Things about different religions that you were always afraid to ask

[Rosie Cotton]

I did a search on this, and I couldn't find anything. If this isn't where this belongs, or there is already a thread...do whatever.

This is the place for people to ask all those little questions about various religions that they were afraid to ask. Questions and Answers.

I guess I'll start with my questions, most of which are about Catholicism, as I'm writing a novel with two Catholic characters and need all the help I can get:

1) What exactly is communion? (Catholic)

2) What is a guardian saint and how are they chosen? (Catholic)

3) What is a Muslim leader called? (the equivalent of a priest or rabbi) [Muslim]

4) How closely do MOST Jews follow the law of Kosher? (Jewish)

5) What are the different levels of priests in the Catholic church?

That's all for now, but I probably have more inside my head. Please give me answers.

[Fred Black]

A muslim 'priest' or cleric is a sheikh(many different spellings). One question I want to know is why women have to cover themselves up in Islam when they are proud that 'Allah' or God made them who they are. Also if men can have four wives, why not women have four husbands?

[LeeJordanfan]

Rosie: About the Jewish question.

There are basically four major "groups" in the Judaic community. You know how there are different kinds of Christians? Well, the Jewish community also has some differences.

1. Orthodox. The Othodox keep kosher which they call kashrut. I've never met an Orthodox person who doesn't. (Hassidim, Haredi are examples of strict Judiasm). This has been the "traditional" understanding of Judaism.

2. Reform Judiasm. This is known as Progressive Judaism in the United Kingdom. Kashrut is not a requirement, they see it as possibly hindering spirituality, but many of them avoid pork anyway. Some of the Reform leadership seems to be leaning toward a more traditional definition nowadays. However, it is still not a requirement.

3. Masorti Judiasm. In the U.S. this is called Conservative Judiasm. It doesn't mean conservative politically, there are people from any/all political groups. They keep kashrut.

4. Reconstructionist Judaism. They do not keep kashrut.

These are the basic types of temples and synagogue traditions. But, Jewish people do not divide themselves by what "group" they are in. Instead, they tend to divide based on how closely you follow the Laws of Moses, including but not limited to kashrut. You can, in theory, be Reform and keep to Jewish law very closely. You would be considered an "orthodox" Jewish person (small o) for your strict following, even if you aren't a member of an Orthodox community.

[StarAnise]

) What exactly is communion? (Catholic)

Communion is part of the mass when a wafer is eaten which has been blessed. This wafer is believed to have become the body of Christ. It traces its roots back to the last supper when Jesus broke bread with his disciples, blessed it, and said "Take this, all of you, and eat it. This is my body, which will be given up for you." In the same way, he took a cup of wine. Again he gave thanks. He handed the cup to his disciples, saying, "Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."

So basically it's sharing the body and blood of Christ (through transmutation), and acknowledging his sacrifice (ie. the crucifixion). It's also called the Eucharist. I'm calling on knowledge I haven't used for years here, so feel free to correct me if I've got something wrong or left out something particularly important.

[Rosie Cotton]

) What exactly is communion? (Catholic)

Communion is part of the mass when a wafer is eaten which has been blessed. This wafer is believed to have become the body of Christ. It traces its roots back to the last supper when Jesus broke bread with his disciples, blessed it, and said "Take this, all of you, and eat it. This is my body, which will be given up for you." In the same way, he took a cup of wine. Again he gave thanks. He handed the cup to his disciples, saying, "Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."

So basically it's sharing the body and blood of Christ (through transmutation), and acknowledging his sacrifice (ie. the crucifixion). It's also called the Eucharist. I'm calling on knowledge I haven't used for years here, so feel free to correct me if I've got something wrong or left out something particularly important.'

Oh! I have that in my religion, but we call it sacrament and use water instead of wine, and a little tiny piece of bread. I get it.

You other people thanks for answering.


Fred Black, I believe that the reason that men can have four wives but not vice versa is because...how am I going to explain this? Umm, well there are probably some other reasons, but here is one that I've thought of. One of the reason for polygamy, specifically polyginy, is to have more children. Men can have an unlimited amount of children, until the day they die. Women, on the other hand, have a fertility period and within in that period, can only have as many children as she has ovum. Also the percentage of ovum a women has that are actually developed into children is a very small number.

I'm not sure about this, but I think that COULD be part of it.

[Filia_LunaeXJ3]

Fred and Rosie...there are places in the world where women have more than one husband, just probably not in Islam. It's called polyandry while having more than one wife is polygamy. There's actually places in the world where brothers like share a wife or something...I don't know, I only paid so much attention in Sociology.

Communion is not just Catholic, Christians celebrate it too, but it's different. They have a worship session, then they perform a washing of the feet ceremony. After that there is a "love feast" or a meal that symbolizes the meal you will have in heaven at Jesus's table. Then they pray and eat a cracker or type of bread (sometimes they break it, as Jesus broke bread) and eat it, Jesus's body. Next they pray over a cup of usually juice and they drink it, Jesus's blood. It's actually a very moving ceremony, and it is usually only done once in a while. Catholics, on the other hand, have communion or Eucharist every Sunday and every Mass they go to. For instance, I went to Christmas Morning Mass and had communion, and I went to Mass on Sunday and had it again. Catholics believe it to be the actual blood and body of Christ and it will cleanse them of smaller or venial sins. You also have to take it every Sunday, or that is a sin as well.

[Dedalus Diggle]

I did a search on this, and I couldn't find anything. If this isn't where this belongs, or there is already a thread...do whatever.

This is the place for people to ask all those little questions about various religions that they were afraid to ask. Questions and Answers.

I guess I'll start with my questions, most of which are about Catholicism, as I'm writing a novel with two Catholic characters and need all the help I can get:

1) What exactly is communion? (Catholic)
You already have an explanation, but I'm surprised you have this sacrament and do not call it Communion. That's the term used in all the denominations of Christianity I am aware of. I sort of understand substituting water (although it seems to be rejecting Jesus' instruction), and I know of many denominations that allow grape juice rather than wine for those who can't or won't have alcohol.

2) What is a guardian saint and how are they chosen? (Catholic)Okay, although I'm Presbyterian, I have attended Catholic Mass (essentially that's their church service, if it includes a Communion) with my wife for more than 20 years and I have never heard this discussed. There is the notion of a Guardian Angel, but they don't have names. When a Catholic joins the Church (usually as a teen usually) in a rite called Confirmation, they choose a saint's name as a new name within the church: I think it's to symbolize rebirth. The saint chosen may be called a 'patron saint', but I'm not sure. There is no notion however that in the afterlife a human becomes an angel, at least not in the teahcings, although it seems to be a common concept amongst most Christians.

3) What is a Muslim leader called? (the equivalent of a priest or rabbi) [Muslim]
Somebody above said that this was a sheikh. I had the impression that sheikh was a tribal leader, not religious (although religion and government are inextricably intertwined in Islam, as a matter of doctrine). I thought the term for the mosque-level religious leader, was Imam.

4) How closely do MOST Jews follow the law of Kosher? (Jewish)
In much of the non-English-speaking world, keeping kosher is very common. In the English-speaking countries, where the Reform branch is most numerous, there's a pick and choose appraoch to various Mosaic laws. There are also quite a large number of people who are Jewish by identity but are non-religious, as there are people who consider themselves Christians who do nothing more to be observant than putting up Christmas decorations.

5) What are the different levels of priests in the Catholic church?The priests can perform all the rites of the Catholic Church. Within a particular 'congregation' there are usually several priests, with the principle role taken by a 'monsignor' Over all the congregations within a diocese (an area including many congregations) is a bishop, and osme of them are designated archbishops (and they preside over archdioceses). Some of the bishops/archbishops and designated Cardinals, but their duties are not essentially different, except that they participate in the College of Cardinals, which debates high Church concerns and selects the new Pope when the previous one dies (I don't think there has ever been a papal resignation). Over all the bishops and cardinals is the Pope. My apologies to those who are concerned if I got some of the more precise terms wrong. I am trying to give an overview understandable to someone who knows nothing of the Roman Catholic Church.

That's all for now, but I probably have more inside my head. Please give me answers.

Rosie I hope this helps. Understand that there are all sorts of levels of observance among Catholics, other Christians, Jews and Muslims. You may find your story will not sound as accurate if you are not clear in your own mind as to the gradations involved and the implications this has for people in the various religions.

[invisiblemunky]

1) What exactly is communion? Communion is the same as the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, in which Catholics receive the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. (basic catechism answer)

2) What is a guardian saint and how are they chosen? A patron saint (which is what I think you are talking about) is usually the saint you're named after. For example my name is Josephine (translated) and my patron saint is St. Joseph. Your parents choose your name at baptism and you choose your own name at Confirmation. You can always have a special devotion to a particular saint to whom you are attracted and that you choose yourself. A guardian angel (which might also be what you meant) is a special angel given to everyone at birth who watches over you as your guardian. But I think you wanted to know about patron saints.


5) What are the different levels of priests in the Catholic church? There are priests, bishops, cardinals, and then, of course, the Pope. There are also subdeacons and deacons, deacon is below a priest and a subdeacon below a deacon. There are Monsignors who are higher than priests but lower than bishops, but the main thing is just the four: priest, bishop, cardinal, Pope.

[darkangel91]

A muslim leader is called an Imam.A sheikh is not a leader, He is just a pious person that guides you and you go to ask for advice.A muslim leader is also called an Aalim or a Mulana

To answer Fred Black's question, women in Islam cover themselves up to show modesty.To protect themselves from the gazes of men which can lead to other stuff.Men have to be modest too.And they also are supposed to lower their gazes in front of women.Muslim men can have four wives because it is them who support their wives, not the women, ie financially.

[Rosie Cotton]

You already have an explanation, but I'm surprised you have this sacrament and do not call it Communion. That's the term used in all the denominations of Christianity I am aware of. I sort of understand substituting water (although it seems to be rejecting Jesus' instruction), and I know of many denominations that allow grape juice rather than wine for those who can't or won't have alcohol. Well, I'm Mormon, which is a different sort of Christian, but Christian none the less. We have it every Sunday for everyone in the congregation, so that much grape juice could get really expensive, and we don't drink alcohol. It's just a symbol though, it doesn't really matter what you use, as long as you get the symbolism behind it, right?

[Adiah]

Well, I'm Mormon, which is a different sort of Christian, but Christian none the less. We have it every Sunday for everyone in the congregation, so that much grape juice could get really expensive, and we don't drink alcohol. It's just a symbol though, it doesn't really matter what you use, as long as you get the symbolism behind it, right?
Well, I suppose that's true for Protestant religions, but Catholics don't see Communion as just a symbol. We believe (or are supposed to believe--truthfully, I have a bit of trouble with this) that during the Eucharistic prayer the bread and wine are actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ. So, it's not just a symbol, when you eat the bread and drink the wine, you're actually eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. A little difficult to get your head around, I admit. (Incidentally, the fact that that is the real blood of Christ won't stop you from getting a cold: in churches that offer wine at every mass--I've been to some that don't, and those that do don't require you to take the wine, just the bread--everyone drinks from the same cup. A study showed that Communion was one of the top ten ways that diseases like colds and the flu are spread from person to person!)

Oh, and just for your information, to anyone who has attended a Catholic mass and isn't Catholic, I hope you realize that if you aren't Catholic you aren't supposed to take Communion (sorry, it's a rule!).

I've never heard the term "guardian saints" before. As others have mentioned, you're probably thinking of patron saints. Somebody said that was when someone takes the name of a saint for Confirmation, which is an actual practice (my saint is Catherine) but that's not exactly what patron saints are. This has to do with Intersession, which is the Catholic belief that you can ask the saints (Mary, Jesus's mother, is included in this, and I think that's part of the reason some people have gotten the bizarre idea that Catholics worship Mary--a great source of annoyance to me, by the way) to pray for you, or to speak to God on your behalf. Certain saints are in charge of certain people. For instance, St. Christopher is the Patron Saint of Travelers (if you've ever seen a St. Christopher's medal in someone's car, now you know what that's for). St. Catherine is the Patron Saint of Artists (if I remember correctly, I think that's why I chose her name). There are many, many other patron saints, but I can't name any more off hand.

I would be grateful for any more information on Judaism that anybody would be willing to offer.

[Wab]

To answer Fred Black's question, women in Islam cover themselves up to show modesty.

It's also a practical matter as Islam was founded in the Arabian peninsula where covering up for men and women is a sensible precaution against dehydration.

[Rosie Cotton]

Well, I suppose that's true for Protestant religions, but Catholics don't see Communion as just a symbol. We believe (or are supposed to believe--truthfully, I have a bit of trouble with this) that during the Eucharistic prayer the bread and wine are actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ. So, it's not just a symbol, when you eat the bread and drink the wine, you're actually eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ. A little difficult to get your head around, I admit. (Incidentally, the fact that that is the real blood of Christ won't stop you from getting a cold: in churches that offer wine at every mass--I've been to some that don't, and those that do don't require you to take the wine, just the bread--everyone drinks from the same cup. A study showed that Communion was one of the top ten ways that diseases like colds and the flu are spread from person to person!)

I've never heard the term "guardian saints" before. As others have mentioned, you're probably thinking of patron saints. Somebody said that was when someone takes the name of a saint for Confirmation, which is an actual practice (my saint is Catherine) but that's not exactly what patron saints are. This has to do with Intersession, which is the Catholic belief that you can ask the saints (Mary, Jesus's mother, is included in this, and I think that's part of the reason some people have gotten the bizarre idea that Catholics worship Mary--a great source of annoyance to me, by the way) to pray for you, or to speak to God on your behalf. Certain saints are in charge of certain people. For instance, St. Christopher is the Patron Saint of Travelers (if you've ever seen a St. Christopher's medal in someone's car, now you know what that's for). St. Catherine is the Patron Saint of Artists (if I remember correctly, I think that's why I chose her name). There are many, many other patron saints, but I can't name any more off hand.

We have separate tiny plastic cups. We use to use one cup, but it was spreading too many germs.

That is what I meant, and that is what I thought, but I didn't know exactly what they were called or how they were chosen.

I guess not everyone in the congregation takes sacrament, if you are a Mormon and you have commited a serious sin (sexual sins, alcoholic or drug sins and some others) and haven't repented yet, you aren't supposed to.

[LilCubanita67]

I want to know what the significance of a veil for Muslim women are? Is it supposed to protect them from evil (I don't know -- just guessing).

I want to know because my grandmother was from India (a Muslim) and she wore a veil -- I can't ask her though because she died and no one else in my family is Muslim.

[tonks442]

I want to know what the significance of a veil for Muslim women are? Is it supposed to protect them from evil (I don't know -- just guessing).

I want to know because my grandmother was from India (a Muslim) and she wore a veil -- I can't ask her though because she died and no one else in my family is Muslim.
This has been answered in previous posts, but to expand further, the veil is a covering that shows modesty of women in the Islamic society. It is so that men will not look at women in a romantic way, as in Islamic society, men and women do not date.

