Questions about the LDS (Mormon) faith

[Kristiana]

I'm the Relief Society secretary, and I've never ever served in RS before. I've hardly even BEEN to RS in the last 10+ years as I've been in Primary for nearly all of it. I have only a very vague idea of how RS runs. I'm looking forward to it--but I'm a little trepidatious too.

 

 

Congrats and good luck on your new calling! I was just released from that calling two weeks ago to go into Primary (and today I had to conduct, do sharing time, and the chorister and pianist were both not there--what a way to say, "Welcome to Primary!") Anyway, I loved being RS secretary. It really helped me get to know who everyone was.

 

And you're all doing a fabulous job on this thread! I looked in on Friday and there were only about 60 replies and I didn't have time to add anything and it was moving so fast! I take my time to think and type out responses and knew I couldn't keep up, but it's been fascinating to read, what, 500 replies now? :001_smile:

 

It's been fun to see who all of the LDS homeschoolers are though. I'm one too! But I don't visit the general board much these days.

[Forget-Me-Not]

So, here's my question: why do LDS usually refer to the Divine as "Heavenly Father" rather than "God?" Is this part of the family-centered-culture, or just tradition, or something else? I have always found this interesting. Thanks! :)

 

We refer to Him that way because He is the literal father of our spirits. :001_smile: We also refer to Him as God and God the Father.

[Ravin]

So...what are fast offerings?

 

Also, what day is family home evening? Is that uniform across the board, or does it vary from one ward or branch to another, or is it chosen by the individual family? My DD has a neighborhood friend who is LDS, and while she's gotten it through her head not to go knocking on their door on Sundays, I'd like to make sure she's not disrupting anything else important. Of course, I could just ask his mom...very nice lady, works full time but always seems to be in the kitchen when she was home. Last time I dropped by she was canning tomatoes.

[K in MI]

So...what are fast offerings?

 

Also, what day is family home evening? Is that uniform across the board, or does it vary from one ward or branch to another, or is it chosen by the individual family? My DD has a neighborhood friend who is LDS, and while she's gotten it through her head not to go knocking on their door on Sundays, I'd like to make sure she's not disrupting anything else important. Of course, I could just ask his mom...very nice lady, works full time but always seems to be in the kitchen when she was home. Last time I dropped by she was canning tomatoes.

 

I can help with this one!

 

Usually the first Sunday of each month, we have a fast & testimony meeting during church. We abstain from food and drink for 24 hours, and donate the cost of those meals as fast offerings. The money is used to help the needy in our congregations. Our Bishop determines who those needy are, and these funds are used in a very confidential way: other than the Bishop and the leader of our women's organization (Relief Society president), the receiver is the only one who knows. We are urged to be generous with these offerings.

During our church meeting on that Sunday, we share our testimonies of the gospel with our congregation.

 

Family Home Evening is Monday evening; this is standard throughout the church, no matter where one lives. It is really nice of you to be considerate of your friends' night.

[Xuzi]

I can help with this one!

 

Usually the first Sunday of each month, we have a fast & testimony meeting during church. We abstain from food and drink for 24 hours, and donate the cost of those meals as fast offerings. The money is used to help the needy in our congregations. Our Bishop determines who those needy are, and these funds are used in a very confidential way: other than the Bishop and the leader of our women's organization (Relief Society president), the receiver is the only one who knows. We are urged to be generous with these offerings.

During our church meeting on that Sunday, we share our testimonies of the gospel with our congregation.

 

Family Home Evening is Monday evening; this is standard throughout the church, no matter where one lives. It is really nice of you to be considerate of your friends' night.

To add on to the bolded, a family can choose to hold FHE any night of the week works best for them, but the "standard" is Monday. Meaning, it's the night most every one chooses, and it's the one night of the week that church leadership says absolutely NO church-related meetings or activities are to be planned. We're to be home with our families. Some church buildings that have electrical locking systems are even set up so that you cannot get into the building on Monday nights. So basically, if anything is going to interfere with an LDS family having FHE on Monday night, it's not going to be something from the church.

[MamaSheep]

So, here's my question: why do LDS usually refer to the Divine as "Heavenly Father" rather than "God?" Is this part of the family-centered-culture, or just tradition, or something else? I have always found this interesting. Thanks! :)

 

Sometimes we use "God" too. One reason I, personally, tend to use "Heavenly Father" is because it's more specific. "God" can apply to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, and can mean any of the three, or even the group of three collectively. So if I want to specify that I am speaking to, or about, the Father, I use Heavenly Father. Or sometimes, just "Father", when it's just me talking to Him. Kind of like I generally say "Jesus" or "Christ" when I'm referring to the Son, and "The Holy Ghost", or "The Spirit" when referring to that member of the Godhead. It's just more specific. I do often use "God" when I mean any or all of them generally. But there are a number of names and titles that are used to refer to Deity.

