# 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:** 15\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Sofaspud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8491ac/32.png) [@Sofaspud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofaspud)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2006, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/121 "2006-12-25T10:45:52Z")
[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer] Question asked but not answered. **BMax** is asking if the principle of eternal progression is still part of the Mormon creed. This [del]is[/del] was a fundamental doctrine, and one which set Mormonism apart from all other major Christian sects. It’s fascinating to see the LDS Church seemly to publicly back away from this belief. As can been seen in **Dangermoms’** posts, there appear to be members who are willing to abandon this. I’ll join **BMax** in the question if this is something which is simple not taught anymore. [/quote] And I thought I answered the question when I stated, yes, the goal is to become like God. I’m still not clear on what these Eternal Rules are/were; that’s not a phrase I’ve ever heard before. > [@](#): > > No, it’s just that after the doctrinal change to allow blacks to hold the priesthood, which happened when I was in high school and very much remember the event, this doctrine was quietly dropped. However, it was most definitely taught from the highest pulpits. I would recommend reading Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine, if there are any questions concerning this. Perhaps one thing is unclear (and indeed, this seems to be a big hot button when it comes to discussing Mormon beliefs). That which is taught, stated, or written by spiritual leaders in the church – including El Presidente – is not necessarily the actual doctrine of the church, or, for that matter, completely valid. Unless it is stated that it is a revelation (“Shut up and pay attention, kids, the Big Cheese has spoken”), it is not doctrine. This has led to LOTS of controversy. Because (IMO) certain folks who really should’ve known better tried to explain things and ended up muddying the waters. They’d’ve done better to keep their traps shut. 🙂 So. Just because it was ol’ Brig himself who said it _doesn’t mean it’s doctrine_, unless it is an actual revelation (which there’s a pretty detailed process for). A lot of the stuff about blacks – they’re evil, they’ll change color, etc. – is not and never was doctrine; it may have been taught, but one of the first things every Mormon is also taught is to come to their own understanding of the doctrine of the church and to reject that which does not seem right. > [@](#): > > If there are questions to **Bmax’s** assertions, I would suggest reading books written in the 50s and 60s by the General Authorities (the prophets and apostles). Mormonism used to take greater pride in being a “particular” religion, and not being like the rest. > > If you want to get really blown away, read what the early apostles and prophets wrote. You’ll find doctrine which was quickly disavowed by later leadership, including Brigham Young’s teachings that God the Father came down as Adam. No, thanks, I’ve done plenty of that in my day. I’m not a member of the LDS religion, by my own choice; I’m starting to wonder why I’m even here trying to explain things. 🙂 > [@](#): > > There is (or, at least was) no doctrinal basis for allowing heirs to make decisions for the decided, for spiritual matters. There is a world of difference between the living deciding temporal matters, which the dead would or could no longer control, and the living making decisions which would be eternally binding on the part of the dead. This is in direct violation of the doctrine of free will, in which all souls make their own choices. The Mormon church never made this justification while I was a member, and it would violate too many of the fundamental concepts. Indeed, the War in Heaven, in which Satan and his third, where kicked out over this very question. Satan had proposed forcing everyone to be good, and Christ proposed giving each person their own choices. Christ, can nobody READ? I was making an analogy. I was saying (and I even explained, in a later post) “If you want to justify it to yourself, here’s one way”. Ok? I never said that the church allowed heirs to make decisions for the deceased, and I’ve been EXCEEDINGLY careful to point out at every turn that doctrine states that EVEN THOUGH the living are performing ordinances for the dead, the dead can _still_ choose to accept or reject them. There is no contradiction of free will here. Of all the things Mormonism has that can be confusing, I honestly thought this was among the simplest. > [@](#): > > Perhaps again, they are of less importance now, but the mythology and theology of the church were too tightly intertwined when I was growing up. As noted in the concurrent thread, many other Christian sects do not claim the literalness of the myths, but Mormonism used to while I was growing up, and does not disavow it yet. Maybe so. Again, I did not become a member until the mid 80’s, so whatever happened before that is none of my pidgin. I can state that I was never encouraged to take the stories literally, but instead to reflect on them, think about them, and decide for myself what truth, if any, they held. They were taught to me the same way I was taught fairy tales - a story with a life lesson attached. > [@](#): > > LDS teaching (actual teaching from my seminary days): God actively guides the prophets and this can be seen by his leading the Brother of Jared when they built the closed barges. Guiding, as I understand it, is not exactly the same (or not always, anyway) as a big sign saying “THOU SHALT DO THIS” with a burning bush underneath. When the prophet of the church has a revelation, that’s God reaching down to show us poor mortals the way. When the prophet simply talks about his beliefs, that’s him speaking, not the Big Guy. Since he is, y’know, the leader of the church and all, you’d do well to at least listen to him, but you’re supposed to reflect on it yourself and reject it if you find it false. Simply put: when he issues a revelation, he’s the mouthpiece for God. When he’s preaching from the pulpit (heh), he’s himself. Yeah, he oughta consider what he says a mite more carefully from time to time, but everyone makes mistakes. ## –sofaspud ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2006, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/122 "2006-12-25T12:13:29Z")
