# LDS theology questions thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2006, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140 "2006-12-21T23:21:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/81 "2006-12-24T02:43:43Z")
thanks, dangermom, I am a happy BOY with your response. šŸ˜‰ So if death-bed conversion are no good, what about people not initiated in the LDS faith at the time of their death? Is there any chance of salvation for them? I am guessing that great currency is placed of Free Will then. What about people physically incapable of ā€œdoing goodā€ such as an alcoholic or a psychotic murderer? Can they be saved? ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/82 "2006-12-24T02:50:08Z")
Oh, and for the ā€œcontrasā€ on this thread. I think that this is not a thread for dangermom to defend whether LDS tennets are right or wrong but more for the non-LDS to get an idea of what the LDS believe in, no matter if they are right or wrong. I am mostly doing comparative theology here. If I like or dislike a LDS teaching on a particular subject, that is up to me. What I am learning here is how they stack in the universe of possible religious beliefs. This is supposed to take us from ignorant to knowledgeable. Not from ignorant to convert. If I choose not to believe in the LDS faith, at least now I know what I am not believing in. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/83 "2006-12-24T04:25:29Z")
[QUOTE=Sapo] thanks, dangermom, I am a happy BOY with your response. šŸ˜‰ So if death-bed conversion are no good, what about people not initiated in the LDS faith at the time of their death? Is there any chance of salvation for them? I am guessing that great currency is placed of Free Will then. What about people physically incapable of ā€œdoing goodā€ such as an alcoholic or a psychotic murderer? Can they be saved? [/QUOTE] Well, the basic rule is that everyone is judged by God according to the amount of light (knowledge) they had, and just about every society on earth has had some amount of truth to live by. Most people have some inner sense of right and wrong, too. Anyone who did their best to live by the truths they knew would be doing well, and so on. A person who made every effort to do wrong that he knew perfectly well was wrong would not be in such good shape. But, in the end, everyone gets a chance to learn truth and accept or reject it. Someone who tried to live by what truth they had would probably be interested in learning more when they got the chance; another person, perhaps notā€“but everyone gets that choice. This is why we are so big on genealogy and baptisms (as above); this life is not our only time to find truth, though it is the easiest one for those with the opportunity. Iā€™m not sure I would classify an alcoholic with a psychotic murderer, though. As before, we are judged according to what we do with what we have. I think an alcoholic, for example, might get a lot of credit for struggling with his condition, even if he never succeeds in staying sober. (As Lewis says, ā€œhe has learned his driving in a hard schoolā€ā€“once he is free of his disease, he may be much better off than those of us who have never had to struggle so hard for a little control.) Mental illness is a more difficult issue, and I canā€™t say that I know much about it. But I suppose it might be similar, in kind if not in degree. If you have ever read C. S. Lewisā€™ _Mere Christianity_, it gives a really good explanation of some of these ideas, which Mormons agree with. In response to the second of **Sapo** ā€™s posts, I certainly hope that everyone realized that I am offering information, not proselytization. I hope thatā€™s obvious by now. šŸ˜‰ In any case, itā€™s about time for me to say good night and Merry Christmas. Since tomorrow is Christmas Eve, I suppose most of you will be off doing other things, as I will be. I may check in, and I will do my best to answer any (civil, serious) questions posted eventually, but I will probably not be spending much time here for the next couple of days. GlƦdelig jul til alle. ---
**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:** [December 24, 2006, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/84 "2006-12-24T07:11:02Z")
[QUOTE=Valteron] IBut the fact remains that Utah did not decriminalize gay sex until all the sodomy laws were struck down by the supreme court a couple of years ago. So obviously, a majority of Mormons would like to see me and my partner put in jail if we have sex in Utah. [/QUOTE] Whatā€™s the name of this particular logical fallacy? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/85 "2006-12-24T07:42:28Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] Whatā€™s the name of this particular logical fallacy? [/QUOTE] Actually, that is irrelevant. If weā€™d like this thread to continue as a discussion of LDS theology, then we will be better off not getting sidetracked into social issues or logic issues, concentrating, instead, on the actual theology. ---
