Questions on LDS Church

[jerome1232]

There is no white people indegenious to the middle east, why would there be some there?

Speculation

 

No one in the bible was white, the Ancient Egyptians for example were black, the arabs there now came much later.

Speculation.

 

Just to be clear, I don't particularly care about which ancient cultures skin tone was predominately what, I have been curious in the past and all of the reading I have done lead me to conclude that we have no clue. I find it an oddity that people so adamantly protest a white depiction. I don't honestly know if one is accurate or not, it's just odd people get so worked up about it.

[The Folk Prophet]

elaborate please

 

Elaborate on which part? Your bitterness... Every time we're in a conversation related to ancient America and the Book of Mormon you come down on it pretty severely.

 

Your stretching...well, I would think that point was clear in the preceding sentence. You're implying the worship of Jesus must needs have passed down and worked its way up north, etc., etc. I'm saying, "What? Worship? What does worship have to do with a tradition?" 

 

Once there was a bishop in Myra who was considered a wonder worker. Today, on a completely different continent, we have the tradition of Santa Claus. Worship is irrelevant.

[jerome1232]

Elaborate on which part? Your bitterness... Every time we're in a conversation related to ancient America and the Book of Mormon you come down on it pretty severely.

 

Your stretching...well, I would think that point was clear in the preceding sentence. You're implying the worship of Jesus must needs have passed down and worked its way up north, etc., etc. I'm saying, "What? Worship? What does worship have to do with a tradition?" 

 

Once there was a bishop in Myra who was considered a wonder worker. Today, on a completely different continent, we have the tradition of Santa Claus. Worship is irrelevant.

To be fair, wasn't Quetzalcoatl a major part of Aztec worship (I'm largely ignorant other than I know Quetzalcoatl was a flying serpent and they sacrificed to it, even that I'm not sure of)

[The Folk Prophet]

To be fair, wasn't Quetzalcoatl a major part of Aztec worship (I'm largely ignorant other than I know Quetzalcoatl was a flying serpent and they sacrificed to it, even that I'm not sure of)

 

Not the point. The tradition, as applied to worship, celebration, or just story telling around the fire, can still easily tie back to another culture, time and place.

 

Edit: Note, I do not necessarily think equating Quetzalcoatl with Jesus works. I'm just pointing out what I'm seeing as a stretch of logic.

[Lakumi]

Elaborate on which part? Your bitterness... Every time we're in a conversation related to ancient America and the Book of Mormon you come down on it pretty severely.

 

Your stretching...well, I would think that point was clear in the preceding sentence. You're implying the worship of Jesus must needs have passed down and worked its way up north, etc., etc. I'm saying, "What? Worship? What does worship have to do with a tradition?" 

 

Once there was a bishop in Myra who was considered a wonder worker. Today, on a completely different continent, we have the tradition of Santa Claus. Worship is irrelevant.

I come down hard on everything that people tell me is fact, but has no sufficant proof to me.

You're telling me something is true, without any proof but prayer-now for some things I can understand needs faith, such as diety, things like faeries (I can't convince you I've seen faeries but I know I've seen them) stuff like that I can understand is built on faith, but I can't understand how i am expected to just believe something like entire societies of people existing, and that they left absolutely nothing behind.

I don't have to pray to know any other ancient society existed, why this one?

You can't present something as history then completely ignore the entire concept of how history works. And I have said time and time before, I am fully ready to admit I am wrong if I get the same sort of proof I demand from others when discussing other ancient peoples-this is no different.

 

I am not being bitter, but you can't say to someone who doesn't have faith to simply have faith.

I believe something set the course of life upon this planet into motion, I believe the BoM and the other scriptures have some good things to teach people, but beyond that everything else is faith-and I do have faith in things, some things I cannot explain, and I accept i come up short there.

But I maintain my belief that if one cannot prove a society existed, like they have proven all other societies have existed, then why should I believe it existed?

My mind cannot wrap itself around that.

[Dravin]

I'm with Folk on this one. There are arguments that can be made against making a connection between Jesus Christ and Quetzalcoatl but:

 

1) They never would have seen Jesus because they existed after the Lamanites and Nephites, and thus would  have been unable to have been influenced by accounts of his visit.

2) Jesus may not have gone that far south, and thus would have been unable to be influenced by accounts of his visit.

