Ask a Mormon, Part 3

[Eran of Arcadia]

There is undoubtedly, don't have a link handy. For shame. I do know that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses (LDS scriptures, found in the Pearl of Great Price) discuss it.

A basic overview: humans existed as spirits before the earth was created. it was understood that we would come to this earth (well, and all the others) and be at risk of sinning. Jesus said that he would be our savior, and thus redeem us from our sins so that we can return to God. Satan said that he could do the same thing by taking away our free agency so we couldn't sin, and he would be more than happy to take credit for it. There were of course some flaws in that plan (the main one being that if we didn't have free agency, there would be no reason for us to be mortal and experience life in the first place). The first plan was chosen, but Satan and a third of the spirits rebelled and were cast out.

 

[Gigaz]

Do you consider that monotheism? Sounds a bit like dualistic Zoroastrism to me.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No, because Satan is and always will be subordinate to God. He is not the equal of God, or of Christ (nor is he the sole source of evil).

 

[Kerozine]

So.. how is it like to be a Mormon?

 

[Komori]

Yeah I recall getting the impression of a less "evil" image of lucifer out of that story. In fact, it was shown with Jesus and Lucifer as brothers, both sons of god. However, you reffer to Jesus as God hence I take the video didn't tell the story very well (as you say the race thing is not in the books so, I guess the video isn't very accurate.)

I also noticed a gay mormon community. Small, but present (on the internet). I find it curious. I read a few personal stories and I got the impression the chruch actually bans gay men? 'Cause all abramic religion sees that as sin but the churches I know usually accept the person as a member, 'cause everybody sins, right? What exactly is the church position on that?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The Church's position is that same-sex attraction is not a sin (nor a choice) but that to act on it is, and one cannot be a member in good standing in the Church while in a same-sex sexual relationship.

 

[Komori]

hope i'm not annoying you with too many 'touchy' subjects.
Just a bunch of question that came to me when i was researching information on the internet and I saw the link in the signature and i'm definitely too shy to ask a church elder randomly (I sometimes cross with a few of them on the street).
I'm glad you took your time to answer, surely helped me to understand things better.

 

[Perfection]

Why are Mormons seem so goddamned nice?

Are you guys going to suddenly go ape on us and like rip out our internal organs?

Or is it some crazy doctrine thing?

Or what?

What makes you guys seem so nice?

 

[Ansar]

Does being Mormon let you emit an awesome aura of awesomeness such as the one you and Downtown have?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why are Mormons seem so goddamned nice?

Are you guys going to suddenly go ape on us and like rip out our internal organs?

Or is it some crazy doctrine thing?

Or what?

What makes you guys seem so nice?

Well, I might go ape one day, but as for the rest . . .

Hard to say. I think that maybe it's due to one of the more interesting paradoxes of Mormonism - the complete confidence that we are right, and have the whole truth, and authority from God that no one else does, combined with the idea that other beliefs are great and people from all backgrounds and of all views are really good and God loves us all and all that. Plus my mission really helped in that regard - once I learned that the best way to deal with angry people who hate me is to be nice to them, it becames easier to be nice to everyone.

Does being Mormon let you emit an awesome aura of awesomeness such as the one you and Downtown have?

d-man and I are somewhat exceptional among Mormons in our backgrounds - I have met plenty of non-awesome Mormons, at the same rate as non-awesome non-Mormons, but we do tend to stand out here.

 

[Elrohir]

What is up with the Adam-God doctrine? If I'm reading it right, it was taught by Joseph Smith but later disavowed, and it says that our God was the original God? (Or something?) How does that fit into even a metaphorical understanding of Genesis? Has this doctrine been completely abandoned by the LDS church, and if so, how do you justify that if Smith taught it?

Also, are women allowed to be sealed with multiple men in celestial marriage? If so, doesn't that imply not only polygamy, but polyandry as well, in the afterlife?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Re the Adam-God doctrine: It wasn't Joseph Smith, it was Brigham Young, and he wasn't really being clear. It was never actually doctrine.

Women can only be sealed to one man.

 

[Perfection]

Women can only be sealed to one man.

