Nonbeliever's questions about your faith

[Madam_Mim]

Hi there!

I wanted to use this thread to just throw in questions that come to my mind or that I've already been thinking about before but didn't want to start a new topic. I'd really appreciate it if some of you are willing to check this thread once in a while to explain some things to me or just tell me your views! 

This way I don't interrupt or disturb ongoing discussions in other threads. A few people on here probably aren't too keen to explain everything to a nonbeliever or wouldn't appreciate it if I bombarded several threads with my comments. So I thought with this thread only those who are fine with dealing with my questions will read them and I don't bother anyone else. 

 

OK, let's go. 

I'd like to start with the D&C.

How serious does the "average" mormon take the D&C? Are there consequences (not from God after you die... I mean in this life) if you don't follow them or are they more like suggestions on how to live your life? 

Why is section 132 still included? I don't want to discuss polygamy - I'm just curious why this is still part of the text since it's not practiced anymore.

How can the reader tell that this isn't a current doctrine (is that mentioned somewhere in the scripture, is there an "updated" version, a footnote or something like that)? 

Or should I view the D&C like certain texts from the bible which aren't followed anymore but can't be changed? So even if the President announces that from now on drinking "hot drinks" is allowed, the text would still stay the same forever? (I probably view this too much as a "rules for church members" kind of book, that's why it feels strange to not have the current doctrines in there)

 

[anatess2]

D&C is one of the 4 standard works (which include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price) and, therefore, integral to the restored gospel.

D&C 132 is integral to the restoration of Eternal Marriage.

So, the standard works cover all of God’s revelations and covenants He made to His people.  The Bible’s OT contains the revelations and covenants in the gospel dispensations prior to the birth of Christ.  The NT contains revelations and covenants in the gospel dispensation during Christ’s ministry and the Early Christians.  The Book of Mormon contains revelations and covenants in the same period as the Bible but as experienced by the people in the Americas.  D&C covers the revelations and covenants in the gospel dispensation of the restoration.  Pearl of Great Price covers revelations to Moses, Abraham, and Joseph Smith Jr.

All together, the standard works contain all the revelations and covenants made between God and Man throughout the history of mankind.

Hope this helps.

Edited March 9, 2019 by anatess2

[Fether]

@Madam_Mim I second Anatess’s response

[Jane_Doe]

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

How serious does the "average" mormon take the D&C? Are there consequences (not from God after you die... I mean in this life) if you don't follow them or are they more like suggestions on how to live your life? 

D&C is the scriptural word of God.  It's rightfully taken pretty dang seriously.  

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Why is section 132 still included? I don't want to discuss polygamy - I'm just curious why this is still part of the text since it's not practiced anymore.

D&C 132's primary message is NOT about polygamy.  Rather it is about the New and Everlasting Covenant: families being bonded together and their eternal destiny. 

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

How can the reader tell that this isn't a current doctrine (is that mentioned somewhere in the scripture, is there an "updated" version, a footnote or something like that)? 

Or should I view the D&C like certain texts from the bible which aren't followed anymore but can't be changed? So even if the President announces that from now on drinking "hot drinks" is allowed, the text would still stay the same forever?

God's words never change and aren't discarded, but our understanding of things does evolve as we learn and grow more.  So I think the better way to ask this question would be "how is a person supposed to tell how something is interrupted and fits into the bigger picture?"

The simplest way is to just ask.  For example if you asked about "how do I interpret this passage about hot drinks?", a person can answer, and if you're interest provide you with the prophetic guidance on that section.  

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

 (I probably view this too much as a "rules for church members" kind of book

Probably.  The scriptures are not just a "rules of church members" handbook, and that's really not how they should be approached.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

22 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

D&C 132's primary message is NOT about polygamy.  Rather it is about the New and Everlasting Covenant: families being bonded together and their eternal destiny. 

Excellent point.  I highly recommend this article about the New and Everlasting Covenant...it's all the covenants we make and includes monogamous marriage:    https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng
 

[Madam_Mim]

Thanks!

