What is the book of Mormon all about

[swplan76]

swplan,
I guess that I had better correct your misperceptions since it needn’t be that you keep them with you.

Thanks Parker - I appreciate your patience. Some times you’ve corrected me and either I disagree with you, or I guess I don’t believe you, so you may find that you repeat yourself (I believe that you believe in it - I just don’t believe that you are right some of the time).

You don’t get it. What you are aiming for with your beliefs is the same heaven that the LDS call the terrestrial kingdom, which is living with the presence of Christ and praising Him and giving Him glory plus doing whatever will bring happiness and joy within the bounds you have proscribed for yourself by your choices in life.

“…doing whatever will bring happiness and joy within the bounds you have proscribed for yourself by your choices in life.”
- this is one area that is much more specific in LDS theology. The Bible leaves it fairly mysterious. LDS theology explores other ideas that, when we get specific, might not be in agreement with Christianity.

So if a person who had been a member of the LDS church loses their membership by choices they make, and stays out but lives a good life otherwise, they are not “damned” by that–they would understand (unless they don’t believe the doctrine) that they have placed themselves in a position to go to the terrestrial kingdom which is still a kingdom of glory with God the Son.

This is an example of something that the larger church might disagree with. This is also an example of something that would keep LDS from being able to work with the larger church… Do other Christ-followers end up redeemed as well, or just people with a connection to JS?

No–they can’t get a temple recommend, but why would they want one if they lack that kind of basic faith in the promises of God as given in Malachi in the Bible?

Temple recommend = celestial Kingdom
Since the temple recommend is decided by the men at the top of the organization, entrance into the celestial kingdom is something governed by men - quite a bit of power. It also doesn’t leave room for struggle, or doubt - if a person is caught not doing the right things according to the church, they can lose their temple recommend. Which is pretty harsh. What if I have a season, a year where I struggle because my wife died brutally in an accident in front of me and I don’t tithe. I come before the council and they challenge me and I freak out on them and they decide that I should lose my temple recommend. Maybe I forgot to pay my tithe, or maybe I’m feeling a bit bitter because of the loss I’ve gone through and I’ve become a bit angry at things. - the power is in the hands of men in this situation and they may not judge perfectly.

So I go to the terestial kingdom…

You have such a wrong concept that it is baffling how you came up with this. Of course it would seem scary if that was the teaching, but of course it is not the teaching, at all.

Another misconception. Members were asked to stay in their own countries far earlier than the 1950’s. More missionaries going out to more countries have led to more convert baptisms, especially in Latin America and the Philippines and now African nations.

Oh… I must have gotten the date wrong. It was at earliest in the 1930s right? I saw a PBS documentary a while ago - I thought thats what it said.

Skin color is not a reflection of whether a person is blessed or any such thing in God’s eyes. Blacks could not hold the priesthood in the LDS church until 1978 (though a few did early on in the 1800’s), and this has not necessarily been well explained by the LDS church as to the reasons, but those reasons were not as you have tried to infer. You misstated a certain leader’s personal opinion, who was vastly incorrect in that opinion.

I heard another explanation recently, but I have no idea whether its true. It said that when earth was being planned out, God was presenting the idea to Jesus and Satan (who were brothers) and Satan wanted to be the redeemer, but so did Jesus, so God chose Jesus and Satan got mad and took 1/3 of the gods to rebel against God, so God sent them to earth to be demons, never to take on human flesh. Another 1/3 were indifferent in the battle between God and Satan, so they were given black skin. The other 1/3 were loyal to God and they were given white skin. true?

 

[ParkerD]

Hey Christine,

     Check on the gods thing... 

     Its not that Mormons will be just reunited with loved ones, but that they build their own celestial kingdom.  Heaven is not about God for them, though He will be there, for them Heaven will be about themselves and about building their own Kingdom.  Whats strange for me is that they build their own kingdom and keep having spirit children as they build their kingdom.  God is the over all King, but they get to develop their own kingdoms and it starts with what they develop here on earth.

swplan,
No, it is not “about themselves” nor about “about building their own kingdom.” It is completely about divine unselfishness , other-centeredness, complete focus outside of self or what the self has accomplished–and about being together in a place with God the Father and Christ living there also, and progressing through their continued help and leadership. It is about inheriting a throne as the apostle John wrote about.