**Author:** ![Sofaspud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8491ac/32.png) [@Sofaspud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofaspud)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/86 "2006-12-24T12:53:14Z")
[QUOTE=Sapo] Oh, and for the ā€œcontrasā€ on this thread. I think that this is not a thread for dangermom to defend whether LDS tennets are right or wrong but more for the non-LDS to get an idea of what the LDS believe in, no matter if they are right or wrong. [/quote] I canā€™t speak for **Dangermom** , but, for myself, thank you, Sapo! _You get it!_ Iā€™m ex-Mormon, because I (like many here, apparently) canā€™t handle the mental disconnect needed to believe in so many unbelievable things before breakfast. That does not mean I canā€™t rationally discuss this stuff. For the life of me, Iā€™m completely at a loss as to why certain people here are foaming at the mouth to attack the LDS religion in general (and it seems, **Dangermom** in particular) when this is supposed to be an _informative_ thread. This isnā€™t about ā€œweā€™re right and youā€™re wrongā€, this is about what the hell Mormons believe. Soā€¦ moving back in timeā€¦ [QUOTE=Sapo] So if death-bed conversion are no good, what about people not initiated in the LDS faith at the time of their death? Is there any chance of salvation for them? [/QUOTE] This has been covered before in this thread - posts 20 through 24, roughly, with a few others possibly thrown in. The gist is, Mormons believe it is possible to learn and grow in the afterlife, and to have the chance to come to know God even if you were the worst sort of heathenish heathen. One of the ways the living Mormons can help in this is to perform ordinances for the dead, who did not have the chance to do so themselves in life. The dead are _still_ free to make their own choice. [QUOTE=Valteron] have a question: What colour is the skin on the physical bodies of God the Father and Jesus Christ? [/QUOTE] I almost donā€™t want to answer this one, simply because it appears youā€™re itching for a fight. But here goes. As **Dangermom** points out, theyā€™re exalted - a state which is described in such a way as to make me think of them as being 100,000-watt light bulbs. They could be white (hey, Jesus was Jewish), or for that matter Arabic in skin tone, considering the era and location where the happenings in the Bible took place (remember, Mormons believe in the Bible too). Or Greco-Roman, or Negro, or whatever. Iā€™ve never understood the hoopla about skin color that anti-Mormon activists raise; nowhere that Iā€™ve seen does Mormon literature come out and state ā€œGod is Whiteā€. The closest Iā€™ve heard to a declaration of skin tone is the Mormon belief (which is essentially the same as Christianity in general, I believe) that humanity as a whole is ā€œcreated in Godā€™s imageā€. Since itā€™s pretty freakinā€™ obvious that humanity includes white, yellow, red, brown, black, and every shade in between for skin toneā€¦ God must be plaid. šŸ˜ƒ Ok, seriously, Mormon doctrine doesnā€™t state a skin color, it simply says we are made in His image. Youā€™re free to take that how you will. When I was in the church, I took it to mean that he _appeared_ to be the same color as yourself, but had no fixed color Himself. [QUOTE=Cisco] Wait wait wait. We have a tread examining Mormonism from a critical standpoint and dangermom here cannot handle the heat. She then starts a thread basically saying, ā€œCome here with a default respect for my brand of baloney, check your critical thinking skills at the door, and Iā€™ll answer [or half-answer] the questions I feel like answering.ā€ How is this different from Peter Morrisā€™s recent dowsing thread? Is it simply because more people share dangermomā€™s beliefs then share Peter Morrisā€™s? Because that is one of the worst possible reasons I can think of to dignify this stuff with questions. [/quote] [QUOTE=Cisco] Which is exactly why we should not take seriously or dignify with questions the people who insist that these books are FACT - FULL STOP. [/QUOTE] But youā€™re not questioning someone who insists they are FACT, as you put it. **Dangermom** was quite clear, in her first post, that sheā€™s well aware that there is no real evidence for the BoM and other books being factual. Here, let me show you: [QUOTE=dangermom] 1. Do you accept as literally true the story of the gold tablets? Relatedly, do you believe the Witnesses saw the tablets literally or in visions? Yep, I do. Yes, I