How would a mormon USA (majority of the population are mormons)

File: al-capone.jpg (1MB, 2272x3009px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2272x3009px

Did ya miss me?

>>53715952
>Would such a mormon United States behave differently than today's US or not? Especially foreign policy.
Unlikely. Main course of the country is based on its resources and geography (logistics and safety of the borders).

>>53715952

All policy and religion are openly hand in hand.

Temples like that one are a little bit more common.

Entertainment is less flashy, more wholesome

The Mormon thing where they go out and do mission work has big government backing

Tithing is tied to tax breaks?

Mormons seem to enjoy their labels, so there's more labeling of groups and places

Dress code

Hyper importance of rituals

LBGT are sent to electric gay conversion camps

Nepotism is more rampart in all careers ergo making marriages much more political and practical

Coffee is classified as a drug

No young missionaries are allowed to go to Uganda

Polygamy is legal.
Crusades occur.

File: This.jpg (15KB, 389x198px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 389x198px

>>53716127

>>53716171
Mormons do not seem very militant to me.

>>53717414
Not yet.

>>53717414
They have a long and illustrious history of killing innocent people.

>>53715952
Only Mormon I ever really got to know went to Japan, sucked a bunch of Japanese businessman cock, came back to the states an atheist, started dressing in drag, and promptly got his dick cut into a true boi pussy.

With that as my sole reference to the Mormon people I can say to question: WW2 gets really weird on the Pacific theater.

>>53716127
>Coffee is a drug

Well, time to start a nuclear winter.

File: 1479008087821.jpg (13KB, 324x451px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 324x451px

>>53717414
>Mormons do not seem very militant to me.
That's what they'd like you to think, but in reality, they'd happily team up with your Navajo neighbor and scalp you in your sleep. The god-fearing people of the United States have fought three wars against the merciless (albeit, very polite and well-dressed) Mormon foe, and I'll be damned if they catch us off guard again.

Never Forget.
Never Forgive.

>>53720942
This anon speaks the truth. Super polite to your face, but vicious little backstabbers that would put the most ruthless Chinese CEO to shame.

>>53717414
Only because they're in the minority and they have to put on a good face for the majority.

>>53720942
>>53721061
>>53717504

What the hell are you three on about? They're harmless.

>>53721108
>>53720942
>>53717504
>>53717495
I've always had fun reading about the early midwest and allt he crazy shit that happened
Like the several mini crusades against the mormons

>>53715952

Depends, is it Provo Mormons, Salt Lake Mormons, or the Mormons who aren't freaks or apostates? It makes a pretty big difference.

>>53721151

Did they instigate them? Or was it people going nuts because they were different? Cause based on my understanding of european history and what happened with the protestants, i'm much more likely to believe the weird little break off sect got shit from the majority than i am to believe that they went around attacking people.

>>53721108
They're harmless now but if you read even a tiny bit of history about the Mormon church historical Mormons would fuck you up the instant you try and stop them from practicing polygamy.

>>53715952
THis building would not look out of place in the forty first millenium

>>53721108
Go to bed, Brigham Young. I see through your lies.

>>53716127
>No young missionaries are allowed to go to Uganda
Good one

File: Joseph Smith Jr MAGA.jpg (798KB, 1313x1801px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 1313x1801px

>>53715952

For one thing, the USA would become a whole lot more conservative. Mormons are a huge voting block for the Republican party, so much so that they tried to subvert them by using McMuffin to take votes away from Trump.

Mormonism in this society would become more accepted, and the so-called "white horse prophecy" would be fulfilled.

>>53716127

>LBGT are sent to electric gay conversion camps
>No young missionaries are allowed to go to Uganda

As a Mormon, this is probably the most accurate post in this thread.

>>53716127
Also Prohibition or at the very least absurdly onerous liquor laws. Minus outside pressure for long enough of a time it's also possible that civil rights might not have gained a lot of traction and women would definitely be squarely second class citizens. It's also possible the South might have said "fuck you Yankee sons of bitches" and split off, leaving the CSA very, very Southern Baptist, and if not slave owning, Jim Crow on steroids/Apartheid.

A lot of free blacks might have actively moved to Canada to live somewhere free of the teachings of a virtual theocracy that might well still hold them to be "Sons of Cain" and ineligible for full fellowship in the socially vital Priesthood, eternally relegated to being essentially another kind of "boy".

But I mean, it depends on the details. It's possible a Mormon majority U.S. might unfuck itself and have a "revealtion" about ordination of blacks. I still think one way or the other it's distinctly possible women might not even have the vote what with the Church's perennial and deeply held sentiment that a righteous woman's place really is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

>>53722212
Isn't fun illegal for you bike riding turbo-virgins? Better get outta here before they excommunicate your ass for smiling.

>>53715952
like Ender's Game apparently.

>>53722395
Basically, yes.

Part of the lie is that you can have plenty of clean, honest fun, but yeah. Basically yes.

From the most peevishly, by the book interpretation, no R-Rated movies, nothing but Church on Sunday, Family Home Evening (Scripture Study. As a Family.) at least one or two activities at Church through the week, "callings" for Mom and Dad involving Church Stuff, 3 hours of Church on Sunday, 10 percent of your money even if it means you don't eat to tithing, no smoking, no drinking, no, don't even think evil in your mind, dress modestly at all times, porn destroys families, no masturbation, no oral sex between married couples, akward sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation (more awkward because it's not really clear what you are supposed to do with the garments, which are like, badly tailored 19th century underwear when you do that, probably feel guilty about moving your sacred and protective garments because you wanted to fuck so you pray about getting too worked up and repent), oh, and you should probably make time to go to the temple and spend a lot of time there too.

Even single dating is actually kind of discouraged as an undue temptation for the "Youth", definitely in anything but a really well lit public place, you should get married as soon as possible, but not before serving a mission right out of high school for 2 years. Which you pay for yourself so that means either you or your parents work their asses off to scrimp and save against all the costs of a big family that also pays 10 percent income no matter what. For 2 fucking years. Where you will have little to no success and be constantly harangued by douche bag, middle management motherfucker type mission presidents who are all NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS and pettily exercising authority. And your companion spies on you in case you should masturbate or get lazy or something.

What "Fun" exists is to serve the Church ultimately.

>>53715952
Literally nothing would change since we have a Constitution that protects against their insane bullshit. You'll notice that religious bias in government isn't allowed in this country.

>>53722395

>Isn't fun illegal for you bike riding turbo-virgins?
>on /tg/

Where do you think we are?

>>53717414
They're hilariously pro-gun and have a lot of survivalists in them. Probably going to have more once they get their own version of the Boyscouts off the ground.

>>53721164
>Did they instigate them?
Yes.

Wild West era Mormons were fucking crazy. They've mellowed out like fuck since those days, but they used to be some of the scariest sumbitches this side of the Mississippi.

>>53722615
Holy shit you don't read much, do you? There are dozens of state buildings with the ten commandments on it, and the two biggest social issues in this country are predominantly religious matters (Gay marriage and abortion). I mean, tons of southern states have liquor laws that prohibit liquor sales on the holy day explicitly because of religious influence.

>>53721164
>>53721108
Literally read nigga.

