The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Great Debates
161

Wonderful questions, cj! And you even asked them on this thread (instead of the ‘fundie’ one)!

Why was another set of scriptures…needed?
We believe that God is willing to keep telling us things. The BoM, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price all represent scripture given to the world at various times to add to the Bible so that we can keep learning. The BoM people did not have the NT; they wrote down their experiences with Christ, and that has been passed to us so that we can know more of the story.

There is always more to learn. We believe that God will tell us more, and that more will be revealed. We think that there is other scripture given to other people in the world, perhaps lost, which we do not have yet (to answer your Korea/Australia question), and which we hope to have someday. The relevant Article of Faith reads: 9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

The Bible is great–we just don’t think that God has written the last word. We want all the scripture we can get.

As for why it took so long, we think (as you probably know) that the early Christians fell away from the true gospel after a little while, and lost priesthood authority. Luther and other reformers tried to bring it back, which we certainly honor them for. But the world just wasn’t ready for the Restoration until the 19th century–imagine what would have happened to a Joseph Smith in, say, 15th century France. Even in the US, where religious freedom was supposed to be guaranteed and oddball churches were springing up like weeds, the early Mormons were hounded and persecuted.

Please explain proxy baptism more fully.
First, let’s look at the famous 1 Cor. 15:29, which reads: 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
So we can see that Paul mentions it as an accepted practice in the early Church. And here’s why:

a) Not everyone who has ever lived on earth has had the opportunity to accept Christ as Savior. If this life is the only time we get to do that, then a lot of people are not saved, simply because they were never taught the gospel. This is not very fair, is it?

b) We believe that baptism is necessary for salvation (Mark 16: 16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned), and that furthermore, baptism must be performed by the authority of the priesthood. Problem: many people have not been baptized, and even more have not been baptized with authority.

So. We have proxy baptism for the dead. We believe that so far, those who have died have not yet been judged for eternity (Judgement Day, at the end, has not yet occured); they are in the spirit world, where they either have the opportunity to learn more of the gospel, or to teach more of it. All of these people have free agency, of course, and may accept or reject what they have been taught. But they have no bodies–and baptism being a physical ordinance, it has to be done by a living person with a body. So we do it for them, and then they may choose whether or not to accept it and progress. Apparently, the early Christians felt similarly.

It may help you to understand that we don’t see what we’re doing as trying to get them to conform to Mormonism specifically (as you might try to get someone to be a Baptist vs. an Episcopalian here on earth). It’s a simpler question of the gospel of Christ, or not. Obviously you’re not going to agree with it, but that’s how we see it.

As a matter of fact, you don’t have to agree with me to be a good person. So there. :stuck_out_tongue:

162

genie, you do realize that most christians believe all chrisitians have authority to baptise anyone.
I mean, theres no proof that only the LDS church has authority, its all a matter of who says what.
No offense intended, but you see my point.

163

Actually, that’s not quite true, vanilla. Orthodox and Catholics won’t accept most other baptisms, and that’s a pretty huge chunk right there. Do Baptists accept Catholic baptisms? I bet not.

Of course I realize that other churches feel that they have authority to baptize. CJ asked about out beliefs, not others’. She knows about those.

164

I have a question for the LDS folks: where is the archeological evidence for the events of the BoM? From religioustolerance.org:

I mean, instead of “How!”, shouldn’t Native Americans say “Shalom!”? (Sorry–it’s a tad facetious, but I couldn’t resist.)

165

Genie, actually the RCC is pretty accepting of what constitutes a valid baptism (I can’t speak to other traditions, but I suspect that most Protestants recognize each other’s baptisms to be valid as well.) According to this page,

The minister of baptism is usually a priest or deacon, but in an emergency anybody, believer or not, Catholic or not, may perform the baptism. Last year’s decision regarding LDS baptisms has to do with a failure of intent, in that the LDS understanding of baptism and the nature of God differs so much from the Catholic understanding that the intent to “baptize as the Church intends” is not present.

