A few questions

[Guest]

.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Cynikul

[tubaloth]

Not sure why you are even asking if you don't care? Maybe its because you do care, and want to know? I think it is! I think you really do want to be part of the Mormon church or else why would you even take time to write all of these up (assume you actually figured out these questions on your own, and not some Anti Mormon web site).

If the Book of Mormon really contains the fullness of the Gospel, why does it not teach the doctrine of eternal progression?

The book of Mormon is an account of a people that had the fullness of the Gospel, not that it teaches every doctrine of the church. I assume you would get that from reading it?

God said, Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any. How can there be Gods who are Elohims ancestors? Surely an all-knowing God would know this and wouldnt speak falsehoods.

Its a matter of view point. God is teaching us on earth. From our point of view there is no other God. God is the one we turn to for salvation! God was teaching his children that you shouldn't look else were (idols) for salvation. God was not talking about his view point. Why would God be trying to explain his View point to us?

If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin?

Again its a matter of view point. From Mortal/Human understand Jesus was born of a virgin wasn't he?

Journal of Discourses Vol. 2, page 210 says Jesus was being married to Mary and Martha in Cana. Why then was he INVITED to his own wedding?

You are really worried about Journal of Discourses? Do you have a copy and can quote it, because I don't have a copy! But it seems like you do and read it more often them most members.

If the book of Mormon is true, why hasnt a valid geography been established for the book?

What is your definition of valid mean? If that is really that important to you, then you better start with trying to prove 1. there is a God, and 2 that Jesus was the Son of God. How about you prove to me those two things, and then I’ll prove the book of Mormon! Deal!

The book of mormon isn't true because of location, its true because of what it teaches.

If polygamy was a provision for increasing population rapidly, why did God give Adam only one wife?

Who said Adam needed to populate rapidly?

If God speaks through a prophet, why do Mormons vote on whether or not to receive and authorize it?

Its not a vote, not sure where you are getting your information. It more of an acceptance of the decision made. Either you feel the prophet has been called and you accept this action or you don't. If you don't accept it that’s fine, it doesn't really change it in the full sense, just the Church would want to find out why you don't accept it.

Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of Reformed Egyptian, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed?

Once you read the book of mormon and know how it ends, then you well have your answer to this question.

The Bible says, The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. Why did Brigham Young say that there are some sins which can be atoned for only by the shedding of ones own blood.

Boy you are really worried about some strange things for somebody that doesn't care about religion. Do you understand the Atonement of Jesus Christ? Do you understand the levels of Sins? (Which ones can't be forgiven of?) I suggest you take some time (sense it seems like you have enough time to study all of this) and study the Atonement. The answer again well be clear.

There's also the pretty vile comments made by Brigham Young about those of the African American descent, deny it all you want, if you're going to be like that don't even bother posting.

Are you saying Brigham Young is the ONLY one ever make comments like that from that time frame?

If you can't answer the questions, and get offended, I'll just laugh at you; I'm not here for any reason other than to have questions answered.

Do you think any of us here actually believe that! Your questions aren't something you just find by opening up the paper, or even talking to your neighbor about. Do you actually think you are the first person in the world to come up with these questions? If you really wanted answers you could find them. I suggest you start by reading the Book of Mormon.

[Guest]

.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Cynikul

[deseretgov]

I'm pretty well educated on a few religions, Christianity (Baptists and Catholics) and Mormonism are probably my best subjects.

I however, am an Apatheist, in the sense that I really don't care how we got here, if a God exists, what religion does for other people, none of it matters to me. I tried Christianity, all that happened was I had a lot of time that could be spent doing something I enjoyed for 3 years, I tried Mormonism (I live in a largely Mormon town) and that wasn't much better, I found the Mormon religion a little more ridiculous (no offense) than Christianity, so I figured that too was a waste of my time. I then became an agnostic and studied other religions because I found them very interesting, which lead to me being an Apatheist.

Anyways, since I live in a town like this, I often get door to door missionaries (who knows why they need to send missionaries here, I think if anyone wanted to be Mormon they would already be) who are nice people, but, seem very very uneducated and can never answer my questions. Of course, I'll never convert, I'd just like to have them answered so I can see it from someone elses viewpoint.

Sounds like my friend. His name is Greg and we call Him a Gregnostic.

Maybe you guys can answer a few..

If the Book of Mormon really contains the fullness of the Gospel, why does it not teach the doctrine of eternal progression?

The entire focus of the docrtine of eternal progression is that we will become like God. Wether or not there are previous, alternate, or future God's is really irrelevant and is speculation based upon the diea that we will become like God.

Moroni 7:48

48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

God said, Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any. How can there be Gods who are Elohims ancestors? Surely an all-knowing God would know this and wouldnt speak falsehoods.

What that is saying is that God does not have another equal God who could compete for our devotion. It is not saying that there are not other supreme beings out there ruling their own universes that exist inparrallel dimensions all sandwiched together like slices of bread. It is saying that God is the only relevent supreme being for us to be concerned about.

Palsms 82:6

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin?

He wasn't conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary.

Journal of Discourses Vol. 2, page 210 says Jesus was being married to Mary and Martha in Cana. Why then was he INVITED to his own wedding?

I don't know. Journal of Discourses is not scripture to me. It's pretty far down on my readining list.

If the book of Mormon is true, why hasnt a valid geography been established for the book?

There is not enough information in the Book of Mormon to determine its geography.

If polygamy was a provision for increasing population rapidly, why did God give Adam only one wife?

