Good grief folks, Why all the chatter* about what Mormons believe? The have a website at URL www.lds.org that tells authoritatively what they believe. *chatter ... vi. ... 2. to talk fast, incessantly, and foolishly. Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, 1988-Simon & Schuster A. John Birkholz brotherjohn@imt.net 963 McIver Road Great Falls, MT 59404

John, At first glance, your suggestion seems correct; however, deeper analysis reveals that ONLY consulting www.lds.org [to understand Mormon beliefs] isn't necessarily the best idea. Here are a couple reasons why: 1. The Mormon belief system relies heavily on temple ceremonies. These are not only closed to the public, but are generally revealed only to a select few within the church. Ergo, not all of these will be on the site. 2. It's generally considered bad form in journalism to publish a news story that only relies on only one source -- multiple sources ensure a more thorough and balanced treatment. The same is true here. Listening to Mormon and non-Mormon sources -- and possibly even the anti-Mormon rhetoric -- seems the best way to develop an informed opinion. 3. As an evangelism tool, the Mormon website necessarily focuses on building "common ground" with it's audience. The cosmology presented on the web site is fairly general and consistent may other belief systems; however, there are many beliefs that unique to the LDS church that are never presented there. Some of these are very far removed from mainstream American protestant beliefs: the average Methodist would likely find these surprising and possibly even objectionable. Hope that helps. Excelsior! -Cloy brotherjohn@imt.net (brotherjohn) wrote in message news:<001701c1c8a7$949a0520$a9c7a1d8@ibm>... > Good grief folks, > > Why all the chatter* about what Mormons believe? > The have a website at URL www.lds.org > that tells authoritatively what they believe. > > *chatter ... vi. ... 2. to talk fast, incessantly, and foolishly. > Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, > Third College Edition, 1988-Simon & Schuster

Good morning Cloy, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cloy Tobola" <cloy@tobola.com> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:23 PM > John, > > At first glance, your suggestion seems correct; however, deeper > analysis reveals that ONLY consulting www.lds.org [to understand > Mormon beliefs] isn't necessarily the best idea. Here are a couple > reasons why: > If I intimated or said ONLY, then I would agree. I chose the word "authoritatively" because so much of what has been posted in this forum has not been authenticated. > 1. The Mormon belief system relies heavily on temple ceremonies. These > are not only closed to the public, but are generally revealed only to > a select few within the church. Ergo, not all of these will be on the > site. > As the statement reads, I can agree to it. It appears however, that many outside the church know what is happening. > 2. It's generally considered bad form in journalism to publish a news > story that only relies on only one source -- multiple sources ensure a > more thorough and balanced treatment. The same is true here. Listening > to Mormon and non-Mormon sources -- and possibly even the anti-Mormon > rhetoric -- seems the best way to develop an informed opinion. > If you are comparing this genealogy forum to journalism, then I have to take exception. If the rhetoric is opinion based on unsubstantiated hearsay, then it's value is nothing more than chatter. We are taught as we research to authenticate, authenticate, authenticate. I see many postings in this forum ignoring that standard. Permit me to illustrate. A short time ago a new thread was begun with this statement. I think you were the author. "Although the following items are from an old thread, I just came across it and some clarifications are in order. I'd also like to continue this discussion, as I think it's imporant. The thread began discussing the fact that the French government was [supposedly] limiting access to some records because they objected to Mormon church's practice of performing a baptism ceremony on behalf of people (including non-Mormons) after they had died. ...." In searching for the authenticity of that statement the only reference that I could find about the French government's objection to the Mormon church is an article by David Jacobson entitled "The Mormon Conquest" in the Correspondence, Published by the Council on Foreign Relations. The reader will note that this article, whether one agrees with it or not, sheds a whole different light on the reason for the French government's displeasure with the Mormon Church. ".. Yet, paradoxically, Raulff reports, this nineteenth-century Mormon preoccupation with genealogy and the saving of forebears, combined with twenty-first century technology, has led to a head-on collision with the French government, wary of the possible uses of Internet genealogy data for genetic screening. For, long ago-in the dark, pre-Internet days of 