Ask A Mormon

[SpeSalvi]

ErinGoBragh:

See what im getting at? The evidence will come eventually, is the belief of most mormons as long as they know that the book of mormon is true.

Why would you put faith in something that cannot be objectively proven- the veracity of the BOM- over something that can absolutely be proven- the pastoral lineage of the Catholic Church dating back to Christ Himself? This is an honest question

I love your username! I’m an Irish dancer and appreciate fellow Irish Enthusiasts my parents met and married while they were both at BYU. My younger sister is actually living in Provo now, and seems to enjoy it.

 

[kimg901]

And thank you 7armyrugrats for your service and sacrifice, I have 3 cousins and a brother in the military right now and i actually hope to join the Navy once i’m done with school. You’re sacrifice and service are greatly appreciated

Navy, lol. U.S Army 120th Battalion, 211 Company!!!
JK about the Navy. Got a good friend who is with the Teams.

 

[bzkoss236]

I haven’t read the other questions, because it’s late, but I just wanted to get this out there to at least ask it.

I’m sure you believe as many do that if something is true, it can only be objectively true. There is no such thing as subjective truth (something that is absolutely true for one person and not true for another). And if something appears to be subjectively true, someone must be right, and someone must be wrong. Which brings me to my question:

If God is to teach only truth, then why isn’t the LDS “continuation of doctrine” a building upon of doctrine, like in the Catholic Church (adding definition to doctrine) instead of the LDS church’s changing of doctrine, in some cases drastically? Something cannot be true at one time and then no longer be true. Something either is or isn’t. Truth is timeless. How do you reconcile this?

And if the Mormon church is the true church, then why is there division among the LDS with differing doctrines. Should they all be subject to the ‘prophet’? Shouldn’t the ‘prophet’ know which teachings are true? Like how some LDS churches believe that God was once a man, and others don’t. Would you consider the other LDS groups, not truly within the church?

And lastly, if apostasy is defined as “the formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person”, then if there was a Great Apostasy, wouldn’t that mean that the Catholic Church had rejected God and Christ, and then by extension, the Protestants as well? If so, then why do many LDS call Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, etc. fellow Christians, which, if there were a Great Apostasy, they would not be if they rejected God, Christ, and His teachings? And if we are fellow Christians, then wouldn’t that mean that the Great Apostasy never happened, because we still follow God and Christ like we have for almost 2 thousand years?

I look forward to your response

 

[7armyrugrats]

And thank you 7armyrugrats for your service and sacrifice, I have 3 cousins and a brother in the military right now and i actually hope to join the Navy once i’m done with school. You’re sacrifice and service are greatly appreciated

I will pass that on to my husband. I’m just an army wife, but thank you. Homeschooling 8 kids does feel like combat sometimes though! My husband commented last night that his upcoming deployment is beginning to look like a vacation.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I think this and the 1978 revelation showed Mormons that skin color doesn’t make a man evil, it’s his heart and his own ambitions that make a man evil. So pre 1978 probably even pre 1990 tbh most mormons believed that your skin color determined your faithfullness.

No your skin color is a result of your own personal behavior in the pre-extistance. From another LDS General Conference, where one should be able to count on getting correct information otherwise you are wasting your time being tossed to and fro on the wind of every doctrine, by the sleight of men.

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin.

But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom.

What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.” I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. Neither could they have been a part of those who rebelled and were cast down, for the latter had not the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh. Somewhere along the line were these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no definite knowledge concerning this. But I learn this lesson from it, brethren and sisters, and I believe we all should, that it does not pay in religious matters, matters that pertain to our eternal salvation, to be indifferent, neutral, or lukewarm.

 

[zaffiroborant]

They both had the most beautiful and perfectly sized belly buttons in all the world!!!

Of course but were they innies or outies?

 

[LongJourney]

How on earth can one claim to be both Irish and Mormon? The incongruity approaches blasphemy. Even an attempt to compare ancient Irish literature to the BoM staggers the imagination. And I first took a look at that 45 years ago!!

