Ask A Mormon

[Nita]

I live in California and I have seen some women around where we live wearing 19th century style clothing. Like, long dresses with bonnets. Are these women Mormons? If so, why do they dress like that? Thank you.

They are most likely Quakers. I don’t think they would not be Mormons

 

[Porknpie]

PorknPie I 100% agree with this statement.

Erin, you agree with the statement below…great.

Do you believe that Christ taught the apostles without error? That is, if we could sit down with any of the apostles, we would hear the true Word of God as revealed to the apostles from Christ, without error and before any apostasy

Jesus taught his apostles without error…and they then spread out and traveled the world…and preached the Good News to all they met. John, had this to say in his Gospel about Jesus being truly present in the Eucharist.

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55** for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.** 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

I know that you do not believe that Jesus is truly present, his resurrected body and blood in the Eucharist…despite what the text says above.

But, St Ignatius of Antioch was a follower of St John … Ignatius sat down with St John and here is what he says (he says the same as St John)

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

Now as you believe …

Do you believe that Christ taught the apostles without error? That is, if we could sit down with any of the apostles, we would hear the true Word of God as revealed to the apostles from Christ, without error and before any apostasy

Either two options exist…

1. Jesus taught error.
2. The apostles taught error (but you should know…that everywhere the apostles went, the early Christians believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This includes the Catholic Church in India, established by St Thomas.)

What’s your thoughts here?

 

[Nita]

He is asking, who was the first god, the god of all gods? It cannot be an infinite regression. There had to be a first.

You’re right about what I was asking. But Erin’s reply, with his “so to speak”, answered my question. I realized he didn’t mean they believe in a “god of all gods” as you and I think of, and believe in, as God. But rather another god – equivalent to the LDS “God the Father” – probably the one who was God the Father in the universe in which he progressed to eventually be a god. And, as to whether there is a hierarchy among the gods, I gather that is something they are not to be concerned about.

I just appreciate his straightforward replies. I’m after information, answers to my questions - not debating the objective truth of the replies.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Thanks zaffiroborant. I didn’t notice the home page connect to a “Preface”. In addition to the above, I found the following which encourages me that what is presented is reasonably accurate.It presents the work of hundreds of Latter-day Saint (LDS) lay scholars and others from throughout the world and provides a comprehensive reporting of Mormon history, scripture, doctrines, life, and knowledge, intended for both the non-Mormon and the LDS reader.
….
When Macmillan Publishing Company asked authorities at Brigham Young University whether they would be interested in developing an encyclopedia about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Jeffrey R. Holland took the query to his Board of Trustees. They instructed him to proceed. Working closely with Church authorities and Macmillan, President Holland chose an editor in chief and a board of editors.
……
The Church does not have a paid clergy or a battery of theologians to write the articles.** It functions with a lay ministry**, and all members are encouraged to become scholars of the gospel. Over 730 men and women were asked to write articles on **topics assigned because of previous interest and study. **

It is reasonably accurate as far as the church wants it to be, the part I quoted gives the leadership plausible deniability when ever the “doctrines” of the church become problematic. I believe there will never be an LDS apostle who comes right out and says yes what is written here is LDS doctrine nor will the actual leaders of the church produce something like this encyclopedia. Just as you never see Monson make a statement on anything, these responses are always taken care of by the churches “spokesman” who is nothing more than an expendable PR guy. One only has to look at the treatment of professor Bott to see the usefulness of plausible deniability.

Overall I find it sad for LDS members that their leaders can not manage to present their beliefs in a way they are willing to stand behind and also grateful the Catholic Church does. People may not agree with Catholic belief or understanding but it is at least presented and testified to, the Catholic church knows what it teaches and emphasizes.

 

[zaffiroborant]

They are most likely Quakers. I don’t think they would not be Mormons

I don’t think Quakers dress like that these days. There is a poster here named Publisher who is, if I remember right Quaker, and has never indicated that this is the way Quakers live these days. I’d guess Amish, but I assumed they all lived in Indiana

 

[campeador]

I don’t think Quakers dress like that these days. There is a poster here named Publisher who is, if I remember right Quaker, and has never indicated that this is the way Quakers live these days. I’d guess Amish, but I assumed they all lived in Indiana

Could be Mennonites…

 

[zaffiroborant]

You’re right about what I was asking. But Erin’s reply, with his “so to speak”, answered my question. I realized he didn’t mean they believe in a “god of all gods” as you and I think of, and believe in, as God. But rather another god – equivalent to the LDS “God the Father” – probably the one who was God the Father in the universe in which he progressed to eventually be a god. And, as to whether there is a hierarchy among the gods, I gather that is something they are not to be concerned about.