>>53722583
Holy shit how does that sort of sub-culture survive? Like, I get it when you are gonna lose a few kids to injuns and rickets before they are 5, and you probably won't make it to 35. But now?

>>53722583

Hello apostate how are you today?

>>53722647
Fair point.

>>53721152
But all mormons are freaks AND apostates.

>>53722764

That is your opinion, and I suppose you are welcome to it. I'm certainly not going to change your mind by trying to discuss it with you here on 4chan of all places. Suffice so say there are individuals among our ranks that even we mormon's consider to be freaks. Take that as you will.

>>53721164
>Cause based on my understanding of european history and what happened with the protestants

Your understanding is shit. Protestants went around europe killing innocents, including other kinds of protestants, just like everyone else at the time.

Mormons wouldn't ban drugs. In fact, more would be legal because the Mormons deal in sin. They own casinos, liquor stores, brothels. They don't participate but have no qualms supplying sin to outsiders.

>>53722675
>>53721164
As many historical conflicts, it's more complicated than people generally give it credit for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War#Background

>Though I disagree with many Mormon practices, their treatment by the government makes my inner Libertarian foam at the mouth and start incoherently screeching about stepping on snakes.

>>53722782
Just say there's divergences in your cult and explain them instead of calling people freaks, when you yourself are perceived as a freak by most of the world. That was my point, basically.

>>53722728
mostly because like most religions most of the people who follow it half ass the rules at best

>>53722675
They were also really into polygamy and child brides. Even to this day you'll have a case every few years where a Mormon traditionalist group gets busted for that shit.

>>53717414
every mormon i've ever met was a prepper with a small arsenal hidden in his house somewhere.

>>53722728
They got run off to fucking Utah and basically ran the state, and still do. Then they mellowed out and just became unfun, and since America was founded by Protestants who complained that other protestants where too fun, they sort of gelled. The most an American will think about Mormonism is to think of those annoying kids on bikes, and the robot masquerading as a person that is Mitt Romney.

Also I'm pretty sure the book of Mormon throws some shade at my church, but I've never read it so I can't speak on it. I don't think they hate us though, not like the Seventh Day Adventists.

>>53722728
This pretty much
>>53722916

I was raised Mormon and literally nobody did any of that stuff.

>>53722950
This is especially true with the old Mormon families. Enough food to last a decade and at least one full auto buried somewhere on the property.

The funniest thing about Mormons is that they took a book that ends by saying "Curses upon ANYONE WHO ADDS TO THIS" and went "lemne add to that real quick"

>>53723184
what about the fact that the guy who added to it was a convicted fraud? Like spent time in jail for it.

>>53723284

I was unaware of that, thank you for the contribution!
Plus he said he wanted to be a second Muhammad and make America a plain of blood from the Atlantic to the Rockies.

>>53715952

If and when the apocalypse happens, I have no doubt that Utah and part of Idaho will secede from the union and establish a functioning theocratic state.

>>53723366
They'll attempt it the moment the US is weak.

>>53723366

Theocratic yes. Functioning? Ehhh, until the guys start killing each other for brides, what with polygamy being neccesary for exaltation.

>>53723390
Dunno, I could see much more pragmatic solutions. Shit like officially marrying your friends grandma after his granpappy snuffs it in a largely paper marriage so you could be officially bigamist.

Trade it back by letting him marry yours and such not.

Paper compliance could get real weird real quick, but not heretic.

>>53723390
That's not a thing, though. Mormons don't practice polygamy and haven't for a century. You're thinking of the FLDS with their 16 passenger vans and spooky compounds.

There's plenty of things to give the Mormon church shit for, but that's not one of them.

>>53723448
Calling FLDS not mormons is like calling Pentecostals not baptists. Yeah, its a way crazier form, but it comes from the same root crazy.

>>53723493
That "crazy root" is religion or humanity itself, all religions can spawn crazy movements.

>>53723493
By that logic Protestantism is the same as Catholicism because they share the same roots.

>>53723448

Does the book of mormon say it or not?

>>53723532
The Bible says you can own slaves.

>>53723532
If it's there I must've missed that verse. If you can provide it, I'd be more that willing to concede the point.

It's definitely not taught as doctrine, though.

>>53723527
Yeah, they are. Only members of those groups see them as significantly different.
>>53723520
Religion IS a crazy movement.
>inb4 tips fedora

>>53722583
Yeah, the 'no R-rated movies', 'no masturbation' and sex-act restrictions are cultural myths. You often see bishops and other leaders preach them, but there's nothing in the actual doctrine or policy of the church that says anything like that. Sex is basically anything goes, so long as you're married and keep it in the bedroom. Single dating is only highly discouraged till about 18 or so, then it's highly encouraged cause you're being pushed to marry as fast as possible (after the mission for boys, of course). And there are programs to pay for missions for those who absolutely can't afford it.

Rest of that's all completely true though. Cultural attitudes towards sex and relationships cause some really really serious issues in young Mormons nowadays. Never served a mission myself, but I've heard and seen firsthand quite a bit of both the good and bad that goes on with managing and running them.

>>53723527
I would say Lutheran and Catholicism is a more apt comparison. Protestantism and Catholicism are too far removed. FLDS and Mormonism are a single step, as one is an offshoot directly from the other. Protestantism is a construct that split hundreds of years ago, with both faiths growing apart individually. FLDS is literally just fundamentalist take on the regular brand of LDS. Like it's in the title.

>>53723553
>it's only ok if you critize the weird religions!

>>53723541

Yeah and it also lays out strict regulations for their humane treatment, AND enforces a time limit. Slavery under biblical terms is the equivalent of contract work.

>>53717579
ummmmmm. I have questions.

>>53723578
Seeing as they're all weird, yup.

>>53723541
The Bible has a legitimate theological out for almost all of it's questionable content because the gospel of Jesus takes priority over anything else, and he was a fucking dirty hippy who couldn't stop talking about love and peace and shit.

>>53723593
>Yeah and it also lays out strict regulations for their humane treatment
Like how you can beat them to within an inch of their life as long as they don't die after a few days.
>enforces a time limit.
Only for fellow Hebrews, and there's a loophole. Foreign slaves are property.
>Slavery under biblical terms is the equivalent of contract work.
Bullshit.

>>53723573
Still not a reason to say that they are the same crazy root or would act the same.

>>53723601
>who couldn't stop talking about love and peace and shit.
Except when he took time out to talk about lakes of fire. You can be a dirty hippy in this life because it doesn't matter; it's all about pleasing sky-daddy.

>>53723601
I wonder if he was a junkie.

>>53723601
Except for that part where he Hulked out on those dudes with a whip. Jesus was big on being nice to people but he didn't have a problem with throwing down if it came to it.

>>53723601

This^

Most of its weird laws (Leviticus) made sense at the time to. Don't wear clothes of two fabrics? That was because people at that time and place did that during fertility rituals, they Don't anymore so it's fine. Don't eat pigs? Pork is unhealthy in a desert, so if you're not in a desert go nuts. Don't eat bats? Fuckers carry disease.