Returning to silence. sign off, over and out.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Erin, If you read the Acts of the Apostles very closely you will see the church building up in numbers. That’s Christ’s Church led by Peter, and Paul doing a great amount of the evangelization of building it up in numbers. He even wrote over half of the new testament. When did it crash? Never, the church existed before the bible ever did, in fact it was the work of the church which put the bible in existance so it would help build up the church and the faith of it’s people. The church has 1.2 billion members today. So where’s the apostasy? It’s stronger than it’s ever been, look at the love we have for each other. That’s a love created by God. If you truly understood the Catholic church you would never leave it. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.

AMEN, Karen there are 1.2+BILLION & going strong, yet believe the same as from the beginning.

So WHERE is the supposed APOSTASY???

When Prot ministers read the Early Church Fathers, they leave when their eyes open! The Journey Home guests talk about that all the time. Over 1000 ministers have come over, even LDS, JW’s you name it; many have said the ECF did it for them!

We have over 5000 extant copies of the Bible, ancient records all over the place, so where is the apostasy? WAY, WAY too easy to pull the Church fell apostate card = sadly effective for those who don’t do their homework.

WE have St Peter’s bones buried directly under the center of St Peter’s Basilica Dome - his burial site is a bulls eye! If you drop a plumb line down to the sub basement, there he is! Jesus built His Church LITERALLY over Peter’s bones!!!

 

[stokemeister]

Here’s a question that has bothered me for some time:

1. Many LDS apologists interpret the “black” and “white” skin, as discussed in the Book of Mormon, as being metaphors or “spiritual” interpretations, where blackness/darkness of negative/sin, and whiteness is pure or Godly (which certainly is a valid usage of such words in the broader landscape of religious language). However, it seems clear from the actual Book of Mormon that such skins were viewed as literally skin color.

How do you view such teachings, in the General Conference setting?

I think in both cases it shows that the authors were themselves tainted by prejudicial and racist thinking common in their time. Mormonism does not demand a corollary to papal infallibility. In fact I find the way race and skin color is spoken of in the Book of Mormon to be an evidence of its authenticity as a ancient document and different from how one would expect an 19th century American would incorporate race into a fictions work. The way the Nephites are prejudice and racist themselves against the Lamanites is completely consistent with ancient cultures and what we would expect from an ethno-political point of view. The Nephites were the city dwellers, had education and what they viewed as a noble lineage. The Lamanites were the “uncivilized savages”, the hunters/people of the wilderness, they were wild and ferocious. My eyes were opened to this reading having lived some summers in Cambodia, learning their language and hearing my educated colleagues talk about their countryside countrymen in the same way. Bear in mind that ethnically Cambodians are pretty similar throughout the country and are all generally “dark” skinned compared to world populations. The city dwellers literally try to be more white - facial creams/bleaching, women wearing long sleeves in the hot sun as to not tan and the word they use to describe their skin is “white.” Light skin is a mark of cleanliness, of wealth (not having to work outside in the fields). And my educated colleagues, working in the field of poverty alleviation no less, would use words similar to the words chosen by the Nephites to describe the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon, calling their poor countrymen “dirty” and “dark” and they were literally darker skinned from working in the fields and living in dirtier circumstances.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

My daughter is the most “white & delightsome” person I am related to!:whacky:

 

[zaffiroborant]

And for abortion, generally speaking, and i do mean generally, abortion is frowned upon and should be the VERY last resort. Only in extreme cases such as the health of both the mother and child or through forced sexual intercourse (to my knowledge but i could be wrong)

Abortion is permitted in cases of rape, incest, life/health of the mother, or if the child is not expected to live beyond birth. This is worlds away from the the Catholic stance.

The LDS church does not offer any guidance to couples on the morality of ABC.

