# Ask the Mormon **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 21, 2003, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971 "2003-03-21T02:31:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/81 "2003-03-22T03:05:28Z")
If anyone’s interested (and since someone brought up the Reorganized Church earlier in the thread), there’s an excellent book written by a former LDS who’s now one of the senior guys in the RLDS Church: _Divergent Paths of the Restoration_, Steven L. Shields, ASIN: 0942284003. Amazon’s got it going for about 50 bucks. The copy I used to have cost far less than that & I got it from Herald House, the RLDS version of Deseret Book. If you find yourself in Monterey County, California, you should be able to read it for free: I donated it to the county library system. Regarding divorce: Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, our church does permit and recognize divorce. If the couple had been sealed in the Temple, then the Church may grant what’s commonly referred to as a “temple divorce.” Most famous person I know of who’s gone through that was Marie Osmond. There are a number of reasons for granting such a thing, one of which is cruelty towards the spouse or children, and another one is infidelity. Once those covenants have been broken, then there’s no “hold” onto the spouse in the hereafter. Also, nobody “belongs” to anyone. Marriage is a partnership, with each partner having different “jobs.” One of the books comprising the Book of Mormon is entitled Jacob. That particular prophet had this to say about a man’s duties towards his wife (I’ve bolded one particular portion & will explain why later in this posting): > [@](#): > > _Jacob 2_ > [sup]31[/sup]For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. > [sup]32[/sup]And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughers of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts. > [sup]33[/sup] **For they shall not lead away captive the daughers of my people because of their tenderness** , savie I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts. I didn’t use any ellipsis because I don’t want to get accused of leaving anything out. Clearly, this passage shows that the Church teaches that adultery isn’t the thing to do. The portion I bolded is directly relevant to a recent event in the news. Also, the chapter and verse numbering I used above, since I’m LDS, are from the Utah church’s versification of the Book of Mormon. The versification of this particular volume of Scripture occurred after the split of the major “Paths of the Restoration,” to use Mr. Shields’ term. You can access the LDS version directly at [The Book of Mormon](http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents). The RLDS version is at [http://www.centerplace.org/hs/bofm/default.htm](http://www.centerplace.org/hs/bofm/default.htm). I don’t know if that church has approved this; however, it seems to be an unbiased site, something to do with Comparative Religion. As to the President of the Church: We feel that he is led by the Holy Spirit and guided by God and Jesus Christ to lead the Church and its members in the service of the Lord Jesus and in the service of our fellow man. Any revelation that he receives, any teaching that he submits to the church (and I mean submits to the church) is presented first to those attending the General Conference and, if sustained, then submitted to the entire membership in the various wards and branches for sustaining. There is no coercion. I believe, but am not sure if this is required, that before presenting anything to the General Conference, the President of the Church first presents it to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Please check [www.lds.org](http://www.lds.org) for both the teachings and the organizations of the Utah church. You can check [www.rlds.org](http://www.rlds.org)[/org] for the same information about the Community of Christ. A very interesting site is [www.restoration.org](http://www.restoration.org). Be sure to scroll down and click on the pull down menus for “Alternative Mormon churches with continuous existance,” “Alternative Restoration churches based on Joseph Smith III,” and “Other important Restoration sites.” Brother McConkie’s book is not scripture, so please bear that in mind when you read it or cite it. A final note: “Versification” of scriptures is one of my hobbies. It is not limited to just Mormon stuff. I’m interested in how any faith has decided to split up its scriptures for ease of instruction and/or memorization. Oddly enough, I’m also interested in the versification of Shakespeare’s works! ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/82 "2003-03-22T03:07:47Z")
Crud. I did make a misspelling in that quotation from Jacob. “Savie” appears as “save” in the Scriptures. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/83 "2003-03-22T03:11:29Z")
mangeorge: I find your questions in this thread to be respectful and nonconfrontational. Thought you’d be interested in that. Crud! There’s yet another misspelling of mine in the quote from Jacob. I’ve no idea what a “daugher” is, but since the BoM says “daughters,” let’s go with that instead. As I said above, you can link to the Book of Mormon online: your choice of which church, Us or Them! BTW, the link for the Community of Christ is supposed to be: [www.rlds.org](http://www.rlds.org). ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/84 "2003-03-22T03:19:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mangeorge \* > Is the general situation described in **SandiMama** ’s first post a true one? > I don’t want to pry, or to criticize, but this is similar to what the RCC used to teach. Here we’re squarely in the realm of policy. Temple sealings (marriages) hold the promise of being in force beyond death _ **if** _ both parties live up to the covenants they made. Also, while plural marriage in this life isn’t practiced currently, it may be practiced out of this life. Hence, it is possible for a man to be sealed to multiple women, but not vice versa. From a spiritual standpoint, sealings should be taken very seriously–even more so than what we consider civil marriage. A practical result of this is that sealings aren’t dissolved unless necessary, and so even if a civil divorce happens, a cancellation of sealing usually doesn’t happen at the same time. If the ex-husband and ex-wife both endure to the end and are saved in the Celestial Kingdome of God, I would expect them to have worked out their differences, and be able to be together again in the eternities, but of course not if either objected. If a man remarries (and is worthy to be sealed) he can be sealed to his second wife without cancelling the first sealing. This is the practical, but not ideal solution (ideally, the first separation wouldn’t happen at all). If a woman chose to remarry, she would have to have the first sealing cancelled. In either case (the man or woman remarrying), the church would consult with the ex-spouse before the sealing is approved. One reason for this is to make sure the spouse has been keeping up with his or her obligations from the separation (in other words, deadbeat dads don’t qualify to be sealed again until they fix the deadbeat status). That is the current policy as I understand it, and I’ve worked with a few people who’ve gone through this process, but it’s not something I deal with on a regular basis, so I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![cadolphin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@cadolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cadolphin)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/85 "2003-03-22T03:58:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by genie \* > \*\*SandiMama, you must know that this is not how it works in the gospel. In order for marriage to be eternal, the husband and wife have to have kept their covenants, and trying to kill your wife hardly counts as that. He has broken his own promises. > > (Sorry, cadolphin, not to barge in on your personal life, but I just can’t let that go. That is simply not how the gospel works.) \*\* **genie** Thank you for fielding this one for me, but it’s looking like I’m going to have to explain further. **SandiMama** welcome to the boards 🙂 I think in order for this to be explained so that people unfamiliar with temple marriage (sealing) will be able to understand as well, I’ll have to go into a little bit more background. When you are “sealed” to your husband or wife in the temple marriage ceremony, it is done so with each spouse entering into the to eternal marriage understanding that if either one of you do not live up to your promises you’ve made to Heavenly Father and each other, the sealing is not valid in the site of God. In a civil ceremony, the phrase “until death do you part” is part of it. In the LDS temple ceremony, it is “for all time and eternity”… meaning: you have entered into a commitment potentially culminating in being together as a family forever. The guy I married was extremely abusive. He was not “worthy” to be going to the temple and being sealed to me when he did, but he lied to get there where he mistakenly believed that I would become his “property” which would give him the right to treat me in whatever way he chose and I would “have” to submit to it. That **is not** what the Church teaches at all! As has been discussed above, husbands and wives are considered equal partners in your marriage. Church members are taught to treat your spouse with the utmost respect. In short, just because I was sealed to the man for eternity, since he abused me in so many ways including threatening to kill me several times and attempted to also, he is not worthy to be considered as a potential eternal companion for me by Heavenly Father. In addition, as I understand it, (and my only cite for this is several Bishops have told me the same thing that I’m about to tell you, so if you want to know where it is written, I can’t tell you…if you are that serious about wanting to see it in writing, I hope you will search it out. For me, I’m satisfied with the answer and don’t feel the need to research it.) The Bishops I have gone to for counsel/guidance about this have all told me that not only is he not worthy, but I would still have the option as to wither or not I wanted to go with him. It is _automatically_ determined that you will be “suck” with someone. I hope that makes it clear. If not, ask away, and once I understand what is still unclear, I’ll try to explain it again. Now for the more personal side of the question. As has been stated, in order for me to be sealed to another man during this life, I would have to contact the man I am currently sealed to and ask him to agree to a “cancellation of sealing”. _IF_ he agreed to it, then my request would be sent to the First Presidency in Salt Lake City and the President of the Church (Prophet) would have to authorize it. I can just hear it now; there are those of you reading this asking me why I don’t do it… 1. In order for me to request a cancellation of sealing, I have to be engaged to a man who is worthy of going to the temple and wants to be sealed to me and I want the same. For _years_ I begged Bishops to let me put in the request without someone else being in my life. They would not do it and the most comforting explanation they could offer me was the part that it’s not a done deal…I’m not trapped/stuck with the creep. 