Ask a Mormon, Part 4
- Thread starter Eran of Arcadia
- Start date
(O-o...)
Ideally, we'd like 2 years actually....but that's expensive, and requires a big house. You can get a three month supply of food in a lot of apartments if you're creative.
GhostWriter16
Deity
If someone claims that Mormon beliefs are "Crazy, strange, wacky, or out there" do you get offended. Which of these phrases do you consider offensive, and which ones aren't.
But is there a specific religious mandate for this large of a food reserve, or is it just some sort of cultural thing that has for whatever reason evolved in the Mormon community?
I, personally, make it a rule not to get offended about anything, on the grounds that it's a waste of time. And if someone describes my beliefs thus, I would get into a whole discussion about why they think that. But in general, I tend to think it's not nice (or useful) to describe anyone's beliefs like that.
It's partly practical, partly a reflection of our heritage, and partly preparation for the future.
_random_
Jewel Runner
How do you reconcile that with Jesus' and St. James's things about not worrying about tomorrow?
GhostWriter16
Deity
You all know I'm not Mormon, but I don't see how preparing necessarily means worrying. You can be prepared but still trust God to carry you through. Thinking "Woe is me, I'm not well enough prepared" is worrying, actually preparing isn't.
I do have a question though: Responding to the Saducees, Jesus says flat out that there is no marriage in Heaven. Why then is marriage a prerequisite for reaching the highest level in Mormonism, when in fact Jesus says straight out it won't exist. Is Jesus wrong?
Well, that question has come up before on this thread. Our (or at least my) answer is that Jesus was primarily interested in telling the Sadducees about the reality of the Resurrection, in which he but not they believed; and that any other points that may have been raised were specific to that example. Or possibly he was misquoted.
GhostWriter16
Deity
From the KJV:
People won't get married after death, so unless it was a flat out error, there's no mistake.
People won't get married after death, so unless it was a flat out error, there's no mistake.
_random_
Jewel Runner
I don't think this necessarily means that married people can't stay married. Not Mormon, just throwing that out there.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
The Mormon Church didn't allow African-Americans to become priests until 1978. Do you agree that Josef Smith and other early Mormon leaders were racist? If so, why do Mormons still consider these people prophets?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, I disagree on more advanced theological grounds (For one thing, how would Jesus' answer even answer the question in that case?) But still, Mormon beliefs dictate people will actually MARRY after death. Which violates even the letter of the statement.
Actually, Joseph Smith DID ordain African-American men to the priesthood; it was his immediate successor, Brigham Young, who prohibited it.
Yes, I think Brigham Young was racist; I don't think that most of the men who followed after him were. I see no reason why this particular character flaw should disqualify someone from being a prophet.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
If go strictly by his exact words then this is true, but in the context it seems hard to defend that position. The question he was asked was about a woman who had been married in this life. That interpretation would mean that Jesus chose to ignore the question he was asked and respond with a nonsequitur.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I agree (About it not disqualifying a prophet) as long as we're clear that the actual racist teachings of Brigham Young aren't authoritative.
However, the Mormons were stuck with the rule until 1978. Why? Was that a necessary part of church history and inspired by God for some reason? Or a fallible human failing of Brigham Young?
Well, there are lots of different ideas floating around as to why it ended up taking until 1978. I am not really sure that I have one myself, but some people have suggested that the members of the church weren't ready, for whatever reason, or something like that. Perhaps, to my way of thinking, Church leaders had gotten used to the idea and it wasn't until 1978 (when, among other things, the church was growing in Brazil) that they sought specific revelation on the subject.
Happy Good Friday! Do Mormons celebrate Easter? Indeed we do. Mormons believe the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ was the most important event in the history of mankind, and these doctrines form the core of our faith.
Link to video.
Link to video.
Could it not simply be that the church misunderstood what God's will was at that time, and they've since realised their error? That is what a liberal theologian from mainstream Christianity would probably say about a parallel problem (e.g. Christians in biblical times didn't approve of homosexuality, not because God gave different directives then, but simply because Christians back then hadn't worked it all out properly and we know better now).
Or do all Mormons who have addressed this issue necessarily take the line that God really did forbid the ordination of black people, and therefore have to find some explanation of why he would have done that? Do any of them take the alternative option of saying that he never forbade it at all, and the church was just wrong to think that he did, and it's since realised its error?
Both views exist. In fact, recently a BYU professor caused a bit of a stir by saying that it was because of the status of black people in the premortal life (which, remember, is a big part of our conception of life) and people took that to mean that this was official church doctrine.
I would say that there are 3 basic ideas:
1. God forbade it because of something inherent to black people - they weren't as valiant in supporting God in the pre-earth life, whatever.
2. God forbade it because of something inherent to the church - the white members weren't ready, or something.
3. God never forbade it at all, and it was entirely the work of church leadership.
Few members I know believe in #1 any more, or at least admit to it. There is plenty of speculation on whether it's #2 or #3 among members. Personally, I think that if nothing else, the fact that Joseph Smith ordained several African-American men to the priesthood, and nothing was formalized until his successor, should make it obvious that it isn't #2.
The Church issued an official statement recently saying "It is not known precisely why, how, or when" the priesthood ban began. Racism is also condemned in the same statement.
IMO, God did not forbid the ordination of black people. It was an error by Brigham Young and other early church leaders. Plotinus, I think many Mormons believe "the church misunderstood what God's will was at that time, and they've since realised their error" as you said.
I think the reason it took so long to overturn the policy is that a unanimous decision was needed from the First Presidency and 12 Apostles. In other words, the 15 top leaders of the church had to all agree that it should be overturned. Also, some started believing that it was God who had started the ban, and were reluctant to end it unless God revealed to them it should end.
BTW, I served an LDS mission in Uganda. The leaders of all the congregations I served in there were African, and held greater priesthood positions than me. It should be noted that the LDS church never banned blacks from membership but only the priesthood. They also never segregated their congregations into white and black like some other Christian churches.
edit: I see Eran ninja'd me, but at least you get another viewpoint.