 

[zaffiroborant]

**I think in both cases it shows that the authors were themselves tainted by prejudicial and racist thinking common in their time. ** Mormonism does not demand a corollary to papal infallibility. In fact I find the way race and skin color is spoken of in the Book of Mormon to be an evidence of its authenticity as a ancient document and different from how one would expect an 19th century American would incorporate race into a fictions work. The way the Nephites are prejudice and racist themselves against the Lamanites is completely consistent with ancient cultures and what we would expect from an ethno-political point of view. The Nephites were the city dwellers, had education and what they viewed as a noble lineage. The Lamanites were the “uncivilized savages”, the hunters/people of the wilderness, they were wild and ferocious. My eyes were opened to this reading having lived some summers in Cambodia, learning their language and hearing my educated colleagues talk about their countryside countrymen in the same way. Bear in mind that ethnically Cambodians are pretty similar throughout the country and are all generally “dark” skinned compared to world populations. The city dwellers literally try to be more white - facial creams/bleaching, women wearing long sleeves in the hot sun as to not tan and the word they use to describe their skin is “white.” Light skin is a mark of cleanliness, of wealth (not having to work outside in the fields). And my educated colleagues, working in the field of poverty alleviation no less, would use words similar to the words chosen by the Nephites to describe the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon, calling their poor countrymen “dirty” and “dark” and they were literally darker skinned from working in the fields and living in dirtier circumstances.

I see the fact that the prejudice common at the time the BofM was written, is present in the text of the book, as evidence that it is a product of it’s time, a product of Joseph Smith. No “color” prejudice in the encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch.

What does Papal infallibility have to do with anything here???

 

[stokemeister]

I have a couple of honest questions. Nothing meant to stump or to confuse. Just curiosities.

• Mormons believe that in history, there have been periods of when there was a proper faith between people and God, followed by periods of apostasy, and thereafter, restoration. Joseph Smith is believed to have brought the latest restoration. That being said, is it possible, according to Mormon theology, that sometime in the future there will be another apostasy that might leave the world without communication (for lack of a better term) with God? If not, well, why not, since it’s a pattern in history?

These are good, interesting questions, I’ll offer a second response as a believing Mormon, one by one,

Yes, that’s the Mormon’s view of religious history- God intervening in human history both in knowledge and structure and then the people eventually falling away from that light and knowledge until God chooses to intervene in a big way again. That isn’t to say that all knowledge or all light is gone during those relative down times particularly when it comes to personal lives but as a collective people, as the House of Israel, they wither or otherwise wander from the direct path and God has to kickstart things again. The Book of Mormon captures this world view through many repetitive cycles (first family of the narrative being commanded to flee around the time of the destruction of the temple, starting things up in a new “promised land”, various groups waxing and waning, lossing the ‘promise’ of that promised land, God intervening to startup a faithful branch again, then ultimately Jesus showing up himself and setting things up, that lasting for hundreds of years until the people tragically start falling away and deteriorating into fighting and genocide). There is also a great allegory known as the Allegory of the Olive Tree in Jacob 5 in the Book of Mormon which also sears this thinking of history into Mormon thought.

Second half of the question, generally, yes, Mormons see themselves living in the last days, that this will be the last time, and that they have a special role to play in God’s final crescendo and preparation before his promised return. That said I think every group of Christians, including the 1st century Christians and the LDS Saints of the 19th century, have expected the second coming to be right around the corner. I personally think it is feasible that the current structure known as the LDS Church could lose its way but that God would find a way to keep the true doctrine and authority alive. My faith is such that I believe the current mainstream LDS Church is still on the path and that the various break offs that have occurred since it was founded are not officiating according to His will. To me, it’s possible but according to prophecy/promises as I understand them I would not expect it to be as complete of an apostasy as in previous times in history.

Implications of this are that every Latter-day Saint, and every seeker of God’s will, cannot be content to be a blind follower, their faith cannot ultimately rest on their upbringing or just riding along in the Mormon community. It requires every individual to have an independent witness and faith that they and that the general body of the Church is still living and officiating according to God’s will.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sounds to me like you dont know what you are or what you want to be. Also, one cannot call themselves Catholic and still be a mormon And you are a mormon because of your parents? Are you not your own person? But if you are looking for answers, you have come to the right place. There are alot of very smart people here that know their religion and can help you.

