Ask a Mormon....almost anything.

OK, we're really not communicating. I would never suggest that the Book of Mormon was written with the intent to deceive. How would I know? And not knowing, I won't assume. So if what the BoM SAYS happened cannot be reconciled with what is discovered after really hard searching, then the most likely conclusion is that what we have here is Smith using the vehicle of an imaginary history to say something difficult to say otherwise. Jesus also told stories clearly understood to be moral tales, much as Aesop did (and for that matter, James Joyce and many novelists).

So it's misleading to speak of "doubting the Book of Mormon". Consider the parable of the mice holding a convention where they decide that the cat should wear a bell. Problem is, nobody suggests any way of putting the bell on the cat. Is that a "true" story? I think so. Does that mean I believe in talking mice holding conventions? No, of course not. The story is true in the sense that it tells us an important lesson about ourselves.

 

Sorry if it seemed defensive, it wasn't meant that way in the slightest. But it did seem to address the bulk of what you were addressing with a monstrous amount of citations as well. It looked quite reputable.

Archeology is a fascinating study, but is not truly indicative of history because it suffers all the same problems of a crime scene - data contamination. Whether intentional or not, data can expire and be rendered useless to a researching archeologist in the same way a forensicist can be thwarted with the passage of time.

Another reason I am skeptical of archeology is because of the earth itself. The earth tends to have mood swings, earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis... you get the idea. In addition to this, there are accounts of fantastic terran plate shifting. The scriptures tell us that "the whole face of the earth had changed". Also in the time of the BoM it mentions specifically that the land was cursed so that when people would set things down, they wouldn't be there when they went back to get them, called it "slippery". I'll have to dig up the sources on that as I'm exactly sure where it is. Basically, liquifactionary event would easily disappear or *poof!* a great deal of things to a degree where it is simply not recoverable.

This isn't to tear down the science of archeology, but just pointing out that it has its limitations - we still don't know who exactly built the pyramids, or how exactly the built them. At least to my knowledge anyways.

 

That's what I mean. I know that it is a historical record of actual events. I know it like the sky is blue or the grass is green. I can't explain it, but I know it's truth, not just a story. I can't doubt that. Unfortunately, though your thought makes sense, it would still paint Joseph as a liar because he told that an Angel who actually once was the man who buried the plates, came to him and gave them to him, and that he actually had physically kept them for some time. So no. It's true.

 

Clearly you are unacquainted with the church disciplinary system for infidelity.

Half true, a man may be sealed to more than one woman, but he cannot be lawfully be married to more than one as it stands currently. Those practicing polygamy are not of the LDS church, but likely one of the splinter groups that never figured it out.

Your views on gender roles conflict with the gospel of the LDS church, that is fine, your choice. But the LDS church doesn't exactly buy into the uni-gender idea. Men and women are very different from each other, and it is reflected in the gospel.

But as for it being tyrannical, it is entirely voluntary. Not seeing the tyranny here. If a woman doesn't want to participate in it, she doesn't have to. Where is the tyranny in this?

 

No question it is reputable. But the problem an outsider has (and this thread seems to invite questions from outsiders) is that "my religion requires me to find some way to rationalize this" doesn't really resonate with an outsider. Consider the Wikipedia link I provided, which gives BOTH sides.

What you say, I think, is partially true but risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are of course correct that the past cannot always be reconstructed, and the detail with which it can be reconstructed is always limited. Reconstructions have limitations. Nobody is questioning this.

But as I wrote earlier, Smith painted on a broad canvas, telling a tale covering thousands of years, millions of people, long-term stable civilizations, great battles and the like. And this canvas had ample room for a wealth of details about livestock, crops, technology, language, and so on. Now, what you seem (to me at least) to be suggesting is that every last bit of this either vanished without a trace, or morphed wholesale into something changed beyond any recognition.

OK, it seems reasonable to ask, does this actually happen? If (to take a similar example) we had no surviving written records of the Roman Empire, do we have enough physical evidence on the ground to form the reasonable conclusion that something like the Roman Empire must have existed - you know, buildings and roads and coins and earthworks and the like? We know of a great many such evidences.

If a history and culture on the scale the Book of Mormon describes actually occurred somewhere, it would be like the elephant in the bedroom - very difficult to miss. Yes, we can say that maybe the elephant is in a hidden closet, maybe it fell out the window or wandered off. But leaving no clue at all?