By bringing your own connotation and how you may think you yourself would respond if you were told you could be a ruler in a heavenly place, does not make your connotation the correct set of assumptions. You have brought your own assumptions into the dialogue.

 

[zerinus]

Sometimes I think the problem between Mormons and Catholics is terminology, more than a true difference in what we believe. For example, we will become immortal when when we are in heaven. Immortality itself suggests a sense of being a god. Gods are immortal but earth creatures die, thus they are mortal. All Christian religions have the belief of immortality after death.

Catholic belief in deification goes further than that. It acknowledges theosis of the early Christian church. Here is one quote I found by searching the Internet:

In the Eastern Catholic tradition, which is also reflected in certain paragraphs of the Catechism of the Catholic Church issued in 1992, the doctrine of salvation is called theosis, and it centers on the deification of man by grace. [cf., *Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 460, 1129, 1265, 1812, 1988, 1999] This doctrine is fundamental to the teaching of the Church Fathers, who held that “God became man, so that man might become God.” [St. Augustine, Sermo 13 de Tempore, from *The Office of Readings, page 125, (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1983)] Thus, the whole point of the incarnation of God is the deification of man.

As I indicated above, this teaching is reflected in the Catechism in several places, most especially in paragraph 1988 which reads as follows: “Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in His Resurrection by being born to new life; we are members of His Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the Vine which is Himself: ‘[God] gave Himself to us through His Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.’“ Catechism of the Catholic Church, no 1988] Deification by grace, i.e., becoming sons of God in the Only Begotten Son of God, is the whole point of the incarnation, life, passion, death, resurrection and ascension of our Lord. Source.

 

[swplan76]

swplan,
No, it is not “about themselves” nor about “about building their own kingdom.” It is completely about divine unselfishness , other-centeredness, complete focus outside of self or what the self has accomplished–and about being together in a place with God the Father and Christ living there also, and progressing through their continued help and leadership. It is about inheriting a throne as the apostle John wrote about.

By bringing your own connotation and how you may think you yourself would respond if you were told you could be a ruler in a heavenly place, does not make your connotation the correct set of assumptions. You have brought your own assumptions into the dialogue.

I may have misunderstood some of the things you have said in the past about building a kingdom. I’ll look into it when I get some time.

 

[ParkerD]

Well since there are almost 7 billion people now and I’ve seen guesstimates that 106 billion have lived on Earth with more to come it seems like a limited few to me. It also stands in stark comparison with theosis where all who attain heaven are deified.

And nothing in our teaching says the bonds of love will not survive, nor is the bond of love between husband and wife a requirement for gaining heaven.

I’ve never heard of any sex specific role in heaven being taught. In contrast again I have read from some LDS that women will not participate in the creation of worlds because they lack the priesthood. They were quite emphatic about this. Quite frankly I find the LDS view of the role women have in heaven less than appealing.

Catholics do not believe this.

Zaffiroborant,
I looked at a wikipedia article that cited the 106 billion estimate, but that does not assume Adam and Eve were the first mortals on this earth, but instead assumes millions were on the earth in 4000 BC. I typed the one billion low-end estimate but that’s probably way too low. I honestly have no idea, but I do believe Adam and Eve were the first mortals on this earth, so 106 billion is way too high for the number who will have lived on earth.

LDS women participate in important roles that are in no way less important than men’s roles, and I think they will have a role “in the creation of worlds” but they are also divinely gifted in nurturing which is I think a near-God-like attribute.

To stay on topic, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon convey important roles that women have had in their families and in their culture and society. I love the words Rebekah heard before she married Isaac, “Be thou the mother of thousands of millions.”

 

[ParkerD]

swplan,
Here are more clarifications. I hope you are doing well.

“…doing whatever will bring happiness and joy within the bounds you have proscribed for yourself by your choices in life.”
- this is one area that is much more specific in LDS theology.

That statement is going to be important for answering one of your questions below.

This is an example of something that the larger church might disagree with. This is also an example of something that would keep LDS from being able to work with the larger church… Do other Christ-followers end up redeemed as well, or just people with a connection to JS?

If by redeemed you mean what redeemed really means, which is saved from what the normal penalties of justice for sin would require, then all Christ-followers are redeemed and all humankind except the sons of perdition who reject Him and fight Him will eventually receive a kingdom of glory which requires that they will have been redeemed in order to get that glory. Christ’s atonement is about promising and allowing all of the glory that each person is willing and wanting to receive by their demonstrated choices in life, including their repentance.