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

D&C 132's primary message is NOT about polygamy.  Rather it is about the New and Everlasting Covenant: families being bonded together and their eternal destiny. 

Sorry! I've read the whole section again and also the link @LiterateParakeet shared and I agree, it isn't primarily about polygamy. It's just that the last part (64-65) really sticks out when you read it for the first time. 

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

The simplest way is to just ask.  For example if you asked about "how do I interpret this passage about hot drinks?", a person can answer, and if you're interest provide you with the prophetic guidance on that section.  

In fact I already did just that So far, that's the only question about your religion that I've ever asked my friend who's a member of the church and she explained it to me. 

 

But going back to the D&C in general: 

If someone drinks coffee regularly (just choosing something that seems rather harmless) and everyone knows it - is that a big deal within the church? I mean... do you have to talk to the bishop? Or is it just something other church members disapprove of but there won't be any consequences? 

Oh gosh, those questions are so strange and believe me, I've thought about deeper ones that I'm going to post another time. But those about the D&C just popped into my head, so..

[Manners Matter]

27 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

If someone drinks coffee regularly (just choosing something that seems rather harmless) and everyone knows it - is that a big deal within the church? I mean... do you have to talk to the bishop? Or is it just something other church members disapprove of but there won't be any consequences? 

We don't really stick our noses in other people's business and just hope people will make different choices as they learn and grow. There is a consequence though. Not following the Word of Wisdom is one of the things that can keep a person from having a temple recommend. That said, everything God asks us to do is for our benefit so even if drinking coffee seems harmless, God (who created us) says otherwise. 

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Madam_Mim said:

If someone drinks coffee regularly (just choosing something that seems rather harmless) and everyone knows it - is that a big deal within the church? I mean... do you have to talk to the bishop? Or is it just something other church members disapprove of but there won't be any consequences? 

@Manners Matter answer this nicely already.  Another important aspect to add: when a person is baptized, they promise God to keep the Word of Wisdom, which among other things includes abstaining from coffee.  Keeping promises with God is a BIG deal-- and realistically it's super easy to just not drink coffee, super super easy.    If you instead go and break that promise with God, that does damage your personal relationship with God.  Repeatedly and unrepentantly even more so.  So even if the Mormon Police* don't come and arrest you, you are still harming yourself and your relationship with God.

*(Nonexistant) Mormon Police.

1 hour ago, Madam_Mim said:

Oh gosh, those questions are so strange and believe me, I've thought about deeper ones that I'm going to post another time. But those about the D&C just popped into my head, so..

Haha.  Don't worry, they're not strange to us.  In fact I think all the questions you've asked so far are in the FAQ section

[Just_A_Guy]

15 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Or should I view the D&C like certain texts from the bible which aren't followed anymore but can't be changed? So even if the President announces that from now on drinking "hot drinks" is allowed, the text would still stay the same forever? (I probably view this too much as a "rules for church members" kind of book, that's why it feels strange to not have the current doctrines in there)

There is precedent for some items in the D&C being de-canonized.  The original edition of the D&C from 1830-something included a portion entitled “Lectures on Faith”, which was a series of lectures on the nature of God, faith, etc. written by Joseph Smith with input from a converted Campbellite minister named Sidney Rigdon.  There was also an “Article on Marriage”, authored by an associate of Smith’s named Oliver Cowdery and accepted as canon by a vote of the Church in Joseph Smith’s absence.  Both of these items were dropped in later editions of the Doctrine and Covenants—the Lectures on Faith, in part because they included some Protestant notions about the nature of the Trinity that later revelations of Joseph Smith contradicted; and the Article on marriage, because it stridently denied polygamy (which again was superseded by later revelations).  

That said, my personal opinion is that dropping sections from LDS canon exposes us to allegations of a coverup; and I think the better practice is usually for the Church to leave the canon intact but clarify its modern position through sermons, lesson manuals/curriculum materials, etc. That’s the tack the Church usually takes.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Gallant Pioneer]

I think it's healthy to investigate and think on all things in regards to God but not everything has an easy to digest answer. 