Just a quick note on “church doctrine” generally… I note above an apparently racist teaching by Kimball as a Mormon Apostle published in _Mormon Doctrine_. Considering that this means he was a part of the church governing body of 12 at the time he wrote that and that it has been published in an official publication describing itself as church doctrine, it seems reasonably evident that there’s a prima facie case for that being doctrine, which would need to be refuted. However, in relation to both the Mormons and other groups, I’ve seen a strong tendency to pull some random quote off some polemic website in which the Rev. Frothingmouth Yahew, preacher of some random denomination, says something staggeringly stupid and/or offensive, and then the debunker of Christianity/that particular form of Christianity acts as though that were the officially sanctioned beliefs of that group or of Christianity in general. “It don’t work that way,” people. Every group has their own private collection of “God, is he an embarrassment, or what? I wish he’d just shut up!” types, like the good Rev. Yahew. So be so kind, when you’re debunking, to at least validate that you’re working from something regarded as official and probative. **BMax** appears to have done this, with regard to Kimball. But I think it’s a worthwhile point to make, on a more general basis. ---
**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 25, 2006, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/123 "2006-12-25T16:45:18Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] Just a quick note on “church doctrine” generally… I note above an apparently racist teaching by Kimball as a Mormon Apostle published in _Mormon Doctrine_. Considering that this means he was a part of the church governing body of 12 at the time he wrote that and that it has been published in an official publication describing itself as church doctrine, it seems reasonably evident that there’s a prima facie case for that being doctrine, which would need to be refuted. However, in relation to both the Mormons and other groups, I’ve seen a strong tendency to pull some random quote off some polemic website in which the Rev. Frothingmouth Yahew, preacher of some random denomination, says something staggeringly stupid and/or offensive, and then the debunker of Christianity/that particular form of Christianity acts as though that were the officially sanctioned beliefs of that group or of Christianity in general. “It don’t work that way,” people. Every group has their own private collection of “God, is he an embarrassment, or what? I wish he’d just shut up!” types, like the good Rev. Yahew. So be so kind, when you’re debunking, to at least validate that you’re working from something regarded as official and probative. **BMax** appears to have done this, with regard to Kimball. But I think it’s a worthwhile point to make, on a more general basis. [/QUOTE] It wasn’t Kimball I was referring to. Kimball was the one who issued the revelation to allow blacks to have the priesthood in 1978. Kimball was homophobic and wrote letters to self-identified homosexuals pleading them to forsake their wickedness and return to the church. Bruce R. McConkie was the one who wrote about “lack of valiance in the War in Heaven \> being born a negro in this life” in a series of books called _ **Mormon Doctrine** _ as late as 1966. We can argue the finer points of “that’s not what the missionaries/my sunday school teacher told me” and “just because the prophet said it doesn’t make it mormon doctrine”, but when it’s in a book called _ **Mormon Doctrine** _, written by an apostle, published by the church, I think that makes it official doctrine. These writings back up what Brigham Young had been saying a hundred years earlier in his capacity as Prophet, Seer & Revelator, so it appears to have been the thinking of Mormonism’s highest leadership for most of their history. The mormon church is and has long been changing their teachings and history to match the moods and values of our changing society, starting as early as 1890 with their publicly abandoning the practice of plural marriage. Yes, I know that the church doesn’t actively teach the same crap about the races of humanity today. But they have never (to the best of my knowledge) published any doctrinal changes to the racist doctrine of the 1960s, and it was still considered “true”, though not talked about openly, when I left the church in the early-middle 1980s. Now, IF **dangermom** or some other active mormon can refer to something published as ‘mormon doctrine’ stating that the doctrine of “lack of valiance in the War in Heaven \> being born a negro in this life” is NOT the case, that would prove that it’s not actually their ‘truth’. Well, Merry Christmans/happy cultural mid-winter celebration. ---
**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 26, 2006, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/124 "2006-12-26T00:55:52Z")
Unfortunately, I’m going to have to bow out of this, just when it becomes interesting. **TokyoWife** and I are leaving for Tawian and the Vietnam for our vacation and so I’ll not be visiting the boards. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to All! ---
