note, if any of this is historically inacurate let me know as the answer to the question, as well as mispelled words
1)Why would you feel the need to baptize a dead person, if they wanted to be baptized LDS wouldnt they have done that before their death?
2)Wheres the physical proof that any of the Nephites existed…anywhere (other than the BoM)
3)Is a man (Joseph/Hyrum Smith) still considered a Martry if they killed people in the process of their own death (shootout at the jail)
4)Why would a man who taught the horrors of Alcohol want a Liquor License issued by the State of Illinois to serve alcohol in his home? (Joseph Smith)
5)Why did Joseph Smith need the tablets when he didnt even look at them to interpret them, he looked at (i cannot recall the LDS name for it) “a stone” in a hat?
6)why weren’t the tablets written in Hebrew?
7)Polygamy is now denounced by the church (as a condition for Utah to become a state Polygamy had to be illegal) how do you justify J.S. and others like B. Young?
8)Wasn’t there a passage in the BoM that said that african americans had the mark of cain (hence their skin color) and were evil?
some help here with just a few of the questions i’ve been pondering, thanks.
I never got this either. One can understand if somebody was going to get baptised, but carked it before they could get baptised. Thus a bit of posthumous baptism wouldn’t go a stray.
I remember seeing a photograph of a so called ancient painting which was suppose to offer “proof”. But since that photo was at the beginning of my copy of the Book of Mormon. I wouldn’t call it concrete by any means.
Though if proof should exist, it would be in New York State somewhere.
Different times produce different pragmatics. Of course not everybody recognises the changes. Hense the Fundamentalist LDS Church.
Brigham Young was once quoted as saying to a 14 year old girl she wouldn’t get into heaven if she didn’t marry him. Personally I think BY was a mysoginist and sexual pervert.
The Lamanites where suppose to turn black due to there wickedness and murmuring (geez… I hate that word “murmuring”) against God.
African Americans where then interpreted by Brigham Young (a slave owner) to be Lamanites. Thus wicked.
This actually went against Joseph Smiths beliefs (JS was an abolitionsit who supported brining African-Americans into the church). That alones showed the sharp direction the church took after BY succeeded as leader.
This is mainly my own interpretation. Others might have better knowledge on the said issues.
The question is, why wasn’t it in the language of the Ancient Eygptians? The Jews in 600 BC at the time that Lehi took his family and left Jerusalem where heavily influenced by the Egyptians and the Book of Mormon even mentions the use of the “language of the Egyptians.”
Isn’t this the wrong forum to be asking factual questions?
Since the Mormon’s believe in, do practice, or have practiced, all of the things you listed, I am quite certain that they have solid reasons for doing so. You can find all of these reasons on a web search. You can also find Mormon hate sites on a web search if you are looking for reasons why them doing those things are stupid.
“Reformed Egyptian”–I may be completely wrong on this, but I remember seeing somewhere that it was like writing the Hebrew language transliterated into Egyptian writing, because it took up less room or something. But then I don’t know much about Hebrew or Egyptian.
In which the eternal optimist Shodan assumes that the questions are serious.
Spell check is your friend. Use it, value it, live it.
I believe the idea is to baptize people for whom Mormon baptism was not an option - that this was before the LDS church was founded. Looked at from that point of view, Mormons are doing Gentiles a favor. Why do I suspect you already knew that?
None that I am aware of. No genetic relations have been established between American Indians and the tribes of the Middle East, and I don’t know of any archaeological finds of the civilizations that the Book of Mormon says were there.
Apparently so. Perhaps Mormons don’t see firing back at a lynch mob as a disqualifier for martyrdom.
No idea. When was this license issued, and what use was made of it?
Probably “scrying stone”. I thought he was reading the plates with the goggles, so both parts were necessary parts of the system.
Don’t know - why would the angel necessarily be limited only to that language?
Different revelation. The President of the LDS church is considered the chief prophet of the church, and receives new revelations from time to time as their theology develops.