Temple recommend = celestial Kingdom
Since the temple recommend is decided by the men at the top of the organization, entrance into the celestial kingdom is something governed by men - quite a bit of power. It also doesn’t leave room for struggle, or doubt - if a person is caught not doing the right things according to the church, they can lose their temple recommend. Which is pretty harsh. What if I have a season, a year where I struggle because my wife died brutally in an accident in front of me and I don’t tithe. I come before the council and they challenge me and I freak out on them and they decide that I should lose my temple recommend. Maybe I forgot to pay my tithe, or maybe I’m feeling a bit bitter because of the loss I’ve gone through and I’ve become a bit angry at things. - the power is in the hands of men in this situation and they may not judge perfectly.

'Many incorrect concepts there. Christ is the judge as to what kingdom each person will inherit and receive. The temple recommend, issued at the local level by a bishop and next-level leader (a member of a “stake presidency”), is for attending the temple in this life, not saying what a person’s status is in the next world.

A person doesn’t “come before a council” or any such thing if they haven’t tithed, and they can miss one year and begin the next year and go back to the temple. Please remember that when Christ gave power to bind and loose on earth those things that would be “bound in heaven,” He did it for several reasons one of which was to protect the members of the church and another was to help the person realize they had lost something very precious because of their deliberate sinful action. Then, the hope is they repent with “full purpose of heart” and return to the fold, hopefully soon.

So I go to the terestial kingdom…

If that is what you have lived for by your choices in life, but only within the limits of what you have understood so that you could make a valid choice.

Oh… I must have gotten the date wrong. It was at earliest in the 1930s right? I saw a PBS documentary a while ago - I thought thats what it said.

I need to clarify that in 1951 there was a more widespread plea for the members to stay living in their own country of origin, but many leaders previously had asked the members to do that at the local levels and as missionaries. I suppose the 1930’s is a good estimated time frame.

That final paragraph is just someone’s opinion who had no idea what they were talking about as far as I’m concerned, other than the third (see Rev. 12:4) of pre-mortal spirits who rebelled in the pre-mortal life and were cast out of heaven along with Lucifer and were allowed to come to earth as evil spirits tempting humankind. Everyone who followed Christ (two thirds of the spirits), followed Christ decisively, though we have the veil over our memories in this life about that pre-mortal existence.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

swplan,
Here are more clarifications. I hope you are doing well.

That statement is going to be important for answering one of your questions below.

If by redeemed you mean what redeemed really means, which is saved from what the normal penalties of justice for sin would require, then all Christ-followers are redeemed and all humankind except the sons of perdition who reject Him and fight Him will eventually receive a kingdom of glory which requires that they will have been redeemed in order to get that glory. Christ’s atonement is about promising and allowing all of the glory that each person is willing and wanting to receive by their demonstrated choices in life, including their repentance.

'Many incorrect concepts there. Christ is the judge as to what kingdom each person will inherit and receive. The temple recommend, issued at the local level by a bishop and next-level leader (a member of a “stake presidency”), is for attending the temple in this life, not saying what a person’s status is in the next world.

A person doesn’t “come before a council” or any such thing if they haven’t tithed, and they can miss one year and begin the next year and go back to the temple. Please remember that when Christ gave power to bind and loose on earth those things that would be “bound in heaven,” He did it for several reasons one of which was to protect the members of the church and another was to help the person realize they had lost something very precious because of their deliberate sinful action. Then, the hope is they repent with “full purpose of heart” and return to the fold, hopefully soon.

If that is what you have lived for by your choices in life, but only within the limits of what you have understood so that you could make a valid choice.

I need to clarify that in 1951 there was a more widespread plea for the members to stay living in their own country of origin, but many leaders previously had asked the members to do that at the local levels and as missionaries. I suppose the 1930’s is a good estimated time frame.

That final paragraph is just someone’s opinion who had no idea what they were talking about as far as I’m concerned, other than the third (see Rev. 12:4) of pre-mortal spirits who rebelled in the pre-mortal life and were cast out of heaven along with Lucifer and were allowed to come to earth as evil spirits tempting humankind. Everyone who followed Christ (two thirds of the spirits), followed Christ decisively, though we have the veil over our memories in this life about that pre-mortal existence.

