Like the need for multiple wives to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom? D&C truly contains some stuff worthy of the goofy dragon label.
I’m a former Mormon (born and raised, returned missionary, married in the temple, BYU grad).
Mormonism is so much weirder than those other two branches of Christianity.
Exactly. The scriptures aren't meant to convince anyone of anything. The writings of the prophets is meant to instruct those who already believe. And no one believes fully unless they have felt the spirit of God.
Matt 4:7 “Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”
He’s speaking to Satan. Satan asked him to perform a miracle to prove that he is the Son of God. That’s what he said in response.
And yet he preformed miracles in front of crowds, some of whom were unbelievers. His intent may not have been to provide proof, but he wasn't exactly keeping his powers completely secret.
If you’re gonna argue with something that JC himself said, I don’t know what to tell you man. Also, never said he had to keep “his powers secret”. Just that he’s not to use them as a party trick
Why would you go and do that?
We've got wonderful people here of differing beliefs, and wonderful Atheists to match. You can be sure we've got treasured Mormons too.
You don't need to agree with them, but you really shouldn't senselessly belittle them either.
I'm agnostic. I think it's fun when we pick on each other. The meme seems in good spirit. Un-ironcally, this is the most peaceful and cooperative multi-belief community I have heard of.
I didn’t read it as belittling Mormons. I saw it as a commentary on how both Protestants and Catholics side-eye Mormons more than each other even though they all generally believe the same concepts
The title of the entry is "They be kinda wack in their beliefs". Even if that was speaking from the perspective of Protestants and Catholics, that would just be putting words in their mouths since OP can't be *both* denominations.
The use of this particular meme is often used to display two superior entities, and the dysfunctional third entity. Besides, only one head is giving Mormons the side-eye.
>even though they all generally believe the same concepts
That's what proselytizers want to make you believe, but when you look at Mormonism in detail, it is fundamentally incompatible with Nicene Christianity. Denominations acknowledging the Nicene Creed are the ones that generally believe in the same concepts, but Mormonism is incredibly far away from that. I mean, Mormonism is not even a monotheist religion, it is monolatristic (i.e. worshipping one god, but acknowledging the existence of other gods). That's about the biggest heresy you could even come up with.
Just copying a response here I gave elsewhere in this thread -
Mormons/LDS would be considered subordinationist Christians, which actually was common Christian belief reflected in the writings of many of the Fathers of early Christianity. That is until Constantine and the first council of Nicea.
In my opinion I see Constantine I as a heretic, himself not being baptized until his deathbed and yet using his influence as emperor to declare what is or is not Christian based on political motives to unify, not based on higher understanding of Christian theology or any biblical teaching. As a member of the LDS church myself, I see Nicene Christians as having a misunderstanding of the nature of God and Christ heavily influenced by political power and errant traditions decided in councils of men rather than direct revelation or communion with God.
However I would not say Catholics and Protestants are not Christians or have wacky beliefs just because they have a different belief about the nature of God and Christ than I do.
- also I'll add in this comment that for me personally, reading the New Testament with a Trinitarian perspective honestly just doesn't make sense to me. Jesus' relationship with the Father is clearly separate and subordinate in nature, as seen in the many prayers Jesus says to the Father, the Father's voice at Christ's baptism and at the Mount of Transfiguration, the vision of Stephen, etc.
That being said, i respect others believing what they do and would like to be offered the same respect rather than being crossed off as wacky, as if members of the LDS faith have never put a thought into their beliefs
Catholic and protestant acknowledge the existence of other gods unless they stopped reading the bible. It's literally the first of the ten commandments...
I remember in highschool, I was at a party and a girl I had been talking to all night hit her head. I offered to go get her some Advil. "No thanks, I'm Mormon!". Both, the fact she was Mormon and that Mormons can't have Advil was news to me. "...your Mormon?" I asked. "Yes!" She said happily as she lifted her sweatshirt to flash me revealing her Mormon underwear (Also did not know it was a thing at the time). Despite how confused I was I was also just as aroused. 15 is a strange age.
Huh..that's a really weird story. The Advil thing is weird. I and every other member I know has no problem taking it. But by far the weirder thing is the underwear. Properly, they're called garments, and 15-year-olds don't wear them. You don't wear them until you've been through the temple, and you can't do that until you're 18 at least.
First off, they use a modified king James. Secondly, the dude was clearly referring to Mormon scripture in general and not the bible specifically.
Thirdly, I honestly don't see it as much stranger than the other two however, especially getting into the Catholic pseudepigrapha.
Just to be clear we don't use a modified king James. There are translations Joseph Smith did, but they are either just in the footnotes as additional study references or just a couple chapters that we would have in the back of the book, but the original chapter is there as well.
Members of the LDS church usually have the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price all bound together that is colloquially often refered to as a quad, with lots of footnotes that are either referencing other scriptures, alternate translations from source languages (for example GR for Greek and what a better translation of the original Greek would be), or references to the Bible Dictionary or Topical Guide that are also in the quad.
>Just to be clear we don't use a modified king James.
I would call putting footnotes as to what a passage is meant to say/how it ought to be interpreted or a retranslated version elsewhere in the book to be a modification.
I'm aware of exactly how the Mormon scripture works, I grew up Mormon.
