Matt's Mormon Thread

[ironduck]

In case anyone is actually wondering, I have been sincere all along. I started this discussion and am serious about it. I don't think there's anything unserious in the posts I've made on the issue, and if someone thinks so I'd like them to point it out.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

We do tend to get hung up a bit on this question. I do believe that God is about love first and foremost but there could be situations where for the good of humanity He might tell someone to kill someone else. It is not likely. The oft-cited case of Abraham, remember, was after Abraham had spoken to God for years - and remember Isaac was born after God told him he would, even though Abraham's wife was well beyond child-bearing years, so Abraham could be sure he was talking to God. But there are no circumstances I can imagine where God would tell me to kill someone, and the first thing I would do if I though He did would be to seek professional mental help. I'm certain God would understand.

@Homie: We can talk to some degree about temple garments, why we wear them and so forth, but not what they symbolize. That would be violating church rules. But I was careful not to say anything that can't be found in LDS-approved material, that church leaders have allowed published and so forth.

Regarding exaltation: it doesn't say explicitly in the Bible that we can become gods. However, Paul says things like we can be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (meaning we inherit what he does - and what does he inherit?) in Romans 8:17, and in Revelations John says that those who overcome will inherit all (Rev 21:7). Admittedly, one could interpret these verses differently. The Book of Mormon also doesn't say anything explicitly. But in addition to these books, in the church we have additional scriptures that were revealed by God to Joseph Smith and succesive prophets, known collectively as the Doctrine and Covenants. Several sections in these explain exaltation, what it is and how it is achieved.

Another way we look at it: we believe that in a sense, divine nature is just a perfected form of human nature, or in other words that to be a perfect human is to be divine. So to be a god, as we understand it, is to be able to love, to feel joy, to worship God more perfectly than we do now. Therefore, if God has the ability to make us gods (and we believe that He does) and loves us enough to want to (and we believe that He does), why wouldn't He? After all, we believe that we are his greatest creation, and if He can help us become something even greater, it adds to His glory as well as ours.

 

[Quasar1011]

Regarding exaltation: it doesn't say explicitly in the Bible that we can become gods... The Book of Mormon also doesn't say anything explicitly. But in addition to these books, in the church we have additional scriptures that were revealed by God to Joseph Smith and succesive prophets, known collectively as the Doctrine and Covenants.

In addition to these books? You mean like the Bible, which contains the gospel? Plus this warning, repeated twice for emphasis?

Galatians 1:8-9
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Is the Book of Mormon another gospel or testament of Jesus Christ?

 

[El_Machinae]

Dude: who wrote Galatians, and when? Who decided to include it in the Bible? Who is the 'we' referring to? Are you a 100% sure that the people who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John the ones being referred to in Galatians?

 

[ironduck]

edit - oops, wrong thread.

 

[El_Machinae]

edit: suckered into a comment by Ironduck

Edit 2: I might have the wrong religion in mind, but how are the 'mainstream' views different from those who advocate polygamy?

 

[The Last Conformist]

@Quasar: When Galatians was written, the four gospels as we know them didn't even exist.


Back to henotheism, a related concept is "monolatry" - recognition of many gods, but worship of only one of them, and without any necessary claim that the worshipped one is the most important or dominant god. The origin of Judaic monotheism probably was a monolatrous cult of Yahweh.

 

[CurtSibling]

One question:

Was the Mormon's original leader really killed in the most sordid of circumstances?

.

 

[downtown]

One question:

Was the Mormon's original leader really killed in the most sordid of circumstances?

.

yes, very much so. Smith was murdered in cold blood

 

[CurtSibling]

yes, very much so. Smith was murdered in cold blood

Can you elaborate the Mormon view on this, and I will compare it the historical account...?

.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The facts, which as far as I know are the historical account, are this:

Joseph Smith was imprisoned, along with his brother and two others, in Carthage, Illinois in June 1844 stemming from charges that he had a printing press in Nauvoo, Illinois destroyed. He was the mayor of Nauvoo and ordered the press destroyed because it was printing libelous accounts of Mormonism. Whether this was legal is still debated. However, Smith agreed to be taken into custody rather than flee. He was confident that whatever the results, God's hand would be in it.

While in Carthage, the prisoners saw the prison surrounded by a militia made up largely of enemies of the church. They were there for several days, until on June 27 members of the militia stormed the jail and broke into the cell where Joseph and the others were held. They broke open the door and shot and killed Joseph's brother Hyrum. Joseph then returned fire with a revolver that had been smuggled in but it was not effective. Joseph was killed and the other two prisoners survived. Some have alleged that it didn't count as murder because Joseph returned fire, but as he had just been attacked by a heavily armed mob in the first place, it is still murder. And this isn't just the Mormon view, it is what history says.

 

[downtown]

From what reading i've done on the subject, i think its very likely that the destruction of the printing press was illegal. Smith was a human, and he was certainly imperfect. However, the authorities had been looking for a way to get him anyways (The Illinois goverment was terrified of the Mormons...Nauvoo had become the 10th biggest city in the country at that point, and they were a bona fide political threat), so they hauled him off to jail, and "forgot" to provide security for him when the mass mobs stormed the building

 

[MobBoss]

I dont agree with the Book of Mormon, but I do have to give the organization credit on its support of families. They really go the extra mile to ensure that families are preserved and taken care of and that is a very positive thing.

 

[El_Machinae]

Which is what bumps up my polygamy question again:
What's the doctrinal issue between the polygamist and non-polygamist Mormons?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Some of the splinter groups believe that polygamy is a holy obligation to God, which idea they attribute to Joseph Smith. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - the "mainstream" Mormon church - disagrees. They too used to practice polygamy, but abandoned it as part of the price for Utah being received as a US state in the 1890s.

 

[ironduck]

I don't think anyone replied to this yet: How come the Joseph Smith texts, which he supposedly translated from Demotic, are written in a style of English similar to the King James bible rather than the actual English that was spoken at the time of Joseph Smith?

 

[The Last Conformist]

I never seemed to get a real reply concerning the Father/Jehova/Jesus thing.

 

[downtown]

dont worry, im working on them

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Regarding Ironduck's question:

Smith didn't claim that the Book of Mormon was written in Demotic, as far as I know. However, that doesn't really matter. The style of English into which Smith translated it isn't all that important either - since it was a translation, he could've done it just as easily in 1830 English or the sort of formal English he used (it isn't King James English, as far as I can tell it's just what people in 1830 would have viewed as 'formal'). Just as I could translate a text from Spanish into modern English or King James English without having any impact on the original text. Probably Smith used the form he did because it seemed more fitting for scripture to be written in a more formal style than the vernacular of the day. We believe that he received divine guidance in translating, but not that it was word-for-word.

 

[ironduck]

Matt said they apparently were 'reformed Egyptian' whatever that means. Since I've read elsewhere that it was some ancient Egyptian language and according to Matt it's not hieroglyphs, that seems to indicate Demotic. Got any better ideas?

As for the English it was translated to, let's take a look at a bit from the book of mormon:

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

I'm not an expert in 1830s English, but it's not my impression that people wrote like that at the time, not even when they wrote formally..