Mormons and what they believe

[Ed the Ned]

Where Johnny go, I am still interested in understanding the roots of mormonism and why the prophet Joseph Smith had such an untimely death at such a young age and why their was a split in the church as to which prophet would continue leading the church after his death. Why was pologamy accepted in the early church and why did the church have a racial doctrine.That was only removed in the late 1970's. If God is unchanging then why would he suddenly change his veiw of the black man in the late 70's. Are all men not created in the image of God. Why would God have instructed Joseph smith to say that a black person was inferior?

 

[bethw]

Where Johnny go, I am still interested in understanding the roots of mormonism and why the prophet Joseph Smith had such an untimely death at such a young age and why their was a split in the church as to which prophet would continue leading the church after his death. Why was pologamy accepted in the early church and why did the church have a racial doctrine.That was only removed in the late 1970's. If God is unchanging then why would he suddenly change his veiw of the black man in the late 70's. Are all men not created in the image of God. Why would God have instructed Joseph smith to say that a black person was inferior?

I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon), and I can answer your questions.

Joseph Smith died at a young age because he was murdered by a mob. This was during an illegal incarceration when he was supposed to be protected by the law.

There were several men who wrongly claimed the right to lead the Church after Joseph Smith's death. The Church has 12 men who serve as apostles, just as in the time of Christ. The senior apostle always follows as the next prophet, and president of the Church. At that time, that man was Brigham Young.

Plural marriage/polygamy has been permitted at some times in history, and at some times not. It was in practice during the days of Jacob/Israel, but not during the days of the Book of Mormon. It was in practice in the 1800s, but not today. We don't really know why. The polygamists that you hear about in the news, are not of our church.

We also do not know why Blacks were not permitted to receive the priesthood until the 70's. Any reason you may hear, is only someone's guess. I do know that it was earnestly prayed for by the leaders of the Church, and when it happened, we all rejoiced. During the days of the Old Testament, the priesthood was only given to certain groups. We don't know why.

I don't know that Joseph Smith ever said Black people were inferior. IF he did, it would be because in the 1800s, that was the common opinion. Black people have never been denied membership. Never. They have always been welcomed to worship in the LDS Church, regardless of race, even during the racially bigoted days of our country's history. There are many Black people who are members of our faith. In fact, in Africa, the conversion rate is high.

 

[toddm]

Joseph Smith died at a young age because he was murdered by a mob. This was during an illegal incarceration when he was supposed to be protected by the law.

There were several men who wrongly claimed the right to lead the Church after Joseph Smith's death. The Church has 12 men who serve as apostles, just as in the time of Christ. The senior apostle always follows as the next prophet, and president of the Church. At that time, that man was Brigham Young.

Hebrews tells us that there is no longer a need for a prophet because Christ has spoken the last words, which also contradicts the need for the Book of Mormon.

Plural marriage/polygamy has been permitted at some times in history, and at some times not. It was in practice during the days of Jacob/Israel, but not during the days of the Book of Mormon. It was in practice in the 1800s, but not today. We don't really know why. The polygamists that you hear about in the news, are not of our church.

Define "permitted". Certainly not by God!! Just because acts are described in a narrative account (ie, Genesis) does not mean that God permitted such things. Polygamy in the OT never ended well which means it was never condoned or blessed by God. So, how can the founding men of the LDS church (Smith & Young) have plural marriages, but then now it's condemned? Does God change His mind?

We also do not know why Blacks were not permitted to receive the priesthood until the 70's. Any reason you may hear, is only someone's guess. I do know that it was earnestly prayed for by the leaders of the Church, and when it happened, we all rejoiced. During the days of the Old Testament, the priesthood was only given to certain groups. We don't know why.

Blacks were not accepted into the priesthood because the dark skin was a sign of God's curse, which was initially given to Cain.

I don't know that Joseph Smith ever said Black people were inferior. IF he did, it would be because in the 1800s, that was the common opinion. Black people have never been denied membership. Never. They have always been welcomed to worship in the LDS Church, regardless of race, even during the racially bigoted days of our country's history. There are many Black people who are members of our faith. In fact, in Africa, the conversion rate is high.

Maybe never denied membership, but denied priesthood...and in LDS theology that makes them inferior.