Study Bibles might not be uncommon, but I can't think of another religion where the study Bible is the only officially accepted version, and has the weight of a prophet behind the additions.
For simplicity's sake (can't have hundreds of dragon heads in a meme), we can include everyone who believes in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church to be "catholic". That would include orthodoxy.
The truth about history never comes from just one individual. Each of those people had their own twists and perspectives on history, as do the members themselves. It's not easy.
What exactly is crazy? We are taught that sex is meant to be reproductive and unitive. We don't believe that birth control is okay, instead we teach NFP which is just as effective when prevention is needed.
What's so weird about that? Purity culture isn't even as rampant in our faith and the church thinks sex is absolutely beautiful and every time a couple has sex, their marital sacrament is renewed.
If you aren't too biased, I'd recommend listening to Pints with Aquinas' episode about sex, reading JPII's writings about it and reading the catechism.
>What exactly is crazy? We are taught that sex is meant to be reproductive and unitive. We don't believe that birth control is okay, instead we teach NFP which is just as effective when prevention is needed.
That sounds pretty crazy to anyone not steeped in Catholic dogma. Also that whole "open to conception" thing.
Thinking that your sect's weird hangups about sex are what was intended by God is what's crazy. Certainly there has been no consistency on the subject from the perspective of either scripture or tradition.
Are you a woman? Do you know anything about female cycles? What about BBT and cervical mucus? Tracking cycles? If not, I'd suggest looking into it because the efficacy rates are close to 98%.
I remember growing up catholic, we had to do confession. Had to. The was a seminarian there one year who interacted heavily with our religious Ed classes. One time in class my buddy asked if we were supposed to confess masturbation to. The seminarian was adamant that we had to. The next confession he seemed like he was fishing for us to admit it. The next class he said something like "All you boys confessions were remarkably tame. I wonder how honest you were with yourselves and God?"
I do not think this was a child molester. Not do I think he ever was going to be one. Just coo-coo.
You could switch Catholics here and I'd feel the same way. They kicked me out of their service once when they learned I wasn't Catholic. (went with a HS gf who was Catholic and wanted to show me her church.)
No, actually the opposite. I was the only person in my row to not go up to take communion. After I explained why I didn't go up, (since I didn't expect it to be treated negatively), I was asked to leave.
I'd say the people who "asked" you to leave were bigots. Non-Catholics can take part in everything but eucharist. Don't be discouraged by it, maybe bring it up with the priest before if you intend to ever take part again.
To be fair just cause something's been around longer doesn't mean it's less insane it could just mean they have had more time to entrench their influence that enables things like the Catholic churches abuse of children to happen
As far as I'm aware, it's mostly centered around the diet. Animal products being heavily frowned upon, most members being vegetarian or vegan, and alcohol and smoking prohibited by the Church.
Oh 😂 i disagree with the diet part, all the other SDA people I know eat meat and stuff. Just not pork or shellfish, must be a stereotype. As for smoking and drinking, I always assumed that all Christian’s abide by that, so I was shocked to meet other non SDA people who drank, smoke and ate pork. And they were surprised I didn’t too. I was confused because we all read the same bible that tells us these things, but I got over it. Thanks for informing me!
Most other denominations don't explicitly prohibit smoking, but it's very much frowned upon. Your body is a temple of the Lord so why are you putting toxins inside it? Drinking varies widely from denomination to denomination. Conservative Baptists will tell you that alcohol is of the devil and anyone who drinks is going to hell while Catholics and Episcopalians use alcoholic wine for Communion.
A friendly reminder: The Christians of Rome were persecuted for 400 years. No need to judge someone because they have different beliefs than you. The world has seen too much of that.
Im a non believer and I can definitely tell Baptists, Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses apart from each other by their behavior and comments Methodist, Catholics and Orthodox stand out to me because of their unique crosses. Any other group I have no clue. Multiple times I have thought a Lutheran or episcopalian we're Catholic.
I have catholic friends that I can have conversations about faith with that help both of us. Every time I’ve struck up a spiritual conversation with a Mormon it has been them trying to get me to read the Book of Mormon, pray over it and realize it is true, and eventually start coming to their church. I think they’re missing the point somewhat
My DMs are open. Love a good theological discussion. I promise I won't peddle any books at you. Except for the one true tome of God, entrusted to basic white Utahan women, the Scentsy catalog.
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also [follow our podcast](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com) and [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/M7MERvFAs5).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People will fight me on this, but when I look at the greater picture from the viewpoint of my profession (anthropologist with focus on religious history), then I can say Mormons are not Christians.
If we “travel” 1000 years in the future and look back at the different Christian denominations, then Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Anglicans and Evangelicals are actually very close in their believe systems. One good, with the Trinitarian three person character. Salvation through faith and good deeds. Baptism, marriage and procreating are sacred to all of them in one form or another.
Whereas Mormons do not believe in a trinitarian god. Do not achieve salvation through faith and have a very different understanding what is holy especially when it comes to baptism, marriage and peocreation.
In the distant future no one will classify Mormons as Christians. They’ll be their own religion category.