1. I have no desire whatsoever to come into contact with my ex!!! I don’t want to even risk having a bishop talk to him for me and request his okay dokay. I don’t want him to be reminded I even exist. I don’t want to know where he is. He stalked me for 11 years. I don’t want to risk it starting again. So, even if I had married someone who was an active member of the Church, I would have refused to be sealed to him in this life. This is probably the point where I’m explaining I’m using my “free agency” or freedom to choose how I want to handle this very difficult situation. There are no easy, clear-cut answers how to handle it. For YEARS I was distressed by it. But by now, I’ve reached a place where I’m at peace with my decision. I believe that Heavenly Father is truly a loving God and although I don’t know how it will be worked out, as the traditionally taught way is really not an option for me, I do believe (have faith) that _if_ I live the best possible life I can, Heavenly Father will take care of things. Oh, one other thing. If a woman wanted a cancellation of sealing but her ex-husband was dead, he wouldn’t very well be able to agree to it. She wouldn’t be able to go through with it. Surely, Heavenly Father has a plan for these kinds of situations. As humans with limited knowledge of eternal plans, and brains not well developed enough to comprehend it all anyway, … Shoot, I forget where I was going with that. Oh, and some of the other things my ex was involved in, I would not be surprised if he was dead. I hope he is. I would be able to rest knowing he wouldn’t get a hair tickling him to come hunting me again. Suffice it to say, **Rico** and I both plan on being together for eternity despite what the Church teaches is the only way for that to be achieved. We have faith that there is something in place for good people who do the very best they can to live good lives but are unable to be sealed in the LDS Temple. I’m exhausted now. I’ve been writing this for what seems like forever. If that wasn’t clear or answers you’re questions about the doctrine regarding Temple sealing (marriage) or the official position on divorce, or how I can live a happy life with my husband despite what I was raised to believe…I’m sorry. Let me know what is still confusing and I’ll try to explain it again once I understand what is still unclear. Kathy ---
**Author:** ![Bob55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Bob55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob55)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/86 "2003-03-22T04:10:31Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by cadolphin \* > \*\*\*\* Bob55_\* That is from an Anti-Mormon site. I’m offended you chose not to respect my guidelines for this thread. I will not respond to it.\*\* Cadolphin, I was interested in Mormanism because a few of my wife’s close friends are Morman, and they are wonderful people. I never intended to offend anyone, nor did I mean to choose an anti-Morman site. It’s just that when my wife, a devout Baptist, asked me “what exactly is Mormanism”, this is what I found. Neither of us wanted to believe that some of our good friends were this ‘different’ (compared to her Baptist and my Catholic beliefs), but we didn’t have any sources to verify or debunk the information. We didn’t dare approach our friends on this, because the subject of religion is very touchy and often leads to terrible arguments (and we do not want to taint our friendship). Hence I was very excited when I saw an ‘Ask a Mormon’ thread, since I knew I’d get the Straight Dope on the subject without offending my friends. Sorry if you took the link as the wrong way - I just wanted to know if the site is accurate or not. SPOOFE, thank you for the in-depth analysis, it is very interesting. I think one main question we have is regarding Joseph Smith - is he as important as Jesus? Is he really descended from Jesus? Did God really talk to Smith? How could so much weight be put on one individual - a man - thus taking the focus away from Jesus? ---
**Author:** ![cadolphin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@cadolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cadolphin)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/87 "2003-03-22T04:10:37Z")
> [@](#): > > It is automatically determined that you will be “suck” with someone. Opps, that should be: it is **not** automatically determined… ---
**Author:** ![cadolphin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@cadolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cadolphin)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/88 "2003-03-22T04:14:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob55 \* > \*\*Cadolphin, I was interested in Mormanism because a few of my wife’s close friends are Morman, and they are wonderful people. I never intended to offend anyone, nor did I mean to choose an anti-Morman site. It’s just that when my wife, a devout Baptist, asked me “what exactly is Mormanism”, this is what I found. Neither of us wanted to believe that some of our good friends were this ‘different’ (compared to her Baptist and my Catholic beliefs), but we didn’t have any sources to verify or debunk the information. We didn’t dare approach our friends on this, because the subject of religion is very touchy and often leads to terrible arguments (and we do not want to taint our friendship). > > Hence I was very excited when I saw an ‘Ask a Mormon’ thread, since I knew I’d get the Straight Dope on the subject without offending my friends. Sorry if you took the link as the wrong way - I just wanted to know if the site is accurate or not. > > SPOOFE, thank you for the in-depth analysis, it is very interesting. > > I think one main question we have is regarding Joseph Smith - is he as important as Jesus? Is he really descended from Jesus? Did God really talk to Smith? How could so much weight be put on one individual - a man - thus taking the focus away from Jesus? \*\* **Bob** , thanks for explaining where you were coming from. For good information online, the offical site for the church is the best place to start for accurate information. [LDS Main Homepage](http://lds.org) Kathy ---
**Author:** ![cadolphin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@cadolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cadolphin)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/89 "2003-03-22T05:00:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob55 \* > \*\*Cadolphin, I was interested in Mormanism because a few of my wife’s close friends are Morman, and they are wonderful people. I never intended to offend anyone, nor did I mean to choose an anti-Morman site. It’s just that when my wife, a devout Baptist, asked me “what exactly is Mormanism”, this is what I found. Neither