I also lean towards a middle of the road commons sense approach to scripture. In my view when one takes things literarly they edge closer to fundamentalism which doesn't always allow for room to breathe which defeats the point. You have to allow people to make mistakes in order to learn. So maybe that explains some of the more vague parts of scripture. 

[Madam_Mim]

Did any of you ever feel like "Why am I supposed to (not) do this?" and question the purpose of a certain doctrine? Or do you think if God wants us to do this, it must be good for us even if I can't see the benefit of it now? 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, Madam_Mim said:

Did any of you ever feel like "Why am I supposed to (not) do this?" and question the purpose of a certain doctrine? Or do you think if God wants us to do this, it must be good for us even if I can't see the benefit of it now? 

Both actually!  I think questions are very important, and many spiritual experiences start with a question. 

[NeuroTypical]

On 3/9/2019 at 12:14 AM, Madam_Mim said:

Why is section 132 still included? I don't want to discuss polygamy - I'm just curious why this is still part of the text since it's not practiced anymore.

Hi and welcome Madam Mim!

My gut reaction to your question was to ask if you're a Christian.  If you are, then why do you think we still have the Law of Moses in our Bibles?  All that stuff in Leviticus about stoning this and dietary laws that, since it was replaced by the atonement of Christ and Christians don't practice any of that any more, why is so much outdated stuff in the old testament still included?

My answer, to both your question and mine, is it's all part of the record of God's dealings with His children.  Whether a specific verse, chapter, or book contains "thou shalts/shall nots" that are currently in effect with us in the modern days or not, it's still part of scripture.  I can't think of a reason why we'd want to take it out, can you?

[Grunt]

5 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Did any of you ever feel like "Why am I supposed to (not) do this?" and question the purpose of a certain doctrine? Or do you think if God wants us to do this, it must be good for us even if I can't see the benefit of it now? 

During my conversion I did that a LOT.  I think that mostly is because of a lack of testimony.  Now I just accept things and have peace with most of them.  Once I have peace I really just don't care what the reasons are anymore.  Sometimes I get curious about something specific and research it until it makes sense.

[Jane_Doe]

6 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Did any of you ever feel like "Why am I supposed to (not) do this?" and question the purpose of a certain doctrine? Or do you think if God wants us to do this, it must be good for us even if I can't see the benefit of it now? 

Sure, especially when something new comes around.  Asking question is a GREAT thing.  You then investigate and pray about it, and listen to God's answer. 

[Jamie123]

On 3/9/2019 at 8:54 AM, anatess2 said:

All together, the standard works contain all the revelations and covenants made between God and Man throughout the history of mankind.

I'm no expert on this, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there supposed to be some "sealed portion" of the Book of Mormon which is held back for some divine purpose, but which should/might be released in the future? If what you're saying is true, this would (were it ever to be revealed) add nothing to the already-known covenants between God and Man? 

[anatess2]

On 3/10/2019 at 8:28 AM, Madam_Mim said:

Did any of you ever feel like "Why am I supposed to (not) do this?" and question the purpose of a certain doctrine? Or do you think if God wants us to do this, it must be good for us even if I can't see the benefit of it now? 

Everyday.  Many a thread is started in thirdhour.org for this specific reason.  The latest one I participated on was the one about why Opening Prayer was removed from Second Hour except for Primary.

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I'm no expert on this, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there supposed to be some "sealed portion" of the Book of Mormon which is held back for some divine purpose, but which should/might be released in the future? If what you're saying is true, this would (were it ever to be revealed) add nothing to the already-known covenants between God and Man? 

Yes.  The revelation to the brother of Jared which covers the beginning of mankind to the final judgment was sealed up by Moroni by God's command.  These were sealed up as they contain revelations and covenants Gentiles are not ready to receive just yet.  The sealed plates was handed to Joseph Smith but he was not given the power to translate them.  They will be unsealed when the Gentiles reach the point where they have mastered keeping the covenants that were not sealed.  So basically, in my own understanding, when it is unsealed, it will be like somebody who made the baptismal covenant, making additional covenants in the temple.  We will be making additional covenants in addition to our temple covenants.