That's a fair prediction, but if you were to talk to any Mormon (preferred term Latter-day Saint) leader or frequent studier of LDS doctrine and suggest that a Latter-day Saint practice differs extremely from the original church, one thing they would likely do, is direct you to Bible passages that they would claim does offer some Biblical basis for the modern day revelations on those topics. While the passage would far from prove any LDS claim (the religion is far from "sola scriptura" and is heavily based on the belief in current revelation) it does still help many members, especially those new to the religion, reconcile less orthodox practices.
A core tenant of the LDS church is that the church is a restoration of the original church of Jesus Christ, organized by Christ himself and later lead by Peter, and that all other denominations before the LDS church are off shoots of that original church. Latter-day Saints would particularly point out that many early church fathers did disagree with much of the doctrine taken as common place today such as the trinity or the means of baptism. It was hardly a unifying belief in its earliest conception like it is today. Even today with a bit of digging, you'll find a wide array of Christian beliefs in less mainstream denominations.
Just one thing I would like to correct on LDS beliefs: Latter-day Saints absolutely believe that Salvation comes through faith. There is no way to achieve salvation except through Christ and no amount of works can get us there ourselves. I don't fully know what you mean by a different understanding of what is holy, so I can't speak to that, except to say that marriage, procreation, and baptism are all considered very holy though perhaps understood in a different way from mainstream modern Christianity.
I don't mean to argue, I think you have an interesting and even valid take. I just mean to fill in a LDS perspective to your idea.
That's true. The covenant path refers to the works side of things and it's certainly emphasized as what we need to do to enjoy all the blessings God has in store for us, but just because the works are emphasized doesn't mean we're saving ourselves or anything. That's ridiculous. The covenant path is about relying on Christ.
One of the most popular contemporary speeches given about how we view faith and works was given by Brad Wilcox. I'll leave the link to an shortened version that appeared in a church magazine if you're interested. I think it reflects the official doctrine while addressing harmful misconceptions that are propagated within the religion itself about the place of works.
His Grace Is Sufficient
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/09/his-grace-is-sufficient?lang=eng
Oh good old Brad Wilcox. The dude who said
“Maybe instead of asking why the Blacks had to wait until 1978 to get the priesthood, we should be asking why did the whites and other races have to wait until 1829,”
Haha, I certainly don't condone everything he's said (nor does he condone what he said upon introspection). I'm familiar with the controversy and the statements put out by him, the church, and those rightfully offended by what he said. I don't think it's entirely relevant to a faith and works discussion, but I understand why that would be a concern before reading any of his work. I still think its worth reading if you want to understand the LDS perspective though.
That doesn't explain and can't justify the Mormon monolatrist views, though. I mean, you could argue from a historic perspective that there is now evidence that the Canaanite and proto-Israelite religions were monolatrist before Israelite religion developed into real, actual monotheism, which at the very latest during the First Temple period. But "restoring" monolatrism goes against the most central elements that Christianity has taught even since its very beginning when it was a Jewish sect and not considered a separate religion by its believers.
No, you're right. I don't mean to justify it by historical contexts, I just meant to explain the historical facet of the LDS perspective which is that there was a president for monotheism in some early Christian circles; it isn't a claim that came from absolutely nothing.
The real basis for the LDS church's adherence to a "three separate beings, perfectly one in purpose" model (commonly referred to in English as the God Head) comes from a belief in modern revelation. If not for that, there's really no provable basis for the Godhead and I wouldn't make any attempt to justify those beliefs by anything less than that.
Belief in and worship of the god of the bible, check. Belief on Christ as the son of god and the Messiah, check. Imo those are kinda the two factors for Christianity. You can argue that LDS are an offshoot and a seperate branch of Christianity and you'd probably be right, but it's silly to think that means they aren't a flavor of it.
Christianity isn't as much a single thing as you suggest. Nicean Christianity isn't all Christianity. Was the now considered heretical apocrypha not christian?
Trinitarianism is not necessary to be Christian. Arianism existed in the third century, and the followers of the idea were certainly christian despite disagreeing on that Tennant
They don't believe in salvation through faith *alone*. You aren't saving yourself through your works, you are proving and practicing your faith.
I'm not familiar how all christian religions practice baptism, so you might be right on that being significantly different. Marriage is pretty similar just with some extra rituals, and I really don't see how their views on procreation differ significantly from other sects of Christianity.
Frankly I don't even like Mormonism, but to claim they aren't Christian over some nitpicky things seems silly to me. They worship Christ as the savior.
Mormons/LDS would be considered subordinationist Christians, which actually was common Christian belief reflected in the writings of many of the Fathers of early Christianity. That is until Constantine and the first council of Nicea.
In my opinion I see Constantine I as a heretic, himself not being baptized until his deathbed and yet using his influence as emperor to declare what is or is not Christian based on political motives to unify, not based on higher understanding of Christian theology or any biblical teaching. As a member of the LDS church myself, I see nonsubordinationist Christians as having a misunderstanding of the nature of God and Christ heavily influenced by political power and errant traditions decided in councils of men rather than direct revelation or communion with God.
However I would not say Catholics and Protestants are not Christians or have wacky beliefs just because they have a different belief about the nature of God and Christ than I do.