Using numbers from Adherents.com, and a list of denominations whose baptisms are considered invalid by the Catholic Church (class notes about the Sacraments of Initiation from a Franciscan theology professor), it looks like about 92% of baptisms are recognized as valid by the RCC. Some other groups besides LDS whose baptisms are considered invalid are Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and some Pentecostal groups.

166

A few quick questions.

I was talking to a buddy last week and he mentioned that he had been visited by several (I think) Mormon priests because his parents hadn’t heard from him in a couple of weeks and they wanted to make sure he was OK. He apparently was a bit surprised by this and was smoking a cigarette when he opened the door. The implication being that cigarette smoking is a no-no. Is this correct? And if so, is it discouraged or actually forbidden, or perhaps something that must be given up as part of qualifying for a temple recommend?

My friend referred to himself as a “Jack” Mormon (meaning lapsed or non-practicing). What is the origin of “Jack” in this regard?

Since I had read this thread, I knew about temple recommends and asked if he had one of those. He said that he had never gotten one because he wasn’t tithing his 10% at the time (age 18) and so didn’t qualify. He also mentioned that you have to show W2’s to “prove” that you were tithing enough. I found that interesting and just wonder how much “trust” the church puts in their members as opposed to requiring “proof” of whatever requirements are necessary.

No offense intended by these questions and feel free to ignore if they’re not appropriate.

167

OK, this is going to get very long. So I’ll start by saying that I really don’t know much about this, as I explained to FoL above, because this is not my area of interest. But I’ve been looking around a bit, and since I read a lot, I’m probably better equipped than some Mormons to deal with this, though I know several who would be better. But they’re not here.

So first, some good websites:FARMS is the organization that does this kind of research, esp. in America, Israel, and Egypt. This page contains papers on the BoM, and the top essay is quite interesting. I encourage you to read it, if you’re interested in knowing about recent research in these areas.
www.jefflindsay.org , as above, has several good FAQs on various LDS subjects, including archaeology. There are some interesting pictures featured, which connect with the essay on the FARMS site.

And now…

I explained earlier in this thread some of the reasons why this won’t work. Here is a more comprehensive layout (paraphrased from “The problematic role of DNA testing in unraveling human history,” New light column, Journal of Book of Mormon studies (JBMS), v.9, n.2, 2000). I would prefer a direct link, but you have to be a subscriber to FARMS to access it online.

–Lehi and co. left Jerusalem ~2,600 years ago. There were a total of five ancestors for his group–Lehi, Ishmael, their wives, and Zoram. Plus or minus any servants they may or may not have had, who may or may not have been Jewish. Over time, the biological characteristics of both the Lehi and the Jewish groups would have changed, perhaps dramatically. If any of Lehi’s group were not ‘typical’ of the Jews in Jerusalem in their day (can 5 be typical of thousands?), then that would skew their descendants’ characteristics. In addition, it’s apparent that the Nephites and Lamanites were never large groups, but small ones that grafted themselves onto the larger culture they found there. They would have almost melted into the larger group–much as we can see Jews did in the Old World.

–We don’t really know what the Jews of Lehi’s day looked like. The Babylonian conquest and other crises killed off huge numbers of them, and groups since have adapted to their surroundings. What is a ‘typical’ Jew of today? The Ashkenazim, who descend from a relatively small group of Jews who settled in Poland and intermarried? The Falasha Ethiopian Jews, who look African? The blond, blue-eyed ones? The redheads? There isn’t really any way to select a group of modern Jews and define how they would be related to the Jews of Lehi’s day.

–Tombs and burials from that period are scarce, and rarely contain actual bones. Would modern Israeli Orthodox Jews look kindly on attempts to meddle with tomb sites?

–We don’t know where on the American continents the Nephites lived, or which modern group may be realted to them. In any case, as above, they were never a large part of any group, and got thoroughly mixed up with the natives they met. You would expect Native-looking Jews, not Jewish-looking Native Americans. Then, they killed most of their kindred off!

–DNA science is in its infancy. The first group of tests announced 3 distinct waves of immigration to the Americas. The next found 40. What’s next?

To sum up–the religioustolerance.org blurb hasn’t got a good handle on the complexity of the issues. In no way can this be termed a ‘migration.’ It’s just a tiny group of refugees, acclimating themselves into an already-inhabited land, over a couple of thousand years. In addition, modern Jews have acclimated to their various surroundings, taking on local characteristics as well.

