Origen

The BoM was mainly intended as a historical record, not a revealed dictation by God such as the Qur'an is, so there are bound to be inaccuracies. That said most Mormons believe that the events described therein did literally occur - though perhaps not exactly as they were recorded.

Why would a LDS be any less prone to accepting conspiracy theories than someone of another faith? I think Christians in particular are MORE prone to this due to the end days prophecies found in the book of Revelation and the pervasive Christian belief that 'the Earth is lying in the power of the wicked one (Satan)'. Remember that Christianity began as an anti-authoritarian movement. Most early Christians were oppressed Jews living under Roman imperialism and plebian gentiles so it's no wonder that the religion has retained a suspicion towards government.

I think the LDS would go under the heading of 'Restorationist' along with Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Unification Church. See the Wikipedia entry.

Some kids are more sensitive than others so it's really impossible to make an accurate blanket statement about this. I think eventually everyone must accept that the world can be a cruel and brutal place, but some kids are better off learning later when they have matured somewhat. Even I thought the violence in The Passion was overdone - and I was able to sit through Kill Bill volume 1 without blinking. Don't get me wrong, it had it's moments (the flashback involving Mary Magdelene was especially moving) but I can't see anyone being moved to become Christian after watching that gore-fest (though apparently some people did drop on their knees in the theater and convert on the spot). Personally, I thought The Last Temptation was a much better movie and I gained a much deeper appreciation of Jesus' sacrifice after watching it.

Yes, it is; but it wouldn't be the worst of what I have to live with on a daily basis. I hardly ever think about it and I have to admit that some of it was so absurdly grotesque that it was funny. Pornography degrades sex, yes, by mocking and ridiculing an act that is supposed to be beautiful and intimate. However, it's been said that laughter is surest means to breaking any spell and I think that is why it had the effect on me that it did. Sex holds no more appeal for me because I see through it's charms. It's kind of like falling out of love with someone and realizing they aren't the hero you had been worshiping all this time - though not quite as soul rending.

It can lead to a lack of motivation. The desire for money, fame, and power usually has it's root in the libido since most women prefer rich, powerful, and famous men. If you no longer desire women, then what reason do you have to pursue these things?

This may sound a little crazy to some people but I will tell you how I stopped looking at pornography and how I did it without exerting any self discipline or struggle whatsoever. Ready? I overindulged in it! I looked at all the pornography I could find. The kinkier, the more bizarre, the better! Yes, I know how bad this sounds but the result was that I have lost all interest in porn of any kind whether it be pictures, movies, or books. Sex is actually very tedious and watching other people having sex is about as exciting as watching someone eat a big plate of spaghetti. It really is such a dull repetitive process... I hope that one day you will open your eyes and see this for yourself and regret all the time you have wasted; I know I have. I suppose the only down side of it is that, if you try this strategy and succeed as I have, you might loose all interest in sex and become celibate. But then, it isn't as if humans are an endangered species...

Looking at another religion that is very similar to the LDS in some ways might answer your question. I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness. Like the LDS church, the witnesses believe that a group of men (the Governing Body in Brooklyn NY) receive direct revelations from God. Like the LDS, JWs also have a president who basically fulfills the same role as the current LDS prophet. The governing body has repeatedly made false predictions concerning when they believed Armageddon would occur. Each time they have got it wrong, some JWs left but the vast majority stayed. I won't get in to the rationalizations the governing body has used to extricate themselves time and again but my point is that if people want to believe, it doesn't take much to GET them to believe. Even the flimsiest, most implausible rationalization will do it. People rarely, if ever, adopt a formal religion due to reason or the presence of evidence. Any argument a believer could use to prove the truth of their religion can also be used to prove the truth of any other religion. Any evidence which seems to disprove their religion can simply be dismissed as false. You can see this for yourself by studying the sophisms of Holocaust deniers or those who believe that the moon landing was faked. No matter how overwhelming the evidence is, they simply deny it's legitimacy while accepting the 'evidence' for their own beliefs without question.