realize that there is no real archaeological evidence for the historicity of the BoM; I suspect there will not be for quite some time (probably never)ā€“although it is interesting to me that there is more linguistic and geological evidence now than there was in 1830. If the BoM was a fake, it ought to have fallen apart as promptly and completely as Ossianā€™s poems did, and it certainly shouldnā€™t contain the linguistic and cultural elements that it does. (Of course, Iā€™m sure youā€™ll disagree about whether or not the BoMdid fall apart like Ossian.) [/quote] She is stating her _belief_, which may or may not be supported by facts. People believe things all the time that arenā€™t necessarily backed by fact. And in the case of religion, itā€™s pretty hard to back any belief with hard fact ā€“ thatā€™s why the word ā€˜faithā€™ was invented (and is used as a synonym for ā€˜religionā€™). This thread, specifically, was started to provide informative answers about what Mormons believe, not necessarily _why_ they believe it ā€“ though, if done properly, that sort of data can be gleaned. Essentially, this thread is, as **tomndebb** points out, in here simply because there isnā€™t a better forum for it ā€“ so, while itā€™s in Great Debates, itā€™s not really a debate. This is a Q&A session. Make more sense now? ## ā€“sofaspud ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/87 "2006-12-24T13:26:24Z")
[QUOTE=dangermom] Yes, I realize that there is no real archaeological evidence for the historicity of the BoM; I suspect there will not be for quite some time (probably never)ā€“although it is interesting to me that there is more linguistic and geological evidence now than there was in 1830. If the BoM was a fake, it ought to have fallen apart as promptly and completely as Ossianā€™s poems did, and it certainly shouldnā€™t contain the linguistic and cultural elements that it does. [/quote] In the years since I quit, Iā€™ve studied a lot more about this, and I would have to say that the evidence runs much, much higher _against_ the BoM than for. Not to say that there isnā€™t any evidence at all, but the amount against is really strong. The faithful wonā€™t look at it, for the most part, or will minimize it. > [@](#): > > In the early days, it was assumed that the people in the BoM were the sole ancestors of all the Native Americans in North and South America. This is clearly ludicrous, and (etc.) Ouch. I can imagine the shit (or official warning) I would be given for labeling the official or quasi-official teaching of the Church from Joseph Smith through at least Spencer Kimball as ludicrous. However, if the majority of the modern prophets are wrong about something as fundamental as this, then who am I to criticize? > [@man who held obviously ludicrous views; Spencer Kimball](#): > > So, my appeal today is for the Lamanites, all the Lamanites, the Mexicans, the Polynesians, the Indians, to live the commandments of God and prove themselves worthy of this choice land. > [@someone clueless](#): > > ā€œIn all ā€¦ there are seventy-five million six hundred thousand who share in your [Native American Lamanite] birthright, of whom thrity-one million nine hundred ninety thousand are pure Indians.ā€ Anyway, now that you and I both agree these people were completely off their rockers, forward! > [@](#): > > and especially since one of the major geographical features in the BoM is a ā€œnarrow neck of land,ā€ which can easily be taken to mean Panama (even though itā€™s not really very narrow, except in relative terms, if youā€™re looking at a globe). In scholarly circles, this is referred to as the Hemispheric model, and plenty of Mormons do still subscribe to it, though not with much thought. Another dissing of countless Mormons. This was the generally accepted teaching in my neck of the woods ā€“ Utah aka Zion ā€“ through the early 80s. But, again who am I to criticize the modern prophets when youā€™re doing a much better job at it. > [@](#): > > (You wonā€™t really find Mormons arguing it or trying to find evidence for it, I mean.) Now, that is. The Church has spend a fair amount of money in the past looking for it. > [@](#): > > A careful reading of the text, along with the knowledge we have now, leads BoM scholars to the Limited Geographical Theory (LGT), a fancy shorthand way of saying that there were already lots of people living on the American continent once Nephi & co. arrived, and that they probably partly assimilated into a larger, established culture. Moreover, they probably lived somewhere in Central America, in a relatively small area. This has been common opinion for at least 50 years now, probably longer. Iā€™m going to have to ask for a reference here. Iā€™ll provide a large number of quotes by modern