3) The Aztecs practice religious concepts not in-line with Jesus' teachings, and thus would have been unable to be influenced by accounts of his visit.

 

Seem specious to me, accounts can persist in time, and can cross spatial barriers, and influences from the past need not necessarily reflect the current practice. Folk's reference to Santa Claus and St. Nicholas are relevant counter examples to the idea that influence can't cross spatial or temporal distances. To that I'd add that the absorption of Yule into Christian Christmas is a counter example to the idea that influence must somehow be complete (that if accounts of Jesus were appropriated in Aztec culture his teachings would have been too).

 

Now does this mean that there is a Jesus-Quetzalcoatl connection? Not at all. It just means one needs to make the argument that it didn't happen rather than breezily declare that it couldn't happen.

[The Folk Prophet]

I come down hard on everything that people tell me is fact, but has no sufficant proof to me.

You're telling me something is true, without any proof but prayer-now for some things I can understand needs faith, such as diety, things like faeries (I can't convince you I've seen faeries but I know I've seen them) stuff like that I can understand is built on faith, but I can't understand how i am expected to just believe something like entire societies of people existing, and that they left absolutely nothing behind.

I don't have to pray to know any other ancient society existed, why this one?

You can't present something as history then completely ignore the entire concept of how history works. And I have said time and time before, I am fully ready to admit I am wrong if I get the same sort of proof I demand from others when discussing other ancient peoples-this is no different.

 

I am not being bitter, but you can't say to someone who doesn't have faith to simply have faith.

I believe something set the course of life upon this planet into motion, I believe the BoM and the other scriptures have some good things to teach people, but beyond that everything else is faith-and I do have faith in things, some things I cannot explain, and I accept i come up short there.

But I maintain my belief that if one cannot prove a society existed, like they have proven all other societies have existed, then why should I believe it existed?

My mind cannot wrap itself around that.

 

Hmm...looking through the thread....yep. No one said these things to you. Hence, I claim bitterness - perhaps defensiveness would be a better word. Someone mentions the Book of Mormon and you jump into the same old rhetoric. Why?  This is not even the point of the thread. The only thing said to you at all prior to this was that we don't know what color Jesus's skin really was.

[Lakumi]

You brought up bitterness, this was one of the things I guess I am "bitter about"

I would say defensiveness is a bad word too, I enjoy conversations such as these, healthy discussion never hurt anyone.

[The Folk Prophet]

You brought up bitterness, this was one of the things I guess I am "bitter about"

I would say defensiveness is a bad word too, I enjoy conversations such as these, healthy discussion never hurt anyone.

 

I'm not sure constant questioning of the beliefs held precious by those in a community qualifies as "healthy" discussion. I'll admit to a bit of an annoyed mood today because of a different thread, but we get it. You don't believe the Book of Mormon is true. You do not have to keep hammering on that here.

[Lakumi]

I invite all to pick apart my beliefs as much as they want.

I understand what you mean, but I will say regardless of the history and proof I see or don't see, I still have a great respect and liking of the LDS church, even if I disagree with it in some places (or just have pointless things to dislike) and I have found my complete mysanthropic tendancies going away, slowly, since reading and such, made the horrid pain go away when I was working in the corn fields.

And I give credit to it for that, whatever it did, made me think, whatever.

[jerome1232]

I invite all to pick apart my beliefs as much as they want.

I understand what you mean, but I will say regardless of the history and proof I see or don't see, I still have a great respect and liking of the LDS church, even if I disagree with it in some places (or just have pointless things to dislike) and I have found my complete mysanthropic tendancies going away, slowly, since reading and such, made the horrid pain go away when I was working in the corn fields.

And I give credit to it for that, whatever it did, made me think, whatever.

I think a difference is I already have a testimony from the spirit of God, therefore I don't need evidence. I only need to establish plausibility. As long as room remains for plausibility I need not make an argument from evidence. One testament especially for me to that is how many things we have been laughed at in the past, which were rediculous claims to begin with, which have turned up true as archaeology (which is a soft science, there's give and take) has advanced in the new world, and even a few things in the old regarding Nephi's route (the location of bountiful was at first exclaimed to not exist, however candidate sites have since been found).

