Ask a Mormon, Part 4

[hobbsyoyo]

The Bible didn't ban interracial marriage. Racists read things into it.

And they just happened to have a time machine and went back in time to insert all the passages that clearly spell out the prohibition? What about the clearly-biblical support for slavery that no one believes anymore?

The prohibition against homosexuality, on the other hand, is reiterated in the New Testament, although the death penalty in the Old Testament was mostly symbolic since you pretty much never have two witnesses to sexual contact unless you do it in public just to make a point.

So now two wives never walk in on the their husbands going at it while they were out shopping? Please.

It probably is, but it won't happen in all of them. Not until the end of time.

You're right, there are still churches that rail against things like interracial marriage. But they are small and at the fringe and eventually the bigger denominations will face the same marginalization if they continue persecuting teh gayz.

Even if the homosexuality prohibition really does make no Biblical sense (Which it does) it still won't go away for the next century.

Wait and see.

You're dead wrong about the rest, so whatever. And yeah, this is OT, so even though I am going to disagree with whatever you reply, I won't respond. Have fun, I'm sure you can't avoid taking that bait.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What was that one major theological declaration?

Why would there have to be a major turnover with the apostles for God to reveal himself?

And who goes to the Terrestrial Kingdom (I asked this before but nobody got to the answer.)

 

[Jehoshua]

Why is it called the "terrestrial Kingdom" anyway? Terrestrial just means earthly so its sort of an odd name for a heavenly realm

 

[MagisterCultuum]

So now two wives never walk in on the their husbands going at it while they were out shopping? Please.

At least according to the Jewish Oral tradition, a witness is not considered valid unless he is a male Jew who is known to keep the law himself, who was present before the sin started to take place, who warned the guilty parties of the wrongness and the consequences of their sin beforehand, and who stayed to witness the whole thing happen. He will also be considered a false witness if the other witness does not remember seeing him there, or if their stories disagree at all. The punishment is not to be given until the accused is found guilty by a jury of 60 men, which must have some dissenters on it as a unanimous jury is seen as proof of corruption and therefore results in a mistrial. The witnesses themselves must agree to ask as the executioners. If the witnesses are found false, then they themselves are to be punished however the accused would have been if he were found guilty (in this case, a quick decapitation).

 

[downtown]

Why are Mormons so economically conservative nowadays? Weren't they basically communists in their early days?

Pretty close, yeah. Joseph Smith was unabashedly progressive for his day, and there was a lot of economic populism to Brigham Young as well.

The biggest change came when Ezra Taft Benson rose to prominence in LDS leadership. The former Sec of Agriculture was president of the church from 1985-1994, but held significant leadership positions throughout the 60s and 70s. He was an unabashed John Bircher, and his influence, along with the demographics of Utah and the Church, pushed things in a more Republican direction. BYU is also a major influence in keeping members more politically conservative.

A majority of Mormons live outside of North America, and are not nearly as politically conservative as their North American counterparts.

What was that one major theological declaration?

Opening up the Priesthood to all men, regardless of race. Prior to the late 1970s, it was not open to blacks.

Why would there have to be a major turnover with the apostles for God to reveal himself?

Theoretically, God could come down from the heavens and make it very clear to the Apostles to change the policy tomorrow. Since any major changes must be unanimous, and a few apostles are well known for giving pretty anti-gay talks, it would be more likely that the incentive to further change any rules would occur after they left and younger members replaced them. Most of the current Apostles are older than 70, all but one are Americans, and all but one of them are from Utah or Idaho. This probably won't be the case for ever.

And who goes to the Terrestrial Kingdom (I asked this before but nobody got to the answer.)

Those who do not accept Christ or live particularly moral lives, and chose not to repent.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Opening up the Priesthood to all men, regardless of race. Prior to the late 1970s, it was not open to blacks.

Has God ever revealed why racism was not only acceptable but necessary until 1978?

I mean, I know man is flawed, but I don't see how you reconcile that with the fact that God presumably told them to restrict the priesthood.