Edited March 11, 2019 by anatess2

[Anddenex]

On 3/9/2019 at 12:14 AM, Madam_Mim said:

Hi there!

I wanted to use this thread to just throw in questions that come to my mind or that I've already been thinking about before but didn't want to start a new topic. I'd really appreciate it if some of you are willing to check this thread once in a while to explain some things to me or just tell me your views! 

This way I don't interrupt or disturb ongoing discussions in other threads. A few people on here probably aren't too keen to explain everything to a nonbeliever or wouldn't appreciate it if I bombarded several threads with my comments. So I thought with this thread only those who are fine with dealing with my questions will read them and I don't bother anyone else.

OK, let's go. 

I'd like to start with the D&C.

How serious does the "average" mormon take the D&C? Are there consequences (not from God after you die... I mean in this life) if you don't follow them or are they more like suggestions on how to live your life? 

Why is section 132 still included? I don't want to discuss polygamy - I'm just curious why this is still part of the text since it's not practiced anymore.

How can the reader tell that this isn't a current doctrine (is that mentioned somewhere in the scripture, is there an "updated" version, a footnote or something like that)? 

Or should I view the D&C like certain texts from the bible which aren't followed anymore but can't be changed? So even if the President announces that from now on drinking "hot drinks" is allowed, the text would still stay the same forever? (I probably view this too much as a "rules for church members" kind of book, that's why it feels strange to not have the current doctrines in there)

I will probably answer similar to others, so if I do you simply have a second witness.

How serious does the "average" mormon take the D&C? Are there consequences (not from God after you die... I mean in this life) if you don't follow them or are they more like suggestions on how to live your life? 

How the "average" member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feels about the Doctrine and Covenants would be hard to truly answer. Faithful members of the Church will accept the Doctrine and Covenants as scripture: the mind, the will, and the voice of the Lord.

Yes, there are always consequences -- good or bad -- if we do/do not follow the will of the Lord. In our Doctrine and Covenants we are informed that every blessing we receive is a direct result of obedience to a predicated law. The reverse is also true in this life. Every curse we receive is a direct result of disobedience to a predicated law. We only have ourselves to congratulate or blame for any blessing or curse that follows our lives.

There are suggestions and principles in scripture that allow us to govern ourselves. The Doctrine and Covenants is filled with laws, commandments, and principles that determine the consequences -- good or bad -- we receive in this life.

Why is section 132 still included? I don't want to discuss polygamy - I'm just curious why this is still part of the text since it's not practiced anymore.

The same reason the Law of Moses is still part of the Bible. The same reason why in college courses we still learn about theories and practices that are technically outdated to our modern time.

How can the reader tell that this isn't a current doctrine (is that mentioned somewhere in the scripture, is there an "updated" version, a footnote or something like that)? 

If they are humble they will pay attention to modern revelation, and accept the parts of revelation that are still in practice while recognizing what has been updated. In the Doctrine and Covenants you can read the following regarding polygamy -- an updated revelation -- that allows members to know the position of the Lord at this moment.

Official Declarations in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Or should I view the D&C like certain texts from the bible which aren't followed anymore but can't be changed? So even if the President announces that from now on drinking "hot drinks" is allowed, the text would still stay the same forever? (I probably view this too much as a "rules for church members" kind of book, that's why it feels strange to not have the current doctrines in there)

We view the Doctrine and Covenants like any other scripture. When the Lord reveals his will to the Church collectively an official declaration will be provided. So, if the President were to update the Word of Wisdom (as the one you mention) an official declaration would be given to the body of the Church collectively and an official declaration will be added to canon scripture.

We also receive proclamations from the leadership of the Church that haven't been added to scripture but have a good chance of being added at some later point (i.e. The Family: A Proclamation to the World). These proclamations often will clarify doctrine, or provide the stance of the Church according to specific topics.

