As there have been some questions raised in recent threads about certain aspects of Mormonism, and as MattBrown may be leaving us soon for greener pastures, I have decided to start a new thread on Mormonism. Please direct any questions you may have here. I will be adding longer posts from time to time on certain frequently asked questions.

This thread is to provide the perspective of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If there are any other types of Mormons around here, start your own thread. (I mention this only because certain other religious threads had this problem.)

And remember to keep this respectful. I don't mind you telling me how silly Mormonism is if that's what you really think, but remember that we are human beings just like you, so don't insult us personally.

To start with, most non-Mormons don't know exactly what is and isn't prohibited by our dietary law, the Word of Wisdom. I will explain the doctrine behind it in more depth below, but these are what are specifically off limits:

Alcoholic beverages, tobacco (including smokeless forms), coffee (even decaffeinated), tea from tea leaves.

Caffeine itself is not prohibited. That means that Coke and other colas are okay (but somewhat discouraged as they can be unhealthy). Also, herbal teas are allowed.

1)I get the whole alcohol thing, but why no tea or coffee?
2)What's the difference between a Mormon Temple, and a Church?
3)What type of format does a Mormonservice hold
4)Where does the word "Mormon" come from?

Thanks.

In that other thread, something was mentioned about non-Mormons not being allowed in temples, which confused me. I realize that RLDS and Restoration Branch LDS are not actually affiliated with LDS, but I've been a guest at services for both of those denominations with nobody even batting an eye at it. Was the poster in the other thread just wrong?

What about Japanese Green Tea?

I still dont get the difference between a Mormon Temple and a Church. Or am I just confusing myself in thinking that a Mormon Temple is simmilar to a Cathedral in the Catholic, Orthodoxy, and Anglican/Episcopal? :confused:.

When was mormonism founded?

When did the church ban polygamy?

1)I get the whole alcohol thing, but why no tea or coffee?
2)What's the difference between a Mormon Temple, and a Church?
3)What type of format does a Mormon service hold?
4)Where does the word "Mormon" come from?

Thanks.

1). The wording of the Word of Wisdom specifies that "strong drinks" and "hot drinks" are not good. This was originally just a guideline, but later presidents of the church made it a commandment and defined "hot drinks" as coffee and teas. As a Mormon, I believe that they did so under divine inspiration.

2). Churches are our meetinghouses, where services and other activities are held. They are open to the public, and function just like any other denominations' church buildings. Temples are special buildings,, with no real parallel in other religions, where members make specific promises, and perform specific ordinances (like eternal marriage) for themselves and on behalf of those who are dead. There are about 130 of them in the world, and they are considered far more sacred. As such they are not open to non-members, and are only used for the specific ordinances.

3). There are three parts to a Sunday service. The most important is Sacrament meeting, in which we take the sacrament (our version of communion) and listen to talks given by members of the congregation. The second is Sunday School, which usually consists of a main class for adults, another class for new members and those investigating the church, and classes for teenagers based on age group. The third part is for meetings of the priesthood (all men over 12), the Relief Society (all women over 18), or Young Women (girls 12-18). During the second 2 parts the children 3-12 are in Primary, the children's version of Sunday School. Each part is about 1 hour.

4). Mormon is a proper name from the Book of Mormon, referring particularly to the prophet who abridged and compiled most of it. It was originally used as an insult by the Church's enemies, but later adopted as a nickname by the Church itself. However, we still don't use the term "Mormon Church".

When was mormonism founded?

When did the church ban polygamy?

The Church was officially founded on April 6, 1830, in Fayette, New York. However, it is church doctrine that it is the same organization that Jesus founded among his apostles (that later fell away) and that has existed among his prophets as long as there have been prophets.

Polygamy was banned by a declaration from the church president in 1890. However, it persisted among some members until made an excommunicable offense in 1904.

I don't know much about Mormonism so indulge my ignorance.

You guys believe that Jesus lived in North America?

What about Japanese Green Tea?

I still dont get the difference between a Mormon Temple and a Church. Or am I just confusing myself in thinking that a Mormon Temple is simmilar to a Cathedral in the Catholic, Orthodoxy, and Anglican/Episcopal? :confused:.

Green tea is not allowed.

Again, the temple is not the same thing as a cathedral. Although some religions call their meetinghouses "temples", we use it to refer to special buildings that are only used for a few purposes. We do not ban anyone from our meetinghouses (usually referred to as "chapels").

I don't know much about Mormonism so indulge my ignorance.

You guys believe that Jesus lived in North America?

That's what the thread is for.

We don't believe that Jesus actually lived in North America. But we do believe that after his ascencion in Palestine, he came to a group of his followers somewhere in the Western Hemisphere (we do not claim any particular exact location) and taught and ministered to them for a time. We also believe that he visited other such groups throughout the world that have not been identified.

It seems that Church Dogma in the case of polygamy changes like quicksilver compared to the Big orthodox 3, Judaism,Catholicism and Islam, is there a reason for this or is it just because the Church is relatively new and still - in religous age at least- trying to find it's feet or is this inherent in it's organisation or due to political pragmatism even?

To what extent is the power of the President absolute, and is there a similar clause to Catholocism regarding infallibility?

How is the President appointed, etc.?

It seems that Church Dogma in the case of polygamy changes like quicksilver compared to the Big orthodox 3, Judaism,Catholicism and Islam, is there a reason for this or is it just because the Church is relatively new and still - in religous age at least- trying to find it's feet or is this inherent in it's organisation or due to political pragmatism even?

What happened is that since we believe in ongoing revelation, we can change practices without completely redoing our doctrine. Both the Book of Mormon and the section of Doctrine and Covenants that began polygamy say that it is forbidden except if the Lord specifically authorizes it.

So the idea is that in about 1831, God commanded some members of the Church (for reasons no one was ever really clear on) to practice plural marriage, and then in 1890 commanded them to stop. Wilford Woodruff, who announced the ban on plural marriage at a time when it was causing major problems with the government, said specifically that if God hadn't told him to stop it, he would have let the church be destroyed rather than disobey.

In other words, we believe that both the beginning of polygamy in 1831 and its end in 1890 were given as revelations from God to His prophets. And again, I have no idea why God wanted it, and there is no official church doctrine as to why.

If I paid you for it, could you send me one of those "elder" nametags you guys wear? Or are they not customized in that sense?

To what extent is the power of the President absolute, and is there a similar clause to Catholocism regarding infallibility?

How is the President appointed, etc.?

The president of the Church is considered the chief prophet on the earth. Thus, when he is speaking for God what he says is true. However, prophets may also offer their opinions and be wrong on occasion. The president works with 2 counselors as the First Presidency, and they work together with the Quorum of 12 Apostles to make decisions. Most major decisions in the church were unanimous among them.

The current president chooses members of the Quorum of the 12 (as we believe, based on what God tells him) and from this quorum the members of the First Presidency are chosen. When a president dies, his successor is the apostle who has been serving the longest. According to LDS belief, in this way it is really God who is making the choice.

If I paid you for it, could you send me one of those "elder" nametags you guys wear? Or are they not customized in that sense?

I think they are only sold to current missionaries (I am not even supposed to wear the nametags from my mission). There are a few places that custom make them for missionaries (including in a variety of languages) but I don't know where. As there have been non-LDS made movies in which some characters wore such nametags, I am sure that it is possible.

Also, will you really get to be the god of your own planet? And, tell us about the magic underwear. ;)

How does one get assigned a 14 year old wife?

Alternatively, how does your denomination differ from the stereotype I just mentioned?

How does one get assigned a 14 year old wife?

Alternatively, how does your denomination differ from the stereotype I just mentioned?

One gets a 14-year-old wife by joining one of the polygamous offshoot sects of Mormonism that began when some didn't want to give up plural marriage in 1890. Make sure it's one of the really fundamentalist ones that has child brides.

Such groups are not considered to be affiliated in any way with the mainstream church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and membership in one means excommunication from it.

How many new converts weren't already Christian? I'd think that accepting Jesus as Christ makes the Mormon revelation easier to believe.

Do the LDS believe that 'obvious' miracles happen, like the lame walking and the blind seeing after being prayed for?

Also, will you really get to be the god of your own planet? And, tell us about the magic underwear. ;)

Those who truly follow and obey God in all forms, and endure and overcome the world, get their own universes. But it is really hard, of course. To become like God in the truest sense (although always dependent on Him) is the highest goal of Mormonism.

And the garments (as we call them) aren't "magic". They are given to those who receive certain blessings in the temple, to serve as a reminder of these promises and as a symbol of the faith. They have other symbolic values, but we consider these too sacred and important to discuss (even amongst ourselves) outside the temple.

How many new converts weren't already Christian? I'd think that accepting Jesus as Christ makes the Mormon revelation easier to believe.

Do the LDS believe that 'obvious' miracles happen, like the lame walking and the blind seeing after being prayed for?

The majority were already Christian (in fact, probably between 1/3 and 1/2 of all church members are former Catholics) but there have been some from other denominations, particularly of course in nations with low Christian populations.

We do believe that medical miracles can happen, subject to the faith of those involved and God's will. In most of these cases, the medical and scientific factors can be seen, but they are still miracles if they couldn't happen without God's intervention.

Do Mormons believe that Jesus is God?

And the garments (as we call them) aren't "magic". They are given to those who receive certain blessings in the temple, to serve as a reminder of these promises and as a symbol of the faith. They have other symbolic values, but we consider these too sacred and important to discuss (even amongst ourselves) outside the temple.

Well, at least you admit they exist. I've had other Mormons totally deny it as if I'm making something up out of the blue.

Well, at least you admit they exist. I've had other Mormons totally deny it as if I'm making something up out of the blue.

They are a sensitive subject, to be sure. And it is possible that those you asked didn't even know about them.

@Tae: We believe that Jesus is God, for certain definitions of the word "God". He has a relationship with God, and divine attributes, that no human has. At the same time, we believe that he is a being separate from God the Father.

What do the Mormons view other Christian denominations such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Ortodoxy, Anglican/Episcopal, and Protestantism?

So Mormons believe in the Trinity?

What do the Mormons view other Christian denominations such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Ortodoxy, Anglican/Episcopal, and Protestantism?

We believe that the original church as Jesus founded it graudaully fell away from the truth after the death of the apostles. Many truths were lost, as well as most imprtantly the authority of the priesthood. The result we call "the Great Apostasy". However, the churches that came out of this apostasy (notably the Catholics, and the Protestants who branched off, as well as Eastern Orthodox), while missing some important doctrine and authority from God, also help many people to worship Christ and follow him. So other religions (this applies to non-Christian denominations as well) although not "true", are good if they help people to do right.

So Mormons believe in the Trinity?

Not as most Christians believe in it. The Trinity defines the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one in substance and being as well as in purpose. We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate individuals, the latter two subordinate to the Father, but united in purpose.

What's your take on critics who say the foundings of Mormonism are fraudulent? Now, I'm not trying to make an argument w/ you on that, not at all. I realize that its not a useful discussion/debate and I don't want to bring down a friendly, open discussion.

My question is more in the sense, that you'd answer critics similar to critics of other faith, in that from a secular standpoint you argue the historical origins/validity of many of not most faiths? When you prepared for Mission work is this an area you are prepared/trained for?

I hope you see what I'm asking. I mean, "how" do you defend against this argument, vs. "what" you'd argue in defense, if that makes sense.

Just curious, and I hope you don't take offense to the question.

What's your take on critics who say the foundings of Mormonism are fraudulent? Now, I'm not trying to make an argument w/ you on that, not at all. I realize that its not a useful discussion/debate and I don't want to bring down a friendly, open discussion.

My question is more in the sense, that you'd answer critics similar to critics of other faith, in that from a secular standpoint you argue the historical origins/validity of many of not most faiths? When you prepared for Mission work is this an area you are prepared/trained for?

I would say that the critics are wrong. From a purely historical viewpoint there is no actual proof that anything was fraudulent, it's just that the alternative (that it really came from God) is so incredible that the only thing to do, from a secular viewpoint, is to choose the first. But because of my faith, I am able to accept (in non-historical terms) the origin of my church, and any other religion with miraculous origins can do the same.

Missionaries get essentially no training in apologetics, which may surprise some. Most of those who argue with us do so from the perspective that the Bible is inerrant and that we interpreted it wrong, but the key message of our argument is that one can get the truth straight from God. In light of this, if someone insists that the Church is fraudulent, our answer is to ask God directly, through prayer. After all, we are not so much trying to convince people that the Church is good as trying to get them to learn on their own that it is right.

If they insist that God has told them we are wrong, or if they refuse to ask, there is nothing more we can say to them. Of course, I am here not as a missionary but as an information source, so my answer is that I believe that the Church is genuine, regardless of what anyone else happens to think.

Huh. Sounds like 3 Gods...not One.

But I won't say I diffinately understand the Trinity completely myself, so I am not arguing that you are wrong or right. Just wondered what you believe. I believe it was you that gave great post on the different views on the Trinity.

What is the Mormon's view on the judgement as well as the salvation of people who are from mainstream Christianity (Catholic, Orthodoxy, Anglican/Episcopal, & Protestantism)?

I would say that the critics are wrong. From a purely historical viewpoint there is no actual proof that anything was fraudulent, it's just that the alternative (that it really came from God) is so incredible that the only thing to do, from a secular viewpoint, is to choose the first. But because of my faith, I am able to accept (in non-historical terms) the origin of my church, and any other religion with miraculous origins can do the same.

Yeah, I mean a secular argument. I agree, if this is what you mean, that I don't think you can make spiritual arguments that one religion is right or wrong, in that it all comes down to the individual and where they put their faith.

I meant more the historical origins as you might study them in history class. I find the origins to be pretty interesting, in that sense.

What is the Mormon's view on the judgement as well as the salvation of people who are from mainstream Christianity (Catholic, Orthodoxy, Anglican/Episcopal, & Protestantism)?

It is the same as for non-Christians. Those who live a good life, following the truth as best they know it, and who in the next life accept God and all that He teaches, will be saved. This includes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the fulness of which is found here and now only in the Church, but is not the same thing as the church.

We believe that everyone also needs to receive baptism (only properly administered by the Church) and other ordinances, but for the majority of the human race who dies without it, it is done by proxy by members of the church. That is one of the purposes of the temples. And the result of temple baptisms isn't that we go around proclaiming that those who received it are now really Mormons up in heaven (well, not usually).

So being LDS is not a prerequisite for salvation, we just have a little bit of a head start.

Huh. Sounds like 3 Gods...not One.

But I won't say I diffinately understand the Trinity completely myself, so I am not arguing that you are wrong or right. Just wondered what you believe. I believe it was you that gave great post on the different views on the Trinity.

Yes, it was, and we fall under "subordinate tritheism".

@.Shane.: exactly. I can neither prove nor disprove from a historical viewpoint that the angel Gabriel really did or didn't reveal the Qur'an to Muhammad. Some churches have claims that are clearly contradicted by history or science (like if you make it the cornerstone of your faith that aliens will come on June 6, 2006, and the day passes without incident) but for the most part it is spiritual.

So salvation is based upon works?

So salvation is based upon works?

We believe in salvation by grace, or that salvation is only possible because of the Atonement of Christ and that no one who receives it can truly deserve it. However, it is conditional on works, in the sense that without good works we cannot become the sort of people who can get it.

An analogy: Your rich uncle calls you up and says that he will give you $100 million as long as you write a return letter. No one will say that writing that letter entitles you to the money, and you won't say that you got the money just for writing a letter, but without it, no money.

What is an ordinance in the Mormon vocabulary?
Since I am baptised in the Catholic Church in the trinidarian formula, would that make my baptism invalid in Mormon Theology?

While I agree a man's faith can be displayed through his works, I do not believe that through works is the only way to attain grace. Since to me that would contradict what the Grace of God is.

What is an ordinance in the Mormon vocabulary?
Since I am baptised in the Catholic Church in the trinidarian formula, would that make my baptism invalid in Mormon Theology?

"Ordinance" in Mormonism roughly corresponds to "sacrament" in Catholicism. It means things like baptism and confirmation, sealing (eternal marriage), ordaining to the priesthood, and the like. We believe that ordinances are only valid when done with proper priesthood authority, and that furthermore this authority was lost during the apostasy and restored when the church was organized. It is found only in the Church. Thus we rebaptize everyone who joins the church, regardless of previous affiliation.

It is the same as for non-Christians. Those who live a good life, following the truth as best they know it, and who in the next life accept God and all that He teaches, will be saved. This includes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the fulness of which is found here and now only in the Church, but is not the same thing as the church.

We believe that everyone also needs to receive baptism (only properly administered by the Church) and other ordinances, but for the majority of the human race who dies without it, it is done by proxy by members of the church. That is one of the purposes of the temples. And the result of temple baptisms isn't that we go around proclaiming that those who received it are now really Mormons up in heaven (well, not usually).

So being LDS is not a prerequisite for salvation, we just have a little bit of a head start.

Actually the "my faith gives me a higher right to salvation" thing is one sore point I would not even begin to express, suffice to say it drives me nuts that a good just and wise man would be denied salvation for being born in China under a different set of beliefs. One thing I never could quite grasp about the organised religions of the West is the denial of the majority of the Earths population today and in history and in the future to have anything but an eternal hell prognosis, this to me is not Jesus's message it's mankinds selfish and self righteous message, I'm very bothered by it. The world's a mixed up place and religious elitism is unlikely to make it any less so. I think religious tolerance of the 20th century and beyond has yet to progress very far, it's still a my God's better than your God system, allbeit they are the same God. It's crazy and self defeating IMHO.