I just appreciate his straightforward replies. I’m after information, answers to my questions - not debating the objective truth of the replies.

So our “God the Father” is literal child of his “God the Father” and his “Heavenly Mother” and he followed and obeyed his “God the Father” in order to become our “God the Father”. In turn our “God the Father” continues to worship his “God the Father” while he and his wife procreate us to worship him. But at the same time we have always existed. How can we be the literal offspring of parents if we, and our parents have co-existed for eternity ?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Why do they all wear blue?

Could be Mennonites…

http://itsnotamatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/mennoniteladies.jpg?w=378&h=284

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Porknpie]

Do you believe that Christ taught the apostles without error? That is, if we could sit down with any of the apostles, we would hear the true Word of God as revealed to the apostles from Christ, without error and before any apostasy

Either two options exist…

1. Jesus taught error.
2. The apostles taught error (but you should know…that everywhere the apostles went, the early Christians believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This includes the Catholic Church in India, established by St Thomas

Erin,

Or of course the third option is that the Catholic Church is correct its teaching. Christ taught his apostles, who taught not only the new Christian converts who they preached to but also their successors. And the successors to the apostles taught their successors. We call this apostolic succession. And whereever the apostles went, the early Church communities …in great distance from each other taught the same one faith, including the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

And from that consistent one faith preached world-wide, through “apostolic succession”, we know there was never a great apostasy.

 

[Nita]

I don’t think Quakers dress like that these days. There is a poster here named Publisher who is, if I remember right Quaker, and has never indicated that this is the way Quakers live these days. I’d guess Amish, but I assumed they all lived in Indiana

You’re right, it is the Amish I’m thinking about. I thought the Amish were Quakers. Guess I’d better do some googling on this topic.

 

[Nita]

So our “God the Father” is literal child of his “God the Father” and his “Heavenly Mother” and he followed and obeyed his “God the Father” in order to become our “God the Father”.

Yes.

In turn our “God the Father” continues to worship his “God the Father” while he and his wife procreate us to worship him.

I don’t think they teach that he continues to worship his “God the Father”. I did not come across anything that indicated an ongoing relationship with one’s God the Father after achieving deity for oneself. My guess is it’s an area they probably don’t go into – as Erin stated in Post #135* “But if you think it about, if our God has a God, then his God has a God and so on. This is to deep to really teach or have a grasp on so the church doesn’t really have official doctrines about this other then the king follett discourse and abraham.” *

But at the same time we have always existed.

The only reason their teaching says we have always existed (are eternal) is because the matter of which our body and spirit is composed is eternal. That is also why they say their God is eternal.
They teach that matter was not created - it has always existed. Matter is eternal. And since we are composed of eternal matter that makes us eternal.
They also believe that the spirit is composed of matter. Here’s a quote from the Mormon Encyclopedia section on “Spirit”.Latter-day revelation declares that “all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure” than the physical materials of earth life (D&C 131:7-8). The Prophet Joseph Smith explained: A very material difference [exists] between the body and the spirit; the body is supposed to be organized matter, and the spirit, by many, is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ, and state the spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body; …[TPJS, p. 207].

How can we be the literal offspring of parents if we, and our parents have co-existed for eternity

It gets quite complicated. Actually, they believe we are literal offspring twice as I understand it. The first time is in our premortal life when we receive a spirit body from God the Father and our Mother in Heaven. They are the literal parents of our spirit body. Then when we become mortal, our spirit body is united to our human body. which of course comes from our earthly mother and father who are then our literal parents also.

Regarding the “spirit body” – I think the teaching is that prior to receiving a spirit body from God the Father and our Mother in heaven, we exist as just spirits. There is also teaching that connects with this that speaks of “intelligence/s”. But near as I can tell, that’s an area that has not yet been fully revealed and there are differing opinions.

I’d suggest going to the Encyclopedia ( eom.byu.edu/index.php/ ) and reading the entries on “God the Father”, “Spirit”, “Spirit Body”, “Intelligences”, “Premortal Life”, etc.

