Ask A Mormon

[superwimp]

Hello Erin,

  I was a convert to the LDS church and after a few years I was excommunicated after I joined the temple lot group which I am presently an inactive member.  My recent question has to do with the various name changes.  I responded to a post yesterday with the following response and since you are going to BYU I was hoping their might be someone their who could make corrections.  Here's what I wrote:

---

My understanding (and some of this may be wrong) is that it was 1st known as the Chruch of Christ as Jesus instructed in the BOM. Then the church seemed to separate into two parts one located around Ohio and the other was around Missouri. Both groups wanted to distinquish themselves from the large Chruch of Christ. The group in Ohio (and this was where JS was) called themselves the Chruch of LDS. The group further west Called themselves the Church of Jesus Christ. JS started a banking scam and when it fell through he had to leave town and go further west. He then combined the two names to what it is today.

---

My 2nd question is with regards to how BY was able to take control of the church.  Apparently JS earlier revelations/instructions were ignored and BY was given control of the church based on **some** people claiming he looked like JS during a camp meeting.  My question is how many people made this claim and who were they?

My 3rd question concerns the witness statements.  The book of Mormon contains only printed names.  I searched the internet and all I could find was a printers copy.  Is there any basis in the claim that there ever was a document with signatures?  If so where is it now?  How could they lose the original but still have a printers copy?

 

[LivingWaters7]

I just had a funny thought: you know how we use Conference talks and other resources to plan talks and lessons. What would happen if I used Elder Kimball’s The Day of the Lamanites for a talk or lesson?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m saying that that particular quote by Spencer Kimball was shaded by his time and culture. I think the core teaching of Mormons, illustrated repeatedly in scripture, taught repeatedly by Spencer Kimball and other LDS prophets over time

It wasn’t an isolated teaching of Spencer Kimball.

And even with that principle and teaching, the history of God’s dealing with mankind is that he has made exclusions before (don’t mix with those people over there. Ok, Peter now it is ok to preach to the Gentiles. Women, don’t speak in the Church. Women should now officiate in the liturgy…etc).

This is a diversion, since, Jesus taught that the gentiles should be preached to. It was Peter’s own background and influence from others that had him going against what Jesus instructed.

Brigham Young claimed that God ordered the world with different races as a sign of the superiority of white over dark. Certainly, it is a product of his times, but he took it further claiming a divine order of things. His teaching was not isolated, but continued until 1978 when apparently God suddenly changed his mind.

The Mormons who followed these men believed what they taught as coming from God. Why don’t you, as a Mormon, believe them any longer?

Having read lots of the words of Spencer Kimball, knowing his heart and mind, if he was politically incorrect by today’s standards in the way he referred to the skin color of Native Americans or was overzealous in his attribution of their lineage, compared to DNA findings for example, in his efforts to call them as a people to Christ and to righteousness then I am fine with forgiving those apparent ‘prejudices’ or ‘incorrect knowledge’ as insignificant when it comes to evaluating his role or legitimacy as a “true” prophet.

Either what you claim comes from God, comes from God, or it doesn’t. There isn’t a way to back-peddle out of that one.

As far as teachings in the last general conference, the themes and topics, take home messages, I found them to be of God. I was uplifted, felt called the repentance, felt impressions from the Holy Spirit of things I needed to do in my life and relationships. As an example of someone being an “offender for a word” or losing their faith in the Church for something that I don’t think is doctrinal but more of an opinion or a relic of tradition/result of fallible people running the church within the context of a culture and time is the fact that this last general conference was the first time that women have prayed from pulpit in this particular meeting. To me there is no doctrinal component in the equation, I think the change/gesture was long overdue and frankly a little sad that it took this long and a petition by women in the Church to make it happen. Do I dismiss my faith in the legitimacy of the leadership of the LDS Church because they were not the most progressive or thoughtful in how they conducted their meetings as it relates to women up until now - no. I’m happy the change was made and find it to be more in line with the teachings and values of God.

The praying by women has no value to me, one way or the other. That isn’t what I was asking. Mormons who followed your leaders from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball believed what they taught about race, as coming from God himself. You are saying you don’t believe this. So, obviously the Mormons following these men were following a false teaching that they believed to be a divine teaching.

What theme and topic, that had you feeling all uplifted and awesome, was actually a false teaching?