I'm just coming into this thread and I saw some interesting things on the first page that I just thought I'd sum up my thoughts on. The young man who is going to be a missionary said that we all worship the same Jesus & God but we just have different views about them. Ummmm...then that's not the same!
Christians worship a triune God that is one being made up of three persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They are all co-eternal and co-equal. That is WHO and WHAT God is! If you change that, then it's not God. Period. You can't have a Jesus that was created (LDS doctrine) and a Jesus that is eternal (Trinitarian Christianity) and call them the same. They're completely different Jesus's.

Another comment was that "Mormons are Christians" too. Sorry, no you're not. Now this doesn't mean that you're a "bad" person, but it does mean that you don't fit the definition of a Christian. Mormons do not believe in grace alone by faith alone salvation, they do not believe that Jesus is fully God and co-eternal and co-equal w/ the Father, and they do not believe that the Bible is infallible and sufficient. The denial of those 3 beliefs alone disqualify you, by definition, of being a Christian. Furthermore, official Mormon authorities never claimed that evangelical Christians and Mormons were one in the same. Bruce McKonckie refuted that idea several times.

What about in 1 Nephi 14:10 that states: "And he said to me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is a the whore of all the earth." Now, every LDS member I've heard acknowledges that the LDS church is the "one, true church" and they are the church of the "Lamb of God" referred to here in this passage - so that leaves everyone else (not Mormon) in the "church of the devil", doesn't it?

It was even in Joseph Smith's vision that he was supposedly told by God that none of the churches were correct and that he would show him a new one, so how come now, all of the sudden, Mormons are associating themselves as the church (Christians) that God supposedly told Smith to avoid altogether because they were all apostate and the LDS church is the only "reformed" church??

 

[Sound Silence]

As for the Satan being gods son. Well god crated him so I figure it counts. I don't see the need to parse the words creator/father.

They mean completely different things, though.

We are considered God's children because he adopts us when we accept his offer of salvation. Only Jesus in his son in the literal sense (hence John 3:16's "only begotten" line). Jesus is the only begotten son of God...saints are adopted children.

Simply being created does not make you a child.

 

[toddm]

As for the Satan being gods son. Well god crated him so I figure it counts. I don't see the need to parse the words creator/father.

They mean completely different things, though.

We are considered God's children because he adopts us when we accept his offer of salvation. Only Jesus in his son in the literal sense (hence John 3:16's "only begotten" line). Jesus is the only begotten son of God...saints are adopted children.

Simply being created does not make you a child.

Good point! It is a lie that all people are God's children. Ephesians 2 says that we are children of wrath, John 8 says that we are children of the devil, before God adopts us (Eph. 1:4,5). So, Creator is not synonymous with Father.

 

[Ed the Ned]

Thanks todd, I appreciate your truthful response to beths response to Mormonism. I was about to respond myself but have been caught up having two jobs and have not been able to hit the books yet. One thing I wanted to add was that when the "Plates" were translated there were certain sections that were identical to the KJV of the bible. If the plates came from the time Joseph smith said they came from there should be NO link to the KJV of the bible at all. I wish I could have the discipline that most Mormons have in the way they conduct their lives, but their doctrine is false and needs to be exposed.

 

[NIGHTMARE]

As for the Satan being gods son. Well god crated him so I figure it counts. I don't see the need to parse the words creator/father.

They mean completely different things, though.

We are considered God's children because he adopts us when we accept his offer of salvation. Only Jesus in his son in the literal sense (hence John 3:16's "only begotten" line). Jesus is the only begotten son of God...saints are adopted children.

Simply being created does not make you a child.

Good point! It is a lie that all people are God's children. Ephesians 2 says that we are children of wrath, John 8 says that we are children of the devil, before God adopts us (Eph. 1:4,5). So, Creator is not synonymous with Father.

All people/souls,,, will have the oppurunity to become a child of God,,,,, or was given the chance....

 

[AskTheA]

I've been having meetings with mormons at my house. I suppose they are trying to convert me :P. Their book is more coherent than the quran but less coherent than the bible. If by my evalutation the bible is anti science, this one is VERY antiscience. They also have stranger rules than generals Christianity. They do tend to be very nice. Without sounding like a jerk, the Joseph Smith is a shady character.

 

[toddm]

All people/souls,,, will have the oppurunity to become a child of God,,,,, or was given the chance....

Well, this is a different discussion but Scripture doesn't tell us that Jesus came to "offer" salvation, it says that he came TO save (definitive). Any way, I don't want to highjack the thread w/ a debate in soteriology.