Is there more light for the "heathen" under Mormonism? Or are they too subjugated?

While I agree a man's faith can be displayed through his works, I do not believe that through works is the only way to attain grace. Since to me that would contradict what the Grace of God is.

Like I said, Grace is an undeserved gift. But we also believe that good works actually change us as human beings, and that it is only through this change that we will be able to live in the presence of God.

Add to that the fact that we use the word "salvation" to mean 4 different things, and that by each definition the range of those who are saved is from "everyone who has ever lived" to "those who attain the highest glory", and it's hard to keep up with us.

While I agree a man's faith can be displayed through his works, I do not believe that through works is the only way to attain grace. Since to me that would contradict what the Grace of God is.

But, in counterpoint, works is evidence of faith. I mean, if a person says "God wants me to give to the poor, and I have faith that giving to the poor is the best thing I can do" - then you know if his statement is true if he gives to the poor. If he doesn't, then his statement is false. Alternatively, if some wannabe philosopher spouts "I don't even believe the sun will come up tomorrow", you know they're lying when they set their wake-up alarm.

Eran: So, if you ask someone to pray, and they tell you that their 'spiritual voice' tells them your doctrine is wrong ... (assuming you believe them that they heard their spiritual voice) where do you assume their message came from?

Actually the "my faith gives me a higher right to salvation" thing is one sore point I would not even begin to express, suffice to say it drives me nuts that a good just and wise man would be denied salvation for being born in China under a different set of beliefs. One thing I never could quite grasp about the organised religions of the West is the denial of the majority of the Earths population today and in history and in the future to have anything but an eternal hell prognosis, this to me is not Jesus's message it's mankinds selfish and self righteous message, I'm very bothered by it. The world's a mixed up place and religious elitism is unlikely to make it any less so. I think religious tolerance of the 20th century and beyond has yet to progress very far, it's still a my God's better than your God system, allbeit they are the same God. It's crazy and self defeating IMHO.

Is there more light for the "heathen" under Mormonism? Or are they too subjugated?

well, like I said, one must accept God's truth to be saved. And most people won't get it here. But we also believe that salvation isn't just based on how you are when you die. Those who die without the fulness of truth (ie, non-Mormons) will be able to accept it in the next life, when it will be a lot more obviously true than it is now.

Meanwhile, as long as they live well here on earth and follow what they can sincerely think is right (even if it's atheism), can be saved. Based on sheer demographics, there will be a heck of a lot more "heathens" in heaven than Mormons, just because there were always more heathens. No one will be barred from salvation just because they were born in a certain place or time.

Eran: So, if you ask someone to pray, and they tell you that their 'spiritual voice' tells them your doctrine is wrong ... (assuming you believe them that they heard their spiritual voice) where do you assume their message came from?

I personally would say that they were mistaken, that they mistook their own desires or wishful thinking for the Holy Ghost (or theoretically, it could be Satan, but probably not). But as I am not them and can't tell them what to feel and think, it is better for them to follow what they think is right, even if it is actually wrong.

Why don't you assume that you're hearing your own desires and wishful thinking, then?

Why don't you assume that you're hearing your own desires and wishful thinking, then?

Well, I can judge what I feel but not what others feel. And what I interpret as the promptings of the Holy Ghost really do feel like something I could not generate on my own, but that came from outside me.

If someone said that they "felt" that we were wrong, I would assume that their feelings were not the same as mine. But, again, being unable to know for sure, I would have to let them do as they feel is right.

And there certainly is a chance that what I think is God talking is really just my psyche. That is the risk I am taking.

I guess Pascal's wager makes more sense when you feel an actual spiritual urge.

I guess Pascal's wager makes more sense when you feel an actual spiritual urge.

Indeed, Pascal's Wager makes absolutely no sense as a reason to believe in God if it seems to you that it makes no sense. But if you think that it is likely that God is, but you are not sure, Pascal tells you why you should make that step. Faith, after all, is not "believing in something for no observable reason" but "acting on what you believe."

Like I said, Grace is an undeserved gift. But we also believe that good works actually change us as human beings, and that it is only through this change that we will be able to live in the presence of God.


Interesting. So you believe that it is your current corporal form that will live in the presence of God?


Need to leave...thank you for your responses, I have never taken the time to understand Morman beliefs and what makes them different from my own.

Interesting. So you believe that it is your current corporal form that will live in the presence of God?

When I say, "we change", I mean that our spirit does. We will lose our current body at death but get a perfected body at resurrection. But we will keep our spirit permanently, and it is our spirit that needs to progress to be able to live with God.

How do people convert into Mormonism?
How do converts who have drank tea cope with the dietary laws of not being allowed to drink tea (and other dietary laws that forbids them to consume what is illegal to Mormons)?

For me, I cannot stand to be without tea, and would find it very hard to cope without it. Plus there are other factors too that does not make me drawn to Mormonism, namely the belief in the Trinity, dont view the Book of Mormon as scripture, and the spiritual infalibility of the pope. How do potential converts from Catholicism to Moromonism deal with these sourt of issues?

How do people convert into Mormonism?
How do converts who have drank tea cope with the dietary laws of not being allowed to drink tea (and other dietary laws that forbids them to consume what is illegal to Mormons)?

For me, I cannot stand to be without tea, and would find it very hard to cope without it. Plus there are other factors too that does not make me drawn to Mormonism, namely the belief in the Trinity, dont view the Book of Mormon as scripture, and the spiritual infalibility of the pope. How do potential converts from Catholicism to Mormonism deal with these sourt of issues?

Tea and coffee are seen as just a sacrifice that must be made. Giving up drinking and smoking can be hard but has obvious health benefits. It is not uncommon for people to struggle with this even after baptism, but most are willing to try.

As for specific beliefs, if someone is going to become Mormon it is because they believe that our doctrine is correct. So someone who was raised Catholic but investigates Mormonism and comes to the conclusion that it is right will be willing to give up his or her earlier beliefs. We don't want them to look down on their old beliefs, just top accept the truth (as we believe our doctrine to be) when it comes along. The difficulty that some people have in doing so is why they don't become Mormon even if they like everything else about the church.

DNA and the Book of Mormon

Here I will go a little in depth on a subject that made news a few months ago: the relationship between DNA evidence and the claims made by the Book of Mormon. Many people think that the Book of Mormon specifically says that all Native Americans in the Western Hemisphere are descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Thus, when DNA is analyzed and no link is found between Middle Easterners and native Americans, the Book of Mormon is shown to be false.

This is not the case. First of all, the group that left Jerusalem and immigrated to the New World was not from the Lost Tribes. Although the leader of this group, the prophet Lehi (from which many Mormons refer to this group as "Lehites") was an Ephraimite, he and his family were living in Jerusalem over a century after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians, which is how the Ten Tribes were lost. And the entire group only numbered between about 20 to 30 individuals, according to the Book of Mormon's description.

Second, from the very beginning of Church history there were 2 different views of where the Book of Mormon took place. Some said that it occured over the entire New World, with the descendants of the Lehites being the ancestors of all New World people. This view would require that DNA from modern Middle Easterners and modern Native Americans bear similarities.

However, it has been held by others, since even before the discovery of DNA, that the New World was already populated when the Lehites arrived in 600 BCE and that these pre-existing people are the ancestors of modern Native Americans. In fact, some would even say that the Nephites and Lamanites - the two main groups of the Book of Mormon, named after two of Lehi's sons - were descended primarily not from Lehi's group but from the natives already there. In other words, the Book of Mormon is a story not of Israelites in the New World but of natives who had to a degree picked up Israelite culture, religion, and history.

If this is the case, there would be no DNA evidence to confirm or deny it. A group of 20-30 people, living 2600 years ago, cannot be expected to leave a large marker in the DNA of their descendants, especially if it is not known where these descendants are.

The Book of Mormon itself gives not details, and the Church has never taught that one model or the other is correct (although church leaders have expressed opinions). The Book of Mormon gives a vague account of topography, but the Church doesn't try to place it anywhere specific. However, certain elements of Book of Mormon culture are similar to Mesoamerican culture, so most Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon took place somewhere around Mesoamerica.

Additionally, the Book of Mormon implies some assimilation with other groups - a prophet or king may identify himself as a descendant of one of the founders of the Lehite group, which only makes sense if most people aren't. And within a generation or so of the arrival in the New World, each group is much larger than it could be if it started with a dozen members.

DNA cannot be used to confirm or deny the Book of Mormon story, as long as one understands what the Book of Mormon is actuall saying about geneology and what should be expected. In fact, in general it can't be judged by history or science, but rather on its spiritual qualities.

DNA cannot be used to confirm or deny the Book of Mormon story, as long as one understands what the Book of Mormon is actuall saying about geneology and what should be expected. In fact, in general it can't be judged by history or science, but rather on its spiritual qualities.

History or science cannot confirm or deny belief, but that's not what they are concerned with.

History or science cannot confirm or deny belief, but that's not what they are concerned with.

Exactly. I mention it only because there are a lot of people who think that science contradicts the claims of Mormonism, but they misunderstand what those claims actually are.

Exactly. I mention it only because there are a lot of people who think that science contradicts the claims of Mormonism, but they misunderstand what those claims actually are.

But, conversely, many religions use science and/or history when it suits their aims/agenda, then beg off when the facts don't match. Under those circumstances, I will raise my voice and defend the integrity of the discipline and attack the disingeniousness of the claimant.

As an aside, I teach US History part-time and as part of some classes I've had students ask me about the roots or founding of Mormonism and/or John Smith. In that case, I give what I believe to the be the best historical truth possible, but I don't make or offer any conclusions as to the belief system. It just isn't applicable.

But, conversely, many religions use science and/or history when it suits their aims/agenda, then beg off when the facts don't match. Under those circumstances, I will raise my voice and defend the integrity of the discipline and attack the disingeniousness of the claimant.

As an aside, I teach US History part-time and as part of some classes I've had students ask me about the roots or founding of Mormonism and/or John Smith. In that case, I give what I believe to the be the best historical truth possible, but I don't make or offer any conclusions as to the belief system. It just isn't applicable.

Not to be pedantic, but it's Joseph Smith.

Anyways, it does sometimes bother me when religious people use science to try and prove that their religion is correct, or that another is incorrect, but then either vanish or claim that science is wrong if it disagrees with them.

I think that there are a few cases when science says the same things that religion says, But I wouldn't base my faith on science. Additionally, as a student of history I can recognize the difference between religious and historical claims. As a historian, I would never try to judge the claims of Joseph Smith or other founders of Mormonism, I would just try to identify them in the context of their time. As a believer, I say that his claims were true. But there is a difference.

This is for Eran of Arcadia (or any Mormon Poster if they wish to answer). Were you born and raised into Mormonism or converted sometime during your childhood/teenage years?

Also, I have read in my local paper about two Mormon boys going around New London offering people service to do their chores and as well as discussing about God and Jesus. The paper covered the two Mormon boys on their mission in the city. What is the pourpouse of Mormon Missionaries? and how do they overcome doing their Missonary service in a state that is predominately Roman Catholic (50% of the population in the State of Connecticut are Roman Catholic) or any state that is predominately Protestant (such as the Bible Belt of the south)?

Not to be pedantic, but it's Joseph Smith.

ROFL, freudian slip, I was discussing the "story" of Pocahontas w/ an office worker this morning and I was mixing my Smiths. :) A bit embarassing. :)

This is for Eran of Arcadia (or any Mormon Poster). Were you born and raised into Mormonism or converted sometime during your childhood/teenage years?

Also, I have read in my local paper about two Mormon boys going around New London offering people service to do their chores and as well as discussing about God and Jesus. The paper covered the two Mormon boys on their mission in the city. What is the pourpouse of Mormon Missionaries? and how do they overcome doing their Missonary service in a state that is predominately Roman Catholic (50% of the population in the State of Connecticut are Roman Catholic) or any state that is predominately Protestant (such as the Bible Belt of the south)?

I was born into the Church (my parents had joined about a year before I was born) although some of my family members later left it. But every year there are about 4 times as many converts as children born in the church, so most members are converts.

Missionaries are primarily proselytizers - we go around and look for people who want to learn more about us, then we teach them, and if they want to join we baptize them. (I shouldn't say "we", as I already ended my missionary service.) Therefore, they are looking for people who are not members of the church already, since they are the ones who will join. And actually, the church is growing a lot in the South, surprisingly. The biggest growth area is Latin America. In general, the more Christian an area is, the more people will join the church - which is why we do better in Africa and Latin America than in Europe, for instance.

Missionaries do other things, such as helping non-churchgoing members to return, or providing leadership where the church is new, or just doing service.

Additionally, as a student of history I can recognize the difference between religious and historical claims. As a historian, I would never try to judge the claims of Joseph Smith or other founders of Mormonism, I would just try to identify them in the context of their time. As a believer, I say that his claims were true. But there is a difference.

Well, you judge when and if the context is appropriate. In a general survey of US history, Colonial to Civil War, then you typically address Mormonism in view of the religious revivalism that largely swept the country in the 1810s-1840 or so, that was particularly focused on the "Burned over district" in upstate New York. Other than that, in the general classes, you also talk about Mormonism as part of the examination of the development of the Western United States.

However, say you had an upper division class focused primarly on the Early National Era or a class on religious history in the US, you'd get into Mormonism in a wholly different light and depth.

----
----

Side-note, does the Mormon church have large holdings in public companies or is that urban myth?

Also, how do you view passages in the BoM that describe things that just were not true in the Americas during the time described? All kinds of things regarding the types of animals, the types of crops, and the metal-working capabilities are just wholly false compared to the historical record.

Wow, is this thread new or something, or did I just totally miss it?

For the record, I wont be leaving CFC for a few months yet (I'm going to be going on a mission, like Eran did)...so I too will jump into the fray to help out Eran.

Civgeneral-I was born into the church. My mother, and her entire family, converted while they lived in Brazil. My dad is an "old time Mormon", and we can trace him back to when the church was actually founded (Eran: A little LDS trivia...apparently, I am a direct decendant of Newl K. Whitney. We have some of his stuff in my house)

Side-note, does the Mormon church have large holdings in public companies or is that urban myth?

The church does own publicly-traded stock and other properties through one of its divisions, but as far as I know they are not the majority shareholders of anything.

Also, how do you view passages in the BoM that describe things that just were not true in the Americas during the time described? All kinds of things regarding the types of animals, the types of crops, and the metal-working capabilities are just wholly false compared to the historical record.

The church has no official doctrine on this. But in my opinion, based on context, such anachronisms fall into one of three categories:

1. Many of these are used as figures of speech or analogies. As long as Book of Mormon people had once known of these, there is no problem.
2. In some cases it may be due to language. Often when a people arrives in a new area they give names to the flora and fauna based on what they knew before, which is how, say, "corn", originally a different kind of grain, is used to describe the New World's maize. This is where I think a lot of the metal words come from.
3. In some cases I chalk it up to historical embellishment. Many of these crops, animals, and metals appear in lists ("with our horses, and cattle, and goats, and wild goats", etc.) which are often used to distinguish the Nephites (the supposedly more advanced and more righteous group, from whom the authors of the Book of Mormon come) from the "savage" Lamanites. And since a lot of the book was abridged and rewritten hundreds of years after the events it describes, Mormon wouldn't have known that they were exaggerations, so he copied them.

The church does own publicly-traded stock and other properties through one of its divisions, but as far as I know they are not the majority shareholders of anything.
.

I dont know about the Church owning anything, but several LDS people own bussinesses. I think the guy who runs Marriot hotels in LDS...or at least donated a ton of stuff to BYU. I'm sure there are others

3. In some cases I chalk it up to historical embellishment. Many of these crops, animals, and metals appear in lists ("with our horses, and cattle, and goats, and wild goats", etc.) which are often used to distinguish the Nephites (the supposedly more advanced and more righteous group, from whom the authors of the Book of Mormon come) from the "savage" Lamanites. And since a lot of the book was abridged and rewritten hundreds of years after the events it describes, Mormon wouldn't have known that they were exaggerations, so he copied them.

I'm not sure what you mean. Goats, cows, and horses existed nowhere in the Americas prior to Columbus. IIRC, the BoM describes things such as metal swords, smithys, etc... things that also did not exist in pre-Colombian America. The only possible exception known to date being the Viking descendents in Greenland and in the L’Anse aux Meadows colony in Newfoundland, Canada. But those date to ~1100 AD and given the geographic location and fact that they were strictly of European origins, I don't think its applicable.

Regarding the "misnaming" of corn, barley, wheat, etc... aren't the texts divinely interpreted? This would mean that God intentionally left an irregularity. Also, I'm not sure that a Middle Eastern word for corn mistranslated or left incorrect by god would somehow come out as "corn" and not some bad derrivation. I really think your explanation is a large and difficult to support supposition.

1st Question: Why are there so many young mormon couples? Why do they have children so soon?

I lived in western Wyoming for 8 years when when we'd go to Park City/ Salt Lake City to go shop we were simply amazed at all the couples (really young couples too) with children already!

2nd Question: Mormons on the whole are very family centered. What keeps these families together so strongly in an age where half of all families get divorced?

Are blood transfusions banded under the mormans ?
(IIRC it was mormans and christian scientist which band this medical practice)

Are blood transfusions banded under the mormans ?
(IIRC it was mormans and christian scientist which band this medical practice)
Also a related question, are Mormans allowed to donate blood?