Erin or Stokemeister, if there’s any error in what I’ve posted, would you please point it out. I’ve tried to put it accurately as I understood it from the Encyclopedia articles.

 

[TexanKnight]

For question number 1, yes to everything except for “only as God”. We believe that he was once a mortal man just like you and me and through many many many many trials and tribulations and (i would assume eons of time) became the God that we know today.

1. For us, the only supreme being and leader of our universe is God, The Father.

Then, you MUST believe that God is dishonest. Because God said He is the alpha and the omega. There are no other gods, and he is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

 

[kimg901]

Why do they all wear blue?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XRkSIj8gT8U/S8d6cW6Mp-I/AAAAAAAAA8c/Ui-qcbNumOo/s640/nogay.jpg

From what i have seen here in Utah, these are polygamist woman. Their hair style, clothing and general appearence make them look like they are. Sorry, but they all look in-breed too.

 

[Nita]

Did he undergo these many trials only when he existed as a mortal man?
If so, you mention “eons of time”. Would that mean he took mortal flesh more than once? – or lived on earth for an extremely long period?

If the trials were not only while he lived on earth in mortal flesh, when would they have taken place and in what state/s of existence would he have been in when he experienced them?

(I hope you know these are honest questions. I have no intention of disputing any replies; I just want to understand what you teach and believe. I have one of those minds that is always coming up with questions. Thank heavens for Google. It helps a lot, but I can’t always find all the answers via it.)

No need to respond to this post. I got the answers by reading the Encyclopedia entries “Reincarnation” (which LDS rejects) and “Eternal Progression”

 

[fredystairs]

The questions that I have from the above passages are these:
First, there seems to be a direct contradiction between the two passages; In the book of Jacob, the wives and concubines are “abominable before me(The Lord)” while in the Doctrine and Covenant, David’s wives and concubines “were given unto him of me”(Again, the Lord). How does Mormon Church reconcile the two passages? Does it teach that the Lord gave an abomination to David?

Second, in the Doctrine and Covenants, there is a passage (132:4) that says that if the Mormon Church does not follow the “new and everlasting covenant” that it will be “damned”. The Mormon Church does not currently follow the statutes concerning wives and concubines as outlined in Chapter 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the chapter that contains the warning to follow the covenant or be “damned”. What is the Mormon Church’s teaching about why it does not follow the principle and doctrine concerning wives and concubines contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, Chapter 132?

The context of the two different passages is important for interpretation but honestly as an objective reader I can still see the contradiction as it relates to David, but here is how Mormons interpret the two passages:

Jacob was preaching against the unauthorized taking of multiple wives that was occurring right in front of him, so we can expect his language to be strongly against the practice if he is seeking to curb the behavior. I have seen the punctuation in verse 24 debated before (there was no punctuation in the original manuscript) arguing that the abomination was the concubines, I personally don’t subscribe to that as a satisfactory explanation. The key verse in Jacob as it relates to the Mormon understanding of D&C 132 is verse 30, “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” and ‘these things’ is referring to statements in verse 27 &28, “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women.” So the interpretation is the general rule is one man - one woman but the Lord says he may command his people to take multiple wives with the reason being “to raise up seed unto me.”

D&C 132 follows the same basic argument but in that context the Lord is explaining why he is instructing the exception to the rule. So verse 29, speaking of Abraham having multiple wives, “Abraham received all things, whatesoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word” and then the passage continues about the “seed of Abraham” throughout the ages of history. v 35 “Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay, for I the Lord, commanded it.” then in reference to David “in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.” Then it is described that David was commanded to take additional wives through Nathan the prophet but in the case of Uriah and Bathsheba he sinned because it was not by the law through the Lord’s servant Nathan. Later in the revelation the Lord hints at another reason he would give such a commandment, v51 “for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.”

From a faithful Mormon perspective looking back at the history of polygamy in the 1800’s the general conclusion is the Lord commanded it, nobody was particularly excited about it and it was hard. And the understanding of the Lord’s purpose in making the commandment was that it was to “raise up seed,” part of the “restoration of all things” and as an Abrahamic test. The effect was a division in the Church and those willing to accept it as being of God went to be extremely loyal, enduring the challenges of crossing the plains and starting from scratch in the deserts of the West. It might not have produced a population boom in terms of numbers of seed but it certainly built up generations of faithful followers who were willing to sacrifice for the kingdom of God. Many of the Church’s leadership, even up to this day, are descendants of polygamous families in the 1800’s. So I think the general sentiment of modern Mormons is “I’m glad I didn’t have to live then, I don’t know if I could have done it” but also a deep respect for those pioneers and their obedience to the commandment. (remainder removed)

Thank you for your reply. I understand that God, being God, can make exceptions as he is the rule maker. So if he wanted he could make polygamy acceptable.