1987- the French, along with other, notably East European, governments, granted the Mormon Church photocopying rights to all personal certificates of births, marriages, and deaths from its départements in exchange for two filmed copies of each document -a cost-effective way to preserve documents, but also a contractual agreement the French Ministry of Culture considers violated now by Internet publication of the data. Beyond their reservations about letting Mormon missionaries forage among the names of dead Frenchmen unlikely to be their ancestors, French protectionists are concerned that access is given not only to the researchers based in Utah but to anyone anywhere opening files for completely unspecified purposes. The would-be protectionists warn that this pool of civil data can soon be used to supply medical-history banks for actuarial analysis: pathological "family romances" that will compromise individuals' health profiles. .." > 3. As an evangelism tool, the Mormon website necessarily focuses on > building "common ground" with it's audience. The cosmology presented > on the web site is fairly general and consistent may other belief > systems; however, there are many beliefs that unique to the LDS church > that are never presented there. Some of these are very far removed > from mainstream American protestant beliefs: the average Methodist > would likely find these surprising and possibly even objectionable. > I can go along with that statement. > Hope that helps. > Likewise > Excelsior! -Cloy > for now, A. John Birkholz brotherjohn@imt.net 963 McIver Road Great Falls, MT 59404 > brotherjohn@imt.net (brotherjohn) wrote in message news:<001701c1c8a7$949a0520$a9c7a1d8@ibm>... > > Good grief folks, > > > > Why all the chatter* about what Mormons believe? > > The have a website at URL www.lds.org > > that tells authoritatively what they believe. > > > > *chatter ... vi. ... 2. to talk fast, incessantly, and foolishly. > > Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, > > Third College Edition, 1988-Simon & Schuster >

> Why all the chatter* about what Mormons believe? > The have a website at URL www.lds.org > that tells authoritatively what they believe. In the interest of adding to the pool of information available on Mormon beliefs, I am printing the text of an article published by a Roman Catholic group. I do not mean to suggest that their interpretation is authoritative, as the article was clearly written with a bias toward Catholicism. Still, it does contain a lot of information that describes the unique beliefs of Mormons. This is not an an attempt to start a discussion regarding the merits of Mormon beliefs, but rather an effort to describe their doctrines. The reader can decide for himself/herself whether there is any merit to the Mormon belief system or, for that matter, to the Catholic response as presented in the article. Article Follows: _________________________ Distinctive Beliefs of the Mormon Church Are Mormons Protestants? No, but their founder, Joseph Smith, came from a Protestant background, and Protestant presuppositions form part of the basis of Mormonism. Still, it isn't correct to call Mormons Protestants, because doing so implies they hold to the essentials of Christianity-what C. S. Lewis termed "mere Christianity." The fact is, they don't. Gordon B. Hinckley, the current president and prophet of the Mormon church, says (in a booklet called What of the Mormons?) that he and his co-religionists "are no closer to Protestantism than they are to Catholicism." That isn't quite right-it would be better to say Mormons are even further from Catholicism than from Protestantism. But Hinckley is right in saying that Mormons are very different from Catholics and Protestants. Let's examine some of these differences. We can start by considering the young men who come to your door. They always come in pairs and are dressed conservatively, usually in white shirts and ties. As often as not, they get from place to place by bicycle. They introduce themselves to you as Elder This and Elder That. The title "Elder" does not refer to their age (many are not even shaving regularly, yet) but means they hold the higher of the two Mormon priesthoods, the "Melchizedek" order. This priesthood is something every practicing Mormon male is supposed to receive at about age 18, provided he conforms to the standards of the church. The other priesthood-the Aaronic-is the lesser of the two and is concerned with the temporal affairs of the church, and its ranks are known as deacon, teacher, then priest. The Melchizedek priesthood is concerned mainly with spiritual affairs, and it "embrac[es] all of the authority of the Aaronic," explains Hinckley. The Melchizedek ranks are elder, seventy, and high priest. At age twelve boys become deacons and thus enter the "Aaronic priesthood." If the terms for the various levels of the Mormon priesthood are confusing, still more confusing is Mormonism's ecclesiastical structure. The basic unit, equivalent to a very small parish, is the