Popular Anti-Mormon Misconceptions

[Pahoran]

But doesn't a women have to be married for eternity to gain the third or highest tier of the Celestial Kingdom?

Yes. So does a man.

Do you deduce from that that husbands need their wives' permission to enter the celestial kingdom?

If not, why not?

If not, why not?

The reason why not is because of what the LDS lady said. She said her husband would have to invite her.

And this is the argument that is supposed to take me to the cleaners? An appeal to the authority of some anonymous "LDS lady?"

And finally Daniel, I am not talking about just making it to the Celestial Kingdom.  I'm talking about the highest level of the CK where only eternally married people go.  As Selek said, 'She would be given to another.'  Now read my response to Pahoran.

You mean when you said:

Selek said she would be given to another. Well Pahoran, what if no others wanted her? Then Pahoran, would she have to be married by proxy to make it?

You clearly don't understand the concept of proxy marriage. Just as you don't understand most LDS doctrine. Her husband has no right of refusal in the first place. If it is indeed his responsibility to call her forth in the resurrection, if he fails to carry out that responsibility, then the only presumption consistent with the doctrine of the Priesthood is that he jeopardises his own exaltation, not hers.

And finally Pahoran, I am not talking about just getting to the Celestial Heaven. I'm talking about the highest tier of Celestial Heaven, where only married eternally people go.

So am I. That's what "exaltation" means.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I said their assumption, given certain things in the Church, is understandable (or at least it ought to be, imo).

In all fairness (trying to score a point here with Pahoran so that he'll provide the source for his claim that he apparantely doesn't have but won't admit) this is why it is a myth.

Won't admit? Evidently you missed this:

You want "documentation" for an overall opinion of an entire body of argument?

All I can say to that is, "oh."

Asked. Answered. Move on.

Please don't say that I "brought it up." I wrote one line on the subject. I'm not the one who tried to turn one line into a thread derailment.

If you want to start another thread on the reasonableness of demanding "documentation" for an overall opinion of an entire body of discourse, be my guest.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Programmer]

...

I am truly surprised at such a blatantly ignorant statement. I don't even know how to respond to such willful ignorance as "you cannot have memorized the temple endowment presentation".

My words exactly. I chalk that one up to not ignorance, but arrogance. I have news for Mr Scratch: There is another group of people who do amazing works of mental memorization. Musicians. If you meet an experienced classical pianist you have met someone who can usually play 2 to 3 hours worth of material from memory. All those notes could easily extend into the hundreds of thousands. This is quite common for dedicated pianists for instance. (Though I can't say the same for clarinetists... )

Life must be so absurd for you with your disbelief of the human capacity for learning and memorization.

[William the Conqueror]

Then I take it in exaltation not only is polygamy practiced but also polyandry.

This would produce a lot of half siblings. What about 1st cousins?

[KevinG]

Wow! 19 pages later and no one addressed this:

"Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? 'What!

[TrespassersW]

I once heard a rather militant preacher claim that Jesus taught that a certain race of people were all dogs and that we were justified in hating them.

While I recognized immediately the source of his argument as Matthew 15, it was also instantly clear that he had not only misinterpreted the scripture, but done so in what appeared to be a blatantly deliberate and self-serving way.

Would it be justified, then, to claim that Bible-believing Christians teach racism? Of course not. Virtually no Christians interpret Matthew 15 that way. While it's easy to recognize the source of the criticism, it's hard to see it as anything more than a deliberate and misleading polemic.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've just read not the full talk but a fuller excerpt from that eeeevil and oppressive speech in which Elder Ballard allegedly boasted of being "an expert on women" and, it would seem, preened himself on his superiority, as a male, over the lesser sex.

[Mister Scratch]

In any case, both of you are missing my point.

[Mister Scratch]

...

I am truly surprised at such a blatantly ignorant statement. I don't even know how to respond to such willful ignorance as "you cannot have memorized the temple endowment presentation".

