What's the longest dead human you've ever heard get a proxy service? How about the longest dead you've heard proposed?
Ask a Mormon, Part 3
- Thread starter Eran of Arcadia
- Start date
- Status
To receive proxy ordinances, the geneological information needs to be known, and is usually done by a descendant, so several hundred years back is probably as far as we can go. As for the rest of the human race, we will have to wait until we can get better information.
You should do mitochondrial eve.
Sure, if we had the foggiest idea of who she was, other than an estimation of how long ago she lived. Same for Y-Adam (who of course had nothing to do with her).
kibbles
Warlord
Is it true that you didn't allow black people to join the Church of Latter Day Saints for a period of time?
Not quite.
Until 1978, black men of African descent (which wasn't always redundant; at some times in some places Filipinos, Polynesians, or other groups were considered "black") were not allowed to hold the priesthood, which is what we claim as the divine authority to act on God's behalf. Blacks were allowed to join the Church, but we didn't proselyte strongly to them because of this prohibition.
There are a couple of things that make this unusual for us. The first is that this prohibition didn't exist from the beginning - Joseph Smith, who founded the Church, not only baptized black men but gave them the priesthood. The prohibition started with his successor, Brigham Young.
The second is that there is actually no official canonical reason for it, which is why this is possibly the hardest thing about the Church most members have to deal with. With polygamy, we can point to God saying, specifically, to practice it (even if we don't know why), but not with this. There is speculation (that, as we believe in premortal existence, those who were less valiant in standing up for God ended up being born in Africa - or that for whatever reason, white members of the Church just weren't ready for it) and some point to a specific scripture to back this up, but the scripture in question doesn't actually work, for a variety of reasons.
Now, plenty of people might simply attribute this to simple racism, but members of the Church weren't noticeably more racist than members of the population as a whole - I have read studies that implied that the average Mormon had somewhat more liberal views on race than the average American during the civil rights period. At any rate, when plans were announced to build a temple (which, to enter, a man must hold the priesthood) in Brazil, with its large black population, in the mid 1970's, a change was probably inevitable - and in 1978 the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles (governing bodies of the Church) passed the change unanimously. Most members accepted it (good riddance to those who didn't) and we began missionary work in earnest in Africa, which is now home to a growing community of Mormons.
Until 1978, black men of African descent (which wasn't always redundant; at some times in some places Filipinos, Polynesians, or other groups were considered "black") were not allowed to hold the priesthood, which is what we claim as the divine authority to act on God's behalf. Blacks were allowed to join the Church, but we didn't proselyte strongly to them because of this prohibition.
There are a couple of things that make this unusual for us. The first is that this prohibition didn't exist from the beginning - Joseph Smith, who founded the Church, not only baptized black men but gave them the priesthood. The prohibition started with his successor, Brigham Young.
The second is that there is actually no official canonical reason for it, which is why this is possibly the hardest thing about the Church most members have to deal with. With polygamy, we can point to God saying, specifically, to practice it (even if we don't know why), but not with this. There is speculation (that, as we believe in premortal existence, those who were less valiant in standing up for God ended up being born in Africa - or that for whatever reason, white members of the Church just weren't ready for it) and some point to a specific scripture to back this up, but the scripture in question doesn't actually work, for a variety of reasons.
Now, plenty of people might simply attribute this to simple racism, but members of the Church weren't noticeably more racist than members of the population as a whole - I have read studies that implied that the average Mormon had somewhat more liberal views on race than the average American during the civil rights period. At any rate, when plans were announced to build a temple (which, to enter, a man must hold the priesthood) in Brazil, with its large black population, in the mid 1970's, a change was probably inevitable - and in 1978 the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles (governing bodies of the Church) passed the change unanimously. Most members accepted it (good riddance to those who didn't) and we began missionary work in earnest in Africa, which is now home to a growing community of Mormons.
Eran of Arcadia said:
I didn't know that. I not sure how old the Maori or Pacific Islander Mormon community is... but it's gotta be older than the 70s considering some lifelong members I know are considerably older than that. It's just one of those things that slips in under the radar I guess.