>>53723541
In the New Testament at least, you where told to treat your slave like you would a beloved brother. And slavery then was different than slavery as we imagine it. It was a book however written at a time when that was normal, some 1700 years ago.

>>53723573
FLDS and LDS are a fairly recent split so there hasn't been as much time to grow apart. Still, the practice of polygamy is a huge difference between the two. LDS members get excommunicated for practicing it.

I do kind of suspect it'll be a moot point in 50 years or so. I have a feeling that the FLDS doesn't really have a bright future going for it.

>>53723666

He (and the bible in general) taught that violence is permissible under some circumstances. The specific place where he hulked out was the part of the temple where gentiles (us) could come and learn about God.
So when Jesus turned up and saw that they'd turned it into a 'den of thieves' he was understandably livid for people misrepresenting his daddy like that.

>>53717414
The greatest gun maker, the one and only Browning was a Mormon. We have been gun nuts from the word go.
We are only defensively militent, we never attack but if need be we would defend rather well

>>53723714

Plus it's even made clear in the New Testament that the punishment for believers who mislead people/use Christianity to control people or lead them into sin are punished way worse than unbelievers.

>>53723711
>you where told to treat your slave like you would a beloved brother
The correct thing is to be told to not have slaves. Slaves were also told to obey their masters rather than to free themselves.
>And slavery then was different than slavery as we imagine it.
Still the owning of one human being by another.
>It was a book however written at a time when that was normal, some 1700 years ago.
Revealing that it is inspired by the morality of the time, not by some supreme being.

>>53723725
>punished way worse than unbelievers
There's worse punishment than eternal torment? Is there a super Hell?

>>53723666
Well maybe they shouldn't have been using the temple as a shady money-changing service/gambling den.

Jesus never outright banned violence in any case, as it's kinda necessary for law enforcement and self defense. His whole thing can basically be boiled down to "don't be a dick".

>>53723741
Jesus wasn't into self-defense though, turn the other cheek and all. This life doesn't matter.

>>53723714
>>53723741
Yes, of course. It's just a bit funny when people say Jesus was a total pacifist hippy as it misrepresents his teachings in general. He clearly knew that there was a time and place to throw down, but encouraged people to be kind to each other as a rule.

>>53723613
Well lets get back to the OP. Lets say that every non mormon christian in the nation has their religion magically replaced with the equivalent intensity of Mormonism. Lets call pentacostals the standard "far-right" fundie group to use. That would mean 3.5% of the total american population would be FLDS equivalent. If you define the comparison more broadly, as just the evangelical fundamentalist christian sub genres of christianity, you have 20% of the american population being FLDS equivalent. Fundamentalist christians determine a lot of our policy in this nation. Its why we teach creationism in some schools. 20% of the population being FLDS would be a HUGE voting block. Winning them alone could swing an election easily. Polygamy would be guaranteed legal.

>>53723734

People have reaaaaally misunderstood hell. There's like, two references to fire. It was initially described as the valley outside Jerusalem where they dumped rubbish.

>>53723390
>>53723448
Status of Polygamy is actually a bit more complicated that that in the Mormon Church. Legally yes, polygamy has been banned and made an excommunicable offense for well over a century now. From a theological standpoint though, the church actually does still practice polygamy to an extent. Marriage in the Mormon Church is done in the temple, where it is sealed for time and all eternity, not just for this life. You can't be married and sealed to more than one living person; but if, say, a guy's wife dies and he remarries, he and his second wife can be sealed as well. From a theological standpoint, that man is then practicing polygamy. Note that women can't do this; a woman whose husband died can remarry legally, but she can't be sealed to her second husband (unless she got the first sealing annulled, which itself is a very rare occurrence and requires direct authorization from the first presidency).

Since the church is technically still practicing theological polygamy, I can see it being a very real possibility that if the legal environment changed the church could go back to practicing legal polygamy. Would require a bit of a culture shift though, as most Mormons today aren't really down with the idea of polygamy.

>>>/wsg/1731351
relevant

>>53723764
>It was initially described as the valley outside Jerusalem where they dumped rubbish
So people who don't go to heaven get dumped in the valley outside Jerusalem?

Something tells me that maybe you are the one who is misunderstanding.

File: 1491552203921.png (56KB, 624x624px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 624x624px

there is mass murders and terrorism becaue 90% of males dont have wife since the last 10% have 5 to 10 wives

>>53723753

This^^^ remember; he's the same guy who smashed the Israelites enemies. He had Lucifer thrown out in a war. He actively promotes violence as being preferable to certain kinds of peace. However he wants his followers to act better than they're entitled to. It'd be fair to hit someone back, but takes more strength to abstain from violence.

>>53723750
Turning the other cheek in the time period means the other person has to either punch you or open-hand slap you with their right hand. This implies you're an equal and presents them with a dilemma. Left hand was for wiping your ass and other nasty stuff so it wasn't an option.

At least that's one interpretation anyways.

>>53723532
The Bible has verses promoting polygamy and the Book of Mormon has verses condemning it. The Book of Mormon itself doesn't say "you should do the thing in 183X".

>>53723734
The bible is very shaky on what Hell actually is, the whole eternal hellfire for all sinners thing isn't strongly supported by the gospels. I think the standard interpretation is that the punishment for most people isn't so much an active punishment as it is just being taken off the guest list for God's super sweet eternal house party in heaven.

>>53723777

Described. Not saying that's the exact location. It's like saying you throw garbage in the bin. The only real punishment of hell is being away from heaven and earth + the company.
Every single fedora tipper, every single demon and every single pedophile in one place.
It might start okay but it'd end up looking like Mordor.

>>53723797
Considering the context the passage is in, I don't buy that interpretation for one second.

>>53723803

Yeah. If you've ever experienced total regret, that's hell.

>>53715952
>Cyberpunk Mormons
Corporation, religion, and government become one. The country is run by The Corporation, The Corporation is of God. To serve The Corporation is to serve God and country at the same time. Expect a very strict and absolute authority spreading subordinates everywhere to ensure that nobody steps too far out of line. Maybe even insular communes where community members survey and pressure one another to make sure the norms are upheld.

>>53723768
This is true, but the original statement was that it was necessary for exaltation, which is, as far as I know, not true.

I do feel like Mormons are so far past polygamy that it wouldn't really pop up again unless it somehow became socially normal in general.

>>53723828

No the dude is right. Including the part where he tells them to carry a load for twice as far. A roman could order a Jew to carry a load a certain distance, any further (including twice as far) would get them in trouble.

>>53723803
That sounds like a reward rather than a punishment. An eternity in heaven worshiping a monster would be horrible.
>>53723816
So Mordor or North Korea. Great.

>>53723836
Good point yeah. I think it was taught as necessary at one point, my church history isn't exactly perfect, but definitely hasn't been for an exceptionally long time.

But yeah, you're gonna need major social shift for it to come back. Just saying that should such a shift occur - or should you have an alternate scenario like in OP - it'd be pretty easy to have it come back full force.

>>53723777
It's not his fault when you take symbolism literally

>>53723828
>>53723842
A lot of Jesus' teachings were thinly-veiled passive resistance methods to be used against the Romans. As we can see from the Temple incident he clearly wasn't a total pacifist, but peaceful resistance is clearly the way to go when you're up against the unstoppable military might of the Roman Empire. You start stabbing Roman soldiers and they'll stop oppressing you and start genociding you.