So much for the first paragraph. I shall return.

168

I can answer those very quickly. The Word of Wisdom is a commandment, and part of it prohibits tobacco. ‘Jack’ is a common term and I think once meant the opposite of what it does today, but no one is sure of the origin, AFAIK.

Smoking would keep you from receiving a temple recommend, as would non-payment of tithing. (You go to the temple to make more covenants and keep more commandments; it would make no sense to commit to more when you’re not doing what you already have.) W2’s are not required, and would in fact be a physical impossiblity, since they arrive in March and a yearly tithing settlement is in December, 3 months earlier. People are simply asked to define themselves as full, partial, or non-tithe payers, and the answer is taken on trust. A receipt is then given, checked for accuracy, and taken home to be used for records and tax purposes, if desired. That’s it.

169

Thanks for the quick reply!

170

The term “Jack Mormon” came the same way “jackrabbit” appeared…well, not exactly. Early settlers in the west noticed the extraordinarily long ears and coined the term, “jackass rabbits,” which was later shortened. Jack Mormons also exhibit some of the characteristics of a mule. (i.e. kicking against the pricks).

OR

I’ve heard it said that just as jackrabbits aren’t true rabbits, Jack Mormons aren’t true Mormons.

In either case, Jack Mormons profess to be free-thinking individuals who actively question certain LDS policies, but may be viewed as insurrectionists by others of the church. As in any institution, there are those who cling obediently and blindly to the doctrines of the church and never think for themselves. Jack Mormons question too much for their own good and ought to rely more on faith. Most people, though fall happily in between.

171

I am admittedly ignorant on the beliefs of Mormons, but I have a question:

Is it true that Utah is the only state that offers the condemned the option of death by firing squad because the Mormon faith still subscribes to the notion of blood atonement?
I am open to any enlightenment somebody could give me on that subject.

172

No. During the infamous Mark Hoffman trial, members of the Church leadership were pressed to talk with Hoffman’s dad regarding that. Seems ol’ Pops thought that the church should practice blood atonement.

173

Another installment, this one probably much shorter, since I don’t happen to conveniently own an article about it.

Hill Cumorah first. An interesting statement from this FARMS paper:

Joseph Smith did not identify the hill as Cumorah; Oliver Cowdery did (and frequently made assertions about things he didn’t know a lot about). We don’t know that it’s the same hill; it’s fairly likely that it ain’t. We’re perfectly willing to believe that Moroni buried the plates in South America or some other place, and God moved them to New York so that Joseph Smith could get them easily. OTOH, Moroni states that he’s wandered around for 20+ years, so he’d have time to get to New York no matter where he started out. In addition, artifacts would probably look a lot like any NA artifacts–what they called swords could easily have been clubs or spears or some other weapon.

So. Ancient Native American towns. Which ones? Are we going to look in Guatemala, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, California, or New York? How do we know that any of those towns contained Lamanites, or that the Lamanite towns weren’t deserted? What if the Nephite towns are all under jungle now? What artifacts should we find? The BoM doesn’t mention stone buildings, btw, it mentions tents, wood, cement, and earthworks. It’s also apparent that there were lots of people living on their own in the country, family by family.

Horses. We don’t know that they were horses. It’s a common trait of all immigrants to name local animals/plants/places after things in their own country. What they called horses (or simply used the old symbol for ‘horse’ in writing) may have been llamas, buffalo (oops; they’re really bison, aren’t they?), or some other animal. We don’t know; but it’s an interesting point that the horses mentioned are not ridden or used in the way people use horses. BoM people walk everywhere. In addition, there are places on earth where we know horses to have lived in huge numbers–the Huns’ territory, for example–and yet we find little or no evidence of horse remains there (same FARMS article as above).

Old World plants. Which ones? The BoM does not claim that grapes or olives existed in the New World; they only used them as allegorical examples, as the Torah authors did. Barley was, in fact, in use by Pre-Columbian peoples in America, though it wasn’t the kind we know now. Other old terms may have been applied to new plants, the way we now call maize corn, while in England corn is wheat or other grain.