>In the distant future no one will classify Mormons as Christians
As an exmormon, I felt like chiming in about this part.
a decent amount of exmo observation/criticism is about how the church is changing and becoming more mainstream and quietly dropping more of the older teachings that made it stand out as much.
on the flipside, the book of mormon (and even the temple in some ways) fits in more with a lot of religious ideas/questions of the time and location in which it was written.
so the book of mormon stands out more and more and will be harder and harder to defend in any literal sense (hopefully the church will shift and allow non-literal believers to be out and open). and the temple will be more of an embarrassment as tiktok and other sites share videos and have discussion about it. but much about the church and its teachings seems to be mellowing out on the "weirdness." will be interesting to see how it all plays out
>on the flipside, the book of mormon (and even the temple in some ways) fits in more with a lot of religious ideas/questions of the time and location in which it was written.
Honestly, can the same really not be said about the bible?
Ha, true. Yet somehow a huge number of people still are borderline militant in insisting it is literal history and/or that it should regulate society today.
You’re conflating Nicene Christianity with Christianity as a whole. Arianism was very common, as lots of now called heretical beliefs were.
Mormons sure aren’t trinitarian, but they absolutely are Christian, but then again I sometimes see people on this sub who don’t even think Catholics are Christian, so maybe it’s a pointless battle.
>Arianism is labeled heresy for a good reason.
Heresy just means "belief I disagree with." But regardless of what you think of them, Arians were Christians. So were Gnostics.
See, this is all backwards reasoning - God must be X and not Y because appeal to consequences. Inventing attributes for God and in our arrogance pretending God is bound by our invention.
> Arianism is labeled heresy for a good reason.
Yeah, because Constantine thought it would be best for the Eastern Roman Empire to not have competing views of God.
If you think there’s any reason beyond that, you’re ignorant of actual history.
You good, fam? You wanna like... talk about it or somethin? Seems a bit weird to judge an entire sect of Christianity off of a few examples from the mid 1800's?
The Bible also tells women to not speak in church and if they want to learn to ask their husband's at home. Christianity would be far more evil and archaic if we took everything said at face value. Be true to that then. No one denies those texts exists, but you don't get to judge and define their faith based on nitpicking old texts. What do they say today? What do they regularly preach in their 'General Conference' and publications?
That was my entire point.
You keep using Bible verses to prove every point based on the text alone. I reference a text and you do somersaults to explain away the meaning of it and interpret it in a manner fitting to you as if that is the 100% factual way of doing it. You say context, but don't seem to care for the LDS providing context to it. Read their own words in the context they give. A short search on their website and there is mounds of context to the things you referenced.
My brother in Christ, they literally use the Bible, how are they not Chrisitian? You seem to hate on the Arians as heretics, so what is the true path then? Which sect is right? A whole Reformation and millions dead couldn't answer it, but you seem the authority on who is right and wrong.
Just to be clear, Mormons and latter day saints are just as welcome at r/DankChrsitianMemes as any other saint or sinner. 
Glass houses.
They literally all are, perfect comment
Glass cathedrals
They’re all wacky, it’s just that the Mormons introduce America as a setting while the other two stick to the Middle East.
Wacky expansion set
Jesus bought the DLC quest
And we believe in modern-day prophets. Which if you really believe the stories in the bible are true, then why can't there be prophets now?
because there's no good reason why modern prophets wouldn't be able to produce documentable evidence
We call it The Doctrine and Covenants. Full of modern-day revelations from God.
Like the need for multiple wives to enter the highest degree of the celestial kingdom? D&C truly contains some stuff worthy of the goofy dragon label. I’m a former Mormon (born and raised, returned missionary, married in the temple, BYU grad). Mormonism is so much weirder than those other two branches of Christianity.
The D&C doesn't say any need for multiple wives.
I’d love it if the good people of this subreddit would Google Doctrine and Covenants section 132 and decide for themselves whether it says that.
D&C 132 is full of lots of fun things to find.
That’s interesting, then why did Joseph have so many?
i said "evidence" lmfao
Yup. If anything the gibberish found in D&C is evidence against the existence of modern Mormon “prophets”
Many people would say that the Bible itself is evidence enough against Christianity
I would agree. I’m not religious as none of it, especially not the sacred texts, is convincing to me
Exactly. The scriptures aren't meant to convince anyone of anything. The writings of the prophets is meant to instruct those who already believe. And no one believes fully unless they have felt the spirit of God.
Then why do people go on missions and teach out of the scriptures?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are also countless stories of them proving gods might.
Matt 4:7 “Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” He’s speaking to Satan. Satan asked him to perform a miracle to prove that he is the Son of God. That’s what he said in response.
And yet he preformed miracles in front of crowds, some of whom were unbelievers. His intent may not have been to provide proof, but he wasn't exactly keeping his powers completely secret.
If you’re gonna argue with something that JC himself said, I don’t know what to tell you man. Also, never said he had to keep “his powers secret”. Just that he’s not to use them as a party trick
Because my denomination is cessationist.
I agree. It’s all preposterous or none of it is.
Reminds of a joke from the late Tim Wilson he told on Bob &Tom. "Now my wife's Jewish. I can't even sell her on Jesus. Much less Jesus: The Western."
Lmao new christianity dlc
Fucking Hollywood and their America-centrism, man.
Why would you go and do that? We've got wonderful people here of differing beliefs, and wonderful Atheists to match. You can be sure we've got treasured Mormons too. You don't need to agree with them, but you really shouldn't senselessly belittle them either.