It was both true and untrue depending on how you interpret death. In a sense they could not die because, while the body is mortal, the soul persists. However, they certainly did die in the flesh, as all things die. My take on it is that in reality Adam & Eve were always mortal (in the flesh). The death that Jehovah Elohim referred was not death, strictly speaking, but the awareness of death. Like all animals, preconscious humans had no conception of death before the fall and after it they suddenly had to confront their own mortality. This foreknowledge that they would die was the price they paid for partaking from the tree of knowledge (for becoming conscious beings). If there is no awareness of mortality, then mortality is not a burden. Another interpretation could be this: that in premortal existence we were immortal but when we entered mortal bodies it was, in some sense, like death because we forgot our identities as children of God. There were some early Christians (particularly the Gnostics) who considered the fleshly body to be a tomb. LDS doctrine is very gnostic in two aspects: 1. The pre-existence of all human souls in heaven. 2. Humanity's potential to become like God. In fact, it could be said that it was these two ideas which defined the Gnostics and set them apart from the other Christian sects; in all other beliefs they differed dramatically but these latter two were fundamental. Sorry, I tend to go on tangents when I get excited. I'm going to start a new thread in the LDS Gospel Discussion : LDS & GNOSTICISM.

What strikes me is that the LDS interpretation of the fall is the only one I am aware of which does harmonize with evolution. The more 'traditional' interpretation holds that human beings were already 'perfect' (compared to what?) when God created them - the pinnacle of creation - and that the fall was well, a fall. Even before I knew anything about LDS theology this interpretation never made any sense to me. I do, and have always, seen the story of the fall as an allegory of the evolution of human consciousness. In this allegory our ancestors (Adam & Eve) begin as highly intelligent animals who are nonetheless driven by pure, automatic instinct. They have no ability to reflect on their actions. No forethought. No power of conceptualization. All that exists for them is their perception of the present moment. Then they eat from 'the tree of knowledge' (how can this NOT be allegory?) and BOOM! Suddenly they are aware of their nakedness (self-consciousness), they feel guilt (animals don't feel guilt, only shame which is a very different thing), they become aware that they will die (remember that Jehovah Elohim says that if they eat from the tree they will die. Are we to believe that humans were literally immortal before the fall?). They are kicked out of Eden which means they can no longer survive by picking bananas (like our cousins the chimps do) and they must now either hunt for their food or grow it. Now I ask any fundamentalists or atheists who might be reading this: is this allegorical interpretation of the fall consistent with what anthropologists are saying about human origins or isn't it. Interpret the fall literally and it fails every test of objective truth. Interpret the fall allegorically and discover that the book of Genesis was ahead of it's time by nearly 3000 years! You might want to look into Transhumanism is this interests you. (maybe you already have). Medical science is getting very close to extending the human lifespan indefinitely. If only we invested as much money in preserving life as we did in discovering ways to destroy it, immortality treatments would probably already be within everyone's price range. The curse of logical positivism. To say that whatever cannot be known by the senses is 'meaningless' is a fine axiom for science but it is (in my opinion) an absurd proposition to live by for the reason you already mentioned. I'm sure the the bacteria living on my body aren't aware of my existence and have no means of ever becoming aware of it, but I certainly exist I agree completely. Galileo had something similar to say (though I can't recall the quote right now). Good post.

You were probably experiencing a hallucination, but not because you are schizophrenic. When humans are drifting off to sleep and right before they wake up they enter what is called the Hypnagogic state - a level of consciousness which is between full wakefulness and dream. Someone who is in this state can hear voices, see things, feel the presence of others and even experience tactile sensations (like a crushing weight bearing down on you). I can say this with authority because this often happens to me when I am drifting off to sleep at night and it can be disturbing even if you know what's going on. The trick is to remember that it isn't any more real than a dream and that it can be easily remedied by simply attempting to move a finger or toe, which will cause you to fully awaken.

That's sad. But, if it means anything, I can assure you that heavenly father loves you. I know that he loves ME, and if he can love a faithless sinner like me he must love you. Now, just because he loves us doesn't mean he is always going to protect us from pain. I think your troubled past may be at the root of this absence you feel. The problem of why God allows suffering has never been solved to my satisfaction by any theologian that I have read but what I can tell you is that even though God does not always deliver us from evil, he is always bearing it with us and if we turn to him, he consoles us. You might consider reading Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross. Having gone through my own dark night I now feel much closer to God than I did before the experience.

Even if you are slightly turned on I don't see how this could qualify as masturbation. Also, if you are male and, especially if you are young, having an erection does not necessarily imply sexual feelings. I once got one while petting my cat but I don't consider myself a zoophile. You mentioned that you had a dream before this happened. Scientific studies have shown that BOTH sexes naturally experience increased blow flow to their genitals when in REM sleep.