That is not my concern. My concern is that the Book of Mormon says that the multiple wives and concibines that David had were an abomination to God while the Doctrine and Covenants says that those wives and concubines were given to David by God. We are talking about the same event, David’s many wives and concubines. We’re not talking about two separate events, nor are we talking about exceptions to that event. Again, it seems that God of the Mormon Church has contradicted himself. So which of the stories is correct? I would have a problem with a God that contradicts himself. If he cannot get it straight why should I follow him?

 

[kimg901]

Thank you for your reply. I understand that God, being God, can make exceptions as he is the rule maker. So if he wanted he could make polygamy acceptable.

That is not my concern. My concern is that the Book of Mormon says that the multiple wives and concibines that David had were an abomination to God while the Doctrine and Covenants says that those wives and concubines were given to David by God. We are talking about the same event, David’s many wives and concubines. We’re not talking about two separate events, nor are we talking about exceptions to that event. Again, it seems that God of the Mormon Church has contradicted himself. So which of the stories is correct? I would have a problem with a God that contradicts himself. If he cannot get it straight why should I follow him?

And thats the problem fredy. Their god is a god that changes his mind when things cannot be explained be their teachings, so god changes too. Just like the Civil Rights Movement of the 60’s. No blacks are worthy of the priesthood (allowed) but their god changed that. I would think God is ahead of the times.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Yes.

I don’t think they teach that he continues to worship his “God the Father”. I did not come across anything that indicated an ongoing relationship with one’s God the Father after achieving deity for oneself. My guess is it’s an area they probably don’t go into – as Erin stated in Post #135* “But if you think it about, if our God has a God, then his God has a God and so on. This is to deep to really teach or have a grasp on so the church doesn’t really have official doctrines about this other then the king follett discourse and abraham.” *

That would mean that when we become gods, we would no longer worship “our heavenly father”, LDS here have insisted that is not the case.

The only reason their teaching says we have always existed (are eternal) is because the matter of which our body and spirit is composed is eternal. That is also why they say their God is eternal.
They teach that matter was not created - it has always existed. Matter is eternal. And since we are composed of eternal matter that makes us eternal.
They also believe that the spirit is composed of matter. Here’s a quote from the Mormon Encyclopedia section on “Spirit”.Latter-day revelation declares that “all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure” than the physical materials of earth life (D&C 131:7-8). The Prophet Joseph Smith explained: A very material difference [exists] between the body and the spirit; the body is supposed to be organized matter, and the spirit, by many, is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ, and state the spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body; …[TPJS, p. 207]. It gets quite complicated. Actually, they believe we are literal offspring twice as I understand it. The first time is in our premortal life when we receive a spirit body from God the Father and our Mother in Heaven. They are the literal parents of our spirit body. Then when we become mortal, our spirit body is united to our human body. which of course comes from our earthly mother and father who are then our literal parents also.

Regarding the “spirit body” – I think the teaching is that prior to receiving a spirit body from God the Father and our Mother in heaven, we exist as just spirits. There is also teaching that connects with this that speaks of “intelligence/s”. But near as I can tell, that’s an area that has not yet been fully revealed and there are differing opinions.

I’d suggest going to the Encyclopedia ( eom.byu.edu/index.php/ ) and reading the entries on “God the Father”, “Spirit”, “Spirit Body”, “Intelligences”, “Premortal Life”, etc.

Erin or Stokemeister, if there’s any error in what I’ve posted, would you please point it out. I’ve tried to put it accurately as I understood it from the Encyclopedia articles.

No LDS believe we have always existed as “intelligences” even God started out this way since we are all the same “species”. That we started out as intelligences is not in question, what attributes we had as intelligences is.
Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

While the revelations leave no doubt as to the existence of intelligent matter prior to its being organized as spirits, speculation sometimes arises regarding the nature of premortal existence and whether there was individual identity and consciousness prior to birth as a spirit. Some hold that the terms “intelligence” and “intelligences” have reference to a form of prespirit conscious self-existence, which included individual identity, variety, and agency (so reasoned B. H. Roberts, pp. 401-423). Others maintain that while these characteristics, attributes, and conditions are eternal, they essentially came together for each individual at the spirit birth. The question of whether prespirit intelligence had individual identity and consciousness remains unanswered. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith gave this caution in 1936: Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual

 

[Nita]

That would mean that when we become gods, we would no longer worship “our heavenly father”, LDS here have insisted that is not the case.