Are blood transfusions banded under the mormans ?
(IIRC it was mormans and christian scientist which band this medical practice)

No, you're thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have personally donated blood, and have recieved a blood transfusions

I'm not sure what you mean. Goats, cows, and horses existed nowhere in the Americas prior to Columbus. IIRC, the BoM describes things such as metal swords, smithys, etc... things that also did not exist in pre-Colombian America. The only possible exception known to date being the Viking descendents in Greenland and in the L’Anse aux Meadows colony in Newfoundland, Canada. But those date to ~1100 AD and given the geographic location and fact that they were strictly of European origins, I don't think its applicable.

Regarding the "misnaming" of corn, barley, wheat, etc... aren't the texts divinely interpreted? This would mean that God intentionally left an irregularity. Also, I'm not sure that a Middle Eastern word for corn mistranslated or left incorrect by god would somehow come out as "corn" and not some bad derrivation. I really think your explanation is a large and difficult to support supposition.

The Book of Mormon didn't come straight from God's mouth. It was written down by men over the course of several centuries, and they admitted that there would be room for error.

The swords described in the BoM are not specifically metal and the descriptions are more like the swords Mesoamericans were known to use. Again, the writers of the BoM would know of the existence of cows and horses and whatnot, as some of their ancestors had lived in the Middle East, they just didn't have them themselves. They said they did, though, in order to look better than their enemies.

And I didn't mean that corn was misnamed. It is more along the lines of, "hey, this plant/animal/metal in the New World looks like one from our old home, let's give it the same name."

1st Question: Why are there so many young mormon couples? Why do they have children so soon?

I lived in western Wyoming for 8 years when when we'd go to Park City/ Salt Lake City to go shop we were simply amazed at all the couples (really young couples too) with children already!

2nd Question: Mormons on the whole are very family centered. What keeps these families together so strongly in an age where half of all families get divorced?

1st answer: we don't allow sex before marriage. You figure out why we get married so young. ;)

2nd answer: We emphasize family values (in the "spend time with your spouse and kids" type, not the "gays are taking over America" type) and often church lessons revolve around how to be better parents and spouses.

Hmm, Sex before marrage is not allowed. Hmm. It almost sounds like the Catholic views on pre-marital sex. For family values, that almost sounds like what the Catholic church emphasize.

1. Do the LDS have an agreed set for the 10 commandments. If so, could you list them so that I can compaire and contrast it with the ten commandments the Catholic Church uses?

2. I know the Catholic Church has a catechism class for converts older than the age of reason (known as Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults). Does the LDS have some sourt of catechism program for converts?

Hmm, Sex before marrage is not allowed. Hmm. It almost sounds like the Catholic views on pre-marital sex. For family values, that almost sounds like what the Catholic church emphasize.

1. Do the LDS have an agreed set for the 10 commandments. If so, could you list them so that I can compaire and contrast it with the ten commandments the Catholic Church uses?

2. I know the Catholic Church has a catechism class for converts older than the age of reason (known as Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults). Does the LDS have some sourt of catechism program for converts?

1) As far as I know, the ten commandments are the same for every christian church. Thou shalt not kill, adultry, other gods before me, etc etc. I'm sure you're all familar.

2) I dont really think its as formal as a catechism class. New converts are given the missioinary discussions, and most wards offer classes for new converts to help them become more comfortable with Mormon docterine. I'm not sure if those are required or not (I think if they wanted, they could go to class every everybody else on sunday)

1) As far as I know, the ten commandments are the same for every christian church. Thou shalt not kill, adultry, other gods before me, etc etc. I'm sure you're all familar.
Well, I have compared and contrasted the ten commandments between the Catholic 10 Commandments and the Protestant 10 Commandments and noticed the difference on how they ordered each of the commandment.

I'm not sure if the order matters, but I imagine we'd be the same as the Protestants....we use the King James version of the bible...isnt that what protestants use?

I'm not sure if the order matters, but I imagine we'd be the same as the Protestants....we use the King James version of the bible...isnt that what protestants use?

There is no one "Protestant" translation/version. I do personally use the King James version, some use the Revised King James (and I have one of those as well), some use New International Version (NIV), some use a paraphrased Bible (but the mention of flashlights in those turned me off :crazyeye: ) , and so forth.

Well, I have compared and contrasted the ten commandments between the Catholic 10 Commandments and the Protestant 10 Commandments and noticed the difference on how they ordered each of the commandment.

Catholics and other Christians use a slightly different ordered set of the 10 Commandments; if I remember correctly, the Catholic version combines "no other gods" with "no graven images" while splitting up "coveting they neighbors wife" and "thy neighbor's ass" into different ones. But that is what I think all non-Catholic Christians do, not just Mormons, and in both cases it is based off the text of Exodus 20, it's just the arbitrary numbering system added later is different for the two.

Are mormons an ethnically diverse group of people?

How are your (I mean the LDS church's) relations, if any, with the breakaway denominations? Does the LDS and RLDS (or other breakoffs) have any official contact or anything?

Are mormons an ethnically diverse group of people?

To a degree, yes. In the US of course most members are white, but even here there are a lot of Polynesian and Latino members. There are fewer African-Americans than the national average but at the same time the church is growing in Africa. Our strongest growth is in Latin America, and Polynesia has always had lots of members (including 32% of Tonga). The stereotype of the blond, blue-eyed white people is more a Utah thing, since in the early days of the church most members went to Utah, and then most church growth was Scandinavia and Western Europe.

How are your (I mean the LDS church's) relations, if any, with the breakaway denominations? Does the LDS and RLDS (or other breakoffs) have any official contact or anything?

We consider ourselves to be the true church, and the breakoff churches are no different from other Protestants. In fact, the RLDS has moved from Mormonism to mainstream Protestantism in recent years. Like I said, the polygamists (if they were ever LDS, which most weren't) would be excommunicated. We try to get along with other churches, if they are willing, but our relationship with the "breakoff" churches is no different from our relationship with other churches.

I guess I will ask this.

Why do you believe in the Book of Mormon?

I guess I will ask this.

Why do you believe in the Book of Mormon?

Why do I, personally? Most Mormons give about the same answer. After reading it, following the advice that it gives, I prayed and asked God if it is really true. I believe that He answered me through the Holy Ghost touching my heart.

Are mormons an ethnically diverse group of people?

Its becoming more and more that way. If you walk into a typical ward (church) in the US...you're going to mostly see white people. There are exceptions...my ward in DC had a decent minority population, but there are a lot of white guys too.

Its changing, since the church is exploding worldwide. (I think there are more Mormons outside the US than there are in the US). My mother and her family all converted...in Brazil, where the church is pretty strong. It is exploding in Latin America and Polynesia...and it likely would in Asia more, but China and India refuse to let us in.

I believe that He answered me through the Holy Ghost touching my heart.
I am starting to wonder if this Holy Spirit (or what you call the Holy Ghost) touched my heart after my fender bender when I realised the value of life and how it is a waste to lose it which made me rediscover God and Jesus. :confused:

Anyway, what does the LDS have to say about inter-faith marrages? (IE Mormon marrying an agnostic, atheist, Protestant, Muslim, Catholic, etc)?

I guess I will ask this.

Why do you believe in the Book of Mormon?

For the same reason that people believe in the Bible, and God, or the Koran, or any religion. After reading the book, and praying about, I get a testimony that the book is true, and by following its precepts, I will be happier.

Even if this whole Mormon thing turns out to be a bunch of bullcrap, I dont think I'd have many regrets about being LDS...since its made me happier, and a better brother, son, boyfriend, friend and human being.

I keep hearing the term "Ward" which oftenly reminds me of the Wards of Japan (Which is an equivelent to a US Bourough) :crazyeye:. Anyway, joking asside ;).

What is a ward in Mormon vocabulary? Is it simmilar to a parish or a diocese in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal Churches?

I am starting to wonder if this Holy Spirit (or what you call the Holy Ghost) touched my heart after my fender bender when I realised the value of life and how it is a waste to lose it which made me rediscover God and Jesus. :confused:

I wasn't there, but that is what we believe to be the role of the Holy Ghost, after all.

Anyway, what does the LDS have to say about inter-faith marrages? (IE Mormon marrying an agnostic, atheist, Protestant, Muslim, Catholic, etc)?

It is not forcibly prevented, but it is discouraged. It is better to marry within the faith as it leads to a stronger marriage. In fact, some church leaders have said that it is better for members of other religions to marry in the faith because it leads to the children more likely to keep going to church.But there are no penalties for marrying outside (they will even hold the wedding in the chapel, but then in our view there is no real difference between being married in a chapel or in a courthouse).

I keep hearing the term "Ward" which oftenly reminds me of the Wards of Japan (Which is an equivelent to a US Bourough) :crazyeye:. Anyway, joking asside ;).

What is a ward in Mormon vocabulary? Is it simmilar to a parish or a diocese in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopal Churches?

A ward is a congregation, like a parish. Smaller congregations are called branches. A group of about 10 or so wards and branches make up a "stake" which is roughly similar to a diocese, or into a district in areas of the church with few members. It's mostly a size difference, although there are a few organizational differences as well between wards/branches or stakes/districts.

How are your (I mean the LDS church's) relations, if any, with the breakaway denominations? Does the LDS and RLDS (or other breakoffs) have any official contact or anything?

Its worth noting that the RLDS (now known as the Community of Christ) owns and operates the Kirtland Temple historical area in Kirtland Ohio, where the LDS church was first set up, and the first Temple was built. I'm not sure exactly how this happened...I think there was a lawsuit or something, and a lot of LDS members are kinda bitter about it. The RLDS is kind enough to keep it open to the public, and thousands of regular mormons walk around every year. Its a bit of a pity, since they are much smaller, and really dont have the resources to manage a historical monument...I think a lot of the money comes from LDS donations, as opposed to RLDS leadership.

I think there is a little bit of friction between the Mormons and certain other christian groups, because a lot of them REALLY don't like us. At all. I dont think the LDS church thinks very well at ALL of the FLDS (the wackos who still practice polygamy), because everytime they get in the news, its sort of bad press for the rest of the church (plus, its illegal).

A ward is a congregation, like a parish. Smaller congregations are called branches. A group of about 10 or so wards and branches make up a "stake" which is roughly similar to a diocese, or into a district in areas of the church with few members. It's mostly a size difference, although there are a few organizational differences as well between wards/branches or stakes/districts.

The leadership system between the Catholic and Mormon churches is actually somewhat similar. The biggest difference is that a ward typically covers a small geographical area (in Utah, a ward is a few streets. My home ward covers maybe half of my little county), and has around 150-250 members. A Parish is MUCH bigger.

See, our clergy work other jobs, and have familes, and don't get paid. They can't be expected to watch over 600 people. I don't know how stake presidents do it

It is not forcibly prevented, but it is discouraged. It is better to marry within the faith as it leads to a stronger marriage. In fact, some church leaders have said that it is better for members of other religions to marry in the faith because it leads to the children more likely to keep going to church.But there are no penalties for marrying outside (they will even hold the wedding in the chapel, but then in our view there is no real difference between being married in a chapel or in a courthouse).
Has any Mormon spouse who is a non-Mormon convert into Mormonism? And if the spouse does convert, would they have to re-marry into the Mormon church in order to the the sacrament?

Has any Mormon spouse who is a non-Mormon convert into Mormonism? And if the spouse does convert, would they have to re-marry into the Mormon church in order to the the sacrament?

It actually happens fairly often. I know a lot of couples who have had this happen. It doesn't require remarriage in any way, but it will require a separate temple wedding (which we believe seals the couple for eternity) since they didn't have one in the first place, as many LDS couples do.

Why do I, personally? Most Mormons give about the same answer. After reading it, following the advice that it gives, I prayed and asked God if it is really true. I believe that He answered me through the Holy Ghost touching my heart.

Your answer was a little less detailed than I expected, but satisfactory.

I will admit I admire the values and teachings on how to live from my minimal understanding of the Mormon church. I have met very few Morman's in my lifetime, but I can honestly say they where genuinely warm and caring people.

My beliefs are a bit different though, firmly founded in Grace. I do not belong to a denominational church. At least not until churches that are based upon the New Testament model become a denomination, which would contradict the model I guess.

I inherently distrust all organized religion, this is based on my conviction of the falleness of man and corrupting nature of power. I do not believe that God "talks" or gives "special" enlightenment to select individuals, but that since the Resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit, all Christians have a connection with God that was known only to a few prior in history. So churches were a few or usually just one dictate new laws and interpretations I will not believe in.

What amazes me, and why I asked my earlier questions, is why man continually thinks he must work his way to God. To be in the presence of God requires perfection. All have sinned and therefore are no longer perfect. This is why Christ died for us and why accepting that forgiveness is the only way back to God's presence. Because God chose that he wanted us in his presence, not because we worked to get there.

I think your way of life, any way of life that follows the will of God and his laws will be a rewarding and rich way to live on this Earth. This is why the law was given, because it is the way we are designed to live. So striving for this is ideal and worthy. But when it becomes the way to Salvation, I cannot agree that it comes through the law.

I honestly do not know enough about Mormons to know if you feel you are working your way to God, my rejection of the doctrine stems solely from beliefs I stated earlier about special enlightenment. And I have to be frankly honest, the whole Joseph Smith story and the American Indians is just plain hokey to me. I don't mean to insult you though, Jonah and the whale is pretty hokey too.

Thank you again for answering my questions.

Again, almost no Mormon would ever say that we are "working our way to God". Although we believe that works are important, without God's grace, and the atonement of Christ, works would be meaningless and we couldn't be saved.

Living in Wyoming, I often found that once a member of the faimily converted to the LDS church (while the rest didn't), great friction occured within the family and in some cases (say a spouse converted) tore them apart. In your honest opinion why is this so? What about LDS scoiety and doctrine infuriates people so?

Wow, is this thread new or something, or did I just totally miss it?

For the record, I wont be leaving CFC for a few months yet (I'm going to be going on a mission, like Eran did)...so I too will jump into the fray to help out Eran.

Civgeneral-I was born into the church. My mother, and her entire family, converted while they lived in Brazil. My dad is an "old time Mormon", and we can trace him back to when the church was actually founded (Eran: A little LDS trivia...apparently, I am a direct decendant of Newl K. Whitney. We have some of his stuff in my house)

Where are you going on your mission? One of my high school friends is a Mormon--in fact, I was quite surprised at the number of Mormons in my area--and he's headed to Brazil.

PSSST civ General If your really interested in Religon spirtuality and history PM me. I'll send you some links via mail.

Very dry but deep theological as well as historical background on christains, new testment and some kick ass battles.

Un like Brown and Eran, I'm a convert that got babtised at 22.

Living in Wyoming, I often found that once a member of the faimily converted to the LDS church (while the rest didn't), great friction occured within the family and in some cases (say a spouse converted) tore them apart. In your honest opinion why is this so? What about LDS society and doctrine infuriates people so?

I guess that some people still have a deep-seated dislike of us. I have heard that this is more frequent in Wyoming, where apparently a lot of non-Mormons don't like us. It's not like there is anything particular to our doctrine (as there are in some religions) that encourages converts to withdraw from their friends and family, we want them to keep their old relationships. Admittedly, one of the reasons for this is that the number one source of converts is friends/family of other new converts, but even if they don't join the church, they can still be friends.

Good point. I have my own pet theories about this problem, but I'd like to know what they are from your prespective. Whenever I asked someone "why" they didn't like mormons, I either got a cookie cutter "they're *blank*" or just stare at me with an "you're an idiot" look. So I'm wondering about there that deep-seated dislike comes from?

Good point. I have my own pet theories about this problem, but I'd like to know what they are from your prespective. Whenever I asked someone "why" they didn't like mormons, I either got a cookie cutter "they're *blank*" or just stare at me with an "you're an idiot" look. So I'm wondering about there that deep-seated dislike comes from?

Well, our extensive proselytism probably offends some people, even though it is coupled with a respect for other religions (at least most of the time; obviousy there are a few exceptions). It also can lead to pastors and ministers, fearful of us making inroads on their flock, saying things about us over the pulpit that aren't really true and that give people incorrect ideas about us. And this is only enhanced by their doctrinal differences with us. And of course there will be times when our members end up sounding like we think we are better than other people just because our religion is more correct. Still, I have never quite been able to understand that attitude; there are plenty of religions with doctrines that I feel make no sense, but I can get along just fine with members of that religion.

To a degree, yes. In the US of course most members are white, but even here there are a lot of Polynesian and Latino members. There are fewer African-Americans than the national average but at the same time the church is growing in Africa. Our strongest growth is in Latin America, and Polynesia has always had lots of members (including 32% of Tonga). The stereotype of the blond, blue-eyed white people is more a Utah thing, since in the early days of the church most members went to Utah, and then most church growth was Scandinavia and Western Europe.

Truth or myth? The Mormon church only started allowing black members in the early 1960s.

The Book of Mormon didn't come straight from God's mouth. It was written down by men over the course of several centuries, and they admitted that there would be room for error.

So, the tablets the Joseph Smith translated were the collection of stuff written down over centuries. I was referring to when Joseph Smith divinely translated them.

So, the tablets the Joseph Smith translated were the collection of stuff written down over centuries. I was referring to when Joseph Smith divinely translated them.

Yes, the plates were compiled and abridged and written over centuries. But when Joseph Smith translated them, based on his description of the process although it was through God's power it wasn't a word-for-word translation, and any errors or different uses of words were kept in the translation. In other words, if a BoM prophet used the word "iron" to refer to a metal that wasn't iron but that was called that (or the Hebrew equivalent) then that is what Joseph would have written.

Truth or myth? The Mormon church only started allowing black members in the early 1960s.