[Xuzi]

A question that was asked many many (I don't know HOW many) pages ago, about the possibility of "historical inaccuracies" in the Book of Mormon. The answer to that one is "We don't know". Because the people who kept the records that eventually becaome the Book of Mormon were completely wipped out, we don't know where they lived or who exactly their most likely decendents are, although it's assumed that (given a few centuries for blood lines to get all mixed up) that Native Americans (both North and South) likely have some Nephite and/or Lamanite blood in them.

 

All we know is that Lehi's family came from Jerusalem and settled in the Americas. North? South? Central? We don't know. They gave places names, and described "lands of many waters" and penninsulas and the like, but the names died with the people and were given new names by their new settlers. Also, lots and lots of ancient records from those lands were lost or destroyed either by the deterioration of age (it's not mostly dry desert like the Holy Land in the east!), or destroyed by the European Settlers who came many centuries later. We don't know if the remnants of the Book of Mormon peoples were absorbed in the Mayans or the Incas or what have you. It's a mystery that we don't know will ever be fully solved.

[MamaSheep]

A question that was asked many many (I don't know HOW many) pages ago, about the possibility of "historical inaccuracies" in the Book of Mormon. The answer to that one is "We don't know". Because the people who kept the records that eventually becaome the Book of Mormon were completely wipped out, we don't know where they lived or who exactly their most likely decendents are, although it's assumed that (given a few centuries for blood lines to get all mixed up) that Native Americans (both North and South) likely have some Nephite and/or Lamanite blood in them.

 

All we know is that Lehi's family came from Jerusalem and settled in the Americas. North? South? Central? We don't know. They gave places names, and described "lands of many waters" and penninsulas and the like, but the names died with the people and were given new names by their new settlers. Also, lots and lots of ancient records from those lands were lost or destroyed either by the deterioration of age (it's not mostly dry desert like the Holy Land in the east!), or destroyed by the European Settlers who came many centuries later. We don't know if the remnants of the Book of Mormon peoples were absorbed in the Mayans or the Incas or what have you. It's a mystery that we don't know will ever be fully solved.

 

Oh yeah, I remember that one buzzing past too. I don't think I'll go digging for it either. I just thought I'd mention that people interested in this sort of thing might enjoy poking around at this website. It's put together by an LDS guy, but is not an official church-sanctioned site.

 

Link: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

(sorry, I'm on my old clunker of a laptop because my regular machine's video card died, and it doesn't seem to want to give me the link window....grrr...)

[Xuzi]

Oh yeah, I remember that one buzzing past too. I don't think I'll go digging for it either. I just thought I'd mention that people interested in this sort of thing might enjoy poking around at this website. It's put together by an LDS guy, but is not an official church-sanctioned site.

 

Link: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

(sorry, I'm on my old clunker of a laptop because my regular machine's video card died, and it doesn't seem to want to give me the link window....grrr...)

That's a good website. :) I should also add that it doesn't typically bother most Mormons that there isn't a whole lot of science or official history that verifies the Book of Mormon account. Our knowledge of history changes every day, as does science, so who knows what may be discovered in the future, and it's not in the knowledge of men that our Testimony lies. The Witness of the Holy Spirit is where we learn the Truth. :)

[Love2Smile]

I used to live across the street from a nice Mormon family and I remember they could not do ANYTHING on Sunday except go to Church. No birthday parties, sports, shopping, no TV, no phones, nothing. Seems a bit extreme.

 

Also, why do Mormon eat so many sweets and candy. Is it because they can't "do" anything else like coffee, etc?

[mytwomonkeys]

I can help with this one!

 

Usually the first Sunday of each month, we have a fast & testimony meeting during church. We abstain from food and drink for 24 hours, and donate the cost of those meals as fast offerings. The money is used to help the needy in our congregations. Our Bishop determines who those needy are, and these funds are used in a very confidential way: other than the Bishop and the leader of our women's organization (Relief Society president), the receiver is the only one who knows. We are urged to be generous with these offerings.

During our church meeting on that Sunday, we share our testimonies of the gospel with our congregation.

.

 

this is seriously a fabulous idea!!!!!