I think you are just a sweet, sensitive man who is only missing self-esteem. I am about your age, I have never dated, and yes, I am not exactly a chick magnet. But I sincerely believe that the right girl IS out there. I actually have a very clear image in my mind of what she looks like and whatkind of person she is. Now I am just waiting for her to manifest and I fully expect that she will manifest when the time is right. You say that most of the girls seem to prefer bullies and jerks? Well, yes there is a certain type of woman who loves jerks. These women (from what I have observed) all suffer from very low self-esteem. They desperately need EVERYONE to approve of them and like them so when a man comes along and preys upon their feelings of inadaquency, they are willing to do anything to earn his approval. Ignore these women. even if you got together with one of them she would drive you crazy with her insecurities. You can do better. Are you really repulsed by sex or do you just have a very low (or non-existent) sex drive? You should really be clear about this with yourself because they are two different issues. I also had a very prudish upbringing but when I really analyzed my feelings I realized that I just didn't have a high sex drive; my upbringing had nothing to do with my lack of a sex life. Maybe sex isn't what you are looking for. Maybe what you really crave is intimacy. This can be really hard for men because in our culture (I'm assuming you are American) men are not encouraged to form intimate friendships with each other and so you are only left with women who might mistake your desire for friendship for a sexual pass. What's worse, even if she does understand that you want to be her friend, her boyfriend or husband probably won't. I really wish I had a solution for you. Maybe try forming a friendship with another male who is more like you. Not macho or afraid of doing something 'gay' like giving his best friend a hug. If you still feel lonely then it may be that you really do need a woman in your life. Are you serious? Seriously? I have have never had a girlfriend, but I have had LOTS of female friends and I can assure you with absolute certainty that you have it completely upside down! Women get just as horny as men it's just that, due to social conditioning, it is very easy for them to get what they want. Some women would have you BELIEVE they don't desire or enjoy sex because they want it to seem like they are doing you a favor so you will feel obligated tor them. But I assure you it's all a facade! Don't fall for it! Any woman worth your time will not play games like this. The minute a woman plays any kind of game with you, drop her and find someone else. The trick is to only ask women out girls whom you don't know very well. That way, if they reject you, it has very little emotional impact. Why should you care what a stranger thinks of you? The worst thing in the world is to be rejected by a woman you are already in love with. I wish I could have been more helpful to you. When my dream girl comes into my life maybe I will have more to say.

Todd: My failed attempt at humor But yes, it actually did cross my mind, as I stepped into the SUV with them, are these guys really mormons? What if they kidnap me? Not the smartest thing I have ever done.And yes, I suppose I really should just talk to someone with authority on these matters. I just don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm going to be a hell-raiser or a rebel who will constantly question authority. I'm really not like that at all. Other people are as entitled to their opinions as I am. I would just like to know if I am free (or not free) to express my opinions in a friendly manner should the topic arise naturally in a conversation. You see, I made this mistake as Jehovah's Witness (assuming I had the right to disagree) and if I had been baptized, I would have gotten disfellowshipped for it. As it turned out, I was simply shunned instead; which is really just as bad.

I believe that gay marriage would serve the same roles that heterosexual marriage does: 1. Encourage gay couples to commit to stable, monogamous relationships which, it is hoped, would slow down the spread of HIV. 2. Provide a social framework in which children could be raised. Of course, homosexuals cannot concieve (without outside help), but they can adopt and while some might not consider having 2 daddys or mommy's the ideal I am absolutely certain that it is far better than growing up in an orphanage or foster home. Speak to someone who has grown up an orphan and they will probably tell you that the foster home industry is riddled with pedophiles and child abusers. I want these kids to have real families, even if it means other kids laugh and make fun of them because their parents are queer. No. No more than I support God Hates Fags picketing funerals. Homosexuals who picket churches are no better than the worst of bigots. Are you talking about pedophilia? Well, first of all I don't think a pedophile would be interested in making a lifetime commitment to someone who will be unattractive to them in a few years. Now if you mean something like what went on in the FLDS with girls being married off in their early teens then I would say no. The only exeption would be if the girl (or boy) WANTS to get married, if she (or he) is not being coerced into the marriage. Now, I personally do not think it is a good idea to get married in your teens. Statistics show that the later in life a couple gets married, the longer the marriage is likely to last. But it is not for me or anyone else to impose upon another's free choice just because we think we know better. Life is a learning process and no learning can occure unless there is freedom to make mistakes. I would say the same thing about polygamy, by the way, just in case you are curious. Providing children is fine. But I still think that gay couples would do a fine job at raising them. Legally, this is a very thorny subject and as far as I know there is no consensus as to how responsible a biological parent is once they have renounced their parental rights. I heard of one case here in the U.S. in which a man offered his sperm to a lesbian couple. A few years later, the couple split up and the mom who got custody demanded child support from her sperm donor. She won! So this man, who presumably has no parental rights, now must shoulder parental responsibility for a kid he never wanted. Tough break. But that's what can happen when you get involved in something for which there are few (if any) legal precedents. I really don't know. I'm not a lawyer or a judge. What I do know is that there are men out there who will be happy to provide lesbian couples with sperm regardless of what the law says on the matter. If lesbians want to have kids this way there is no stopping them. So it all comes back to what happens to the children who are born from this practice? I say give the lesbians their marriage certificate, with all the rights and responsibilities attendent to it.