I don't know. Probably because Adam had only one extra rib. Ok I'm just kidding there. But it seems to me that the fact that Adam only had one wife is a pretty weak argument against polygamy. But it is a pretty strong argument that polygamy is NOT required of all people.

I also have the feeling that the only reason for polygamy is NOT to have a rapid increase in children.

Are your for or against polygamy(meaning plural marriage)?

If God speaks through a prophet, why do Mormons vote on whether or not to receive and authorize it?

I believe it is called common consent. The vote does not determine that validity of the prophet or revelation. Rather is shows public support for it. The public support of a prophet or revelation is irrelevant to the nature of that prophet or revelation.

Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of Reformed Egyptian, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed?

"Reformed egyptian" as it is called was not a widely known language. It was invented by Nephi and used onlny in the keeping of sacred records like those on the gold plates and other metal plates that they recorded their writings on. Any public writings or messages that went out to the people were probably done in the common language of the people. It is very likely that only a handful(meaning less than ten) knew that language of "reformed egyptian" at any given time. It probably changed over time too. Meaning that Moroni's "reformed egyptian" was different than Nephi's.

The Bible says, The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. Why did Brigham Young say that there are some sins which can be atoned for only by the shedding of ones own blood.

I don't know. He said a lot of things.

There's also the pretty vile comments made by Brigham Young about those of the African American descent, deny it all you want, if you're going to be like that don't even bother posting.

I don't deny that he said some pretty nasty things. Like I said, He said a lot of things.

Have you tried the Strangite church?

They claim James Strang was the rightful successor to Joseph Smith. They never had a history of denying the Priesthood to "blacks".

If you can't answer the questions, and get offended, I'll just laugh at you; I'm not here for any reason other than to have questions answered.

No problem I don't get offended by questions, just people who are unwilling to learn(and by learn I don't mean convert, I mean learn).

My biggest question is, why in the Bible does Revelation claim that the Bible is the final word and ANYONE who would add to it or take away from it is committing a major sin? I do not think an omnipotent and omniscient being would suddenly see Joseph Smith wandering around and say, "Oh, yeah, I forgot about him, he can do whatever he wants with it."

Revelation doesn't claim that the Bible is the final word of God. It claims that anyone who adds or takes away from the book of Revelation will be cursed. It says nothing about the Bible or being the final word. The Bible wasn't a single book written in linear fashion from Moses to John. The Bible was compiled from various religious texts. This was done hundreds of years after the book of Revelation was written on its own little scroll. In fact there are many different versions of the Bible with different numbers of books.

I do not think an omnipotent and omniscient being would reveal his will for the whole of human history and cause it to be written but then after John wrote the book of Revelation say, "Screw the last 2000 years of humanity, they have to guess at what I mean by reading a book that will be completed in 400 or so years."

Once again, if you can't answer my questions and are only going to be hateful, don't even try.

Don't worry no hate hear.Ilike questions. Especially hard ones (or ones about polygamy, hahaha).

Edited December 9, 2009 by pam
Removed link. The wording could be perceived as the official website of the LDS Church.

[Hemidakota]

You mistake what I mean by not caring, it does not matter to me if a god does or does not exist, however I'm still interested in what makes people believe the way they do. This isn't something I study, just things I've picked up over the years as a result of living in a heavily religious community.

I have read the book of Mormon, and I'll read your reply in depth tomorrow when I'm not exhausted but thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm not trying to sound condescending or anything, even though it sounds like it even to me, just very curious.

Perhaps we start with faith and finally end with knowledge of what is. My curiosity was my start point and in the end, finally found it...

[pam]

You mistake what I mean by not caring, it does not matter to me if a god does or does not exist, however I'm still interested in what makes people believe the way they do. This isn't something I study, just things I've picked up over the years as a result of living in a heavily religious community.

I have read the book of Mormon, and I'll read your reply in depth tomorrow when I'm not exhausted but thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm not trying to sound condescending or anything, even though it sounds like it even to me, just very curious.

No need to explain. I believe your username explains it all.

[prisonchaplain]

This seems to be a loose thread, so I hope my asking questions of the OP poster is appropriate. My question: If there really is a God who created us, why would you be apathetic to that--particularly if this God really does intend to interact with us?

[ryanh]

I'm not trying to sound condescending or anything, even though it sounds like it even to me, just very curious.

You realize it is put in a condescending manner, and still decide to post it that way? Do you really think we haven't seen this type of spin job before?

Seems to me this post fits well under Vort's thread about dishonesty.

[Misshalfway]

Maybe you guys can answer a few..

Well for what its worth the questions you ask are not necessarily new. Many of them have been discussed on this forum at great length and breath. So, maybe you could change the story you tell yourself about how mormons never answer the "hard" questions after you study a little deeper. Don't be surprised that the missionaries can't or don't answer these questions. They are instructed to teach the core gospel principles that help people come to baptism. Memorizing/studying the JoD is NOT part of their training. Not part of Sunday services either as it is NOT a part of our canon.

If the Book of Mormon really contains the fullness of the Gospel, why does it not teach the doctrine of eternal progression?

There are scriptures that refer to it in both the BofM and the Bible. But keep in mind too that we also believe in two other books of scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. There are more specifics in the D&C.

