Ask a Mormon, Part 4

Here's a questions for you guys.

My son has a friend who's Mormon and he's not allowed to do anything socially on Sundays (can't come over and hang out, no sports practices or games, etc...).

At a high level, what's the basis for this? How "rigidly" is it enforced? What things are acceptable?
 
We believe in keeping the Sabbath day holy. There are some activities that are pretty much considered forbidden unless absolutely necessary (like shopping or working) but some of the finer details vary from family to family. Some parents won't let their kids hang out with friends or play video games or watch TV, some will. I have a sister in law who wants her kids to stay in their Sunday clothes all day, for instance, but I would be fine having the kids play outside.

In practice, of course, you can claim anything is "absolutely necessary" if you're not concerned with the spirit of the law. I have worked Sundays but prefer not to, for example.
 
We believe in keeping the Sabbath day holy. There are some activities that are pretty much considered forbidden unless absolutely necessary (like shopping or working) but some of the finer details vary from family to family. Some parents won't let their kids hang out with friends or play video games or watch TV, some will. I have a sister in law who wants her kids to stay in their Sunday clothes all day, for instance, but I would be fine having the kids play outside.

In practice, of course, you can claim anything is "absolutely necessary" if you're not concerned with the spirit of the law. I have worked Sundays but prefer not to, for example.
I guess, what I don't get is... if they're not socializing, are they just sitting at home reflecting? Staying in the company of fellow believers?

I'm not judging at all, I'm honestly curious. :)
 
It has been argued that the writers of Jesus life were not the direct followers of Jesus. They would be Messianics who wrote the Gospels with Jesus being the Messiah as a central theme.

Not only has it been argued, but most modern scholars agree on this, that the gospel writers are not identical to the known disciples of Jesus.

There are a lot of ways to define the term; as with any word, the first definition is not the only valid one. I certainly identify as Christian as well, since I meet whatever qualifications I think should define "Christian."

You are basically saying you are a Christian because you consider yourself to be one. Oddly, Christians have never been able to agree on what that actually means, so I can understand the vagueness contained in your response. Equally oddly (as timtofly implies, but not explicitly says) Jesus would not have viewed his then followers as 'Christians'; the term would, in fact, have no meaning for him as a devout Jew.

A question: Has it ever occurred to you to question (the origins of) the book of Mormon?
 
I guess, what I don't get is... if they're not socializing, are they just sitting at home reflecting? Staying in the company of fellow believers?

I'm not judging at all, I'm honestly curious. :)

I can't speak to the specifics of what his family does, because it varies, but I think in a lot of cases they would be spending time at home with family, that sort of thing.

You are basically saying you are a Christian because you consider yourself to be one. Oddly, Christians have never been able to agree on what that actually means, so I can understand the vagueness contained in your response

Well, I call myself a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ. There may be many ways to define a Christian, but as far as I am concerned, the only definition that makes sense involves believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.

A question: Has it ever occurred to you to question (the origins of) the book of Mormon?

What do you mean exactly? I am well aware that there are multiple explanations for the existence of the Book of Mormon; and I believe in it for specific personal reasons, not by default or just because I was told to or anything.
 
What do you mean exactly? I am well aware that there are multiple explanations for the existence of the Book of Mormon; and I believe in it for specific personal reasons, not by default or just because I was told to or anything.

I'm rather sure that any Mormon might say that. What I mean is, that the coming about of the book of Mormon strikes me as highly unlikely and incredible in the extreme. If that clarifies anything.
 
Yes. I'd like to ask about that.

All I know about it is that Smith found a book of gold tablets in his garden, transcribed the book of Mormon from that, and then mysteriously lost the gold tablets.

But that's probably just my garbled recollection of the business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

Oh. Maybe that's about right after all.

It could just be a rather fanciful allegory for his inspiration, of course. And inspiration isn't, in itself, an unusual thing for anyone to experience.

Maybe the golden plates thing is just a slightly strange way of signalling that his inspiration was in some way special?
 
Well, no, the idea that he actually had an actual set of golden platess from which he translated is kind of central to the whole message of the Book of Mormon.

(As to how plausible it sounds, my answer would be, if you can accept that there exists a God who has the power to create the world, and a willingness to intervene in human affairs, then nothing He may or may not do can really be called "implausible," whether it happened or not; if you can't accept those two points, then our point of disagreement is deeper than the veracity of the Book of Mormon.)
 