[Dedalus Diggle]

This has been answered in previous posts, but to expand further, the veil is a covering that shows modesty of women in the Islamic society. It is so that men will not look at women in a romantic way, as in Islamic society, men and women do not date.
And by the way, while the Koran (Quran, however you want to write it) requires 'modesty' the exact expression of that term is not prescribed. Consider what we saw of the women of Albania and Bosnia when those countries were in turmoil - they were in simple peasant dresses (below the knee, but not going to the ground) and usually scarves covering their hair, but not their faces. Requirements for burqas, as with both male and female circumcision, are in no way required by the Quran (Mohammed himself was documented as not circumcised), but are cultural norms of a few groups imposed on many others under the false cover of religious requirement.

[Rosie Cotton]

Is the veil thing sort of how Mormon girls don't bare their shoulders or stomachs--No real reason, just out of modesty? (Sorry, I have to relate everything to my religion or I can't get a grasp of it).

[tonks442]

Is the veil thing sort of how Mormon girls don't bare their shoulders or stomachs--No real reason, just out of modesty? (Sorry, I have to relate everything to my religion or I can't get a grasp of it).
Sort of. Women are supossed to cover their body to show modesty--that includes arms, legs, shoulders etc. As someone mentioned before me, a burkha that covers the whole face is not required in the Quran, it is usually worn by older women and young women ready for marriage. It is all about a modest society. I am not sure, but I think it might have originated just from culture.

[halfbreedlover]

Ok, since we have a Mormon here, I have a few questions:

1.) Is polygamy still practiced?

2.) If the answer is yes, is it true that Mormon girls get married at 16, are expected to have one child a year until they can't have one anymore, and have to live completely closed off from the rest of society? I saw a special once where these girls managed to run away, and they had never even seen a mall before.

Obviously, since you are using the internet, you might be more reformed but is this true for most Mormons?

[Rosie Cotton]

Ok, since we have a Mormon here, I have a few questions:

1.) Is polygamy still practiced?

2.) If the answer is yes, is it true that Mormon girls get married at 16, are expected to have one child a year until they can't have one anymore, and have to live completely closed off from the rest of society? I saw a special once where these girls managed to run away, and they had never even seen a mall before.

Obviously, since you are using the internet, you might be more reformed but is this true for most Mormons? No, it is not true, for any Mormons. Any mormons still practicing polygamy is excommunicated. There was a time when we did practice polygamy, but it was because there were more women than men and:

1) Only married individuals can achieve the highest degree of glory in heaven

2) In the time when this was practiced, women could not support themselves very well, because of job limitations

Mormon girls are encouraged to wait until they are at least eighteen if not older to get married, though there are no rules that you can't get married before that. Women are not separated from society, and wherever you heard that, it was an entire myth. I know some girls at my church who probably spend WAY too much time at the mall.

[erynae]

What branches of the Christian faith is it that they worship Mary?

What is the religion where the women don't cut their hair and they were bandanas (not hijabs)

[LeeJordanfan]

There is a belief among some people that Roman Catholics worship Mary. But this is false. The Roman Catholic, and the Orthodox (Eastern Rites) do not worship Mary.

The Eastern, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Churches see God in three parts. The Trinity -- Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit.

[erynae]

But isn't there one where they do? I go to a Catholic school and we have Masses to do solely with Mary.

Funny, talking about God and things and I'm listening to 'One of Us' by Joan Osborne, you know, 'what if God was one of us'

[LeeJordanfan]

A Roman Catholic Mass has as its central element, Jesus. The Eucharist. Your priest might talk about Mary in the sermon (homily), especially this time of year when they celebrate Jesus' birth. But the Eucharist remains the focus of any Mass.

Even in petitions to Mary, they aren't worshipping Mary. What they usually ask for is for Mary to "pray for us sinners" and the like. If Mary was worshipped, it wouldn't make sense to ask God to pray for you. No, they don't believe that Mary is God, but they do see her as a very special person who has a unique relationship with God. Since they believe Jesus is God, then that makes Mary his mother. But she is still a human person, and is not worshipped.

EDIT: Christians follow Jesus. (some believe Jesus was divine, some don't, but they follow Jesus anyway). If they worshipped Mary that would make them something else.

[Mundungus Fletc]

The whole issue of intercession by the saints can be very difficult for non apostolic Christians to understand. They see statues or icons for example as idolatry rather than as a focus for prayer.

It was a fundamental issue at the reformation with many Protestants believing there can be no intercession between them and God.

As a Catholic I can't agree (St Peter was specifically named as an intermediary by Christ himself when he gave him the keys of the kingdom) but as someone brought up as a Protestant I understand the difficulties

[Rosie Cotton]

What is the religion where the women don't cut their hair and they were bandanas (not hijabs) Do you mean Menanites?

[invisiblemunky]

It's Catholics who are said to be worshippers of Mary, but like the others said it's not true and the Church has never issued any documents commanding Catholics to worship her.

"...The Church has always believed that the Apostles and Christ's martyrs, who gave the supreme witness of faith and charity by the shedding of their blood, are closely united with us in Christ; she has always venerated them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels, with a special love, and has asked piously for the help of their intercession."
--Encyclical letter Lumen Gentium

Catholics venerate Mary--they honor her, and ask her to intercede for them with God.

When Christ said to John and Mary from His cross, "Woman behold thy son, son behold thy mother," Christ not only bestowed his mother upon John but upon the rest of mankind as well, thus making Mary the Mediatrix of all graces, which means that through her is grace obtained.
There are Masses offered up for the honor of Mary, such as on December 8th, which is the feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but they are not Masses offered in order to worship her. As LeeJordonFan said the Mass's sole focus is the Eucharist.

[tonks442]

I have a question for Christians about the trinity. I am really confused about Christianity. If Jesus was God's son, then why do people call Jesus "Lord"? Does that mean they worship Jesus? But if you worship Jesus, doesn't that mean you are worshiping another human? As you can see, I am very confused about the trinity. Will someone please explain exactly what the trinity means? Thanks!

[Pegasus]

Tonks, this completely differs by religion. All Christians do NOT believe the same thing about this.
I, like Rosie Cotton, am LDS. We believe not in a Trinity, but in the Godhead--that God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate individuals.
Yes, we worship Jesus. He is our Lord and Savior. He created the earth, He came to this earth as the literal son of Heavenly Father and Mary, He atoned for our sins and then died for us, and He was resurrected so that we could all be resurrected.
It has been stated on this thread that Mary is an intercession between God and man. We believe only Jesus can intercede, because through the atonement and resurrection He overcame the Fall. Everything we do is in the name of Jesus Christ.
You will get a completely different answer from other Christians.

[invisiblemunky]

Well, Catholics believe in one God, but there are three persons in this one God: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Ghost. It's hard to understand how there are three in one and St. Patrick once described it with the shamrock. One shamrock consists of three leaves, equal in size and shape. In the same way one God consists of three divine persons, each equal to each other.
Jesus has a double nature, the nature of God and the nature of man. That's why He's sometimes referred to as the God-Man. God the Son became man to die for our sins. Only a perfect sacrifice could atone for the sin of Adam, and perfection can only be found in God therefore He became man to die for our redemption.
Christ's sacrifice is relived every Sunday during Mass, in which the bread and wine physically become Christ's body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine.

[invisiblemunky]

I'm pretty sure Hindus are polytheistic.

[Dedalus Diggle]

I just thought of a question that just came to me out of the blue.

I don't know if we have any Hinduists here, or even on this site, but if anybody knows, are Hindus monotheistic or polytheistic?

Don't ask me about the Trinity, it boggles my mind.

Okay, another thing is, I don't know if other Christians believe this, but the LDS believe that Mary was actually transferred into a form in which she could...you know...with God, but she remained a virgin, making Christ the literal Son of God, at least that's what we learned in Beehives/Mia Maids on the Sunday before Christmas. Does anyone else believe this, and to the other Latter Day Saints, have you heard this, or was it just totally off. The Beehive advisor that was giving this lesson is greatly learned, so I might have to say, I think she's right. She has probably read every religion book out there.

Yes, Hindus are polytheistic. As for the Immaculate Conception, I have never heard that explanation. I believe the gospel that addresses it in any form says only that the 'Spirit of the Lord' came over her and then she was with child - more an image of God causing things to happen within her, rather than to change her for the purpose. After all, 'with God, all things are possible.'

In this vein, I know that the Roman Catholic Church holds the doctrine that Mary remained a virgin throughout her enitre life, while most Protestants hold that she was only a virgin through the birth of Jesus (and some would not even go so far as that). How about LDS? How about other denominations?

[Mundungus Fletc]

All of the Apostolic churches hold that Mary remained a virgin. As for the immaculate conception (the belief that Mary was born without sin) only in the Catholic church is it an article of faith but many other Christians believe it.

[Dedalus Diggle]

All of the Apostolic churches hold that Mary remained a virgin. As for the immaculate conception (the belief that Mary was born without sin) only in the Catholic church is it an article of faith but many other Christians believe it.
Oops - I had it in my head that 'Immaculate Conception' was Jesus being conceived without copulation. Now that you mention it, I believe you're right that it refers to the notion that Mary was born withut any taint of sin (I don't accept that, any more than any newborn is untainted by other than 'Original Sin' - which is another concept I have trouble with). Do the Catholics have a term for the conception of Jesus?

[tonks442]

Tonks, this completely differs by religion. All Christians do NOT believe the same thing about this.
I, like Rosie Cotton, am LDS. We believe not in a Trinity, but in the Godhead--that God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate individuals.
Yes, we worship Jesus. He is our Lord and Savior. He created the earth, He came to this earth as the literal son of Heavenly Father and Mary, He atoned for our sins and then died for us, and He was resurrected so that we could all be resurrected.
It has been stated on this thread that Mary is an intercession between God and man. We believe only Jesus can intercede, because through the atonement and resurrection He overcame the Fall. Everything we do is in the name of Jesus Christ.
You will get a completely different answer from other Christians.


Well, Catholics believe in one God, but there are three persons in this one God: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Ghost. It's hard to understand how there are three in one and St. Patrick once described it with the shamrock. One shamrock consists of three leaves, equal in size and shape. In the same way one God consists of three divine persons, each equal to each other.
Jesus has a double nature, the nature of God and the nature of man. That's why He's sometimes referred to as the God-Man. God the Son became man to die for our sins. Only a perfect sacrifice could atone for the sin of Adam, and perfection can only be found in God therefore He became man to die for our redemption.
Christ's sacrifice is relived every Sunday during Mass, in which the bread and wine physically become Christ's body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine.

Yes that clears it up a bit. See, because Muslims do not think that Jesus is god, but that he was just a messanger of God, a prophet, and so we do not worship him. Yet we do not worship Mohammed (pbuh) either, because we believe that he was just the last prophet of God, but not God himself.

[fenellaevangela]

QUESTION: Okay. Since Christianity started out as a branch of Judiasim (spelling, sorry), the Christian G*d is the Jewish G*d. Also, I have heard from several sources that early Islamic society accepted that their G*d was also the same one as the Jews.

So, what is with this 'Christian G*d' stuff? Do the three religions believe that they are worshipping the same deity, or not? (If so, I think the emnity between them is even worse than I thought before).

[tonks442]

QUESTION: Okay. Since Christianity started out as a branch of Judiasim (spelling, sorry), the Christian G*d is the Jewish G*d. Also, I have heard from several sources that early Islamic society accepted that their G*d was also the same one as the Jews.

So, what is with this 'Christian G*d' stuff? Do the three religions believe that they are worshipping the same deity, or not? (If so, I think the emnity between them is even worse than I thought before).
Yes, the god is the same between the three religions. Except that for some reason, some people think that the Christian and Judaic God is different from the Islamic God, however, all three religions worship the same god.

[Pegasus]

So, what is with this 'Christian G*d' stuff? Do the three religions believe that they are worshipping the same deity, or not? (If so, I think the emnity between them is even worse than I thought before).

Yes, we all worship the same God. In fact, "Allah," translated into English, means "God." It really is tragic that there is so much enmity.
As far as Jews and Christians go, when Larry King married a Mormon, he was asked if they found any problems with him being Jewish and her being LDS. He said something like, "Of course not. We both worship the same God." (Not a direct quote.)

[halfbreedlover]

I'm pretty sure Hindus are polytheistic.

Actually, they're both polytheistic AND monotheistic. They have many gods that are different aspects of one god, Braman (sp).

[Rosie Cotton]

Actually, they're both polytheistic AND monotheistic. They have many gods that are different aspects of one god, Braman (sp).

Wait...how does that work? I'm not trying to offend, I'm just thoroughly confused. How can someone be monotheistic AND polytheistic. You are either monotheistic or you're not. There is no middle-ground.

Are you saying that they worship 1 god, but in many different forms, therefore the god is technically one god, but figuratively many?

[Pegasus]

It's kind of complex. I would suggest a world religions class, but as those aren't available to you yet...well, I'm sure that many here are much more knowledgeable than I am on the subject.

[halfbreedlover]

Wait...how does that work? I'm not trying to offend, I'm just thoroughly confused. How can someone be monotheistic AND polytheistic. You are either monotheistic or you're not. There is no middle-ground.

Are you saying that they worship 1 god, but in many different forms, therefore the god is technically one god, but figuratively many?

Ok, first off, take a deep breath and read the post again, not just the first sentence. It's not a middle-ground. It's BOTH.

As for that second part, you almost have it. They believe in one god, Brahman who represents the entire universe. However, there are many different aspects within Brahman because the universe is so complex. The different gods and godesses represent different aspects of Brahman.

*any Hindus out there who can explain this a little better?*

[Wab]

QUESTION: Okay. Since Christianity started out as a branch of Judiasim (spelling, sorry), the Christian G*d is the Jewish G*d. Also, I have heard from several sources that early Islamic society accepted that their G*d was also the same one as the Jews.

So, what is with this 'Christian G*d' stuff? Do the three religions believe that they are worshipping the same deity, or not? (If so, I think the emnity between them is even worse than I thought before).

Same God. The God of Abraham and the first covenant (hence, the three are known as the Abrahamic faiths).

[remusjlupin1980]

What branches of the Christian faith is it that they worship Mary?


As far as I know, none. But I do know of cults that exist here in the Philippines where I live. They're called Marian Cults. They regard Mary as every bit as divine as Jesus.

[Ginny1976]

Ok, since we have a Mormon here, I have a few questions:

1.) Is polygamy still practiced?

2.) If the answer is yes, is it true that Mormon girls get married at 16, are expected to have one child a year until they can't have one anymore, and have to live completely closed off from the rest of society? I saw a special once where these girls managed to run away, and they had never even seen a mall before.

Obviously, since you are using the internet, you might be more reformed but is this true for most Mormons?

No, it is not true, for any Mormons. Any mormons still practicing polygamy is excommunicated. There was a time when we did practice polygamy, but it was because there were more women than men and:

1) Only married individuals can achieve the highest degree of glory in heaven

2) In the time when this was practiced, women could not support themselves very well, because of job limitations

Mormon girls are encouraged to wait until they are at least eighteen if not older to get married, though there are no rules that you can't get married before that. Women are not separated from society, and wherever you heard that, it was an entire myth. I know some girls at my church who probably spend WAY too much time at the mall.