It might help to understand that this is a restoration church and that the process by which truths were restored to the earth came by way of Q&A between God and man. JSmith for example, would ask a question and receive an answer on that question. And because of that we have a range of answers that we can pull from to understand things about God and life after death and how to live the best kind of earth life. These revelations and doctrinal clarifications are not the complete comprehensive list of all the truth in the universe. There is still much we don't know. The problem is that some in the church play too long and hard on the fringe doctrines.....and they make the mistake of calling intelligent speculation official doctrine. I think that may be where you are confused on questions about godhood or the geneology of the Gods. We know a little but we can't necessarily answer all the questions because we can't back it all up inside the canon. Many, including prophets and scholars, have said many things that wet are appetites. But until it gets added into the canon, we must use caution and wisdom as we study and label these ideas. Until we have firm personal spiritual proofs that the idea comes from God, then it must stay in the "ideas of man" catagory.

Whew! Ok. moving on.

God said, Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any. How can there be Gods who are Elohims ancestors? Surely an all-knowing God would know this and wouldnt speak falsehoods.

First of all, no God wouldn't contradict himself. Some scriptures though, do sound like the contradict one another. Context helps. Making sure one understands the point being made also important. My personal feeling is that there is no God next to Father in Heaven. Even the Son and the HG, which we also believe are gods, defer to the Father. Jesus is very clear that he does only the willl of the Father as would the HG. If there are other Gods out in the great expanse, it is immaterial to us because The Father is over all of us and over all creation that we have in our reference points. If there are other "Father" gods out there, the same would apply to them. It's like this earth with all of its fathers. It really doesn't matter how many there are. When my papa says be home at 10pm, then I am obligated to obey him and only him. My friends father has no authority over me.

If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin?

He wasn't. He was conceived of the Holy Ghost. Not that any of us can explain exactly what that process looks like. Some LDS people have made other assumptions but please understand that this falls into the intelligent speculation catagory and as far as I can tell is only a guess. We don't teach it as doctrine.

Journal of Discourses Vol. 2, page 210 says Jesus was being married to Mary and Martha in Cana. Why then was he INVITED to his own wedding?

Again, JofD is not canon. It is a mistake to consider it as such. There is nothing in our canon or official teachings that addresses whether or not Christ was married. Any answer on that would be opinion even if it comes from a prophet writing or speaking his thoughts in a capacity not directly relating to prophetical duties. (Is that a word?, Yeah I don't know.)

If the book of Mormon is true, why hasnt a valid geography been established for the book?

I don't know if I have an answer that can satisfy. I personally am not convinced that the civilizations being discovered are not BoFM peoples. The mound builders in the central and eastern US are an example. The BofM talks about people who build cities with motes on the inside of great heaps of earth. Looks awful similar to me and this is just one example.

My next idea is that the BofM is NOT necessarily to be used as a history book. It's primary purpose is to convince the heart of the reader that Jesus is the Christ. Faith is an essential part of such a process. God could, if it suited him, hide any and all evidence from the likes of us if he wanted to. The "proof" of the BofM is to be found in its effects on the spiritual life of the reader.

If polygamy was a provision for increasing population rapidly, why did God give Adam only one wife?

Desertgov answered better than I can. It's a good question. I think though, only God knows. I know of no definitive answer.

If God speaks through a prophet, why do Mormons vote on whether or not to receive and authorize it?

It's not a democratic vote. It is a sustaining vote. We don't do the choosing but we do do the supporting of whomever the Lord calls in their respective duties. If we have concerns or specific knowledge about a persons worthiness, we can cast a decending vote and express our concerns to leadership.

Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of Reformed Egyptian, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed?

I don't know of any as I am not a scholar. What I can say is that there are so many languages on this earth today that it makes my head spin. I can't imagine that there wouldn't be so many more that were isolated dialects or languages used for specific perposes. This language was used because it aided in the efficiency of the engraving process. It wasn't even the language they spoke.

The Bible says, The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. Why did Brigham Young say that there are some sins which can be atoned for only by the shedding of ones own blood.

I don't know why Brigham said what he said. He was a great prophet but I am also afraid he caused a load of problems. You have to remember that prophets are not perfect humans. It is possible for a prophet to be wrong or to make a mistake that effects the church. For what ever reason, God allows that. This is why we are all encouraged to pray concerning everything we are taught so that we get our confirmations from God himself. I for one, think Brigham was the prophet because he was the only one who could handle the challenges of moving thousands of people to the west and establishing the land there. Perhaps it is the same with all of us who serve. We have our strengths and our weaknesses and in the gospel we learn to be patient with each others failings. The Lord gets his work done inspite of us sometimes.

There's also the pretty vile comments made by Brigham Young about those of the African American descent, deny it all you want, if you're going to be like that don't even bother posting

.

Yes, I won't deny it. BY said a lot of things and I am fairly sure he brought some racist attitudes with him to the restorations. And as a result, The church, for many years, did not allow black people to hold the priesthood. This is not how the church started but for whatever reason (I have not been satisfied with my searchings) it was allowed to continue. I am sorry it went down this way. I don't understand it. I am satified that the Lord lifted the ban when it was time. I am not satisfied that God has explained any more than that to his leadership. I am grateful for the faithful black people who have been able to discover the true history of the church and work through their issues. As I have searched my soul, I am satisfied that the issue has been laid to rest. It is time for the church and its members to move on. For whatever it is worth, we did make mistakes in this regard, I am sure of it and I am profoundly sorry for any role the church played in propetuating racist ideas in the church. But we are not guilty of what many accuse us of and that is important to state. This is not a racist church even though some of its members might have been.

My biggest question is, why in the Bible does Revelation claim that the Bible is the final word and ANYONE who would add to it or take away from it is committing a major sin? I do not think an omnipotent and omniscient being would suddenly see Joseph Smith wandering around and say, "Oh, yeah, I forgot about him, he can do whatever he wants with it."