prophets, including one who specifically criticizes the LGT, if you can provide any evidence of this being common. I grew up in Zion, was the president of the Young Menā€™s Association, the Deaconā€™s Quorum, the Teachersā€™ Quorum, the Priestsā€™ Quorum, I went through the temple, went on a mission, and taught both Priesthood and Sunday School lessons, in Salt Lake City, and Iā€™m saying you are flat out wrong. (Iā€™d normally say bullshit, but there seems to be special rules here which I donā€™t understand.) I graduated from high school and seminary in 1980, and never, ever did I ever hear the LGT taught once, although I did the traditional teaching many, many times. > [@](#): > > So: yes, I think that what with intermarriage and moving around, a lot of Native Americans (really mostly Native Central Americans) probably have some very small amount of Hebraic heritage. However, itā€™s important to realize the very tiny number of Hebrew ancestors involved here, and the very large number of people already living there. One cannot expect to find obvious DNA evidence, the loud shouting by anti-Mormons notwithstanding. One has to wonder why itā€™s called loud shouting, when people ask obvious questions. If modern prophets and apostles are claiming that the natives of North, Central and South America are the literal descendants of Lehi, and no one can find any such evidence, then publishing such studies would naturally be seen as being anti-Mormon, I would guess. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/88 "2006-12-24T14:51:00Z")
[QUOTE=Sofaspud] They could be white (hey, Jesus was Jewish), or for that matter Arabic in skin tone, considering the era and location where the happenings in the Bible took place (remember, Mormons believe in the Bible too). Or Greco-Roman, or Negro, or whatever. Iā€™ve never understood the hoopla about skin color that anti-Mormon activists raise; nowhere that Iā€™ve seen does Mormon literature come out and state ā€œGod is Whiteā€. [/quote] I think it comes from [stuff like this](http://www.truthandgrace.com/Racism.html). ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/89 "2006-12-24T15:41:40Z")
> [@dangermom](#): > > Well, we believe that this book was preserved by miraculous means. That says a lot, but continueā€¦ > [@](#): > > If it is true, then there is no way that Joseph Smith could have gotten hold of it or translated it except by divine help. Thus, if one has a testimony of the Book of Mormon and its origins (which would be a witness given by the Holy Ghost), then one believes it and lives by its teachings. Essentially, we believe in the truthfulness of something (any spritual principle, in fact) when we receive revelation confirming it. > > Now, the completely miraculous nature of the translation of the BoM means that physical evidence proving the book to be true beyond any doubt would also be proof of miracles, angles, God, Christ, and the truth claims of the LDS Church, I think. Since God never forces himself upon us, this would result in a problem, as we see it. . **Dangermom,** with regard to your answers to my questions about the root of your theological beliefs (Joseph Smithā€™s writings, plates, etc.), would it be correct to say that you look for _internal_ revelation and/or consistency in the core works? As far as proof of angles, I think that is consistent with trigonometry. šŸ™‚ > [@](#): > > Therefore, most Mormons do not expect to find proof of the BoM anytime soon, though many do take an interest in Mesoamerican archaeology and so on. Has anything turned up in this area? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/90 "2006-12-24T15:48:37Z")
[QUOTE=Musicat] Has anything turned up in this area? [/QUOTE] OJ promised to keep an eye out while he was looking for the real killers. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/91 "2006-12-24T16:09:34Z")
[QUOTE=Musicat] Has anything turned up in this area? [/QUOTE] AFAICR last time I checked there was the scandalous situation of new Mormon researchers pointing at locations in Mesoamerica as the most likely location for the Cumorah hill (Meaning the only places that can barely fit with the tale of the book). Problem is, the LDS church has already monuments and memorials at the Cumorah location in the USA. Iā€™m not holding my breath for an official notice that the money [del]wasted[/del] used in the USA location will be returned. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/92 "2006-12-24T16:11:26Z")