 

[toddm]

A good resource for those wishing to further their knowledge of the LDS faith, visit www.mrm.org It's Mormonism Research Ministry and they are based out of Salt Lake City. Very good articles and a plethora of information from official Mormon authorities and how they are, indeed, not Christian.

 

[kevkelsar]

A good resource for those wishing to further their knowledge of the LDS faith, visit http://www.mrm.org It's Mormonism Research Ministry and they are based out of Salt Lake City. Very good articles and a plethora of information from official Mormon authorities and how they are, indeed, not Christian.

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but that is not a very good resource for further knowledge of the LDS faith. You will get a very biased opinion and many words/phrases/quotes taken way out of context. Sure, it does it in a much nicer form and manner than MANY other similar websites/organizations. With that said, one should always be cautious of an organization who's sole purpose is to be opposed to just one other specific organization/group. I must ask, why the need to have a full organization specifically focusing on how to teach those of the LDS faith the error of their ways? Seems odd to me. If you have the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, isn't His word enough to the convincing the people of their errors?

It seems our pre-Mission friend has disappeared, but I am more than willing to step in and help explain many things to you...with a few ground rules. I don't have time to post them right now, but I will probably start another thread sometime to establish them. Once you see these "ground rules" and actually understand them, you will find out that around 95% of the anti-Mormon garbage out there is not relevant and bunk.

 

[toddm]

Fair enough. Let me know when you're up for the task. I assume that you are LDS?

 

[jasoncran]

question for the new mormon here. first nice to meet you.
the question is

if all that is said and true about christ visiting north america one would think that would be some archeolgical evidence of such things, like we have for the life of christ in isreal.

 

[Ed the Ned]

[/quote]I must ask, why the need to have a full organization specifically focusing on how to teach those of the LDS faith the error of their ways? Seems odd to me. If you have the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, isn't His word enough to the convincing the people of their errors?
[/quote]

The bible tells us even the elect will be decieved, so yes we do need organizations and churches out there to expose incorret doctrine such as the LDS. The reasons for these types of organizations is to save souls and a lot of them are filled with love for people and are trying to obey Gods word to preach the Gospel and not some false prophets ideals.

Understanding these ground rules, are they your rules for your thread or are the the Ground rules of the church of the LDS.

 

[kevkelsar]

Understanding these ground rules, are they your rules for your thread or are the the Ground rules of the church of the LDS.

More or less, they are the very basics of what we believe in the LDS Church as to what is officially our doctrine, or official teachings. I'll start the new thread right now.

 

[kevkelsar]

question for the new mormon here. first nice to meet you.
the question is

if all that is said and true about christ visiting north america one would think that would be some archeolgical evidence of such things, like we have for the life of christ in isreal.

There are historical/archeological evidences of the events contained within the Book of Mormon...just not nearly as much as there is with the life of Christ in Israel or everything within the Bible. But, in all fairness, that should be understood. People have been analyzing the life of Christ in Israel for some 2,000 years. People have only been analyzing Christ's visit to the Americas as described in the Book of Mormon for maybe 150 years, and maybe even less than that.

The Book of Mormon was published in 1830, but there wasn't much of a focus, if any, on finding archeological evidences of it until much later. The early members of the LDS Church weren't traveling around the Americas looking for clues, they were busy establishing themselves as a Church.

Anyway, I will share one of the possible historical evidences of Christ's visit to the Americas: Quetzacoatl, the Mayan Sun God. There are historical accounts among Mayan legends that a white God visited them anciently. Legend holds that this white God told the people anciently that he would visit them again. It is believed that the Mayan people believe Hernan Cortez was this white God returning to them...which was far from the truth as they ended up wiping out the Mayan civilization. Anyway, if you have time to read some interesting stuff, read the article below. Some things to note, we believe that after Christ visited the people in America, within 400 years they had all turned away from Christ's teachings and entered an era of apostasy (falling away from the truth). During which time, the truths and facts of Christ's visit became muddled and lost.

http://text.farmsresearch.com/publications/jbms/?vol=11&num=1&id=298

 

[jasoncran]

the mayan were long gone(as a civilazation) before the arrival of the cortez, you are mistaken, you are refering to the aztecs, their leader was called moctezuma and the city he ruled tenochitlan(modern day mexico city). the mayan people are still around the live in central mexico.