Apollyon, you ask a the same question that has come to my mind time and time again. Personally, I have not come to any certain answer to the question, but I have used it to learn a few things about myself and what I believe is right. You want to know if there is some universal standard which we can all know and follow that would be valid through all time and in all situations. Well, first of all there may not be any universals in the sense of concrete thou shalts and thou shalt nots. What is right in one time and place may be wrong in another set of circumstances. Since we are limited beings with a very narrow view of things it really isn't possible for us to see all the repercussions of our actions in the same way that God supposedly can. Do you save the little boy from drowning? But what if he grows up to be a mass murderer? God understands our limitiations and so he has given us 'rules of thumb', if you will, that we can apply to all situations that we might encounter. One of those rules is 'Do not kill'. Now would it be okay to kill if God commanded it? Possibly, but how could you know the commandment was coming from God? It might be a devil in disguise or perhaps a human being who only believes he can speak for God. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that God can get things done on his own. He doesn't need anyone to kill, steal, or lie for him. Yes, there is the story of the Exodus but remember this is a story. Does it have a historical basis? Probably, but then so does the Illiad. I believe there was a Trojan war, but I very much doubt that Aphrodite took sides with Agamemnon and Zeus with Hector. I'm sure there was an Exodus, but I don't believe for a moment that God needed the hebrews to carry out his work of genocide even if there was, in fact, a genocide (an assertion some achaeologists might take issue with). I've given up trying to be a 'good' person. Due to my very limited human perspective I really don't know what 'good' is. So instead of being good, I endeavor to be kind. Is it 'good' to rescue a child from drowning? I don't know because I don't know what that child's life means in the great scheme of things. But is it a kind thing to do? Most certainly. If it turns out that he is an evil child then I must simply have faith that God will attend to it. I, as a human being, have no right to take the life of another person, because I do not have the vision or forsight to judge them or their value. I do not have the right to steal because if God wants me to live in poverty, then I must live in poverty. If he wants me to be rich, then I can be rich honestly. As for lying? Does my lie hurt anyone? Would the truth be too hard for the person to accept at this point? Again, I think it all comes down to treating others as you would like to be treated. I think this is the best human beings can do in the sphere of morality. It is what Jesus commanded.

Well, it had pews and it was very large. Isn't that what a temple is? It looked like the 1st picture you linked to. Well, you do have a point there. It's just hard for me to imagine someone choosing masturbation over having sex with someone they love and are attracted to. Though I suppose it can happen. Isn't that why pornography is such a problem for some couples? I really don't understand... though I guess I don't have to understand in order to acknowledge that it exists. I did know a man who viewed pornography even though he had a very attractive wife. I never understood why...