[Xuzi]

I used to live across the street from a nice Mormon family and I remember they could not do ANYTHING on Sunday except go to Church. No birthday parties, sports, shopping, no TV, no phones, nothing. Seems a bit extreme.

 

Also, why do Mormon eat so many sweets and candy. Is it because they can't "do" anything else like coffee, etc?

The Sunday observance is a family-by-family thing. I had one friend growing up who wasn't even allowed to do laundry on Sundays (that was "work" and therefore breaking the Sabbath), but my family did laundry and other housework often on Sundays. Sometimes my dad would even mow the lawn in the winter if it was going to be his last chance to do it before the weather went sour. We also often had family parties, although not friend parties.

 

Many LDS families don't shop on Sundays as we don't want to contribute to other people's need to go to work on Sundays (presumably if they didn't have to work they could go to church :tongue_smilie:), but in Utah, where the population is majority LDS, you see a lot of full parking lots at the malls and grocery stores. ;) There are also many LDS members in careers where working on Sunday is *necessary*, whether or not people are out shopping (Doctors, police officers, emergency responders, etc.) and I've never seen any of them criticized for their work, and many members of church leadership have been involved in these careers (one of our current apostles is a retired heart surgeon).

 

Mainly though it's about keeping the day's focus on the Lord. Attending church, spending time with our families, taking advantage of the "day of rest" to feed our Spiritual selves and rest our physical selves for the week ahead. Sometimes work is necessary, but we're strongly encouraged to not work if it isn't.

 

And the candy thing? I didn't realize that was something unique to Mormonism. ;) I've seen some Mormons who eat a lot of candy, and I've also seen some (many in my ward) who are very much into a "whole foods" lifestyle. There's even 3 women in my ward who make their own soy milk! Most of us don't miss coffee. :)

Edited January 4, 2011 by Xuzi

[MamaSheep]

The Sunday observance is a family-by-family thing. I had one friend growing up who wasn't even allowed to do laundry on Sundays (that was "work" and therefore breaking the Sabbath), but my family did laundry and other housework often on Sundays. Sometimes my dad would even mow the lawn in the winter if it was going to be his last chance to do it before the weather went sour. We also often had family parties, although not friend parties.

 

Many LDS families don't shop on Sundays as we don't want to contribute to other people's need to go to work on Sundays (presumably if they didn't have to work they could go to church :tongue_smilie:), but in Utah, where the population is majority LDS, you see a lot of full parking lots at the malls and grocery stores. ;) There are also many LDS members in careers where working on Sunday is *necessary*, whether or not people are out shopping (Doctors, police officers, emergency responders, etc.) and I've never seen any of them criticized for their work, and many members of church leadership have been involved in these careers (one of our current apostles is a retired heart surgeon).

 

Mainly though it's about keeping the day's focus on the Lord. Attending church, spending time with our families, taking advantage of the "day of rest" to feed our Spiritual selves and rest our physical selves for the week ahead. Sometimes work is necessary, but we're strongly encouraged to not work if it isn't.

 

And the candy thing? I didn't realize that was something unique to Mormonism. ;) I've seen some Mormons who eat a lot of candy, and I've also seen some (many in my ward) who are very much into a "whole foods" lifestyle. There's even 3 women in my ward who make their own soy milk! Most of us don't miss coffee. :)

 

:iagree: Yep, that.

 

Frankly, just the smell of coffee nauseates me and I can't imagine putting that in my mouth. And someone once handed me a piece of cake at an office party that had (unbeknownst to me) been soaked in brandy. I thought something in it had spoiled. I don't feel deprived. I do have another Mormon friend with whom I joke about medicating with chocolate, but I don't think that's unique to Mormon culture (intentional understatement). I don't know how LDS candy consumption compares to non-LDS candy consumption, but I have never noticed it to be significantly higher. In fact, my experience has been that I meet more people in the LDS church who are very serious about whole grains and fresh veggies and healthy diet than outside the church. But that's totally subjective.

[MamaSheep]

this is seriously a fabulous idea!!!!!

 

One might even say "inspired". :D

Y'know, if one were LDS. :lol:

[Avila]

This is almost OT, but I just saw a movie about Emma Smith in the list on Netflix. Would this be a good thing to find out more about LDS or is this one of those movies made that distort your faith to sell more copies? I thought it sounded interesting, but I decided to ask one of you before I put it in the queue!

 

Thanks!

[meggie]

This is almost OT, but I just saw a movie about Emma Smith in the list on Netflix. Would this be a good thing to find out more about LDS or is this one of those movies made that distort your faith to sell more copies? I thought it sounded interesting, but I decided to ask one of you before I put it in the queue!