I am also LDS and felt something was missing in this answer. There have been a lot of specials about "Mormons" and thier many teenage wives but these people who call themselves Mormons are definitely NOT! When the church stopped practicing polygamy, way back at the turn of the last century, some didn't want to stop and so took thier wives and formed thier own way of living that is still practiced today. They DO NOT have membership in our church. Unfortunatly, sometimes these specials don't make it clear enough that they are not apart of the LDS church.
And we don't have to have a child a year. If that was the case, I'd have 10 kids by now!! Scary!!!!!

[Rosie Cotton]

Eek! I know what you mean. If that was true, I'd be getting ready to marry those boys pretty soon! I'm still at the stage where boys are totally immature. ;)

[Karawan]

I'm new to this site and have never posted, but here's my two cents in case it helps clear up any misunderstandings. Sorry if it's too long or wordy:

About Islam (I'm a Muslim): We do not have a clergy in Islam because of our core belief that all men are equal in the eyes of God and that we do not need anyone to mediate between us and Him. So you cannot really speak of a "Muslim equivalent to a priest or rabbi". An imam is a member of the community who leads group prayers. He may have undertaken more formal religious training than others, so that people can go to him with questions, but he is still more of a community leader and not to be labeled as clergy. I have heard that some American Muslims ask imams to preside at their weddings, but this is not traditional, nor is it required. A sheikh, as someone has already correctly pointed out, is more like a "tribal elder". He's a (usually older) leader who may be sought out for spiritual or other guidance, but his role is not as institutionalized as that of the Catholic clergy.

About veils: Conservative Muslims, especially in non-Western countries, will say that women should only show their faces, hands, and feet. (Those face-covering burqas that women wore in Taliban-era Afghanistan are NOT required or even encouraged by mainstream Islam) Many will say that a woman who walks down the street uncovered is inviting sexual harassment. In the Middle Ages, when Islam began, a woman's hair was considered to be very provocative... like legs and cleavage today. Some Muslims, myself included, adapt to the idea that different cultures and time periods have different opinions of what's modest. As an American Muslim, I leave my hair uncovered but I don't wear tank tops and generally avoid skirts that go above my knees. When I visit Syria (where I have family), I adapt to their different definition of modesty and wear skirts that reach to my ankles. Since this thread was begun by a Mormon, I'll also mention that my college roommate was LDS and we had fairly similar ideas about clothing. We found all sorts of strange little things in common when we discussed religion, but I'll leave that for another discussion if anyone's interested.

About Polygamy: When I was little, I asked my father why a man could have up to four wives but a woman could only have one husband. He said it was because when a woman gets pregnant you need to know who the father is. Which made perfect sense to me. Polygamy is still allowed in Islam, whereas it is no longer allowed in the LDS Church. However, the original reason for Muslim polygamy was to provide support for widows with children. Many more men died in battle in the Middle Ages than today. Polygamy is still practiced, and it might still be common in more rural societies, but from what I can tell it's not nearly as common in the Arab world as it used to be.

A side note about Mormon marriage-- after discussing this sort of thing with my LDS friend I feel like I should set the record straight! It's true that Mormons, on average, marry earlier than non-Mormon Americans and have large families. But there's no basis for the "baby a year" stereotype. I think I also read about those two teenage runaways who were mentioned in an earlier post. They actually come from what some call the Fundamentalist LDS Church, a group that still practices polygamy and split from the mainstream LDS Church when polygamy was outlawed. They're not recognized by the Mormon church at all, so it's important to keep them separate even if it's not initially all that obvious to us non-Mormons.

[Rosie Cotton]

Thank-you for clearing it up Karawan. It's nice to have a representative from the Islam religion here. Your LDS room-mate must have told you well. You put it better than I could have.

[Adiah]

Originally posted by erynae
What branches of the Christian faith is it that they worship Mary?
None, that would be heresy.

I thought I already mentioned this in one of my previous posts? Also, I think I mentioned that I find it highly frustrating that some people believe this.

Sorry, I'm not blaming anybody, just stating that I get a little irritated when people say things about other religions that aren't true.

[Athina]

Communion is not just Catholic, Christians celebrate it too, but it's different. They have a worship session, then they perform a washing of the feet ceremony.

Catholics are Christians...

Oh, and just for your information, to anyone who has attended a Catholic mass and isn't Catholic, I hope you realize that if you aren't Catholic you aren't supposed to take Communion (sorry, it's a rule!).

That's not a rule! If you are Christian and you take communion in your own church there's nothing wrong with taking it at a catholic church!

There really aren't major differences between different denominations of Christianity except traditions and rituals, which when you think about it aren't that big of a deal. :angel:

[SmoochHeart]

Ok, since we have a Mormon here, I have a few questions:

1.) Is polygamy still practiced?

2.) If the answer is yes, is it true that Mormon girls get married at 16, are expected to have one child a year until they can't have one anymore, and have to live completely closed off from the rest of society? I saw a special once where these girls managed to run away, and they had never even seen a mall before.

Obviously, since you are using the internet, you might be more reformed but is this true for most Mormons?

Polyginy was outlawed by the church in 1890. For many reasons, some relating to the law and persecution.

What you have heard about are fundementalist Mormon churches. These are people who have branched off, and started their own worship services.

The main difference between these churches and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is that they beleive that there were no true Prophets after the original Joseph Smith. So - they reject the churches stance against Polygamy, and still practice it. They reject anything proclaimed after the death of Joseph Smith, including but not limited to - Blacks being able to hold the preisthood, section 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants, etc.

And actually, alot of the things you have heard about these fundementalist mormon churches is also wrong. While it varies from church to church, many encourage young ladys not to Marry until they are eighteen. Many of these women are allowed to attend universities, and even choose their own mate. But like I said, it varies from church to church, and family to family.

But, many of these churches any families arent so nice, like I am sure you've seen on shows like dateline NBC and such.

While I am not defending these churches (as I find them terribly demeaning to women) I just thought some facts should be set straight.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Catholics are Christians...


That's not a rule! If you are Christian and you take communion in your own church there's nothing wrong with taking it at a catholic church!

There really aren't major differences between different denominations of Christianity except traditions and rituals, which when you think about it aren't that big of a deal. :angel:
When I went to pre-confirmation parents meetings, it was explained to us that non-Catholics could receive communion in a Roman Catholic church IF they believed in transubstantiation (that the wafer and wine become the LITERAL body and blood of Jesus). There are some denominations that also accept that (Episcopals? Lutherans?), but most do not. That in itself would be enough to keep me from ever converting. From what I gather from those raised in Roman Catholicism, most Catholics don't really accept it either, but just kind of gloss over it.

[Rosie Cotton]

If you want more proof that LDS people do not practice polygamy, go to a LDS book store (LDS Distribution if you live in Utah or Idaho, Book Craft or Deseret Book many other places) and ask for a copy of Doctrine and Covenants (more commonly called D&C). You can also get a triple combination which has the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price in one. At the back of the Doctrine and Covenants, there are 2 "Official Declarations" The first one outlaws polygamy. The other is talking about Blacks receiving the priesthood. Good luck!

An excerpt from Official Declaration 1, by President Wilford Woodruff, September 24, 1890:

"...I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that forty or any other number of pluarl marriages have during that period [the past year] been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory [Utah Territory]....And I know publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."

This goes on.

[SmoochHeart]

You can also find copies of all Mormon Scripture here: http://scriptures.lds.org/

You can also receive free scriptues by Calling 1-800-797-3355

[Rosie Cotton]

You can also find copies of all Mormon Scripture here: http://scriptures.lds.org/

Thank-you for sending that link. I didn't know where they were online.

[tonks442]

One thing I want to know about Christianity is how exactly Christianity says the living die. I'm confused about what you think about the Day of Judgement, and what happens in the meantime and so on.

[SmoochHeart]

One thing I want to know about Christianity is how exactly Christianity says the living die. I'm confused about what you think about the Day of Judgement, and what happens in the meantime and so on.


This differs from denomination to denomination. Many beleive the dead rest until the day of judgement, while others beleive there is imeadiate judgement after death.

Perhaps we could get some members of different denomitations to help us out and tell us what their religion beleives.

[LeeJordanfan]

DedalusDiggle,

Here's a link to who can take Communion in what Church. Looks like Lutherans can't take Catholic communion unless they are "properly disposed" to it. Not sure what the Catholics mean by that term.

http://www.beliefnet.com/features/intercommunion/

[Mundungus Fletc]

Many beleive the dead rest until the day of judgement, while others beleive there is imeadiate judgement after death.

I certainly believe in immediate judgement - Christ himself told the good thief that he would be in heaven on the night of the crucifixion. As a Catholic I also believe we know of othere people (the saints) who are already in paradise.

[Lynn Tyger]

I am a Christian, was brought up Baptist/was Baptist/am still technically Baptist, but now have more Sevenh-Day Adventist
beliefs in me. My belief on the judgment and death is that the dead are dead (except for a few mentioned in the Bible, such as Elijah) and will not be judged until the second coming of Christ. When Christ comes, the unforgiven sinners will be destroyed (except for Satan, who will be on earth for a thousand more years and those who claimed to be Christian but really weren't) and the saved/any that claimed to be Christian will be revived and taken to Heaven for judgment for one thousand years. At the end of the one-thousand years,
the Righteous and God will return to earth, and God will bring the sinners back to life temporarily for judgment. Before they are destroyed with fire, every sinner - including Satan - will admit that God was right. The sinners will be destroyed with fire and the earth will be made "like new" and the angels, saved, and the Trinity will inhabit it. new Jerusalem will also be the capital.

As any SDA or Baptist can probably guess, I do follow the SDA belief on this. I know I left out a few details, but I think I covered the basic picture.

I have a question for Catholics - what exactly is Purgatory and is it still widely believed in today? Also, why are people baptized not long after they are born? I've been wandering about both questions for a while, but I don't know any Catholic I'd feel comfortable with asking.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Purgatory is the stage between death and heaven. Basically Catholics believe that when we die we have not atoned for all our sins and there is a place where we atone for them after death (It's a concept rather older than Christianity and was believed by many Jews at the time of Christ) The belief goes back to the earliest days of the church - in the catacombs are inscriptions asking people to pray for the dead which would be pointless if they had either made heaven or been sent to hell. There is biblical support for the concept but one of the key differences between the Apostolic Churches is that we rely on tradition as well as the bible

As for infant baptism this was best explained to me at a baptism where the priest said 'we baptise infants because we always have done.' Since unbaptised people were denied the opportunity of heaven the sooner the better. (I don't personally believe the latter which probably makes me a heretic but I simply cannot accept that a loving God would deny salvation to a righteous person)

[Lynn Tyger]

Might I ask where the Biblical proof of Purgatory if found? If you can't tell me it's fine since I'm reading the Bible from beginning to end (currently in Jeremiah) but I'd still appreciate it.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Try here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm) It's a dense read though.

[GryffindorGr]

This is true, and I’ve been taught that purgatory is for those poor souls who commit suicide. It’s the edge of hell kind of thing. But Jesus went down to purgatory—in hell and took the keys from Lucifer himself to open the doors, letting out the souls who were drowned in their misery, so that they are redeemed.
(naturally one can argue it's metaphor, because believing in hell and heaven is another matter)

[Adiah]

Actually, the subject of Purgatory has been widely discussed in the "Does Hell Exist" thread, if anybody's interested in looking.

Also, I've been raised Catholic, and I've always been told that non-Catholics aren't supposed to take Catholic Communion. I've seen some do so, but I don't think they realized they weren't supposed to at the time. I had a friend who was Methodist and if she came to church with my family, she always stayed in her seat when it was time for Communion. It does have to do with the wine/blood and bread/body transformation--as far as I know, Catholics are the only ones who believe this. And I actually do know some people who really do believe it--my mother, for one.

[Athina]

I don't believe the bread/body transformation, I prefer it being just symbolic. I don't understand why some people say you have to take it literally.

[Ginny1976]

The book of St Luke chapter 22, Verse 19, (King James Version) says that the sacrament is in rememberance of him.

[Wab]

I don't believe the bread/body transformation, I prefer it being just symbolic. I don't understand why some people say you have to take it literally.

Transubstantiation is one of the key differences between Catholicism and most other Christian faiths.

[Ginny1976]

Care to explain Wab? I have no idea what that means.

[Wab]

Transubstantiation is the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; not a symbolic act.

"Divine power changes bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, and he dwells physically on earth in every tabernacle, and comes physically into us in Holy Communion."

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html

[Mundungus Fletc]

The Wikipedia article on transubstantiation is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation)

[Pegasus]

Ginny, where we believe that we take bread and water in remembrance of Him, transsubstantiation means that the wafer they take has actually been turned into a piece of Jesus' flesh, and the wine turned into his blood, when the priest blesses it. This is what I understood from a class I took--Catholics, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Rapunzel]

I read something once where the author called the taking of the sacrament/communion in christian churches "ritual cannibalism" :no: I think not!

[Pegasus]

Now, that's definitely twisting it.

[Adiah]

I don't believe the bread/body transformation, I prefer it being just symbolic. I don't understand why some people say you have to take it literally.
Nobody said you have to take it literally. It's only us Catholics who have to take it literally, and some of us don't anyway.

To be perfectly truthful, I have tried to think of it literally, but I have a fairly scientific mind and it's kind of hard for me. I mean, I take Communion and everything, but...it's kind of hard to think literal when you're eating a little wafer thing that has an aftertaste of postage stamps. :sigh:

[tonks442]

Okay, heres a question for Catholics. Isn't Communion where you go to ask forgiveness for your sins? I never really got it, because it just seemed like someone could commit murder, ask fogiveness, and then go off and do it again...hopefully, no one does do that though! :no:

[Adiah]

Okay, heres a question for Catholics. Isn't Communion where you go to ask forgiveness for your sins? I never really got it, because it just seemed like someone could commit murder, ask fogiveness, and then go off and do it again...hopefully, no one does do that though! :no:
No, Communion is receiving the bread and wine, i.e. body and blood of Christ. You're thinking of Confession.

Confession only works (or it should) if the person doing the confessing is truly sorry for the thing they are asking forgiveness for. Theoretically, someone could ask forgiveness for a murder they've committed and then go do it again...and the problem with that is the priest who they confessed to is not allowed to tell anyone (which incidentally makes for a good story, as some TV shows have shown). The thing is that after a person confesses, the priest usually tells them to do something, "Penance," to make up for whatever they've done. Usually it's just "Go say five Hail Marys and five Our Fathers" or some such thing. I did read a book once, however, in which a woman confessed to murder, and the priest told her that as Penance she had to turn herself in.