Theoretically, God could come down from the heavens and make it very clear to the Apostles to change the policy tomorrow. Since any major changes must be unanimous, and a few apostles are well known for giving pretty anti-gay talks, it would be more likely that the incentive to further change any rules would occur after they left and younger members replaced them. Most of the current Apostles are older than 70, all but one are Americans, and all but one of them are from Utah or Idaho. This probably won't be the case for ever.

Fair enough.

Those who do not accept Christ or live particularly moral lives, and chose not to repent.

How does this differ from who goes the Telestial?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Has God ever revealed why racism was not only acceptable but necessary until 1978?

I mean, I know man is flawed, but I don't see how you reconcile that with the fact that God presumably told them to restrict the priesthood.

Well, there are several different theories within the Church on this one, but I don't think a lot of Mormons would say "racism was not only acceptable but necessary" as a reason behind the policy. It was, after all, introduced by Brigham Young after Joseph Smith had given the priesthood to black men, and has no real doctrinal basis behind it (only after-the-fact speculation).

 

[GhostWriter16]

How does the church possibly justify it, though?

 

[downtown]

Has God ever revealed why racism was not only acceptable but necessary until 1978?

I mean, I know man is flawed, but I don't see how you reconcile that with the fact that God presumably told them to restrict the priesthood.

The priesthood wasn't exactly something that was passed out under universal suffrage in the OT. Some rites were restricted to those of the tribe of Levi.

How does the church possibly justify it, though?

They don't really. They haven't apologized for it, they've just said God wanted it one way and now God wants it another way. There have been a few studies and there are a few theories though. Most western Americans around the turn of the 20th century were pretty racist, and some historians think that integrated services might have wedged people apart back then. Others believe that a few specific racist church leaders kept the policy waaaay longer than it should have been (the church held discussions of getting rid of it in the early 1950).

There was an idea (now discredited) that blacks were less spiritually valiant, that was popular in the 50s and 60s.

I think it was a mistake, but at least it was corrected.

 

[Red Key]

Well, there are several different theories within the Church on this one, but I don't think a lot of Mormons would say "racism was not only acceptable but necessary" as a reason behind the policy. It was, after all, introduced by Brigham Young after Joseph Smith had given the priesthood to black men, and has no real doctrinal basis behind it (only after-the-fact speculation).

How does the church possibly justify it, though?

I agree with what Eran and Downtown said. I just want to add that IMO, it was a mistake by Brigham Young. As Eran mentioned, Joseph Smith ordained black men. Brigham Young began the policy after Joseph Smith died. Thus, I believe the policy was a mistake of man and not a decree from God.

Some church members may justify it with the following reasoning: Due to the social/political atmosphere of the 1840s, God restricted the priesthood because most of the nation at that time would be angry with the Mormons if they ordained black men. There are other ways of justifying it, but the preceding one is the only one that sounds reasonable to me (although I still don't agree with it). If that were the reason then it should have ended much sooner.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It ended in 1978 as the result of Church growth oversees, at least in part. A temple was being built in Sao Paolo, Brazil (a place where it is a great deal less clear if someone has African ancestry or not, than it is in the US). According to Spencer W. Kimball, church president at the time, he received revelation to end the policy, but only after first praying directly about it. It was accepted unanimously by church leadership, even those who had previously said black men would never hold the priesthood. Some members of the church left over the matter.

Incidentally, it was never the case that black people were prohibited from joining the church. Certainly, the church did not proselyte heavily in Africa, and there were never more than a few hundred black members of the church before 1978; but anyone who says that Mormons didn't allow black people to join before 1978 has failed to do their research.

 

[downtown]

The logisitics of enforcing the ban back then was pretty embarrassing. Nobody had the internet, so authorities might look through family pictures to play "spot the black guy". I have a few black cousins (my mom is from Brazil), and it's crazy to think that there is a decent chance that in 1969, I couldn't have had a temple marriage.

Most of you guys have seen what I look like. Ain't nobody confusing me for a black dude.

 

[GhostWriter16]

They don't really. They haven't apologized for it, they've just said God wanted it one way and now God wants it another way. There have been a few studies and there are a few theories though. Most western Americans around the turn of the 20th century were pretty racist, and some historians think that integrated services might have wedged people apart back then. Others believe that a few specific racist church leaders kept the policy waaaay longer than it should have been (the church held discussions of getting rid of it in the early 1950).