ward. Several wards within a single geographical area form a stake, which corresponds to a large Catholic parish. The head of each ward isn't called a priest, as you might expect, but a bishop. A Mormon bishop can officiate at a civil marriage, but not at a "temple marriage," which can be performed only by a "sealer" in one of Mormonism's temples. Polygamy Mormons try to attract new members by projecting an image of wholesome family life in their circles. This is an illusion-Mormon Utah has higher than average rates for suicide, divorce, and other domestic problems than the rest of the country. And if Mormonism's public image of large, happy families, and marriage bring to mind anything, it is polygamy. Hinckley explains that "Mormonism claims to be a restoration of God's work in all previous dispensations. The Old Testament teaches that the patriarchs . . . had more than one wife under divine sanction. In the course of the development of the church in the nineteenth century, it was revealed to the leader of the church that such a practice should be entered into again." Although polygamy was permitted to Mormons, few practiced it. But enough did so to make polygamy the characteristic that most caught the attention of other Americans. Mormonism, you should understand, is one of those religions which is peculiarly American. (A few others come to mind immediately, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science.) Although now spread beyond the borders of the United States, Mormonism is so tied to a certain brand of American nationalism that you couldn't imagine the religion starting anywhere else. Mormonism: Made in America If many of today's Fundamentalists are known for their belief that America is destined to play a key role in the events of the Last Days, Mormons are identified even more closely with America. The Mormons' theory is that Christ also established his Church here, among the Indians, where it eventually flopped, as did his original effort in Palestine. The situation is somewhat similar to that of the Anglican church. In England, the Anglican church is not just the church of Englishmen; it is the Established Church. In theory, and even at times in practice, Parliament can decide what Anglicans are to believe officially and can make and unmake clerics of all grades, from the lowliest curate to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Just as Anglicanism is tied to England, so Mormonism is tied to the United States. Although it is not the established religion of this country, Mormonism has allowed itself to be modified by Congress. "In the late 1880s," says Hinckley, "Congress passed various measures prohibiting [polygamy]. When the Supreme Court declared these laws constitutional, the church indicated its willingness to comply. It could do nothing else in view of its basic teachings on the necessity for obedience to the law of the land. That was in 1890. Since then officers of the church have not performed plural marriages, and members who have entered into such relationships have been excommunicated." Before Congress acted, Mormons were convinced polygamy was not merely permissible, but positively good, for those "of the highest character who had proved themselves capable of maintaining more than one family." (Section 132 of Doctrine and Covenants is officially subtitled this way: "Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives.") Yet this position was dropped when Washington, D.C., threatened to deny statehood to Utah. Similarly, and more recently, a "revelation," saying blacks would no longer be denied the Mormon priesthood, was given to Mormon leaders when the federal government started breathing down their necks. Continuing Revelation These continuing revelations are not exceptions to Mormon practice. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things"-this is the ninth article of faith for Mormons and is an official statement of doctrine. Hinckley notes that "Christians and Jews generally maintain that God revealed himself and directed chosen men in ancient times. Mormons maintain that the need for divine guidance is as great or greater in our modern, complex world as it was in the comparatively simple times of the Hebrews." Thus, revelation continues. It might be added: public revelation continues. Catholics hold that public or "general" revelation ended at the death of the last apostle (Catechism of the Catholic Church 66, 73), but private revelations can be given still-and have been, as Marian apparitions at such places as Fatima and Lourdes testify (CCC 67). Such revelations can never correct, supplement, or complete the Christian faith, which is precisely what Mormon "revelations" claim to do. Mormonism's Debt to Puritanism "Mormon theology," says Hinckley, "deals with such widely diversified subjects as the nature of heaven and the evils of alcohol. Actually, in this philosophy the two are closely related. Since man is created in the image of God, his body is sacred. . . . As such, it ill becomes any man or women