Thanks this very informative. I am curious about the 3 heavens. If a person arrives at the Terrestrial Kingdom after death, can he or she ever get into the Celestial Kingdom? In Catholicism, after a period of time in Purgatory, (for a person not worthy at death for Heaven) a person may get into Heaven. Is there hope for a person after death in Mormonism?

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon datamonkey! It is nice to meet you.

I am interested in what you consider a flaw. You say Rickard Bushman’s book ‘Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling’ is the definitive book on JS without substantiating your claim. I think one of the most researched and documented books on Mormon Church history is Richard Abanes book ‘One Nation Under Gods’. I would nominate this book as the definitive book on Mormon History and JS.

I appreciate your perspective. I’m sure many people would like to nominate Richard Abanes book as the “definitive” book on Book of Mormon History and JS. Reviews of Abanes’ book isn’t very abundant from non-biased sources (i.e., groups who haven’t already determined that a portrayal of Jospeh Smith as a fraud is, ipso facto, undeniably true). However, the few relatively objective (non-Mormon) sources of criticism is fairly consistent: Well documented, yes, but highly negatively biased.

There is, of course, several Mormon critiques of Abanes’ work, that delve in to more detail as to some of the many problems with his book (such as here).

On the other hand, with Rough Stone Rolling, it is written by a respected historian who is writing…well…history (unlike the journalistic approach by Abanes, who is after all a journalist). Not all criticism is favorable, which I already have acknowledged, but when you look at the reviews from groups who, for all intents and purposes, have no horses in the race (so to speak), their reviews are fairly consistent as well: Empathetic, yet honest. Definitive, well documented, and thorough.

Christian Science Monitor

"*In Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, historian Richard Bushman, professor emeritus at Columbia University and a practicing Mormon, fashions a fascinating, definitive biography of the rough-hewn Yankee who stirred controversy from the start.

Bushman’s intimate, 740-page portrait explores all the corners of controversy but does not resolve them, suggesting that - given the nature of the man and his story - such resolution is never likely to occur. An honest yet sympathetic portrayal, the book is rich in its depiction of developing Mormonism*."

Foreign Affairs

“Readers of this sensitive and comprehensive account will find a new and deeper understanding of Smith, the religion he founded, and the popular culture of the United States during the 39 years of his short but eventful life.”

Christianity Today

"*Richard Lyman Bushman, a respected American historian and a believing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has produced…an exhaustively researched and beautifully written biography of Mormonism’s enigmatic founder.

Bushman’s is…an excellent study, well-researched and adroitly narrated. But it did leave me wondering whether it is even possible to write a biography of Joseph Smith, Jr., that is persuasive to both believers and nonbelievers. Bushman edges about as close to the divide as he possibly can. Given the history of bifurcated writing about the first Mormon prophet, that in itself is a remarkable achievement*."

Journal of American History

Jan Shipps calles RSR, “the crowning achievement of the new Mormon history”

I also thought that these sentiments from Richard Bushman himself, would be helpful in describing his intentions.

Richard Lyman Bushman

"*As I set out to write Rough Stone Rolling, I tried to keep all kinds of readers with me. I vowed not to make Brodie’s mistake of writing solely for one part of the potential audience. She wrote for unbelievers; I did not want to err in the opposite direction. My historical instincts moved me to tell the whole story as truthfully as I could anyway, but I also knew that if I overly idealized Smith, I would lose credibility with non-Mormons. With a broad readership in mind, I could not conceal his flaws. Moreover, I tried to voice unbelieving readers’ likely reactions when Smith married additional wives or taught doctrines foreign to modern sensibilities. When he went beyond the pale, I acknowledged readers’ dismay.

Even though I wrote for a diverse audience, as the reviews came in I realized that I had not kept everyone with me. As probably was inevitable, readers who came to the book with their own strong notions of Smith found my account wanting. Those on the Mormon side thought I failed to describe his noble character and supernatural gifts; non-Mormons said I painted too rosy a picture and failed to acknowledge the obvious fraud. At both ends of the spectrum, I lost readers.