 

Thanks!

 

 

Is it called Emma Smith: My Story (this one)? If so, while it's not an "official LDS church" produced movie, it is very similar to the official church produced movie Joseph: Prophet of the Restoration that now plays on Temple Square. They had the same actors, director and a lot of footage pulled from Joseph and used in Emma. The story line is similar, but not the same. My husband worked on both and we enjoy both. And keep in mind that even the Joseph movie playing on Temple Square is historical fiction and not EVERYTHING actually happened. The same thing is true with the Emma movie.

[Melinda in VT]

This is almost OT, but I just saw a movie about Emma Smith in the list on Netflix. Would this be a good thing to find out more about LDS or is this one of those movies made that distort your faith to sell more copies? I thought it sounded interesting, but I decided to ask one of you before I put it in the queue!

 

Thanks!

 

Are you talking about "Emma Smith: My Story"?

 

If so, it's produced by Mormons. In fact, the director, the actor who plays Joseph and the actress who plays Emma are the same in this movie as in the movie about Joseph Smith that the LDS church shows at the Joseph Smith birthplace and several other church sites. (I have seen the movie at the birthplace. I haven't seen this one.)

 

Based on my viewing of the related movie, I would expect this one to present historical events in the light most favorable to Mormonism. Definitely not an "anti" movie.

 

ETA: I need to type faster. The previous poster beat me to it.

[Avila]

Are you talking about "Emma Smith: My Story"?

 

If so, it's produced by Mormons. In fact, the director, the actor who plays Joseph and the actress who plays Emma are the same in this movie as in the movie about Joseph Smith that the LDS church shows at the Joseph Smith birthplace and several other church sites. (I have seen the movie at the birthplace. I haven't seen this one.)

 

Based on my viewing of the related movie, I would expect this one to present historical events in the light most favorable to Mormonism. Definitely not an "anti" movie.

 

ETA: I need to type faster. The previous poster beat me to it.

 

Thanks to both of you! I love these kind of movies, but only when they are respectful.

[Xuzi]

Emma Smith (the person) is absolutely fascinating. I hope the movie does her justice! (I haven't seen it yet)

[caitlinsmom]

Emma Smith (the person) is absolutely fascinating. I hope the movie does her justice! (I haven't seen it yet)

 

It's not bad. :) Dh and I watched it a while back with the kids for Family Home Evening. Everyone enjoyed it although it is a bit slow. Interesting though.

[dangermom]

Me neither; I'd like to see it. I have a lot of respect for Emma!

 

I don't know if Mormons eat more sugar than non-Mormons. I do know that some people's consumption of chocolate staggers even me! And I've had non-LDS folks tell me that they are often taken aback by the LDS ability to drink sweet punch and eat sugary treats both at once, without coffee.

 

Sabbath-keeping is family-to-family all right; you'll find different practices, but on the whole, no shopping or sports, etc.--more family time, visiting relatives or sick friends, quiet activities--especially napping! Here's a funny story for you: my parents are both converts and when we were small, we lived in Bakersfield. Which gets very very hot in summer. And every Sunday, we would visit my grandparents and go swimming. (Most Mormons would never ever swim on a Sunday, but my parents were not about to try to hold 4 hot and cranky kids away from the pool every week.) In my kid-brain, this translated to me thinking that swimming was a fine Sabbath activity, right up there with reading scriptures--though I would never have dreamt of watching a movie. So I got to college, visited my roommate's home over the weekend, and on Sunday afternoon I suggested we go swimming in her pool. You should have seen the look on her face...:blink:

[Xuzi]

Me neither; I'd like to see it. I have a lot of respect for Emma!

 

I don't know if Mormons eat more sugar than non-Mormons. I do know that some people's consumption of chocolate staggers even me! And I've had non-LDS folks tell me that they are often taken aback by the LDS ability to drink sweet punch and eat sugary treats both at once, without coffee.