of us wanted to believe that some of our good friends were this ‘different’ (compared to her Baptist and my Catholic beliefs), but we didn’t have any sources to verify or debunk the information. We didn’t dare approach our friends on this, because the subject of religion is very touchy and often leads to terrible arguments (and we do not want to taint our friendship). > > Hence I was very excited when I saw an ‘Ask a Mormon’ thread, since I knew I’d get the Straight Dope on the subject without offending my friends. Sorry if you took the link as the wrong way - I just wanted to know if the site is accurate or not. > > SPOOFE, thank you for the in-depth analysis, it is very interesting. > > I think one main question we have is regarding Joseph Smith - is he as important as Jesus? Is he really descended from Jesus? Did God really talk to Smith? How could so much weight be put on one individual - a man - thus taking the focus away from Jesus? \*\* Joseph Smith - > [@](#): > > Joseph Smith - is he as important as Jesus? \ We are all children of God, therefor, IMHO, we are all as important and have intrinsic worth that is so considerable it is difficult for us to fully comprehend. \ Now that you know where I am coming from with my personal bias, I do not remember ever hearing anyone say in any of my Church classes or meetings that Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus nor have I heard that he is descended from Jesus. At this point, let me say, if you wish to further discuss the possiblity that anyone is a blood decendant from Jesus, please take it to Great Debates. As I have heard it, some people believe Jesus did marry and other people do not believe he did. I do not know of a scripture that clearly says yes or no either way…only some that can be interpreted to say what you want them to say. > [@](#): > > Did God really talk to Smith? There are many accounts that state he did infact talk directly with God. But as I’m sure you have heard, or will be said now that this is being said, there are many people who question the validity of this. I’ll post the official account of the first time Joseph Smith said he spoke with God. It is known as The First Vision. This account is found in the \*Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith—History 1:1-26 \* > [@](#): > > JOSEPH SMITH—HISTORY > Joseph Smith tells of his ancestry, family members, and their early abodes—An unusual excitement about religion prevails in western New York—He determines to seek wisdom as directed by James—The Father and the Son appear and Joseph is called to his prophetic ministry. (Verses 1-20.) > 1 OWING to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of aLatter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the world—I have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the bfacts•, as they have transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession. > > 2 In this history I shall present the various events in relation to this Church, in truth and righteousness, as they have transpired, or as they at present exist, being now [1838] the aeighth• byear• since the organization of the said Church. > > 3 aI was born in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five, on the twenty-third day of December, in the town of Sharon, Windsor county, State of Vermont . . . My father, bJoseph• Smith, Sen., left the State of Vermont, and moved to Palmyra, Ontario (now Wayne) county, in the State of New York, when I was in my tenth year, or thereabouts. In about four years after my father’s arrival in Palmyra, he moved with his family into Manchester in the same county of Ontario— > > 4 His family consisting of eleven souls, namely, my father, Joseph Smith; my amother•, Lucy Smith (whose name, previous to her marriage, was Mack, daughter of Solomon Mack); my brothers, bAlvin• (who died November 19th, 1823, in the 26th year of his age), cHyrum•, myself, dSamuel• Harrison, William, Don Carlos; and my sisters, Sophronia, Catherine, and Lucy. > > 5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “aLo•, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist. > > 6 For, notwithstanding the great alove• which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more bpretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions. > > 7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia. > > 8 During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and astrife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was bright• and who was wrong. > > 9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others. > > 10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be aright, which is it, and how shall I know it? > > 11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of aJames•, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack bwisdom•, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. > > 12 Never did any passage of ascripture• come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed bwisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects cunderstood• the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. > > 13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in adarkness• and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would bgive liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture. > > 14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the awoods• to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a bbeautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to cpray dvocally•. > > 15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was aseized• upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick bdarkness• gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. > > 16 But, exerting all my powers to acall• upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into bdespair• and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of clight• exactly over my head, above the brightness of the dsun•, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. > > 17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I bsaw two cPersonages•, whose