If one were to rely on archaeology to back up scriptural texts, then they would be constantly be bouncing back and forth with their testimony as archaeologist argue and debate their findings. Archaeology is sandy ground indeed for one to stand on. Archaeological finds can be a great supplement to one's faith, but a terrible base.

[Lakumi]

How would you build the base, I like that analogy personally

[skippy740]

Alma 32 can help you learn how to build your base:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32?lang=eng

[jerome1232]

Alma 32 can help you learn how to build your base:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32?lang=eng

Verse 26 on pretty much sums up what I was going to reply, only Alma does a better job than I would've.

[Lakumi]

26; Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

 

It's written kind of oddly but I think I get what its saying

[Blackmarch]

Hello! I'm new to these forums but glad I've found them. I'm an 18 year old Catholic who has many Mormon friends, and had some questions on the faith. I guess I'll be direct and just ask:

1. How can you be so sure that Joseph Smith was a prophet, had the vision, and didn't just make up the Book of Mormon?

2. What archaeological proof is there in the Americas that the Nephites and Lamanites existed, and had these great cultures that were destroyed? Also, what would you say to the critics who claim that there is no evidence of Jewish tribes coming to the Americas, and that several things mentioned in the BOM weren't around (steel, swords, horses, cattle, etc)?

3. What Bible verses lead you to believe that God would send another prophet after Jesus? Do these contradict other verses saying he is the last prophet?

4. What is your belief on the Trinity? Do you believe that each aspect of it is a separate being?

5. I've heard rumors that Mormons believe God lives on another planet, and that humans can eventually become a God of their own planet..... Wouldn't that contradict the definition of a God? Or is this is widely held belief?

6. What advice do you have for attending a Mormon service? I'll be going with a friend this Sunday.

Thanks!

1 A) Primarily answers from the spirit to prayers.

B ) Joseph smith was able to nail far too many things out of the blue to be coincindental

2- said critics had better start going and visiting native americans and learning their lore, legends and culture. I've also seen evidence from people who've gone among them and to say that there is absolutely no connection is eitherbline, brick wall ignorant... but usually more along the lines of completely unaware (which isn't surprising as there is hardly anything from the native american culture that is immediately available... either you have to go digging through some library of anthropology or go to the people themselves)

You may want to look up diffusionist theory.

One of the things that blew me away was a certain Iroquois greeting... one which also happens to be a significant symbol in at least 5 other cultures.

various hopewell culture artifacts that have jewish symbiology on them. some of them on metal forged items.

It was also interesting to hear about legends from one tribe who said that one of their sad histories is when their fore fathers fought another tribe who were lighter skinned and destroyed them. Another one that was interesting was a tale of about a great fight over who controlled god/ the creator.

Another clue would be in the area that would become mexico I don't think it was by pure chance that leaders high up in the catholic hierarchy that were in mexico at the time had to issue multiple decrees warning the catholics about native practices because there were so very many rites and beliefs that overlapped catholic ones (there ware also many that did no, just to be clear)

 

3. The bible says the Christ is both the first and the last. All of existence of earth stands between these two points. it's a mistake to attribute that solely to his mortality. as for other prophets after christs existence- A) all of the new testament after the first 4 gospels after Christ leaves. B )all the claims by God throughout the bible that he loves us and will guide us. C) teachings from holy men elsewhere outside of the area of israel.

4) I believe that each member of the trinity are distinct individuals with their own minds... however I also believe that they are in such harmony and thought to each other that without them telling you or the aid of the Holy spirit you would not be able to tell any of them apart from the other nor would any one do something different from the others. I also believe the God the Father and Jesus Christ also have tangible bodies that occupy a definite space and time (altho i do not believe that their power, presence, and glory have those characteristics)

5) Relax and say Hi to people. I don't know if you plan to be there for the whole meeting, there are 3 1 hour blocks. the important one is what we call sacrament, I believe the catholic term is communion (the one where we take the symbols of Christ to remember his atonement).

It's handled a lot like a meeting there is very little fanfare or pomp. Usually the process is opened with a hymn and a prayer, then any business that needs to be brought before the people is given. then the sacrament/communion par tis administered. then after that there may be one or two sermons given by members or it may be opened to testimony in which individuals are free to share their testimonies of God and Christ. it is then ended by a hymn and a prayer.

 

The other two hours are dedicated to sunday school and tacking of duties for members of the church.