>>53723872
When the majority of people have gotten it wrong according to you, it kinda is.

>>53723828
In Matthew, he specifically mentions the guy hitting your right cheek, which does support the statement. It'd be awkward to backhand someone turning their left cheek towards you.

>>53723764
The version of hell I was taught kicks you out into darkness to sit in self loathing for all eternity.
That's way more real to me than any lakes of fire.
>And definitely not my daily routine

>>53723836
From what I remember, and it has been awhile since I looked into this stuff, Smith claimed that God had instated the covenant of polygamy after the BoM was published. The actual revelation might have been detailed in Pearl of Great Price or some other work. At some point, either Smith or a later Prophet said practicing polygamy was necessary in order to obtain the greatest reward in the Celestial Kingdom.

The whole argument, of course, has more to do with the Church covering up its own history and the belief that the religion was founded by a conman trying to cover his own ass than it does with polygamy itself.

>>53723836
>>53723867
It's the same as all the other seemingly contradictory things in Christianity. It's only okay to do the thing if God commands it. Thou shalt not kill, but sometimes there's a war to fight. It's better to never need to fight, but you can't rely or expect other people to follow the same rules you do.

>>53723893
A majority consensus doesn't create truth

>>53723933
I agree, hence why people believing religion doesn't make religion true.

If your goal is to clearly communicate a message though, and the majority gets your message wrong, then you've failed.

>>53723923

^^^ That's where faith comes in.

>>53723919
It might be necessary for some people because marriage was necessary for the highest heaven, but a polygamist marriage was not better than a single marriage.

>>53723954
>faith
That thing that leads to mutually exclusive conclusions with no method to determine which, if any, are true. That thing that can justify any action, no matter how terrible.

>>53723919
Well, it is a possibility, though I don't remember ready anything about it when I was in it.

I'll agree with the issues of the Church covering it's own history. It's part of the reason I eventually moved away from it, though I still do hang out with some of my Mormon friends.

>>53723960
>"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."
t.Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 269

>>53723941
The particulars of Hell aren't central to the message, as long as "it's bad so you should avoid it and here's how" gets across then it's served it's purpose of being the stick to contrast the carrot of Heaven.

>>53724005
If it's offered. How long has it been offered, and to whom is it offered?

>>53724021
The way you've described it isn't bad though. It sounds better than heaven.

>>53723966

It's also what LITERALLY every relationship requires in order to function

>>53724005
I like how mormons litteraly can becomr gods with their own planet.
It's like some weird protestant-gnostic fusion theology.

Modern Christianity should really just abandon the pretense and cut the bible down to the Ten Commandments and the Gospels, shove everything else into a secondary book of lesser importance. It's the only content that the vast majority give a shit about, and it drops the baggage of having shit like Leviticus in your holy book.

>>53724083
No, it isn't.

>>53724090

Or they should just go back to basics and get rid of the shit that got added relatively recently. For instance, Goliath was stated in the dead sea scrolls to only be 6 foot 9. Not 8 or 9 feet.

>>53724090
Why not go one step further and fix the 10 commandments and gospels while they're at it.

>>53724104

You act with faith in the nature of your spouse for instance. If they haven't cheated on you before you have faith that they won't cheat on you now.

>>53724038
>how long has it been offered
For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

>to whom is it offered
And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

D&C 132

>>53724110
Why not grow up and stop believing?

>>53724110

Because we believe that it was inspired by God. It's not ours to fuck with.

>>53724121
That isn't faith. That's a reasonable expectation based on previous observation and inference.

>>53724123
I never believed in the first place.
>>53724126
Then Christianity can just continue to decline in relevance.

>>53724083
Your wife can be real and you can actually get semi-reliable feedbacks on whether or not your faith in her is being rewarded.
You can't compare that with believing a random book, why this one and not some other?

>>53724110
You don't "fix" something divinely inspired, and if those specific bits aren't divinely inspired then the whole thing falls apart real fucking fast.

>>53724123

Stop believing in gravity. Something's either true or it isn't, just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean people who are convinced are idiots.

>>53724139

You're describing faith? Not all faith is blind. Faith is trust in action.

>>53724148
Just because you are convinced doesn't mean people who are convinced aren't idiots.

>>53724145

Well I've gotten feedback in the past. I've had visions and considering I've never displayed any mental health problems previously and they were all in line with scripture, I have faith that they were from God.

>>53724163

You know what I meant.

>>53724156
Faith in a religion is always blind.

>>53724122
As God giveth, so He taketh away
or something like that paraphrase

>>53724156
>You're describing faith?
Nope.
>Not all faith is blind.
It is, by definition.
>Faith is trust in action.
Not according to either the Bible or dictionaries.

>>53724176

Oh grow the fuck up

>>53724123
Do you believe what all the scientists tell you or have you independently verified all of their experiments?

>>53724174
I do. You know what I mean as well.

>>53723366
>lol mormons are crazy
>THE BIBLE IS SACRED AND THE WORD OF GOD REEEEE

not even fedorain' when I say christfags are delusional

>>53724169
How do you explain other non-mentally ill people having visions in line with other religions than christianism?

>>53724179

faith

feJθ/

noun

1.

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

"this restores one's faith in politicians"

synonyms:trust,belief,confidence,conviction,credence,reliance,dependence;More

2.

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Point out where it says blind.

>>53716127
>No young missionaries are allowed to go to Uganda
Maybe it's because I'm not American but I don't get this.

>>53724185
You shouldn't believe what a scientist tells you just because he is a scientist. However, we can observe that the results of the scientific method hold true, and thus we are justified in accepting that further results are likely true until shown otherwise.

>>53724156
That's a uselessly broad colloquial definition.

Faith is a belief in the absence of evidence. If you've got evidence of something it's no longer faith. I don't have faith that the keyboard I'm typing this post on exists, I know it exists because I have empirical proof that it does.

>>53724195
I'm not positive, but I believe he's referencing the Book of Mormon Musical. Man I want to see that thing so badly.

>>53724193
>point out where it says blind
The words "complete" and "based on spiritual conviction rather than proof".

>>53724182
Unless you believe you can get visions or contacts from your deity, faith in a religion is indeed blind by definition.
Are you saying that everyone thinking your religion is false must grow up?

File: 13611-2.jpg (26KB, 230x355px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 230x355px

>>53724195

>>53724191

Well for starters, Muhammads 'revelation' matches the Christian depiction of demonic manifestation. He then started a religion that slaughtered millions in the name of a being who calls himself the lord of liars, which is the biblical name for satan.

>>53724200
Yes, but unless you have that knowledge yourself, you're believing it to be true with whatever evidence you apply

>>53724218
Can you restate what you just said? I don't follow.

>>53724185
Almost nobody in the world believes in science the way religions people believe in religion though.
A few of the stereotypical fedoras come close but not a lot.

>>53724213
I have faith in my 15/20 vision
Where is your God now atheists?

>>53722583
How the fuck did you wind up on tg/into tabletop with all this shit in your life?