I hope that answers your question. I don't know why someone would take the trouble of Confessing to a murder if they were going to do it again, because clearly if they did it again they didn't feel sorry for the first one and so there wouldn't be any reason to Confess in the first place. :huh:

[Mundungus Fletc]

Isn't Communion where you go to ask forgiveness for your sins

It's called confession. In theory you could confess to murder and be sent on your way but the Priest will only grant absolution if he believes you are genuinely sorry. To prove your good intentions in such a case he would expect you to have gone to the police before granting absolution

[salem_phoenix]

Confession is more than a Catholic notion. I am Protestant, and we also confess our sins. The difference is, Protestants confess directly to God, through prayer, and forgiveness is granted. We believe that that is enough. Catholics must confess to a priest.

One of the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, at least when the religions at first split apart, was whether somebody communicates with God with or without a clergy as an intermediary.

[GryffindorGr]

Not really. We still confess to God, it’s more like confessing and admitting to ourselves that we did wrong and the reason to my understanding is that when you spill your guts to a Priest, he is to keep his word not to say anything, and he shouldn’t make any judgement because he knows its up to God and ourselves, to forgive ourselves basically for our terrible deeds, whether its lying, cheating, whatever. Then after a confession, he tells you to say some prayers for yourself—this is the part where you admit to God of your sins. Naturally you have to do more than just confess, you have to turn yourself in, like the poster above says.We don’t have to go to a priest to confess our sins, we just do it for ourselves, but the purpose here is that the Priest serves as a witness. I guess like in weddings, you have witnesses.
And the priest's purpose too is that he also prays for us. The more prayers--the more support kind of thing.
You can also compare it to going to a psychologist I guess. Spilling your guts and admitting is the first step to making yourself a better person, so they say.

ETA:
:) oh just to add, is that the purpose of these admissions and support prayers are like any support group effort. In a family for example, if there is trouble in a family unit, everyone pitches in to support, to help in times of need, whether that’s involuntary, like a couple going through divorce, or legalities of bankruptcy, etc. and everyone in the family should support them, that goes to extended family and friends.

And one of the purposes of priests add to that support group, because they are considered closer to God, which is not really true in that sense—meaning that we’re all the same, the reasons why he is considered closer to God is that he spends his entire 24/7 meditating, doing his job, and we must remember that that is his lifes purpose. We on the other hand have other careers, other interests than to spend 24/7 preparing for rituals, reading the scripture, meditating…etc. so that is in essence is why he is considered closer to God. Because he does it so often and so fervent. You are considered farther from God when you don’t want anything to do with him, which is common sense. God doesn’t even interfere if you choose to want to go far far away from him because that is our choice. And it’s the priests choice to be closer to God.

[Rosie Cotton]

Well in the LDS church, if you commit serious sins (adultery, things you could be put into prison for, et cetera) you have to confess it to the bishop (sort of like a minister, but not paid and maybe more than a minister) and you work it out between the three of you (you, the bishop and god). Other sins, like lying to your mother about whether you did your homework or not, you can confess and repent directly to God through prayer, and tell your mother that you lied to her.

[Adiah]

Well, Catholics don't actually have to go to Confession...we're encouraged to, I suppose. I haven't gone for several years. I got tired of having to think of something to confess. :shrug:

[Ava]

Well, Catholics don't actually have to go to Confession...we're encouraged to, I suppose. I haven't gone for several years. I got tired of having to think of something to confess. :shrug:

If I remember it right, we were taught (in grade school) that Confession is part of the 'Blessed Sacraments" or something, so yes it is highly encouraged among Catholics.
I personally don't confess to a priest either and I think many people aren't totally comfortable with it too. So I just confess directly to God, through prayer. I believe that that is enough. :)

[crookshanks1177]

When I went to pre-confirmation parents meetings, it was explained to us that non-Catholics could receive communion in a Roman Catholic church IF they believed in transubstantiation (that the wafer and wine become the LITERAL body and blood of Jesus). There are some denominations that also accept that (Episcopals? Lutherans?), but most do not. That in itself would be enough to keep me from ever converting. From what I gather from those raised in Roman Catholicism, most Catholics don't really accept it either, but just kind of gloss over it.

I could be wrong about all this and I mean no offense towards anyone. It's been quite a long time since I have attended any church or claimed any religion for that matter. But I was raised Catholic. When it comes to the eucharist, how I was taught is that you have to be cleansed of all sins before you go to take communion. (Sacrament of confession). I believe that is why a lot of people say it is wrong for a Non-Catholic, to participate in the sacrament of communion, because most Christian religions from what I understand don't use the sacrament of confession. I was always taught that if you have any sin on your shoulders you should not participate in communion. I will use my family as an example...this may make my family look bad, but we make our own bed we will happily sleep in it. When my mother and stepfather got married my mother was a Protestant and my step father was Roman Catholic. Well divorce is a big No-No in the Catholic religion. My father and my step father's ex wife would not agree to annulments. So since they both had divorces the Catholic church would not acknowledge their marriage. Because of this neither of them will take communion. They still feel they have sins on their shoulders. That was just an example trying to get my point across. As I said I could be wrong about all of it. I do not know, and I don't practice the religion anymore, so it's not something I truely dwell on lol.

If I remember it right, we were taught (in grade school) that Confession is part of the 'Blessed Sacraments" or something, so yes it is highly encouraged among Catholics.
I personally don't confess to a priest either and I think many people aren't totally comfortable with it too. So I just confess directly to God, through prayer. I believe that that is enough. :)

Isn't that where the Lutheran religion came in? I think it was the Lutherans... They were the group of people who believed in the basis of the Catholic religion, yet had a few differences in beliefs, for example they do not believe in the sacrement of confession. So basicly I guess they just split off into their own organized religion. That's the way I understood it.

[jenggakun]

When I was in primary school we were discouraged to receive communions if we haven't confessed our sins to the priest (I was in a Catholic school from elementary til high school). But when I was in high school one of my teachers told us that it's better to receive Jesus' body (the wafer) and accept Him rather than refuse the Eucharist. But I think many Catholics still believe that it's a "sin" to receive communion without confession.

I want to hear from those who practice Islam. Some of our Muslim brothers here in our country (who are unfortunately terrorists), declare JIHAD and then go bombing trains, malls, and other public places (thank God it hasn't happened for a few months now). They say it's all for Islam. I think it's twisted. What do you have to say about the situation? :sad:

[Wab]

Isn't that where the Lutheran religion came in? I think it was the Lutherans... They were the group of people who believed in the basis of the Catholic religion, yet had a few differences in beliefs, for example they do not believe in the sacrement of confession. So basicly I guess they just split off into their own organized religion. That's the way I understood it.

Luther (who was a Catholic clergyman) came into conflict with the church primarily over the practice of granting indulgances to the wealthy so they could literally (in the spiritual sense, anyway) get away with murder if the price was right.

[SmoochHeart]

Luther (who was a Catholic clergyman) came into conflict with the church primarily over the practice of granting indulgances to the wealthy so they could literally (in the spiritual sense, anyway) get away with murder if the price was right.


Literal Sacrements was also something that Luther had in his 77 theses he nailed to the door of the church though.

[crookshanks1177]

Literal Sacrements was also something that Luther had in his 77 theses he nailed to the door of the church though.

Ah that is what it was I was trying to think of. One of those thoughts at the tip of your tongue but you can't get out lol.

[tonks442]

I want to hear from those who practice Islam. Some of our Muslim brothers here in our country (who are unfortunately terrorists), declare JIHAD and then go bombing trains, malls, and other public places (thank God it hasn't happened for a few months now). They say it's all for Islam. I think it's twisted. What do you have to say about the situation? :sad:

It is very twisted. If they really read the Quran, they would know what they are doing is wrong. They may say they are all for Islam, but Islam is NOTHING like that. They are basically your abortion bombers of your country. They twist the religion to their purposes. I hope the people in your country don't see ALL Muslims as terrorists, because it is a VERY limited amount of people who actually think like that. All the other Muslims condemn their acts, for they are very much unIslamic.

[Dorian Myrrdin]

Look at my signature. If you don't, well, my question is if we are all God's children, what makes Jesus so special? Even though I did get it from a comedian, it makes sense.

[Rosie Cotton]

Because Christ gave his life for us. Plus he's the eldest.

[Dorian Myrrdin]

What'd he give his life for? For other's sins? What's he the eldest of?

[Aseel]

It is very twisted. If they really read the Quran, they would know what they are doing is wrong. They may say they are all for Islam, but Islam is NOTHING like that. They are basically your abortion bombers of your country. They twist the religion to their purposes. I hope the people in your country don't see ALL Muslims as terrorists, because it is a VERY limited amount of people who actually think like that. All the other Muslims condemn their acts, for they are very much unIslamic.

This is a very important issue, because those people (a) blotch our image badly and (b) don't even know what they're doing is wrong. I think what happened is that they were brought up to hate certain people, and their parents told them they should fight. Now, those parents could well have been open-minded, and had thought the whole thing through. They (or their ancestors. This could have happened at any point in time) would have known exactly what the Quran says about this matter. Their children, however, did not receive the arguments, only the conclusions. So they 'fight' in whatever ways they like. sometimes in sick and disgusting ways.



Many will say that a woman who walks down the street uncovered is inviting sexual harassment.

women in Islam cover themselves up to show modesty.

I'll elaborate because I don't think everyone got the idea. Adultery is a great sin in Islam, indeed one of the greatest seven. Not only actual adultery, but everything that could lead to it. This means that Muslims cannot date, for example, though they don't get as many 'black dots' for it. Hair was very provocative in the Middle Ages. A woman who walks in the street uncovered can arouse men, and this could 'lead' to adultery. That's why it's forbidden. Women have to cover their body, except the face, hands, and feet. And they cannot wear tight or transluscent clothing. Anything provocative for that matter.
Men also have to cover themselves up. From the navel to the knees. Doesn't sound like much, does it? Well... Sometimes Islam can seem unfair, but it actually isn't. And if it occured to you that 'hey, I always cover that area up!', you'll be surprised when you find out a week later that you can't wear your shorts because they don't go all the way down to your knees!

Karaman said something about how hair was provocative in the Middle Ages whereas now it's not, and about culture differences. This is where I usually get worked up, but I'll try not to argue too much and won't display all my arguments here. Just a few pointers.

*A woman can still be attractive even if she is dressed the Islamic way. I saw Liv Tyler covered up and even veiled in LotR, and she still had me moaning why I'm not that pretty!
*A woman can not cover herself up, and be unattractive and unprovocative. My grandmother sometimes wears short skirts, and she definitely doesn't arouse any men in the street!

The 'dress code' is general. You can never completely stop a man from being attracted to a woman. It's just so they won't get too aroused, perhaps to show modesty, perhaps to help men control themselves as, in Islam, they are told to do over and over again. A man who does is one of the greatest seven that God comforts the Day of Judgement.

[Rosie Cotton]

What'd he give his life for? For other's sins? What's he the eldest of?

He's the eldest of God's children. Yes, He died for everyone elses sins so that we could return to heaven.


I'll elaborate because I don't think everyone got the idea. Adultery is a great sin in Islam, indeed one of the greatest seven. Not only actual adultery, but everything that could lead to it. This means that Muslims cannot date, for example, though they don't get as many 'black dots' for it. Hair was very provocative in the Middle Ages. A woman who walks in the street uncovered can arouse men, and this could 'lead' to adultery. That's why it's forbidden. Women have to cover their body, except the face, hands, and feet. And they cannot wear tight or transluscent clothing. Anything provocative for that matter.
Men also have to cover themselves up. From the navel to the knees. Doesn't sound like much, does it? Well... Sometimes Islam can seem unfair, but it actually isn't. And if it occured to you that 'hey, I always cover that area up!', you'll be surprised when you find out a week later that you can't wear your shorts because they don't go all the way down to your knees!

Karaman said something about how hair was provocative in the Middle Ages whereas now it's not, and about culture differences. This is where I usually get worked up, but I'll try not to argue too much and won't display all my arguments here. Just a few pointers.

*A woman can still be attractive even if she is dressed the Islamic way. I saw Liv Tyler covered up and even veiled in LotR, and she still had me moaning why I'm not that pretty!
*A woman can not cover herself up, and be unattractive and unprovocative. My grandmother sometimes wears short skirts, and she definitely doesn't arouse any men in the street!

The 'dress code' is general. You can never completely stop a man from being attracted to a woman. It's just so they won't get too aroused, perhaps to show modesty, perhaps to help men control themselves as, in Islam, they are told to do over and over again. A man who does is one of the greatest seven that God comforts the Day of Judgement.


I'm not Islamic, but I could also say, it may be less provocative because it shows that you aren't interested. If I went walking down the street in a two piece swimsuit, I would be inviting men to come near me, showing that I want them to. If I go down the street in what I usually wear, it would show that I do not want it. I'm not inviting it.

[Aseel]

I'm not Islamic, but I could also say, it may be less provocative because it shows that you aren't interested. If I went walking down the street in a two piece swimsuit, I would be inviting men to come near me, showing that I want them to. If I go down the street in what I usually wear, it would show that I do not want it. I'm not inviting it.

You're absolutely right. I didn't mention it because I didn't want to blab too much. But it's a good point nevertheless.

[Wab]

For those who are Moslem, and seeing it's that time of year, has anyone participated in the Hajj?

For those who don't know: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4180965.stm

[snuggle the muggle]

Look at my signature. If you don't, well, my question is if we are all God's children, what makes Jesus so special? Even though I did get it from a comedian, it makes sense.

Some people have already answered this, but I think they have kind of missed the main point, at least according to LDS doctrine, and I think most other Christians.

We are all children of God in the spirit, but I have a mortal father and a mortal mother and I will die someday. Christ, was also a spirit child of God, but his earthly body had an immortal father (God) and a mortal mother (Mary) so half his DNA was God. He was the only person ever born on earth who had this. He, then, because he was half immortal, did not have to die. He could have lived forever, perfect. However, he voluntarily surrendered his life and then took it up again (at the resurrection) which gave to all of us the ability to be resurrected.

Now, as for who he died for and why, I could go on for hours. However, to make it as succinct as possible:

Every single one of us on this earth now or ever has sinned except for Christ, who lived a perfect life. That means that we are all "dirty" and cannot live again with God. If there had been no Christ, we all would be doomed to hell, or an eternity away from God because no dirty thing can live with God. However, Christ came here and paid the price for all of our sins so that if we would repent, we can be made clean again. A phrase that is often used is "through the blood of Christ, we are cleansed." That means that he has given each of us an opportunity to be with God again. That was the atonement, or his great work in the Garden of Gethsamene, when he took upon him all the pain and the suffering of the entire world. I think, often, of how agonizing that must have been for him. He had never sinned, never felt the pain of remorse and yet he took all of the sorrow of mankind on him. We know that it just about overwhelmed him. He said later himself that it "Caused I, even God, to shrink that I might not take the bitter cup." But he endured and "drank of it," meaning that he suffered all of that so that we could repent and live again with God.

So, no. Christ was not just a normal man who lived a good life. He is literally the "Way, the Truth, the Life" for every person who has ever lived on this earth and those who are still yet to be born. That is what makes him different from anyone else.

