. JudoMinja-- Your thoughts on the WoW are precisely the same as mine. Keeping the WoW and the law of chastity are, to me, the same as keeping a vow of silence in a monastary. I don't think God cares if we eat lots of meat or drink or smoke or even have lots of sex. I don't think any of those things are actual sins. What I do think is that control over our most basic and animal desires is the key to self-mastery. Our most primal urges tend to be towards sex and hunger. By fasting and abstaining we're becoming stronger than our desires, and on a spiritual level that's a really good thing. I think the problem is that people don't realize that self-mastery is all about reaching a higher plane of existence in this life. They beat themselves up and feel like terrible people because they can't give up coffee or masturbation. Failure to overcome your desires does not make you a bad person.
  14. Sometimes bad things just happen. Sometimes they happen to good people or bad people or influential people or whatever. Sometimes those bad things happen all at once and it's easy to feel like the devil is out to get you. Most of the time though bad things are just happening to you because they happen to everyone. Unless those bad things are of a demonic/supernatural nature then I wouldn't really worry too much about being on Satan's hit list. Here's a great quote I remember when life is throwing punches at me left and right: "There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts." Try this, instead of asking yourself who or what is causing these bad things to happen, ask yourself what you can learn by coming through them. Maybe God is throwing all those obstacles in your way to teach you valuable lessons that you can then use to help more people with your next book.
  15. HiJolly and JudoMinja, thank you both so much. I will respond properly when I'm not occupied with work stuff, but I did want to take the time to let you know how much it means to me to have a nice open dialogue with like-minded (if different-faithed) people. I think the sort of things you both mentioned are a lot of what draws me to the church. NoGreaterLove, I am totally grateful for the detailed and thorough explanation. Thanks very much. I actually think I understand the principle of men becoming gods pretty well. What confused me was being told it wasn't doctrinal. That was one of my favorite parts of the teachings of the church. One of those things that separated the LDS church from all the other churches in a really interesting and positive way. So I think my confusion is more based around the church's current stance on the teaching rather than the teaching itself, if that makes any sense...?