>>53724216
What about non-abrahamic religions?

>>53724177
>Prophets elucidate the full and simple truth of the Gospel
>"o wait guize G-Man changed his mind lol"

>>53724204
Eh, I'd say faith is more belief in that which cannot be proven.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of faith. It's an essential element of the human psyche, everyone has to have faith at some level or another. Even Empiricism itself requires faith that the senses can be trusted to relay accurate information. The problem comes when faith is combined with ignorance. There's rarely an issue so long as a person really tries to understand their own personal faith and the limitations thereof.

>>53724227
People have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. They have previous experience that the sun has risen every one of the other days they've been able to observe, so while it is extremely likely that the sun will rise tomorrow, it is not yet fact that they will be the case.

Faith has a place outside of religion, and make use of it more often than they might realize.

>>53724169
Can you prove it?
If you can't prove it then it's meaningless. You could be lying, you could have an un-diagnosed mental issue, you could have had a temporary chemical imbalance in the brain, you could have simply had a dream that you extrapolated meaning from where none actually existed.

>>53724236

Well I can't list them all, but for starters, considering how many pagan/magic based religions involve/d copious use of opiates and burning herbs I think we can write off their revelations as tripping balls. As for other faiths, could you give me a specific example?

File: 1420327954848.jpg (15KB, 232x232px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 232x232px

>>53724216
>Muhammads 'revelation' matches the Christian depiction of demonic manifestation
Let's also not forget the existence of the Satanic Verses, which mean that by the admission of the most trusted sources of Islam the Qu'ran contains at least one verse that was inspired by Satan rather than Allah. How many more were inspired by Satan? We have no idea, because we have to trust Muhammad's word on it. And let's not forget that this is the same Muhammad who tried to commit suicide as soon as he heard Gabriel's voice because he believed he was possessed, and it was only Khadija (his wealthy merchant wife who had Muhammad as a servant at first -fun fact for those who want to claim Muhammad reformed women's rights) who convinced him that the voices he heard were divine. And then there's his way-too-ironic-to-be-coincidental death.

I am literally, unironically and without a shred of doubt convinced that Muhammad is the Antichrist as described in the Book of Revelations. It all just fits too well, and I'm pretty sure that the only reason why the Catholic Church stopped making the connection is because it wants to appear "cool" and "tolerant" to the indifferent Western masses.

>>53724216
It also matches the medical description of an epileptic fit, which are known to make people see some far out shit.

>>53724259
>I'd say faith is more belief in that which cannot be proven.
Then I disagree with your definition.

For instance, we work under the assumption that the senses can sometimes be trusted to relay sufficiently accurate information because doing so enables us to function in the world in which we appear to find ourselves in.

Belief in religions is not analogous.

>>53724237
>8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

>9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

G-man can do whatever he wants

>>53724274
I dunno, hinduism?
Most of them don't take drugs and they are very big on miracles, visions,ect...

>>53724273

I have had repeated, coherent, consistent visions several times when I've been prayed for. Sometimes when I've been extremely emotional, sometimes when I've been extremely calm. It's possible that I'm mentally unwell, but that takes a lot of faith considering I've never been diagnosed with any mental illness. So you can choose to have faith in something that you've never seen, touched or heard and have just made up to explain a phenomena, but I'm going to put my faith in the God who repeatedly showed up.

>>53724264
>People have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.
Some people might, but we should rather have a reasonable expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow based on our observations and inferences. That is not faith.

>>53724278
>It all just fits too well, and I'm pretty sure that the only reason why the Catholic Church stopped making the connection is because it wants to appear "cool" and "tolerant" to the indifferent Western masses.
Benedict, please come back, we miss you....

>>53724290

Yeah. The fact remains that even if he explained every shred of material science, if he's real at all he's a higher being, it's stupid to assume we could understand everything he does. Hence; faith. If he's willing to die an insanely painful death to cover the price of every crime to have been committed or that ever will be, I doubt he hates us.

>>53724290
Except it looks like a retcon from later human authors for people not believing in God or even that Jesus was God.

>>53724292
I have both prayed and been prayed for. Nothing.

Either God is quite selective in who he appears to, or you are interpreting things as you wish them to be interpreted.

>>53724309
Still not a reason to take seriously the words of men prerending to speak in his name.

>>53724278
Leaving aside all the woo-woo shit, Mohammed was also objectively a child fucker, an oath breaker, a liar, a murderer, and a bandit.

This is Islam's 'perfect man.'

>>53724309
> If he's willing to die an insanely painful death to cover the price of every crime to have been committed or that ever will be
Except:
a) The very concept of that makes no sense (since God set up everything about the scenario) and is itself immoral (substitutional atonement), and
b) Such a thing would be nothing. If you existed for eternity, that would be like stubbing your toe once, then getting to go back to being God for eternity again.

>>53724292
If you have a channel to the deity then such a thing should be easily provable, as the deity possesses an effectively unlimited repository of knowledge which humanity could not possibly otherwise access at this time.

All you've described is something similar to hypnosis. A skilled hypnotist can make a willing subject unironically believe he is Napoleon Bonaparte, but we don't assume he's channeling the ghost of Napoleon unless the subject starts reciting knowledge that Napoleon possessed but the subject absolutely could not.

>>53724291

Well firstly, I do believe in demons. I think they're capable of inducing hallucinations [e.g. Muhammad] and minor interactions with the physical. Many Buddhist and Hindu rituals involve emptying and opening ones mind to outside forces/ summoning and or binding demons. The bible states that speaking of demons gets their attention. I'd be surprised if they never showed up.

>>53724316

In my case it was 18 years of being a christian before I got even the slightest response. He talks to everyone differently and at different times. My sister collapses on her face every time she worships. She's never injured, has no medical history of seizures or anything like that, she describes it as feeling a heavy, hot blanket falling on her. I have never experienced that or anything like it, but I've also met other people who have.

>>53724292
Shit nigga you might just be a cleric, pump your points into Wisdom and go to a hospital or find an adventuring party that could use a healer

>>53724290
>I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say
Not the case under an LDS interpretation, which is what I was talking about.

>>53724336

Channel to a deity? This isn't D&D dude. I'm not a wizard or cleric or anything and God doesn't do what I say. This shit has happened to me. What I am describing is someone sitting next to me and praying with me, silently for the most part, and then I got a vision. Show me a hypnotist capable of that.

>>53724341
Maybe God is a deluded deva or a demon inspiring you false visions and the buddhists/hinduists are right?
Heck you interpret things from the Bible to disprove what they are doing but it's pretty common for all religions to have rules disproving any "evidences" in favor of other religions or saying they are being deluded or possesed by evil spirits.

>>53724360

Idk man probs an Oracle? I guess reality is pathfinder? But yeah, he's made it clear outside of supernatural stuff that he wasn

>>53724353
>In my case it was 18 years of being a christian before I got even the slightest response.
Do you not recognize the bias there?
>My sister collapses on her face every time she worships.
Some people speak in tongues. There's nothing mystical about it. It's just her doing it without realizing what she's doing.

>>53724379

sorry, glitched. Wanted me to be a writer. So Imma do that. It's often seemed impossible to me, but the closer I stick to him the more things fit into place.

