Ask a Mormon, Part 4

Ok, I misunderstood it completely. I was under the impression that the plates were direct word of God, and would therefore have different status.

Here's couple follow up questions:
Why didn't the angels do the translation for mr. Smith? (Nevermind, obviously being divinely inspired did the same job)
If one can become lesser god, what separates him from other men?
Are there any (living) people whom mormons consider as lesser gods?
Is it possible for humans to achieve powers considered supernatural?
How do you know that God the Father is the best God, and moreover, how do you know he is the best possible God?
If God is corporal being, where is his body?
 
@Plotinus:

I don't know whose choice it was for Smith to translate in the style he did; presumably, it was his. And what I meant was in part because of the writing style of the Book of Mormon, that we are used to it. It isn't so different from modern vernacular as to be incomprehensible, not really. And while God's power was involved in the process, we have never claimed that human efforts weren't either.

As to your other question, I think pretty there is a far more narrow range of possibilities for the origin of the Book of Mormon than for the Bible. And although I am sure there are people who consider themselves Mormon but don't accept the Book of Mormon as being historically what it claims to be, or inspired, I am not sure how they reconcile this. I will say that it is possible to believe that the Book of Mormon is the divinely inspired and translated account of historical events, and that at the same time to believe that it isn't completely historically accurate. That is in fact my view; not only may there have been translation errors when Smith translated it, but most of the text is (or claims to be) actually an abridgment by one prophet, Mormon, of events that had taken place hundreds of years before him. We don't take a "fundamentalist" view of the Book of Mormon either; it is important that it be divine, and what it claims to be, but not that it be perfect, and it isn't the only source of our doctrine.

@Atticus:

I am not sure what some of your questions mean, but I will say:

There is no one currently alive we would consider to be a god - it is a long process, and it would require (among other things) first dying, then being resurrected.
No living person has powers of their own that could be considered "supernatural" - the priesthood may be the power and authority to act on behalf of God, but it is not a power one possesses of themself.
Since we consider one of the attributes of godhood to be perfect goodness, that's how we would know.
God's physical body is . . . wherever it needs to be, don't know beyond that.
 
@Eran- In the light of your beliefs of the Afterlife, how do you interpret the end of Revelation? Specifically the Lake of Fire references. And what do you consider the "Book of Life" to be?
 
So what do you do in temple? How long is the service? How do you pray?

Do you mean in our regular meetinghouses (where we go every Sunday) or our temples, which are different?

@Eran- In the light of your beliefs of the Afterlife, how do you interpret the end of Revelation? Specifically the Lake of Fire references. And what do you consider the "Book of Life" to be?

The Lake of Fire is a description of the suffering that those who ultimately, completely reject Christ's atonement will have to endure. It is "eternal" in the sense that God, who is eternal, created it, but no one person is going to spend eternity suffering for their sins.

The Book of Life is basically, the records of who has received the ordinances necessary for exaltation. I wouldn't say it's an actual book but hey, why not?
 
It says "All those who's names are not written in the Book of Life are thrown into the Lake of Fire." Does this mean all non-Mormons will go to Hell?
 
@Dom: Well, no - as I said before, one's eternal fate isn't determined permanently at the point of death; you are going to need to accept the Gospel (as we understand it, which is of course slightly different from how other people do) at some point, to be "saved" in the fullest sense.

I wasn't aware of this. Could you explain the distinction, and what do you do in each?

Well, our meetinghouses (which we usually call chapels, or just plain "church") are where we go each Sunday. The meetings consist of 3 parts:

Sacrament meeting, which is where we take the Sacrament (aka communion/whatever it's called), conduct congregational business, sing hymns, and listen to talks given by members of the congregation. The whole congregation is there for this.

Sunday school, which is more or less what it sounds like. All the adults are together in one class (except new members and investigating nonmembers, who along with the missionaries are in a separate class) and the teenagers in classes divided by age.

Priesthood/Relief Society - The men in one class, the women in another. Teenagers are, once again, in separate classes divided by both age and gender.

During the second and third parts, the children are in Primary, which consists, again, of classes. And singing, lots of singing.

Each part is about an hour, and they are usually in that order, although they may be reversed at times.

Temples do not run on quite the same fixed schedule, but run sessions throughout the week. There are much fewer of them (only about 125 to 150 worldwide, counting the ones planned or under construction), and that is where we perform ordinances such as sealings (marriage for eternity) and baptisms for the dead.
 