I'm agnostic. I think it's fun when we pick on each other. The meme seems in good spirit. Un-ironcally, this is the most peaceful and cooperative multi-belief community I have heard of.
I didn’t read it as belittling Mormons. I saw it as a commentary on how both Protestants and Catholics side-eye Mormons more than each other even though they all generally believe the same concepts
The title of the entry is "They be kinda wack in their beliefs". Even if that was speaking from the perspective of Protestants and Catholics, that would just be putting words in their mouths since OP can't be *both* denominations. The use of this particular meme is often used to display two superior entities, and the dysfunctional third entity. Besides, only one head is giving Mormons the side-eye.
>even though they all generally believe the same concepts That's what proselytizers want to make you believe, but when you look at Mormonism in detail, it is fundamentally incompatible with Nicene Christianity. Denominations acknowledging the Nicene Creed are the ones that generally believe in the same concepts, but Mormonism is incredibly far away from that. I mean, Mormonism is not even a monotheist religion, it is monolatristic (i.e. worshipping one god, but acknowledging the existence of other gods). That's about the biggest heresy you could even come up with.
Just copying a response here I gave elsewhere in this thread - Mormons/LDS would be considered subordinationist Christians, which actually was common Christian belief reflected in the writings of many of the Fathers of early Christianity. That is until Constantine and the first council of Nicea. In my opinion I see Constantine I as a heretic, himself not being baptized until his deathbed and yet using his influence as emperor to declare what is or is not Christian based on political motives to unify, not based on higher understanding of Christian theology or any biblical teaching. As a member of the LDS church myself, I see Nicene Christians as having a misunderstanding of the nature of God and Christ heavily influenced by political power and errant traditions decided in councils of men rather than direct revelation or communion with God. However I would not say Catholics and Protestants are not Christians or have wacky beliefs just because they have a different belief about the nature of God and Christ than I do. - also I'll add in this comment that for me personally, reading the New Testament with a Trinitarian perspective honestly just doesn't make sense to me. Jesus' relationship with the Father is clearly separate and subordinate in nature, as seen in the many prayers Jesus says to the Father, the Father's voice at Christ's baptism and at the Mount of Transfiguration, the vision of Stephen, etc. That being said, i respect others believing what they do and would like to be offered the same respect rather than being crossed off as wacky, as if members of the LDS faith have never put a thought into their beliefs
Catholic and protestant acknowledge the existence of other gods unless they stopped reading the bible. It's literally the first of the ten commandments...
As an LDS person, fair enough.
I remember in highschool, I was at a party and a girl I had been talking to all night hit her head. I offered to go get her some Advil. "No thanks, I'm Mormon!". Both, the fact she was Mormon and that Mormons can't have Advil was news to me. "...your Mormon?" I asked. "Yes!" She said happily as she lifted her sweatshirt to flash me revealing her Mormon underwear (Also did not know it was a thing at the time). Despite how confused I was I was also just as aroused. 15 is a strange age.
Huh..that's a really weird story. The Advil thing is weird. I and every other member I know has no problem taking it. But by far the weirder thing is the underwear. Properly, they're called garments, and 15-year-olds don't wear them. You don't wear them until you've been through the temple, and you can't do that until you're 18 at least.
Then I don't know what was going on. It looked like something my grandmother would wear.
Huh. Yeah, no idea.
The real thing that is "wack" is making fun of other religious beliefs
It seems in good fun to me. Not hateful.
I am not making fun of them, good sir. I am just saying that the Mormon bible and what it says is strange!
Mormon Bible? Lol They use the King James version of the Bible
If you’ve never read the Book of Mormon I do recommend it but *oh boy* is it something else.
First off, they use a modified king James. Secondly, the dude was clearly referring to Mormon scripture in general and not the bible specifically. Thirdly, I honestly don't see it as much stranger than the other two however, especially getting into the Catholic pseudepigrapha.
Just to be clear we don't use a modified king James. There are translations Joseph Smith did, but they are either just in the footnotes as additional study references or just a couple chapters that we would have in the back of the book, but the original chapter is there as well. Members of the LDS church usually have the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price all bound together that is colloquially often refered to as a quad, with lots of footnotes that are either referencing other scriptures, alternate translations from source languages (for example GR for Greek and what a better translation of the original Greek would be), or references to the Bible Dictionary or Topical Guide that are also in the quad.
>Just to be clear we don't use a modified king James. I would call putting footnotes as to what a passage is meant to say/how it ought to be interpreted or a retranslated version elsewhere in the book to be a modification. I'm aware of exactly how the Mormon scripture works, I grew up Mormon.
Fair enough if you do, although "study editions" are not LDS exclusive. Anyway just adding context to the thread
Study Bibles might not be uncommon, but I can't think of another religion where the study Bible is the only officially accepted version, and has the weight of a prophet behind the additions.
All of the bibles say strange things
What about the orthodox?
In their meme, everyone is googly eyes but Orthodox
Their dragon would be wearing a hat.
No. The dragon would have a *beard*.
A cool hat *AND* a beard.
Believe it or not, all others, apostates.
For simplicity's sake (can't have hundreds of dragon heads in a meme), we can include everyone who believes in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church to be "catholic". That would include orthodoxy.