 

[truthseeker32]

After reading through the responses thus far I have a few thoughts:

1. If a person believes something in hopes that evidence will turn up someday they are going about the pursuit of truth foolishly. I could believe all sorts of things under this standard (dragons, hobbits, elves, unicorns, faries).
2. Isn’t it interesting that the only archaeologists and historians that claim there is any credibility to the historical claims of the LDS faith are Mormon? Further, even the number of faithful Mormon academics who believe the Book of Mormon is actual history is decreasing and they are instead moving to the “inspired allegory” view of the book. I am currently in a MA program with strengths in Mormon history and few of the LDS scholars I work with and under believe that the BoM is actual history.
3. We need to make sure to distinguish between possible evidence and strong evidence. If I tried really hard I could find artifacts that are possible evidences of Tolkein’s Middle Earth, but once I understand the context of the artifacts and I encounter the strongest explanation of the artifacts my hypothesis is severely undermined. Such is the case with BoM evidence.

If an individual tries hard enough he can find reasons to believe any number of creeds which may or may not be true. I did it for 23 years. Instead one needs to take all the competing claims side by side and determine which faith tradition’s claims most often come out on top as most probable. When considered one at a time, there may be instances where Mormon claims seem more appealing or probable that traditional Christian claims, but when one sees the big picture this probability is greatly diminished, at least this has been my experience.

Edit: I also wanted to recommend that the LDS folks on here revisit the gospels and the earliest writings of the Christian tradition. I do not see an apostasy at any point, but rather a visible transition from the gospels to the Didache to Ignatius and so on. There are clear elements in all these records that have been preserved in the Catholic tradition.

 

[lynnettejane]

I am simply doing what the thread intro talked about, giving and explaining doctrine of the Mormon faith by one that has been raised and is still active within the Church.

Now as for me, am i still seeking? of course! am i trying to rekindle my faith? who isn’t. I will always strive to look for and find truth and cherish it, Whether that truth is in the LDS church, the Catholic Church, the muslims or what-have you. I am always willing to look for truth.

Thankyou for your reply but you didn’t answer my question.

 

[TexanKnight]

If that was the case, I wouldn’t even want to be a Christian.

You aren’t. You are Mormon

Here’s how the LDS reconcile this, which as you’ve stated before you were once a member so everything i’m about to explain and tell you is something that won’t come as a surprise.

Jesus too weak? of course not, its men that are too weak not Christ.

Ah…but it was not mens’ church, it was Christ’s…and he was too weak to keep it together?

He lied when He said he would always be with us ALWAYS? of course not, just because Christ church isn’t on the earth, does not mean all hope is lost and that the Holy Spirit isn’t guiding people to keep the faith.

Ah…but Jesus did not say, “I will be with you always,m but I am gonna withdraw my authority…and the church I am sending you out to be horribly killed for will disappear as soon as you die and be gone for 1800 years until I get a con man to start it all up again”.

Or did I miss that verse in the Bible?

I

 

[Razanir]

Of course but were they innies or outies?

To quote Tootsie Pops, “The world may never know”

That said, I actually do have a few questions:

1. It’s been mentioned before, but how do Mormons justify the Book of Mormon with Galatians 1:8? The same question can be asked of Revelation 22:18. Our point is just that the Book of Mormon seems like an addition to the Bible, which would go against these verses

[BIBLEDRB]Gal 1:8[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Rev 22:18[/BIBLEDRB]

1. How do Mormons justify the King Follett discourse? Specifically with Isaish 44:6. God makes it clear that he is the only God.

[BIBLEDRB]Is 44:6[/BIBLEDRB]

1. What do Mormons believe about evolution v. Young-Earth Creationism?
2. On a similar note, what do they think of a round Earth v a flat Earth? I ask because one of my friends back home is Mormon and believes in a flat Earth, so I’ve been wondering the official position

 

[codefro]

I make this thread in the hopes that as a whole, we can better understand someone’s religion who is still affiliated with them. I’ve noticed a lot of threads about the Mormon Church and so I wanted to start this thread to answer any questions that someone might have about the faith.

I am a return missionary currently attending BYU, was born and raised in the covenant and attend church every week. I will do my best to answer any question to the best ability of a typical mormon. I’ll be truthful with my answers and won’t sugar coat anything. If I don’t know the answer, I’ll tell you. You can know what the church is teaching now, what it taught, and why the changes.