The Lake of Fire is a description of the suffering that those who ultimately, completely reject Christ's atonement will have to endure. It is "eternal" in the sense that God, who is eternal, created it, but no one person is going to spend eternity suffering for their sins.

The word that is translated "eternal" (aionios) doesn't necessarily mean a time without end, anyway; it's roughly equivalent to "for ages and ages", indicating a very, very long time (which could or could not be literally without end). There are verses in the New Testament where it's used to indicate a period of time that is finite, because it's already ended (e.g. Romans 16:25).
 
Yeah, I think there is a verse in the D&C where Smith basically says exactly that.
 
If I recall correctly, during the time of Homer the world Aion/Aionios usually meant one lifetime or generation. Only later did the meaning drift towards an inconceivably/indefinitely long period.


I also remember reading somewhere that the adjective aionios could well refer to the timing instead of the duration of something. If so it could be over quickly once it starts but won't start until the age/world to come.


It is probably used as a translation for the Hebrew term Olam, which is also of indefinite rather than infinite length when it refers to time. It is usually translated world instead of age, but Greek and Latin words for age are frequently translated as world too so this is not a significant difference.
 
If I recall correctly, during the time of Homer the world Aion/Aionios usually meant one lifetime or generation. Only later did the meaning drift towards an inconceivably/indefinitely long period.


I also remember reading somewhere that the adjective aionios could well refer to the timing instead of the duration of something. If so it could be over quickly once it starts but won't start until the age/world to come.


It is probably used as a translation for the Hebrew term Olam, which is also of indefinite rather than infinite length when it refers to time. It is usually translated world instead of age, but Greek and Latin words for age are frequently translated as world too so this is not a significant difference.

Very interesting actually. But that would mean every single translation that currently exists in the English language is flawed.
 
That's hardly a surprise, Domination. Languages change, books decay and men evolve. You can't expect something to remain entirely unaltered, particularly in the Classical period.
 
To be fair, the term Aion probably changed its meaning a lot more between the time of Homer (pre-classical)and the Hellenistic period than it did after the time that the gospels were written.

The majority of verses using aion or aionian have their meanings preserves in the Latin Vulgate, although a few are changed to fit the more familiar reading instead.


I would be highly surprised if there existed a translation without some sort of flaw. Still, the flaw of translating Aion/Aionion as eternal is not present in all English translations. I'm specifically thinking of Young's Literal Translation. That is one of my favorite versions, although I admit that it is often rather awkward to read. It also annoys me that it stuck with archaic tense endings like eth, and that it replaces the Tetragrammaton with Jehovah (a mispronunciation of a misreading of YHVH written with the vowels from Adonai to remind the reader to say Lord instead of speak the ineffable name).
 
Aww, depending on your answer I was prepared to give a serious answer. If you mean "do any of the questions raised here cause you to doubt or question Mormonism", well, I have heard lots of objections or criticisms of it, and some are much better than others. Some of the best I have seen here, but none that actually convince me I am wrong.

I only just started reading this thread, so, apologies for responding to a post from so long ago.

I'm agnostic/atheist (I think/believe there is no God (atheist), I believe I could be wrong (agnostic), I don't think there is any reason to believe in the supernatural (irreligious)) as you may/may not already know. My view is tolerance and understanding are key; the only thing I would seek to eliminate is the attitude that we know about something that we cannot possibly know. The attitude of "my beliefs are absolutely correct, and I know this to be true for whatever reason" is the one I dislike about religion/militant atheism.

When you say "convince me that I am wrong", what do you mean, exactly?

What metric would you use for being right or wrong about a faith?

Do you mean the faith itself being 100% correct, or are we simply limiting this to the Mormon version of God?

Could you be persuaded by words in any direction? Why, if you have faith, would words move you in this regard?

What would you need to hear, in order to be convinced you were "wrong"?



I am not one who attempts to convert people, but the verbiage you used here intrigues me. I'd like to have a conversation with you about it.
 
That's hardly a surprise, Domination. Languages change, books decay and men evolve. You can't expect something to remain entirely unaltered, particularly in the Classical period.

Well, I certainly agree that the modern english translations can have flaws.

To be fair, the term Aion probably changed its meaning a lot more between the time of Homer (pre-classical)and the Hellenistic period than it did after the time that the gospels were written.