 

Sabbath-keeping is family-to-family all right; you'll find different practices, but on the whole, no shopping or sports, etc.--more family time, visiting relatives or sick friends, quiet activities--especially napping! Here's a funny story for you: my parents are both converts and when we were small, we lived in Bakersfield. Which gets very very hot in summer. And every Sunday, we would visit my grandparents and go swimming. (Most Mormons would never ever swim on a Sunday, but my parents were not about to try to hold 4 hot and cranky kids away from the pool every week.) In my kid-brain, this translated to me thinking that swimming was a fine Sabbath activity, right up there with reading scriptures--though I would never have dreamt of watching a movie. So I got to college, visited my roommate's home over the weekend, and on Sunday afternoon I suggested we go swimming in her pool. You should have seen the look on her face...:blink:

Wow! My grandparents' home backed up to a lake (literally, their backdoor opened onto a deck that hung out over the water, and you walked down a ramp to the dock) and we would go there for Sunday dinners and swim in the lake all.the.time. Later they moved to a house with a pool, and we did the same thing. It's not something I ever considered someone would get all twisted up over. :lol:

[iwka]

Sorry, I can't read everything here, but the question is concerning this statement:

 

"The reason why I think the apostasy happened was that the Christian church gradually lost a few of the early teachings of Jesus. As the Church was persecuted and the apostles killed, priesthood authority was lost. "

 

Why do you believe it was lost? The Apostles chose their successors - in the NT, which you read and believe, it says so, doesn't it?

[Mekanamom]

LOL, oh my gosh, did I grow up during the worst superstitious LDS decade or what? We were taught (yes, taught in church) that water was Satan's dominion, and that none of us were especially safe in the water, but that missionaries in particular were extremely vulnerable. So much so that there was a ban on missionaries swimming during their missions.

 

It would have been very unacceptable in my ward to go swimming on a Sunday! Was this not church-wide? Or they just don't teach it anymore? Can the missionaries swim now?

[Sara in AZ]

LOL, oh my gosh, did I grow up during the worst superstitious LDS decade or what? We were taught (yes, taught in church) that water was Satan's dominion, and that none of us were especially safe in the water, but that missionaries in particular were extremely vulnerable. So much so that there was a ban on missionaries swimming during their missions.

 

It would have been very unacceptable in my ward to go swimming on a Sunday! Was this not church-wide? Or they just don't teach it anymore? Can the missionaries swim now?

 

I remember hearing this growing up. Not so much as relating to the general population (or to discourage us from swimming on Sunday, which I would never do anyway.) I'm not sure where this idea originated, but I'm pretty sure that missionaries still don't do any swimming. Anyone else?

[MamaSheep]

LOL, oh my gosh, did I grow up during the worst superstitious LDS decade or what? We were taught (yes, taught in church) that water was Satan's dominion, and that none of us were especially safe in the water, but that missionaries in particular were extremely vulnerable. So much so that there was a ban on missionaries swimming during their missions.

 

It would have been very unacceptable in my ward to go swimming on a Sunday! Was this not church-wide? Or they just don't teach it anymore? Can the missionaries swim now?

 

What on EARTH? I have NEVER heard that. I've never seen that in any church publication. It doesn't even make sense with LDS belief, since baptism is by immersion in water, which we regard to be symbolic of Christ's power to cleanse, and since we use water in the sacrament as a symbol of Christ's pure, sinless blood shed for us.

 

Do you have any references for that?

[Amira]

Sorry, I can't read everything here, but the question is concerning this statement:

 

"The reason why I think the apostasy happened was that the Christian church gradually lost a few of the early teachings of Jesus. As the Church was persecuted and the apostles killed, priesthood authority was lost. "

 

Why do you believe it was lost? The Apostles chose their successors - in the NT, which you read and believe, it says so, doesn't it?

 

Yes, the Apostles were replaced through priesthood authority as outlined in the New Testament, but we don't believe they were for the entire 1700 years between the end of the New Testament and the time Joseph Smith lived. This is not to say that good men weren't leading the Church, but that the authority was lost. There are many reasons why we think this happened.

 

I don't think there is an exact date for the apostasy; I look at it as a more gradual thing. I think the priesthood authority was maintained in some places longer than others. But Mormons believe that much was lost in the centuries after Jesus's death and resurrection.

[iwka]

Another question:

 

By believing Joseph Smith's interpretation of the Bible and his visions, you have to throw away most of Christian thought, theology and tradition that developed from Jesus' times. How come can you put one man's revelation above thousands of theologians, church fathers, doctors of the church, martyrs and saints, especially the ones who lived in the first few centuries after Jesus' death? Don't you think that this is quite dangerous - to suddenly believe one man who questions the heritage of Christianity? How do you "feel" about it?

[Xuzi]

I heard the "water" thing a few times growing up, but it was always understood as being one of those "Mormon Urban Myths" and not actual doctrine.