>>53724364
After reading that reply chain I don't follow

>>53724381

Please explain the bias.

>>53724393
You are Christian. Presumably you want God to talk to you / send you visions / whatever.

>>53724284
And that is a statement I would completely disagree with. The vast majority of the human race does require at least some level of the spiritual to function in the world. For many that's religion, but it could be personal experience, or the wonder of the natural world, or that ephemeral quality that makes art and music special. Spirituality is an important part of the human psyche that few can live without.

So yes, I would say belief in spirituality, that quality which is opposite to and untouchable by empiricism and logic, is very much analogous.

>>53724378

Well for starters, and for the sake of argument, shall we talk about this assuming that there are at least 'some' supernatural beings and that they're capable of doing somethings?

>>53724375
>What I am describing is someone sitting next to me and praying with me, silently for the most part, and then I got a vision.
All you're describing is suggestion. You believe that God exists, you believe that he speaks with humans, you believe that prayer can be used to contact him, and lo and behold your mind conjures something which validates your beliefs.

Used to be mormon.

>>53716127
>The Mormon thing where they go out and do mission work has big government backing
The book of mormon makes a big deal of someone leaving his post as high judge (president basically) to go around preaching the gospel. That same story talks about how citizens were free to believe whatever they want to believe. So basically, freedom of religion and separation between church and state are a part of mormon doctrine.
>Tithing is tied to tax breaks?
Unlikely. Tithing is supposed to be a sacrifice.
>LBGT are sent to electric gay conversion camps
Mormons tend to be really anti-gay, but if you went to a Bishop about being gay he would try to be understanding and help you. The church doesn't openly hate gay people, but it does think that what they do is wrong.

>>53722314
>It's possible a Mormon majority U.S. might unfuck itself and have a "revealtion" about ordination of blacks.
They already did. Joseph Smith even ordained a black guy without second thought, but then people made it a problem so he stopped.

>>53723555
>'no R-rated movies', 'no masturbation' ... are cultural myths
No they're not, they're the doctrine of the church. You are absolutely not allowed to masturbate or look at porn. People break these rules all the time, but they're considered to be sinning.

>>53724412

.... So I should just be an atheist and walk around not wanting God to talk to me until he doesn't? How is that less biased?

>>53724415
Let's pretend that then.
Lot of people have strong feelings when praying or other religious ceremonies not matter the religion, religious experiences are common in all religions and many religions are big on miracles like miraculous healing.

>>53724419

Maybe if it was something that happened every time I prayed or if I had any control over what I saw I'd agree with you. But also, examine that statement. So if people prayed and never saw God, you'd say they were wrong, but if they pray and see God you still say they're wrong??

>>53724413
Spiritual and spirituality are buzzwords that are so vague as to be meaningless. In any event, you do not require faith to function.

Appreciating music, for instance, does not require belief in anything beyond what is demonstrable through logic and empiricism. You can recognize music for what it is and recognize the effect that it has on your brain.

>>53724389
Mormonism is a bit nutty.

>>53724426
It's quite possible to be an atheist and be open to a god talking to you.

>>53724431

Okay. So for starters, acting on that assumption, can we consider the consistent, world wide belief in evil spirits, demons, whatever, evidence that there might be such thing as evil spirits, demons or whatever?

>>53724423
R-rated movies are culture, so is caffeine. There's a lot of Mormon culture that isn't doctrine.

The rest of what your said is accurate.

>>53724444
Quad fours speak the truth.

>>53724457
Sure.

>>53724454

Yeah and I was a Christian who was open to God not talking to me. He never had and I never thought he would. Either way, there's nothing less biased about being an atheist. Everyone is biased, however subtly. It doesn't invalidate their opinions.

>>53724475

Okay. So, considering the number of cultures that move from believing in a God to polytheism [usually in that order] can we then consider that evidence that there is a "great spirit"/God as well as those evil beings?

>>53724480
Of course everyone is biased. It doesn't invalidate your opinion, but it easily leads to the simplest and most obvious conclusion: it's just you.

>>53724437
>So if people prayed and never saw God, you'd say they were wrong, but if they pray and see God you still say they're wrong??
But they can't prove they saw God. Just because someone SAYS something does not make it so. They definitely saw something, like how right at this very moment I'm having a conversation with Gandalf the Grey and I'm bouncing ideas for D&D off him. I can see him, I can hear him, and he's certainly offering a perspective that is different from mine, but he's purely an imaginary mental construct and I know this because he isn't utilizing any knowledge that I don't myself possess.

The subconscious mind can conjure up all sorts of images, many of which can be very useful, but none of which suggest the presence of God. Everyone from psychiatrists to professional hypnotists to self-help gurus rely on this fact and their ability to systematically utilize it.

>>53724498

Except this has happened to many, many people. So, by definition, it can't just be me. I've met other people in my church alone with almost identical experiences, and many other Christians in history and around the world have as well. It isn't just me. And if God is Jesus, then why is it strange to assume that his followers would receive visions from him and other people wouldn't?

>>53724487
For the sake of that argument sure.

>>53724423
Porn you're right, that's completely verboten.

Masturbation you're wrong on. There's absolutely nothing in church doctrine or policy that even addresses the topic.

>>53724441
And again I still have to completely disagree. At an absolutely pedantic level faith is required every time you take any sort of action - faith that the action will produce the intended result. But beyond that the vast majority of Humanity does require faith to function, to find purpose and meaning in their lives. Anything beyond the boundary of hard logic and science requires faith. A being without any faith whatsoever would be nothing more than a computer really.

And I dunno, maybe you'd say our minds are nothing more than a biological computer, in which case our disagreement is more philosophical on the nature of man himself. But even a philosophical belief requires some faith.

>>53724508
>So, by definition, it can't just be me.
I would have thought it was clear what I meant. What you thought was God was just you. What the other people think was God was just them. Humans have visions all the time, across many religions. It is not surprising, considering that we are all human, that we can make similar mistakes.

>>53724508
People with a similar deeply held belief have similar experiences that happen to align with that belief? SHOCKING.

>>53724500

He showed me things that I hadn't seen before and, as I said, I had no control over what I saw. I have used my imagination before, everyone has, this had a wide enough chasm of difference from it that I find absolutely no reason to assume I imagined it. Also, no I can't prove that I saw God. I'm not saying that because I say something that makes it so. I'm saying, that for whatever reason or means, this is a thing that happened to me, and if it didn't, why do I believe? Why would I argue the existence of God, based on something I saw, if I didn't have reason to believe I saw it? Why would I still believe?

>>53724531

Why do you assume that they're mistaken? Because you're acting from the assumption that someone receiving a vision is mistaken.

>>53724516
>faith that the action will produce the intended result
Nope, again, expected.
>But beyond that the vast majority of Humanity does require faith to function, to find purpose and meaning in their lives.
Some people might, but you can give yourself purpose and meaning without resorting to faith.
>Anything beyond the boundary of hard logic and science requires faith
False.
>A being without any faith whatsoever would be nothing more than a computer really.
That is effectively what we are if we go by the evidence, just of different construction and complexity.
>And I dunno, maybe you'd say our minds are nothing more than a biological computer
Yep.
>But even a philosophical belief requires some faith.
Nope. You keep saying this, but you are using a definition of faith that leads to false equivocation.

