thews
-
Posts
156 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by thews
-
-
Actually no. Of the 4 mummies purchased by Joseph Smith, the papyrus Joseph Smith used to translate the BOA, is well documented, as it has a map of Navoo on the back and matches the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar exactly, and comes with the receipts from Emma Smith when she sold them.Which papyrus? As far as I know, the remnants of the papyri the Church purchased wound up in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
As far as I know, most of which were published by BYU Studies back in the 1970s (yes, after the Tanners leaked them. The saga of Church Archives is a long and twisted one; suffice it to say that the powers that be have had, IMHO, a fairly simplistic view of what purposes LDS history is supposed to serve).
Huh?
The papyrus was given to the Mormon church in 1967... that is a fact. There is no question, as this is a fact.
I've seen picutres of the peepstone, and have read that the LDS church has both the peepstone ands stovepipe hat.I'm not aware that the hat still exists. The stone certainly does, and is occasionally mentioned in fairly basic LDS texts; but I have no quibbles with the Church not wanting to turn it into a circus attraction.
-
Please explain what you mean by "experimets" by Joseh Smith. Joseph Smith said that polygamy was commanded by God... why isn't it today?I'm not quite sure what you're driving at, but I don't find that the past LDS experience with polygamy (let alone Joseph Smith's experiments with polyandry) has a significant influence in the day-to-day relationship that Mormons enjoy with their spouses.
As for Joseph Smith: I would venture to guess that Joseph Smith did love all of his wives--or at least made a conscious effort to do so. But I'm no historian. If you want the viewpoint of his polyandrous wives, the best thing to do would be to read their own words.
So Joseph Smith did in fact "fall in love" with 38 women? Do Mormon men being "sealed" to women they aren't married to "in love" with them?
-
So...are you still astonished at my faith?
yes
-
1 Corinthians 13 (that's the King James version.
)The LDS concept of marital love isn't all that different from the non-LDS concept. See, e.g., this quotation from Parley Pratt after he had had the concept of Celestial Marriage explained to him:
Now, as to how "love" can be "love" when you're loving more than one person simultaneously? I don't pretend to know. I take it as a matter of faith that it's possible, but as I do not anticipate living polygamously in this life or the next I haven't given it much thought.
If Joseph Smtih is "sealed" to more than one woman, and some of them married to other men, my question centers on the LDS concept of "love." Did Joseph Smith not love some of his wives, or did he love them all?
-
I do not enjoy the doctrine of hell. I do not appreciate it. But my Bible teaches it, and I believe the author of the Bible. He made us, He owns us, and He rightly judges us by his perfect, righteous and just ways. His punishments are perfect as well. Who am I to question him?
Can I ask you... do you believe in Hell? Can somoeone make such a big mistake, that they deserve being burned for all time and eternity? I'm not asking what you should believe, but what you do believe?
Don't you think God is a loving God?
-
I am not LDS. Bit good questions be interesting to see if its true.
It is true. Sorry... my bad.
-
:)I find it hard to come to common ground on the topic of “love” and “marriage” in the LDS faith. If a man is “sealed” to more than one woman, and this is how it works in the LDS version of the afterlife, how does “God” define love when it comes to marriage? ...especially if that man is "sealed" to more than one woman? Do they share in heaven? I am going to get married on Dec. 20th of his year (I hope), and I love her so much. How could I possibly “share” her with another woman in heaven if it was only to her that I promise to love and cherish? Can someone define the LDs version of God’s view of love WRT to marriage?
-
I got to thinking the other day about something I heard at a fireside a number of years ago when a General Authority said that from the time of Christ 'til now, approximately 70 billion people will have inhabited the earth. That figure of 70 billion stuck in my head after that talk and what I was wondering is do the Christian religions who teach that unless you accept Jesus as your personal Savior you will really go to an everlasting, literal burning lake of fire where you will be tortured day and night forever and ever? When you think of that figure of 70 billion, can you honestly say AT LEAST HALF of those people will be in such a fiery state, especially since most "born again" style religions teach that the majority will NOT make heaven? DOES THIS MEAN THAT WELL OVER 35 BILLION PEOPLE WILL BE BURNING FOREVER AND EVER???!!!! That's over 5x our earth's total population right now!!! I cannot possibly fathom such a thing as that!!! Also, are all these people in the center of the earth right now, according to what most Christian churches teach? What about the people that lived for 4,000 years before the time of Christ where nothing about a lake a fire was ever taught in the Old Testament? Are they in for a fiery surprise when they die? Just honestly trying to understand all of this. Thanks.
Well, if people from 0 Ad to 1820+ were deprived of God's word. where do they land? How can one be judged if they didn't know?