> [@](#): > > But youā€™re not questioning someone who insists they are FACT, as you put it. **Dangermom** was quite clear, in her first post, that sheā€™s well aware that there is no real evidence for the BoM and other books being factual. Here, let me show you: Your own quote proves you wrong. ā€œDo you take as literal truth the story of the golden tablets?ā€ ā€œYep, I do.ā€ > [@](#): > > Essentially, this thread is, as **tomndebb** points out, in here simply because there isnā€™t a better forum for it ā€“ so, while itā€™s in Great Debates, itā€™s not really a debate. This is a Q&A session. Then it should be in IMHO (dangermomā€™s opinions) or Cafe Society (discussion of a fiction book.) [QUOTE=Sofaspud] For the life of me, Iā€™m completely at a loss as to why certain people here are foaming at the mouth to attack the LDS religion in general (and it seems, **Dangermom** in particular) [/quote] I just want someone to answer my question about why Peter Morris was laughed at in the dowsing thread while dangermom, whose claims are much more extraordinary, is being held up on a pedestal. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/93 "2006-12-24T16:25:00Z")
[QUOTE=Cisco] I just want someone to answer my question about why Peter Morris was laughed at in the dowsing thread while dangermom, whose claims are much more extraordinary, is being held up on a pedestal. [/QUOTE] I donā€™t think he is, he has been kind enough to answer tough questions about his faith, I see this as a very educational thing, specially when others can come with evidence to rip his/her points to shreds. šŸ™‚ The important thing to keep in mind is that the person will always have to be consider to be in a pedestal (in GD at least) but his/her ideas remain cannon fodder. (Peter Morris turned to be a willful ignorant and a Jerk, qualities that enter into the reason why he was laughed at) ---
**Author:** ![BMax](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bmax/32/4267_2.png) [@BMax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMax)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/94 "2006-12-24T16:39:15Z")
[QUOTE=Musicat] :)Has anything turned up in this area? [/QUOTE] BYU FARMS. Check out [their official site here.](http://farms.byu.edu/). [Hereā€™s what Wikipedia says about them (bolding mine) > [@wikipedia](#): > > The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) is an informal collaboration of academics devoted to Mormon historical scholarship. The group is formally part of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, formerly known as the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts at Brigham Young University (BYU), which is operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. > > FARMS supports and sponsors what it considers to be ā€œfaithful scholarshipā€, which includes academic study and research in support of Christianity and Mormonism, and in particular, where possible, the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This research primarily concerns the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Old Testament the New Testament, early Christian history, ancient temples, and other related subjects. **While the organization allows some degree of academic freedom within these topics, FARMS is committed to the conclusion that Latter-day Saint scriptures are authentic, historical texts written by prophets of God**. > > ā€¦\ā€¦ > > Work produced under FARMSā€™s auspices has been critiqued by many, ranging from devout Mormons, to secular scholars, to antagonistic evangelical Christians, among others. Many of these critics discount LDS claims of divine inspiration, and thus doubt the Book of Mormonā€™s authenticity as an ancient document, thus perceiving some of FARMSā€™s work as non-scholarly hagiography masquerading as genuine research. However, the FARMS claims the work it supports ā€œconforms to established canons of scholarship, [and] is peer reviewed.ā€[2] > > **Critics declare that FARMS sometimes uses circular logic in their arguments. Similarly, some critics have suggested that FARMSā€™ reasoning is backwards from usual scientific of scholarly practices: FARMS arrives at their faith-based conclusion first, then afterwards seeks out supporting evidence. Dr. Simon G. Southerton, a former Latter-day Saint who has published a book disputing FARMSā€™ claims about the origins of Native Americans, said, ā€œI was amazed at the lengths that FARMS went to in order to prop up faith in the Book of Mormon. I felt that the only way I could be satisfied with FARMS explanations was to stop thinking.ā€** > > Others have accused FARMS of engaging in mean-spirited polemics. Even some devout Mormons have been bothered by what they see as ad hominem attacks: attacking someone personally, rather than analyzing the merits of their ideas. Especially often, FARMS is accused of labeling someone an ā€œanti-Mormonā€, and then discounting their works as biased, based largely on this pronouncement. In a speech offered before the Sunstone Symposium (titled ā€œWhy I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Booksā€), John Hatch said, "After reading the (FARMS) reviews myself, it appears to me, and is my opinion, that FARMS is interested in making Mormonismā€™s past appear as normal as possible to readers by attacking history books that discuss complex or difficult aspects of the churchā€™s past. ]([Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARMS)) ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/95 "2006-12-24T16:47:11Z")