The only thing i do ask however, is that you refrain from questions regarding sacred promises and acts within the temple. We believe we have made a promise not to indulge what goes on purely out of respect for God and His Holy Temple.

Also, HUGE reason we believe things that we do is because we have first gained a testimony in the Book of Mormon, that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and has restored Christ’s church on the earth.

Also, i apologize if i can’t get to everyone’s questions, hopefully there are other LDS here who are willing to provide answers for you also.

I guess my question is what are your qualifications to adequately answer questions about the Mormon faith?

 

[ErinGoBragh]

That God was once a sinful man

In the plurality of Gods

That Adam is our God

Just to name three

As far as much knowledge permits. The Adam God Theory was a devout teaching and understanding by Brigham Young. It was not however, accepted as church doctrine and after the death of Brigham Young, quickly died out. Thats what i learned in sunday school anyways

As for the other 2, very logical and sound points. I would first like to see the claim (by the LDS church) of these doctrines and it’s official statement and then the counter argument (if you’d like to) on why these doctrines are against Christ’s teachings. This is more or less for my self, i would love to know your responses.

 

[ErinGoBragh]

That Christ’s sacrifice is insufficient for some sins.

Can you explain what sins those may be? We are taught that all sins are covered by the Atonement of Christ.

 

[ErinGoBragh]

Hello Erin,

  I was a convert to the LDS church and after a few years I was excommunicated after I joined the temple lot group which I am presently an inactive member.  My recent question has to do with the various name changes.  I responded to a post yesterday with the following response and since you are going to BYU I was hoping their might be someone their who could make corrections.  Here's what I wrote:

---

My understanding (and some of this may be wrong) is that it was 1st known as the Chruch of Christ as Jesus instructed in the BOM. Then the church seemed to separate into two parts one located around Ohio and the other was around Missouri. Both groups wanted to distinquish themselves from the large Chruch of Christ. The group in Ohio (and this was where JS was) called themselves the Chruch of LDS. The group further west Called themselves the Church of Jesus Christ. JS started a banking scam and when it fell through he had to leave town and go further west. He then combined the two names to what it is today.

Is there a question in there?

My 2nd question is with regards to how BY was able to take control of the church. Apparently JS earlier revelations/instructions were ignored and BY was given control of the church based on some people claiming he looked like JS during a camp meeting. My question is how many people made this claim and who were they?

Could you give me specific details in which teachings and revelations were “ignored”. And to be honest, i haven’t heard of that claim that Brigham Young looked like Joseph Smith. I know the Emma wanted Joseph’s sons to take the head of the church but I haven’t heard people saying that the reason why Brigham Young took control was because he looked like Joseph Smith.

My 3rd question concerns the witness statements. The book of Mormon contains only printed names. I searched the internet and all I could find was a printers copy. Is there any basis in the claim that there ever was a document with signatures? If so where is it now? How could they lose the original but still have a printers copy?

The basis of the claim would be the names you find in the book of mormon as the 3 or 8 witnesses. The location of the document (if it exist or still exist, could have been destroyed) would be in the LDS library at the headquarters. Although I will be honest with you and say that this question has never crossed my mind, but it seems like you say these witnesses were not real or that they were forged?

 

[ErinGoBragh]

Thankyou for your reply but you didn’t answer my question.

I’m sorry, there were a lot of questions in that statement, which one did you want me to answer specifically?

 

[kimg901]

As far as much knowledge permits. The Adam God Theory was a devout teaching and understanding by Brigham Young. It was not however, accepted as church doctrine and after the death of Brigham Young, quickly died out. Thats what i learned in sunday school anyways

As for the other 2, very logical and sound points. I would first like to see the claim (by the LDS church) of these doctrines and it’s official statement and then the counter argument (if you’d like to) on why these doctrines are against Christ’s teachings. This is more or less for my self, i would love to know your responses.

So was it a teaching then?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Can you explain what sins those may be? We are taught that all sins are covered by the Atonement of Christ.