Not quite. Beginning with Brigham Young, the Church did not give the priesthood (which is normally given to all worthy men over the age of 12) to blacks of African descent. Joseph Smith had done so, but Brigham Young stopped giving it to blacks. The Church has not given an exact reason, and no one really knows for sure. It probably isn't simple racism, because evn though Brigham Young, for one, thought blacks were in some way inferior, the Church (and the Book of Mormon) taught that all are equal in the eyes of God. Blacks were allowed to join, but not very many did. There was some pressure in the 1960's to change this, but this pressure was gone by 1978. It was then that the church reversed the practice and gave the priesthood to all worthy men regardless of ancestry. Since then more blacks have joined and the Church has expanded greatly in Africa.

Do LDS consider themselves Christian?

Mormans seem too friendly, sincere, and nice for me to ever consider their religion. I am none of those things!

A question - why , precisely , are tea and coffee banned ?

Mormans seem too friendly, sincere, and nice for me to ever consider their religion. I am none of those things!

Yes far be it from anyone to ever consider a Christian religion based on the idea of actually being Christian :p :lol:

I like Mormanism alot, it's kind of like a more progressive version of Christianity, maybe it's Erins posts of the past or just the religion itslef but it's alot less disagreeable than say orthodoxy Christianity and it doesn't yet have the copious baggage of old fashioned Christianity, also it seems it can lose it's baggage if it's damaging to it's faith.

I think Buddhisms my fave all time religion, because it's harmless and soul expanding. Mormanism is in the same category from what I'm reading here? But then I've never heard any anti Morman propaganda perhaps there isn't much?

I read the other thread and I think it's insulting to compare Scientology to Mormanism, Scientology is just transparent guff, in fact it would be funny if some people didn't take it so seriously, where as Mormanism is based on Jesus and so has at least some historical merit, instead of just a bank account being the whole of the religion and people being so hoplessly misguided that they haven't got that their "heaven" is banked on an island that dissapears at full tide, and is only accesable to those of the highest rank.

Do LDS consider themselves Christian?

Yes, we do. Christianity is the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, who through his Atonement made it possible for us to return to God. By that definition, we are definitely Christian. However, as we don't believe in the Trinity as defined by the Nicene Creed, some other religions say we are not Christian.

A question - why, precisely , are tea and coffee banned?

Because we believe that God told us to avoid them. The Word of Wisdom, which is our dietary code, says to avoid "hot drinks". Later prophets, men who we believe speak on behalf of God, have said that means coffee and tea. Now as for why God would do this? There are obvious health benefits in avoiding tobacco and alcohol (in the sense that not driniking at all is better than driniking a lot). But I think one of the real reasons is just that it is a way to show that we take our religion seriously, that if God tells us to do something, no matter how small it may seem, we will do it. And we don't consider it a sin for non-Mormons to use coffee or tea.

But then I've never heard any anti Morman propaganda perhaps there isn't much?

There is actually a lot of it. Some of the more fundamentalist Protestants will say all sorts of things about us.

You know, I thought what I believed in was the Trinity, but in my research to try to distinguish the differing views, I quess what I believe in is called "Oneness". I think my father and his church believed in the Trinity. I even think the church I attend teaches Trinity...meaning eternal Father, eternal Son and eternal Spirit.

What is ironic is I never studied the opposing doctrines until now and assumed what I believed in was the Trinity. Now if my understanding in what they are is correct, my views are apparently Oneness which just makes sense to me.

I will need to have discussions with my brother about this, I wonder what he believes.

Because we believe that God told us to avoid them. The Word of Wisdom, which is our dietary code, says to avoid "hot drinks". Later prophets, men who we believe speak on behalf of God, have said that means coffee and tea. Now as for why God would do this? There are obvious health benefits in avoiding tobacco and alcohol (in the sense that not driniking at all is better than driniking a lot). But I think one of the real reasons is just that it is a way to show that we take our religion seriously, that if God tells us to do something, no matter how small it may seem, we will do it. And we don't consider it a sin for non-Mormons to use coffee or tea.

Where abouts in the Bible (I am a Catholic and dont realy view the Word of Wisdom or any Mormon scriptures as valid) does it say that consuming hot beverages such as coffee and tea? I dont see anything wrong with consuming coffee and tea. However I feel that alcohol is also not wrong to consume so long as it is not abused. Tobacoo, I see it as a hazard and a narcotic. Seeing that consuming tea is a sin in the Mormon dogma would not sut me well since I do consume Iced Tea since it is one of my drinks of choice other than water.

This brings up another question. In the Catholic Church, we have what are known as "Cafeteria Catholics". They are Catholics who only pick and chose teachings that they agree
to as well as regect teachings they dont agree (John Kerry is an example of a Cafeteria Catholic who advocates for abortions which is against the Church's teachings). I am wondering if Mormonism has their share of Cafeteria Mormons?

I am curious on what stances do Mormons take on the following issues:
1. Abortions
2. Same-Gender Marrages
3. Divorce
4. Artifical Contraception (Condoms, "The Pill", etc)

This brings up another question. In the Catholic Church, we have what are known as "Cafeteria Catholics". They are Catholics who only pick and chose teachings that they agree
to as well as regect teachings they dont agree (John Kerry is an example of a Cafeteria Catholic who advocates for abortions which is against the Church's teachings). I am wondering if Mormonism has their share of Cafeteria Mormons?

I am curious on what stances do Mormons take on the following issues:
1. Abortions
2. Same-Gender Marrages
3. Divorce
4. Artifical Contraception (Condoms, "The Pill", etc)

Sure, we have those. We call them "Jack Mormons". They're most common in areas like Utah, where there a ton of Mormons, and one gets baptized because of tradition and culture, as opposed to having a real theological connection. Out east, where I live, they are less common. If you're to just sorta follow a religion, theres not much point in picking a weird and rare one like Mormonism I guess.

As for your questions

1)-Oddly enough, I have never seen abortion mentioned in a church handbook, or ever spoke about in church or sunday school. I assume that the offical church posistion is "against", and certainly a vast majortiyy of Mormons are pro-life, but not rabidly such usually (Not too many Mormons picketing clinics)

2)- The Church is against same-sex marriage. We make a point to stay out of politics as much as possibile, but we've actually been asked to let our local reps know how we feel about this issue. Personally, I dont really care, because no matter what the US goverment allows, we wont allow homosexuals to be married in our temples, so it doesnt really effect us...but whatever.

3) Divorce is discouraged, and LDS couples have a much better chance of staying together than non-LDS families. Divorce sometimes happens though.

4) We fine with birth control. I suspect some of the most fanatical Mormons dont use it, but the church is fine with it. We just happen to have big families.

@CivGeneral: There is nothing in the Bible about coffee and tea. But the thing that you must remember to ever understand Mormonism is that even if you don't consider Mormon scripture to be valid, we do, so we have no problem basing our doctrine on it. It is just like the fact that I don't personally consider the tradition of the Catholic church to be all that it claims to be, but I can accept it as the source of Catholic doctrine.

And abortion is prohibited (except for emergencies and rape) and it is excommunicable (if you get or arrange one) we just don't talk about it a lot. I agree with MattBrown that we should probably stay out of the same-sex marriage debate, but a lot of members feel more strongly about it.

I heard somewhere that early Mormon doctrine was, that if you were black, but converted to Mormonism, God would, as part of Christ's cleansing blood, make you white. Is there any credence to that story, or was there a similer belief in the Mormon religion at any time? Or was that just misinformation?

Do Mormons really believe that God was originally a man like us, and became God after living a good life? If so, who was the first God? And do you believe that God lives on the planet Kolob?

I heard somewhere that early Mormon doctrine was, that if you were black, but converted to Mormonism, God would, as part of Christ's cleansing blood, make you white. Is there any credence to that story, or was there a similer belief in the Mormon religion at any time? Or was that just misinformation?

Do Mormons really believe that God was originally a man like us, and became God after living a good life? If so, who was the first God? And do you believe that God lives on the planet Kolob?

The Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites (the supposed "bad guys" of the BoM, who as a rule had darker skin than the Nephites, or "good guys") would, upon converting to the gospel, become "fair" - a word which was mistakenly translated as "white" in some editions of the BoM but which refers to spirituality, not skin color. I think it was a belief of Mormon culture for a time that blacks would become white on conversion, but it wasn't doctrine.

We speculate that it is possible that God went through the whole process of being human like us, and thus there is a God above Him, but as He hasn't told us we worship Him alone. We do believe that He has progressed, in a sense.

Kolob is not a planet but is described as the star closest to the throne of God (which is also not described as a planet). Kolob is mostly an analogy for Christ, and doesn't play a major role in LDS doctrine (except as a metaphor for deep or obscure doctrine in general).

The Book of Mormon says that the Lamanites (the supposed "bad guys" of the BoM, who as a rule had darker skin than the Nephites, or "good guys") would, upon converting to the gospel, become "fair" - a word which was mistakenly translated as "white" in some editions of the BoM but which refers to spirituality, not skin color. I think it was a belief of Mormon culture for a time that blacks would become white on conversion, but it wasn't doctrine.

We speculate that it is possible that God went through the whole process of being human like us, and thus there is a God above Him, but as He hasn't told us we worship Him alone. We do believe that He has progressed, in a sense.

Kolob is not a planet but is described as the star closest to the throne of God (which is also not described as a planet). Kolob is mostly an analogy for Christ, and doesn't play a major role in LDS doctrine (except as a metaphor for deep or obscure doctrine in general).
Ahh, I see. What that translation mistake done by Joseph Smith, or one of his follow-up prophets?

So there's basically an infinite line of God's going backward in time? Is there a sort of true universal time that measure time between all the different universes for all the different God's, or is the universe we live in the original one?

But if there is a star that is closest to God's Throne, then it must exist in the physical universe, must it not? If it's actually any closer to God's Throne than, say, the Sun, then God's Throne must exist in a point in physical space.

Ahh, I see. What that translation mistake done by Joseph Smith, or one of his follow-up prophets?

So there's basically an infinite line of God's going backward in time? Is there a sort of true universal time that measure time between all the different universes for all the different God's, or is the universe we live in the original one?

But if there is a star that is closest to God's Throne, then it must exist in the physical universe, must it not? If it's actually any closer to God's Throne than, say, the Sun, then God's Throne must exist in a point in physical space.

The error crept in because there were several transcriptions of the Book of Mormon. It was dictated by Joseph Smith to his scribe (Oliver Cowdery for most of it), then from that a printer's copy was made, and then the book itself was printed. There were naturally a few transcription errors.

As for the infinite line of Gods, we have not been told by God what if anything is before Him. There could theoretically be, but He has only told us of Himself, so He is the only one with whom we concern ourselves.

We do believe that God occupies physical space, and that in fact we are created in His image physically as well as spiritually. However, the one reference to Kolob (in fact, non-Mormons tend to discuss it more than we do) is largely symbolic.

The error crept in because there were several transcriptions of the Book of Mormon. It was dictated by Joseph Smith to his scribe (Oliver Cowdery for most of it), then from that a printer's copy was made, and then the book itself was printed. There were naturally a few transcription errors.

As for the infinite line of Gods, we have not been told by God what if anything is before Him. There could theoretically be, but He has only told us of Himself, so He is the only one with whom we concern ourselves.

We do believe that God occupies physical space, and that in fact we are created in His image physically as well as spiritually. However, the one reference to Kolob (in fact, non-Mormons tend to discuss it more than we do) is largely symbolic.
But from "fair", (As in spiritually) to "white" is a pretty big difference. When did this happen, and why wasn't it immediately corrected by Smith?

Alright, fair enough.

But if he occupies physical space, then He must be a physical being as well. (And thus His location is not symbolic, it's literal) So, technically speaking, you could go hand to hand against God? You would lose, of course, but according to Mormon doctrine He has a physical body you could fight, right?

Next question: The original revelation to Joseph Smith, from the angel Moroni, was in Egyptian, correct? Why, then, are all of his translations of Egyptian writings false? There are many examples of Smith saying writings in Egyptian said one thing, then when it was translated later it said another thing entirely. What's up with that?

But from "fair", (As in spiritually) to "white" is a pretty big difference. When did this happen, and why wasn't it immediately corrected by Smith?

Alright, fair enough.

Not necessarily, given that the distinguishing features of the Nephites versus the Lamanites was that they were fair-skinned. And the Book of Mormon is about 588 pages long, so there are bound to be typos and other mistakes, but not many.

But if he occupies physical space, then He must be a physical being as well. (And thus His location is not symbolic, it's literal) So, technically speaking, you could go hand to hand against God? You would lose, of course, but according to Mormon doctrine He has a physical body you could fight, right?

Yes, we believe that God has a literal, physical body. So one could fight Him. He might even let you win just to humor you, as so many fathers do.

Next question: The original revelation to Joseph Smith, from the angel Moroni, was in Egyptian, correct? Why, then, are all of his translations of Egyptian writings false? There are many examples of Smith saying writings in Egyptian said one thing, then when it was translated later it said another thing entirely. What's up with that?

You are confusing 2 things. Smith said that the Book of Mormon was written with a writing system (NOT a language) that he called "Reformed Egyptian", which seemes to be a mix of Hebrew words written with Egyptian characters. As the plates from which he translated are no longer available, it is impossible to see if he was right.

The other is the Book of Abraham, which he translated from an Egyptian papyrus. Another portion of this papyrus was found in the 1960's (in Chicago, I think) to be from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and to have nothing to do with Abraham. However, the portion translated then does not fit the description of what Smith translated, the exact part of which seems to be lost. This leaves two possibilities that I see (other than that he made it up): either the papyrus he translated was connected with the one in Chicago but said different things, or he translated the Book of Abraham from a script that had nothing to do with Abraham. It is important to remember that he translated this (and the Book of Mormon) not from his own wisdom, as he didn't read Egyptian and only learned Hebrew later in life. What he said, and what Mormons believe, is that he did so through God's power. So he could have had the Book of Abraham given to him by God, with an unrelated papyrus to help him concentrate.

(I know it sounds a little far-fetched. But the way Smith described his revelations, it is something one gets better at with time but it still helps to have something physical.)

Not necessarily, given that the distinguishing features of the Nephites versus the Lamanites was that they were fair-skinned. And the Book of Mormon is about 588 pages long, so there are bound to be typos and other mistakes, but not many.
So tell me, do you take the history in the Book of Mormon literally? As far as I can tell, archaeology has not backed up the story told there at all.

Yes, we believe that God has a literal, physical body. So one could fight Him. He might even let you win just to humor you, as so many fathers do.
But if God has a physical body, and so does his wife, why do they produce spiritual children instead of physical, or physical and spiritual children?

You are confusing 2 things. Smith said that the Book of Mormon was written with a writing system (NOT a language) that he called "Reformed Egyptian", which seemes to be a mix of Hebrew words written with Egyptian characters. As the plates from which he translated are no longer available, it is impossible to see if he was right.

The other is the Book of Abraham, which he translated from an Egyptian papyrus. Another portion of this papyrus was found in the 1960's (in Chicago, I think) to be from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and to have nothing to do with Abraham. However, the portion translated then does not fit the description of what Smith translated, the exact part of which seems to be lost. This leaves two possibilities that I see (other than that he made it up): either the papyrus he translated was connected with the one in Chicago but said different things, or he translated the Book of Abraham from a script that had nothing to do with Abraham. It is important to remember that he translated this (and the Book of Mormon) not from his own wisdom, as he didn't read Egyptian and only learned Hebrew later in life. What he said, and what Mormons believe, is that he did so through God's power. So he could have had the Book of Abraham given to him by God, with an unrelated papyrus to help him concentrate.

(I know it sounds a little far-fetched. But the way Smith described his revelations, it is something one gets better at with time but it still helps to have something physical.)
So basically you're saying he didn't translate it at all,God just told him stuff while he concentrated on the papyrus? Why didn't he just have Smith write it down as God dictated? That's what prophets from Isaiah to John the Baptist did, why would this be different?

So tell me, do you take the history in the Book of Mormon literally? As far as I can tell, archaeology has not backed up the story told there at all.

It is not surprising that there is no archaelogical evidence; we are dealing with a part of the world in which we know little of life 2600 years ago, and writing was not widespread. We are not going to find a clay pot that says "Property of Nephi" on it. I do believe that the Book of Mormon is more or less historically true, but I would not expect there to be any identifiable evidence, especially given how limited in scope it is geographically and culturally.


But if God has a physical body, and so does his wife, why do they produce spiritual children instead of physical, or physical and spiritual children?

Because they have spirits as well. We do not claim to know the exact means by which we are created as spirit children.


So basically you're saying he didn't translate it at all,God just told him stuff while he concentrated on the papyrus? Why didn't he just have Smith write it down as God dictated? That's what prophets from Isaiah to John the Baptist did, why would this be different?

We are not actually all that clear on all the ways that all the prophets received revelation. Some of it came in visions, like with Isaiah, but there were other ways as well. Remember that for Elijah, God was not in the earthquake or the whirlwind but in the still small voice.

It is not surprising that there is no archaelogical evidence; we are dealing with a part of the world in which we know little of life 2600 years ago, and writing was not widespread. We are not going to find a clay pot that says "Property of Nephi" on it. I do believe that the Book of Mormon is more or less historically true, but I would not expect there to be any identifiable evidence, especially given how limited in scope it is geographically and culturally.
Why not? We know plenty about culture in the Middle East 2600 years ago. Not as much as we would like, of course, but enough for rough histories. We can tell you where the major nations were, many of their monarch's names, the places for major cities, how their armies fought, etc. But in North America, we don't have any evidence that the cities or nations mentioned in the Book of Mormon ever existed.

Because they have spirits as well. We do not claim to know the exact means by which we are created as spirit children.
But even so, that still doesn't make sense. Physical and spiritual beings have children - but those children are all spiritual, until their souls are crammed into physical bodies. Why wouldn't they just have physical and spiritual children? That would make more sense.