 

My DH wasn't allowed to swim while on his mission though, and the reason his Mission President gave was "Missionaries who don't swim don't drown!" It was a safety issue. :)

[Amira]

What on EARTH? I have NEVER heard that. I've never seen that in any church publication. It doesn't even make sense with LDS belief, since baptism is by immersion in water, which we regard to be symbolic of Christ's power to cleanse, and since we use water in the sacrament as a symbol of Christ's pure, sinless blood shed for us.

 

Do you have any references for that?

 

I've certainly heard that, although I haven't known very many Mormons who go in for the no swimming thing. It comes from a rather convoluted reading of Doctrine and Covenants 61.

[Veritaserum]

Emma Smith (the person) is absolutely fascinating. I hope the movie does her justice! (I haven't seen it yet)

 

When my mom was pregnant with me she performed in a one-woman play about Emma. She wanted to name me Emma, but my dad vetoed it.

 

Regarding Sundays, my family did Church, visiting with family or family friends (generally it was dinner or something like card games), but we didn't shop or do laundry/heavier housework. I've done things like laundry as an adult, but prefer to do it on other days to get more of that feeling of rest.

[MamaSheep]

I heard the "water" thing a few times growing up, but it was always understood as being one of those "Mormon Urban Myths" and not actual doctrine.

 

My DH wasn't allowed to swim while on his mission though, and the reason his Mission President gave was "Missionaries who don't swim don't drown!" It was a safety issue. :)

See...now THAT makes sense to me.

[zaichiki]

We were taught (yes, taught in church) that water was Satan's dominion, and that none of us were especially safe in the water, but that missionaries in particular were extremely vulnerable. So much so that there was a ban on missionaries swimming during their missions.

 

I have family who were raised in Tonga (South Pacific) many years ago. I guess there's a fairly large LDS population there and enough missionaries that this particular teaching was known. It must have been a memorable thing for the natives living on an island to hear and therefore repeat. I've heard about the water being Satan's dominion and missionaries being targeted that way, too. (I'm not LDS, but I have LDS family members.)

[snipsnsnailsx5]

Another question:

 

By believing Joseph Smith's interpretation of the Bible and his visions, you have to throw away most of Christian thought, theology and tradition that developed from Jesus' times. How come can you put one man's revelation above thousands of theologians, church fathers, doctors of the church, martyrs and saints, especially the ones who lived in the first few centuries after Jesus' death? Don't you think that this is quite dangerous - to suddenly believe one man who questions the heritage of Christianity? How do you "feel" about it?

 

Which specific Christian thought, theology and tradition are you speaking of? I can't think of anything I've had to throw out to have faith in this church?

Actually I've felt the opposite - that suddenly everything makes sense and the pieces are all there.

[MamaSheep]

I've certainly heard that, although I haven't known very many Mormons who go in for the no swimming thing. It comes from a rather convoluted reading of Doctrine and Covenants 61.

 

Ooohhhh....kaaaaay......

 

Well, I went and read it, and I get something totally different out of it. But I guess I can see how it could be taken that way. I think I won't go with that interpretation my own self, though.

 

Learn sumpin' new every day.

[MamaSheep]

Which specific Christian thought, theology and tradition are you speaking of? I can't think of anything I've had to throw out to have faith in this church?

Actually I've felt the opposite - that suddenly everything makes sense and the pieces are all there.

 

This has been my experience also. And the more I learn about the ancient church, the better it fits.

[Xuzi]

Another question:

 

By believing Joseph Smith's interpretation of the Bible and his visions, you have to throw away most of Christian thought, theology and tradition that developed from Jesus' times. How come can you put one man's revelation above thousands of theologians, church fathers, doctors of the church, martyrs and saints, especially the ones who lived in the first few centuries after Jesus' death? Don't you think that this is quite dangerous - to suddenly believe one man who questions the heritage of Christianity? How do you "feel" about it?

Because that man was a Prophet.

 

How could Jesus have come and spoken so harshly against the well-established theology of His day? Calling it's leaders "whited sepulcures", and it's traditions "heavy burdens"? Because He had authority from God to do so. Joseph Smith, as one of God's Prophets, also had authority to ignore established traditions and restore what had been lost.

[zaichiki]

My DH wasn't allowed to swim while on his mission though, and the reason his Mission President gave was "Missionaries who don't swim don't drown!" It was a safety issue. :)

 

Was drowning common enough to need a rule against swimming? :confused:

[Amira]

Another question:

 

By believing Joseph Smith's interpretation of the Bible and his visions, you have to throw away most of Christian thought, theology and tradition that developed from Jesus' times. How come can you put one man's revelation above thousands of theologians, church fathers, doctors of the church, martyrs and saints, especially the ones who lived in the first few centuries after Jesus' death? Don't you think that this is quite dangerous - to suddenly believe one man who questions the heritage of Christianity? How do you "feel" about it?