At times I thought there was no middle ground for my version of the Mormon Prophet. I came to envy historians who write about slavery or patriarchy; no one questions their basic beliefs. But on second thought, I realized that my book was better for being written for a divided audience. I cannot say that Rough Stone Rolling achieves a perfect balance, but it does offer an empathetic and, so I hope, a candid view of an extraordinary life*."

I will address the questions about flaws vs. dubious character in another post due to posting limitations.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Good afternoon datamonkey! It is nice to meet you.

I appreciate your perspective. I’m sure many people would like to nominate Richard Abanes book as the “definitive” book on Book of Mormon History and JS. Reviews of Abanes’ book isn’t very abundant from non-biased sources (i.e., groups who haven’t already determined that a portrayal of Jospeh Smith as a fraud is, ipso facto, undeniably true). However, the few relatively objective (non-Mormon) sources of criticism is fairly consistent: Well documented, yes, but highly negatively biased.

There is, of course, several Mormon critiques of Abanes’ work, that delve in to more detail as to some of the many problems with his book (such as here).

On the other hand, with Rough Stone Rolling, it is written by a respected historian who is writing…well…history (unlike the journalistic approach by Abanes, who is after all a journalist). Not all criticism is favorable, which I already have acknowledged, but when you look at the reviews from groups who, for all intents and purposes, have no horses in the race (so to speak), their reviews are fairly consistent as well: Empathetic, yet honest. Definitive, well documented, and thorough.

Christian Science Monitor

"*In Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, historian Richard Bushman, professor emeritus at Columbia University and a practicing Mormon, fashions a fascinating, definitive biography of the rough-hewn Yankee who stirred controversy from the start.

Bushman’s intimate, 740-page portrait explores all the corners of controversy but does not resolve them, suggesting that - given the nature of the man and his story - such resolution is never likely to occur. An honest yet sympathetic portrayal, the book is rich in its depiction of developing Mormonism*."

Foreign Affairs

“Readers of this sensitive and comprehensive account will find a new and deeper understanding of Smith, the religion he founded, and the popular culture of the United States during the 39 years of his short but eventful life.”

Christianity Today

"*Richard Lyman Bushman, a respected American historian and a believing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has produced…an exhaustively researched and beautifully written biography of Mormonism’s enigmatic founder.

Bushman’s is…an excellent study, well-researched and adroitly narrated. But it did leave me wondering whether it is even possible to write a biography of Joseph Smith, Jr., that is persuasive to both believers and nonbelievers. Bushman edges about as close to the divide as he possibly can. Given the history of bifurcated writing about the first Mormon prophet, that in itself is a remarkable achievement*."

Journal of American History

Jan Shipps calles RSR, “the crowning achievement of the new Mormon history”

I also thought that these sentiments from Richard Bushman himself, would be helpful in describing his intentions.

Richard Lyman Bushman

"*As I set out to write Rough Stone Rolling, I tried to keep all kinds of readers with me. I vowed not to make Brodie’s mistake of writing solely for one part of the potential audience. She wrote for unbelievers; I did not want to err in the opposite direction. My historical instincts moved me to tell the whole story as truthfully as I could anyway, but I also knew that if I overly idealized Smith, I would lose credibility with non-Mormons. With a broad readership in mind, I could not conceal his flaws. Moreover, I tried to voice unbelieving readers’ likely reactions when Smith married additional wives or taught doctrines foreign to modern sensibilities. When he went beyond the pale, I acknowledged readers’ dismay.

Even though I wrote for a diverse audience, as the reviews came in I realized that I had not kept everyone with me. As probably was inevitable, readers who came to the book with their own strong notions of Smith found my account wanting. Those on the Mormon side thought I failed to describe his noble character and supernatural gifts; non-Mormons said I painted too rosy a picture and failed to acknowledge the obvious fraud. At both ends of the spectrum, I lost readers.

At times I thought there was no middle ground for my version of the Mormon Prophet. I came to envy historians who write about slavery or patriarchy; no one questions their basic beliefs. But on second thought, I realized that my book was better for being written for a divided audience. I cannot say that Rough Stone Rolling achieves a perfect balance, but it does offer an empathetic and, so I hope, a candid view of an extraordinary life*."

I will address the questions about flaws vs. dubious character in another post due to posting limitations.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Thanks, I just ordered a copy of this from the library.