This was according to LDS doctrine and I think there are some variations on the theme in the Christian world, but I think that is pretty basically the reason why we all worship Christ, rather than just look up to him as a great person.

[Rosie Cotton]

Thank-you Snuggle the Muggle, me being LDS, was trying to say that, but I couldn't put it the right way, and it always turned out double-meaning, the other meaning, meaning something not good. Thank-you so much.

[Pegasus]

That means that we are all "dirty" and cannot live again with God.
I would add that we're not born that way. Little children are innocent. It is when we start sinning that we become "dirty" and need to be cleansed, which we can only do through Jesus.

[Rapunzel]

The other thing Christ did (sorry if someone said this already, I only started reading at Snuggle's post) is make it so everyone will live again. The atonement applies to those who accept it. The resurrection applies to everybody.

[Pegasus]

Wow--get enough people with partial answers, and you end up with one complete answer.:D

[Rapunzel]

It takes a while, but we'll get there eventually. ;)

[snuggle the muggle]

I would add that we're not born that way. Little children are innocent. It is when we start sinning that we become "dirty" and need to be cleansed, which we can only do through Jesus.

Exactly. I thought I had made that clear when I explained that we all sin, but maybe I should have specified that little children have not sinned yet. Again, because Christ paid the price for them without any effort on their part.

I am, always, overwhelmed at the enormity of the price he was willing to pay, and yet it was so personal for each of us. One of the best church talks over the pulpit in our ward I have ever heard was given by a man who had been excommunicated for adultery (I think) and had come back into the church. He spoke about his relationship with Jesus Christ. This was several years ago but it still strikes me every time I think about it. He talked about a picture that he has in his mind of Christ, of seeing him in the Garden of Gethsemane, suffering in absolute exquisite agony under all the sins of the world, of his pores extruding blood, of his nearly collapsing under the weight of sorrow, and walking up to him and being able to say, "Here, take my sins, too," and Christ saying that he would. That image really has meant a lot to me when I have to repent.

[kjr99044]

What exactly is a Christian Scientist. Someone told me they sortof believe in something like the Matrix?

[erynae]

What exactly is the beliefs of one who follows Scientology?

What exactly is a Christian Scientist. Someone told me they sortof believe in something like the Matrix?

I've heard of that before. I was in the city and me and my friend walked past their church, so we picked up a pamphlet, but I don't know where it's gotten to. I'll do a little research. Here's what I found from about.com:

Name:
Christian Science
Church of Christ, Scientist

Founder:
Name: Mary Baker Eddy Born: 1821
Died: 1910

Profile:
Christian Science (officially named Church of Christ, Scientist) is a recently developed sect of Christianity, created by Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910) in 1875. It began primarily as a faith healing cult and has since developed a complex theology to justify and explain that same faith healing (most of this is contained in her book Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures, which is treated as a fundamental text next to the Bible).

Although the title contains the word "science," the fact of the matter is that there was never anything much "scientific" about Eddy's teachings. There is nothing about experimentation, rigorous procedures, empirical standards, peer review, or anything which characterizes the best which the biological and physical sciences have to offer. Although Eddy liked to refer to things like experimental proof and systematic demonstration, these terms carried none of their original scientific content. She was using terminology from a tradition which she was, in fact, challenging and hoping to undermine.

The basic philosophy of Christian Science is idealism - "Nothing is real and eternal; nothing is spirit - but God and His ideal; evil has no reality." The primary theme of the Bible is supposed to be that spiritual power always triumphs over material power. As a result, illness is not real ("allness of the Soul, Spirit and the nothingness of illness"). Instead, it is imply a failure of faith and this can be documented, even "scientifically," in the lives of those who have genuine faith. It is argued that because God is completely good, he could not possibly have created anything evil. The perception of evil must therefore be a human error - and, without enough faith, it is an error we can overcome.

Eddy also taught that religious works like the Bible may have a superficial meaning which most people are able to recognize, but the more important meaning is spiritual and hidden from the casual observer. Only a spiritually mature and developed person would be able to divine the "true" meaning of the text. Eddy wrote:

We have learned in Christian Science that when reading the Scriptures if you substitute the spiritual significance of a term for its material definition, or the bare word, it will elucidate the meaning of the inspired writer.

Although Eddy's Christian Science doctrines bore a striking resemblance to the doctrines of Theosophy and Hinduism, she flatly refused to acknowledge even the slightest intellectual debt to anyone or any belief system. According to her, she was the "discoverer" of Christian Science, although she was ambiguous as to whether or not she was aided by spiritual forces. Regardless, she characterized her system as being "hopelessly original."

It is interesting to observe that Eddy described her system as not simply providing spiritual insight and development, but also, quite frankly, power. This was not simply the power to heal (thus the faith healing) but also the power to affect a wide range of physical phenomena, whether for good or for ill. According to Eddy:

Why we take so few students is because of the great danger there is in promiscuously teaching metaphysics, or the power of the mind to do good, lest it abuse that trust, forsake metaphysics, and this developed mental power becomes the ...extracts and essences of evil.

None of this should be taken to suggest that Mary Baker Eddy never herself used the services of a physician - on the contrary, she did regularly, even while teaching others that all illness was simply a consequence of inadequate faith. She wore eyeglasses, used a dental plate, and relied on morphine for the last years of her life because of gallstones. Eddy had all of her grandchildren vaccinated and even paid for her sister-in-law to have a mastectomy. She rationalized this behavior by saying that the world simply hadn't yet advanced to the point where the human mind and the Divine mind could easily achieve the sort of union necessary to eliminate illness. Thus, at least for some, the illnesses were not a result of inadequate faith.

It was also proposed that a dark force moving in the world played an important role in the creation of disease, even among those like Christian Scientists who should know better. Eddy named this force Malicious Animal Magnetisim, or MAM for short. According to Eddy, rivals of her religious system used MAM to undermine her efforts by causing illnesses which might lead to a weaking of people's faith in her teachings.

Also Known As: none

Alternate Spellings: none

Common Misspellings: none

[meanrice]

A muslim 'priest' or cleric is a sheikh(many different spellings). One question I want to know is why women have to cover themselves up in Islam when they are proud that 'Allah' or God made them who they are. Also if men can have four wives, why not women have four husbands?

actually a muslim cleric is called an "imam." and one reason that women cover themselves is so they will be seen as asexual, not a woman to be admired for her beauty...but a person with a mind.

[Wab]

What exactly is the beliefs of one who follows Scientology?


If you must: http://www.dianetics.org/

That L Ron decided that founding a religion was more lucrative than writing (and he was an awful writer) says it all really.

[tonks442]

For those who are Moslem, and seeing it's that time of year, has anyone participated in the Hajj?

For those who don't know: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4180965.stm

I haven't, but my cousins and aunt in England have. One interesting thing: my grandmother went to Hajj and performed the pilgramige. She died in Mecca and was buried and had her funeral there. Which is unique because she died right after her sins were forgiven, plus she got a huge funeral because in Islam, if you hear that someone died, and it doesn't matter if you don't know the person, you go to their funeral. So very many of the pilgrams attended her funeral.

Eid Mubarak!
(in my side of the world, Eid was yesterday)

[jenggakun]

I would add that we're not born that way. Little children are innocent. It is when we start sinning that we become "dirty" and need to be cleansed, which we can only do through Jesus.
We believe in Original Sin, which even new borns have. Only in Baptism that the said sin is forgiven.

[snuggle the muggle]

We believe in Original Sin, which even new borns have. Only in Baptism that the said sin is forgiven.

Yes, most Christian religions do believe that through Adam we are already sinners when we are born. The LDS church does not believe that. We believe that children are not accountable for their sins until they are 8 which is why we are baptized at that age rather than as infants. If children die before then, they are automatically exalted (live with God) and have no need of baptism. This is indeed on of the major differences between the LDS religion and most mainstream Christian religions. There are others, but this is one of the biggies.

[Cuthbert]

This is a question brought about through comments pointed towards me in college and beyond. Do any Lutherans or Evangelicals here have any problems with Catholics and what we believe? It seems that my faith is continually challenged by people of these faiths in particular and I was just wondering why.

My other question was whether other Catholics refer to themselves as Christians? I ask because it seems that most I know simply refer to themselves as Catholics and don’t seem to use the Christian label. Not that they don’t like it, but just because calling themselves a Catholic seems to be sufficient.

[Kaitie]

This is a question brought about through comments pointed towards me in college and beyond. Do any Lutherans or Evangelicals here have any problems with Catholics and what we believe? It seems that my faith is continually challenged by people of these faiths in particular and I was just wondering why.

My other question was whether other Catholics refer to themselves as Christians? I ask because it seems that most I know simply refer to themselves as Catholics and don’t seem to use the Christian label. Not that they don’t like it, but just because calling themselves a Catholic seems to be sufficient.

Speaking for the LDS, we don't have a problem with any Catholics--we don't believe in the doctrine of the Catholic church but we do not use a persons religion as a reason to not like someone.

I think that most Catholics tend to call themselves Catholic and not Christian for the same reason that we call ourselves LDS and not Christian---the term Christian has so many different meanings and different belief systems attached to it that we want to stand on our own faith and not be grouped with everyone else.

[Pegasus]

And really, anyone who believes in the divinity of Christ is a Christian.

[Wab]

Members of the major Christian denomination usually identift themselves as such -- Catholic, Anglican, LDS, Uniting -- in my experince its the members of smaller (usually evangelical/charismatic/fundementalist) churches who use the generic Christian.

[Adiah]

This is a question brought about through comments pointed towards me in college and beyond. Do any Lutherans or Evangelicals here have any problems with Catholics and what we believe? It seems that my faith is continually challenged by people of these faiths in particular and I was just wondering why.I'm a Catholic as well, and I have had a few problems with this. It's been a while, but when I was in grade school, my teacher mentioned Catholics and a girl who was in the class at the time said, "Catholics are..." I didn't hear the rest of what she said--I was too far away--but from the tone of voice she was using, I can tell it wasn't positive, whatever it was. I've also had trouble trying to explain to people what Catholics believe (there was a tense moment in a history class at one point, and at another a Baptist friend of mine actually came out and told me that what Catholics believe is wrong, which as you can imagine did not do very much for our friendship).

I've actually gotten to the point that if somebody asks me, "Are you Catholic?" if they are using a certain type of tone (I was asked that in an almost accusatory way before because I had a Catholic Bible on my bookshelf), I answer quite defensively with a, "Yeah, so?" I admit I can be very defensive of my religion.

My other question was whether other Catholics refer to themselves as Christians? I ask because it seems that most I know simply refer to themselves as Catholics and don’t seem to use the Christian label. Not that they don’t like it, but just because calling themselves a Catholic seems to be sufficient.I usually call myself Catholic just to be specific, because there are so many different Christian religions. In my hometown, if people identify themselves as just "Christian," they probably go to the local non-denominational church.

[Kaitie]

I've actually gotten to the point that if somebody asks me, "Are you Catholic?" if they are using a certain type of tone (I was asked that in an almost accusatory way before because I had a Catholic Bible on my bookshelf), I answer quite defensively with a, "Yeah, so?" I admit I can be very defensive of my religion.

I usually call myself Catholic just to be specific, because there are so many different Christian religions. In my hometown, if people identify themselves as just "Christian," they probably go to the local non-denominational church.

Perhaps you can let your non-catholic fans :sarcasm: think about this statement for a while:

Since Christ established the universal church (catholic), it was a good fruit in the site of God. Any good fruit will yield good fruit. Since most denominations believe that the Catholic church is wrong--that would mean it was a bad fruit....any bad fruit will yield bad fruit.

So: either the Catholic church is 100% correct and everyone else left the good fruit or the Catholic church is wrong and everyone else's fruit comes from bad fruit...

Does that make sense? Either the Catholics are correct and everyone else abandoned the truth or the Catholics are wrong and the break-off denominations are based on an incorrect religion.

Being LDS I know what it's like to have people condemn you to hell for your beliefs--while reacting to their harsh and un-Christ like attitudes is usually non-productive, an occassional retort to hush them up is quite satisfying.

[Adiah]

Perhaps you can let your non-catholic fans :sarcasm: think about this statement for a while:

Since Christ established the universal church (catholic), it was a good fruit in the site of God. Any good fruit will yield good fruit. Since most denominations believe that the Catholic church is wrong--that would mean it was a bad fruit....any bad fruit will yield bad fruit.

So: either the Catholic church is 100% correct and everyone else left the good fruit or the Catholic church is wrong and everyone else's fruit comes from bad fruit...

Does that make sense? Either the Catholics are correct and everyone else abandoned the truth or the Catholics are wrong and the break-off denominations are based on an incorrect religion.

Being LDS I know what it's like to have people condemn you to hell for your beliefs--while reacting to their harsh and un-Christ like attitudes is usually non-productive, an occassional retort to hush them up is quite satisfying.That's an interesting way of looking at it (the good fruit, bad fruit thing). I've actually sort of said something similar to that before, except it was more along the lines of, since the other Christian religions came from the Catholic religion, if a Christian says bad things about the Catholic religion they are essentially saying bad things about their own religion.

[Kaitie]

I'm not Born-Again, I was baptised Catholic, disagree with a few things with the Church, but I believe in its Creed. My boyfriend is actually what you might call a born-again (he's Pentecostal), and through him I did get saved (he said the prayer with me). I'm still a Catholic though, and I don't want to switch churches because I am comfortable with the particular one I attend (in a really rural Caribbean community). I think it's great you want to grow in your faith; I'm also in fact trying to grow and be closer to God. A good site to go to is www.christianity.com, although personally a few of the preachers there seem to be a tad too zealous and condemning of people. Sometimes we need to learn to condemn the sin and not the sinner. Anyway, I hope that site helps you and good luck!


(this is a quote from the born again christians thread but I thought my questions were more appropriate for this thread)

I have a question: Do Born-again Christians really have a set prayer to say to "get saved"? Do they believe that unless you say this scripted prayer you cannot truly accept Christ as your Lord and Savior?

I was trying to be nice by using the word zealous to describe certain christians behavior towards those who are not the "correct type" of christian...anyway, why do people feel the need to condemn other people to hell? why do they feel that they have to "pray for your soul", why do they say they believe in Christ and act in a manner that is inconsistent with Christ's teachings? why do they tear down other people's faith or use scare tactics to draw them away from their faith rather than proclaiming their own?

Ok, that was more than one question and I really only want an answer to the first two b/c I know the answers to the others---but it just bugs me and sometimes I have to vent.

[JupieSmurf]

Hey, Haven't posted in a long time, but thought I'd talk about the reasons behind why polygamy is allowed in Islam.