But they become like unsealed if the dude dies, right ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

???

 

[Elrohir]

Re the Adam-God doctrine: It wasn't Joseph Smith, it was Brigham Young, and he wasn't really being clear. It was never actually doctrine.

So basically...."/shrug, who knows?"

Women can only be sealed to one man.

I found a copy of the Church Handbook of Instructions (PDF) which says this:

Deceased Women

A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she can be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.

Is this not actually the Church Handbook, or can women actually be sealed to multiple men? (Just after they die, or something?)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I read the Wikipedia article; basically, I would say that there are certain procedures that must be followed for something to be official Church doctrine; the Adam-God link never was notwithstanding that Brigham Young used the word "doctrine" to describe it.

Sealing, of course, is the means by which eternal marriage is affected, meaning that a sealing isn't ended if one party dies. It is a fairly straightforward process if neither spouse remarries after the death of the other but as individuals can be sealed multiple times it can get complicated. I can't find where in the Church handbook of instructions is says what you quoted, Elrohir; to be honest, everything I have ever heard would indicate that is not how it is done, but I could be mistaken. What page was it?

And thanks for asking tough questions, I actually appreciate it.

 

[Elrohir]

I read the Wikipedia article; basically, I would say that there are certain procedures that must be followed for something to be official Church doctrine; the Adam-God link never was notwithstanding that Brigham Young used the word "doctrine" to describe it.

OK then. Do you think Brigham Young just had a wrong idea, then, or do you think that's something that may be true, but just isn't acknowledged as such by the church? Do you think your prophets (Smith, Young, onward to the present day) can be wrong, where church doctrine is concerned?

Sealing, of course, is the means by which eternal marriage is affected, meaning that a sealing isn't ended if one party dies. It is a fairly straightforward process if neither spouse remarries after the death of the other but as individuals can be sealed multiple times it can get complicated. I can't find where in the Church handbook of instructions is says what you quoted, Elrohir; to be honest, everything I have ever heard would indicate that is not how it is done, but I could be mistaken. What page was it?

I understand what sealing is, I just think it's kind of odd to allow sealing for multiple spouses if there's no "annulment" of previous sealings - if polygamy isn't legitimate now, why is it legitimate for eternity? The reference I quoted was on page 83 of the PDF file I linked to. The information on sealing continues after that for several more pages. (And it's only page 83 in the PDF file, I don't think that's the proper page in a hard copy)

And thanks for asking tough questions, I actually appreciate it.

And I appreciate the answers.

 

[downtown]

OK then. Do you think Brigham Young just had a wrong idea, then, or do you think that's something that may be true, but just isn't acknowledged as such by the church? Do you think your prophets (Smith, Young, onward to the present day) can be wrong, where church doctrine is concerned?

General Authorities have been "wrong" before. Brigham Young is probably one of the most controversial theologians in Mormonism (along with Bruce R. McConkie), in that they wrote a lot/said a lot of things that the rest of the church has kind of backed away from. Most high church leaders have given talks, or written books, on what are some more personal opinions on theological matters, that aren't church cannon or anything.

The Adam-God theory would be one of those things, along with the concept of "Blood Atonement", and some rather unenlightened views on race, the Catholic Church, and sex.

A good rule of thumb is if you can find something in the scriptures, a talk given an LDS conference, or in a book with the LDS logo on the back (there are only 4), its cannon. If you get it from another source, even if its by a general authority, it may or may not doctrine.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Reading the Church handbook, it says that a living woman can only be sealed to one man at a time. A deceased woman can be sealed to all deceased husbands she may have had, presumably because we cannot know which husband she wants to spend eternity with. Yes, this will cause confusion in the hereafter, but sealings can be canceled if necessary.

 

[Nylan]

Well things like "blood atonement" were rather misinterpreted in any case, but yes leaders voice their opinions on things, which is important to remember as not being canon.

I think the sealing issue does have something to do with "which husband", which we here wouldn't know, perhaps to the same extent that we don't know if someone is going to accept the gospel before we do their work.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Exactly - some amount of the temple work we do will be refused by those for whom we do it, but as we don't know which, we do as much as we can.