We are not actually all that clear on all the ways that all the prophets received revelation. Some of it came in visions, like with Isaiah, but there were other ways as well. Remember that for Elijah, God was not in the earthquake or the whirlwind but in the still small voice.
Yes, revelation comes in a variety of ways; from voices out of burning bushes to small voices after disasters - but not, so far, in golden plates in Reformed Egyptian. ;)

Another question: What do you have to say about joseph Smith's past before he became a "prophet"? I've heard he walked around telling fortunes with a crystal. Have you heard about that, and does that have any impact on how you view him?

Why not? We know plenty about culture in the Middle East 2600 years ago. Not as much as we would like, of course, but enough for rough histories. We can tell you where the major nations were, many of their monarch's names, the places for major cities, how their armies fought, etc. But in North America, we don't have any evidence that the cities or nations mentioned in the Book of Mormon ever existed.

We know a great deal less about Mesoamerica 2600 years ago. There was lower population density, less writing, and environmental conditions less suited to preservation. And we don't even know all that much about the Middle East 600 years ago, not enough to say if a given person did or didn't live there.


But even so, that still doesn't make sense. Physical and spiritual beings have children - but those children are all spiritual, until their souls are crammed into physical bodies. Why wouldn't they just have physical and spiritual children? That would make more sense.

Because they are using a different process, one we don't understand? Because they want us to take part in creation by making the physical bodies? They haven't told us.


Yes, revelation comes in a variety of ways; from voices out of burning bushes to small voices after disasters - but not, so far, in golden plates in Reformed Egyptian. ;)

Well, why couldn't it? Anyway, I say revelation has come from plates. Are you saying that God can never come up with a new way of revealing Himself?

Another question: What do you have to say about joseph Smith's past before he became a "prophet"? I've heard he walked around telling fortunes with a crystal. Have you heard about that, and does that have any impact on how you view him?

Part of the culture of the time was fixated on treasure seeking. A lot of people went digging and Joseph Smith was though to be good at it. However, he never was a fortune teller.

Joseph Smith was, at one time, an actual gold digger. I dont buy that stuff about crystals though. Honestly, I dont think he would be smart enough

We know a great deal less about Mesoamerica 2600 years ago. There was lower population density, less writing, and environmental conditions less suited to preservation. And we don't even know all that much about the Middle East 600 years ago, not enough to say if a given person did or didn't live there.
True. But even so, shouldn't there be at least SOME evidence of the historical accuracy of the events recorded in the Book of Mormon, if they indeed happened? But I have yet to hear of any.

Because they are using a different process, one we don't understand? Because they want us to take part in creation by making the physical bodies? They haven't told us.
All right, fair enough.

Well, why couldn't it? Anyway, I say revelation has come from plates. Are you saying that God can never come up with a new way of revealing Himself?
No, God's power and imagination are unlimited. I merely find it, well, rather hard to believe, to put it mildly, that He would use such a strange and unusual way of revealing the Truth. Why not just hand Joseph Smith a copy of the Book of Mormon as He wanted it and say "Have at it" instead of giving it to Him in a made up language? Is there some rewarding spiritual experience in translating something in a language that doesn't exist?

Part of the culture of the time was fixated on treasure seeking. A lot of people went digging and Joseph Smith was though to be good at it. However, he never was a fortune teller.
Wikipedia seems to disagree. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Work_as_a_treasure _seeker_and_marriage_to_Emma_Hale) From the link:

At about the same time as Smith reportedly had his First Vision, it has been said that he began to practice crystal gazing, a form of divination in which a "seer" looks into a crystal, often called a seer stone, to divine esoteric knowledge. There are two stories about how Smith obtained his first seer stone. According to an account of an interview with Smith, Sr., a 14-year-old Joseph borrowed the stone from a person working as a local crystal gazer (Lapham 1870, pp. 305-306); it reportedly showed him the underground location of his own stone near his home, which he located at a depth of about twenty-two feet (Id.)......

Perhaps I'm simply not knowledgable about this subject, but I consider divination and fortune telling to be, if not the same thing, then sister arts.

Another question: What do you have to say about joseph Smith's past before he became a "prophet"? I've heard he walked around telling fortunes with a crystal. Have you heard about that, and does that have any impact on how you view him?

You're thinking of a "peek stone". Smith was known to use these in looking for gold.

I've read the last few pieces of dialogue between you two, and I asked some earlier, similar questions (although my interests/motivations are probably different), mostly because I was curious how Mormons deal w/ the well known and documented problems w/ the accuracy of the things the BoM says.

Now, I'm not gonna turn this into a debunking thread, because, in all honesty, debunking the BoM is easy to do.

But, people believe what they want to and so long as they leave me alone, I don't care much. I do think that even though the BoM is man-made, that the Mormon faith, has a lot of philosophical points that are to be commended. However, as soon as they get to the secret stuff and hidden ritual, that's where I draw the line. That goes w/ other religions that are known to do the same, Catholicism, for example.

That is the one thing I find appealing about (mainstream) Protestantism; the lack of secretness and a more earnest focus on the simplicity of JC's teachings. Obviously, I lot of these branches of Protestantism are wacked-out and have totally distorted and ruined the message of JC. Oh well...

No offense meant to Eran or MattBrown. I'm sure their faith is strong enough to not be shaken by my brief comments, which, no doubt, they've heard many times before. :)

I only mentioned about debunking just so people who read this know that the BoM is certainly not w/out challenge. If anyone wants any info, just PM me. Also, if Eran doesn't object, and there's interest, I'll give some objective info about the time period in which Mormonism was founded, that I think helps understand its relevance and why/how it came about.

Indeed. While I would like to convince Eran that his beliefs are wrong, that's not really my main intention here. I'm actually just curious as to what Mormons actually believe, because it's kinda hard to tell sometimes behind all the talk. One of my best friends when I was little was Mormon, but we didn't talk about it much (I was about eight) and all I remember from the time was that they had "special underwear" and the missionaries on bikes creeped me out.

And not to offend anyone, but I think that when people think they are debunking the Book of Mormon they aren't really.

Anyways, what sort of evidence do you want? In reality, according to archaelogists there is very little physical evidence backing up most of the history of the Bible. Now, as I said, it is even harder in the case of the Book of Mormon. Not only do we not know exactly where it happened, there is almost no information given about surrounding cultures. The history of the BoM tends to be along the lines of "person X did this, and then there was a war between nations Y and Z", where we know very little about the wars fought in Mesoamerica 2000 years ago and can identify almost no individuals. The fact that we cannot make any claims with any certainty about anyone from that place and time, except for a few kings (and we know the cultures largely from names given later) there is no way to say that we should see more proof for the Book of Mormon. There is no way it would be preserved.

I should probably explain how exactly we believe the Book of Mormon to have come about. I mentioned the Lehites, a small group of Israelites who came to the New World. Among their descendants were many prophets and rulers, some of whom wrote down their prophecies and history. Around 400 CE the prophet Mormon (hence the name) abriged and compiled these records onto metal plates, and when he died his son Moroni added a little more. Moroni then buried the plates. 1400 years later he appeared as an angel to Joseph Smith and showed him where the plates were buried. Joseph then translated them with divine help. So what we actually have in the BoM (according to LDS belief) is the writings of ancient prophets translated into English by Joseph Smith. God didn't just hand over a sheet with everything already written - but then I can't see the Bible that way either. If anything, the Bible has had more problems with translation and transcription.

How about proof that the nations mentioned in it ever existed? That could be a start.

How about proof that the nations mentioned in it ever existed? That could be a start.

Let me reiterate: we are dealing with two nations of unknown size 2000 years ago in a part of the world not conducive to archaeological preservation. What little we know of any nations from that time and place come from later sources and thus usually don't have their original names anyways. We could have actual artifacts from the people of the Book of Mormon and never identify them as such, and there aren't all that many to begin with.

And not to offend anyone, but I think that when people think they are debunking the Book of Mormon they aren't really.

Anyways, what sort of evidence do you want? In reality, according to archaelogists there is very little physical evidence backing up most of the history of the Bible. Now, as I said, it is even harder in the case of the Book of Mormon. Not only do we not know exactly where it happened, there is almost no information given about surrounding cultures. The history of the BoM tends to be along the lines of "person X did this, and then there was a war between nations Y and Z", where we know very little about the wars fought in Mesoamerica 2000 years ago and can identify almost no individuals. The fact that we cannot make any claims with any certainty about anyone from that place and time, except for a few kings (and we know the cultures largely from names given later) there is no way to say that we should see more proof for the Book of Mormon. There is no way it would be preserved.

While I'll defend Mormonism against people who are simply out to prove that their religion is better, I think this whole last paragraph indicates why the BoM is so easy to disprove. Everything you say is based on a completely unrealistic view of archeology and history, butressed by apologetics.

If it "survived" there would be histories. There would be place names. There would be oral traditions/histories. There would be something. The only time that anything actually matches, (and are you ready for the big coincidence?) its for things that happen to have been known in ~1830.

Your prior arguments for why things like wheat, barely, cattle, pigs, swords of metal, smithies, are in the BoM when they did not exist AT ALL in the Americas until Columbus, have no basis in fact. They're just apologetics and if I offered such things to explain Egyptian history or Roman history, etc... I'd have zero credibility. Conversely, many COMMON animals of the Americas are not mentioned at all (turkeys, deer, llamas, to cover a nice geographic swath). Then there's the whole issue of the plates and the glyphs that J Smith reproduced. Then there's the whole issue of the language and style in which he translated the BoM. The way you cavalierly dismiss the racist past of the church, Etc.. etc... etc... ad naseum.

Egads, I told myself I wouldn't do this, but, sorry, that last paragraph of yours was too much. :)

If it "survived" there would be histories. There would be place names. There would be oral traditions/histories. There would be something. The only time that anything actually matches, (and are you ready for the big coincidence?) its for things that happen to have been known in ~1830.

How? The events described happened between 600 BCE and 400 CE. What sort of written record or oral traditions do we have of anyone from that time and that place, let alone all nations and cultures (which we would need to have in order to say that we should see some from the Book of Mormon). And what do you mean by "the only time that anything matches"? Do you mean that the Book of Mormon is really describing American culture in 1830? Because it doesn't seem so to me.

Your prior arguments for why things like wheat, barely, cattle, pigs, swords of metal, smithies, are in the BoM when they did not exist AT ALL in the Americas until Columbus, have no basis in fact. They're just apologetics and if I offered such things to explain Egyptian history or Roman history, etc... I'd have zero credibility. Conversely, many COMMON animals of the Americas are not mentioned at all (turkeys, deer, llamas, to cover a nice geographic swath).

I wasn't trying to explain how there could be horses et al among the people of the Book of Mormon. I was trying to explain how the writers of the Book of Mormon could say they were there when they weren't. I did in fact say that they weren't. And never let it be said that I am trying to claim that the Book of Mormon is proved by archaeology. I am not trying to explain Mesoamerican history at all, I am just saying that the BoM can be a fairly accurate description of a certain segment of it.

Then there's the whole issue of the plates and the glyphs that J Smith reproduced. Then there's the whole issue of the language and style in which he translated the BoM.

It all gets back to what the purpose of the BoM really was. If it were an attempt to show a history of a group of people for history's sake, then yes, actually having the plates would be necessary. If the purpose was spiritual, and the only way to really know if it is genuine is through spiritual means, then it is irrelevant. And so what that Jospeh Smith chose to use a somewhat formal or archaic style when translating? I can translate a slang English phrase into either slang Spanish or formal Spanish. That has no bearing on whether the English phrase ever existed.

The way you cavalierly dismiss the racist past of the church, Etc.. etc... etc... ad naseum.

I said that some members of the church were racist, which is true. I said that not all were, which is true. I said that the sum total of racial discrimination was withholding one part of membership from some people, which is true. I said that they weren't actually barred from membership, which is true. What precisely was so "cavalier"?

Egads, I told myself I wouldn't do this, but, sorry, that last paragraph of yours was too much. :)

How? All I said is that regardless of whether the Book of Mormon is true or not, there is no reasonable hope to find archaeological evidence that is unambiguously attached to it. What is the problem?

Ok, another question: Do you read Orson Scott Card's books? As I understand it, he's a Mormon, but he's a more liberal one than you; embracing evolution and not taking the history in the Book of Mormon literally. How is he thought of? As a great Mormon writer, a lefty, or with ambivalence?

I ask because I've read several of his books, and they're usually pretty interesting.

Is there some rewarding spiritual experience in translating something in a language that doesn't exist?


Well, the Biblical God does have a history of messing with languages, only to cause division ...

Eran, I was reading a Bob Larson book on religions (not an unbiased source), but he had two accusations.

One is that Mormons had a Zionist world view. Do you know what that means? The other is that the LDS preach that a wife should defer to the husband. Any truth to those?

Ok, another question: Do you read Orson Scott Card's books? As I understand it, he's a Mormon, but he's a more liberal one than you; embracing evolution and not taking the history in the Book of Mormon literally. How is he thought of? As a great Mormon writer, a lefty, or with ambivalence?

I ask because I've read several of his books, and they're usually pretty interesting.

I dont know any Mormons who dont embrace evolution. We even teach it at BYU.

As for Card, the church likes him...he's one of our few celebs

Well, the Biblical God does have a history of messing with languages, only to cause division ...

Eran, I was reading a Bob Larson book on religions (not an unbiased source), but he had two accusations.

One is that Mormons had a Zionist world view. Do you know what that means? The other is that the LDS preach that a wife should defer to the husband. Any truth to those?

Zionist in what sense?

As for "should the wife defer to the husband", well not really. We do have a sort of patriarchal view of things, where the man is head of the household; at the same time, for him to use this authority to compell his wife in any way is a great sin. As I mentioned, we give all worthy men the priesthood (which we view as authority from God) but any man who appeals to the priesthood to argue that his wife should or shouldn't do something is unworthy of it. I am sure there are men who make their wives defer to them, but the Church is constantly teaching that this is a sin.

As for OSC: I do know some Mormons who reject evolution. They get this not from Church doctrine but the general cultural sense that evolution is atheistic. Every member I know who understands science accepts evolution. There is little room for "intelligent design" in the Church. I don't know how much Card does or doesn't accept the historical validity of the BoM; I always gathered that his view was somewhat similar to mine that it inevitably contains historical errors but that the most important events really happened.

What makes you so certain that the book of Morman is correct? The single most importatn thing?

What makes you so certain that the Book of Mormon is correct? The single most important thing?

As I have said, because I prayed to ask if it was true and received what i genuinely feel is an answer that it was. What I felt was not an emotion and was unlike anything that my mind has ever created, and I believe that it was the Holy Ghost.

There is of course a possibility that I was wrong and that it really was just my mind, but as I said that is a risk I am willing to take.

Does Perfection ever read the posts in here? ;)

Anyway, what happens to Mormons who apostate or leave Mormonism in favor for another religion?

Anyway, what happens to Mormons who apostate or leave Mormonism in favor for another religion?

Depending on circumstances, they may be excommunicated, but that is rare and by no means automatic. Depending on where they live it may mean the loss of some friends, but not necessarily. In the case of, say, my mother, the members of our congregation thought it was unfortunate that it happened, but they didn't condemn her - they tried to at least maintain social contact. In general, we view it as unfortuante but the inevitable result of free will, and hope that they will again see the light, so to speak. We don't usually (in my experience, anyways) go for telling them they are going to hell or even try really hard to "reconvert" them. There are undoubtedly exceptions.

Does Perfection ever read the posts in here? ;)

Anyway, what happens to Mormons who apostate or leave Mormonism in favor for another religion?

We usually kill them

We usually kill them

What about their young, do you eat them or take them as your own? ;)

What about their young, do you eat them or take them as your own? ;)

If they are young enough, we will raise them as our own, but if they are old enough to be able to remember what happened we have no choice but to eat them as well.

We usually kill them
Thats harsh to do to Mormons who left their faith for another religion. I do hope youre just fooling around ;).

Thats harsh to do to Mormons who left their faith for another religion. I do hope youre just fooling around ;).

What, eat their children? I don't see how . . .

Really though, our biggest detractors tend to be ex-members. If we killed anyone, clowns like Ed Decker (made a movie called The Godmakers that was described by an ecumenical organization as "religious pornography") would be dead by now.

Would I lie about something as serious as my faith? We can't have people telling our secrets. We bump them off.

Does Perfection ever read the posts in here? ;)

Anyway, what happens to Mormons who apostate or leave Mormonism in favor for another religion?

Only one way to find out, CG. Become Mormon, then quit. I'll give you a shiny quarter!

Only one way to find out, CG. Become Mormon, then quit. I'll give you a shiny quarter!
Sorry, I am happy with Roman Catholicism :).

Sorry, I am happy with Roman Catholicism :).

No, he was suggesting you do it insincerely just to get an answer to your question. And it would, of course, but as it is a very long and involved process you are better off just taking my word for it. After all, I know everything, right? Or something . . .

I dont know any Mormons who dont embrace evolution. We even teach it at BYU.

As for Card, the church likes him...he's one of our few celebs
Not microevolution, such as variation within a species. That's taught everywhere. Evolution as in macroevolution, big bang, we're all descended from apes stuff. Is that taught at BYU?