During times of war, women would become widows, and women would outnumber men. So in order for them and their children to be provided for, polygamy was allowed. Also, if a woman isn't able to reproduce, the man has a right to another wife. Polygamy is not something to be abused. There are strict rules associated with it. IF a man has more than one wife for whatever reason. he absolutely must treat them equally in all respects. And he must spend equal time with each of his wives. It is a very difficult thing to do for a man to treat his wives equally and not show favoritism, which is why polygamy is not common. Also, a woman has her rights as well. A woman can write in her marriage contract that her husband is not allowed to marry again or without her permission.

Some say the veil (Hijab) is not required in Islam, saying that it is written in general terms in the Quran to dress modestly. However, Muslims do not only follow the Quran. We also follow Hadith (sayings and traditions of the prophet). The prophets wives and his daughter Fatima (as) dressed modestly. In Islam, a woman is allowed to leave her face, hands and feet uncovered. The covering of the face is a personal preference. And of course, as stated above, the reason for covering is modesty, so as not to attract men for the wrong reasons. A man should be attracted to a woman based on her personality and her mind, not because of her body.

A little more about hadith, for those who might be confused. Praying 5 times a day (as everyone knows is mandatory in Islam) is not actually written in the Quran. However, it is in Hadith, which is why Muslims know to pray 5 times a day. There are many laws outlined in hadith. And if there is ever any confusion, one can always go to an 'aalim (a learned person in Islam, a scholar) and ask him questions.

[1hp2]

Catholics are Christians...


That's not a rule! If you are Christian and you take communion in your own church there's nothing wrong with taking it at a catholic church!

There really aren't major differences between different denominations of Christianity except traditions and rituals, which when you think about it aren't that big of a deal. :angel:

This is most definately a rule. The Catholic church prohibits non Catholics from receiving communion from a Catholic Mass. If some Catholic Church is allowing non Catholics to receive communion, they are not following the rules.

For members of the Church of LDS, what is the Mountain Meadow Massacre?

[Cuthbert]

This is most definately a rule. The Catholic church prohibits non Catholics from receiving communion from a Catholic Mass. If some Catholic Church is allowing non Catholics to receive communion, they are not following the rules.

For members of the Church of LDS, what is the Mountain Meadow Massacre?

Do you remember whether Eastern Orthodox are allowed to take communion? I think that they might be the one exception, but I'd have to take some time to look into it.

[Kaitie]

For members of the Church of LDS, what is the Mountain Meadow Massacre?

Google says that the Mountain Meadow Massacre was a not so nice event in LDS history where a group of travelers were deceived by the mormons and then killed. The site I found this on claims that the details of the events are pretty much unknown b/c there are no records.

[Adiah]

Do you remember whether Eastern Orthodox are allowed to take communion? I think that they might be the one exception, but I'd have to take some time to look into it.
I'm not sure about this. I was under the impression that Eastern Orthodox was essentially Catholic, but was not recognized by the Vatican. I'm not entirely sure about that--I could be thinking about something else.

[The Pirate King]

1hp2, if you want more information on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, try this site: http://historytogo.utah.gov/mtmeadows.html

It's not pretty. As much as we might wish for all people to live according to the tenets of their faith, sometimes they fail--in this case, spectacularly.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Orthodox Christians can receive communion in Catholic churches (see here (http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/communion/eng/library/FAQ.shtml#q7))

[Adiah]

Orthodox Christians can receive communion in Catholic churches (see here (http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/communion/eng/library/FAQ.shtml#q7))
Isn't that because Eastern Orthodox is a Catholic branch that the Church doesn't recognize (or am I way out with this)?

[snuggle the muggle]

Google says that the Mountain Meadow Massacre was a not so nice event in LDS history where a group of travelers were deceived by the mormons and then killed. The site I found this on claims that the details of the events are pretty much unknown b/c there are no records.

Actually, we know a lot about what happened there and why it happened. There are a lot of really good books available and there will be another one in a year or two that the church is officially putting out. It will be the end all and be all book and by that I mean that if there is something about the MMM, it will be in there. My husband is helping with the research (not the writing) and they have sent him all over the US to get papers of people who were there and their families and they have found out a lot. But Juanita Brook's Book, "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" is still one of the best ones out there right now. Don't read Will Bagley's book. It is very prejudiced against the church and he comes to some really bad conclusions.

I could give you a lot of information, but this probably isn't the place. If you are interested in more, please owl me and I will either have my husband answer you directly, or I will if it is a pretty easy question. He knows a lot about it and what happened and who was killed and why.

It was a horrible tragedy, a really bad thing. That is for certain. But we as a church are not trying to hide it. We discuss it openly and admit that things went wrong.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Isn't that because Eastern Orthodox is a Catholic branch that the Church doesn't recognize (or am I way out with this)?
In the first millenium of Christianity there was a lot of dispute over whether there should be a 'central authority' over matters concerning the faith. The Church of Rome claimed the authority based on various arguments. Gradually most of the churches in the western half of the Roman Empire (and areas converted by those groups, such as Ireland) recognized the Vatican as the 'Holy See' although even in the Middle Ages there could be a lot of defiance and disagreement. In the East, however, the Vatican's authority was never accepted, and they do not have a central authority, although each national orthodox organization has a 'patriarch' who has authority somewhat similar to the Archbishop of Canterbury's authority in the Anglican Church. There was a critical breach between east and west near the year 1000, but I cannot recall exactly what precipitated that.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Originally Posted by Adiah
Isn't that because Eastern Orthodox is a Catholic branch that the Church doesn't recognize (or am I way out with this)?

Dedalus has given you the history on this but the key issue is that they have the same view as the Catholics on what communion is (though different views about details) They like the Roman church claim direct descent from the apostles which is why they are known as Apostolic churches. So whilst neither church believe that Protestant Ministers are properly ordained priests (because of breaks in the apostolic line) they recognise each others ordinations as valid.

The Schism of 1054 was one of the ghastliest acts of the church with Romans and Greeks hurling excommunications at each other in Constantinople. There were various causes mostly a matter of power. The key issues were changes to the creed and the role of the Bishop of Rome

[1hp2]

Orthodox Christians can receive communion in Catholic churches (see here (http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/communion/eng/library/FAQ.shtml#q7))

This is not 100%. Technically yes non Catholics can get permission to receive communion in the Catholic Church. But, that is the key they need to sort of get it pre-approved. And while it is easiest for members of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be approved because they have the same beliefs about the sacraments as Catholics, they are not supposed to just go to a Catholic mass and receive communion. In addition, it is much more difficult for other groups of Christians to receive communion from a Catholic priest than the Orthodox because in many instances they have different beliefs in the sacraments than the Catholics and the Orthodox. So, regardless of which of the Christian faiths one belongs (even the Orthodox faith), they are to ask for the sacrament, not just take it.

[ztad]

Anyone out there who knows who or what "the Dada" is?

[Kaitie]

DADA: Defense Against the Dart Arts

[Rapunzel]

www.dictionary.com

Da·da or da·da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dädä)
n.
A European artistic and literary movement (1916-1923) that flouted conventional aesthetic and cultural values by producing works marked by nonsense, travesty, and incongruity.

:lol:@Kaitie (I don't think that DADA is a religion.)

[rambkowalczyk]

I have some questions about Hinduism.

In the movie Bend it like Beckam, I believe the girl's family was Hindu. Who was that portrait of the old man? Is he a well known leader or spiritual advisor? As I recollect in the movie the picture seemed to make her feel guilty for decieving her parents.

Do Hindus go to their weekly equivalent of a mass or religious service?

In Christianity the holy days are focused on Jesus' birth, death and resurrection. What are the major holy days in Hindu, and what are they about?

[halfbreedlover]

In the movie Bend it like Beckam, I believe the girl's family was Hindu.

Actually, they were Sikh, which is a branch of Hinduism that doesn't believe in the Caste System. The way you tell is by the shape of the turban.

As for that man, I have no clue who he is. I believe Hindus do go to a temple regularly, I don't know if it's every week.

[iluvhhr]

Is it true that in some Christian religions, birthdays aren't celebrated? Also, I don't mean to offend anyone, but in my religion class, my teacher said Mormons saw Africans and African-Americans as less superior than whites. Is this true?

[Kaitie]

Is it true that in some Christian religions, birthdays aren't celebrated? Also, I don't mean to offend anyone, but in my religion class, my teacher said Mormons saw Africans and African-Americans as less superior than whites. Is this true?

Oy vey...if I hear that one more "teacher" is spouting non-truths about the mormons I'm going to scream!!

Teachers are morally and ethically obligated to teach true facts, not personal opinions and they should be downright ashamed of themselves for not actually researching a topic before spreading it to their students as truth....

That said, NO Mormons do not think that any person, race, religion, etc...is inferior.

Grr.... that makes me so mad! :grumble:

Thanks for actually searching for a true answer rather than believing your obviously ignorant teacher.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Is it true that in some Christian religions, birthdays aren't celebrated?
From what I have heard through a brother-in-law (he and his wife are Jehovah's Witnesses), Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate no birthdays or holidays. Whether they are actually Christians is a matter of some dispute among Christians, but I believe they count themselves as such.

[iluvhhr]

Oy vey...if I hear that one more "teacher" is spouting non-truths about the mormons I'm going to scream!!

Teachers are morally and ethically obligated to teach true facts, not personal opinions and they should be downright ashamed of themselves for not actually researching a topic before spreading it to their students as truth....

That said, NO Mormons do not think that any person, race, religion, etc...is inferior.

Grr.... that makes me so mad! :grumble:

Thanks for actually searching for a true answer rather than believing your obviously ignorant teacher.

Thanks for answering. I didn't think Mormons saw Africans and African-Americans as inferior. Maybe some other religions do? I don't think I've ever heard of a Christian religion viewing a race as inferior, though.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Thanks for answering. I didn't think Mormons saw Africans and African-Americans as inferior. Maybe some other religions do? I don't think I've ever heard of a Christian religion viewing a race as inferior, though.
There have been numerous times that people claiming to be Christian (and almost any other group) have claimed religious justification for treating others as inferior. Christians often say "Satan quotes Scripture to suit his purposes" and this is one of the best examples.

[Ginny1976]

Thanks for answering. I didn't think Mormons saw Africans and African-Americans as inferior. Maybe some other religions do? I don't think I've ever heard of a Christian religion viewing a race as inferior, though.


I don't think that any religion who would call themselves Christians would think of any other as inferior. To be a Christian, one would be trying to exemplify Christ and He never thought of anyone as inferior. Christ taught to love one another and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[halfbreedlover]

Oy vey...if I hear that one more "teacher" is spouting non-truths about the mormons I'm going to scream!!

Teachers are morally and ethically obligated to teach true facts, not personal opinions and they should be downright ashamed of themselves for not actually researching a topic before spreading it to their students as truth....

That said, NO Mormons do not think that any person, race, religion, etc...is inferior.

Grr.... that makes me so mad! :grumble:

Thanks for actually searching for a true answer rather than believing your obviously ignorant teacher.

I understand things have changed greatly since the days of Mr. Young or Mr. Smith for that matter. This misconception might have stemmed from the fact that Mormons forbade African Americans from becoming ministers. I'm not sure, but I don't think they were allowed to join the congregation either. Obviously, this has changed as I know Mormons have missions in Africa, so obviously there must be black ministers there.

[Ginny1976]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints didn't allow africans to hold the priesthood of the church, which yes, wouldn't allow for them to hold administrative positions, which we believe was the will of our Father in Heaven. But in 1976 He(God) overturned that. However, africans have always been allowed to be an active member in the Church as well as all other cultures/nationalities.

[theprof]

If I can jump back a long way:
Originally Posted by erynae
What is the religion where the women don't cut their hair and they were bandanas (not hijabs)
Do you mean Menanites?
:lol: I assume you mean Mennonites, but we cut our hair and don't wear bandanas, so that must not be what erynae was referring to.

[Rosie Cotton]

If I can jump back a long way:

:lol: I assume you mean Mennonites, but we cut our hair and don't wear bandanas, so that must not be what erynae was referring to.


Sorry about the misspelling. Really? I met some Mennonites who said they did. That's strange. And then, I'm homeschooled and my Home Ec book was made by a Mennonite Publishing Company, and the pictures are like that. Hmm.

[Adiah]

About Jehovah's Witnesses: Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate Passover, but that's the only holiday they recognize.



About some so-called "Christian" religions holding some races as inferior: sometimes I wonder, do they really think Jesus was white? :huh:



About Mennonites: I'm not really in a position to say, but I was under the impression that some Mennonites live a lifestyle very similar to the Amish.

[Mundungus Fletc]

About some so-called "Christian" religions holding some races as inferior: sometimes I wonder, do they really think Jesus was white?
The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa during the Apartheid regime found themselves able to justify the system - though some courageous individuals opposed such nonsense.

[snuggle the muggle]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints didn't allow africans to hold the priesthood of the church, which yes, wouldn't allow for them to hold administrative positions, which we believe was the will of our Father in Heaven. But in 1976 He(God) overturned that. However, africans have always been allowed to be an active member in the Church as well as all other cultures/nationalities.

It was actually 1978, although that is nitpicking.

Good question, though, and some good answers. Actually, Joseph Smith (the first Prophet of the Church) never said anything against black people (African-Americans, negroes, however you want to call it) having the priesthood and in general the Mormons were very kind to them, even to the point where it started causing major problems in Missouri and this was part of what got them driven out, as they were against slavery and this was pre-Civil War. It was not until President Brigham Young's time that this became ensconsed in church tradition and then became sort of the de facto rule of the church. It is all very interesting and there have been a lot of books written about it, how it started etc. I won't attempt to go into that here as I am sure you don't want to read an entire novel about it. Suffice it to say that for many years we did not believe that blacks should hold the priesthood and that this was for reasons that God understood but we did not.

However, as the church started spreading more in Africa that needed to change. Our prophet at the time (Spencer W. Kimball) prayed for years that this could somehow be changed, and in 1978, he received a revelation saying that now any man worthy could hold the priesthood. Since then, our church has grown exponentially in Africa and there are even temples there, although I am not sure how many. Hope that answers the question.

[Dedalus Diggle]

Our prophet at the time (Spencer W. Kimball) prayed for years that this could somehow be changed, and in 1978, he received a revelation saying that now any man worthy could hold the priesthood.

MEN only for LDS priesthood?

[Kaitie]

Yes Dedalus, LDS men hold the priesthood. We believe that men and women have been blessed with God's power. Men have the power to use the priesthood to cure the sick etc... and women have the power to create life.

[theprof]

Sorry about the misspelling. Really? I met some Mennonites who said they did. That's strange. And then, I'm homeschooled and my Home Ec book was made by a Mennonite Publishing Company, and the pictures are like that. Hmm.
About Mennonites: I'm not really in a position to say, but I was under the impression that some Mennonites live a lifestyle very similar to the Amish.
Well, I'm Mennonite, and if I lived a lifestyle similar to the Amish, I wouldn't be online! :p it's a common misconception, don't worry about it.