-
Start a new thread please.
What forum?
-
Polygamy: Latter-day Saints and the Practice of Plural Marriage - LDS Newsroomwhy was Polygamy practiced in the first place?
not to try to "derail" the conversation but l am curious. l've heard some of these answers already and l'd like a little more detail.
Not to go over what has already been expressed might I add an additional reason for Polygamy.
It was necessary to fulfil all righteous that is the premises for all that God commands. But an interesting side effect of Polygamy was to first test the saints and second to flush out the chaff prior to the exodus to Salt Lake Valley. The Lord first commanded the introduction of Polygamy and almost at the same time revealed the Articles of Faith which included the statement that we uphold the laws of the land. Polygamy wasn't illegal when it was introduced but was when the practice was stopped by the church. It took almost bankrupting the church before the leaders realised and obeyed.
OK. Can you tell me what God sees as "love" regarding "marriage" in the LDS faith?
-
If some one is seeking the truth as others see it and proclaim it then nothing should be off limits. If its true then there is no harm in answering the question. Without getting mad or defensive. Ever.
Can you tell me why the LDSchurch hides the papyrus (with map glued on its back), along with he EAG (Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar) written by Joseph Smith (along with receipts from Emma Smith), his peep stone and stivepipe hat from its members? Why do they (the LDS church) keep these sacred documents from its members?
-
I think there might be a crack in my rock. Luckily it's so small I can't really tell. I love my ring:)
The mark of a real diamond is its flaws. Flaws are where truth is found, becuase we are all flawed... makes it real. Your husband is a lucky man indeed.
-
Indeed, with my job I wouldn't get to wear a diamond ring much either. My fiance did get a ring for me, a pretty ruby with a setting that looks like a shooting star. Pretty and I don't have the pressure of keeping track of a tiny couple thousand dollar ornamentation
Edit: He says it's suppose to look like cherry blossoms.
Another lucky man. I love rubys.
-
well, im a nurse, so i wouldn't even be allowed to wear it every day because it would slice open my gloves and expose me to aids or something. So that is just another reason not to have one...i wouldn't get to wear my engagement ring everyday. as long as its not yellow gold, i am sure i'll love it.
He is a lucky man.
-
personally I have no desire for a diamond. I am sold on the whole "blood-diamond" concept so I guess my boyfriend should we get engaged is gonna luck out
I'm also not a big fan of the culture that supports diamond rings for engagements...i can't tell you how many times I see a girl tell everyone she is engaged and one of the first comments back is "lets see the rock!"....sigh, I suppose I just want to skip all that nonesense and not sum up his love with something like that. Lucky him!Heis a lucky man, and you seem to be a very good woman..., but C'mon, don't you want a rock? Seriously... you have to wear that ring every day forever?
-
Great. How have you been Laurel?I came on in hopes to see someone I knew on here, it was so wonderful to see a bunch of the origional posters..:) How is everyone doing ?
LaurelTree:p
-
Nah. Presented in a kind and civil manner, questions are fine. It's not at all cool to show a bad attitude over simple questions, and I'm appalled when I see people acting like that. People are sometimes simply curious. And sometimes they do have a problem with it, they don't believe it, but they have every right to their opinion, and are often very polite about expressing it.
I'm thinking more of the rude, ignorant questions, the "UR A MORMON LOL HOW MANY WIVES DO U HAVE THAT'S SO WRONG LOL" stuff.
I would never do that, as respect goes both ways. In that respect though, I do find I'm attacked for asking the question that some LDS have issues with, or have not resolved it themselveswithin their own monds. In asking it (the question), I get a lot of flack. What can I expect in here to asking a question to what you believe you've already answered (someone else), but I believe has not been answered? I have questions... what is off limits?
-
Buy a used ring have it cleaned and polished. Just as nice and you are not asking someone in the West Africa's civil wars exclusively funded by the trade in blood diamonds Just to give another part of their lives to fit on your loved ones finger.
Think about it, mine is used it held no bad luck.
if that's not good enough buy a Canadian diamond their called polar diamonds
Who do you think works in the local stores that sell this stuff? Ma and Pa shops need to sell inventory to survive. This save the planet at the expense of sending the money to Canada is something I don't understand. A local store got a comission today. Someone's life is easier this month in America; her name is Caron and she's a nice person.
-
People are naturally going to get defensive when they're almost constantly having hurtful, insulting, hostile comments thrown their way about their lifestyle. (Not that all Mormon critics are necessarily rude and hostile. But many are.)
Are simple questions about the LDS faith based on factual data "hurtful" in your opinion?