**Author:** ![Rico](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rico/32/3582_2.png) [@Rico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rico)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/125 "2006-12-26T04:39:47Z")
[QUOTE=Sofaspud] Just because it was ol’ Brig himself who said it _doesn’t mean it’s doctrine_, unless it is an actual revelation (which there’s a pretty detailed process for). A lot of the stuff about blacks – they’re evil, they’ll change color, etc. – is not and never was doctrine; it may have been taught, but one of the first things every Mormon is also taught is to come to their own understanding of the doctrine of the church and to reject that which does not seem right. [/QUOTE] Brigham Young never said “it doesn’t mean it’s doctrine.” In fact, in the Journal of Discourses, which was accepted as doctrinal in the early days of the LDS, he said: > [@](#): > > I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. **I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.** The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. - JoD 13:95 (January 2, 1870) (bolding mine) Followed by: > [@](#): > > I am here to give this people, called Latter-day Saints, counsel to direct them in the path of life. I am here to answer; I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong. I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that **I have never given counsel that is wrong** ; this is the reason. - JoD 16:161 (August 31,1873) (bolding mine) The record states otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/126 "2006-12-26T17:37:43Z")
Well, good morning, all; I see you’ve been having a wonderful time. We’re still doing a lot of family visit stuff and I’m taking my kids to storytime this morning, so I’ll be quick. A massive amount of **BMax** ’s statements are what we call “Folk doctrine,” or just plain rumor. There has been a lot of effort over the past 20 years or so to stamp some of it out, but some of it always persists. Folk doctrine is speculation or made-up stuff that sounds neat but isn’t true, or is unknown–essentially our version of urban legends. Often it takes the form of a rumor (a recent one is that the LDS Church is secretly calling missionaries to China, which was a re-working of one 20 years ago about the USSR; it was officially repudiated in the _Church News_ a couple of weeks ago). The one about black people and the pre-mortal existence was a particularly pernicious one, and serves as a spectacular example of why speculation can be harmful. The funny, and sad, thing is that it arose from a non-racist instinct; people couldn’t figure out why blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood (since they were clearly perfectly nice people and not personally unworthy), and came up with a “reason” that could be attributed to behavior before birth. Yes, Bruce R. McConkie endorsed it himself, in his book _Mormon Doctrine_, which is _not_ in fact an encyclopedia of doctrine, and never was, and could more appropriately been titled _The gospel according to Bruce R. McConkie_. After the 1978 revelation, which was an enormous relief to LDS members, McConkie said: > [@](#): > > There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things. . . . All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles. --(August 1978) What McConkie said is an illustration of a key theme in LDS thought: that current revelation and the current prophet’s teachings trump any past teachings on the subject. As we gradually try to overcome the darkness and ignorance that piled up in the past (and which keeps doing so), we try to get new light and knowledge that will help us progress further. In other words, sometimes even apostles and prophets have wrong opinions, and as we learn more, we have to forget those and keep learning (rather than clinging to wrong belief). The corollary to this is that we undoubtedly have some ideas now that are quite wrong and which will horrify everyone in 50 or 100 years. It then becomes our job to figure out where we are going wrong and fix it. LDS thought is one of continual purification of doctrine, and rooting out of wrong ideas–it is an ongoing process that continually fights against the natural human instinct to make up neat-sounding stories and believe them. Now, some here have said that I am repudiating the doctrine of eternal progression. I have done no such thing. I do believe in eternal progression; as I said in the first part of this thread, we take the promise that we will be joint-heirs of Christ seriously. All I have done is to say that there is not a lot of concrete knowledge about the early origins of God and about our eventual destination. Personally I do believe the King Follett sermon; however, it was my intention to show that those details are not very well-understood or a matter that is dealt with in scripture. As much as I like the King Follett sermon, it is not considered scripture; it’s a teaching of Joseph Smith that we don’t necessarily understand very well, and not one which is “required” for baptism or temple worship. He knew a lot more than he ever said, and sometimes he said things that show that and give hints to something we have no clue about. In such cases it’s often better to leave it alone and not try to elaborate–we know what we need to in order to get through the day, and it’s not profitable to spend time in speculation. So, off to the library. I hope you all had a lovely weekend, as I did. (See my thread in Cafe Society to see what I got! 😉 ) ---