You are right though that SOME Mennonites do that. There are many branches of the Mennonite church, with varying degrees of conservative behaviors. Some have renounced as much technology as the Amish (but they aren't Amish--there are some differences in beliefs between Mennonites and Amish), and go without electricity and use the horse and buggy and everything. Some use electricity and drive cars (usually black ones) but still dress conservatively and have more restricitions on their lifestyle (maybe no TV or Internet or something). But anyone you can look at and recognize as Mennonite (the cape dress, head covering, etc--probably like those pictures you saw, Rosie) would be better called a conservative Mennonite. They are pretty much only in the US. But there are many more US Mennonites that have all the same technology, etc. that any other person does. And actually, there are more Mennonites in other countries than in the US, and they all live like the culture they live in as far as I know. But we do dress modestly, like the LDS probably.

The idea behind the conservatism (is that a word? Oh well--it communicates! :) ) is to be in the world but not of it, carried to the extreme and possibly misinterpreted. You can have a very "worldly" mindset and still wear a cape dress and drive an all black car. That's what most Mennonites decided a long time ago: being different from the world is about how you speak and act, not how you dress.

[Rosie Cotton]

I see. Thanks for the clarification, theprof. Very informative.

[SageThyme]

Rosie (I like that name, it's my husband's "call sign" in the Navy), you asked about the Catholic religion and some of the sacraments. Here they are:

1. Baptism - given for two reasons. First, to absolve Original Sin. As we believe only Adam and Eve were born without it, we have to be cleansed of their Sin. Second, to renounce Satan and all that he stands for. This sacrament is given to be welcomed into the Church. It is usually done when we are infants and our parents and Godparents "speak for us".

2. Reconciliation - "Confession". This is usually given to us when we are children in the 2nd grade (7-8 years old). There are 3 parts: Sorry - where we choose not to sin. Forgiveness - where God forgives. Reconciliation - where we choose to live a life of love.

3. First Communion - This is usually given to us also in the 2nd grade. I think the explanation of this one has been given.

4. Confirmation - Usually given in the 8th grade. This is like the "adult" Baptism. We re-affirm our Baptism, but we say the words instead of our parents and Godparents. This is also where we choose to be members of the Catholic church of our own accord. We also take the name of a Saint for our Confirmation name (for Catholic purposes it is after our given middle names).

5/6. This is one or the other, but NEVER both at the same time. Holy Matrimony. Self explanitory. Or Holy Orders - where a man takes vows to become a priest.

7. Sacrament of the Sick - this one used to be called "Extreme unction", or Last Rites, and was given to someone on their death bed. The Church changed it to the "Sick" and anyone can get it as many times as they are sick. I remember getting this one at 14, when I got my tonsils out. Scary - when the Priest comes walking into my room and asks me if I want to be blessed and if I wanted confession (I didn't know that it had been changed to the "Sick"). I looked at the Doc and asked him "How many tonsillectomies have you done?"

Hope this helps with your research.

[Wab]

5/6. This is one or the other, but NEVER both. Holy Matrimony. Self explanitory. Or Holy Orders - where a man takes vows to become a priest.

Not entirely true. A widower can study for Holy Orders

[Mundungus Fletc]

Not entirely true. A widower can study for Holy Orders

As can a married convert if he was a protestant minister. In the Uniate churches (Catholic churches following the Eastern tradition) many priests are married - though no Bishops

[SageThyme]

Wab, I knew one of you would bring up widower. I'm suprised you didn't mention Final Vows that a nun takes, which run alongside Holy Orders, but is not considered a Sacrament.

I meant it as, you can't have both at the same time, i.e., you can't be married and be a priest in the Roman Catholic church at the same time.

[Mundungus Fletc]

i.e., you can't be married and be a priest in the Roman Catholic church at the same time.
But you can - there are converted Anglican ministers ordained as Latin rite priests in the Roamn Catholic Church, even though they are married, in Britain and I think in the US. And of course in the Uniate churches married priests are common.
A nun's final vows are those of matrimony so most definitely a sacrament.
Most Catholics are unaware that Rome is ordaining married Protestant ministers into the priesthood and assigning them to parishes here in the United States. Rome is allowing them to remain married and providing support for their families. In ordaining to the priesthood over one hundred married Protestant ministers, the Vatican has, in effect, re-established the married priesthood in today’s Roman Catholic Church. They have acted upon Pope John Paul II’s public statement that celibacy is not necessary for priesthood
from here (http://fathervince.home.att.net/mpfacts.htm)

[SageThyme]

All right Mundungus, you know your Roman Catholicism. I was merely giving a 14 year old LDS some 'bare bones' info about it. I figured if she wanted more in depth knowledge she can ask. I didn't expect my reply to be scrutinized under a microscope. Sooo sorry.

[Kaitie]

What is a Uniate?

[Mundungus Fletc]

Uniate Catholics are those members of the church who practise a different rite (order of service sort of) to the main Latin church. The largest congregations are in places like Ukraine but there are also Armenian and Coptic Uniate churches. Go here (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/eastrite.htm) for a fuller explanation

[Adiah]

4. Confirmation - Usually given in the 8th grade. This is like the "adult" Baptism. We re-affirm our Baptism, but we say the words instead of our parents and Godparents. This is also where we choose to be members of the Catholic church of our own accord. We also take the name of a Saint for our Confirmation name (for Catholic purposes it is after our given middle names).
The church I go to doesn't actually do Confirmation until 10th grade.

[SageThyme]

Adiah, I guess some churches do it later. I was confirmed at the end of my 8th grade year (I have the pics and the certificate to prove it).

[Goldberry]

I have kind of a dumb question...I have been told that the first five books of what Christians call the Old Testament (Bereishith, Shemoth, Vayiqra, Bamidbar, and Devarim, in Hebrew) is called the Torah by Jews. Is it also correct that the Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim are collectively known as the Torah? Or am I confused about that?

[Rosie Cotton]

I have kind of a dumb question...I have been told that the first five books of what Christians call the Old Testament (Bereishith, Shemoth, Vayiqra, Bamidbar, and Devarim, in Hebrew) is called the Torah by Jews. Is it also correct that the Torah, Nevi'im, and Kethuvim are collectively known as the Torah? Or am I confused about that?

Hmmm. Do we have any Jews with us? I don't rightly know. We'll have to search out someone of the Jewish faith, or is knowledgable about it.

[Goldberry]

Oh, I think I found the answer! All the writings of the Old Testament are called the Tanakh. Thanks for replying, though! :)

[Auror Williamson]

For Mormons/LDS:

Why is polygamy tolerated/accepted/promoted within the LDS church? I've always wondered this. Is there any reasoning behind it, as in Biblical context etc.?

[Pegasus]

Back in the early days of the Church, during the time of the pioneers, it was. We believe it came by revelation to Joseph Smith. The most practical reason was that there was a lot of death among the members due to both extermination and disease, bringing about a lot of widows and fatherless children. As the pioneers were driven clear across the country, mostly by foot, in all weather and with little food and supplies, perhaps you can see that. The circumstances changed a while after the pioneers settled Utah, and polygamy came to an official end with a revelation to Wilford Woodruff, the third prophet of the Church. A Manifesto dated 1890 was published as Declaration 1 in Doctrine and Covenants, a book of LDS scripture, which stated publicly that "We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice...."
The Church no longer participates/tolerates/accepts/condones the practice of plural marriage, and members who do are excommunicated. The groups so heavily publicized in the news are not members of the LDS Church, but small offshoots who decided to break away and start their own churches. They are not LDS/Mormons. The LDS Church is a worldwide organization; these little groups have no part in that organization.

[The Pirate King]

Beware, long post ahead!

I have heard Pegasus' reason (to provide safety for widows and orphans) as well as the argument that it was a swift way to raise up a generation of people who would be taught the Gospel and be disciples of Jesus Christ. But the real, most basic reason why early Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage was because they believed God told them to do so.

Joseph Smith, Jr. received a revelation from God concerning "the new and everlasting covenant" of marriage--that is, marriage that has the power to last for eternity. (If you want to read the revelation in its entirety, it can be found here (http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132)). It is still very much a part of Mormon doctrine to believe in eternal marriage--we believe that a marriage solemnized in a Mormon temple, between a husband and wife who remain true to the promises they make to each other and God there, will last now and forever.

This revelation also discusses plural marriage/polygamy in some detail. A small percentage of Mormons (depending on whom you ask, statistics vary anywhere from two to ten percent of the early Church) practiced polygamy--again, because they believed that God had instructed them to do so. This religious practice was not at all accepted by society of the day, and was one of several reasons why Mormons were sometimes hated and persecuted by their neighbors. It was also not uniformly accepted by members of the Church, some of whom renounced their faith over this doctrine.

In 1890, LDS prophet Wilford Woodruff issued an official declaration--sometimes called the Manifesto--indicating that Mormons would no longer enter into plural marriage covenants. (Read it here (http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1).) In all subsequent references to the Manifesto, President Woodruff said he had been instructed by God to stop the practice of plural marriage within the Church. One might reasonably presume that plural marriage had fulfilled its role within the Church and was no longer necessary, and that indeed it was endangering the continued existence of the Church.

Just as when the original revelation had been issued, there were strong differences of opinion among Church members about the Manifesto. Most polygamists whose marriages had already been solemnized continued to live with and care for their wives and children; for the most part, the Church did not punish those who had entered into this covenant before the Manifesto. Others who wanted to practice polygamy split from the Church, often fleeing to remote corners of the territory so they could practice plural marriage in secret. These persons were excommunicated from the Church. Several of these groups formed their own churches, most of which espouse doctrines at least loosely based on Mormonism, but they are not considered Mormons--any more than Martin Luther's followers were considered Catholics.

Plural marriage is still a hot-button issue in the Church today. I have met very few active Mormons, male or female, who have seriously expressed a desire to enter into polygamous relationships. (OK, the guys usually like to joke about it because, well, they're guys, but that's about it.)

[Rosie Cotton]

Back in the early days of the Church, during the time of the pioneers, it was. We believe it came by revelation to Joseph Smith. The most practical reason was that there was a lot of death among the members due to both extermination and disease, bringing about a lot of widows and fatherless children. As the pioneers were driven clear across the country, mostly by foot, in all weather and with little food and supplies, perhaps you can see that. The circumstances changed a while after the pioneers settled Utah, and polygamy came to an official end with a revelation to Wilford Woodruff, the third prophet of the Church. A Manifesto dated 1890 was published as Declaration 1 in Doctrine and Covenants, a book of LDS scripture, which stated publicly that "We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice...."
The Church no longer participates/tolerates/accepts/condones the practice of plural marriage, and members who do are excommunicated. The groups so heavily publicized in the news are not members of the LDS Church, but small offshoots who decided to break away and start their own churches. They are not LDS/Mormons. The LDS Church is a worldwide organization; these little groups have no part in that organization.

Great post, Pegasus, I just have to nit-pick. Woodruff was the fourth. Taylor was the third. Smith, Young, Taylor, Woodruff. (primary songs) :lol:

[Pegasus]

Oops :blush:

[Rosie Cotton]

Oops :blush:

No problem. Primary songs are my best friends. :lol: They have so much info in them.

[Pegasus]

The truly embarrassing part is that I not only know that song, I've taught it to numerous primary kids.

[GryffindorSeeker]

"Number one, Joseph Smith, then Brigham Young. John Taylor came third we know, then Wilfurd Woodruff, Florenzo Snow..." :D

For the Catholics: What are Hail Marys and Our Fathers?

[Dedalus Diggle]

"Number one, Joseph Smith, then Brigham Young. John Taylor came third we know, then Wilfurd Woodruff, Florenzo Snow..." :D

For the Catholics: What are Hail Marys and Our Fathers?
Well, I'm not Catholic, but I know the answer. The Catholics have long named prayers by the first few words said. The "Our Father", or in Latin Paternoster, is the Lord's prayer. "Hail Mary" is the beginning of a prayer to Mary (some insist that it is a prayer for her intercession, as with the other nemed Saints, but there is a substantial segment that considers Mary co-equal with the Trinity). There are a lot more prayers identified by their Latin beginnings, even if they are no longer said in Latin in most cases.

[purplehawk]

So much information to chew on here!

Do any of you attend interracial, or mixed, congregations? How welcoming are your churches to people of color?

[agpotter]

So much information to chew on here!

Do any of you attend interracial, or mixed, congregations? Are you forbidden by faith to associate with people of other race?

White LDS male here....

Hmmmmmmm...... This is an issue that every now and then we LDS are accused of... The truth is that we are not at all racial, nor do we discriminate against any person, regardless of their race, color, or even chocies. We love everyone, and everyone is welcome to come unto Christ through the LDS teachings. Any faithful, worthy male member of the church, regardless of their race or nationality, is allowed to hold the Priesthood, or the authority to act in God's name on the earth.

I happen to have been raised in a relatively small Utah town, so we didn't have many black or Oriental or even Hispanic people in our congregations, just because they weren't really a part of the local demographic. However, since starting at BYU, I have been a part of congregations that were mixed to the highest degree. For instance, right now, since I live near an English Learning Center on campus, there are people from China, Korea, Japan, The Phillipines, Peru, Mexico, and several African Americans and other black people from outside the USA.

The church is going forward in (almost) every nation on the earth, and there are church leaders of every nationality and race, we are not at all forbidden to associate with anyone (with the exception that it's a recommendation to avoid too much association with those who are anti-LDS or who deliberatley and maliciously preach against the doctrines and principles of the church).

Yeah, that's a little long, but I hope it answered your question.... :)

[purplehawk]

Yeah, that's a little long, but I hope it answered your question.... :)

You did great, agpotter. Thank you for responding. :tu: I've been reading quite a lot about the LDS lately. A lot of what I read on the issue of race within the church was disturbing, particularly certain text from the Book of Mormon. I was stricken with the similarity of the wording therein to stuff I read long ago about conservative Christians in the southern United States. As a black woman and a devout Christian myself, I am probably a bit more sensitive to the issue than others. Thanks again!

[agpotter]

Yes, not all Christian Conservatives are Mormons.... :) But I wonder what exactly you've been reading, if you find it disturbing.... Most of the modern-day LDS doctrine is pretty positive and uplifting... Anyway, glad to be of help.

[purplehawk]

Is there a link you can guide me to? BTW, a member turned me on to your website this evening. Your artwork is wonderful!

[agpotter]

I would suggest http://www.lds.org or http://www.mormon.org for some of the more accessible information.

And thanks for the compliment, I really appreciate it! I hope you left some comments under the ones you liked (or didn't like....). :)

[purplehawk]

And thanks for the compliment, I really appreciate it! I hope you left some comments under the ones you liked (or didn't like....). :)

I didn't :blush: but I promise to do so in the next couple of days. Thanks for the links.

[Ginny1976]

Hey Purplehawk! I recognize you from Potterskeys. Anyhoo, I'm white and LDS and married to a Samoan and we've always been accepted wherever we went within our church. I wonder if the things that struck you in the Book of Mormon was about when the Lamanites were turned dark skinned?