-
Eugene Morris Jerome: Why is it that we come from the same place but I can't understand you?
Arnold Epstein: You're a witness. You're always standing around watching what's happening, scribbling in your book what other people do. You have to get in the middle of it. You have to take sides. Make a contribution to the fight.
Eugene Morris Jerome: What fight?
Arnold Epstein: Any fight. One you believe in. Until you do you'll never be a writer Eugene.
Biloxi Blues - The finest movie ever made IMO.
-
I pulled the trigger today and wound up with a 3/4 carat SI H stone in the center. This is a big deal for me... getting married later in life is a lot harder than when I first got married at 19. What I found to be best was go to a small town store where money is tighter, and not a place where money flows. Thanks for all the advice ...it really helped.
kneedrop Wed night ...but she already said yes:).
-
It is too easy to just waive your hand and say, "this is not real evidence", rather than explaining why you believe it isn't "real evidence." If there were only one or two pieces of evidence, I would possibly agree with you. But when I've come across hundreds of pieces of evidences, some stronger than others, THEN the statistics are extremely low that the Book of Mormon is falsified.
I'm getting lost in your mentioning statistical "evidence" in defining "real" evidence. Statistical probabilities can be used to define the null hypothesis in an argument if that’s all there is, but the use of the word "evidence" would imply actual archeological evidence IMO WRT to the null hypothesis when using "evidence."
Are you implying both statistical and archeological "evidence" carry the same weight?
-
I'd love to her what you disagree with regarding the facts in my post.I would say that you are most likely incorrect in all of your assumptions. You can consider that an attack if you wish, but it's nothing more than a complete disagreement.
Ta dah!
As for the original question: I would suggest they don't get defensive so much as sick and tired of answering the exact same 'Questions' over and over and over again. Especially when it's not asked in the spirit of learning, but of offending. You can usually tell very quickly.
I find this response interesting. When you say you answer the same questions over again, you can tell when you are not responding for the reason of learning. I disagree, as I would sincerely like to learn from you. Can you tell me exactly what I said you that you disagree with?
(I removed the joke you inserted, because I found it offensive)
-
Seems like most of the answers in this thread are from LDS, but I am a non-LDS Christian that was born and raised a Mormon with heritage that goes back to polygamy. There are a lot of aspects regarding the Mormon church's history that are hard to rationalize for Mormons and it kicks in a defense mechanism. Two cents:Why do you think LDS people in general are so quick to get defensive when questions on their faith/doctrine are presented.
(be nice with your replies please)
Polygamy/Polyandary - Just because this subject is not practiced by mainstream LDS, it was by the founding members (including their prophet of God in Joseph Smith) and is still part of the LDS doctrine, and it is how it's going to be in the LDS version of heaven. When confronted with the histoprical data (like the letter Joseph Smith wrote to Sara Ann Whitney), it shifts the focus of what is today, to what was then. The differences of the LDS religion today and back then are vast, and I think LDS members need to defend the fact that it's not practiced today, which is where the defensive attitude comes into play.
Racism - Until 1978 black people could not hold the Mormon priesthood based on the color of their skin, and the doctrine defines "Dark and loathsome" as "cursed" skin. When attitudes regarding race changed in America, so did the doctrine. The words "White and delightsome" were changed to "Pure and delightsome" in the doctrine. Again this is part of the LDS history, and I think LDS members need to defend the fact that it's no longer a part of the doctrine.
The Book of Abraham - Many aspects of the BOA are hard for Mormons to defend IMO, and there's a lot of angst when facts are referenced. There has been no critical examination of the papyrus and Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar (written by Joseph Smith), though the LDS church has had these documents since 1967 (they were not burned in a fire). Since there is no critical examination to reference, it creates a lot of confusion IMO.
There are many more sensitive topics, and when people (non-LDS) want to point them out in the form of questions, an attack mode is what's given back, because it encompasses defense of their religion based on the question asked. If they feel attacked by outsiders asking questions, they will attack back in return. Having been in many debates with LDS people, people critical of the church are deemed "Anti" though the information is simply factually based history in most cases. I question what I believe and why often, but it's not easy. /2cents
"A Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Note that I expect to be attacked for stating this opinion.
)
I'm also not a big fan of the culture that supports diamond rings for engagements...i can't tell you how many times I see a girl tell everyone she is engaged and one of the first comments back is "lets see the rock!"....sigh, I suppose I just want to skip all that nonesense and not sum up his love with something like that. Lucky him!
Question for non LDS Christians.
in Christian Beliefs Board
Posted · Edited by thews
Cool. Can you link me to a picture of the peep stone used to translate the Book of Mormon?