brightness and dglory defy all description, estanding• above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My fBeloved• gSon. Hear Him! > > 18 My object in going to ainquire• of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. > > 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those bprofessors• were all ccorrupt; that: “they ddraw• near to me with their lips, but their ehearts• are far from me, they teach for doctrines the fcommandments• of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the gpower• thereof.” > > 20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself alying• on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, bmother• inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” It seems as though the cadversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the dopposition• and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy? > > Some preachers and other professors of religion reject account of First Vision—Persecution heaped upon Joseph Smith—He testifies of the reality of the vision. (Verses 21-26.) > > 21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as avisions• or brevelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them. > > 22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great apersecution•, which continued to increase; and though I was an bobscure• boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me. > > 23 It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure aboy•, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily blabor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter cpersecution• and dreviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself. > > 24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a avision•. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was bmad•; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the cpersecution• under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise. > > 25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two aPersonages•, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was bhated and cpersecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me dfalsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not edeny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation. > > 26 I had now got my mind satisfied so far as the sectarian world was concerned—that it was not my duty to join with any of them, but to continue as I was until further adirected•. I had found the testimony of James to be true—that a man who lacked wisdom might ask of God, and obtain, and not be bupbraided•. > > The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints > © 2000 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > [@](#): > > How could so much weight be put on one individual - a man - thus taking the focus away from Jesus? I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here, but if you are saying what I’ve heard many times before— suggesting that Mormons worship Joseph Smith _instead_ of Jesus, that is just wrong. We do not worship Joseph Smith. The Church teaches us that Joseph Smith was chosen to be God’s instrament to bring the Gospel back on the Earth as it was before being corrupted centuries ago, but he is not considered a God, or part of the Trinity and is not worshipped as if he was. He was a man who was chosen to be a modern day Prophet, not a god. Kathy ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/90 "2003-03-22T05:07:13Z")
To add to what Kathy said, we do not worship Joseph Smith, believe he is descended from Jesus Christ, or put him on the same plane as Christ. He was a prophet, and the best comparison is for you to understand that we think of him as similar to Abraham, Moses, or Peter–an inspired leader of the people, authorized by God to shepherd the church in his name. But not the same as the Savior, who is the real Head of the Church. Incidentally, where did you hear that we think Smith was descended from Christ? That’s certainly a new one for me. ---
**Author:** ![cadolphin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@cadolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cadolphin)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/91 "2003-03-22T05:15:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Green Bean \* > \*\*Is it true that there’s a Mormon conspiracy to keep Carmen Rasmusen from being voted off American Idol? \*\* I’ll assume you are kidding since that’s preposterous. :: Trying to picture the Prophet and apostles sitting down at their strategy meeting… First item of business: Elder \_\_\_\_\_ , did you carry out your instructions planting information incriminating Ms. SoandSo thereby insuring she’ll be eliminated… :: NOPE I just can’t see that the leaders of a church with over 11 million members are going to devote any of their precious time to such a cause… but the idea does indeed make me smile… LOL Good one, thank you for the chuckle 😃 Kathy ---
**Author:** ![cadolphin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@cadolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cadolphin)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/92 "2003-03-22T05:17:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by genie \* > \*\*To add to what Kathy said, we do not worship Joseph Smith, believe he is descended from Jesus Christ, or put him on the same plane as Christ. He was a prophet, and the best comparison is for you to understand that we think of him as similar to Abraham, Moses, or Peter–an inspired leader of the people, authorized by God to shepherd the church in his name. But not the same as the Savior, who is the real Head of the Church. > > Incidentally, where did you hear that we think Smith was descended from Christ? That’s certainly a new one for me. \*\* I’ve never heard that one either genie. Maybe I need to get out more 😉 K. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/93 "2003-03-22T05:20:43Z")
Well, since Kathy brought it up, what is God’s (as Mormons know him) attitude toward non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, imperfect Mormons and total non-believers such as myself? If a person lives an otherwise “holy” life, but just can’t accept the part about Joseph and The Book, does he/she stand a chance of eternal bliss? ---