**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:** [January 11, 2007, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/127 "2007-01-11T14:05:23Z")
Look what happens: you go away for two weeks and the tread dies. I don’t know if **dangermom** is still around, but the reasoning was such as I had to respond. My apologies for the delay, but we didn’t have internet connections in either Taiwan or Vietnam. [QUOTE=dangermom] The one about black people and the pre-mortal existence was a particularly pernicious one, and serves as a spectacular example of why speculation can be harmful. The funny, and sad, thing is that it arose from a non-racist instinct; people couldn’t figure out why blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood (since they were clearly perfectly nice people and not personally unworthy), and came up with a “reason” that could be attributed to behavior before birth. [/quote] I don’t know if this is a deliberate spin on the black mark on Mormonism (pun unintended); simple, but gross ignorance of Mormon history, or life in an alternative universe, but this leaves me speechless. The only possible way in which any part of the above paragraph could resemble reality would be to substitute “prophets of God” for “people”. Then you have to delete the part about the “non-racist instinct” and the whole parenthetical thing. From prophets starting with Brigham Young: > [@](#): > > “You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, DISAGREEABLE and LOW in their habits, WILD, and seemingly DEPRIVED OF NEARLY ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race – that they should be the “servants of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.” LDS “Prophet” Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added. John Taylor (successor to BY) > [@](#): > > “And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that THE DEVIL SHOULD HAVE A REPRESENTATION UPON THE EARTH as well as God…” LDS “Prophet” John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, p. 304, 1881, emphasis added. And the scriptures: > [@](#): > > “And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all people, SAVE IT WERE THE PEOPLE OF CANAAN, to repent.” LDS Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:12, emphasis added. Golly, as we used to say as missionaries, this is too easy. OK, but what about more recent prophets. Let’s look at Joseph Fielding Smith, the President of the Church from with I was nine years old: > [@](#): > > “Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became THE FATHER OF AN INFERIOR RACE. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so WHILE TIME ENDURES. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a BLACK SKIN and have been DENIED THE PRIVILEGE OF PRIESTHOOD and the fulness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to FEEL THEIR INFERIORITY and have been SEPARATED from the rest of mankind from the beginning. Enoch saw the people of Canaan, descendants of Cain, and he says, ‘and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were DESPISED AMONG ALL PEOPLE.’” LDS “Prophet” Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pp. 101-102, 1931, emphasis added. Again, the same author JOSPEH FIELDING SMITH Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66. > [@](#): > > "There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits. This attempt to spin the clear teachings of numerous prophets and apostles into well-meaning but misguided thoughts of ordinary members sums up the level of comprehension of the church by the OP. If I were in court, I think I’d rest my case here. > [@Dangermom](#): > > Yes, Bruce R. McConkie endorsed it himself, in his book _Mormon Doctrine_, which is _not_ in fact an encyclopedia of doctrine, and never was, and could more appropriately been titled _The gospel according to Bruce R. McConkie_. As an aside, why would it fall on an apostle to write this book? The reason is that the Church itself more often than not refuses to clarify its teachings. However, that said, on this subject Bruce R. McConkie is not the author of these teaching, but was simply repeating the prophets and apostles. It would not have been acceptable for him to deviate from the party line. > [@](#): > > After the 1978 revelation, which was an enormous relief to LDS members, obviously you weren’t living in Salt Lake at the time. I was in high school and must have missed the parades. > [@](#): > > LDS thought is one of continual purification of doctrine, and rooting out of wrong ideas–it is an ongoing process that continually fights against the natural human instinct to make up neat-sounding stories and believe them. All right. Somewhere that we can both agree. This is one of the difficulties of the Mormon Church, which is to attempt to shake all the wrong ideas, with the added difficulty that the very people who are making up neat-sounding stories are the so-called prophets of the Lord. Who then to believe? If Brother Brigham can’t get it right about the blacks being as intelligent as the wonderful “white and pure” race, what else did he miss the bus on? (OK, bonus points to those who answered his most infamous teaching “God = Adam”.) Sure, the standard Mormon line is that prophets are humans too, and they are products of their times yada, yada, yada, but if in all the years Brigham Young was talking to God, this couldn’t have come up once or twice? It’s not like all American despised blacks at the time. You get the apostles, including Mark E. Peterson, an apostle of my youth, publishing racist statements through the 50s and 60s. So what’s the deal? God cares quicker that people don’t pollute their bodies with coffee (revelation 1833) than they shouldn’t withhold blessings from a race of people (1978). OK, I understand that being a god means you’re really busy, but does it take 145 years to come around to civil rights? It certainly took plenty of time to update basic gender relationships and as long to look at sexual abuse. My mother was telling me about a conversation she had with my older brother (still a