[Mundungus Fletc]

The 'Our Father' is the prayer Jesus gave us in the gospels and told us to say.
The Hail Mary is a prayer asking Mary to pray for us The full text is here. (http://www.worldprayers.org/frameit.cgi?/archive/prayers/invocations/hail_mary_full_of_grace.html) No proper Catholic would put Mary on the same footing as the Trinity but as the Mother of God she is regarded highly

Incidentally to explain intercession if you have ever asked someone to pray for you you have asked them to intercede for you. Catholics believe the Saints are alive in heaven and therefore able to answer requests.

[purplehawk]

Hey Purplehawk! I recognize you from Potterskeys. Anyhoo, I'm white and LDS and married to a Samoan and we've always been accepted wherever we went within our church. I wonder if the things that struck you in the Book of Mormon was about when the Lamanites were turned dark skinned?

Hi Ginny!

Yep, those were the passages that got my goat. It was pretty tough reading descriptions of people of color as "dark and loathesome." I'm hoping to discover that some of that has since been repudiated in the links agpotter gave me.

[Pegasus]

"Dark and loathsome" is usually a description of behavior in the scriptures. What you read was taken out of context. They were doing terrible things like warring and killing for the fun of it. I'm off for the morning--someone else can pick up where I left off.

[purplehawk]

"Dark and loathsome" is usually a description of behavior in the scriptures. What you read was taken out of context. They were doing terrible things like warring and killing for the fun of it.

Who are "they?" I'm really confused.

[snuggle the muggle]

"Dark and loathsome" is usually a description of behavior in the scriptures. What you read was taken out of context. They were doing terrible things like warring and killing for the fun of it. I'm off for the morning--someone else can pick up where I left off.

Edit: I just saw that you had asked a question. "They" would be the Lamanites, the descendents of Laman, the brother of Nephi.

Pegasus is right, here. Although the language is a bit confusing, and I certainly do not have hours to start quoting scripture out of the Book of Mormon, I will try to do my best to address this rather sensitive topic. Keep in mind, that even the Nephites were not really white-skinned, either, they were Jews, straight from Jerusalem, so they would have the classic "middle-eastern look," very dark probably. Also, I want to emphasize this strongly before I try to alay your worries. We are all God's children and he loves us all equally. He is "no respector of persons" which means that what you look like while you live on this earth makes no difference in his level of love for you. You could be albino with completely translucent skin or the blackest black from the depths of Africa and he would love you exactly the same. So, for anyone at any time to say that having black skin or white skin makes you worse or better than anyone else is an absolute falsehood. Every single person on this earth was loved so much by God that he sent his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, here to die for them. He died for me, and you, and everyone else who is reading this forum, even if they do not believe in him. It was his free gift to all mankind and I am so grateful for that.

However, God does expect us to live as righteously as we know how. That is how we pay him back for that gift, really. By trying to follow the commandments he gave us as best as we can. Now, some of us know a lot about Christ and thus have a great responsibility to live all of his commandments. Others, such as those raised in countries like China, may go through their entire life and never even hear about Christ. Fortunately, God has made arrangements for that and I do not want to get into that with this discussion. With that in mind, then, nothing makes God more angry than people who know about Christ and the truth and ignore it, deny it, fight against it.

In the Book of Mormon, that is what happened. The Lamanites broke off from the Nephites and left Nephi's group (he was the prophet) and started doing their own thing, warring against them, living like savages in the jungle, eating their meat raw, being lazy, and practicing idolatry. So, the scriptures describe that they marked themselves, that they become a dark and loathsome people, but I do not think that this literally means skin color. Maybe eventually they did become darker just because of their lifestyle, but later in the Book of Mormon, when the Lamanites are the good ones and the Nephites are the bad ones, the opposite does not happen. There is a scripture which says that the Lamanites became a white and delightsome people, but again, this is just because they were living righteously and were doing what God wanted. I really don't think they woke up one morning and were suddenly "white skinned." That just does not make any sense.

I think by the end of the Book of Mormon, the various groups had intermarried so much and the Lamanites had become righteous and the Nephites wicked and then reversed it again, and then turned around yet again, that really there were no specific "Lamanites" and "Nephites." It was just how they decided to call themselves. The difference in the original blood had long since been eradicated. I don't even think they could tell the difference between themselves because when they went into battle they had to mark themselves to know who to kill and who to spare. One of the absolutely heart-breaking parts of the Book of Mormon is at the end when Mormon is looking over the battlefield and starts enumerating the 10s of thousands who perished. Very sad and I always have to catch my breath at that part.

The Book of Mormon is a scripture written for our day to tell us how to live the way that God wants us to. It is a very complex book and I could not hope to really do it justice here, but I do want to assure you again that the words "dark and loathsome" have little if nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with following the commandments of God and accepting Christ into your life. Certainly, it is not much different for us today. There are wicked people around who just have a darkness about their countenance that has nothing to do with their actual skin tone and so much to do with the fact that Satan is with them. And most of us can sense that. We can also sense light and beauty and Godliness about a person that again has nothing to do with skin and so much to do with the presence of God about them. If you will look at people around you thinking about that, I think you will recognize that as well.

Well, this has gone on much too long, but I wanted to reassure you, Purplehawk, and anyone else who is reading this thread, that God loves all of us equally and that the color of skin we are born with makes absolutely no difference and that the LDS Church teaches us to love everyone and to see them as God sees them, as a true child of God.

[purplehawk]

I wanted to reassure you, Purplehawk, and anyone else who is reading this thread, that God loves all of us equally and that the color of skin we are born with makes absolutely no difference and that the LDS Church teaches us to love everyone and to see them as God sees them, as a true child of God.

The quote just above would be true also of my beliefs as a Baptist-turned-Presbyterian. We also share the love of family and the commitment to live our lives in a way that is representative and reverent of Christ's gift to us.

I've read a number of websites that insist the Church of LDS is, shall we say, less than even-handed in its treatment of dark-skinned people, or that it has been so in the past. agpotter gave me a couple of great links to the Church and I've been comparing the scriptures on those sites to the ones quoted on sites ravaging Mormon as being a white supremacist religion. There are definitely differences and, as Peg noted, there is also the context to consider. None of the earlier sites I saw presented the entire scripture, just enough of it to stress whatever point they were trying to make.

On the other hand, many of those questionable sites quote from something called the Journal of Discourses and the LDS archives, neither of which are available at The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (http://www.mormon.org/) or LDS.org (http://www.lds.org/).

Without typing out or pasting in the offensive words, the bit I'm looking for is Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, pp. 290-291, which supposedly contains a quote from Brigham Young relative to people of color.

[snuggle the muggle]

Well, I just ran downstairs and checked, and as I suspected, we do not own a copy of the Journal of Discourses. So, I'm sorry I cannot look up that quote for you. I will try to find it and get it but it wouldn't be until tonight at the earliest. Sorry.

I also have to tell you that several very large volumes have been written about the history of the LDS Church and "black" people. (I will use that term as African-Americans does not really address the entire subject.) So I cannot possibly hope to even begin to touch the entire subject. If you are really interested in knowing and getting the true facts about it rather than a slanted and distorted view from anti-Mormon literature, may I suggest a book called "Saints, Slaves, and Blacks" by Jessie Embry. There is another one by Armaund Mauss but I cannot think of the name of it off the top of my head. These are scholarly approaches rather than pro-church and so I think you will get a very balanced look in either of them at a very complicated issue. There is also a set of historial fiction novels written about black people in the early church that I think you might enjoy called "Building on the Promises." I can't think of the authors, but I have heard very good things about the series and have ever heard two of the authors speak, although I confess that I have not read it.

This is a very complicated issue. We discussed this briefly earlier in this thread in relationship to black men being able now to hold the priesthood, but only being able to for the last 27 years. And I certainly would never consider myself an expert on this subject, but I know a little bit about it because my husband is an historian and is always talking about these sorts of things.

The history of how blacks have been approached in this church is rather strange to our modern sensibilities where equality and justice and everything is so engrained in our social consciousness. It was not always so, and I am afraid to say that many people in the church, due to their upbringing, did not always have the most charitable view toward blacks. Joseph Smith treated blacks very well during his lifetime and from what records we have concerning it, this was part of the reason that the saints were driven from place to place in the very early years. They were very anti-slavery and this was in the 1830s and 40s when slavery was a hot issue and if you didn't agree with the people around you, they didn't like it very much. But there were actually several black members of the church at that time, and they were treated very well, at least comparatively to most white communities.

However, after Joseph was killed and the saints were driven out of Illinois and into Utah, some traditions got started that made it seem obvious that black men were not allowed to hold the priesthood. This became entrenched gospel doctrine and led to many people thinking that this meant we somehow felt that black people were inferior. I do not believe we ever felt that way, but it was very hard to convince people of that fact, and I can't say I blame them. Like I said in my earlier post on the Priesthood, the general consensus was that blacks could not hold the priesthood because that is what God wanted and other than that we did not really know why. There have been many theories floated over the years such as (and let me reiterate that this is a theory that I heard, not my own belief) that black people were not faithful in the pre-existence and that they managed to be good enough to come down to earth but as punishment for their faithlessness, the don't get to hold the priesthood, and the like. What a bunch of hooey.

There was never an official reason, just that the time was not right. I suppose that it is human nature to try to make up some reason so that our logical minds can accept something that seems so strange -- just like the Inquisition being justified by their torturing heretics, or by slaveowners justifying owning someone else by saying that they were not a whole person, etc. And I think that all those theories are people's attempts to give some reason to an otherwise un-understandable thing, which I can sympathize with. But we really don't know the reason why. Blacks were always allowed to join the church and we had several congregations in Africa, etc., and they were always welcomed into the church with open arms, they just could not hold the priesthood. I hope that after I die, God will explain this to me, because I think that is the only way I will really know or understand it myself.

Fortunately, in 1978, Spencer W. Kimball, our prophet at that time, received a revelation that said in no uncertain terms that all worthy men could hold the priesthood, no matter what race they were. Now, to the best of my understanding, this did not change one single thing about the ways blacks were treated in the church, just allowed them to receive the priesthood. Since then, our church has been growing very quickly in Africa and we even have at least one temple there. Gordon B. Hinkley, our current prophet, has been to Africa many times and has often expressed his gratitude for the strength and pure testimony that the African saints have.

So, I guess to sum it up, I could say: "You're right. Things were weird. I'm glad they're better now." Hopefully, I made a little more sense. I just urge you and anyone else who has questions on Church doctrine to do as much research as you feel you need to, just make sure that you are actually looking at reputable sources and not at anti-Mormon stuff because they do twist words and parse quotes to make things seem almost the opposite of what they really were. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference, I will agree, and sometimes you don't want really pro-Church stuff either because then you feel that you aren't getting a fair shake on the other side either, so it is tricky. So read a variety of sources, actually look up the quotes, don't be afraid to ask questions, even tricky ones. The answers are out there because believe me if a non-member struggles with a question I can assure you that there are people inside the church that are just as confused. Contrary to popular belief we do not just follow our leaders around like sheep and take whatever they say as absolute truth. We are supposed to find things out for ourselves and if there are strange things in church history or the modern church, they are bothering us just as much and somewhere someone has probably written a book or an article about it which you can also read.

I hope this helped a little bit. Just a quick side note about some of the things Brigham Young said. I know he was a prophet and I believe that he did God's work while he was a prophet, but he said some mighty strange stuff, things that we do not as a church understand to this day. Why? I don't know. Maybe some of it was so advanced that we won't understand it until after we're dead. Anti-Mormons are always happy to pull out some of his really strange comments and say that this proves such thing and such thing. Just not true. Just because B.Y. said it does not mean it was ever official church doctrine or that we believe it now. I think it is more important to look at what was actually taught and what is taught now than some of his more obscure quotes. Because sometimes he was just a little bit nutty. Seriously.

[Rosie Cotton]

Also, I was reading "The Other Side of Heaven," Snuggle the Muggle, and in it it says that in the time it takes place (50s/60s, I believe) Tongan, Samoan, et cetera men weren't allowed to hold the priesthood until they were married.

[Ginny1976]

Also, I was reading "The Other Side of Heaven," Snuggle the Muggle, and in it it says that in the time it takes place (50s/60s, I believe) Tongan, Samoan, et cetera men weren't allowed to hold the priesthood until they were married.


Hmmm, my husband is Samoan, I'll have to ask him about that.

[purplehawk]

Thanks, snuggle. I mean that sincerely, not least for the monstrous case of carpal tunnel syndrome I must have caused you to have to type out your two posts. I shall try to get my hands on a copy of "Saints, Slaves, and Blacks." I confess to being on something of a mission to get to the bottom of this one, and you've given a huge head start on things.

Are there black bishops in the Church now?

[GryffindorSeeker]

Yes, there are. We have wards, branches, and stakes in many parts of Africa, so there would have to be black branch presidents, bishops, stake presidents to preside over them, wouldn't there? I mean, they wouldn't import whites to do that, because it wouldn't make sense with the worthy men already in the wards. Not to mention, we have them in other wards across the world, including America.

Also, for my question, thanks for the replies! That cleared up my questions on that!

[purplehawk]

Yes, there are. We have wards, branches, and stakes in many parts of Africa, so there would have to be black branch presidents, bishops, stake presidents to preside over them, wouldn't there? I mean, they wouldn't import whites to do that, because it wouldn't make sense with the worthy men already in the wards.

Thanks, GS. None here in the United States, though?

[GryffindorSeeker]

We have black bishops in the U.S. I edited my post just after you replied to it, because I realised that I had forgotten half of what I was going to post! I'm honestly too tired today... back to the point.

Yes, we do have black bishops in the U.S., and in all of the world. In the mid 1970s, when black men were given the priesthood, they were also allowed to fill any position in the church as would any worthy white male.

[purplehawk]

Thanks!

[Kaitie]

Just to add my two cents: My ward (LDS meetinghouse) has a very diverse population--with many races, ethnicities etc...serving God through their callings. Utah tends to only have white bishops etc...only because that's the racial demongraphic of the area, Jersey on the other hand has a wonderful mix of races, cultures, traditions etc... My father-in-law (hispanic) is a member of the bishopric and our primary president is a wonderful african american women who is probably the kindest person I've ever met.

[Evita82]

Hello, I'm glad I found this thread because I have a question has been bugging me for the past few weeks. I have a friend who is LDS and she says she doesnt drink coffee or tea because of her religion. Can anyone tell me if this is a true LDS belief and if it is why?

[Rapunzel]

Hello, I'm glad I found this thread because I have a question has been bugging me for the past few weeks. I have a friend who is LDS and she says she doesnt drink coffee or tea because of her religion. Can anyone tell me if this is a true LDS belief and if it is why?
Yes, this is a true LDS belief. We don't drink coffee or tea because they are not good for you. You can find out more here (http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1094-1,00.html).

[agpotter]

Yeah, Rapunzel said it. We also don't drink alcoholic beverages, which is a little more well-known. As to coffee and tea, it's mostly a health issue, keeping our bodies clean of stimulating and unhealthy and addicting elements (i.e. caffiene, alcohol, drugs, etc.) so we can be the best we can be (among other reasons) and to maintain control of our faculties.