on the book of mormon is that an archeological source? or a by faith thing while the bible is true, note, archeology has verififed the battles and names and places spoken of in their, my faith wouldnt be affected by the opposite, however the fact that what is written in the bible from a historic point of view is an affirmation of the fact that such things did take place(though the archeology will put it in a different context, but the names, battles, did happen)one cant prove any thing that is of faith through the scientific method, ie the resurrection of christ.

that's more being said than the book of mormon.. i thought that you would mention quetzoctal. if jesus had to appear there(north america) is his power so limited that he needs also to appear to the asians as well?

i will have to look the god quetzocal up again i recall that he wasnt peaceful at all or at first, the snake god, doesnt seem to be much like christ.

jason

 

[kevkelsar]

Please remember, as I mentioned, shortly after Christ's visit to the Americas the people fell into an apostasy (this is recorded plainly in the Book of Mormon). The people fell into a period of complete rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and throughout the years the true Gospel became corrupted with filled with legends and stories.

My faith in the teachings of the Bible and Book of Mormon are neither solidified nor shaken by any historical/archeological evidences, or the lack thereof. It's just nice information to know. Other than that, it has no effect on what I believe. God created and defined science, science does not define or explain God.

 

[toddm]

My faith in the teachings of the Bible and Book of Mormon are neither solidified nor shaken by any historical/archeological evidences, or the lack thereof. It's just nice information to know. Other than that, it has no effect on what I believe. God created and defined science, science does not define or explain God.

But is this how we treat any other kind of truth claim outside of religion? For example, someone reports that they have seen a UFO in their field. Would everyone just go along w/ that and assume that he had indeed seen a UFO? I doubt it. Most everyone would want to see some sort of evidence in order to validate a truth claim.

Your claim to LDS archaeology is not accurate. LDS Temple workers have told an evangelical archaeologist that LDS artifacts and coins were stored down at BYU. Being an archaeologist, he went down to BYU and asked to examine some these so-called artifacts - to which he was given the answer, "well, we don't actually have any legitimate LDS artifacts". Could you please post some official LDS links that attest to such archaeological evidence?

 

[kevkelsar]

My faith in the teachings of the Bible and Book of Mormon are neither solidified nor shaken by any historical/archeological evidences, or the lack thereof. It's just nice information to know. Other than that, it has no effect on what I believe. God created and defined science, science does not define or explain God.

But is this how we treat any other kind of truth claim outside of religion? For example, someone reports that they have seen a UFO in their field. Would everyone just go along w/ that and assume that he had indeed seen a UFO? I doubt it. Most everyone would want to see some sort of evidence in order to validate a truth claim.

That's just it, those are claims of truth outside of religion. If I were to base my faith on archeological evidences, then I'm basing my faith in man and his interpretation of archeological evidences and his interpretation of what happened historically. Man and his ways have too many flaws, and science can only explain as much as man understands science. And therein lies an even larger issue; when it comes to science, we don't know what we don't know until we discover it. Therefore, until we know everything, science has many limits. Sure, there are some areas in science that have been proven to be true, but there are many more areas where we don't understand things enough to be absolutely certain.

Your claim to LDS archaeology is not accurate. LDS Temple workers have told an evangelical archaeologist that LDS artifacts and coins were stored down at BYU. Being an archaeologist, he went down to BYU and asked to examine some these so-called artifacts - to which he was given the answer, "well, we don't actually have any legitimate LDS artifacts". Could you please post some official LDS links that attest to such archaeological evidence?

I have no clue where this story about "LDS Temple workers" came from, and I highly doubt it to have actually occurred. And there are no official links of archeological evidences because the LDS Church itself does not pursue this. The LDS Church chooses to spend its resources on humanitarian aid throughout the world. Any archeological evidences are by those who do so of their own accord.

Actually, I just recalled one historical discovery with respect to the Book of Mormon that has been widely accepted and mentioned in our General Conferences. I don't know if you are familiar with the story of the Book of Mormon, but it begins with Lehi (a Prophet) and his family leaving Jerusalem around 600 BC. During their journey to the sea to embark on the trip to the Americas, one man that joined them, Ishmael, died. They buried him in a place called Nahom. About 10 years ago, archeologists discovered near Marib in Yemen discovered altars that bore the tribal name Nihm, a variation of Nahom. Read the following link for a much more detailed explanation and analysis.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=10&num=2&id=255