 

Good question. Here's what I think about it. I don't think we've really thrown away so much Christian tradition, theology, etc. There really are more similarities than differences, although you'd never guess it from this thread. But many of the individual doctrines I believe can also be found in various other Christian denominations (mainstream ones- and not all at once, but scattered in various sects).

 

I can totally see why this would bother people, and I don't think the LDS Church is for everyone by any means, but for me, it fills in a lot of gaps that I see in Christianity. Maybe I can find this doctrine or that principle in this church or that church, but they're all pulled together for me here, especially regarding salvation. I honestly don't know if I could be any other type of Christian.

[dangermom]

Sorry, I can't read everything here, but the question is concerning this statement:

 

"The reason why I think the apostasy happened was that the Christian church gradually lost a few of the early teachings of Jesus. As the Church was persecuted and the apostles killed, priesthood authority was lost. "

 

Why do you believe it was lost? The Apostles chose their successors - in the NT, which you read and believe, it says so, doesn't it?

They chose some successors, but you'll notice there were only a few more apostles and then no more apostles. Without apostles and a prophet to hold all the keys of the priesthood, and more and more arguing over theology (with gnostics and others coming in, claiming to have the secret teachings of Jesus), it eventually died out. We couldn't say exactly when or how, but the bishops couldn't keep going on their own for long and eventually it was gone.

 

Mormons see many signs in the NT of the impending loss. In Acts 20:29–31, Paul says: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

 

“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

 

“Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.â€

 

Then in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul talks about spiritual gifts. He names several, but then ends with "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away....And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." So of all the spiritual gifts that once existed in the body of the Church, there are three left--good gifts, but incomplete.

 

In reference to Christ's Second Coming, Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 3: "for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first..." where falling away is from the Greek apostasia.

 

So there has to be an apostasy--either it has happened already or it will do. We think it did happen.

[Xuzi]

Was drowning common enough to need a rule against swimming? :confused:

Well, he served in the Phillipines, so I imagine parasites were also an issue. LDS families are entrusting their sons and daughters into the care of the Church for two years. I think the Church just wants to make sure they do everything in their power to reasonably protect them. Missionaries don't need to swim to fulfill their duties, so it's not a risk they have to take.

[Veritaserum]

Which specific Christian thought, theology and tradition are you speaking of? I can't think of anything I've had to throw out to have faith in this church?

Actually I've felt the opposite - that suddenly everything makes sense and the pieces are all there.

 

:iagree: Joseph's revelations (and the revelations of later prophets) clarify and make sense of things that I'm not sure I'd believe or understand otherwise. If I weren't LDS, I would probably be a Unitarian or nothing. "Traditional Christian beliefs" often leave me scratching my head trying to make sense of them or else leave me shaking my head because I can't reconcile them with my understanding of God. (No offense meant for those who find peace and clarity through those beliefs.) My feelings are that the LDS teachings are true. They give me clarity and purpose in my spiritual growth in a way that "traditional Christian beliefs" do not.

 

WRT to authority, my understanding is that the issue was that the "keys" to the priesthood were lost. Bishops started ordaining bishops because there were no more apostles, etc. I certainly do not discount the good work done throughout the ages by the Chrisitans who lived and worked before Jospeh Smith. They kept the name and essential message of Christ alive. I believe, however, that some teachings were lost or distorted along the way.

[MamaSheep]

Sorry, I can't read everything here, but the question is concerning this statement:

 

"The reason why I think the apostasy happened was that the Christian church gradually lost a few of the early teachings of Jesus. As the Church was persecuted and the apostles killed, priesthood authority was lost. "

 

Why do you believe it was lost? The Apostles chose their successors - in the NT, which you read and believe, it says so, doesn't it?

 

In the NT, a new apostle was chosen to replace Judas, and later Paul is also spoken of as being an apostle. I think this shows that the apostolic office was intended to continue. Yes, the apostles appointed bishops and deacons and whatnot, but my impression from the NT is that bishop and apostle are different priesthood offices, and that a bishop holds less authority than an apostle. I don't believe that a council of bishops holds apostolic authority, even if those bishops were ordained by apostles. Only an apostle IS an apostle and has the authority of an apostle. So to ME, it is a problem that at an early date there were no more apostles. The NT tells us that apostles are part of the foundation of the church--you don't rip out a foundation once the building is established. A foundation is not the same thing as temporary scaffolding. So, in my opinion, apostolic authority was lost when the apostles were no longer with the church.