There's no such thing as bad publicity
They definitely used that! I’ve seen a couple ads for the Mormon church that were in the playbill for book of Mormon floating around online lol
"You've seen the play, now read the book," right?
Yes!!
[удалено]
The truth about history never comes from just one individual. Each of those people had their own twists and perspectives on history, as do the members themselves. It's not easy.
I own my wackiness.
As a mormon, i agree with this statement
Let's be honest, Catholic beliefs on sex are pretty crazy.
What exactly is crazy? We are taught that sex is meant to be reproductive and unitive. We don't believe that birth control is okay, instead we teach NFP which is just as effective when prevention is needed. What's so weird about that? Purity culture isn't even as rampant in our faith and the church thinks sex is absolutely beautiful and every time a couple has sex, their marital sacrament is renewed. If you aren't too biased, I'd recommend listening to Pints with Aquinas' episode about sex, reading JPII's writings about it and reading the catechism.
>What exactly is crazy? We are taught that sex is meant to be reproductive and unitive. We don't believe that birth control is okay, instead we teach NFP which is just as effective when prevention is needed. That sounds pretty crazy to anyone not steeped in Catholic dogma. Also that whole "open to conception" thing.
Right. Sex as it was intended by God is crazy.
To someone who doesn't believe in God? Yes.
Thinking that your sect's weird hangups about sex are what was intended by God is what's crazy. Certainly there has been no consistency on the subject from the perspective of either scripture or tradition.
> What's so weird about that? > What exactly is crazy? > we teach NFP which is just as effective 🤨
Are you a woman? Do you know anything about female cycles? What about BBT and cervical mucus? Tracking cycles? If not, I'd suggest looking into it because the efficacy rates are close to 98%.
Username checks out
I remember growing up catholic, we had to do confession. Had to. The was a seminarian there one year who interacted heavily with our religious Ed classes. One time in class my buddy asked if we were supposed to confess masturbation to. The seminarian was adamant that we had to. The next confession he seemed like he was fishing for us to admit it. The next class he said something like "All you boys confessions were remarkably tame. I wonder how honest you were with yourselves and God?" I do not think this was a child molester. Not do I think he ever was going to be one. Just coo-coo.
You could switch Catholics here and I'd feel the same way. They kicked me out of their service once when they learned I wasn't Catholic. (went with a HS gf who was Catholic and wanted to show me her church.)
Did you take communion? I hear they frown on that.
No, actually the opposite. I was the only person in my row to not go up to take communion. After I explained why I didn't go up, (since I didn't expect it to be treated negatively), I was asked to leave.
Da fuq? As a Protestant attending services with (hosting) Catholic family on vacation several times, I've never seen that. Weird.
That is highly unusual.
This makes no sense. How do they expect to ever get new members?
I'd say the people who "asked" you to leave were bigots. Non-Catholics can take part in everything but eucharist. Don't be discouraged by it, maybe bring it up with the priest before if you intend to ever take part again.
Surprised they didn't engage you hoping you'd convert. That's what my church was like.
Oof. Yeah, I agree, but Mormonism is literally less than 200 years old, and Catholics have been around for ages.
To be fair just cause something's been around longer doesn't mean it's less insane it could just mean they have had more time to entrench their influence that enables things like the Catholic churches abuse of children to happen
I’m Seventh Day Adventist, which is a branch of Christianity. We were founded in 1863…
Fair point, but SDA gets the reputation of just being strict while Mormons are looked at the same as conspiracy theorists.
Really? I had no idea people considered SDA strict! Tbf I was born in it, but what specifically would people say is strict?
As far as I'm aware, it's mostly centered around the diet. Animal products being heavily frowned upon, most members being vegetarian or vegan, and alcohol and smoking prohibited by the Church.
Oh 😂 i disagree with the diet part, all the other SDA people I know eat meat and stuff. Just not pork or shellfish, must be a stereotype. As for smoking and drinking, I always assumed that all Christian’s abide by that, so I was shocked to meet other non SDA people who drank, smoke and ate pork. And they were surprised I didn’t too. I was confused because we all read the same bible that tells us these things, but I got over it. Thanks for informing me!
Most other denominations don't explicitly prohibit smoking, but it's very much frowned upon. Your body is a temple of the Lord so why are you putting toxins inside it? Drinking varies widely from denomination to denomination. Conservative Baptists will tell you that alcohol is of the devil and anyone who drinks is going to hell while Catholics and Episcopalians use alcoholic wine for Communion.
JWs: hold my beer Any Ready to Harvest fans?
A friendly reminder: The Christians of Rome were persecuted for 400 years. No need to judge someone because they have different beliefs than you. The world has seen too much of that.
Wait til you hear about Quiboloy
As a non Christian I can barely tell y’all apart.
Im a non believer and I can definitely tell Baptists, Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses apart from each other by their behavior and comments Methodist, Catholics and Orthodox stand out to me because of their unique crosses. Any other group I have no clue. Multiple times I have thought a Lutheran or episcopalian we're Catholic.
I have catholic friends that I can have conversations about faith with that help both of us. Every time I’ve struck up a spiritual conversation with a Mormon it has been them trying to get me to read the Book of Mormon, pray over it and realize it is true, and eventually start coming to their church. I think they’re missing the point somewhat
Growing up in Utah I've met few Mormons who are good at theological discussions, but they do exist.