Mormon) about the sexual abuse within our family in the 70s, and the Church’s non-answer to it at the time. Their comments was that it was it would have been handled differently now. Moral of the story? It’s OK to be behind of the curve on social issues in you are divinely inspired. > [@](#): > > Now, some here have said that I am repudiating the doctrine of eternal progression. I have done no such thing. I do believe in eternal progression; as I said in the first part of this thread, we take the promise that we will be joint-heirs of Christ seriously. All I have done is to say that there is not a lot of concrete knowledge about the early origins of God and about our eventual destination. Personally I do believe the King Follett sermon; however, it was my intention to show that those details are not very well-understood or a matter that is dealt with in scripture. > > As much as I like the King Follett sermon, it is not considered scripture; it’s a teaching of Joseph Smith that we don’t necessarily understand very well, and not one which is “required” for baptism or temple worship. > > He knew a lot more than he ever said, and sometimes he said things that show that and give hints to something we have no clue about. In such cases it’s often better to leave it alone and not try to elaborate–we know what we need to in order to get through the day, and it’s not profitable to spend time in speculation. Why don’t we let the teaming masses decide? Here is part of the speech in question, by Joseph Smith. (Full text here) [Mormon Literature Sampler: The King Follett Discourse](http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm) > [@](#): > > I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him. And if I can bring you to him, all persecutions against me will cease; you will know that I am his servant, for I speak as one having authority. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear all ye ends of the earth; for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and I am going to tell you the designs of God for the human race and why he interferes with the affairs of man. > First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another. > In order to understand the subject of the dead for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary they should understand the character and being of God; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible. If **Dangermom** has forgotten her response to the question if God was ever a man, let’s look at it again: > [@](#): > > On the whole, yes, we think so–but it wouldn’t shatter our world to find that someone got a little carried away with the speculation, either. Further qualifications are above, but I think it can be reasonably argued that this is a clear teaching as anything Joseph Smith gave us. So when questioned, what is so difficult about saying that yes, indeed, the Mormon Church believes that God was once like us? Why the need to spin? Why hide this or is this yet one more teaching when the [del]neat-sounding-story-makers[/del] modern prophets of God can’t quite get right? Who knows, maybe God will decide someday that it doesn’t really matter if women have more than one pair of earrings, but until then, this is still the word. With this track record, I’m not holding my breath waiting for Him to reconsider if guys can also pierce their ears or why one’s eternal fate should do depend on not having two sets of earrings. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Joe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@Evil\_Joe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Joe)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/128 "2007-01-12T04:58:56Z")
I always wanted to know what the “magic underwear” they wear looks like. ---
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/129 "2007-01-12T12:43:18Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Joe] I always wanted to know what the “magic underwear” they wear looks like. [/QUOTE] I wore them for over a decade. It’s available in in either one-piece or (much more popular) two piece versions. In both cases, the garment comes to the knee and just past the shoulder (more or less like a regular t-shirt in cut and fit). They are always white, except for special green ones for people in the military. The true distinguishing feature of the LDS temple garment is the four marks stitched into it: one on each breast, one at the belly button and one on the knee. The shape and significance of the marks has to do with the endowment ceremony LDS members participate in. You could probably find more detail on Wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/130 "2007-01-12T12:48:08Z")
[QUOTE=dangermom] **2. One of the more problematic constructs of the Book of Mormon is that the Indians (native Americans) were of Hebraic origin. Do you accept this tenet?** I think you may be misunderstanding the information we have—as, indeed, Mormons have done as well. 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 is in fact not at all supported by the actual text, but it was quite easy to make the assumption at the time, given the usual Protestant and American attitudes of the time—and especially since one of the major geographical features in the BoM is a “narrow neck of land,” which can easily be taken to mean Panama (even though it’s not really very narrow, except in relative terms, if you’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. (You won’t really find Mormons arguing it or trying to find evidence for it, I mean.) 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. 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, it’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. [/QUOTE] All of this runs counter to the claim, in the introduction page to the Book of Mormon (the most recent version, as well as every version of my lifetime), that the descendants of Lehi are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Any attempt to say, “well, maybe there were already lots of people here,” or “we can’t expect to find any DNA evidence,” is pretty clearly contradicted by the BoM itself. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Joe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@Evil\_Joe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Joe)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/131 "2007-01-12T13:30:07Z")