Chariots and metal objects. First, you may want to keep in mind that near the end of the BoM, a curse is described which causes tools and other metal objects to be lost. Improbable, you may say, but then so is all the rest of this, neh? Otherwise, it still seems that metal wasn’t all that common. What we assume were metal swords and weapons could have been flint, wood, or something else. I’ve read descriptions of how Nephi could have had the knowledge and means to smelt metal in a primitive sort of way. But on the whole, I don’t know much about this, so you’ll have to ask someone else. I’m not omniscient (yet).

Another interesting quote from another FARMS paper:

One might, if one had identified a Nephite town, and knew the language they used for public writing, and expected it to be a Hebraic one. There is ample reason to think that the writing used for the BoM and other records was specifically for that purpose, passed down to only a few people. It’s possible that the mass of BoM people were a) illiterate and b)using a different, local language. We also don’t know the old names for many Mesoamerican places; only the Spanish colonial names. Much has been lost.

I have read a short essay comparing BoM names and meanings with Central American ones, and it had some very interesting parallels. But it isn’t in a book I own or have access to.

Time for a break. Have you had enough, yet, gobear? I have several books I haven’t cracked open yet… :smiley:

174

Why do Mormons eschew crosses? The Cross seems to be a universal symbol of the Christian churches. yet, one will never find one in or on a mormon temple. The mormons claim to be christian-yet the lack of this symbol is puzzling.

175

Well, unless anyone stops me, I’m going to take over this thread.

Mormons don’t use symbols in general (though we’re very big on symbolism in certain places). We don’t have one for the LDS Church, the way the Methodists have a cross with a cloak, the Orthodox have their cross, Islam has a moon with a crescent, etc. This makes interfaith calendars a challenge. :slight_smile:

We prefer to celebrate Christ risen, rather than the cross imagery. We often find it too stark and painful an image to use in an everyday way. We don’t object to others using it particularly.

You may be interested to know that early Christians apparently didn’t use the cross symbol either–you won’t find it used for a few hundred years. They knew too well what a crucifixion death was like. Or so I hear–I’ve tried to find the book where I read that, and can’t, so I can’t back it up.

176

No offense, Genie, but it sounds like I’m going to get the same special pleading and recourse to miracles that the fundamentalists whip out when queried about the Flood. Thanks, but I’ll sit this one out.

177

The missing pages constitute the “Book of Lehi”, pages which were feared lost and, rather than risk the possibility of someone using the pilfered pages to pre-emptively trash the BoM, were excluded from the rest of the book.

I dunno. Probably because it never caught on as a tradition of the church. Probably because, since there was never any commandment to include a cross in their worship, they never bothered.

Although I’m willing to bet that they ignored crosses to differentiate between what they called the “true religion” and, well, everyone else.

As for Gobear’s question… as far as I know, assuming the events described in the BoM to be true doesn’t exclude the possibility of other peoples coming to America by a different route (the “land bridge” between Russia and Alaska, for instance).

The snag comes from the fact that, assuming that the events in the BoM are accurate, the Nephites and Lamanites should have come across some of the other peoples that already lived in the Americas. Granted, there is a possibility that they went about their business and just happened to avoid attracting attention… and consider that we don’t know where, specifically, the events of the BoM took place. I’ve heard one theory that the Nephites and Lamanites settled near the Yucatan peninsula, and another theory that they lived in Colombia. But I don’t know.

178

More or less, although I consider it all the more plausible to assume that God moved a book a couple thousand miles so some kid could translate it than to assume that God made Noah’s ark transcend three-dimensional space so that he could fit all the animals on it.

'Course, there’s a reason I ditched the Mormon church to begin with… but I still find it fascinating.

179

Well, gobear, what exactly did you expect? I mean, this is a book that we claim was given to a hick boy by an angel, and was then translated by the power of God. Miracles are kind of par for the course here.

If you don’t want to discuss anymore, that’s fine, it was fun.

180

Joseph Smith Jr wasn’t “some kid” at the time he purportedly translated the Plates.