>>53724536

And it's what would happen if they were right too. It wasn't a deeply held belief for me, it was something I mentioned every now and then to make myself feel better. If single minded devotion was the requirement I wouldn't have ever gotten one.

>>53724549
Because we have evidence that such visions can be induced through purely physical means and no evidence that they can be produced otherwise.

>>53715952
Regarding foreign policy...

D&C 98:

33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;

36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

...So tl;dr is no war unless God commands it or someone else declares War. Also be quick to forgive their bullshit. Also worth noting, there's a big important story in the book of mormon where a group of people vow not to fight even to save their lives and they're idolized. This doesn't really last though, their sons end up having to go to war to protect themselves.

>>53724552

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the faith referred to in the bible is an older definition than the one we use and has a different meaning?

>>53724557

What physical means?

>>53724568
You aren't using the biblical definition either though.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

>>53724575
Drugs, hypnosis / suggestion, oxygen deprivation.

>>53724593

None of which I was experiencing. So what's your point?

>>53724537
>He showed me things that I hadn't seen before and, as I said, I had no control over what I saw.
I'm not sure how that is supposed to be evidence. You've basically just described a dream. I've never seen a red wolf spider the size of a large dog, and I've never been mauled by any sort of animal before, but it sure looked and felt fucking real that one time I had a dream about it.

>>53724602
I would say that suggestion fits the bill. You can give suggestions to yourself.

>>53724552
>Nope, again, expected.
That expectation is literally what I would call faith.

We just apparently have very, very different definitions of what 'faith' means. Having faith for me is believing in pretty much anything beyond the realm of hard proof and logic. We've just got completely opposite worldviews I guess.

>>53724516
https://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng&_r=1
>Masturbation, a rather common indiscretion, is not approved of the Lord nor of his church, regardless of what may have been said by others whose “norms” are lower.

>>53724603

Maybe because I was awake? When did I say I was asleep? I was awake, conscious, upright, how many ways do you want me to say this? I have dreamed before. I know what a dream is like. This was not a dream. If I had reason to think this was just a dream I wouldn't be telling you about it.

>>53724511

Okay. Would it be safe to assume then that they behave differently to one another?

>>53724606
>We just apparently have very, very different definitions of what 'faith' means.
Yes, and I say your definition is attempting to hide my definition from criticism.
>We've just got completely opposite worldviews I guess.
Well not completely I don't think. I would guess that we both assume that reality exists and logic works.

>>53724606
My belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is absolutely based in hard proof and logic.
If you want to be super fucking pedantic it would technically be the knowledge that the odds of the sun rising tomorrow are incredibly high to the point that operating under or even worrying about any other assumption is pointless.

I gotta go shower and stuff. I'll be back to do responses when I can. But can I just say that this is a more mature, respectful and enjoyable religious debate than I have had or seen on any other website. And this is motherfucking 4chan. tg is best board and you are all best anons.

>>53724516
>absolutely
Thus prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation.
-Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 77-78

>nothing
masturbation is a sinful habit that robs one of the Spirit and creates guilt and emotional stress.
-Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “Overcoming Masturbation: A Guide to Self Control,” distributed by the LDS Church

>that
Resist those temptations. Do not tamper with your body.
-Apostle Boyd K. Packer, 1976 General Conference, speech entitled “To Young Men Only”

>even
It is not uncommon for some psychiatrists in such situations to persuade the patient that masturbation itself is not an evil; that his trouble arises from the false teachings of the Church that such a practice is unclean; and that, therefore, by discarding the teaching of the Church, the guilt complex will cease and mental stability return. In this way iniquity is condoned, and many people are kept from complying with the law whereby they could become clean and spotless before the Lord—in the process of which they would also gain the mental and spiritual peace that overcomes mental disorders.
-Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.610 PSYCHIATRY

>addresses
With such a divine injunction, no one can expect to live in Zion who justifies or fails to repent of acts of petting, masturbation, homosexuality, etc.
-Otten & Caldwell, Sacred Truths of the Doctrine & Covenants, Vol.1, p.288

>the
Avoid immodesty of dress, familiarity, masturbation, petting, and other perversions which lead to sex sins.
-Delbert L. Stapley, BYU Speeches, April 26, 1966, p.12

>topic
Though many outside the Church regard masturbation as normal, LDS leaders teach that the practice is wrong
-Encyclopedia of Mormonism, v. 1, “Chastity, Law of,” by Bryce J. Christensen

>>53724627
>logic works
You're on 4chan.

>>53724616
You don't have to be asleep to experience dream-like visions. They can be experienced with nothing more than suggestion. My point was that just because you had not seen the things you were seeing before and were not in control of what you were seeing does not imply divine intervention because your mind is perfectly capable of creating that experience.

>>53724602
Gonna jump in here a moment, but check DMT. It's a neurochemical that sometimes occurs naturally in the human brain, especially in response to situations that are generally considered spiritual in nature. It triggers powerful hallucinogenic effects which, again, are usually described as being quite spiritual in nature.
Do note that the main scientist who did most of the research into DMT is himself a devout Christian, and believes it's the physical mechanism by which God communicates to people.

>>53724609
>>53724666
Ensign articles, meeting talks and independently published books are neither doctrine nor policy, even when written by the apostles or prophet. There are plenty of things said in such places which have been redacted or contradicted at a later date.
Official Church Doctrine is strictly confined to the standard works, and Official Policy is confined to the various handbooks and guidebooks, as well as any official statement(s) passed down. Everything else is personal opinion and interpretation.

>>53724627
Heh alright, yeah I can agree with all that. So for clarity's sake what exactly is your definition again? Because I do agree that the manner in which faith is sometimes used definitely deserves criticism, I just think the concept as a whole gets too much criticism a lot of the time.

>>53724649
That's kinda my point. It's an extremely pedantic form of faith, but it's still faith.
You know, my views on this topic might be pretty heavily mormon come to think of it. I mean, we've literally got a kids song that starts "Faith is knowing the sun will rise, lighting each new day / Faith is knowing the Lord will hear my prayers each time I pray." etc.

>>53724665
Mormons are usually very accustomed to talking about and debating points of doctrine because that's the tone of their Sunday meetings. That also makes the meetings boring to a lot of people, though.

>>53724718
D&C 21
1 Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ,

2 Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith.

3 Which church was organized and established in the year of your Lord eighteen hundred and thirty, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.

Listen to the Prophet, stop touching yourself.

>>53724718
It seems like you've expanded your definition of faith to include "anything you believe may be true", not even "anything you believe IS true".

When you expand the definition of a term that far the term itself begins to lose meaning.

>>53724718
That's wrong. When a prophet or apostle speaks in an official capacity, their words are doctrine. They admit to fallibility, but to believe that only the standard works are doctrine is to deny the entire purpose of having a living prophet. Some of the sources that anon used are not official, but conference talks are.

>>53724751
The Prophet is a prophet when acting as a prophet. Unlike what people may think about the Pope, this is not all the time nor with every statement.