It says this same thing in Deuteronomy. Please understand what the Bible is and what it isn't. It's a compilation of many books. It's not even chronilogical. Its a hodge podge and we are lucky to have it, but lets not lose our perspective here.

[LDSVALLEY]

My 2 cents

All religions I know of are based on one principle. The principle of Faith. Therefore you will never find the truth in what you ask because they must all have the foundation of faith to sustain them. Which is the reason things are designed the way they are.

We don't have the gold plates on display because 1 we would not need to have faith they existed we could see them and 2 people would still find a way to dispute them.

We don't have a clear map of the area for the Book of Mormon because 1 the people of that time would not have had the knowledge to create an accurate map which would have had to be put on plates and 2 we would require less faith to believe in it.

I could go on but I figure you see my point with that.

I was a huge cynic when it came to religion for first 30 some years of my life. I never attended church was never baptized but when I was 13 I contemplated God, not having a spiritual background I applied logic to the question. Logic told me God must exist even without me being able to prove it. As I grew up I figured it was better to believe in him then not, If I died and he didn't exist i would never know, if he did then I would be kicking myself for an eternity for not doing what I should. But I still didn't believe in religion.

When my wife and I had our first child we discussed religion, we had seen the lack of respect for parents and authority in the youth around us and wanted our children to have an understanding of a higher purpose. We looked casually into a few different religions but nothing took. When two missionaries knocked on our door I told them they were welcome to teach us but had not prayer of brainwashing me into their cult. And that I had my own belief's and had no intention of changing them.

They said they were here to teach, that God would let me know what I should do! At every turn they told me not to believe what they said but ask of God. No religion had taught me that before. I looked at every angle, I could see ways they could be scheming to "prove" what they taught was real. But as when I was 13 I applied logic to the concepts they taught and the logic proved out.

Last I did what they asked, I prayed to God if it was true after reading what they asked. Not once but 3 times, each time I had what felt like a warm blanket wrapped around my shoulders. I did not immediately have a belief in all things but could not deny the direction I had never had before about anything so to my surprise ended up a member. My wife praying on her own at the same times had the same experience as well.

After 14 years as a member I guarantee this church is true and God exists (no, I don't expect you to take my word for it.) Too many times I have laid my hands on someones head to give a blessing and words come that made no sense to me but perfect sense to the one receiving it. Too many times I have felt God's hand directing me on a course of action.

As a member I wanted nothing to do with Missionary work yet one day 3 years ago I was kept awake all night with Missionary ideas coming to me. 5 days later I had the overwhelming urge to pick up the Preach My Gospel book that had been in our house for 2 years and I had refused to ever open or look at ( it was about missionary work after all.) In an hour I had spot read the entire book, that evening the Bishop called me into his office and asked me to take the calling of Ward Mission Leader! I was able to give him a clear 4 year plan divided into yearly segments during the calling interview.

Only God can create that set of coincidences, there were a few more items of coincidences involved in it but this is getting too long now. There have been many other times these things have happened to me and my family.

I respect your right to your views, God has given each of us agency to decide for ourselves. The answers you seek will never be complete because you miss the key piece of faith in each of those. Logic can support faith but not create faith. Knowledge can provide answers but not wisdom. Each of your questions require a foundation of faith in God to have a full answer based on wisdom not knowledge.

We have two options.

We can have faith in God, based on logic, and learn of him through wisdom not knowledge or concrete evidence.

We can decide to only believe in what man's knowledge and evidence shows us.

The first allows me to believe that if something happens to me, my wife, my children, family, friends then we will be together again. That we are only separated for a time not for eternity.

The second means when one is gone that is it, there is never a chance to be together again, everything is fixed for ever on what was last said or done. And that what we do in this life is pointless and we have no lasting consequence for what we do or don't do.

I have a family I love above all else, guess which belief I prefer! If I am wrong, I;ll never know, I'll have no regrets for what I should have done.

If your wrong you will know. Only then will you decide what regrets if any you now have.

Sorry I didn't answer your specific questions, without faith or a desire to find faith, you would not be able to really accept them anyway. I support your right to believe that which you wish to and have no intention of changing your mind.

I suggest you stop worrying about finding man's truth in God's work and if you honestly want to understand seek an understanding in God's existence first. Individual aspects of various religions is secondary. It's like trying to harvest your crops before you actually plant them!

Okay this ended up more like a $1.50 worth, sorry.

Peace and may God bless you on your quest.

Edited December 9, 2009 by LDSVALLEY
spelling oops

[mnn727]

If you really wanted answers perhaps you could ask your own questions rather than copying and pasting from an Anti-LDS website

Questions Every Mormon Should Ask

Here's a website that answers your websites questions

Mormon Insights: Answers to Contender Ministries

[LDSVALLEY]

My biggest question is, why in the Bible does Revelation claim that the Bible is the final word and ANYONE who would add to it or take away from it is committing a major sin? I do not think an omnipotent and omniscient being would suddenly see Joseph Smith wandering around and say, "Oh, yeah, I forgot about him, he can do whatever he wants with it."

Another 25 cents

The Missionaries answered this via a talk from a general conference, I forget which one but here is the basic answer.

We must remember that what we see as the bible today is not what they had 2000 years ago. There was not book called the New Testament for hundreds of years after Christ. When people read ( or the few who could read) they were lucky to have one of the books. And as was said they are not in chronological order when they were combined. If I remember correctly the earliest collection of what we call the New Testament was around 1000AD. 34 versions from that time have been found but it was proven that 33 are direct copies from one copy.