I have news for Mr Scratch: There is another group of people who do amazing works of mental memorization. Musicians. If you meet an experienced classical pianist you have met someone who can usually play 2 to 3 hours worth of material from memory. All those notes could easily extend into the hundreds of thousands. This is quite common for dedicated pianists for instance. (Though I can't say the same for clarinetists... )

Life must be so absurd for you with your disbelief of the human capacity for learning and memorization.

Programmer---

I believe you've got me confused with someone else. I never said anything about anyone not being able to memorize the temple ceremony, or the Emperor Concerto, or the Iliad or anything else. My point w/r/t Pahoran was that it is arrogant and boastful to be bragging about having memorized the endowment ceremony, particularly when you know that there's no way you can be challenged on it.

[Nomos]

I for one am really tired of these threads being turned into personal gripes.

Everyone back to your corners and deal with the topic, not other posters styles or predelictions. If you have a real problem with a post report it and let the moderators deal with it.

It's predictable that those who protest the most about others being insulting are usually the most insulting themselves.

There will be debating and sometimes emotional responses. -Nomos

[Beowulf]

Scratch has apparently succeeded in misinterpreting the following (which he thinks is IMPOSSIBLE to misinterpret

 

Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof.

---Elder Charles Penrose

Or this:

No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)

(That's Erastus Snow speaking, in case you're unsure.)

Neither of these quotes implies that a man can reject a woman from entering the Celestial Kingdom who is otherwise worthy to do so. In fact, the onus is on the man. I.e.: They had better be worthy to be able to bring a worthy woman along with them to the Celestial Kingdom.

Both quotes, of course, reinforce the importance of the marriage covenant in the Celestial Kingdom.

Mis-interpreting a quote is apparently a fine art...

Beowulf

[Mister Scratch]

Scratch has apparently succeeded in misinterpreting the following (which he thinks is IMPOSSIBLE to misinterpret

[Nomos]

Longer versions of that quote were cited earlier which provided another context for it. This was asked and answered Mr. Scratch... Please move on everyone. -Nomos

[Daniel Peterson]

Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof.

---Elder Charles Penrose

Significantly, Elder Penrose didn't say this:

Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof or, at his good pleasure, to exclude her from the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.

I'm inclined to regard that as a significant omission.

No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)

(That's Erastus Snow speaking, in case you're unsure.)

Apparently, this single 1857 sentence by a member of the Twelve, carefully culled from the hundreds of thousands of words recorded in the Journal of Discourses, is by far the very best thing that critics have on which to hang their charge that Latter-day Saints grant to husbands the right to determine whether their wives will or will not receive full salvation.

I've now read the entire speech through. It's all about deference to those in authority above us, from the First Presidency to fathers of families. It's about mutual responsibility and concern, and about oneness.

I agree with the fundamental point that I believe Elder Snow was attempting to make, though I think the particular sentence quoted above is anomalous and misleading. In his very nineteenth-century patriarchal manner, he was calling for due deference on the part of wives to husbands. The focus of his remarks was overwhelmingly on social matters in this world. He was not primarily nor even secondarily addressing questions of salvation and the next life, but passingly used this one idea to stress the need for proper relations within families.

Elder Snow should probably also have explicitly noted that no man will get into the celestial kingdom without a wife who is willing to acknowledge her marriage to him. That is mainstream Mormon doctrine, and has been for more than a century and a half -- i.e., since before Elder Snow's 1857 speech. He surely understood it.

In addition to everything I've already outlined

Which, frankly, didn't amount to much.

I continue to think it striking that I have never, ever, actually heard a communicant Latter-day Saint express the belief that husbands have veto power over their wives' salvation.

[Mister Scratch]

I continue to think it striking that I have never, ever, actually heard a communicant Latter-day Saint express the belief that husbands have veto power over their wives' salvation.

Fair enough. I also find it striking that relatively few female posters have contributed to this thread, and that the few who expressed worry about entering the CK w/o their husbands' approval were essentially shouted off the board.