>>53724788
>He was acting as a man!
So the then-Prophet was not acting as a Prophet when he wrote a book in order to teach his flock what was acceptable and what was not? Where is the doctrine to support this?

>>53724768
Not quite seeing how you see that, it's still pretty much 'anything you believe is true'.

>>53724751
>>53724783
Kinda what >>53724788 said. I don't agree that it denies the whole purpose of having a living prophet. Just because it's not canonical doctrine does not mean it isn't of great benefit and enlightenment for those that hear it. Ultimately it's up to a person's individual connection to the spirit to discern what's true. And much of these works will likely someday be canonized as doctrine.
But there's a section in the D&C, I don't remember where exactly (never was good at D&C, I think it's in the 20's?) that lays out the process by which a body of text becomes official, canonical doctrine for the Church. And to date the only works that have done so are the standard works. I mean you definitely should listen to the prophet's words, and you certainly can't go wrong with following them, but they're strictly speaking not doctrine. And they've been very wrong about many things in the past.

It's all a moot point for me personally anyways. I love the church and wholeheartedly support it, but I don't actually believe it and have been inactive for years.

>>53724863
Here's a thought: After decades of church leaders and LDS-endorsed sources all agreeing that masturbation is not acceptable, you would think that one of the higher-ups would have made clear that the Church has no official stance on it by now. I mean, you have bishops prying into private lives and causing people to feel shame over an issue the Church isn't even concerned about. This wouldn't even be unusual, as the Church has previously released a public statement clarifying the prohibition (or lack thereof) of caffeine. I mean, if people are trying to force something as if it is doctrinal when it really isn't, I should think that is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

>>53724126
Divinly inspired by the egyptian book of the dead.

They shouldve also copied the all too important commandement "dont polute rivers".

>>53724126
Then surely Matthew 5-17 and 5-18 would prohibit you from doing what >>53724090 proposes.

>>53724126
>It's not ours to fuck with.
You fucked with it a bunch, though.

>>53725116
No, God did. Everything the church does is done because of God's say so, that's the whole point of having a modern prophet. So people in the church can't just decide crap, it has to come through revelation.

>>53724863
>Not quite seeing how you see that
We've already got a word for the thing you're describing as faith, it's called belief. The reason faith is a different word is because it's supposed to describe something different, a specific subset of belief with distinct characteristics. If faith encompasses all belief you can just dispense with the word entirely.

>>53725116
Translators and committees fucked with first, but no one wants to callout popes and emperors for meddling in doctrine

>>53725142
This. This ten thousand times. This with the intensity of a hundred dying suns.

>>53725024
It was one or two conferences ago that the one of the general authorities mentioned that caffine isnt the issue and that no one ever went to hell for drinking a cola. The word of wisdom specifically bars coffee and tea. Not caffine.

One of the biggest problems facing the church is that tjere is often a disparity between the doctrine and the beliefs of the members. So if the USA WERE a vast Mormon majority, the description of that situation would be thus:
>Everyone keeps on believing what they want to, even when they're told thats not what the church believes.

>>53725108
Problem is ol' Buddy Jesus doesn't go on to specify what texts are and aren't included in the "law" he talks about, and we know as a matter of historical fact that the Bible in it's current incarnation was compiled by multiple religious scholars in the centuries after Jesus and underwent multiple translations, and we have no divine guarantee that every text included is the genuine word of god or that it hasn't been perverted by translation errors, unless you're Catholic I suppose.

>>53725191
The passage in Revelation that also says "don't change anything" likes to be frequently misinterpreted or misused, but it also happens to be exactly what those translators, scholars, and theologians did.

>>53724379
>reality is Pathfinder
God must have shit taste then

>>53724310
Pretty sure those quoted verses are from Isaiah

>>53725191
That's literally just a meme. The Dead Sea scrolls prove that the main canon has remained unaltered for even hundreds of years before the Council of Nicea.

In fact, the one thing that the Council proved is that the various churches around the Empire at the time did hold an almost homogeneous set of texts. Some books were cut out, but they were the odd ones that only a rare few congregations used. This was to ensure doctrinal harmony, which was a concept that existed as early as the Council of Jerusalem found in the Book of Acts.

>>53715952
Worse relationships with europe. I believe in some european countries is mormonism forbidden.

File: traditional mormon family.jpg (85KB, 720x503px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 720x503px

>>53715952
Whites would be a much greater majority, White people would reproduce at more than replacement rate and would be projected to become over 95% of the population by 2050, immigration laws that discriminated against non-White countries wouldn't have been overturned in the 60s, and racial policy and opinion would be far more conservative (no laws against residents refusing to sell their houses to Black people for example, so Detroit would still be majority White and prosperous, likely still laws against interracial marriage which IRL Mormons banned until public pressure forced them to relent).

>>53725142
Hmmm, that's a really good point actually. I'm gonna have to think about this for a bit.
Thanks for the great discussion everybody.

>>53724090
>cut the bible down to the Ten Commandments
So it will be okay to kill if parents told you to do so?

>>53716003
>geographic determinism

I should really make a "Read Guns, Germs and Steel and Pretty Much Have this History Thing Figured Out" starter pack.

>>53730539
Please do. That sounds great.

>>53722654
The Mormon religion explicitly calls on it's believers to prepare for times of chaos and destruction, which is why all Mormons are survivalists.

>>53716127
Don't forget the polygamy. Harem mode: ACTIVATED

>>53724205

It's really, really good man.

>>53723184
the book of Revelation ends like that, but it's not referring to the bible with that phrase because the bible didn't exist when the book of Revelation was written.

>>53716127
>Tithing is tied to tax breaks?
Tithing is a tax.

>Coffee is classified as a drug
So is meth, and both are equally common.

>>53717414
They used to be, until they noticed that the US army was way bigger than them, and so they fled to Utah.

>>53737371
Almost but not quite founding the State of Deseret

>>53715952
EVERYONE would be on opiates.
EVERYONE.

File: I would like to know more.gif (940KB, 627x502px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 627x502px

>>53722856
>Not American
>Never hear of the smaller conflicts
>Honestly don't care that much
>Read this article
>Find this Fun fact everyone!
Did you know that the Prequel Jedi were based off of Mormons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44
>Realize that there is a distinctly non-zero chance that Lucas based the Prequel Jedi Order and their downfall off of some twisted, mixed and matched version of the Mormons
>Realize that even if that's not true, there's innumerable ways works of fiction I know could be tied to such conflicts that are unknown in my part of the world
Pic related

>>53722782
Gotta ask: what are the freaks of Mormondom like?

>>53741717
Setting aside the various splinter groups that aren't part of the main church, my money would be on the regions just outside Kansas City. There's a lot of old prophecies regarding that area. The Church tells people to just not worry about such things and live your life normally, but a lot of the real fringe cases decide to move there anyways so they can have a first-row seat for all the stuff happening around the Second Coming. As a result a lot of the tiny towns and such in the area become hotbeds of the real crazies.
I knew a family that moved to a small town in that area once. Apparently the members there were like "Yeah, so Moses showed up at our meeting last week, that was pretty cool. Sometimes Adam comes too, always good to see him". Stuff like that. Completely serious.