You are correct, God would not suddenly see Joseph Smith and tell him to forget what he had commanded about adding new works and translate the Book of Mormon.

However:

Revelation was not the last book written that is included in the New Testament. This has been proven by scholars outside the LDS faith.

If that was to be the last word of God then why would he have Prophets from olden times record scripture over and over then suddenly say Okay that's enough, I'm not going to give you any more guidance.

The Book of Mormon does not actually violate that commandment in Revelation. It does not add words to the New Testament it is another work separate but complimentary to the Bible.

Religions decided what scripture to put in what we call the Bible, look at how many variations there are. The Catholic church alone has admitted they have others works that they did not include in the Bible for various reasons.

------------------------------------------------------------

The works in the Bible were passed down by word of mouth, written on easily damaged material, copied by hand over and over again. And translated in and out of many languages. Remember the game where you form a big circle one person says a sentence and it goes from person to person until it gets back to the originator and you get to hear how different the return message was? Wonder if it is possible some of that verse got lost or altered?

No matter what information you look at religious or otherwise you must always remember to put things in historical context to get a logical point of view and understanding of it's meaning.

But of course feel free to BELIEVE what you choose.

Peace and may God bless you and yours.

[deseretgov]

So when is this guy coming back?

I don't know why Brigham said what he said. He was a great prophet but I am also afraid he caused a load of problems. You have to remember that prophets are not perfect humans. It is possible for a prophet to be wrong or to make a mistake that effects the church. For what ever reason, God allows that. This is why we are all encouraged to pray concerning everything we are taught so that we get our confirmations from God himself. I for one, think Brigham was the prophet because he was the only one who could handle the challenges of moving thousands of people to the west and establishing the land there. Perhaps it is the same with all of us who serve. We have our strengths and our weaknesses and in the gospel we learn to be patient with each others failings. The Lord gets his work done inspite of us sometimes.

So, for the sake of discussion, say God allowed a prophet to make a mistake that affected the church. Then somebody received a spiritual conformation that that prophet was not leading the people correctly. Would that person be justified in leaving the church to live in a manner not affected by the mistake of the prophet, or even starting his own church if he felt he was guided to do so?

[Hemidakota]

Justification comes back to another question: who church is it? The prophet or Jesus Christ?

[theophilus]

There is a good chance that this post will be labeled as "contentious" but an honest reading of it will show that it is an urging for LDS to consider their image within the theological arena, and suggestions on how to communicate to an untapped mission field.

I understand that Mormons get a lot of the same "questions" from outsiders that appear as though they are reading from Ed Decker. I'm Catholic, and we have no shortage of those types of questions too. Like, "don't call people father, what's this Mary stuff, why are you a cannibal, etc."

What I've learned over the last 20 years talking with Mormons and even from this forum is that there is so much unintended disrespect and emotional assumptions made about outsiders. It is human nature for converts of any sort to have a blind spot in this area because their new-found zeal displaces maturity. But the assumptions and intellectual disrespect, I've found, is nearly institutionalized.

For example, Just in my own introduction, I was warned to read the rules (which I had), assumed to have been raised Catholic (which is not the case), and given a warm welcome by one Mormon by pretty much saying, "Yeah, we'll see how respectful you are."

This thread is laced with the same disrespectful assumptions. "This isn't new..., you think you're the first..., these lists are old..., etc." Some answers were good attempts, but most unfortunately included sarcasm. And contrary to some desires, many of those "old" questions have not been answered on this forum ways other than escaping the nature of the question.

9 out of 10 times, the questioner is not sincere, but it is better to receive wrong than to do wrong.

Apologetics 101:

1 Pet 3

"Always be ready to give an EXPLANTION (apology / argument) to anyone who ASKS you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence..."

It is very difficult to find LDS members who know their faith well enough to share in an intellectual manner. Don't be offended, please read on.

A questioner (sincere or not) will indeed evaluate your answers and non-answers. Saying, "You don't know" is an answer, but answering a question with a question is not an answer-- it is a non-answer.

If the list of questions in this post are indeed "old" then the LDS have had ample time to formulate apologies for them. A reference to those apologies (if they are around) would be a good way of answering them. Formulating one's own answer would add credibility to the missionary as well. Sure, the missionaries are not trained, but keep in mind that the questioner will evaluate the missionary and the institution by the answer or non-answer. The questioner also is fair to evaluate the answerer's own judgement on his choice of church if he cannot answer "old" or basic questions.

I have learned that the LDS culture uses personal experiences to fill in "theological gaps" that are difficult to make arguments for. For example, praying over the validity of scripture, praying for "knowledge" (the word in James is actually "wisdom"), etc. Arguments that end in a "burden of proof" on the questioner are not arguments. Designing answers that leave the burden of proof on the questioner relieves the answerer from understanding his own beliefs. A burning sensation, a "testimony" or any other subjective means, are not intellectual. Whether LDS members find subjective measures to be acceptable is not the point; the point is that people who have questions and are wanting answers tend not to be satisfied with what LDS members are capable of providing.

•If somebody was to ask me what the nicene creed means, I'd answer it. I would not say to go back and read it again.

•If somebody was to read our ECFs (like Aquinas or Augustine, sort of like the Journal of Discources for Mormons) I would encourage him and try to answer apparent contradictions in the Saint's thoughts.

•If I was given "old" bashing questions, I'd say, "These are easy! Here are the answers."

•If I was given "old" bashing questions and had no answer, I'd question my own judgement for having the beliefs that I have.