Longer versions of that quote were cited earlier which provided another context for it. This was asked and answered Mr. Scratch... Please move on everyone. -Nomos

Nomos---

Please forgive me for being a trifle bit confused... Are you saying we should address other of the "myths" alluded to in the original post? Or that I ought to add a different bit of support, or new quotes? It is unclear (to me at least) where you are trying to redirect the flow of conversation...

There is a difference between perpetuating a myth and addressing it. You were perpetuating the myths by poor use of quotes out of their original context.

I refer you to the board guidelines for the use of quotes: - Do keep quotes and comments in context. Avoid over use of ellipses or quotes out of context in an effort to change or obfuscate their original meaning. Any comments or quotations should take into account the broader cultural and historical context they are addressing. (for example imposing contemporary mores on peoples of the old testament or the 18th century in order to accuse them of sins or crimes)

Word games won't stand as responses very long, and we usually allow other posters to respond, but don't think that you have the luxury of playing games and then feigning confusion or ignorance for long. Continue that kind of behavior and you will be queued. -Nomos

[William Schryver]

Here we have a prime example of a common anti-Mormon ploy:

Dig into the Journal of Discourses and find some obscure reference to something seemingly objectionable to 21st century minds, claim that it represents "what Mormons really believe", and tout it then as a good reason to reject everything that Mormons really believe. No matter that few, if any, ever thought the thing in the first place. If some Mormon authority, somewhere in time, said it -- it must be doctrine. I'm sure that, in so doing, we have a body of anti-Mormons who are measurably better versed in the Journal of Discourses than most active LDS. It's funny, though, how they manage to ignore the 99% of the Journal of Discourses that is entirely consistent with current LDS thought, and which teaches tolerance, patience, equality between the sexes, etc.

[Daniel Peterson]

I continue to think it striking that I have never, ever, actually heard a communicant Latter-day Saint express the belief that husbands have veto power over their wives' salvation.

Fair enough. I also find it striking that relatively few female posters have contributed to this thread,

Perhaps they're being suppressed. Do you imagine that, if they felt free to express their real opinions, the silent majority of females here would say that it is Mormon doctrine that wives can be arbitrarily banned from the highest degree of the celestial kingdom by their husbands -- even overturning God's judgment to do so?

Perhaps that's the case, but I absolutely don't believe it, and I would have to see evidence to prove it.

and that the few who expressed worry about entering the CK w/o their husbands' approval were essentially shouted off the board.

Maybe I'll have to go back through the thread to see where that's happened, if it's happened. (I haven't noticed it.)

I should indicate, by the way, that I'm much more interested in the opinions of believing, communicant women on this matter than in those of women who, for one reason or another, are disaffected. I don't altogether trust their impressions of Mormon doctrine in every instance.

[Markk]

Hi Dan,

You probably don't. I'm not defensive. I'm very secure. I feel fine.

Maybe I don't understand, but I believe it would be pretty hard not to be defensive seeing that apologentics is just that, defense of ones ideology. I read allot of personal defense in your posts, but again I could be wrong.

I haven't compared them. I've said nothing about evangelicals. I've even pointed out that I've said nothing about evangelicals. And, just to be really clear, I'd like now to point out that I've already pointed out that I've said nothing about evangelicals.

Dan, your being personally defensive, I am speaking of the subject of this thread, and whether you choose to to admit it or not, Fair and FARMS and other groups target evangelical apologists, there are more personal jabs thrown at Evangelicals here, than any other group, Concerned Christian I believe is a Evangelical group, that is what his thread has been directed to.

Of all of FARMS work, and whose books it reviews and such, what percentage is directed to evangelicals? This thread is about evangelical claims of the LDS church for the most part.

QUOTE (Markk @ Jun 29 2006, 06:18 PM)

To say paid protestant apologist is not a fair analogy, all most all are independent and rely on donations

Unless you're talking about donations that are neither in cash nor in kind -- and I would have to be given some examples of those, so that I might comprehend what you're talking about -- I don't see how that would demonstrate that they weren't paid. The method by which a "ministry" generates its funding makes no difference as to the question of whether or not it has paid employees.