The majority of verses using aion or aionian have their meanings preserves in the Latin Vulgate, although a few are changed to fit the more familiar reading instead.


I would be highly surprised if there existed a translation without some sort of flaw. Still, the flaw of translating Aion/Aionion as eternal is not present in all English translations. I'm specifically thinking of Young's Literal Translation. That is one of my favorite versions, although I admit that it is often rather awkward to read. It also annoys me that it stuck with archaic tense endings like eth, and that it replaces the Tetragrammaton with Jehovah (a mispronunciation of a misreading of YHVH written with the vowels from Adonai to remind the reader to say Lord instead of speak the ineffable name).

Question then, if Hell is supposed to last only an age (Whatever length of time that is) then does that make Heaven finite as well? And if so, what happens after that?

That's why God gave us the Book of Mormon :D:goodjob:

Yet the Book of Mormon seems to contradict Scripture.

The Sin of Adam was not just eating a fruit, it was trying to be "Like God," which was the tempation Satan used to get him to eat it. If that was our goal, why did not God allow him to eat of it?

Also, a couple of other questions:

Is it true that Mormons believe Adam is God? Or is that false? Because I have heard this.

If the Book of Mormon is correct, why does the Bible never hint at any of its more controversial doctrines? (Such as ascension to Godhood or that almost everyone will be in Heaven.)
 
When you say "convince me that I am wrong", what do you mean, exactly?

Something that would make me think that it is more likely that Mormonism is incorrect than correct.

What metric would you use for being right or wrong about a faith?

Hard to say, just whether it makes sense to me for starters, and whether I have any reason to believe it.

Do you mean the faith itself being 100% correct, or are we simply limiting this to the Mormon version of God?

I would say that Mormonism isn't "100% correct" in the sense that there are important things we do not yet know about the nature of the universe, but I do believe that its claims are true.

Could you be persuaded by words in any direction? Why, if you have faith, would words move you in this regard?

Well, as I define it, faith isn't so much "believing in something without any proof/evidence" as "acting on a belief even if I am not 100% sure about it".

What would you need to hear, in order to be convinced you were "wrong"?

Honestly, I don't exactly know. If God Himself told me to join another religion I suppose I would, but I am not sure what would make me stop believing in God entirely. That doesn't mean I never would though.

I am not one who attempts to convert people, but the verbiage you used here intrigues me. I'd like to have a conversation with you about it.

Well, I suppose that is one of the reasons for this thread.

Yet the Book of Mormon seems to contradict Scripture.

Well, I haven't found the Book of Mormon to contradict the Bible more than the Bible contradicts itself.

The Sin of Adam was not just eating a fruit, it was trying to be "Like God," which was the tempation Satan used to get him to eat it. If that was our goal, why did not God allow him to eat of it?

It wasn't just that we can become like God, but how we do it that's important.

Is it true that Mormons believe Adam is God? Or is that false? Because I have heard this.

Brigham Young seemed to think this was the case (or at least once gave a talk where he said it was) but it has never been official Church doctrine.

If the Book of Mormon is correct, why does the Bible never hint at any of its more controversial doctrines? (Such as ascension to Godhood or that almost everyone will be in Heaven.)

Well depending on how you interpret it, the Bible does hint at those doctrines (which incidentally don't appear in their fullest sense in the Book of Mormon either). But the fact that the Bible doesn't have all the doctrine and knowledge we need to have, is why the Book of Mormon exists in the first place, after all. If the Book of Mormon just restated what the Bible does there wouldn't be a point to it.
 
Well, I haven't found the Book of Mormon to contradict the Bible more than the Bible contradicts itself.

I've never read it, but that's what I've heard.

It wasn't just that we can become like God, but how we do it that's important.

That seems awfully assumed to me.

Brigham Young seemed to think this was the case (or at least once gave a talk where he said it was) but it has never been official Church doctrine.

Do you believe that is the case?

Well depending on how you interpret it, the Bible does hint at those doctrines (which incidentally don't appear in their fullest sense in the Book of Mormon either). But the fact that the Bible doesn't have all the doctrine and knowledge we need to have, is why the Book of Mormon exists in the first place, after all. If the Book of Mormon just restated what the Bible does there wouldn't be a point to it.

Well, most major doctrines in the Bible are not simply stated once. But my point is, assuming Mormonism is correct, God knew some people would only accept the Bible, so why did he not put any implication of its doctrine in the Bible?
 
Top Bottom