You mean that they believe their God the Father still worships his God the Father? That would seem to indicate a hierarchy of gods, since one usually only worships someone greater than oneself. I realize they believe in eternal progression, so in that sense some would have progressed more than others, but I’m wondering how it is determined, or who would determine, which of 2 gods would be superior. Do you know where I could find any information on this? Would appreciate any links. I’ll go back and search the Enc. Index to see if there’s anything that might include it.

No LDS believe we have always existed as “intelligences” even God started out this way since we are all the same “species”. That we started out as intelligences is not in question, what attributes we had as intelligences is.

Thanks for posting the info. But even the “intelligence” is referred to as intelligent “matter” – it is part of the matter that has existed eternally, of which our spirits and bodies will be composed.

Have read so much in the last couple days that I can’t remember it all, or keep it all straight.

 

[zaffiroborant]

You mean that they believe their God the Father still worships his God the Father? That would seem to indicate a hierarchy of gods, since one usually only worships someone greater than oneself. I realize they believe in eternal progression, so in that sense some would have progressed more than others, but I’m wondering how it is determined, or who would determine, which of 2 gods would be superior. Do you know where I could find any information on this? Would appreciate any links. I’ll go back and search the Enc. Index to see if there’s anything that might include it.

Thanks for posting the info. But even the “intelligence” is referred to as intelligent “matter” – it is part of the matter that has existed eternally, of which our spirits and bodies will be composed.

Have read so much in the last couple days that I can’t remember it all, or keep it all straight.

Well they’d have to explain what intelligent matter is how it is different from spirit matter and regular matter because they have all three. And nothing says our spirit bodies and bodies are composed of this intelligent matter. It seems the the spirit body is formed from spiritual matter which is distinct from intelligent matter and different from regular matter. Nor does this explain how someone can be the literal parent of something that already existed.

 

[manvega]

I don’t get offended, trust me, i’ve had a stuttering problem my whole life and a disease that doesn’t allow me to gain weight very easily. i’ve had my share of hardships, i’ve learned to live love laugh

I’ll answer your questions the best way i can, i don’t claim to be an expert in “main” stream christianity however so ill just give you the LDS doctrine and you can compare it to the main stream doctrine.

1. The Church’s first article of faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven. What does that mean? It means they are 3 distinct and separate beings but 1 in purpose. Together they make up the Godhead.
2. Yes, we learned this through the King Follett discourse.
3. Yes, we just believe that it is the closest “star” to heaven.
4. Thats a tough one, Jesus no but God, in a sense, yes. Heavenly mother isn’t talked about much in the church and this doctrine hasn’t really been “taught” but generally yes for God.
5. Yes, but only by entering the highest degree of glory and being sealed to a wife.
6. That is through a revelation known as the Word of Wisdom in the 89th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. You can read it online at LDS.Org in the scripture section for a full detail on why. It’s not that long
7. Yes, we believe we are all brothers and sisters but that Jesus and Lucifer were 2 of the greatest amoung us. Lucifer fell out of favor when he tried to take the glory away from God.
8. Yes, 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon has Christ coming to the America’s and preaching to them
9. Yes, we give what are called “blessings” and we believe that through the power of Jesus Christ, we can cast them out. Here’s an example taken from church history.

“Joseph Smith, knowing the Knights were ready to join the Church, went to Colesville to preach. His challenge to Newel Knight to pray vocally led to Newel’s being attacked by an evil spirit which lifted him from the floor “and tossed [him] about most fearfully” (HC 1:82). Neighbors gathered and saw Joseph Smith cast the devil out by the authority of Jesus Christ. Newel felt sudden relief, and Joseph considered this dramatic exercise of priesthood power to be the first miracle performed in the Restored Church (see HC 1:83-84). Newel accepted baptism, becoming the first of more than 60 of the Knight clan who joined the Church.”

1. Yes, there are also 3 “glories” within the celestial kingdom which is the highest kingdom

No 1 Contradicts No 2