A non-Mormon author who is the most unbiased that I have read, is Wallace Stegner. He spent a lot of his early years living in Salt Lake City. Mormon Country (1942) and The Gathering of Zion (1964) are the two books he wrote about the Mormons.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
I looked at a wikipedia article that cited the 106 billion estimate, but that does not assume Adam and Eve were the first mortals on this earth, but instead assumes millions were on the earth in 4000 BC. I typed the one billion low-end estimate but that’s probably way too low. I honestly have no idea, but I do believe Adam and Eve were the first mortals on this earth, so 106 billion is way too high for the number who will have lived on earth.

LDS women participate in important roles that are in no way less important than men’s roles, and I think they will have a role “in the creation of worlds” but they are also divinely gifted in nurturing which is I think a near-God-like attribute.

To stay on topic, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon convey important roles that women have had in their families and in their culture and society. I love the words Rebekah heard before she married Isaac, “Be thou the mother of thousands of millions.”

Well how many people have lived really has very little to do with my point, which is that in LDS theology only some people are deified the rest are sent off to various places where in Catholic theology all who make it to heaven are deified.

As to the role of women, just wondering will women have power over nations and sit on the throne as in these two verse?

And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne

 

[ParkerD]

As to the role of women, just wondering will women have power over nations and sit on the throne as in these two verse?

And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne

Yes, they will.

 

[zerinus]

Thanks this very informative. I am curious about the 3 heavens. If a person arrives at the Terrestrial Kingdom after death, can he or she ever get into the Celestial Kingdom?

That is a questions about which different opinions have been expressed. Some have adamantly held that “movement between kingdoms” after death was not possible. Others have indicated that it might be. I think I am safe to say that the official position of the Church currently is that we don’t know. Information about that has not been revealed.

In Catholicism, after a period of time in Purgatory, (for a person not worthy at death for Heaven) a person may get into Heaven. Is there hope for a person after death in Mormonism?

Going to one of the lower kingdoms of glory in LDS theology is not equivalent to “Purgatory” in Catholicism. The lower kingdoms of glory are still heaven. They are not places of torment or punishment. We do have something equivalent to Purgatory however. We believe that those who go to the lowest kingdom of glory (telestial kingdom) include those who were serious sinners, and have had to spend some time in hell as a punishment for their sins. So the answer to your question is yes, there is hope for a person after death, provided they have not committed the unpardonable sin (for which there is no forgiveness).

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks this very informative. I am curious about the 3 heavens. If a person arrives at the Terrestrial Kingdom after death, can he or she ever get into the Celestial Kingdom? In Catholicism, after a period of time in Purgatory, (for a person not worthy at death for Heaven) a person may get into Heaven. Is there hope for a person after death in Mormonism?

Christine,
Thanks for the question to clarify. The “kingdoms of glory” reflect finality of what each person has chosen to receive, but there will still be learning going on in “Purgatory” which for us would be either spirit prison or paradise (where the righteous who don’t need to suffer for their sins because they repented during life) go until their resurrection. During that learning process, choices will still be part of what is going on. After the resurrection, there will still be learning but there will be no potential to progress from one “kingdom” to a higher one.

At the time of resurrection, each person will receive the quickening influence of a resurrection into the kind of body (i.e. how full of light and truth and inner goodness) they have prepared themselves for through the atonement of Christ and through their choices in both life and the spirit world. The reason the gospel emphasizes repentance so much is that the cleansing effect of repentance impacts the kind of resurrection a person will receive. This is also why “sanctification” through the presence of the Holy Ghost with each person and their “baptism of fire” is so important.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Are you asking who wrote the Book of Mormonism? It was Joseph Smith.
You can look him up on the net.

jean

Jean You need to take your time and read the answer better.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Thanks Parker and Zerinus. So it sounds like there is a purgation period after death until resurrection, for people who are not quite ready. I wonder where this concept comes from, in both religions? I mean it makes sense, and I like the fact that many people who are basically good will get a second chance, but where does this come from?

 

[zaffiroborant]

LDS women participate in important roles that are in no way less important than men’s roles, and **I think they will have a role “in the creation of worlds” **but they are also divinely gifted in nurturing which is I think a near-God-like attribute.

To stay on topic, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon convey important roles that women have had in their families and in their culture and society. I love the words Rebekah heard before she married Isaac, “Be thou the mother of thousands of millions.”

I just don’t see a role for women “in the creation of worlds” in the LDS view, none is described for your Heavenly Mother.