There was an idea (now discredited) that blacks were less spiritually valiant, that was popular in the 50s and 60s.

I think it was a mistake, but at least it was corrected.

How can something have been a mistake and still been God's Will?


How does Mormonism justify its own theology Biblically? It seems really weird to me that if all the Mormon stuff that disagrees with more mainstream Christian groups was true, that Jesus and the Apostles would have never mentioned those teachings. Of course the argument that the church fathers and whatnot got things wrong is completely reasonable, a Protestant would agree with this (Although I do think Protestantism and Catholicism are both closer to what the Church Fathers taught as a whole than Mormomism, which would be a bit odd but not necessarily insurmountable) but I would tend to think that Jesus at the very least, and probably the Apostles as well, would have talked about these distinct doctines. Why don't they? Or do they and I just don't realize it/interpret it correctly?

Oh, and why does Jesus say that the dead do not marry if according to Mormons they do?

 

[Zack]

Was the City Creek mall financed with tithing?

 

[Red Key]

How can something have been a mistake and still been God's Will?

I believe downtown was talking about two different opinions among Mormons. Many modern Mormons think it was a mistake made by men. Many in that time and a lesser number today think it was God's will that people wait until a certain time.

How does Mormonism justify its own theology Biblically? It seems really weird to me that if all the Mormon stuff that disagrees with more mainstream Christian groups was true, that Jesus and the Apostles would have never mentioned those teachings. Of course the argument that the church fathers and whatnot got things wrong is completely reasonable, a Protestant would agree with this (Although I do think Protestantism and Catholicism are both closer to what the Church Fathers taught as a whole than Mormomism, which would be a bit odd but not necessarily insurmountable) but I would tend to think that Jesus at the very least, and probably the Apostles as well, would have talked about these distinct doctines. Why don't they? Or do they and I just don't realize it/interpret it correctly?

What stuff that disagrees with "mainstream Christian groups" are you talking about? In general, most Mormon doctrines are in the Bible. A few doctrines have little or very vague reference in the Bible, but are clarified in revelations to the prophets of the modern (latter-day) church. These revelations are canonized in the book called the Doctrine & Covenants by Latter-Day Saints. The people in the Bible were led by prophets and apostles who received revelations about doctrines, so Mormons believe the prophets and apostles that lead the church today can do the same.

Oh, and why does Jesus say that the dead do not marry if according to Mormons they do?

You have to get married before you die (not considering vicarious work for the dead) so the dead can't get married, but those married before death stay married. The marriage must be performed by someone who has been given authority to bind on heaven and earth like Peter.

Was the City Creek mall financed with tithing?

According to Wikipedia which also has links to its sources:

No tithing money of the LDS Church was used for construction of the complex; the entire project was financed through the church's commercial real-estate arm, Property Reserve, Inc.

 

[Zack]

"The church's commercial real-estate arm"? It runs corporation(s)?

 

[GhostWriter16]

What stuff that disagrees with "mainstream Christian groups" are you talking about? In general, most Mormon doctrines are in the Bible. A few doctrines have little or very vague reference in the Bible, but are clarified in revelations to the prophets of the modern (latter-day) church. These revelations are canonized in the book called the Doctrine & Covenants by Latter-Day Saints. The people in the Bible were led by prophets and apostles who received revelations about doctrines, so Mormons believe the prophets and apostles that lead the church today can do the same.

I don't know a whole lot about Mormon theology, but that whole thing about people dying and becomming gods is definitely not in the Bible. Nor is the idea that most people will reach one of the three heavenly kingdoms (Still wondering what the difference between people who go to Terrestrial and Telestial is as well?). The Bible says that most people will go through the gate that leads to destruction. Not heavenly reward. Few find life. Few. Not most. The idea that God is supposedly married is totally absent from the Bible as well.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

You have to get married before you die (not considering vicarious work for the dead) so the dead can't get married, but those married before death stay married. The marriage must be performed by someone who has been given authority to bind on heaven and earth like Peter.