So what I'm asking is, if on reflection (and reading non-Mormon archaeological sources) you should decide that maybe this beyond-the-limits-of-credibility vanishing act in fact probably didn't occur, what would be your plan B? I suggested to ChiKaea that one possible plan B would be that the Book of Mormon was intended as a work of fiction for the purpose of moral instruction, and constructed as it was to make that instruction palatable and substantive. Would you regard this as a workable alternative? I also suggested (as creationists defend the Great Flood) that we might be looking at truly global wholesale detailed miracle-working. Would you regard that as a better alternative?

 

In all fairness, I'll give it a good read. And you're right, it doesn't resonate with the outsider, take work to learn it, and faith as well.

 

Why would your church have a disciplinary system for infidelity if a married "man may be sealed to more than one woman"..?. That condones infidelity...


I don't believe in "uni-gender" either. Women and men have varying degrees of difference...that doesn't make one "less than" the other one or inequal.......
It's tyranny when men are given free rein to screw around but women can't.


No, it's all just an excuse to excuse men from wh...ing around.

Women who accept that are weak and stupid...or brainwashed.....or get paid enough for THEIR services to NOT mind...

 

I see where you are coming from. But when you look at it in Biblical perspective(same God then as he is now) it is more clear. The definition of marriage was...expanded you could say, but only the male's part.

Very true, men and women are fantastically different, neither is less than the other. Equal in purpose and in importance, but they do way different things.

If the man is not married to the woman in a polygamous setting or not - it is infidelity of the lowest sort. If his affairs exceed those he is married to he remains a cheating bastard and it dealt with accordingly.

As mentioned earlier, way earlier. If the idea was to just get multiple sexual partners, there are MUCH easier way to do it. Putting up with a fleet of women - sometimes pregnant women, seems like overkill if all one is trying to do is get laid. And then the headache for providing for all of them...simply put, I doubt it is so the guy can get his rocks off.

Sounds like a play right out of the feminist handbook. Had it occurred to you that this is voluntary? That one can choose to enter this way of living and still have a perfectly functioning mind? Just because it is different, does not mean that those who practice it are inferior in any way.

 

If the women grow up in the faith what real choice do they have, especially in the very insulated communities mormons tend to create for themselves? Aren't they sort of doomed to the choice?

 

Hello, I am an LDS woman who has grown up in the faith in the middle of Utah. I have told people whenever this topic comes up that I don't think I'll ever be able to accept that. I don't think I could share my husband. No one has ever told me that I have no choice. Certainly some have told me I should change my mind, but I've yet to be excommunicated, or even properly told off.

 

I got u.

This Gospel refers to the Mormon's now complete Gospel, which is going to be preached over all the world as they are so working at right now.

 

Oh.

What was corrupted in the "old" Gospel.

 

Well, they don't admit the existence of any of her descendants, and I am one. I am typing a contradiction of their view, but they continue to hold it!

 

Yes, it comes out of the feminist handbook because feminists believe in equality, equal rights and equal opportunity...OK, LDS doesn't.


No, I don't believe it's entirely voluntary on the women's part(but I bet the guys happily volunteer )

If a woman is in LDS for a long time or born into it the LDS has washed her brain from the start.

If no one sex isn't inferior to the other, why does one get multiple sex partners and one doesn't.

How many other ROOOLS are in place to keep women "in their place".

 

Moving is not a crime, and people move away from utah all the time because they don't like it. Really with the advent of the television, radio, and internet, they learn of the outside world regardless. People have options, and many take them. Hardly doomed at all. My own brother is one such example, he jumped off the wagon and has zero intentions of coming back to my knowledge.

 

Knowledge of the pre-existence, the atonement, the baptisms for the dead, and others. That link I gave you earlier goes into more detail. If you have questions about the specifics of each I can answer those.

 

So what questions do you have? Because you are obviously interested in the topic of the LDS church.

- - - Updated - - -

So what questions do you have good sir?

 

Normal churches baptise existing persons: here - this is a baby, so baptise it! Dead persons are just names on documents about which we can be confused by - for instance - bad handwriting - and family traditions can be totally confused, as in this case. What are you, in this case, baptising?

 

Is that supposed to be a "gotcha' moment? "OH YOU're interested in LDS, I have a CONVERT, I get 36 points on my scorecard"


I'm interetsed in Abominable Snowman stories, too, but don't want to be one nor do I believe in them.


I did ask questions that you didn't answer (they must come under the disclaimer "almost anything"....

 

Ah. I see. Well it is baptism by proxy. So Bob, who is living currently, can be baptized for Tim, who is dead.

Basically any man can be baptized for any deceased man, and vice versa for women. And yes you are right about the bad handwriting and missing/corrupted documentation. We do the best we have with what we've got. And given time, but more importantly revelation, we'll get them all.

All baptisms for the dead are simply a chance to accept the gospel posthumously. Which the deceased can either choose to reject or embrace at their leisure.