LDS believe that murder cannot be forgiven. D&C 42:18

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Murder
**Murder violates the sanctity of life and cuts off the ability of its victims to “work out their destiny” (Benson, p. 355). Moreover, because “man cannot restore life,” and restoration or restitution is a necessary step for repentance, obtaining forgiveness for murder is impossible (Kimball, 1969, p. 129; D&C 42:18-19). **

 

[fredystairs]

First I would like to apologize ahead of time as I do not know how to name your church. In the below, I called it the “Mormon Church” but am not sure that is how you wish to designate it. Anyway, I would like to ask the following questions:

1. Did the Mormon Church investigate the Bible, as to the books that were included in it? Did the Mormon Church look at books that were not included in the Bible, for example, the Gospel of Thomas or the Apocalypse of Peter to ensure that the Bible was complete? After all, the Church that established the canon of the Bible was in Apostasy, so it would seem to me that the Mormon Church should have done its own review. Or is there a revelation from the Lord to Joseph Smith or some other leader telling them that it is ok to use the Bible? If it a revelation, could you please cite it?
2. Please review the following passages; I will have questions concerning them at the end:
   From the Book of Mormon: (published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah 1986)

Jacob 1:15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old, desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon his son.
Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

From the Doctrine and Covenants (published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Salt Lake City, Utah 1986)
132: 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines –
132: 4 For behold, **I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; **for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
132: 38 – 39 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not from me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

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?

1. The following sections from the Book of Mormon contain references to chariots: Alma 18: 9, 10, 12: 3 Nephi 3:22 and 21: 14.
   Chariots, by definition, have wheels. When the first European explorers came to the Americas after Columbus’ discovery, they remarked that the native population did not use wheels, except as ceremonial devices. I understand that the Book of Mormon tells of a massive battle and many people died. Even so, it seems strange to me that the remaining native populations would lose the knowledge of wheels, since they are so simple (as opposed to, say, the internal combustion engine) and so superior to the sledges that the European explorers noted that the native population were using. What does the Mormon Church and its archeologists say about the loss of this knowledge?

I’ve asked some of these questions to other Mormons, without a satisfactory reply.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Porknpie]

I’m sorry, there were a lot of questions in that statement, which one did you want me to answer specifically?

Erin,

Where can I find the doctrines of the LDS church?

Why do doctrines change over time?

 

[Porknpie]

Can you explain what sins those may be? We are taught that all sins are covered by the Atonement of Christ.

Erin,

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?

 

[gazelam]

LDS believe that murder cannot be forgiven. D&C 42:18

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Murder
**Murder violates the sanctity of life and cuts off the ability of its victims to “work out their destiny” (Benson, p. 355). Moreover, because “man cannot restore life,” and restoration or restitution is a necessary step for repentance, obtaining forgiveness for murder is impossible (Kimball, 1969, p. 129; D&C 42:18-19). **

LDS also believe that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost will not be forgiven.

Luke 12:10 (KJV) And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Regarding D&C 42:18, there is room for a nuanced discussion on this topic. That verse is addressed “to the church” and may possibly refer to those who have already accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon tells of an instance were a group of Lamanites were forgiven of earlier murders when they accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The story goes on to say that those converts refused to take up weapons in self defense so that they wouldn’t be tempted to return to their murderous ways.

 

[TexanKnight]

As far as much knowledge permits. The Adam God Theory was a devout teaching and understanding by Brigham Young. It was not however, accepted as church doctrine and after the death of Brigham Young, quickly died out. Thats what i learned in sunday school anyways

Ah…but BY said it WAS doctrine. So, he lied? He lied about doctrine? That makes him a false prophet. Thank you. You are the first LDS person here to admit that

As for the other 2, very logical and sound points. I would first like to see the claim (by the LDS church) of these doctrines and it’s official statement and then the counter argument (if you’d like to) on why these doctrines are against Christ’s teachings. This is more or less for my self, i would love to know your responses.

Do your own research of your own church. The Book “Mormon Doctrine” by McKonkie was clear that you believe in plurality of gods. Further, your church teaches men can become gods…that is also a plurality of gods.

Read the King Follett sermon AND the couplet f your prophet that says “as man is, god once was…”

You teach god was once a sinful man. I cannot accept that

 

[kimg901]

TexanKnight:
The missionaries that came by last night said and I quote “J.S is a god in heaven”. So mormons are not christians if they can believe in “multiple gods”. The first commandment forbids it.

As for murder, yes, one can be forgiven for this sin. As long as your heart is true and you never, repeat, never murder again.