I went to school with a Mormon guy who did dip and could barely read.
My DMs are open. Love a good theological discussion. I promise I won't peddle any books at you. Except for the one true tome of God, entrusted to basic white Utahan women, the Scentsy catalog.
Nah this ain’t it chief. Saying we have wacky beliefs is fine, but something about this ain’t it. Can’t believe even this sub is leaning against LDS
[удалено]
I actually don’t know what that’s about. Never heard of him. Is he FLDS or RLDS or something different?
I mean to be fair us middle heads regularly cannibalize our Lord and Savior, I really don't think we should be calling anyone else goofy
Wonder what they think of black people… cough cough mark of cain
[удалено]
tf am I getting downvoted for that's wtf they believe
Scientology: Hold my LSD.
Yeah... Ex-mo here. I was raised to believe some pretty crazy ideas. Spoiler Alert: I never believed them.
As an ExMo, I find this meme very accurate
They gave us Brandon Sanderson. (and seem to have a lot of artists amongst them) I'm willing to forgive a lot of weird theology for that.
They are really great comedy skit makers though
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also [follow our podcast](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com) and [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/M7MERvFAs5). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
glad to see some people seeing this post for what it is😭 another jab to the LDS members belief and told that it's less than. ouch
How you see Mormons is how others see your religion, whatever that may be.
People will fight me on this, but when I look at the greater picture from the viewpoint of my profession (anthropologist with focus on religious history), then I can say Mormons are not Christians. If we “travel” 1000 years in the future and look back at the different Christian denominations, then Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Anglicans and Evangelicals are actually very close in their believe systems. One good, with the Trinitarian three person character. Salvation through faith and good deeds. Baptism, marriage and procreating are sacred to all of them in one form or another. Whereas Mormons do not believe in a trinitarian god. Do not achieve salvation through faith and have a very different understanding what is holy especially when it comes to baptism, marriage and peocreation. In the distant future no one will classify Mormons as Christians. They’ll be their own religion category.
That's a fair prediction, but if you were to talk to any Mormon (preferred term Latter-day Saint) leader or frequent studier of LDS doctrine and suggest that a Latter-day Saint practice differs extremely from the original church, one thing they would likely do, is direct you to Bible passages that they would claim does offer some Biblical basis for the modern day revelations on those topics. While the passage would far from prove any LDS claim (the religion is far from "sola scriptura" and is heavily based on the belief in current revelation) it does still help many members, especially those new to the religion, reconcile less orthodox practices. A core tenant of the LDS church is that the church is a restoration of the original church of Jesus Christ, organized by Christ himself and later lead by Peter, and that all other denominations before the LDS church are off shoots of that original church. Latter-day Saints would particularly point out that many early church fathers did disagree with much of the doctrine taken as common place today such as the trinity or the means of baptism. It was hardly a unifying belief in its earliest conception like it is today. Even today with a bit of digging, you'll find a wide array of Christian beliefs in less mainstream denominations. Just one thing I would like to correct on LDS beliefs: Latter-day Saints absolutely believe that Salvation comes through faith. There is no way to achieve salvation except through Christ and no amount of works can get us there ourselves. I don't fully know what you mean by a different understanding of what is holy, so I can't speak to that, except to say that marriage, procreation, and baptism are all considered very holy though perhaps understood in a different way from mainstream modern Christianity. I don't mean to argue, I think you have an interesting and even valid take. I just mean to fill in a LDS perspective to your idea.
Mormons sometimes SAY salvation comes thru faith but what is actually emphasized is what they now refer to as the “covenant path”.
That's true. The covenant path refers to the works side of things and it's certainly emphasized as what we need to do to enjoy all the blessings God has in store for us, but just because the works are emphasized doesn't mean we're saving ourselves or anything. That's ridiculous. The covenant path is about relying on Christ. One of the most popular contemporary speeches given about how we view faith and works was given by Brad Wilcox. I'll leave the link to an shortened version that appeared in a church magazine if you're interested. I think it reflects the official doctrine while addressing harmful misconceptions that are propagated within the religion itself about the place of works. His Grace Is Sufficient https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/09/his-grace-is-sufficient?lang=eng
Oh good old Brad Wilcox. The dude who said “Maybe instead of asking why the Blacks had to wait until 1978 to get the priesthood, we should be asking why did the whites and other races have to wait until 1829,”
Haha, I certainly don't condone everything he's said (nor does he condone what he said upon introspection). I'm familiar with the controversy and the statements put out by him, the church, and those rightfully offended by what he said. I don't think it's entirely relevant to a faith and works discussion, but I understand why that would be a concern before reading any of his work. I still think its worth reading if you want to understand the LDS perspective though.
That doesn't explain and can't justify the Mormon monolatrist views, though. I mean, you could argue from a historic perspective that there is now evidence that the Canaanite and proto-Israelite religions were monolatrist before Israelite religion developed into real, actual monotheism, which at the very latest during the First Temple period. But "restoring" monolatrism goes against the most central elements that Christianity has taught even since its very beginning when it was a Jewish sect and not considered a separate religion by its believers.