As for being divinely gifted in nurturing, in my experience people sell men short in this area.

 

[zerinus]

Thanks Parker and Zerinus. So it sounds like there is a purgation period after death until resurrection, for people who are not quite ready. I wonder where this concept comes from, in both religions? I mean it makes sense, and I like the fact that many people who are basically good will get a second chance, but where does this come from?

I don’t know where the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory comes from; but the LDS doctrine comes from modern revelation, as recorded in Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Here are the relevant verses:

99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.
100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;
101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.
102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.
103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.
104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.
105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;
107 When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.The LDS doctrine is not identical to the Catholic Purgatory, but comes close.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I don’t know where the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory comes from; but the LDS doctrine comes from modern revelation, as recorded in Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Here are the relevant verses:

99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.
100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;
101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.
102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.
103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.
104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.
105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;
107 When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.The LDS doctrine is not identical to the Catholic Purgatory, but comes close.

This is fascinating stuff! I better get me a copy of Doctrines and Covenants.

 

[zerinus]

This is fascinating stuff! I better get me a copy of Doctrines and Covenants.

That should be easy!

 

[Finrock]

OK, datamonkey, here is the rest of my response…

Help me understand what standards you are using to determine what is a flaw and what a person has to do to be considered a dubious character?

A would define a personal flaw as a characteristic, a manorism, or conduct that one should reduce or eliminate altogether. Also, I don’t believe all flaws are equal. Some flaws are serious, some flaws are less so, and other flaws are benign. I think that if a person’s thoughts and/or actions are consumed or controlled by their serious flaws to the extent that their life is defined and ruled by their serious flaws, then I would consider that person of a dubious character.

We all have flaws and we all struggle with them. Some of us have more serious flaws than others do and we should eliminate them from our life. This doesn’t mean, however, that we are defined by those flaws. They are weaknesses that we should overcome and which we can overcome. Even the dubious characters can be forgiven, can be cleansed and made whole through the atonement of Jesus Christ. God has promised us that through the atonement of Christ, we can become “new creatures.” But, this becoming a new creature doesn’t happen in one day, but rather it is a life long pursuit. Jesus has promised that His “…grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before [Him]; for if they humble themselves before [Him], and have faith in [Him], then will [He] make weak things become strong unto them” (Ether 12:27). We can have our flaws, yet if we are striving to become this “new creature” through the atonement of Jesus Christ, then we aren’t being defined or controlled by our flaws. Instead our flaws are becoming a source of strength to us as we overcome them.

Joseph Smith had his flaws. He sometimes was quick to anger. He could be vindictive. His financial sense wasn’t very good. He didn’t always plan well. In his earlier years he relied on superstition and folklore. He could be irreverent. He was at times rash. I’m sure this isn’t an exhaustive list of his flaws! However, just as certain as history brings to bare Joseph’s flaws, it also brings to bare his fundamentally good character. The catalyst for some of his greatest blunders were caused by his desires to help others. He proved by action and by deed his charity for the poor and the needy. Historical facts show a man who delighted in morality, in goodness, and in godliness. He truly believed he was a prophet. There was no guile in this belief. He was motivated by a desire to obey what he truly felt was God’s will. He was not motivated by greed, lust, or power. He cherished virtue and charity. This he showed through word and by deed. His history consistently shows a man who was troubled by his weaknesses, but a man who nonetheless had a hope and faith in Jesus Christ and in His atonement. His desire was to be a good man. It was Joseph Smith who claimed he was a “rough stone rolling down hill.” Joseph believed that as he adhered to gospel principles, his rough spots (flaws) would be made smooth (become strengths) by the powers of heaven.

“I [am] a rough stone. The sound of the hammer and chisel was never heard on me nor never will be. I desire the learning and wisdom of heaven alone” (Joseph Smith).

When I read about Joseph Smith, I can empathize with his flawed nature, but I appreciate his good character and example. I too, like Joseph Smith am flawed and I am weak. Inspite of this, I believe I am a fundamentally good man. However, I am certain if my flaws were laid bare for the whole world to see in their fulness, most would be aghast. But, I know where I stand now and where my hope is. I have felt the redemptive power of Christ in my life. So, I too am a rough stone rolling, hoping to be made smooth and polished by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Kind Regards,
Finrock