Ahh, I see. I thought most Mormons hated him or something, since he left Utah for South Carolina; apparently that's not the case. (Maybe he likes the weather there)

Depending on circumstances, they may be excommunicated, but that is rare and by no means automatic. Depending on where they live it may mean the loss of some friends, but not necessarily. In the case of, say, my mother, the members of our congregation thought it was unfortunate that it happened, but they didn't condemn her - they tried to at least maintain social contact. In general, we view it as unfortuante but the inevitable result of free will, and hope that they will again see the light, so to speak. We don't usually (in my experience, anyways) go for telling them they are going to hell or even try really hard to "reconvert" them. There are undoubtedly exceptions.
That's interesting. I had a karate teacher who was a former Mormon, and apparently after he converted to Christianity all of his family and friends in Utah stopped talking to him. Is that a very common response, or are they usually fine with it?

Not microevolution, such as variation within a species. That's taught everywhere. Evolution as in macroevolution, big bang, we're all descended from apes stuff. Is that taught at BYU?

Ahh, I see. I thought most Mormons hated him or something, since he left Utah for South Carolina; apparently that's not the case. (Maybe he likes the weather there)


That's interesting. I had a karate teacher who was a former Mormon, and apparently after he converted to Christianity all of his family and friends in Utah stopped talking to him. Is that a very common response, or are they usually fine with it?

Now, Im going to be very careful with this, because I am a Political Science and Music Student...NOT a biologist....and I made a point to get the heck as far away from BYU as I could. But I do know that as far as evolution is concerned, their teachers are similar to what I've recieved from my Ohio public school education, and two science classes at American. Via survivial of the fittest, species change over time to adapt to their enviroment. BYU does NOT teach that all animals just showed up as they were, or other creationist ideas.

I do not know much else beyond that....the Biology major is fairly new at BYU (students previously went through a zoology major I think), and Im not even kind of interested in it, so I cant answer more than that.

Mormons dont bare any grudges for leaving Utah. Eran doesnt live in Utah, and I sure dont, nor do I ever have any desire to live there. I'm told that Card placed a lot of Mormon teachings, and stories from the Book of Mormon into his books (I only read Enders Game, I'm not much for science fiction), and so lots of folks liked him for that. He's not on the level of Steve Young or anything, but he's on the list of LDS celebs.

As for your story, I cant say thats common. Usually, its the other way around (family wont speak to the guy after he becomes Mormon), so we're normally sympathetic to that. We wouldnt want to replicate that behavior.

Now, Im going to be very careful with this, because I am a Political Science and Music Student...NOT a biologist....and I made a point to get the heck as far away from BYU as I could. But I do know that as far as evolution is concerned, their teachers are similar to what I've recieved from my Ohio public school education, and two science classes at American. Via survivial of the fittest, species change over time to adapt to their enviroment. BYU does NOT teach that all animals just showed up as they were, or other creationist ideas.
Interesting. What's the official LDS doctrine on this? Are they still keeping to the 7-day creation account? How much influence does the church have on educational institutions inside Utah?

Mormons dont bare any grudges for leaving Utah. Eran doesnt live in Utah, and I sure dont, nor do I ever have any desire to live there. I'm told that Card placed a lot of Mormon teachings, and stories from the Book of Mormon into his books (I only read Enders Game, I'm not much for science fiction), and so lots of folks liked him for that. He's not on the level of Steve Young or anything, but he's on the list of LDS celebs.
Yeah, I didn't mean people didn't like him because he left Utah; basically I was asking if Card left Utah because of some rift or something. Apparently that's not the case.

I've read all four books in the Ender Quartet, three of the four books in the Bean series, and the Worthing Saga. The Mormon ideas aren't usually preachy, but they are noticeable. For example, the idea of souls existing before conception exists; they talk about things called "aiua's" which are basically souls; being called by the Bugger Queen's when they wish to make a new Queen. (Those are the fully sentient ones) It's established that humans do pretty much the same thing; except it's unconscious for us.

The idea of a sort of progression towards becoming a diety is apparent as well, if you know what you're looking for. This is very obvious in the character of Jane.

As for your story, I cant say thats common. Usually, its the other way around (family wont speak to the guy after he becomes Mormon), so we're normally sympathetic to that. We wouldnt want to replicate that behavior.
That's good.

Interesting. What's the official LDS doctrine on this? Are they still keeping to the 7-day creation account? How much influence does the church have on educational institutions inside Utah?


I'm not sure what the *official* church line is. I've been taught in sunday school that it was, in fact, a much longer process than 7 litteral days. All sorts of the bible is taught in parable.
its not taught that the particular 7-day account is litteraly correct.

Now, you'll have to understand that Utah doesnt always = Mormon. There are a heck of a lot of non-mormons living there, and often they tell the church where to stick it. I remember last time I was there, reading a newspaper...Sandy (a town not too far from Salt Lake), had its little league baseball games on mondays, which the church tries to keep as "family night". Church reps asked the league to consider holding games on other days. The town laughed in their face.

Usually, the actual church shuns political activity (there have been a few exceptions), and I imagine that this includes forays into public education. Towns with huge Mormon majorities, I dunno....its hard for me to say, because I've never lived in an area like that. I dont think the church has much say in education in Utah, outside of Brigham Young University, the LDS Bussiness College, and the other 3 BYU Schools

I would say that more or less the Church's line on evolution is basically "since it is not really important to salvation, it is okay if our members want to believe that evolution is not true." From what I have heard, what they teach at BYU regarding evolution is indistinguishable from what they teach at any secular school. Heck, at Notre Dame there was an LDS professor of geology and paleontology. But like I said, some members, influenced by culture, seem to think that they can't believe it. I haven't met any scientifically minded members who didn't, however.

Would I lie about something as serious as my faith? We can't have people telling our secrets. We bump them off.

My God really:eek: what about though shalt not kill?:confused:

Anyway what method do you favour? make it look like an accident or some sort of termination with extreme prejudice :)

Shane I'm not sure offering money to join a religion is really in keeping with Christian morality, that said though give me a million dollars and I'm in like flin :)

I can't think of one religion that has an official policy on Creationism and creationism? Although I may well be wrong here, but even the Pope said evolution is more than a mere hypothesis. It wasn't an advocation by any means but it certainly opened the topic up to some consideration at least.

My God really:eek: what about though shalt not kill?:confused:

Anyway what method do you favour? make it look like an accident or some sort of termination with extreme prejudice :)

Shane I'm not sure offering money to join a religion is really in keeping with Christian morality, that said though give me a million dollars and I'm in like flin :)

It varies from person to person. I prefer the "concrete overshoes" method as it isn't messy and they don't find the body.

Oops, now that I've said that I will have to kill all of you!

Seriously, in my experience we treat those who leave the church better than a lot of people treat those who join.

Eran, your post in my Israel/Evangelical thread really made me stop and think about something....

Mormons believe that Christ came to the new world, correct? Do you think that in any way fulfills any of the Revelation prophecies about the second coming, or do you still think that's down the road (which would make it actually the third coming for you I guess??)?

Yeah, he's coming back. Jesus preaching to the Americas (or anywhere else he might have showed up), doesnt count

It varies from person to person. I prefer the "concrete overshoes" method as it isn't messy and they don't find the body.

Oops, now that I've said that I will have to kill all of you!

Seriously, in my experience we treat those who leave the church better than a lot of people treat those who join.

:lol: I do think it's important that a religion should have a sense of humour about itself.

If your not joking though, you'll never find me, but then there is a Chruch of LDS near where I live, damn maybe I should consider moving:eek:

haha, just to be be clear everybody, I'm kidding. The LDS church doesnt kill people. Well...very many people.

Eran, your post in my Israel/Evangelical thread really made me stop and think about something....

Mormons believe that Christ came to the new world, correct? Do you think that in any way fulfills any of the Revelation prophecies about the second coming, or do you still think that's down the road (which would make it actually the third coming for you I guess??)?

His appearance in the New World was not related directly to the Second Coming. We also believe that he went to the remnants of the Lost Tribe and possibly other groups of believers scattered throughout the world, but we don't know anything about that.

Actually, it would be his third for any Christian. Remember, when he appeared to Mary in the garden, he said that he had not ascended to his father. So if he did that, his second coming was when he appeared to the apostles, and we are waiting for number three. We do believe he will return, but we don't usually use the phrase "Second Coming".

Lost tribe? I've been casually reading this thread and must've missed something.. and i'm too lazy to google it so..

lost tribe of Israel in North America, right..? I remember some of this vaguely.. details?? How'd they get over here?

Eran, Matt...thanks much! :)

Actually, it would be his third for any Christian. Remember, when he appeared to Mary in the garden, he said that he had not ascended to his father. So if he did that, his second coming was when he appeared to the apostles, and we are waiting for number three.

You know, you're right. I never thought of that before, but I certainly hope you don't expect me to make everyone start calling it the "third coming" now! ;)

Lost tribe? I've been casually reading this thread and must've missed something.. and i'm too lazy to google it so..

lost tribe of Israel in North America, right..? I remember some of this vaguely.. details?? How'd they get over here?

No, as I said earlier, despite what a lot of non-Mormons think, the Israelites we believe to have been in the New World were not of the Lost Tribes. (They were residents of Jerusalem in the eve of the Babylonain conquest. And there were about 20 of them or so. And they came by boat, after crossing the Arabian peninsula. And the reason they could use a boat when ship-building technology of the time couldn't get that far was because God gave them the design, QED.)

We do believe that at least some of the Lost Tribes (the ten scattered after being conquered by Assyria) maintained enough identity that Christ could go to them after his resurrection, although we believe that God has withheld the details from us.

All Christians and Jews believe he's coming, the ordinal number is the only consideration is it 1st 2nd or 3rd?

Do Mormons look at his coming with such a positive attitude, I mean you could say he's long overdue, but then if you believe revelation it's not going to be to preach the word but to defeat Satan and his hordes. And then we all get weighed and measured and the world ends:eek:

I really dislike Revelations I'm a firm believer in it either being a false revelation or that it has already happened, what are your thoughts?

All Christians and Jews believe he's coming, the ordinal number is the only consideration is it 1st 2nd or 3rd?

Do Mormons look at his coming with such a positive attitude, I mean you could say he's long overdue, but then if you believe revelation it's not going to be to preach the word but to defeat Satan and his hordes. And then we all get weighed and measured and the world ends:eek:

I really dislike Revelations I'm a firm believer in it either being a false revelation or that it has already happened, what are your thoughts?

In LDS belief, the book of Revelation refers to a lot of things. I personally don't worry about the end of the world as I am going to die one day anyways, and I need to be prepared for that. We do think that his coming will be a good thing even if it is accompanied by all sorts of trials and tribulations (in this world? Naah, couldn't be) that we can prepare for.

Eran, do you believe in having many wives?

If I may: no and nor does his church, the answer to that was mentioned on the first and second pages of this thread.:)

Seriously, in my experience we treat those who leave the church better than a lot of people treat those who join.

Now, I know that you're being truthful (unless you're part of some conspiracy), but you should know that (since all are fallible) that I have heard about those who leave the church being treated very poorly. It might not be a standard in the church, but it's certainly done. I have a friend who is an ex-Mormon who insists that she was treated very meanly.

So, it's not all sunshine and roses. Though I expect you try. I'm just suggesting that you make some noise that people try harder!

Oh, and in that book I mentioned, Mr. Larson pointed out that you follow "Salvation through Works". I think I"ve seen you refute this before, but could you run down on the concept again?

Now, I know that you're being truthful (unless you're part of some conspiracy), but you should know that (since all are fallible) that I have heard about those who leave the church being treated very poorly. It might not be a standard in the church, but it's certainly done. I have a friend who is an ex-Mormon who insists that she was treated very meanly.

So, it's not all sunshine and roses. Though I expect you try. I'm just suggesting that you make some noise that people try harder!

Oh, and in that book I mentioned, Mr. Larson pointed out that you follow "Salvation through Works". I think I"ve seen you refute this before, but could you run down on the concept again?

Yes, I know that it happens that sometimes those who leave the church are then shunned or otherwise treated badly. Like I said, in my experience it is a rarity but sadly it happens. In my view, it is always very unfortunate when someone leaves the church, but treating that person any differently just compounds the problem.

As for salvation: like I said, we believe in salvation by grace. In other words, salvation is only possible because Christ's atonement made it possible for our sins to be remitted or"paid back". We do not in any way deserve salvation (which is an incredible thing, the ability to live with God) but God will give it to as many as are able to receive it. In order to receive it, however, we must show faith and works, which are usually inseparable. (I know it is possible for some without faith to perform good works. But no one without good works really has faith.) So salvation is conditional on faith and works.

A popular analogy is that of a debtor. Imagine a man who has a debt that can't be paid back. He faces debtor's prison (imagine that this all takes place in such a society) until a friend agrees to pay the debt in full. In return, the friend merely aks that as a sign of good faith the man pay him back as much as he is able. No one can claim that because he is paying back a small sum that he deserves to have his debt forgiven. Likewise, in the LDS view just because we perform works that will help us to gain salvation doesn't mean that we have earned salvation.

What is the Mormon's view on the Second Comming as well as the end of days?

I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this has been answered already.


Whats with the one-year food supply thing?

Does the Mormon Bible contain the books; Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Machabees in the Old Testiment Collection?

(This just came into mind just now :blush: )

No, as I said earlier, despite what a lot of non-Mormons think, the Israelites we believe to have been in the New World were not of the Lost Tribes. (They were residents of Jerusalem in the eve of the Babylonain conquest. And there were about 20 of them or so. And they came by boat, after crossing the Arabian peninsula. And the reason they could use a boat when ship-building technology of the time couldn't get that far was because God gave them the design, QED.)

No offense, but the more I learn about Mormonism the more ridiculous it sounds to me - but that's what happens with most religions, I guess.

No offense, but the more I learn about Mormonism the more ridiculous it sounds to me - but that's what happens with most religions, I guess.

It's all a matter of perspective, I guess. Once I am able to accept the idea of a God who is involved in human affairs, that whole "building a boat" thing comes easy.

Does the Mormon Bible contain the books; Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Machabees in the Old Testiment Collection?

We do not include the Apocrypha (as those books are known) in our Bible. According to a section of Doctrine and Covenants (revealed by God, according to Mormonism) these books are not reliable enough to include as scripture, but for one who has the Spirit, they can contain important knowledge and are thus worth reading.

I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this has been answered already.


Whats with the one-year food supply thing?

We believe in being prepared for calamities, so most members have 72 hour kits and even a full year's supply of imperishables. This comes in handy during natural disasters, and as an added bonus if things get really bad preceding the Second Coming (to answer CG a little) we won't starve.

I am going to explain somewhat the process of being a missionary. As I and several other posters have served missions, and MattBrown will join the ranks in a few months, I welcome their additions.

Young men become eligible to serve missions at the age of 19, and can begin the process up to the age of 26. Young women are not encouraged as much, but are eligible at 21 and remain so until they are married. Once someone is married, they can serve a mission with their spouse after retirement if they have no family obligations.

The process begins when the prospective missionary is interviewed by his or her bishop (congregation leader) and stake president (next step up) to determine worthiness (ie obedience to the commandments and church rules) and to be sure that it is the decision of the prospective missionary and not outside pressure.

He or she then fills out "papers" (they are referred to as such, as in, "Do you have your papers in yet?") which ask about foreign language, family information, etc. This, plus a physical fitness report filled out by a physician, and reports from the bishop and stake president, are sent to the Church's Missionary Department in Salt Lake City. Within about three weeks, Church leadership will decide where to send each missionary and send a confirmation letter and package of information. This is known as one's call, as in "I just got my call to go to the California Arcadia Mission". The call will also include the language that the missionary will speak (which, in the US, may be English, Spanish, or any of a numer of others).

The church divides the world up into about 335 geographical regions known as mission, with size based on both population density and number of members. Thus they range in size from the southeastern quarter of Los Angeles County (my mission, California Arcadia, one of the smallest) to several countries. Even those countries (such as China) which don't allow missionaries are part of a mission. The only exception is Israel, which is not included (more for religious than political reasons).

Within about three months of getting his or her call, the missionary will report to the Missionary Training Center. There are 15 worldwide but by far the largest is adjacent to the campus of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. There he or she will spend three weeks learning the basics of missionary work, or, if a foreign language is being learned, two months of intensive language training combined with missionary training.

Once he or she enters the "field" (ie, the place where a missionary serves), the missionary will be paired up with a trainer in a certain "area" (which generally corresponds to a single congregation). Every six weeks (in most places) come "transfers", in which the missionary may be paired up with a new companion, or sent to a new area, or both. This continues for two years (for elders, the male missionaries) or a year and a half (for sister missionaries) or until they go home for another reason.

The mission thus involves living out of a suitcase and boxes (as one moves every three months or so, and most don't use many possessions) and seeing a lot of places and meeting a lot of people. There are a number of rules by which missionaries live to stay focused on the work, thus not doing things that are acceptable for members of the church in general; these include dating (the hardest one), watching TV, going to movies, etc. But this is seen not so much as restrictive (for most missionaries) but as a way to concentrate on missionary work.

So I take it the Mormon missionaries do have to pack like Navy Submariners. ;)

I for one wont make it as a Mormon missionary, mainly because I dont realy like to leave my own home as well as abstaining from dating, TV, Movies, etc. Since it seems to restrictive to me and I cannot go without dating, watching TV, and using the computer. Though I dont realy worry since I am not a Mormon and Catholics dont have that sourt of missionary.

I am wondering how the missionaries deal with these restrictions, especialy not alowed to date (Since I would be sevearly frustrated when I see a woman that I am interested but cant ask her out due to missionary reasons)

So I take it the Mormon missionaries do have to pack like Navy Submariners. ;)

I for one wont make it as a Mormon missionary, mainly because I dont realy like to leave my own home as well as abstaining from dating, TV, Movies, etc. Since it seems to restrictive to me and I cannot go without dating, watching TV, and using the computer. Though I dont realy worry since I am not a Mormon and Catholics dont have that sourt of missionary.