Most protestant groups that are counter LDS apologists rely on donations and receipts from printed material etc. I have some FARMS material that I bought, it helps with your ministry I'm sure, if yours was a full time position, why is it wrong to be paid? I am demonstrating that they are paid by will full contributors who back up and encourage their work, they are not beating people up for their money. I have never said they were not paid, in fact I said I would be honored to help someone momentarily if I agree with what they were doing. I'm sure FARMS has a paid full time staff doing stuff you guys don't have time for, whats the difference?

If you can identify any place where I've ever actually attacked some other person's faith or denomination or religious affiliation, I certainly hope you'll point it out to me. Having the reference in hand will help when I apply for Alzheimer's institutionalization.

Have you ever witnessed to a convert, may be on a mission, and told them the JS vision and what God was reported to tell JS? If you have, then you have attacked the Christian faith, if not, then I apologize. This is what I said..."while the LDS church is a totally in house apologest, in that they defend what they believe while bashing what others believe,..."

My point is the LDS faith and teaching of a need for a "restoration" is a attack on the Christian faith, there is just no escaping this fact. And Christian apologists are defending the LDS teachings of such. Do you understand this point, whether you believe it or not, I am trying to get across?

it's not so much a individual, but the LDS faith as a whole. They are also paid clergy as a whole (I'll explain if you like).

Please do. I'd like to know precisely how I'm "paid clergy."

Can I apply for time and a half for things like that early morning leadership meeting last Sunday?

"They" in context of what I was saying must be understood as the church as a whole, not the separate individual.

Clergy might not be the correct word, but it will do, tithe paying members support a church that publishes attacks on the Christian faith, they believe it, even if "they" do not understand "they" are attacking millions of peoples system of belief. The LDS church is in total control of this and as a whole "they" ( the church), are paid clergy, apologist or what ever term you like in that "the church" attacks the Christian faith and defends it's own teachings, that is why some choose to call it a cult, I do not, but that is a reasoning behind the term.

You can argue for your interpretation of scripture and Christian history 24/7, for all I care, and I will never call you an "anti-Mormon."

It's when you attack my faith -- not merely by your existence and by your adherence to views that disagree with mine, but overtly and expressly and directly -- that I'll consider whether to call you an anti-Mormon.

Yet is OK for the LDS church to attack my faith and the faith of millions by saying that God told it's leader that the Christian church was wrong, the professors of such were corrupt and what they believe is a abomination before God? It looks like to me Dan, that the LDS church just does not look in the mirror. You ( the church)want to have your cake and eat it too. I could just as easily call LDS members anti christian for the same reasons you choose to call Christians anti Mormon, but that wouldn't be very nice, would it.

Bottom line is you take offense when others attack your faith yet fully belong and defend a institute that attacks the Christian faith. ( this was directed to you personally, the rest in in context with the LDS church as a whole) I really don't have a problem with you ( the LDS church) saying and teaching what you teach, that you are the only true church, what I have is a problem with is members attacking others for defending against what the LDS teaches.

Take care Daniel ( I mean it)

Mark

John 1:12

[Scott Lloyd]

I continue to think it striking that I have never, ever, actually heard a communicant Latter-day Saint express the belief that husbands have veto power over their wives' salvation.

Fair enough. I also find it striking that relatively few female posters have contributed to this thread, and that the few who expressed worry about entering the CK w/o their husbands' approval were essentially shouted off the board.

Which few were those?

Are you referring to suem, perchance? She unabashedly acknowledges being an ex-Mormon and an unbeliever who therefore would have no aspirations to or belief in ever reaching the celestial kingdom, with or without a husband. And she wasn't "shouted off the board." Some of us challenged her spurious recollections of Mormon doctrine, after which, instead of substantiating them, she petulantly announced that she was leaving.