[QUOTE=dangermom] There has been talk about it, and it has been taught. If so, it was not during the existence of this universe (at least, so Iā€™m inclined to think), but long before. On the whole, yes, we think soā€“but it wouldnā€™t shatter our world to find that someone got a little carried away with the speculation, either. However, this is another area where we know so very little that itā€™s too easy to get into speculation and get all weird. [/QUOTE] I asked my very Mormon mother about your posts and itā€™s her opinion that this is apostasy. Itā€™s extremely interesting for me that you would think someone got carried away with too much speculation, especially since that this person would be Joseph Smith, Jr. I hope you have heard of him, are you familiar with his teachings of God the Father? [QUOTE=someone (who) got a little carried away with the speculation aka Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church] I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. ā€¦ It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to knowā€¦that **he was once a man like us** ā€¦ (ā€œKing Follett Discourse,ā€ Journal of Discourses 6:3-4, also in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-346, and History of the Church, vol. 6, 305-307, emphasis added) [/QUOTE] And, please, please, please, please tell me that this is not an official teaching of the Mormon church. > [@](#): > > Someone who tried to live by what truth they had would probably be interested in learning more when they got the chance; another person, perhaps not Cite? Is this Mormon theology or something pulled out of someoneā€™s @-ss? [QUOTE=sofaspud] From another viewpoint, it could be seen as icky, malicious, or just plain strange. However, if nothing else, precedent exists in the legal world ā€“ heirs are presumed (from what I understand, IANAL) to have the authority to make decisions for the deceasedā€™s estate, no? Similar logic can be extended here. [/QUOTE] šŸ˜• Is that a current teaching of the Church? Please provide a cite. Really, any cite that remotely connects this with Mormon theology. As a fellow ex-Mormon, this isnā€™t the case. [QUOTE=GIGObuster] AFAICR last time I checked there was the scandalous situation of new Mormon researchers pointing at locations in Mesoamerica as the most likely location for the Cumorah hill (Meaning the only places that can barely fit with the tale of the book). Problem is, the LDS church has already monuments and memorials at the Cumorah location in the USA. Iā€™m not holding my breath for an official notice that the money [del]wasted[/del] used in the USA location will be returned. [/QUOTE] There was this guy called Joe Smith, who got it all wrong. Actually, there were a lot of other people who got it wrong, people who had titles like Prophet or Apostle on their name cards, but they mostly had wrong impressions (perhaps inspired from the devil?) that better knowing, lay members can easily call ludicrous. > [@Cisco](#): > > I just want someone to answer my question about why Peter Morris was laughed at in the dowsing thread while dangermom, whose claims are much more extraordinary, is being held up on a pedestal. And if you get answers for that, letā€™s also try to get answers why **dangermon** can trash the Mormon prophets, leaders, and followers, but no one allowed to touch her? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/96 "2006-12-24T16:55:58Z")
[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer] And if you get answers for that, letā€™s also try to get answers why **dangermon** can trash the Mormon prophets, leaders, and followers, but no one allowed to touch her? [/QUOTE] Iā€™m not holding my breath for an answer at this point. Iā€™ve asked 4 times and no one wants to step up to the plate. I appreciate GIGO acknowledging the question but saying that Peter Morris is willfully ignorant doesnā€™t do us much good because dangermom is willfully ignorant too. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/97 "2006-12-24T16:57:30Z")