I read that in the context of mourning. If you wear your dead grandfather’s military jacket, it doesn’t make you a soldier, but it can help with the mourning process.

 

[RebeccaJ]

With pleasure, About 2 years ago, i started to question a lot in my life after a tragic accident involving my grandparents, I only sought answers that i thought could be answered as a true truthseaker. I’ve never “left” the Mormon church but for a year or so I did decide to not be affiliated with a specific group, which ironically, lead me to the catholic forums because my grandparents are catholic. Out of love and compassion for them i decided to delve deeper into the understanding of catholicism and place my self in the church, so i made myself catholic without actually being baptized, if that makes any sense. I thought if i renounced a false religion and accepted the true church i would receive an anser to my prayers.I simply wanted truth and sought any and all means to receive it. I’m still a mormon purely out of respect for my parents, I haven’t seen enough evidence to deter me away and haven’t found enough evidence to lead me to another church. But i am open minded and am willing to listen and learn. Hope this makes sense, that was a rough time in my life so a lot of my past posts will be, one day im catholic, the next protestant, the next buddhist. But I do attend the LDS church each sunday and am still looking for the one true church. Hope this helps

I’m sorry for your loss.

The only question I have is why would you follow a man like Joseph Smith?

 

[stokemeister]

I see the fact that the prejudice common at the time the BofM was written, is present in the text of the book, as evidence that it is a product of it’s time, a product of Joseph Smith. No “color” prejudice in the encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch.

What does Papal infallibility have to do with anything here???

Fair enough, that is the only other plausible explanation for the book, I have obviously come to a different conclusion. If you are interested in knowing how the Mormons are talking about these issues in their own circles here is a good representation
in a blog: rationalfaiths.com/racism-in-the-book-of-mormon/
and in a apologetic paper: maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=508
in a secular academic setting: cgu.edu/pages/9385.asp

Papal infallibility is relevant because the underlying assumption by the questioner, particularly in reference to the extended quote of the LDS Prophet in the 70’s, was - how does a Mormon come to terms that their leaders said racist things - why would they still follow their prophet? Isn’t that a sign that he is a false prophet? And my response is we have a different underlying assumption when we consider the words of our leaders/past prophets, it does not force us into the dichotomy of ‘he must be a false prophet.’ I think the difference in that root assumption is that Mormonism does not subscribe to the dogma of papal infallibility from the First Vatican Council, that idea, that line of questioning is not the same in the Mormon mindset.

 

[bzkoss236]

Fair enough, that is the only other plausible explanation for the book, I have obviously come to a different conclusion. If you are interested in knowing how the Mormons are talking about these issues in their own circles here is a good representation
in a blog: rationalfaiths.com/racism-in-the-book-of-mormon/
and in a apologetic paper: maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=508
in a secular academic setting: cgu.edu/pages/9385.asp

Papal infallibility is relevant because the underlying assumption by the questioner, particularly in reference to the extended quote of the LDS Prophet in the 70’s, was - how does a Mormon come to terms that their leaders said racist things - why would they still follow their prophet? Isn’t that a sign that he is a false prophet? And my response is we have a different underlying assumption when we consider the words of our leaders/past prophets, it does not force us into the dichotomy of ‘he must be a false prophet.’ I think the difference in that root assumption is that Mormonism does not subscribe to the dogma of papal infallibility from the First Vatican Council, that idea, that line of questioning is not the same in the Mormon mindset.

But if a prophet is wrong, doesn’t that make him NOT a prophet? Isn’t that the standard for determining who is and isn’t a prophet, such as was done in the OT? Where both prophets prophecy something, and if one is true then the other is a false prophet?