Oh. Well.

then nothing He may or may not do can really be called "implausible,"

That's just carte blanche, then. And nothing anyone can say or do could have the remotest chance of persuading you that even the most outrageous thing could be incorrect. If you chose to believe it. And I can't see why you wouldn't believe just about anything on that basis. Like the Moon is inhabited by Nazis who live on cheese.

I'm very confused by this, though:
whether it happened or not
Do you really mean you can believe something happened even if it didn't? That seems a thoroughly bizarre stance to me. Can you see how bizarre it looks?


But tell me about the golden plates. What happened to them? And if there's no reasonable explanation for what happened to them, as seems likely, why do you insist that they existed in the first place? Isn't it just more likely that the whole thing is an invention? People do invent things don't they? It may not even be a deliberate invention. Smith, and the eleven "witnesses", may truly have believed what they reported. That doesn't stop them being mistaken does it?
 
I understand having a belief for which there is no proof*. But Mr Arcadia is saying something much stronger, imo. He's saying he can believe something even if it didn't happen.

Unless I've misunderstood him totally. Try as I might I couldn't believe in something I knew, or even thought I knew, didn't happen.

*And if you have proof of something there's no need for belief in it.
 
As for the golden plates:

What happened, according to Mormonism, is that several ancient prophets (notably Mormon and Moroni) who lived in the Western Hemisphere wrote down the spiritual and political history of their people, as commanded by God, on a set of golden plates (that is, very thin sheets of gold). Moroni then buried them in a hillside. Many years later, he returned as an angel to Joseph Smith and revealed the location of the plates. Joseph then translated part of them, with divine help.

As for the plates themselves, it's not that there is no reasonable explanation for them - we believe Moroni took them back. It is often claimed that no one else saw the alleged plates and thus they don't exist - but in fact, 11 people signed statements that appear in the foreword of every church-published edition of the Book of Mormon saying that they were shown, and even touched, the plates. Three of them said that Moroni showed them directly.

So the story is perfectly internally consistent. As for plausibility - like I said, as long as I accept certain preconditions there is nothing inherently implausible. And to illustrate that, here's an example:

Catholics believe that Mary, mother of Jesus, returned to earth long after her mortal life and appeared to specific people in specific places - such as Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima. (I don't know if all Catholics believe this literally happened, but even if a small percentage do, that's a lot of people.)

Now, I don't believe this happened. But the reason I don't isn't that I find such a thing impossible - it's certainly within the realm of what could happen, given that I accept the existence of a God who is involved in human affairs. The reason I don't believe it happened is that I have no specific reason to do so. Not being Catholic, I don't put much stock in the authority of the pope, and I never met any of the alleged eyewitnesses.

But I do have specific reasons for accepting the Book of Mormon. This is tough to explain, certainly - they are dependent on personal religious experiences. I would never ask that anyone else take my word for it, so it's hardly a shock to me that other people don't accept the story told by Mormons. So I don't expect them to believe it. But I hardly find it worth describing as "implausible."

EDIT: Ninja'd on the last 2 posts. But the tl;dr of the above: No, I don't accept things that I don't think happened. But I don't so much reject them outright as simply disbelieve them. To me, at least, there is a meaningful distinction.

EDIT EDIT: It occurs to me that a lot of what I am saying is directly a result of my own particular worldview; most members I know wouldn't explain it like this. But at the very least I think it sums up my answer to the original question (which has come up before plenty of times before in these threads, although I don't blame anyone for not doing a search of 4 threads over the course of a decade.)
 
As for the golden plates:

What happened, according to Mormonism, is that several ancient prophets (notably Mormon and Moroni) who lived in the Western Hemisphere wrote down the spiritual and political history of their people, as commanded by God, on a set of golden plates (that is, very thin sheets of gold). Moroni then buried them in a hillside. Many years later, he returned as an angel to Joseph Smith and revealed the location of the plates. Joseph then translated part of them, with divine help.

As for the plates themselves, it's not that there is no reasonable explanation for them - we believe Moroni took them back. It is often claimed that no one else saw the alleged plates and thus they don't exist - but in fact, 11 people signed statements that appear in the foreword of every church-published edition of the Book of Mormon saying that they were shown, and even touched, the plates. Three of them said that Moroni showed them directly.

So the story is perfectly internally consistent. As for plausibility - like I said, as long as I accept certain preconditions there is nothing inherently implausible.

As I understand it these 'golden plates' have gone missing as mysteriously as they 'appeared'. ("Moroni took them back") Nobody save, reportedly, Mormon has ever seen this Moroni, nor do any records of him exist.

Catholics believe that Mary, mother of Jesus, returned to earth long after her mortal life and appeared to specific people in specific places - such as Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima.