to injure or dissipate his or her health." So alcohol (as well as tobacco, tea, and caffeine) is out for the believing Mormon. Here we have an example of Mormonism borrowing from Puritanism. The religion Joseph Smith developed uses elements of various forms of Protestantism. The emphasis on "temperance"-which, to the old-line Protestants, meant not the moderate use of alcohol, but outright abstinence-is one such borrowing. The curious thing is that this attitude is contrary to the Bible. It is one of those doctrines, shared by Fundamentalists and Mormons, that is believed independently of the Bible, though the Bible has been searched (and with quite unsuccessful results) for verses that seem to back it. Jesus Wasn't a Teetotaler The ancient Jews were a temperate people-temperate used in the right sense. They used light wine as part of the regular diet (1 Tim. 3:8). Jesus, you will recall, was called a wine-drinker (Matt. 11:19), the charge being not that he drank, but that he drank too much (that, of course, was false, but the charge itself reflects the fact that he did drink alcoholic beverages, such as the wine that was required for use in the Jewish Passover seder). The New Testament nowhere says the Jews claimed Jesus should have been a teetotaler. Wine was used also at weddings, and our Lord clearly approved of the practice of wine drinking since he made wine from water when the wine was depleted at Cana (John 2:1-11). Something Mormons seldom refer to is wine's medicinal uses (Luke 10:34). You will recall that Paul advised Timothy to take wine to ease stomach pains (1 Tim. 5:23). Such apostolic admonitions co-exist uneasily with Mormonism's strictures against wine. Mormons practice tithing, yet would be shocked to learn that in a key Old Testament passage where tithing (the practice of donating 10% of one's income for religious use) is discussed, God says: "you shall turn [your tithe] into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses, and spend the money for whatever you desire, oxen, or sheep, or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves; and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household" (Deut. 14:25-26). We're also told, "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more" (Prov. 31:6-7). As is so often the case when founders of new religions get an idea into their heads, they take it to an extreme. So Joseph Smith confused the misuse of wine with its legitimate use. The Bible does condemn excessive drinking (1 Cor. 5:11; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Pet. 4:3), but the key here is the adjective "excessive." This is why Paul says Church leaders must not be addicted to wine (1 Tim. 3:8). When Hinckley refers to the "evils of alcohol," he gets it wrong. Alcohol itself is not evil, but the misuse of it is, just as a hammer, which can be used to pound in nails, can be misused to pound in skulls. Plural Heavens Polygamy was a doctrine some Mormons found hard to accept. Abstinence from alcohol is a teaching many find difficult. But one unique Mormon belief has supposedly brought blessing and relief to many souls, particularly potential converts. Mormonism teaches that practically no one is forever damned to hell. Aside from Satan, his spirit followers, and perhaps a half-dozen notorious sinners, all people who have ever existed will share in heavenly "glory." Not, mind you, all in the same heaven. There are, in fact, three heavens. The lowest heaven is populated by adulterers, murderers, thieves, liars and other evil-doers. These share in a glory and delight impossible to imagine. Their sins have been forgiven, and they now enjoy the eternal presence of the Holy Ghost. The middle heaven contains the souls and bodies of good non-Mormons and those Mormons who were in some way deficient in their obedience to church commandments. They will glory in the presence of Jesus Christ forever. The top heaven is reserved for devout Mormons, who go on to become gods and rulers of their own universes. By having their wives and children "sealed" to them during an earthly, temple ceremony, these men-gods will procreate billions of spirits and place them into future, physical bodies. These future children will then worship their father-gods, obeying Mormon commandments, and eventually take their place in the eternal progression to their own godhood. Mormons think this doctrine is a strong selling point. They point out (erroneously) that only their church offers families the chance to be together forever in eternity. But read the fine print. The only way you can have your family with you is if each one of them has lived a sterling Mormon life. Otherwise, a spouse, parent, or child may be locked forever in a lower heaven. Indeed, the faithful Mormon wife of a lukewarm Mormon man will leave him behind in an inferior place while she goes on and is sealed to a more devout Mormon gentleman. These two will then beget and raise their own, new family. The LDS slogan, "Families are forever," can only mean fractured families.