[QUOTE=Cisco] Then it should be in IMHO (dangermomā€™s opinions) or Cafe Society (discussion of a fiction book.) [/quote] But if you have paid any attention to the activities of the Mods in those two Fora over the years, you will have noted that any reference to anything religious will prompt them to move the thread here, directly. (A point I already mentioned in Post #40.) [QUOTE=Cisco] I just want someone to answer my question about why Peter Morris was laughed at in the dowsing thread while dangermom, whose claims are much more extraordinary, is being held up on a pedestal. [/QUOTE] No. You want to whine and stamp your feet that you do not get to hijack this thread into the 401st Bash the Mormons thread. No one is stopping anyone from going to the other current thread on the LDS and bashing away. No one is stopping anyone from opening one more thread to attack the various actions of the LDS (in or out of Utah) as hypocritical. However, as with any large movement (religious, political, or social), there are many separate aspects of the CoJCoLDS. The problem has been that any discussion of any of those aspects are typically hijacked with people demanding the right to heap scorn on Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Currently there is a thread exploring the concept of Transubstantiation in Catholic theology. Anyone is welcome to advance any number of reasons why that theology is wrong, from simply maintaining that all metaphysics and ontology are useless mind games to an appeal to Plato as providing a better spiritual foundation than Aristotle to the notable claim that ā€œAristotle was a bugger for the bottle.ā€ On the other hand, if you were to interrupt that thread to attack transubstantiation on the basis that the Council of Nicaea created a false church or that no one has a right to engage in discussing transubstantiation because the church opposes condom use in AIDS-torn Africa or because no one should pay any attention to Catholics, at all, because of the priest pedophile scandal, (any of which threads would be tolerated as separate threads), you would get thrown out of the transubstantiation thread for hijacking it. For some reason, however, there are a number of posters who believe that any reference to the LDS makes the thread a legitimate target to be derailed into a display of why historical events are a reason to discount theology. The issues are separate and deserve their own threads. The **Peter Morris** issue has no similar range of perspectives. He has a single fascination with attempting to call out Randi that is based on a single interpretation of Randiā€™s challenge. There is no broad range of topics to be examined from multiple perspectives setting aside other aspects of the discussion as irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/98 "2006-12-24T17:19:18Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] For some reason, however, there are a number of posters who believe that any reference to the LDS makes the thread a legitimate target to be derailed into a display of why historical events are a reason to discount theology. The issues are separate and deserve their own threads [/QUOTE] However, if Mormons are allowed to open threads to avoid getting their fingers dirty in other threads, and they cite historical events, then other historcial events should be allowed in evidence, or one will have to question the judge of bias. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/99 "2006-12-24T17:25:23Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] No. You want to whine and stamp your feet that you do not get to hijack this thread into the 401st Bash the Mormons thread. [/QUOTE] Iā€™m kind of curious why when in discussion **Tom** you so frequently need to characterize your detractors as immature little babies who are always stomping their feet or pounding their little fists or are otherwise philosophically bereft. Itā€™s kind of insulting and something you so frequently as to be unimaginative. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/100 "2006-12-24T17:27:30Z")
[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer] However, if Mormons are allowed to open threads to avoid getting their fingers dirty in other threads, and they cite historical events, then other historcial events should be allowed in evidence, or one will have to question the judge of bias. [/QUOTE] And the moment that **dangermom** cites the some archaelogical ā€œproofā€ that the Lamanites did thus and so, thereby establishing the need for ancestor baptism, then she will have opened the thread to rebuttal on that and similar points. Simply noting that there are odd historical claims and that she believes them, but then going on to actually discuss the relationships within the Trinity or the need for examination without relying on the claims of history is not the same thing as declaring that LDS belief is true because of its mythology. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140.md?page=6)