I suppose it would be similar to the difference between the Hebrew patriarchs, like Abraham and Solomon, and the New Testament injunction that a bishop in the Christian church should be the husband of one wife.
See above. Another different revelation.
IANAM. None of this should be construed as official LDS doctrine.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ShatnerOlogy *
Card-carrying Mormon checking in…
Asked and answered in several other places. Here for one.
The book doesn’t list any locations which can be positively identified today, so a simple comparison between what is found vs. what is described is not possible. Mesoamerican archaeology is still in its infancy, but dangermom posted a pretty good summary here about research about Book of Mormon historicity (using archaeology, textual analysis, etc.).
Is there a reason why he shouldn’t?
Joseph Smith didn’t teach about the “horrors of alcohol”. Indeed, the Lord himself drank wine. Perhaps you’re misunderstanding the Word of Wisdom? Or perhaps you were unaware that total abstinance from alcohol wasn’t considered necessary until long after Joseph Smith’s death?
Moses had tablets. Joseph Smith had plates. Learn it. Remember it. AFAIK, no LDS source ever refers to the plates as tablets. Hence, calling them such is usually the mark of someone who hasn’t even done rudimentary research on the topic (like reading any LDS source about the plates).
Polygamy is not denounced. It is not permitted currently. As to the motivation of Wilford Woodruff (LDS president when polygamy was officially discontinued), see here.
Probably because they were never introduced to Mormonism. A lot of “baptism for the dead” candidates are relatives of existing members, found through geneology research… many of whom died before Mormonism existed. I recall being baptised for people who lived in the 1500s.
If you’re referring to the Gold Plates when you say “tablets”, then you’re wrong. Ol’ Joey did, indeed, “read” from said plates, according to lore. He used the “stones” Urim and Thummim for translation, in some unexplained manner.
Because language isn’t static. The plates were compiled by Moroni, centuries after Lehi, Nephi, and Co. supposedly left Israel.
If I recall my Mormon history correctly, most converts were women. This left an overwhelming number of women with no men to take care of them. I think the idea of making many little Mormonlings probably came into consideration, too… easier to birth 'em then convert 'em, y’know.
I misdoubt if the OP-er will be back to defend his “questions”, but the exclusions of blacks from the Mormon priesthood goes back to passages like 2 Nephi 5:21 -
Or Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pg. 290-291 -
It wasn’t always so. On March 6, 1978, Spencer Kimball received a revelation that blacks could become full members of the Mormon church.
Seems most all of the questions have been answered. Just wanted to add this tidbit for completion.
The mark of cain/blacks are evil thing goes beyond just Mormonism. This was an accepted tenet of most Protestant denominations at one time or another; it just lasted a lot longer in the LDS church.
vanilla, your stating a question doesn’t require an answer. Indeed, I recall a few times in the past where you intentionally avoiding answering my questions. That said, the OP was obviously not really interested in answers, but only in stirring things up. Hence, I answered factually with no intent to elaborate. There is nothing about it in the Book of Mormon (in spite of Shodan’s quote).
Indeed, there is AFAIK no official statement that established the policy of Blacks not receiving the priesthood. Indeed, I was under the impression that it was generally accepted that Joseph Smith ordained at least one black man to the priesthood.
side note: Shodan, your Journal of Discourses cite is wrong. The quote is found in vol. 10, pp.110-111.
Most of the statements that are on record by LDS (including the quote by Shodan, made during the Civil War) were made during times of racial stress before and during the Civil War. Sadly, many members made up racist speculations to justify the policy.
Oh, and SPOOFE,
Not true. AFAIK there was no significant disparity in the sizes of the male/female population of LDS in early Utah.
Pardon the confusion. I wasn’t saying that the quote was incorrect, rather that it isn’t germane. The quote refers to a change of skin color as a method of distinction between two peoples, and has nothing to do with priesthood. Indeed, if that were one of the verses cited for the policy, there would have been restrictions on Native Americans holding the priesthood as well, yet there were none.