**Author:** ![cadolphin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@cadolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cadolphin)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/94 "2003-03-22T05:27:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mangeorge \* > \*\*Well, since Kathy brought it up, what is God’s (as Mormons know him) attitude toward non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, imperfect Mormons and total non-believers such as myself? If a person lives an otherwise “holy” life, but just can’t accept the part about Joseph and The Book, does he/she stand a chance of eternal bliss? \*\* **mangeorge** , please let me think about this awhile…to make sure I’m clear on what the Church’s position is without my personal opinion clouding the answer. I don’t want to give you inaccurate information and I am fully aware I’ve justified my personal belief on this topic a bit so that it works for me. If someone else comes in and can answer the question sooner, please have at it. Kathy ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/95 "2003-03-22T05:33:37Z")
_Nobody_, except Sons of Perdition, is damned to any sort of eternal hell or torment. After you die, you go to "Heaven’s Waiting Room’ where you can either accept God and receive the ordinances, or you don’t. If you accept the ordinances, they have to be performed for you by proxy (think Baptism of the Dead). You do _not_ have to accept these ordinances. Your Free Will is not compromised in anyway. There’s a scripture verse about this, but I can’t remember what it is…been a long itme since Seminary. So anyway, if you accept Jesus Christ and all the of the covenants and ordiances, your sins will be wiped away and onto the Celestial Kingdom you go. (After the Second Coming.) If you do _not_ accept them, then you have to pay for your own sins in what my Seminary teacher affectionately called “Hotel Hell”. It’s certainly not an Eternal Torment thing–hence the “hotel” part. Once those sins are paid for, you are sent to one of the Levels of Heaven–Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial. They are all levels of Heaven, and all of them are heavenline, none are equal to Hell–they are just different levels of Glory. There is Outer Darkness, but that’s for the Sons of Perdition. The chanes that you are guilty of this sin is slim to none—unless you’ve personally talked to Jesus Christ yourself that is. Sorry if I’m stepping on any toes, but this is my favorite part of the LDS religion. If I were to ever believe in God again, I would become a Mormon again. I didn’t leave the Church—I just couldn’t accept the basic premise–that is, God exists. ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/96 "2003-03-22T05:35:12Z")
Oh, and I could be very wrong. Seminary was several years ago, and I was pretty young. If I did misunderstand the whole process, I apologize. The more I think about it, the more I think we covered this when I started ditching class to uh…spend time wiht my BF, so I really may not be the best source. ---
**Author:** ![cadolphin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c37758/32.png) [@cadolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cadolphin)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/97 "2003-03-22T05:39:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pepperlandgirl \* > \*\*Oh, and I could be very wrong. Seminary was several years ago, and I was pretty young. If I did misunderstand the whole process, I apologize. > > The more I think about it, the more I think we covered this when I started ditching class to uh…spend time wiht my BF, so I really may not be the best source. \*\* You nailed it **pepperlandgirl** … a perfect 10! The only thing I’d add, is we are also taught that if we knew what the lowest level is like, we’d be anxious to get there. I’m sorry, I don’t remember the exact wording of the that, but I’m sure that says the same thing…just in my words. Kathy ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/98 "2003-03-22T05:42:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JerseyDiamond \* > I heard that there were many errors made in the BOM, something like 4000. Is that true? > Is it possible that the BOM has be translated incorrectly? There have been many changes in the BoM since its original publication. The most notable one was versifying it. Additionally, when Joseph dictated the translation, his scribes pretty much had to guess at punctuation, etc. Most of the changes are trivial. There are some instances in which the word “God” was changed to “Son of God”. Some have accused Smith of making those changes as his theology changed from Trinitarian to the modern Mormon view. Those arguments are specious however–“God” is a perfectly correct, but imprecise label for Christ–changing it introduces specificity, but no doctrinal changes. Additionally, this argument ignores the fact that there are more trinitarian-sounding phrases still in the BoM. That’s the skinny. An absurdly detailed analysis [can be found here](http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml). As for errors in the BoM, we make no claims that it is perfect. [The title page itself states](http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/ttlpg): > [@](#): > > And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/99 "2003-03-22T05:46:19Z")
There you go. **pepperlandgirl** , a devout (except for the God stuff) Mormon, knocking on heaven’s door. 😉 _Will_ it open? ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971/100 "2003-03-22T05:47:02Z")
Yeah, and they campare it to the Sun (Celestial) Moon(Terrestrial) and Stars (Telestial) in terms of glory. And Joseph Smith said that he saw each kingdom, but he couldn’t give away the details because if we knew, we would kill ourselves to get there… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-mormon/162971.md?page=6)