[QUOTE=OneCentStamp] I wore them for over a decade. It’s available in in either one-piece or (much more popular) two piece versions. In both cases, the garment comes to the knee and just past the shoulder (more or less like a regular t-shirt in cut and fit). They are always white, except for special green ones for people in the military. The true distinguishing feature of the LDS temple garment is the four marks stitched into it: one on each breast, one at the belly button and one on the knee. The shape and significance of the marks has to do with the endowment ceremony LDS members participate in. You could probably find more detail on Wikipedia. [/QUOTE] Thanks for that, I did look on wiki as you suggested and it is interesting! I had mormon friends in high school and in gym class I wonder how did they wear little gym shorts without the undies sticking out? Do you take them off for certain activities like exercising? ---
**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:** [January 12, 2007, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/132 "2007-01-12T13:38:40Z")
People don’t get these until they go through the temple, which is a minimum age of 19 for guys, if they go on a mission. Women can’t go on missions until 21, if they aren’t married by then, as the instructions used to be specifically stated and can go then (or whenever they get married). I’m sure by now that they’ve solved the problem of women who aren’t either married or on a mission at 21. ---
**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:** [January 12, 2007, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/133 "2007-01-12T13:59:56Z")
[QUOTE=OneCentStamp] All of this runs counter to the claim, in the introduction page to the Book of Mormon (the most recent version, as well as every version of my lifetime), that the descendants of Lehi are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. Any attempt to say, “well, maybe there were already lots of people here,” or “we can’t expect to find any DNA evidence,” is pretty clearly contradicted by the BoM itself. [/QUOTE] Oh, sure, this is one of funniest things which came out of our sanitized thread. The whole Mormon experience through the early 80s, when I bailed was believing that the all the Indians were descendants of the Lehi. All the prophets from Joseph Smith on have taught it. Not a single one has signed on to the limited geography model, and yet for our Mormon friend here to write off 170 years of doctrine by claiming that this was a product of “people” not thinking enough goes beyond absurd. **Dangermom** knows less about Mormon history and traditional Mormon teaching than an average Google searcher could find in a few minutes. At the very least, she should avoid using an authoritarian “we” to tag beliefs which could have had her excommunicated in the 70s. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2007, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/134 "2007-01-12T18:57:47Z")
Oh hey, there, sorry, didn’t see the resurrection. Sorry if you don’t like my beliefs; they’re shared by a lot of people. Bruce R. McConkie wasn’t an apostle when he wrote _Mormon Doctrine_, and the Apostles at the time weren’t necessarily thrilled with the book. I can see you’re doing fine without me, and I’m crazy busy right now, so have fun. 🙂 ---
**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:** [January 15, 2007, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140/135 "2007-01-15T13:37:39Z")
The question is not if I like or dislike your beliefs. The question is if the beliefs or the arguments are honest or not. I and others have pointed out a number of discrepancies and spins in your posts, and your failure to address them in noted. Next, the argument that McConkie was or wasn’t an apostle when he wrote Mormon Doctrine is a red herring. OK, he wasn’t an apostle yet, but he was a General Authority, which placed him in the top 23 leaders of the church, instead of being in the top 15. For the question at hand, i.e., blacks in the preexistence, it matter not one whit. As previously noted and ignored, he was repeating doctrine which numerous prophets and apostles had taught. Lastly, I’m just so completely impressed that many people share your beliefs. That makes me want to rejoin the Church. Of course, that will have to be after I join the Catholic Church, since so many more people who share those beliefs. If we are to judge things on a popularity contest, I guess you’ll have to wait in line for a while. For **Evil Joe** , there’s an interesting story why the Mormon garments, as the underwear is called, is thought to have special powers. Incorporating Mason signs, the originally were a reminder of the death oaths the select early Mormons made to protect the secrecy of polygamy. When Joseph Smith was taken to jail, with several others, and then shot by a mob. He and his brother Hyrum were not wearing their garments, and died. John Taylor, also shot, was wearing his garments and survived. From that, in words of **Dangermom** we have a “neat-sounding” story which says that these garments have powers to protect the wearer. Note that this is not an official teaching of the Church, if we follow **Dangermom’s** standards. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lds-theology-questions-thread/385140.md?page=6)