The only other female contributor who comes to mind who has addressed this sub-topic of this thread is MorningStar, who has quite happily and enthusiastically endorsed the view of other believing Mormons on this thread.

Who, if anyone, am I leaving out?

Add on: I went back and looked. I forgot to mention liz[xxxx] who opined that there should be more instruction to youth in the Church about respect for women, a view that has not been contradicted here and, at any rate, does not express "worry about entering the CK w/o [her] husband's approval".

Now then, is there anyone else?

[Calm]

Since my opinion is apparently asked for, I find this one of the sillier arguments and don't see the value of responding, so I don't. Wouldn't be surprised if most of the LDS women who are also long time Internet dwellers feel the same way. There's only so often one wants to talk about nonsense. Nothing particularly striking about it, just got bored with the endless recitation of silliness. Those who want to believe this idea is compatible with LDS teachings or can be read into it due to some error of teaching on the LDS part rather than a misrepresentation or faulty thinking on another's part haven't been prone to be willing to let go of this pet peeve of theirs. The whole premise contradicts LDS doctrine since man and wife must be one to enter the highest level of the CK, IOW, they're going in together.

Plus the idea that any perfect man would reject a perfect woman is illogical; in the same sense one would say God can't lie and still remain God. All it takes is a moment or two thought about what perfection is to understand the contradiction that exists in this idea.

And on top of all that, I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going to happen on judgment day anyway when we all stand before God.

One can get any idea from any belief structure if one removes one sentence or two from a whole body of teachings and then reads into it what one wants. That doesn't mean that sentence actually implied that idea in its original form.

[Mister Scratch]

The pre 1990 language implied that women held a "subservient" role in their personal exaltation regarding their husband and god.  Women now don't feel such a strict burden of obedience is used in the language.

Phaedrus

*language clarification

Even if one draws that inference, it is ridiculous and maliciously misleading to contend that in Mormon belief a woman, however righteous, cannot enter the celestial kingdom without the consent of her husband.

Here you go. (Of course, I realize that I could be wrong in assigning female gender to phaedrus, though I'm fairly certain that I saw phaedrus identified as female elsewhere...)

In any case, I get the impression that my main, overarching point is still being misunderstood. I.e., the critics' belief that LDS believe that women need their husbands' permission to enter heaven isn't "coming out of nowhere."

Moreover, while I appreciate Professor Peterson taking the time to address each of my earlier bullet points, imo such an approach still fails to fully compensate for the overall impression created by the bullet points as a whole. Is it worth noting, further, that it doubtless seems odd, from the critics' perspective, that both men and women hold the priesthood, but only men are able to use it?

I wonder if people would feel more comfortable if the critics' assertion were revised to read, "Every woman needs a man's permission to enter heaven," which is far more accurate, imo. (E.g., a male bishop functions as the gatekeeper, as it were, to the temple.)

[Nomos]

Mister Scratch- Please allow the critics to speak for themselves. Prefacing misleading statements and quotations with some variation of "I am helping you understand the critics" does not excuse your perpetuating said misleading statements yourself. This just gives me the impression you are playing games with the board rules by claiming to be a third party to discussions in order to make any statement you want. That is not a tactic that will save you from having to observe the rules.

[MorningStar]

Why would many LDS women respond to the CK issue? That's not the topic of this thread. I'll start a thread about it and see if we get more responses. Perhaps this thread was just too long to wade through?

[Daniel Peterson]

I read allot of personal defense in your posts, but again I could be wrong.

You're wrong.

Dan, your being personally defensive.

I'm not. You represent absolutely no personal threat to me.

I am speaking of the subject of this thread, and whether you choose to to admit it or not, Fair and FARMS and other  groups target evangelical apologists

What I choose not to admit, but in fact choose to deny, is that either I (a frequent writer for FARMS) or FARMS has ever -- ever -- attacked another faith.

Do we criticize evangelical anti-Mormons who attack our faith? You better believe it.

Of all of FARMS work, and whose books it reviews and such, what percentage is directed to evangelicals? This thread is about evangelical claims of the LDS church for the most part.