•If someone found a difference in the synoptics (ex: "mount" of olives or "plain" of olives") I'd explain it. Often, Explanations like this are so FULL of theology that the questioner falls in love with the passages.

•I would not tell them to pray about an answer, wait for a "testimony" about it, pass the question off to some other subjective measure, or "attack" the questioner by saying that he needs to read more.

These are some of the questions that were posted in this thread: Like I mentioned, some answers on this forum are not bad (better than what is usually given in person, possible because users have time to formulate answers). NOTE: I am not giving answers.

•Typical question:

If the Book of Mormon really contains the fullness of the Gospel, why does it not teach the doctrine of eternal progression?

Typical way of answering:

The burden of answering the question is returned to the one asking. "Just read the B of M."

Typical way of answering:

The "answerer", instead of answering, makes an assumption of the one asking. "I assume you would find out by reading."

A BETTER way of answering:

Don't disrespect the questioner by answering with a question. Don't disrespect the questioner by insulting him with assumptions.

•Typical question:

God said, Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any. How can there be Gods who are Elohims ancestors? Surely an all-knowing God would know this and wouldnt speak falsehoods.

Typical way of answering:

Again, the burden of answering the question is returned to the one asking, by answering the question with a question. "Why would God..."

A BETTER way of answering:

Acknowledge that there is an apparent inconsistency within LDS teachings on the subject and give a reason for the apparent inconsistencies. Don't disrespect the questioner by answering the question with a question."

•Typical question:

If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin?

Typical way of answering:

There is no acknowledgement to the the traditional viewpoint of the virgin birth which is clearly the purpose of the question.

A BETTER way of answering:

Acknowledge the Traditional viewpoint of the perpetual virginity of Mary, acknowledge the apparent contradictions within LDS teachings, and then clarify what you believe.

•Typical question:

Journal of Discourses Vol. 2, page 210 says Jesus was being married to Mary and Martha in Cana. Why then was he INVITED to his own wedding?

Typical way of answering:

The "answerer" marginalizes the J of D, marginalizes the questioner, and then answers the question with a question. "Are you really worried about the J of D?"

A BETTER way of answering:

Realize that seekers of truth do read. The J of D is in most theology libraries and is supposedly a "rich mine of wealth" for seekers of truth. Acknowledge the problem, then clarify the problem.

•Typical question:

If the book of Mormon is true, why hasnt a valid geography been established for the book?

Typical way of answering:

The questioner is giving a "theological" answer to a "substance" question. "Then prove there is a God."

A BETTER way of answering:

Keep matters of theology within theology. Keep matters of substance within substance. It is okay not to know the answer; it adds credibility to the answerer (and the institution) by simply stating so. Not knowing does not imply that it is not true.

•Typical question:

If polygamy was a provision for increasing population rapidly, why did God give Adam only one wife?

Typical way of answering:

Answering with question. "Who said Adam needed to populate rapidly?"

A BETTER way of answering:

Answer with an answer, explain the the false premise.

•Typical question:

Why is it that no other writings have been found in the language of Reformed Egyptian, the supposed language of the Book of Mormon plates? Is there evidence that such a language really existed?

A typical way of answering:

Imply ignorance to the questioner, and answer with a question. "Just read the B of M." Or, the answerer puts the burden of answering the question himself.

A BETTER way of answering:

Humbly realize that many LDS know little about the Bible. Unerstand that people asking questions may knoq even less about the B of M. Respect them.

•Typical question:

The Bible says, The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin. Why did Brigham Young say that there are some sins which can be atoned for only by the shedding of ones own blood.

A typical way of answering:

The answerer throws out blanket statements such as, "You need to study more."

A BETTER way of answering:

Answer the question with an answer. Acknowledge apparent contradictions with the Bible and Young, clarify them. If you don't know, then say you don't know.

In brief:

•The burden of answer is on the one who is showing up at a person's door.

•The burden of an answer is on the one being asked.

•Passing the burden of an answer to the one asking the question is escapism.

•"Old" questions are asked of insincere and sincere people.

•One gains more credibility by saying, "I don't know" than by giving a non-answer.

•Not having answers make the person and the institution appear that they don't have answers.

•Filling in theological or rational gaps with personal experience is not creditable.

•"Faith" is not required to understand factual answers.

There is a different thread on this forum about "stumbling blocks" to the faith. After reading that thread, I've found that many of those stumbling blocks are also seen in many "old" questions. To me, those stumbling blocks and those "old" questions are of an intellectual nature. The human creature is not like the animals. We don't only "react" (the brain / emotions) but we are able to "respond" (using the mind). Theology is the INSERTION of reason into religion.

Until the LDS are able to answer questions that should be answered, the LDS will continue to be the church of feelers instead of thinkers. An example of this is the often used statement when LDS cannot answer questions, "I know my church is true." Another overly used statement is, "Contentions are of the Devil." The word "Contentions" is often thrown into the conversation whenever a LDS member is faced with a person who is able to offer arguments against LDS thought. Disagreement is not contentious. Offering arguments is not being argumentative. Expecting honest answers is not disrespectful. LDS would do well to take their emotions (reactions) out of discussions and to start engaging (responding) to people with objective and reasonable arguments. As well, treat outsiders as they do their own flock who have "stumbling blocks" of the same nature.

Some questions certainly do fall into speculation, but questions of fact, language, and simple reason are legitimate questions to any person investing in the truth business... and are deserving of respect.

Now here comes the love...

Edit: Spelling, oh why bother.