In all this, God doesn't destroy the agency of his children and they have the freedom to believe as they will. We receive our eternal reward according to the spirit which we are listing to obey.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

On 3/10/2019 at 6:28 AM, Madam_Mim said:

Did any of you ever feel like "Why am I supposed to (not) do this?" and question the purpose of a certain doctrine? Or do you think if God wants us to do this, it must be good for us even if I can't see the benefit of it now? 

This depends on your knowledge and relationship with the Father and Son. In the beginning we are no different than mine own children who question "why" when I ask them to do something that would help or be for their benefit.

All things that come from God are "good." Our inexperience, our knowledge doesn't negate this. How often I would say angrily at my parents, "I will never do that to my children"! I now find myself saying the same words to my children I said I would not ever do!

The closer we come to God the less likely our question will stem from a question of doubt. The Lord, our Savior, at one point even asked his Father, "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done."

What we will discover, is this truth, if God commands and we do it it will always be right. Good is though relative in your question. God commanded a prophet to teach and call a city to repentance, and we learn what happened to him as a result of his teachings, "and scourged his skin with faggots, yea, even unto death." Is it good that a person dies as a result of doing as the Lord commands? Overall, the moment we meet the Father, again, we will understand the following words, "Thy ways are just." All things that come from God are good and for his children's benefit. The limited understanding of his "little ones" -- while living -- not withstanding.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Anddenex

[Vort]

On 3/8/2019 at 11:14 PM, Madam_Mim said:

How serious does the "average" mormon take the D&C?

What is an "average 'mormon' [sic]"? I'm sure the belief spectrum in the Latter-day Saint community varies from complete belief to complete disbelief. The "average" Saint worthy of going to the temple tends to believe strongly in the Doctrine and Covenants, though there may be some variation.

On 3/8/2019 at 11:14 PM, Madam_Mim said:

Are there consequences (not from God after you die... I mean in this life) if you don't follow them

Of course there are. I realize you're a self-proclaimed non-believer, but open your mind and put yourself for a moment in the position of a believer. Could you really think that you could ignore God's commandments with no ill effects? (Hint: If you thought this, you would not qualify as a "believer".)

On 3/8/2019 at 11:14 PM, Madam_Mim said:

or are they more like suggestions on how to live your life? 

Would not all of the Father's commandments qualify as "suggestions on how to live your life"?

On 3/8/2019 at 11:14 PM, Madam_Mim said:

Why is section 132 still included?

Because it is the word of God given to us today. Why on earth would such a glorious revelation not still be included? Has God's word anciently somehow become false today? Are we somehow less worthy of God's teachings on the nature of the eternal marital covenant than were our recent ancestors?

On 3/8/2019 at 11:14 PM, Madam_Mim said:

I don't want to discuss polygamy - I'm just curious why this is still part of the text since it's not practiced anymore.

You do not understand what you are talking about. Section 132 most certainly is practiced, every day, by every Saint who has made that marital covenant with God.

On 3/8/2019 at 11:14 PM, Madam_Mim said:

How can the reader tell that this isn't a current doctrine (is that mentioned somewhere in the scripture, is there an "updated" version, a footnote or something like that)?

The reader can tell that Section 132 "isn't a current doctrine" by listening to anti-Mormons and apostates who proclaim it as non-doctrinal. Otherwise, the reader will correctly assume that it's still doctrinal.

On 3/8/2019 at 11:14 PM, Madam_Mim said:

Or should I view the D&C like certain texts from the bible which aren't followed anymore but can't be changed?

You are free to view the Doctrine and Covenants however you wish. But you should view it as the word of God to us in our modern days, nothing less than a set of miraculous revelations from a merciful Savior.

On 3/8/2019 at 11:14 PM, Madam_Mim said:

So even if the President announces that from now on drinking "hot drinks" is allowed, the text would still stay the same forever? (I probably view this too much as a "rules for church members" kind of book, that's why it feels strange to not have the current doctrines in there)

You are suffering from many misapprehensions about the Doctrine and Covenants, the nature of revelation, and the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. I sincerely suggest that you put these issues in order before spending any more time on your fruitless attempts to find answers to questions which mostly don't make sense.