A really quite small (and dwindling) percentage of FARMS's work is directed at countering evangelical attacks on our faith. (I've grown bored with such attacks, which is one of the principal reasons that the percentage is declining.) Not one single page of FARMS's tens of thousands of published pages is focused on attacking the faith of evangelicals.

Most protestant groups that are counter LDS apologists rely on donations and receipts from printed material etc. I have some FARMS material that I bought, it helps with your ministry I'm sure, if yours was a full time position, why is it wrong to be paid?

I've said nothing about whether it would be wrong or right. I've simply said, contrary to frequent allegations, that I (as in "me") am not paid.

Why do you insist on inventing mythical attacks on your faith? I've made none. I've never made any. Nor has FARMS as a whole.

And FARMS is not a "ministry." It is an academic clearing house, a sponsor of research, and a publisher.

I'm sure FARMS has a paid full time staff doing stuff you guys don't have time for, whats the difference?

We have secretaries, editors, and an accountant. We do not have paid apologists. The difference is that you folks do, and we don't. I haven't said that you were wrong to do so. I have said that it is incorrect to say that we do so.

If you can identify any place where I've ever actually attacked some other person's faith or denomination or religious affiliation, I certainly hope you'll point it out to me. Having the reference in hand will help when I apply for Alzheimer's institutionalization.

Have you ever witnessed to a convert, may be on a mission, and told them the JS vision and what God was reported to tell JS? If you have, then you have attacked the Christian faith

Oh good grief. Give me a break. It's simply ridiculous to equate a Latter-day Saint affirming his own belief, on the one hand, with, on the other, the evangelical industry churning out seminars, books, "witnessing" crusades, television broadcasts, newsletters, films, websites, lectures, curriculum materials, pamphlets, tabloids, "ministries," picket signs, videos, radio programs, and etc., expressly targeting Mormonism for critique.

My point is the LDS faith and teaching of a need for a "restoration" is a attack on [various non-Mormon versions of] the Christian faith, there is just no escaping this fact.

Only in the sense that the existence of Protestantism is an attack on Catholicism, and only in the sense that the sheer existence of Christianity is an exercise in anti-Semitism.

Do you understand this point, whether you believe it or not, I am trying to get across?

I understand it and reject it.

tithe paying members support a church that publishes attacks on the Christian faith

We create no seminars, books, "witnessing" crusades, television broadcasts, newsletters, films, websites, lectures, curriculum materials, pamphlets, tabloids, "ministries," picket signs, videos, radio programs, nor anything like thereunto targeting Methodism or Calvinism or the Southern Baptists for criticism. Period.

Pretending that there is an equivalence between what your side does and what we do is nothing short of preposterous.

I could just as easily call LDS members anti christian for the same reasons you choose to call [a very small minority of non-LDS] Christians anti Mormon.

No you couldn't. First, Latter-day Saints are Christians. Calling them "anti-Christians," accordingly, would be like saying that Cadillac-owners hate cars. Second, I don't call all Protestants "anti-Mormon," but only those (a tiny minority) who actively target and campaign against my faith. Since no Latter-day Saints actively target and campaign against your form of Christianity, it wouldn't even make sense to call them "anti-evangelicals."

Bottom line is you take offense when others attack your faith yet fully belong and defend a institute that attacks the Christian faith. ( this was directed to you personally, the rest in in context with the LDS church as a whole)

And what "institute" might that be, Markk? I've never heard of it.

I really don't have a problem with you ( the LDS church) saying and teaching what you teach, that you are the only true church, what I have is a problem with is members attacking others for defending against what the LDS teaches.

Advocate your beliefs all you like. More power to you. That doesn't interest me in even the slightest degree. When you attack mine, though, I will respond. As the French saying goes, "This animal is very vicious: When it's attacked, it defends itself."

[Scott Lloyd]

The pre 1990 language implied that women held a "subservient" role in their personal exaltation regarding their husband and god.