Which is quite astonishing, as nobody knows what Mary looked like.

(I don't know if all Catholics believe this literally happened, but even if a small percentage do, that's a lot of people.)

Now, I don't believe this happened. But the reason I don't isn't that I find such a thing impossible - it's certainly within the realm of what could happen, given that I accept the existence of a God who is involved in human affairs. The reason I don't believe it happened is that I have no specific reason to do so. Not being Catholic, I don't put much stock in the authority of the pope, and I never met any of the alleged eyewitnesses.

But I do have specific reasons for accepting the Book of Mormon. This is tough to explain, certainly - they are dependent on personal religious experiences. I would never ask that anyone else take my word for it, so it's hardly a shock to me that other people don't accept the story told by Mormons. So I don't expect them to believe it. But I hardly find it worth describing as "implausible."

EDIT: Ninja'd on the last 2 posts. But the tl;dr of the above: No, I don't accept things that I don't think happened. But I don't so much reject them outright as simply disbelieve them. To me, at least, there is a meaningful distinction.

EDIT EDIT: It occurs to me that a lot of what I am saying is directly a result of my own particular worldview; most members I know wouldn't explain it like this. But at the very least I think it sums up my answer to the original question (which has come up before plenty of times before in these threads, although I don't blame anyone for not doing a search of 4 threads over the course of a decade.)

I would like to point out that a lie can also be perfectly internally conistent. And a good lie is of course, also plausible. That is what makes it a good lie.

I'm left with a question: who, besides the elusive Moroni, are these 'ancient prophets' of Mormonism?
 
As I understand it these 'golden plates' have gone missing as mysteriously as they 'appeared'. ("Moroni took them back") Nobody save, reportedly, Mormon has ever seen this Moroni, nor do any records of him exist.

Well, no, 4 people who lived in 19th century America claimed to see him.

Which is quite astonishing, as nobody knows what Mary looked like.

So?

I would like to point out that a lie can also be perfectly internally conistent. And a good lie is of course, also plausible. That is what makes it a good lie.

Well, yes. That Joseph Smith was lying is one possibility that fits the facts. So is the possibility that he was deluded. So is the possibility that he was telling the truth.

I'm left with a question: who, besides the elusive Moroni, are these 'ancient prophets' of Mormonism?

Well, they are all described in the Book of Mormon.

But at this point, I have to ask: what, exactly, are you trying to do here? Do you have genuine questions? Are you trying to convince me of something? I can't tell, and it's hard to have a conversation when I don't know why you're asking what you're asking.
 
But I do have specific reasons for accepting the Book of Mormon. This is tough to explain, certainly - they are dependent on personal religious experiences.
Can I ask you what these personal religious experiences are?
 
Well, no, 4 people who lived in 19th century America claimed to see him.

I see. But no records of said Moroni exist.


I find it somewhat incredible that anyone can have a vision of someone of which nobody knows what they actually looked like. For instance, Joan of Arc wouldn't be able to recognize Mary if she saw her. You can't recognize someone you've never seen. (Which is not to say Joan of Arc did not have a vision.)

Well, yes. That Joseph Smith was lying is one possibility that fits the facts. So is the possibility that he was deluded. So is the possibility that he was telling the truth.

Well, since physical things don't mysteriously materialize, then afterwards dematerialize (this would be a physical impossibility), the most obvious conclusion would be that there never were any 'golden plates'. Also, what mystifies me, why golden plates?

Well, they are all described in the Book of Mormon.

OK. Does that mean these 'ancient prophets' (which to me suggest people from antiquity) were of the same quality as this Moroni? I.e. with no records of their existence?

But at this point, I have to ask: what, exactly, are you trying to do here? Do you have genuine questions? Are you trying to convince me of something? I can't tell, and it's hard to have a conversation when I don't know why you're asking what you're asking.

I'm not sure why I would try to convince you of anything. In my experience it's very hard to convince people of religious beliefs of something which they don't believe. And I'm not a Jehovah's witness. I simply don't quite understand the basis of Mormonism. Hence my questions.
 
How likely is it that another religion is going to spring out of Mormonism?

Christianity started when a Jew claimed he was the son of God - and we got a new book (The new testament), Mormonism started when a Christian found some golden plates - and we got a new book (The book of Mormon)..

How likely is it that we're going to get a startup religion at some point that follows the old testament, the books mentioned above, AND some sort of a new book? How long until the cycle repeats itself?