[Vort]

On 3/10/2019 at 5:28 AM, Madam_Mim said:

Did any of you ever feel like "Why am I supposed to (not) do this?" and question the purpose of a certain doctrine?

Every adult Latter-day Saint has thought this. It's called being a rational human. But despite our wonderings, we still obey. In so doing, we eventually come to a greater understanding.

On 3/10/2019 at 5:28 AM, Madam_Mim said:

Or do you think if God wants us to do this, it must be good for us even if I can't see the benefit of it now? 

This is correct. But I don't see why it's an "or". It's not an "or"; it's an "and".

[Vort]

15 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

On 3/9/2019 at 12:54 AM, anatess2 said:

All together, the standard works contain all the revelations and covenants made between God and Man throughout the history of mankind.

I'm no expert on this, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there supposed to be some "sealed portion" of the Book of Mormon which is held back for some divine purpose, but which should/might be released in the future? If what you're saying is true, this would (were it ever to be revealed) add nothing to the already-known covenants between God and Man? 

Right you are, Jamie. It might be supposed that the doctrines revealed in the "sealed portion" will be new revelations never before given publicly to men on earth. My own belief is that anatess somewhat overstated things, and that while we do have a fulness of revelation today, we may not have every single doctrine or understanding ever before revealed to mankind. And, in addition, I expect there are other things that have not yet been openly revealed at any time.

When I was a boy, I occasionally heard (and agreed with) people who wondered at how great it would be to get our hands on all that "sealed portion" knowledge. I was brought back to reality by a Church leader who mentioned this, then asked whether we had even read and studied the scriptures we had already been given. At that time, I had never actually read the Book of Mormon, so I recognized my own inconsistency. Since then, I have endeavored to gain a greater understanding of revealed scripture and have contented myself that at some point, probably not in my lifetime, mortal men and women will be given the further light and knowledge they will need.

[Madam_Mim]

Thanks for all your answers!

14 hours ago, Vort said:

What is an "average 'mormon' [sic]"?

I just noticed that I used "mormon" - I'm sorry. That wasn't intentional. 

 

14 hours ago, Vort said:

You are suffering from many misapprehensions about the Doctrine and Covenants, the nature of revelation, and the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. I sincerely suggest that you put these issues in order before spending any more time on your fruitless attempts to find answers to questions which mostly don't make sense.

Oh.. ok. Maybe my questions so far didn't make sense, but thanks to many of the answers I understand those things a bit better, I think. Now that I've read all of your explanations I wouldn't ask the same questions again because now I know that I've viewed many things about the Doctrines incorrectly.

Sure, I could have read all kinds of texts from the Church and listened to speeches from prophets to learn more - but I prefer just having a conversation with believers. And nobody is forced to interact with me. 

Also I just enjoy having a conversation with believers and learn their point of view.

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

I just noticed that I used "mormon" - I'm sorry. That wasn't intentional.

I'm not worried about that. Rather, I meant that I sincerely don't know what to make of the "average" Latter-day Saint. I'm not blaming you for using the common idea of the supposedly "average" person; I simply can't assign much meaning to the idea of the "average" Latter-day Saint.

27 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Oh.. ok. Maybe my questions so far didn't make sense, but thanks to many of the answers I understand those things a bit better, I think. Now that I've read all of your explanations I wouldn't ask the same questions again because now I know that I've viewed many things about the Doctrines incorrectly.

Sure, I could have read all kinds of texts from the Church and listened to speeches from prophets to learn more - but I prefer just having a conversation with believers. And nobody is forced to interact with me. 

Also I just enjoy having a conversation with believers and learn their point of view.

To be clear: I wasn't upset. On rereading what I wrote, it sounds a bit put out, but I didn't feel that way at all. I was just trying to say matter-of-factly (perhaps even bluntly) that these topics require a fair amount of nuance to really grasp. If people are looking for ten-word explanations that actually answer the questions well, they are unlikely to get them. This is especially true for people who come from outside LDS doctrine and culture, and thus don't have the foundation to understand many of these ideas right off the bat. No insult to you was intended.