Thank you, everyone, for your replies. Just to clear up a few things: I am not in support of forcing any religion or sect to bless gay marriage. My endorsement of it is simply in secular terms. I believe the government should extend whatever legal benefits it gives to commited heterosexual couples to homosexual couples as well. Now whether God approves of homosexual marriage is a completely seperate issue that the various churches in this country will have to decide for themselves. It seems clear to me that God intended the sexes to mingle, but since some people (probably less than 1% of the population) seem utterly incapable of feeling anything for the opposite sex, I would rather see these people in commited relationships and raising families, than engaging in promiscuous sex and spreading diseases. On masturbation: I basically share Dr. Wilhelm Reich's opinion on the matter which is that the practice is normal and healthy for children and adolescents and only becomes a problem for adults who use it as a substitute for entering into a relationship with someone and starting a family. Yes, it is selfish, but so is scratching an itch or eating a cake. It's always better to share pleasurable things with another, but being alone is no vice so long as you aren't depriving another person. Since an adult would be depriving another person, it is probably not a good idea for them. I don't really care about the tea or coffee issue. I don't drink either, I just think it would be silly to transform my personal preference into moral superiority. Of course, high amounts of caffiene are unhealthy but then it's really just an issue of moderation, not abstinence. I suspect Just_a_Guy probably has the right idea here: it's just a way to distinguish LDS from non LDS, keeping them mindful of who they are. Yes, hard as it is to believe these two young men did take me into the temple. Maybe they wanted to impress me. It worked. I was very impressed by the warm vibes within. Even though we were the only ones there I could already sense that the people who use that temple are like an extended family. I may be a rationalist, but simple intellectual agreement alone could never motivate me to join a church. I think the most remarkable thing about the Mormons is not their unorthodox beliefs, but their positive emotions and agape. Finally, I well aware of how much a personal relationship with God through prayer is emphasized in your religion and in fact that is one of the things that attracted me. As a Jehovah's Witness, when I told an elder that I could talk to God in prayer, he responded that I must either be deluded or decieved by Satan. He insisted that God would never condescend to communicate with a nobody like me. To put it mildly, I was shocked by his reaction. By then I had already read books by people like Saint John of the Cross, Madam Guyon, and many others. These people weren't insane and some of them were saints. None of them seemed to think it was odd to feel God's presence during prayer or even to occassionally recieve a personal revelation from him. Looking back on it, I believe he was simply afraid that if anyone could pray to God and recieve an answer, the entire edifice of organized religion would come tumbling down. Who needs the equivalent of a pope or church president when the all-knowing one is on line #1? To be honest, that's actually the view I took for a very long time. I saw organized religion as a scam designed to milk money from people by convincing them that God was too busy to speak to them directly and delegated his authority to special humans. But then I relaized it could be very lonely being spiritual in a world of atheists and nihilists. There are actually very few SECULAR humanists in this era. Most people who have any sense of honor or decency at all are also religious to some degree. I just didn't want to be taken for a sucker either, so I avoided the issue until those two missionaries invited me to their temple. I don't think your current prophet in infallible (no prophet is in my opinion) but I also understand that having a central authority is necessary in order to keep the church together. As a counter-example look at the Anglican Communion: they DON'T have a central authority (except for the Queen, who doesn't care) and look what's happened to them! So even if I don't necessarily agree with everything your current prophet says, I will respect his authority enough to pipe down and not raise total hell. I think all religious institutions have their flaws and are vulnerable to corruption and exploitation. But if I am going to join one of them I figure, hell, it may as well be the LDS.

Hello everyone. A few months ago I was lured out of a fast food restaurant by a pair of LDS who took me to their temple and attempted to convert me. At first I was very skeptical but before long I was impressed with the extent to which LDS doctrine agreed with my own independent conclusions I had drawn since I left my birth religion (Jehovah's Witnesses) and began studying the Bible independently. After this initial meeting, I went to a kind of 'catechism' class where I learned more with some other potential converts. The elder who was teaching us said he couldn't believe that, given my beliefs, I had never been involved with or studied the LDS church. He wanted to convert me on the spot, but I told him I had to wait. He suggested I pray over the matter. That was about 2 months ago. While I have had mystical experiences before, I am a basically a rationalist at heart and so instead of praying, I have spent the past few weeks learning all I can about LDS history, doctrine, and apologetics. I've read many arguments against the LDS, as well as the counter-arguments made by apologists and am now fairly well convinced that Joseph Smith was what he said he was (more or less) and that the LDS church is about as close to 1st century Christianity as any modern church can get. Which brings me to my current quandry. While I am ready to join the church and get baptized, I am wondering if I will be accepted. Though I basically agree with most of your doctrines I have always been of a liberal mindset and cannot personally endorse the following: 1. Gay marriage should be banned. 2. Kids and teens should not masturbate. 3. Drinking tea is sinful. I would like to note for the record that I am not gay, I hardly ever masturbate, and I don't really like tea but, all the same, I cannot participate in making others feel guilty for doing these things for the simple reason that I do not believe them to be sinful. I have no desire to debate the matter here or anywhere else. All I would like to know is if the LDS Church would accept someone with liberal views, but who otherwise agrees with the church's fundamental beliefs.