[Just_A_Guy]

Because the Jews in Israel mostly came there after WW2 from the European countries conqured by the Nazi's, the UK owned the territory, having pushed out the Ottomon Empire that had come some centuries earler (then the crusades, yada, yada, yada) White people don't naturally come from such desert regions, and their skin lightened after they left Israel and lived in Europe, as evolution tends to do over the span of many centuries.

You may enjoy this:  Wikipedia - Jewish Ethnic Divisions

 

 

There is no white people indegenious to the middle east, why would there be some there?

No one in the bible was white, the Ancient Egyptians for example were black, the arabs there now came much later.

 

Huh?  We have the mummy of Rameses II--who was possibly the Pharoah of the Exodus and certainly lived within two or three hundred years of the event.

 

He was blonde.

[Lakumi]

Do you have a link for that, I'd like to read that.

[pam]

Do you have a link for that, I'd like to read that.

 

JAG provided the link.  It's in the wikipedia article under the section "Mummy."

[Lakumi]

JAG provided the link.  It's in the wikipedia article under the section "Mummy."

I noticed right after I posted that... now I just look silly!

[mordorbund]

So NextElement,

 

What did you think of the Sunday services?

[NextElement]

So NextElement,

 

What did you think of the Sunday services?

Well, I really enjoyed it actually! It was nice to get out of the routine of Catholic mass and see how your church operates. Sacrament meeting was a little boring honestly, but Sunday school and Young Men's class were awesome. I can't say I've been changed or anything like that, I'm still a devout Catholic, but I wouldn't mind going again.

[Guest]

Well, I really enjoyed it actually! It was nice to get out of the routine of Catholic mass and see how your church operates. Sacrament meeting was a little boring honestly, but Sunday school and Young Men's class were awesome. I can't say I've been changed or anything like that, I'm still a devout Catholic, but I wouldn't mind going again.

 

I was in the choir in the Catholic Church for most of my Catholic life.  At high mass, we unpack the drums and I get to be the cantor.  My first time at the LDS Sacrament Meeting I almost fell asleep it was soooooo dull.... it didn't help that they picked molasses tempo for all 4 songs - including the Opening and Closing Hymn...

 

Recently, I attended Catholic Mass (I've been LDS for 12 years) and I felt that it was too loud... the choir director was also the pianist and he was playing while standing up and waving one hand like he's in an Elton John concert...

 

I guess I'm so used to the LDS "hushed" services now.

[faith4]

I was in the choir in the Catholic Church for most of my Catholic life.  At high mass, we unpack the drums and I get to be the cantor.  My first time at the LDS Sacrament Meeting I almost fell asleep it was soooooo dull.... it didn't help that they picked molasses tempo for all 4 songs - including the Opening and Closing Hymn...

 

Recently, I attended Catholic Mass (I've been LDS for 12 years) and I felt that it was too loud... the choir director was also the pianist and he was playing while standing up and waving one hand like he's in an Elton John concert...

 

I guess I'm so used to the LDS "hushed" services now.

 

I've attended several LDS services over the past 14 or so years, and my main problem is my bum hurts from sitting for so long.  I'm so used to standing, sitting, standing, sitting, kneeling, standing, kneeling...you get the point   The music is not very different from my parish, we use a piano, sometimes organ, but rarely any other instruments (except maybe a flute or violen here and there), and we typically use traditional songs. 

[Guest]

I've attended several LDS services over the past 14 or so years, and my main problem is my bum hurts from sitting for so long.  I'm so used to standing, sitting, standing, sitting, kneeling, standing, kneeling...you get the point   The music is not very different from my parish, we use a piano, sometimes organ, but rarely any other instruments (except maybe a flute or violen here and there), and we typically use traditional songs. 

 

That's right!  It's much easier to stay awake when you're standing, sitting, then standing then kneeling in the span of 1 hour.  I am the chorister (the person that stands up infront of the congregation and waves her hands in time to the song during sacrament meeting) for about 5 years now and it used to be that I would give the sign to stand up for the intermediate hymn if the song has a fast tempo (somebody else chooses the songs).  But 2 years ago, we changed bishops and the new bishop told me not to do that anymore!  So, we don't even stand up for the intermediate hymn anymore and when we have a 1PM schedule, I spend a lot of time elbowing my husband and kids to stay awake...