Granted, we don’t say that the pope is a prophet, and his infallibility comes from Christ.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Fair enough, that is the only other plausible explanation for the book, I have obviously come to a different conclusion. If you are interested in knowing how the Mormons are talking about these issues in their own circles here is a good representation
in a blog: rationalfaiths.com/racism-in-the-book-of-mormon/
and in a apologetic paper: maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=508
in a secular academic setting: cgu.edu/pages/9385.asp

Papal infallibility is relevant because the underlying assumption by the questioner, particularly in reference to the extended quote of the LDS Prophet in the 70’s, was - how does a Mormon come to terms that their leaders said racist things - why would they still follow their prophet? Isn’t that a sign that he is a false prophet? And my response is we have a different underlying assumption when we consider the words of our leaders/past prophets, it does not force us into the dichotomy of ‘he must be a false prophet.’ I think the difference in that root assumption is that Mormonism does not subscribe to the dogma of papal infallibility from the First Vatican Council, that idea, that line of questioning is not the same in the Mormon mindset.

I don’t think you are understanding papal infallibility. The pope is infallible when teaching about faith and morals.

You are saying that the Mormon teaching regarding race was an opinion, right? Do you think that is what Mormons of the time believed? Is there something of faith or moral importance today, that you heard at your last general conference, that you thought, “nice opinion, but not coming from God”?

 

[stokemeister]

• What do Mormons traditionally make of the fact that most archaeological records do not seem to support Mormon claims in terms of a Hebrew tribe having landed in the Americas, and believing in Jesus Christ, or a record of scriptures that support any Mormon theological claims not associated with classical Christianity? Or do Mormons believe that such records and scriptures actually exist?

I personally find lots of archaeological evidence consistent with the culture and setting as described in the Book of Mormon, as do many well-educated, trained archeologists who are Mormon. Generally I find the “no archaeological evidence” arguments to be straw-men arguments, they refute claims that the text itself, when studied properly, does not claim - such as that all native inhabitants of the Americas are descended from Book of Mormon peoples or that the Nephites/Lamanites were the only people on the scene in Mesoamerica. I also think any good analysis of the ancient world would not rely exclusively on one arm of scientific inquiry.

There is a thick annotated bibliography of thousands of academic papers showing evidence or pre-Columbian voyaging/contact between the ancient Americans and the Old World (anthropology, archaeology, art history, ethnobotany, ethnozoology, folklore, geography, linguistics, history, and nautical history). maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookstore/?id=95

Of course it would be academic suicide to imply that such evidences support a divine explanation of the Book of Mormon, so making the arguments directly will always be left to the apologists.

Mormons would not be surprised in the least if additional records or scripture come to be found, whether related directly to the Book of Mormon peoples or other branches of Israel that God may have led away and commanded to keep a record. All the scriptures we subscribe to, Old & New Testament and Book of Mormon, suggest that other records exist, that there has been an editing and selection process associated with what we have now. The Book of Mormon narrative itself provides three different examples of groups of people led away from Jerusalem who were record keepers. Since Joseph Smith’s wild claim of additional scripture on metal plates that looked like gold the world has discovered the Nag Hammadi library, the Dead Sea Scrolls (including the famous Copper scroll), and even ancient records on metal plates buried in stone boxes. So as a believing Mormon I find myself drawn to such discoveries and reports in National Geographic but as an academic I have to temper my enthusiasm and dig in beyond the headlines.

 

[stokemeister]

But if a prophet is wrong, doesn’t that make him NOT a prophet? Isn’t that the standard for determining who is and isn’t a prophet, such as was done in the OT? Where both prophets prophecy something, and if one is true then the other is a false prophet?

Granted, we don’t say that the pope is a prophet, and his infallibility comes from Christ.

In my understanding, no, prophets are infallible men that the Lord chooses to work through, so I fully expect them to show signs of being men of their times and culture. I would also expect their primary prophecies to be conditional - namely prophesying that if people accept Christ and follow his commandments they will be saved and blessed. John’s description was the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. I think the general rule to determine true prophets is Christ’s description in Matt 7, by their fruits ye shall know them, combined with the witness of the Holy Ghost, what in described as the sheep knowing the voice of the shepherd or wisdom that is given when asked for.