Edited December 10, 2009 by theophilus
spelling--it never ends with me.

[Maxel]

theophilus, while I don't disagree with much of your post (in fact I applaud most of it), there is one issue I'd like to address.

The constant invitation to read the Book of Mormon (and pray about it) has great theological and practical significance. As attested by the very existence of 'Apatheism', thousands of years of debate have failed to prove the existence (or lack thereof) of a God. The things that prove His existence are His manifestations to us, His children- sadly, to an undiscerning person such manifestations are usually overlooked or misunderstood. However, the message that is sent by God in response to a heartfelt prayer about a simple, specific topic cannot be misconstrued except the person be willing to deceive himself.

So the admonition to read and pray about the Book of Mormon, if accompanied by reasoned theological answers to questions, is one of the most powerful proselyting tools in existence.

[LDSVALLEY]

Theophilus

You raise valid points, I am always sad when I see people of any religion degenerate into negative attitude toward others. I believe often it is a result of having come up against Anti-religion people who attack any reply. It become easy to assume the next person to ask similar questions as being the same type. And often it is, but this means well intended people without an axe to grind get a full measure of the frustration caused by the other type.

I answer questions or comments based on my belief and my knowledge with no expectation of making a change in the other person. I support and defend others rights to express themselves and have their own beliefs because God has given each of us that right.

I must support others, I will say I was pleased to find this site as the others were a vast majority of non believers on religious sites so it seemed impossible to have a non confrontational discussion.

One of my best days this summer was sitting with a distant relative and having a three hour talk about religion and God. He believed strongly in God but no organized religion, he had the Bible memorized ( not exaggerating he tossed quote after quote at me and new the exact chapter and verse.) I was far less skilled in that area. We both went into it with the understanding we were not trying to convert the other so emotion was not a factor because neither of us considered ourselves under attack. I figure he did a better job, not because he was more convincing but knew the doctrine better then I. I would have needed more time to support the points I was making. It was very enjoyable.

We must also allow that what people are typing can often be seen as insulting not by their intent but by our interpretation of it based on our personal experience. Re-reading my posts I can see areas that could be taken as insulting or an attack depending on how you interpret the sentence structure.

I tend to give people the benefit of interpretation when I see things that I could take as offensive. And most of the posters on this site are kind caring well intended people from what I have seen.

Enjoy God's gift to choose for yourself.

[LDSVALLEY]

I don't know why Brigham said what he said. He was a great prophet but I am also afraid he caused a load of problems. You have to remember that prophets are not perfect humans. It is possible for a prophet to be wrong or to make a mistake that effects the church. For what ever reason, God allows that. This is why we are all encouraged to pray concerning everything we are taught so that we get our confirmations from God himself. I for one, think Brigham was the prophet because he was the only one who could handle the challenges of moving thousands of people to the west and establishing the land there. Perhaps it is the same with all of us who serve. We have our strengths and our weaknesses and in the gospel we learn to be patient with each others failings. The Lord gets his work done inspite of us sometimes.

This might sound petty but it is an important difference.

Prophets receive revelation and direction from God therefore they can not be wrong ever.

Prophets are also Presidents. Presidents are human, humans can and do make mistakes.

They are two separate roles in one Leadership position. They also carry with them, as do we all, what society, upbringing, trials and education has taught them. When they are working as President they are men who do the best they can.

When they are acting as Prophets of the Lord, when they have direction from God then they are God's mouthpiece and not Man. They are not themselves but an Earthly stand in for God.

[bytebear]

What I want to know is why the original poster didn't come here with his own ideas, and instead plagiarized an anti-Mormon website.

Questions Every Mormon Should Ask

[theophilus]

Thanks,

...just realized the "thank" feature.

I understand prayer in finding answers of faith. I don't understand prayer in matters of substance.

By matters of substance, I mean: language, the physical, history, etc.

I find praying for a burning in the bosom over the B of M to be nonsensical. I find it unprecedented anywhere in Christian history. I don't find it Biblical. I find it rendering man's ability to use his mind pointless. The result of the model can always be questioned.

I, the Bible, and the Catholic Church, reject the notion that God cannot be known outside of a "testimony" experience. That is not to say that it does not happen, it just is not a practice within any nook of Christian history that I'm aware of. Perhaps some gnostic crack, but not Christianity.

Developing a theology that says, "only a discerning person can understand" is a theology that allows feelings to trump objective evidence. It ignores that people of every walk have different "testimonies." And nobody, nobody, is in a position to evaluate if one person's testimony or even his own testimony is real/fake/wrong/right. It is impossible. The model leaves many followers to never find answers, ignore physical facts, and at times fake or long for testimonies. It also provides a "one-upsman" mentality within the person advocating the model. Because if someone doesn't feel the right way, then they simply must not be reading/praying/ or be discerning enough.

I've seen many LDS in my life have "testimonies" and then finding out that what they thought was "one church" turning out to be a "different" church. Or they wanting a testimony so badly they don't know if it was real. This is not an indictment on individual LDS members (the Catholic Church has plenty of members who live like they should not be there), it is a result of the model. Sure, the Catholic Church has many faults in catechesis over the last couple generations, but "membership" and a knowing that the CC (or any Protestant brand) is true does not require a model that anyone can, no offense, fake.

In some respect, I feel I'm being a little unfair. I (my Church) has had 2,000 years of study and our apologetics has had time to develop, be questioned by countless groups that have come and gone, and become an area of study that is as deep as God is infinite.