I realize this is purely hypothetical, but I'm sure our resident Mormons might actually know of a couple offshoot religions that didn't go anywhere.. or maybe some that did?

edit: Now that I think about it I am basically asking whether it's possible that God's plan is not fully revealed yet and might be revealed by future prophets, which might be blasphemous, especially if they go starting new religions of their own. But then I think Mormons believe that it's possible that there are going to be future prophets, right? So am I asking a stupid blasphemous question, or what sort of provisions does your faith make for future prophets that might reveal religion changing and/or possibly splintering and/or religion starting revelations? Is that pretty much never going to happen, or are you guys fully ready for when it does, or something in between?
 
What do you think of the United Order and its collectivist efforts?
 
Can I ask you what these personal religious experiences are?

Sure, but it's hard to give an answer beyond "it was a spiritual experience."

I see. But no records of said Moroni exist.

Except for the Book of Mormon itself . . . granted, that doesn't prove much, but saying that no historically verifiable records of a person who lived around 1600 years ago in a not-well-understood part of the world doesn't prove all that much either.

I find it somewhat incredible that anyone can have a vision of someone of which nobody knows what they actually looked like. For instance, Joan of Arc wouldn't be able to recognize Mary if she saw her. You can't recognize someone you've never seen. (Which is not to say Joan of Arc did not have a vision.)

Presumably, Mary would have bothered to identify herself to Joan of Arc, and to the people at Lourde, Fatima, and Guadalupe. I mean, there are a lot of people I don't recognize by sight, but if they told me their name I would know who they are.

Well, since physical things don't mysteriously materialize, then afterwards dematerialize (this would be a physical impossibility), the most obvious conclusion would be that there never were any 'golden plates'. Also, what mystifies me, why golden plates?

If you are making a written record that has to last for thousands of years, and has to be written on, thin gold sheets seem to be practical. It's no more mystifying than someone making up the idea of a book made of gold.

And they wouldn't have materialized and then dematerialized; they were buried in a hillside, then used for translation, then handed back over to the possession of an angel. No aspect of that seems less possible to me than the existence of an angel in the first place, so why focus on that part of it?

OK. Does that mean these 'ancient prophets' (which to me suggest people from antiquity) were of the same quality as this Moroni? I.e. with no records of their existence?

They would be in the same situation as Moroni, yes - see what I said above; they were hardly taking censuses in 90 BCE.

I'm not sure why I would try to convince you of anything. In my experience it's very hard to convince people of religious beliefs of something which they don't believe. And I'm not a Jehovah's witness. I simply don't quite understand the basis of Mormonism. Hence my questions.

Well, I am not sure exactly WHAT you are doing. I am trying to explain what Mormons believe, and why they believe it, and you keep saying that such a story has specific elements in it that are impossible to believe. I mean, I get that you don't believe Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the Book of Mormon; most people who aren't Mormon, don't. But you need to understand, you haven't really given a good reason for me to find the story unbelievable, in the sense that it couldn't be believed. So I will keep explaining what we believe and why we believe it, and there's not much more I can do to respond to you.

I am not sure what Jehovah's Witnesses have to do with anything; I don't recall mentioning them.

How likely is it that another religion is going to spring out of Mormonism?

Christianity started when a Jew started some crap and we got a new book (The new testament), Mormonism started when a Christian found some golden plates and we got a new book (The book of Mormon)..

How likely is it that we're going to get a startup religion at some point that follows the old testament, the books mentioned above, AND some sort of a new book? How long until the cycle repeats itself?

I realize this is purely hypothetical, but I'm sure our resident Mormons might actually know of a couple offshoot religions that didn't go anywhere.. or maybe some that did?

There are several branches of Mormonism; although the mainstream LDS Church accounts for like 95% of the total membership of all of them, there are some that are significant, like the Community of Christ, formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has several thousand members; then there is the FLDS, one of several groups that still practices polygamy. Most of those religions don't see themselves as spinoffs, of course. They claim to be the true successors to the church that Joseph Smith founded, just as we do. I suppose from a historical basis we have the strongest claim, but in matters of faith history only goes so far.

What do you think of the United Order and its collectivist efforts?

I think the sort of communal economy that the church practiced - or tried to practice - in its early days is a fine idea, but it's not a huge shock that it didn't work.

I have said that "you can't spell utopian socialism without 'optional'." In other words, I am all for communal economies people join, and can leave, voluntarily. This is getting a bit farther into my own political views, but in general, within Mormonism, we view it as unfortunate that the whole deal didn't work, and try to help each other out in a less extensive sense.
 
Top Bottom