Vicarious marriages would be a pretty explicit case of the dead being given in marriage, directly contradicting the words of Christ.

Even if you ignore them then it still means that Jesus chose to completely ignore the Saduccee's question and instead make statements only remotely related to it. They were asking about a woman who had been married multiple times before she died (in accordance to the custom of Levirate Marriage which the Law of Moses endorsed).

(It should be noted that he did not say anything about marriage "in heaven," but rather "in the Resurrection." There is no evidence that he believed in souls going to some afterlife right after death, but in bodies being restored and glorified on Earth in the last days.)

He also chose not to mention anything about the authority that performed the marriage. I'm pretty sure that the bible itself contains no references to anyone officiating a wedding, or to any such authority being required. Jews of Jesus's time considered marriage contracts (in which the husband promised to provide for the wife's material and sexual needs, but the wife promises nothing) and witnesses to the husband's vows important for Jews, but considered gentile couples who chose to cohabitate without any explicit agreement to be validly married. Before the middle of the middle ages the The Church officially recognized the right of a single man and woman to marry each other even without any witnesses present. Marriage is an agreement between two individuals, or perhaps two families. The idea that it is a state brought about by a miraculous sacrament performed by a third party is very modern. Needing some authority to officiate is a matter of secular law, not ancient theological significance.

 

[Red Key]

Vicarious marriages would be a pretty explicit case of the dead being given in marriage, directly contradicting the words of Christ.

Even if you ignore them then it still means that Jesus chose to completely ignore the Saduccee's question and instead make statements only remotely related to it. They were asking about a woman who had been married multiple times before she died (in accordance to the custom of Levirate Marriage which the Law of Moses endorsed).

(It should be noted that he did not say anything about marriage "in heaven," but rather "in the Resurrection." There is no evidence that he believed in souls going to some afterlife right after death, but in bodies being restored and glorified on Earth in the last days.)

I only had time for a short answer and I wasn't very careful about the exact words. I said "the dead" because those were the words Ghostwriter used. Mormons see no contradiction between this scripture and eternal marriage. As you pointed out it was actually those "in the resurrection" that the Sadducees were asking about and not "the dead". Vicarious work must be done before resurrection, so it does not contradict the scripture. The Sadducee's question was a setup in the first place because they don't even believe in the resurrection and wanted to trick Jesus into saying something they could use against him.

Many Mormons would say the question was about traditional marriages not done by God's authority rather than eternal marriages. A traditional marriage by man's authority would have no power in the resurrection. Eternal marriages do last in the resurrection. Jesus taught, "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:8-9)." In many traditional marriage ceremonies in our age the phrase "till death do you part" is even used in the ceremony. As I said before eternal marriages must be performed when you are alive or vicariously before you are resurrected. No one is married or given in marriage in the resurrection.

For a much deeper analysis of this scripture from a Mormon point of view see here. It even goes into things like the verb tense of the original Greek and the Book of Tobit.

He also chose not to mention anything about the authority that performed the marriage. I'm pretty sure that the bible itself contains no references to anyone officiating a wedding, or to any such authority being required. Jews of Jesus's time considered marriage contracts (in which the husband promised to provide for the wife's material and sexual needs, but the wife promises nothing) and witnesses to the husband's vows important for Jews, but considered gentile couples who chose to cohabitate without any explicit agreement to be validly married. Before the middle of the middle ages the The Church officially recognized the right of a single man and woman to marry each other even without any witnesses present. Marriage is an agreement between two individuals, or perhaps two families. The idea that it is a state brought about by a miraculous sacrament performed by a third party is very modern. Needing some authority to officiate is a matter of secular law, not ancient theological significance.

Mormons believe God officiated the marriage of Adam and Eve. "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28)."

Ghostwriter I saw your post too. I'll answer it next when I have time.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I should point out that every Christian denomination has beliefs that are not clearly spelled out in the Bible - even those who (unlike us) claim to derive all authority and doctrine from the Bible. So it means little to show that we believe something that doesn't explicitly appear in the Bible.