Camber
Resident Family Therapist
You're right, they are considerably older than that. Missionaries were sent to the Pacific Islands almost from the beginning. There are Mormon verses of scripture that talk of the Israelites being scattered among the "islands of the sea," and these missionaries were specifically sent with the intent of gathering in the scattered remnants of Israel. That may sound unusual to some ears, but probably no more strange than our belief that most Native Americans also have Israelite blood (via Book of Mormon ancestry).
There are accounts among the Maori that when the first LDS missionaries came and told them the story of the Book of Mormon, and of some of the BoM people sailing away in ships (led by a man named Hagoth) to colonize other areas, that there were similar stories that the Maori elders had been given by their ancestors, and they decided that there was a good enough match between the stories that they identified themselves as some of the BoM people who had sailed off to colonize other lands. I don't know whether this was just wishful connecting of dots or not, but even today among New Zealand members (and others in Samoa and other parts of Polynesia) there is a strong belief that they are descendants of BoM people via Hagoth's ships.
There are a number of reasons why this belief may not be true, but it seems to fit for a lot of them, and they use it to explain why the LDS faith was so readily accepted among Pacific islanders when the missionaries arrived.
Here are some references if you're intrigued by the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagoth
http://www.farmsresearch.com/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=1&id=179
http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-book-of-hagoth post #8:
There are accounts among the Maori that when the first LDS missionaries came and told them the story of the Book of Mormon, and of some of the BoM people sailing away in ships (led by a man named Hagoth) to colonize other areas, that there were similar stories that the Maori elders had been given by their ancestors, and they decided that there was a good enough match between the stories that they identified themselves as some of the BoM people who had sailed off to colonize other lands. I don't know whether this was just wishful connecting of dots or not, but even today among New Zealand members (and others in Samoa and other parts of Polynesia) there is a strong belief that they are descendants of BoM people via Hagoth's ships.
There are a number of reasons why this belief may not be true, but it seems to fit for a lot of them, and they use it to explain why the LDS faith was so readily accepted among Pacific islanders when the missionaries arrived.
Here are some references if you're intrigued by the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagoth
http://www.farmsresearch.com/publications/jbms/?vol=8&num=1&id=179
http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-book-of-hagoth post #8:
Is it true that you think that those little games children play with metal figures of adventurers are satanist? Why is that?
No, we don't - the link in my sig is purely ironic I assure you.
I played a lot of Hero Quest as a youngster, and I would totally play D&D if I knew anyone else who did. I do recall once hearing a church leader say something like, "it's okay to play, just don't let it become an obsession, and don't play really evil characters a lot".
I played a lot of Hero Quest as a youngster, and I would totally play D&D if I knew anyone else who did. I do recall once hearing a church leader say something like, "it's okay to play, just don't let it become an obsession, and don't play really evil characters a lot".
I just clicked that one - you have some strange company.
Well, I actually have Jack Chick to blame/thank for getting me into Harry Potter - as I am Mormon, and accept evolution, I figured third time's the charm, and anything he gets that worked up over is at least worth looking at.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
I don't want to go over a topic that has already probably been answered 6 billion times, but how can you accept the clearly incorrect teachings the Church has about Native Americans?
By knowing what the actual teachings are, rather than what most people think they are.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Could you please explain? Sorry to sound offensive in the question.
EDIT: You could just make a link, if you've already answered this a ton of times.
EDIT: You could just make a link, if you've already answered this a ton of times.
I am not entirely sure what you mean, but the short version is that despite what many people think, neither the Book of Mormon nor Church doctrine state that the entire New World population, prior to its discovery by Europeans, were descendants of a small group of Israelites - only that a small group had come to the New World. The Book of Mormon itself doesn't say (but to many, including me, implies) that there were already people here.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Does the book claim which groups of natives these were? Has this been checked?
The Book of Mormon doesn't give any details that correlate to any modern archeological understanding (which it couldn't, whether it is true or not) and only goes up to about 420 CE. So even if it is true there is no way to know where and who it was talking about.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
I play D&D from time to time, although not with any regularity.
- Status
Similar threads