I do appreciate those who are willing to discuss things like this without emotionalizing them (LDSVALLEY and MAXELL).

Thank you.

[theophilus]

Bytebear,

the content my not be his, but questions are not anti-anything. Even without thinking, you are able to consider the questions, but have you ever considered the answers? What are the answers? If copying questions from websites is wrong, then your answers should be your own and not "answered" by providing a link.

...and it's ok to say you don't know. An answer that is "I know my church is true" is not an answer.

Sorry to jab you, you just gave me a good way to show an example of what I've been talking about.

A sincere G'night to all!

-Patrick

[bytebear]

Bytebear,

the content my not be his, but questions are not anti-anything. Even without thinking, you are able to consider the questions, but have you ever considered the answers? What are the answers? If copying questions from websites is wrong, then your answers should be your own and not "answered" by providing a link.

...and it's ok to say you don't know. An answer that is "I know my church is true" is not an answer.

Sorry to jab you, you just gave me a good way to show an example of what I've been talking about.

A sincere G'night to all!

-Patrick

Actually, the offense is in the false assumptions of the questions. like the one that says that Mormons believe God had sex with Mary. The question lies in the asking and presents a false statement to deceive the ignorant and uninformed. It is not about finding the truth.

[prisonchaplain]

I find praying for a burning in the bosom over the B of M to be nonsensical. I find it unprecedented anywhere in Christian history. I don't find it Biblical. I find it rendering man's ability to use his mind pointless. The result of the model can always be questioned.

I, the Bible, and the Catholic Church, reject the notion that God cannot be known outside of a "testimony" experience. That is not to say that it does not happen, it just is not a practice within any nook of Christian history that I'm aware of. Perhaps some gnostic crack, but not Christianity.

Theophilus, I love your church for being the standard bearer of sound doctrine for 2000 years. So much of what we Protestants teach is rooted in your teachings. And yet, I'm a bit surprised that you do not find in Christian history the practice of seeking God's direction and will.

1. Did not Jacob wrestle with God's angel all night, in his effort to find God's blessing and direction?

2. What of the prophet who laid out the fleece, to test whether he was finding God's truth or not?

3. What of the disciples who were not sure whether Gentiles could be baptized in the Holy Spirit, and only believed when they saw them doing the nonsensical--praying in unknown tongues?

4. What of the disciples, who prayed, and then cast lots to see who the next disciple would be?

5. What of James admonition that if we need to know something from God, we should pray for wisdom.

6. What of the prophet Joel, who said that in the last days there would be prophecies, dreams and visions?

Francis Chen just published a book entitled The Forgotten God. In it, this evangelical megachurch pastor says that we have forgotten the Holy Spirit. We fill large buildings with people who come to hear a charismatic speaker and listen to highly-charged gospel music. And yet, most of us wouldn't know the Holy Spirit if he came in as a rushing wind, with tongues of fire resting on heads!

I might question whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and I may have serious contention with some LDS doctrinal distinctives, but the striving of this people to sense the Spirit's leading, and discern "thus saieth the Lord,"--well, I have nothing but kudos to offer them for this.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Thanks,

...just realized the "thank" feature.

I find praying for a burning in the bosom over the B of M to be nonsensical. I find it unprecedented anywhere in Christian history. I don't find it Biblical. I find it rendering man's ability to use his mind pointless. The result of the model can always be questioned.

There's a body of literature that refers to the "centrality of beliefs" -- that there are certain core beliefs drive scores of other beliefs. Change a central belief and a huge ripple effect occurs in the person's belief system and their behavior.

A discussion of whether truth can in fact be discerned through spiritual witnesses, "burning of the bosom" etcetera, is the most important discourse you can have with a Mormon in my view -- as that belief is the most central to all other beliefs. Change that, and all other beliefs I have, such as the BofM, prophets, continuing revelation, tithing, temple work etcetera crumble. All I'm left with is my own personal opinions after applying my own imperfect intellect.

Personally, I think the idea of personal revelation is heavily supported by scripture. Jesus, when he asked Peter who He was, replied to Peter that "flesh and blood hath not revealed it to him, but [his] Father who is in Heaven".

No one can explain why, when I prayed about whether the Church was true, I was filled with this overpowering Spirit that immobilized me for a few minutes. When it was over, I was filled with peace. It was real, and I can't deny it happened. It was that experience that has sustained me through lots of trials and keeps me active and believing in LDS theology.

It also sustains me through the above-average amount of persecution we receive from anti-Mormons -- such as those who come to us at this site posing as "sincere seekers of truth". I don't condone the disrespect they sometimes attract, but I have to confess, I'm very, very tired of the persecution we receive -- falsehoolds, deception, and the promulgation of lies that marginalize us as individuals and as a religion. If there intent is simply to tear down our faith, then I would rather they posted somewhere else.

Theophilius -- based on the answer you gave me in another post about the relationship between the Nicene Creed and the Bible, I don't see you as one of these anti-Mormon detractors, by the way.

Edited December 10, 2009 by mormonmusic

[Guest mormonmusic]

Bytebear,

An answer that is "I know my church is true" is not an answer

Definitely not to someone who believes truth comes from means other than personal revelation, I agree, this answer would not satisfy.

However, the fact that we don't know the answers to all questions isn't enough to convince me we are wrong either -- for me, there are just as many unanswered questions in other religions. And some Churches have a history that rivals the LDS Church in terms of controversy.

The last thing I will do is hop on one of their sites as a newcomer, and start trashing their beliefs under the guise of a sincere seeker of truth. Many have done this here, and they are very easy to recognize.