 

Just call it as I see it, it is either curiosity, or blind hatred that drives you, but either way interest remains. You could just go away if you find it so detestable...like a normal person, but you can't seem to leave it alone can you? So the logical deduction is that you are interested for various reasons.

If you want me to attempt to answer your questions, put them in a format that is easily quoted and parsed through. Not making your commentary within my quote in pretty colors - which by the way is misquoting me and very dishonest. You do this on purpose to be difficult. I'm just not going to play this game with you. Want your question answered? Make it easily quoted. Not asking too much here.

 

Do Mormons understand The Word to refer to "Truth?"

Isn't that one word the sum of Jesus, his message in the gospel of 32AD?

In fact, Truth is the savior for mankind which relies upon thinking as the only skill by which he can cope with the requirement that men adapt to their environment or suffer the second death of extinction.
What more needs be said about the Gospel, that this one word which we saw the Rev Martin Luther King stand up for, shoot down, and raised again as The Truth about Civil Rights?

Isn't the Gospel just that word, that Truth is Lord over men, and that it will rise again and again until the lies subside and and disappear?
Isn't it the Devil who is the Liar, and the Christ who is The Truth?

Isn't that Gospel the same in 32AD as it is today?

 

So you say here the "corruption" was things left out?
Mormons add stuff that was not previously in that Gospel which changed the whole known Roman World from myth based paganism of Greek and Roman culture into one Universal Christianity that last until 1054AD with that first Great Schism of greek Orthodaxy.

If I understand what you say here, i.e.; THAT gospel was incomplete, though it spread over all the world and the end came to Gentile paganism, from the time of the Book of Matthew in 54AD until the 1000 year reign ended in 1054AD.





Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them, (i.e.; Christianity, as mandated by Emperor Theo I, was the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, after 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches or thinking) of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the (one) word of God, (Truth), and which had not worshipped (by participation in the paganistic practices and sexual excesses fueling) the beast (that was Roman Culture, including the economic system which had been based upon selfish self-interest), neither his image (on his coinage), neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands (those monks living in moneyless monastic environments);

and they, (the saints/apostles), lived (as angels in the minds of the Christians who have followed since the appearance of the Gospels in 54AD, i.e., those beheaded saints, in the memories of the congregations who worshipped in churches built upon the bones of their remains)...
.... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).

////
Matt. 24:30 And then, (hearlding the end of pagan myth [Zech 13:2], and astrological worship: [Rev. 6:12-17]), shall appear (in the clouds, [1Thes 4:16], to Constantine and 12,000 soldiers: [As reported to us by the historian Eusibius]), the sign, (The Cross), of the Son of man, [Matt 26:64]), in heaven, (ushering forth the new paradigm of monotheistic Hebrew Christianity):
and then shall all the tribes of the earth (in the Western European Roman Empire) mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, (seen by Constantine himself and 12,000 soldiers as reported by Eusibius, the historian), with (socio-political) power ([Rev 4:11] in the establishment of Universal Roman Christianity: [Rev 20:4]), and great glory (in a Pope, identifiable with Appollyon, the destroyer, Abaddon in the Hebrew: [Rev 9:11] during the reign, 467AD, of Hilary I).

 

Gospel = Truth. Yes.

Eh...I don't really think one could sum up the entirely gospel in a single word, otherwise he'd have only spoken one word, and the bible would be fairly empty, the book of mormon too.

Here is where we differ I guess. We believe the Savior to be a living man, now ascended, whom we are to emulate in every way. He is not in the strictest sense "truth" but he speaks truth and embodies it with his actions. Truth being the concepts that he teaches with the gospel. But truth alone is not the savior of mankind, Jesus is the savior of mankind, but the truth enabled him to be so.

Hope I'm not losing you here.

Honestly, I don't really care much for MLK so I never really bought into much of what he said. But my feelings are off topic. But as I said before, truth is the gospel, but the gospel is composed of more than one concept or truths, let alone one word.

Yes, the gospel is truth, but Truth is not the master over men, that is God's position but obedience to Laws and Truth enable him to be this way. And you are correct that lies cannot abide the presence of truth in the grand scheme of things, much like darkness flees from light.

The entities you mention are entities, not symbolic concept like Truth and lies. But real people, obviously Jesus champions the truth, and the devil does so with lies. But we believe they are real entities, not metaphysical concepts or abstractions.

Yes, the gospel today is the same as it was back then, the only difference really being the accuracy of the records. The Bible goes hand in hand with the Book of Mormon.

 

So you say here the "corruption" was things left out?
Mormons add stuff that was not previously in that Gospel.

Now, the BoM is The Gospel?