I am wondering how the missionaries deal with these restrictions, especialy not alowed to date (Since I would be sevearly frustrated when I see a woman that I am interested but cant ask her out due to missionary reasons)

We just learn to deal. It is not so hard for anyone truly in the spirit of missionary work. As far as checking out women, we can't help noticing that they are attractive, but it is considered bad form to come back after your mission to marry someone you met there. Though it happens, frequently, and they aren't punished or anything, as long as they didn't actually date during the mission. With TV, as we are often in the homes of those who aren't members, they keep the TV on and it is hard not to keep glancing at it. But like I said, if one is committed it can be done and in fact, I think going 2 years without TV was good for me. Except the part where we started a war during that time.

I wanted to take this question overhere to avoid threadjacking, I am wondering what is hell as well as the judgement of God in Mormon Theology. Since I dont fully understand that concept of judgement after death and hell in Mormon Theology.

When we die, we will go to one of two places, called Paradise or Spirit Prison; actually, it is the same place, and the two names rather describe our condition there. Those who never heard the Gospel on earth will have it preached to them there, and many (most, I like to think) will accept it. Then we will be judged based on what we did in life, our works, our faith, what sort of people we have become, all that. We will then go to one of the three Kingdoms of Glory I described earlier (a few pages back) except the very few who are cast into outer darkness. Don't worry, you or I or the average person couldn't get there even if we tried.

Hell thus has several meanings. It can be the "spirit prison" that occurs after death when one has not yet received the Gospel. It could be Outer Darkness, where Satan and his angels (and a very few humans) will be. It could refer to what happens to those who after everything, refuse to accept God's mercy. They will be punished for an indefinite but finite period of time, then sent to the lowest of the Kingdoms. Conditions there, according to Joseph Smith, are better than anything on earth, but very far below what humans can obtain.

Since we're talking about missionary work...I just though I'd add that "my papers are officially in"....and my fate is now in Salt Lake's hands. There really arent a whole lot of missions that I could be sent to, since I can't ride a bike....so we'll see what happens.

Eran, a buddy of mine just got called to your old mission. Anything i ought to tell him?

Since we're talking about missionary work...I just though I'd add that "my papers are officially in"....and my fate is now in Salt Lake's hands. There really arent a whole lot of missions that I could be sent to, since I can't ride a bike....so we'll see what happens.

Eran, a buddy of mine just got called to your old mission. Anything I ought to tell him?

That depends. Is he English or Spanish speaking?

Congratulations on getting your papers in, by the way.

He'll be speaking the spanish.

ps. thanks...they've changed everything...its a lot harder, and its still possible that I might get rejected. They dont take people with ADD! anymore

He'll be speaking the spanish.

ps. thanks...they've changed everything...its a lot harder, and its still possible that I might get rejected. They dont take people with ADD! anymore

I was diagnosed with ADD and depression on my mission. I hope there isn't a problem.

Anyways, my advice to your friend is to expect to gain a lot of weight. And that if he ends up serving in Hacienda Heights or Pasadena, I spent 7 months in each of those areas so hopefully someone remembers me.

What they do now, apparently, even if you havent been treated for any problem in several years (I've been off ADD medication for 4, maybe 5 years), is make you go in for testing at LDS Social Services. If they detect anything, they ask you to serve a local, part-time service missioin (basically, being a ward missionary).

Whatever happens, I'm cool with it at this point. I'd really like to go, because I think I can do some good...but if I dont, I tried, I prepared, and I get to go back to school. Its a win-win

What they do now, apparently, even if you havent been treated for any problem in several years (I've been off ADD medication for 4, maybe 5 years), is make you go in for testing at LDS Social Services. If they detect anything, they ask you to serve a local, part-time service missioin (basically, being a ward missionary).

Whatever happens, I'm cool with it at this point. I'd really like to go, because I think I can do some good...but if I dont, I tried, I prepared, and I get to go back to school. Its a win-win

Yeah, maybe I kind of got grandfathered in because they started the whole "raise the bar" thing after I had already begun my mission. If I had waited a year, maybe I wouldn't have been able to go.

Since we're talking about missionary work...I just though I'd add that "my papers are officially in"....and my fate is now in Salt Lake's hands. Hm, the COB (Church Office Building) is just across the road. Shall I slip over there and put in a word for you? ;)

Best of luck. I served in the Australia Perth Mission, and it was wonderful, and a lot of hard work.

In places where LDS Church members form the majority of the population, Utah for example, is there any discrimination of any kind against non-members?

In places where LDS Church members form the majority of the population, Utah for example, is there any discrimination of any kind against non-members?

It is my understanding that in Utah there are subtle social forms of discrimination against non-Mormons, eg it is harder for kids to make friends in school. I have also heard that in the parts of Utah where non-mormons are the majority, they do the same to Mormons.

It is pretty much only in Utah where you will find a community where the majority of the population is LDS. Also, Church leaders have on many occasions said that such social discrimination is wrong and needs to be stopped. I think it happens anywhere you have any one group in the majority.

When we die, we will go to one of two places, called Paradise or Spirit Prison; actually, it is the same place, and the two names rather describe our condition there. Those who never heard the Gospel on earth will have it preached to them there, and many (most, I like to think) will accept it. Then we will be judged based on what we did in life, our works, our faith, what sort of people we have become, all that. We will then go to one of the three Kingdoms of Glory I described earlier (a few pages back) except the very few who are cast into outer darkness. Don't worry, you or I or the average person couldn't get there even if we tried.

Hell thus has several meanings. It can be the "spirit prison" that occurs after death when one has not yet received the Gospel. It could be Outer Darkness, where Satan and his angels (and a very few humans) will be. It could refer to what happens to those who after everything, refuse to accept God's mercy. They will be punished for an indefinite but finite period of time, then sent to the lowest of the Kingdoms. Conditions there, according to Joseph Smith, are better than anything on earth, but very far below what humans can obtain.
So when, in the New Testament, Paul speaks of eternal punishment, he's just wrong, according to Mormon doctrine? What is your view of the Christian Bible, by the way? All true, but not complete; corrupted, what?

And another question: When you receive classes on being a missionary, is there a class on being kinda scary? (That was about half a joke, I'll explain) When I was little, I had a friend who as a Mormon, and there were always missionaries in long white shirts and jeans (They really stood out in Hawaii, as it's so hot there usually) riding around on bikes. They weren't rude or anything, but they were a little creepy. Do you think I was just a paranoid little kid, or are LDS missionaries usually like that?

Hell thus has several meanings. It can be the "spirit prison" that occurs after death when one has not yet received the Gospel.

C.S. Lewis had a similar belief about Hell. Specifically, that anyone cursed to Hell can accept the Gospel and change his path even after death, and still go to Heaven. He wrote the allegorical story "The Great Divorce", which included this view of the afterlife. Is this like what Mormons believe?

Personally I can't say anything about what Hell will be like, or even whether we're stuck there for eternity. Let's just say I'll stay on the safe side and accept Christ while I'm alive. ;)

So when, in the New Testament, Paul speaks of eternal punishment, he's just wrong, according to Mormon doctrine? What is your view of the Christian Bible, by the way? All true, but not complete; corrupted, what?

And another question: When you receive classes on being a missionary, is there a class on being kinda scary? (That was about half a joke, I'll explain) When I was little, I had a friend who as a Mormon, and there were always missionaries in long white shirts and jeans (They really stood out in Hawaii, as it's so hot there usually) riding around on bikes. They weren't rude or anything, but they were a little creepy. Do you think I was just a paranoid little kid, or are LDS missionaries usually like that?

First: The principles of being punished for one's sins if one refuses to repent, are eternal. Also, being separated from God if one refuses His mercy will be eternal. In general, we believe the Bible to be mostly true but incomplete, and not perfectly translated or transmitted from what the authors may have intended.

Second: Jeans? I think missionaries everywhere have to where nice pants. Most people find us harmless, but I guess two young men dressed up and calling themselves "elder" could be a little creepy to some people. We alwyas tried our hardest to be polite. (Well, usually.)

Puglover: CS Lewis is a favorite author of many Mormons. Some of his writings seem to agree more with our doctrine thatn mainstream Christianity, although it could be just how we interpret it. I like The Great Divorce, and I see hell as exactly like that; it is the sum total of the choices we make if we insist on putting ourselves above all else.

Perhaps this might vary from Mormon to Mormon. But how can Catholics, like myself, (or any conservative Christian) learn from Mormons in regards to tolerance towards atheists and homosexuals.

Perhaps this might vary from Mormon to Mormon. But how can Catholics, like myself, (or any conservative Christian) learn from Mormons in regards to tolerance towards atheists and homosexuals.

It does vary a little - I have found that some Mormons have a somewhat intolerant attitude, but there is nothing in our doctrine that says they should.

The way I see it? First of all, remember that God will be the judge of all, not us. Also remember that we are all sinners. Homosexual activity is not necessarily a worse sin than, say, fornication. Which a lot of people do because it is not considered a sin by most people. If I were going to condemn people for being gay, I would have to condemn everyone who has sex before marriage. And pride can be a much worse sin than either, if it causes us to think we are better than God.

I have learned that since this is true, I cannot really judge people for which particular sins they are committing. I can think that what they are doing is wrong - I could even tell them if they ever asked - but I have learned that being gay doesn't define a person completely any more than my sins, or my personal habits, do. It helps that I knew a few gay people when I was growing up who were really nice people. But that is the key - remember that we are all humans, and therefore children of God, first, and anything else second. God has gone through a lot for His children; if He thinks we are worth it, so should we. Hope that helps.

I thought about this a little more during church today. The speakers were talking about the Atonement of Christ and what it means to all of us, and the love that it represents. According to Mormon thought, at least, every human who has ever lived will benefit from the Atonement to some degree (although some more than others). Christ went through an unimagineable amount of suffering to redeem us. In fact, he loved us so much that he would have done it all for me if I were the only person on earth; or you, or anyone else, were the only one. His love was so great that he suffered beyond our ability even to imagine, and he did it for sinners. Clearly, he thought that mankind was worthy of such a sacrifice. Clearly, his love was great enough to think that each and every one of us was worth it.

When I remember that, it become impossible for me to hate or be intolerant of anyone, no matter how much I may dislike them or how bad I think they are. If Christ in his infinite love suffered for them, who am I to disdain them?

First: The principles of being punished for one's sins if one refuses to repent, are eternal. Also, being separated from God if one refuses His mercy will be eternal. In general, we believe the Bible to be mostly true but incomplete, and not perfectly translated or transmitted from what the authors may have intended.
But why is it that you believe people have the option of repenting after death? Where is this idea found in the Scriptures?

Second: Jeans? I think missionaries everywhere have to where nice pants. Most people find us harmless, but I guess two young men dressed up and calling themselves "elder" could be a little creepy to some people. We alwyas tried our hardest to be polite. (Well, usually.)
Maybe they were just long pants; I was about six at the time, so the memory isn't too clear. They were long pants, though, which definitely made them stand out while riding their bikes around on Hawaii.

They were certainly polite, I'll give them that. For a little kid though, they were just a bit creepy.

What are the Mormon views of the Second Coming, and the End Times? Do you believe in a literal, physical return of Christ? Do you believe the events in Revelations were historical, prophecy, or some of both?

But why is it that you believe people have the option of repenting after death? Where is this idea found in the Scriptures?

To the best of my knowledge, it is not found in the Bible. But then we have never claimed that all of our doctrine comes from the Bible, and there is no reason that it should. As far as people repenting after death, I believe that God is loving; therefore, those who were not really aware of the process of repentance or who didn't understand it should be given the same chances as those who did. But someone like me cannot really expect to just repent after death (an extension of deathbed repentance, which we tend to view as largely insincere and useless). This is because I already know what i should do.


Maybe they were just long pants; I was about six at the time, so the memory isn't too clear. They were long pants, though, which definitely made them stand out while riding their bikes around on Hawaii.

They were certainly polite, I'll give them that. For a little kid though, they were just a bit creepy.

Yeah, I can see how we could frighten small children. Although I noticed that small children seemed to like us; maybe it's because I am such a clown around them. The long pants were hot on a bike in Southern California; even with short-sleeved shirts I was sweating constantly.

What are the Mormon views of the Second Coming, and the End Times? Do you believe in a literal, physical return of Christ? Do you believe the events in Revelations were historical, prophecy, or some of both?

I will explain this a little more later, but the upshot is that we do believe that Christ will be returning, literally and physically, sometime soon ("soon" here used in God's terms, not ours.) Revelations in our view is a mix of symbolism, descriptions of the near future (from John's perspective) and descriptions of the Second Coming. Our Doctrine and Covenants also explains a lot more about what we think will happen.

To the best of my knowledge, it is not found in the Bible. But then we have never claimed that all of our doctrine comes from the Bible, and there is no reason that it should. As far as people repenting after death, I believe that God is loving; therefore, those who were not really aware of the process of repentance or who didn't understand it should be given the same chances as those who did. But someone like me cannot really expect to just repent after death (an extension of deathbed repentance, which we tend to view as largely insincere and useless). This is because I already know what i should do.
This is actually very interesting. I was having a debate with a Christian friend, not too long ago, who is a Calvinist. She believes that God decides who can accept Christ, and to go Heaven, while I maintained that God, as a loving God, wouldn't create human beings if they could never even have the chance at accepting Him. I don't think I agree with your idea that the accepting can be done after you die, (The verse that says "Man is destined once to die, then the judgement" kinda puts a wrench into it) but it's an interesting take on it.

It's almost like Calvinists are on one side, Arminians (And people like me, who don't like either lable ;) ) in the middle, and Mormons are on the other side.

Yeah, I can see how we could frighten small children. Although I noticed that small children seemed to like us; maybe it's because I am such a clown around them. The long pants were hot on a bike in Southern California; even with short-sleeved shirts I was sweating constantly.
How do the parents usually react if their child, particularly a young child, expresses interest? I never did (I was six, and I had a Mormon friend who was about 9, needless to say we didn't discuss theology. All I knew was he wasn't allowed to drink caffeine, and had "holy" underwear. ;) I had to ask my Dad why they kept underwear with holes in it, which made him laugh, and looking back on it, me too)

I will explain this a little more later, but the upshot is that we do believe that Christ will be returning, literally and physically, sometime soon ("soon" here used in God's terms, not ours.) Revelations in our view is a mix of symbolism, descriptions of the near future (from John's perspective) and descriptions of the Second Coming. Our Doctrine and Covenants also explains a lot more about what we think will happen.
Interesting. I'll be waiting for it.

This is actually very interesting. I was having a debate with a Christian friend, not too long ago, who is a Calvinist. She believes that God decides who can accept Christ, and to go Heaven, while I maintained that God, as a loving God, wouldn't create human beings if they could never even have the chance at accepting Him. I don't think I agree with your idea that the accepting can be done after you die, (The verse that says "Man is destined once to die, then the judgement" kinda puts a wrench into it) but it's an interesting take on it.

It's almost like Calvinists are on one side, Arminians (And people like me, who don't like either lable ;) ) in the middle, and Mormons are on the other side.

More or less, although we have been referred to as Arminians by some theologians.


How do the parents usually react if their child, particularly a young child, expresses interest? I never did (I was six, and I had a Mormon friend who was about 9, needless to say we didn't discuss theology. All I knew was he wasn't allowed to drink caffeine, and had "holy" underwear. ;) I had to ask my Dad why they kept underwear with holes in it, which made him laugh, and looking back on it, me too)

That varies from parent to parent. We would not teach or baptize anyone under 18 if their parents were opposed, although we would encourage them to attend church and to try and get their parents to give consent. if it is just a 9 year old, we generally would frown on trying to get them to join without their parents, but I know a lot of members who joined in their teens, without their parents joining. Parents will give consent more often than jojn themselves.

More or less, although we have been referred to as Arminians by some theologians.
Honestly, I think you guys have gone beyond Armininanism, into works based theology instead.

Do Mormons consider themselves members of the Christian church? Not like the "true" Christian church, but as within the Christian church as a whole, with Catholics and Baptists and so on.

That varies from parent to parent. We would not teach or baptize anyone under 18 if their parents were opposed, although we would encourage them to attend church and to try and get their parents to give consent. if it is just a 9 year old, we generally would frown on trying to get them to join without their parents, but I know a lot of members who joined in their teens, without their parents joining. Parents will give consent more often than jojn themselves.
That's good to know. I don't agree with a fair amount of what you teach, but at least you teach it in a way that is fair to the parents.

Honestly, I think you guys have gone beyond Armininanism, into works based theology instead.

Do Mormons consider themselves members of the Christian church? Not like the "true" Christian church, but as within the Christian church as a whole, with Catholics and Baptists and so on.

I think I explained earlier how we do not believe in salvation by works, even though works are necessary. Generally, as James put it, if you don't have works you don't really have faith.

We consider ourselves Christian. However, we do not believe in a "Christian church" as a whole, like others do. I may have explained in this thread how we believe that the original church as Jesus founded it was corrupted, and therefore all existing Christian churches are not in line with what he founded; ours is a restoration of it, so in a sense we do believe that we are the only true church. Of course, we do not see other religions as false so much as incomplete, lacking what we have.

Not sure if this has been asked. But how do you deal with criticisms about the Mormon faith and how can I learn to deal with the criticisms of my faith?

Find a relationship with god above criticism.

Not sure if this has been asked. But how do you deal with criticisms about the Mormon faith and how can I learn to deal with the criticisms of my faith?