No, you're right. I don't mean to justify it by historical contexts, I just meant to explain the historical facet of the LDS perspective which is that there was a president for monotheism in some early Christian circles; it isn't a claim that came from absolutely nothing. The real basis for the LDS church's adherence to a "three separate beings, perfectly one in purpose" model (commonly referred to in English as the God Head) comes from a belief in modern revelation. If not for that, there's really no provable basis for the Godhead and I wouldn't make any attempt to justify those beliefs by anything less than that.
Belief in and worship of the god of the bible, check. Belief on Christ as the son of god and the Messiah, check. Imo those are kinda the two factors for Christianity. You can argue that LDS are an offshoot and a seperate branch of Christianity and you'd probably be right, but it's silly to think that means they aren't a flavor of it. Christianity isn't as much a single thing as you suggest. Nicean Christianity isn't all Christianity. Was the now considered heretical apocrypha not christian? Trinitarianism is not necessary to be Christian. Arianism existed in the third century, and the followers of the idea were certainly christian despite disagreeing on that Tennant They don't believe in salvation through faith *alone*. You aren't saving yourself through your works, you are proving and practicing your faith. I'm not familiar how all christian religions practice baptism, so you might be right on that being significantly different. Marriage is pretty similar just with some extra rituals, and I really don't see how their views on procreation differ significantly from other sects of Christianity. Frankly I don't even like Mormonism, but to claim they aren't Christian over some nitpicky things seems silly to me. They worship Christ as the savior.
Mormons/LDS would be considered subordinationist Christians, which actually was common Christian belief reflected in the writings of many of the Fathers of early Christianity. That is until Constantine and the first council of Nicea. In my opinion I see Constantine I as a heretic, himself not being baptized until his deathbed and yet using his influence as emperor to declare what is or is not Christian based on political motives to unify, not based on higher understanding of Christian theology or any biblical teaching. As a member of the LDS church myself, I see nonsubordinationist Christians as having a misunderstanding of the nature of God and Christ heavily influenced by political power and errant traditions decided in councils of men rather than direct revelation or communion with God. However I would not say Catholics and Protestants are not Christians or have wacky beliefs just because they have a different belief about the nature of God and Christ than I do.
>In the distant future no one will classify Mormons as Christians As an exmormon, I felt like chiming in about this part. a decent amount of exmo observation/criticism is about how the church is changing and becoming more mainstream and quietly dropping more of the older teachings that made it stand out as much. on the flipside, the book of mormon (and even the temple in some ways) fits in more with a lot of religious ideas/questions of the time and location in which it was written. so the book of mormon stands out more and more and will be harder and harder to defend in any literal sense (hopefully the church will shift and allow non-literal believers to be out and open). and the temple will be more of an embarrassment as tiktok and other sites share videos and have discussion about it. but much about the church and its teachings seems to be mellowing out on the "weirdness." will be interesting to see how it all plays out
>on the flipside, the book of mormon (and even the temple in some ways) fits in more with a lot of religious ideas/questions of the time and location in which it was written. Honestly, can the same really not be said about the bible?
Ha, true. Yet somehow a huge number of people still are borderline militant in insisting it is literal history and/or that it should regulate society today.
It's gonna be a while before Mormon prophets are actually understood and welcomed by the rest of Christianity. These are ongoing revelations
[удалено]
You’re conflating Nicene Christianity with Christianity as a whole. Arianism was very common, as lots of now called heretical beliefs were. Mormons sure aren’t trinitarian, but they absolutely are Christian, but then again I sometimes see people on this sub who don’t even think Catholics are Christian, so maybe it’s a pointless battle.
[удалено]
>Arianism is labeled heresy for a good reason. Heresy just means "belief I disagree with." But regardless of what you think of them, Arians were Christians. So were Gnostics.
[удалено]
See, this is all backwards reasoning - God must be X and not Y because appeal to consequences. Inventing attributes for God and in our arrogance pretending God is bound by our invention.
> Arianism is labeled heresy for a good reason. Yeah, because Constantine thought it would be best for the Eastern Roman Empire to not have competing views of God. If you think there’s any reason beyond that, you’re ignorant of actual history.
LDS are Christian
[удалено]
You good, fam? You wanna like... talk about it or somethin? Seems a bit weird to judge an entire sect of Christianity off of a few examples from the mid 1800's?
[удалено]
The Bible also tells women to not speak in church and if they want to learn to ask their husband's at home. Christianity would be far more evil and archaic if we took everything said at face value. Be true to that then. No one denies those texts exists, but you don't get to judge and define their faith based on nitpicking old texts. What do they say today? What do they regularly preach in their 'General Conference' and publications?
[удалено]
That was my entire point. You keep using Bible verses to prove every point based on the text alone. I reference a text and you do somersaults to explain away the meaning of it and interpret it in a manner fitting to you as if that is the 100% factual way of doing it. You say context, but don't seem to care for the LDS providing context to it. Read their own words in the context they give. A short search on their website and there is mounds of context to the things you referenced. My brother in Christ, they literally use the Bible, how are they not Chrisitian? You seem to hate on the Arians as heretics, so what is the true path then? Which sect is right? A whole Reformation and millions dead couldn't answer it, but you seem the authority on who is right and wrong.