First, what Pyrite said. Second, having seen a lot of them most of them are misinformed. A lot of people criticize the Church for believing things we don't actually believe, or practicing things we don't actually practice. But as far as legitimate criticisms go, I remember that I have a real and sincere testimony of my faith, and that those who criticize it don't understand because they have a different perspective. If they would be willing to consider the possibility that what we say is true they would see how it makes sense. That seems like circular reasoning but I mean things like not criticizing our doctrine just because it is different from theirs, or realizing that our doctrine makes sense if we really are going to live forever.

Thanks for the advice. I found myself starting to distaste all sorts of criticisms against my faith that I do the "lalala I dont hear you" mentality and as well as being apethetic on certan issues that I used to be opposed at such as artifical contraception and same-gender marriages because I am affraid of being precived as a bigoted homophobe, behind the times, and as well as close-minded and inability to think for one self. Not sure if Mormons or any Christians face a simmilar thing like I did.

Don't stick your fingers in your ears, and don't be ashamed of your views as long as you come by them honestly. Also, don't be afraid to disagree with church leadership. I have different views on gay marriage from the leaders of the church, but what I think is still in the spirit of our doctrine.

I know, especialy with John Kerry, that he is both a Catholic and a supporter of Abortion and many of the Catholics say that he should be refused communion because he holds views that are against the Church's teachings. The only way they can recive communion is if they repent and turn away from thoes certan views. Arent there rules against disagreeing with the church leadership in the Mormon faith?

A member can hold any opinion he likes about the Church, we have our free will. It becomes heresy the second he starts teaching it. So I could say (hypothetically) that I think Moses wasn't a prophet or something. I could even tell other people I think that. But if I tried to teach it, or convince other people it is the case, I could be excommunicated for heresy.

A member can hold any opinion he likes about the Church, we have our free will. It becomes heresy the second he starts teaching it. So I could say (hypothetically) that I think Moses wasn't a prophet or something. I could even tell other people I think that. But if I tried to teach it, or convince other people it is the case, I could be excommunicated for heresy.

If I may, before anybody goes "whaaaaat, you kick people out for disagreeing??!/2", I think I ought to mention that one really would have to step out to get yourself kicked out for hersey "like, publishing a book that says SMITH WAS A FRAUD", or something. sunday schools in many wards have...erhm, docterinal varation sometimes, because our teachers are people too, and sometimes they make mistakes.

We had a few politically charged church meetings around election time, and I walked once, because one of the speakers was pretty much making stuff up. I think they got talked to, and they're still there.

I pay attention to this sort of thing, because there are still a few portions of church teachings that I have some issues with...I dont think I'm in danger of being removed :)

And here I come with some practical advice . . . what to do when the LDS missionaries knock on your door. I base this on two years of being the one to do the knocking, and keeping track of what people did that seemed to me to be a good idea or not.

First of all, make sure they are LDS. That usually means that they are two young men, wearing white shirts and ties, and sometimes sport coats (depending on location and climate). Occasionally there will be three of them, or they will be young women. But what is always constant is the black nametag. That, and they will identify themselves as "Elder" or "Sister" (or the equivalent in the local language) So and So. The other main religion to tract door-to-door, the Jehovah's Witnesses, come in larger mixed gender groups, and dress differently. They also act differently (so I've heard) at people's doors.

Second, just act normally. Some people act all weird or stressed when we are there. I know the situation is a little unusual, as there is a complete stranger, probably younger than you, attempting to teach you about religion, but it is no big deal. I am sure that most of the denizens of CFC have no problem, as you all seem like rational people, but you never know. Just be friendly.

Third, might I suggest actually talking to them? I admit I would be thrilled when someone actually took an interest in what we said and ended up converting. But the odds of that are very low (tracting is by far the lowest-yield method we have of finding people who join our church). Far more frequent are those who are willing to have a friendly conversation about religion, which I always enjoyed. Don't try arguing - they told us repeatedly not to argue with people, but the temptation is always there, and not to brag but I think we can be good at it. Not that either side will change their mind, but it can be unpleasant.

Fourth, if you don't want to listen, just say so. There is no need to get angry - it always struck me as a little silly that people would get so worked up. I understand that you may feel a little offended, but if you get angry you will feel worse. And lying is not that effective. The missionaries can usually tell (we get the same excuses all the time) although unless the missionary is a real jerk (hey, it happens) he won't point out to you that he knows you are lying. Just say that you are not interested. Good missionaries will know that that is enough and move on - like I said, it is low-yield, so standing and arguing with a person that they should listen when the person doesn't want to is less effective. If they are pushy (again, it happens), just tell them that they are being less effective. But if you are generally a friendly person, and it is hot out, water or something is appreciated even if you don't listen. Some of the kindest and most generous people I encountered would not listen to our message in a million years.

Now, I know that some people will think I am an arrogant, insufferable little snot for telling people what they should do when a stranger tries to preach to them. But everyone can be civil about it. Like I said, whenever someone got upset or angry at us when we came by, I always figured that they were losing - they didn't have to react that way, but by choosing to do so they willingly put themselves in a bad mood.

Sorry for bumping this, (Just let it die if you don't feel like continuing it) but something you said in Matt's going away thread piqued my interest. You guys were talking about the "Tree of Life", in the common shower area, and you said that rumor had it that there were common showers to discourage masturbation.

That got me wondering: Is the Mormon church against masturbation just on mission trips or training, or in general? Is it widely considered to be a sin, or at least not preferable, or are there many different views on the subject?

We're not supposed to Masterbate

Please, God, dont make me defend this for the next 9 pages.

Ah, I see. I thought I'd heard something like that before, but I wasn't sure. Is there a specific verse anywhere, in the New Testament or uniquely Mormon scriptures that inspired such a belief, or is it church tradition, or what?

I won't make you defend that for 9 pages, I'm just curious. (Maybe eight pages ;) )

I dont recall any particiular scriptual reference to masterbation or anything...and we dont follow the catholic line of reasoning either....if I masterbate, Im not killing possible babies by "spilling my seed".

Its that sort of slipperly slope bussiness I guess. basically, it can lead to all sorts of other trouble, it drives the spirt away, and opens ones mind up for other sexual sin. I'm not saying that if you masterbate, you're going to turn into some crazy sex offender...thats just the church line. Don't do it.

If one is still interested in the subject, one can dig up the old mormonism thread....theres at least 4 pages of Ironduck going on about how Mormons are totally sexually repressed and whatnot. Maybe there is a little truth to it, I dunno. I would be happy to address basically any other possible question in this thread

Haha, ok, I get it. (Who started that old Mormonism thread, anyway? In case I want to go read it.) Moving on....

Why do you guys call so many men "Elder This" and "Elder That"? Is it just a general term, or does it signify a certain position in the church? Do the Elders refer to each other as Elders? Do you guys normally use these titles in the general public and at non-church related events, or are they mostly just used when at church (Or temple, or whatever) and church-related functions?

And masturbation is not, as far as I can tell, considered to be an enormous sin like murder or something. I guess the reasoning is that it distracts from feeling the Holy Ghost. I have never masturbated, but as much for squeamishness as for morality, so I can't say what effect it does or doesn't have.

Why do you guys call so many men "Elder This" and "Elder That"? Is it just a general term, or does it signify a certain position in the church? Do the Elders refer to each other as Elders? Do you guys normally use these titles in the general public and at non-church related events, or are they mostly just used when at church (Or temple, or whatever) and church-related functions?

This is the second Mormonism thread, Matt started the first. As we are the two most active Mormon posters in OT.

Anyways, the title of "elder" refers to any man who holds the Melchizedek priesthood, which basically means any worthy man 18 or older. But it is only used as a title (as in "Elder Brown" or "Elder Blinn") when referring to missionaries or to certain General Authorities of the church.

This is the second Mormonism thread, Matt started the first. As we are the two most active Mormon posters in OT.

Anyways, the title of "elder" refers to any man who holds the Melchizedek priesthood, which basically means any worthy man 18 or older. But it is only used as a title (as in "Elder Brown" or "Elder Blinn") when referring to missionaries or to certain General Authorities of the church.
Ahh, thanks.

What's the criteria for being "worthy" of being a member of the priesthood? Do Mormons believe in the "priesthood of all believers", as most Protestants do?

What's the criteria for being "worthy" of being a member of the priesthood? Do Mormons believe in the "priesthood of all believers", as most Protestants do?

We understand the concept differently from Protestants. In fact, in terms of authority our priesthood is more comparable to Catholicism; we believe a man must be called of God and ordained through the laying on of hands. But any male in the church is eligible and most do hold the priesthood. Worthiness basically means following the rules of the church; before being ordained, one must be interviewed by the bishop (leader of the congregation) and/or stake president (leader of the stake, next level up).

We understand the concept differently from Protestants. In fact, in terms of authority our priesthood is more comparable to Catholicism; we believe a man must be called of God and ordained through the laying on of hands. But any male in the church is eligible and most do hold the priesthood. Worthiness basically means following the rules of the church; before being ordained, one must be interviewed by the bishop (leader of the congregation) and/or stake president (leader of the stake, next level up).
Hmm, interesting.

How liberal or conservative is Mormon society in general when it comes to dating, and such? I suppose it varies with you guys, as it does with Protestants. (I know families that speak of courting, and while my views on the subject are generally fairly close to theirs, I really hate that word. :p )

I found Matt's thread, and I'm reading the big discussion on masturbation. It's actually kinda funny seeing people suggest that you'll go insane if you don't masturbate. :crazyeye:

How liberal or conservative is Mormon society in general when it comes to dating, and such? I suppose it varies with you guys, as it does with Protestants. (I know families that speak of courting, and while my views on the subject are generally fairly close to theirs, I really hate that word.

Well, we refer to it as "dating", so that's an improvement right there. Compared to society as a whole we are quite conservative. They advise us not to start dating until the age of 16, and at that age to try dating a number of people rather than getting involved in a serious relationship. After a certain age, like when guys finish their mission, they suggest more serious dating and trying to find someone to marry. Not that it is a sin to not be married right away but there is no reason to delay it more than necessary. And of course we aren't supposed to have sexual relations or anything. They also advise only dating fellow members of the church, though as Matt could tell you it isn't a commandment or anything.

Well, we refer to it as "dating", so that's an improvement right there. Compared to society as a whole we are quite conservative. They advise us not to start dating until the age of 16, and at that age to try dating a number of people rather than getting involved in a serious relationship. After a certain age, like when guys finish their mission, they suggest more serious dating and trying to find someone to marry. Not that it is a sin to not be married right away but there is no reason to delay it more than necessary. And of course we aren't supposed to have sexual relations or anything. They also advise only dating fellow members of the church, though as Matt could tell you it isn't a commandment or anything.
That's very interesting; I think I'm actually a bit more conservative than you guys on this issue. :lol: That's rather unexpected, but more than a little amusing.

You guys get points for calling it "dating" though. Like I said, my views on how it should be done (For me, at least) would probably be considered indistinguishable from courting by many, but I just really don't like that word. Just one of my little pecularities I suppose.

What percentage of Mormons simply don't get married? Do you think it's higher, or lower than the general population?

What happens to those that don't get married? I know there are YSA wards but at 40 your not a young adult anymore

haha, sometimes they still go to YSA wards. Its really creepy...thats why I went to a family ward in DC

There are single adult wards for singles 31+ and in my stake (Mount Vernon VA) they are starting a "mid-singles" program for 31-45 singles.

And Matt, you might find that it is better going to a singles ward as an RM than a "preemie".

Forgive me if this has been asked already (I'm too lazy to read 12 pages of posts). Why is there a restriction with regard to wine? Jesus and the Apostles drank wine. How can it now be off limits?

Forgive me if this has been asked already (I'm too lazy to read 12 pages of posts). Why is there a restriction with regard to wine? Jesus and the Apostles drank wine. How can it now be off limits?

It is off limits now because God told us so. Remember, we believe in modern prophets, and we believe that they have received revelation from God that for us, for now, alcoholic drinks are to be avoided. This is primarily for health, but also because intoxication makes us lose touch with the Spirit, and furthermore as a sacrifice. it was okay for the apostles, and it is okay for non-Mormons, but we are commanded not to. Although some could argue that there is a loophole that allows members to drink wine that they themselves made, but I don't know too many who go this route.

It is off limits now because God told us so. Remember, we believe in modern prophets, and we believe that they have received revelation from God that for us, for now, alcoholic drinks are to be avoided. This is primarily for health, but also because intoxication makes us lose touch with the Spirit, and furthermore as a sacrifice. it was okay for the apostles, and it is okay for non-Mormons, but we are commanded not to. Although some could argue that there is a loophole that allows members to drink wine that they themselves made, but I don't know too many who go this route.
So the teaching of Jesus to drink wine and eat bread as representations of his blood and body in remembrance no longer apply?

So the teaching of Jesus to drink wine and eat bread as representations of his blood and body in remembrance no longer apply?

The principle is the same, all that has changed is the exact liquid we use. In fact, we have a scripture that deals with this and says, in essence, that it is not important what is used as long as it is done in the right spirit. And besides, I don't think that any denomination is using the exact same sort of bread or wine that Jesus used.

Pizza and beer works for me.

On a related note. Have you seen the South Park episode about the founding of Mormonism? Not that I would think it was representative of the churches teachings, but it was funny as hell.

On a related note. Have you seen the South Park episode about the founding of Mormonism? Not that I would think it was representative of the churches teachings, but it was funny as hell.

I have heard a lot about it, but have never seen it. I like to think I can handle good-natured ribbing (although Orgazmo . . .)

I saw the Scientology episode, but not the famous Mormon episode.

I have heard a lot about it, but have never seen it. I like to think I can handle good-natured ribbing (although Orgazmo . . .)

I saw the Scientology episode, but not the famous Mormon episode.

I'm a little surprised you've heard of Orgasmo Eran. I think that crosses the line from good nature ribbing, to downright offensive.

I saw the episode. The first half was hysterical (their showing of FHE was 100% perfect...MY FACE IS PAINTED), near the end, it just seemed more focused on beating down a faith than making jokes. There have been better Mormon jokes

Oh, you might be right Eran...but the Chevy Chase Family ward is where all of the DC college kids went pretty much, from AU, GW and Gtown. Ask anybody...they'll tell you that the singles ward there is sketchy

Jesus and the Apostles drank wine. How can it now be off limits?


Joseph Smith's first wife didn't like his friends coming over and getting smashed.


Just what I heard.

Joseph Smith's first wife didn't like his friends coming over and getting smashed.

Close, actually - she didn't like them spitting chewing tobacco on the floor. But he didn't just turn around and prohibit everything, not as we see it; her complaints led him to ask God about it, and the answer he got became our health code. Also, she wasn't just his first but basically his "main" wife throughout his life.

Eran:

I ran into the local Mormons (I've just moved recently), and I have to say that these threads were really quite useful. I claimed to already have Mormon friends and that I didn't need more exposure, and they were quite ready to hear that. (Though the concept of NOT believing in the Biblical God seemed to unnerve them; I think they divided the world into Christians/Mormons).

Anyway, the concept of a friendly atheist was new to them, I think

(Though the concept of NOT believing in the Biblical God seemed to unnerve them; I think they divided the world into Christians/Mormons).

That does seem to throw some people (not just Mormons) for a loop; "what do you mean you don't believe in the Bible?"

Anyway, the concept of a friendly atheist was new to them, I think

Well, now, you can be an example for your (lack of) faith.

Hey Eran, is there a Mormon music genre, like there is for Christian music? (Michael W. Smith, D.C. Talk, etc....) Or is Christian music regularly listened to, or what? I thought I heard you earlier say something about temple music.

Hey Eran, is there a Mormon music genre, like there is for Christian music? (Michael W. Smith, D.C. Talk, etc....) Or is Christian music regularly listened to, or what? I thought I heard you earlier say something about temple music.

Although we don't listen to much "Christian" music, as the genre is known, there is a whole field of music by Mormon artists and composers. I happen to like some of it but obviously tastes vary. I don't know what you mean by "temple music".

As far as hymns go, we use a lot that are in the hymnbooks of other Christian religions, although we have some of our own.

Is there such thing as a Mormon rock group? I imagine there would be, but I'm having trouble picturing it.

Is there such thing as a Mormon rock group? I imagine there would be, but I'm having trouble picturing it.

Not a rock group, but there are LDS "boy bands" and "girl bands".

Are any fairly popular, or famous?

Obviously not rock, but there is of course the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (http://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/), which is just awesome. Actually, "awesome" doesn't even do them service.

EDIT: Interesting factoid... (http://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/faq#3)

"The Choir is best known for its weekly radio and TV program, Music and the Spoken Word. First aired in 1929, Music and the Spoken Word is a weekly 30-minute broadcast of choral music and inspirational words. The program has since become the world's longest-running continuous network broadcast. It is broadcast over 2,000 radio and TV stations and cable systems.

Are any fairly popular, or famous?

Other than the Tabernacle Choir, they are really only famous within the genre. There are some singers who are LDS who are famous for mainstream music, though, like (ugh) the Osmonds, or Liliana Domiciani or something like that, I can never remember, an opera singer from Brazil. Or Gladys Knight, who has done mostly LDS-oriented music since joining the church a few years ago.

Yeah, the Tabernacle Choir is awesome.

I can't think of any other questions at the moment; I'll post again if I do. Thanks for doing this thread Eran, it's been very interesting, and in some ways, eye-opening.

One of the members of Maroon 5 is a Mormon. Or maybe its the Killers. one of the two.
We also have the Osmonds, and Aces High :)

The lead singer of the Killers, Brendan Flowers. Also possibly Maroon 5, not sure.