 

Now, I do think that the bishops who were ordained by the apostles did the best they could without apostolic authority, though there was a bit of bickering about which bishop should be in charge. But a bishop is still not an apostle, even if he was ordained by an apostle. There is some question in my mind as to whether or not a bishop had the authority to ordain a new bishop, but even if we accept the premise that they did, over time many positions of church leadership were filled by political appointees, or were "purchased" with donations--neither of which seems to me like the sort of thing Jesus or His apostles would approve of. Reading about various church councils has convinced me that some methods employed for sorting out both church doctrine and church leadership were problematic as well.

 

I think there were a lot of good people through the centuries who did their honest best to keep things on track, and I think God has always responded to individuals who reach out to Him, but I think there was a disconnect in the stream of priesthood authority back when the last apostle was killed.

Edited January 4, 2011 by MamaSheep

[dangermom]

Another question:

 

By believing Joseph Smith's interpretation of the Bible and his visions, you have to throw away most of Christian thought, theology and tradition that developed from Jesus' times. How come can you put one man's revelation above thousands of theologians, church fathers, doctors of the church, martyrs and saints, especially the ones who lived in the first few centuries after Jesus' death? Don't you think that this is quite dangerous - to suddenly believe one man who questions the heritage of Christianity? How do you "feel" about it?

Amira said it nicely a little above. Honestly, the more I learn about the early church in Christ's time, the more current LDS doctrine makes sense to me. Many LDS doctrines that are only found here and there in mainstream Christianity were found in the early days, and to me the LDS interpretation of many scriptures and writings makes the most sense. To me LDS doctrine gives a clear and beautiful picture of the universe, one that gives me joy.

 

I'm actually attracted to many of those traditions that have grown up since then, but to me they look like extra traditions, not necessarily core doctrine.

 

I don't think Joseph Smith swept away quite as much as you think--or as it would seem here, even. I have a lot of respect and admiration for those martyrs and saints, and I believe they received their reward. And I can put his revelations above those traditions because I believe that they were revelations, from God, while it seems to me that by the time of Nicaea, the church leaders were not getting revelation. They were good men who were doing the best they could, but they couldn't construct truth--human beings are really bad at that. We need constant help from above, we mess it up too much on our own.

[MamaSheep]

Because that man was a Prophet.

 

How could Jesus have come and spoken so harshly against the well-established theology of His day? Calling it's leaders "whited sepulcures", and it's traditions "heavy burdens"? Because He had authority from God to do so. Joseph Smith, as one of God's Prophets, also had authority to ignore established traditions and restore what had been lost.

 

:iagree: Yes. This. A prophet is different from a scholar or a theologian. Revealed truth that comes directly from God is different from academic consensus arrived at through human intellect and debate. For me, the AGE of an idea is not as important as the SOURCE of the idea. I love the Bible not because it's been around so long, but because the things in it came from God, by revelation. And I am very firmly convinced that God has shown me, personally, that Joseph Smith really was called by God, and that the doctrines he preached were revealed to him by God. I'm not going to talk about the various events and experiences that have led me to this conclusion because they are so very deeply personal to me, but I am convinced, and it was not man that convinced me. That said, though, the more deeply I study, and the more I come to understand the teachings, the more intellectually sound and satisfying I find it. It's like there are an infinite number of fascinating rabbit trails, and they all 'work'--they all make sense and form a cohesive whole, no matter how deep I dig or how far I go. I do sometimes run into places where there just isn't any more information (that happens in my scientific inquiries too), like some of the things talked about on this thread, but what information there is meshes wonderfully. This has not been the case for other Christian denominations I've looked into. Interestingly, though, the churches that have held most strongly to the traditions, and the writings of the church fathers are places I find more common ground than in the more recently evolved forms of Christianity.

Edited January 4, 2011 by MamaSheep

[Forget-Me-Not]

My DH wasn't allowed to swim while on his mission though, and the reason his Mission President gave was "Missionaries who don't swim don't drown!" It was a safety issue. :)

 

This is a church-wide rule. It's in the Missionary Handbook. None of them are supposed to swim, but they also don't engage in other risky activities like horseback riding, skiing, etc.

 

Interestingly, though, in my DHs mission they were allowed to swim. . . sort of. He went to Helsinki, Finland and sauna is a HUGE part of the culture there. If you don't know, sauna involves sitting in a steamy hut and then jumping into a cold nearby lake (sometimes cold enough that they have to break into the ice to do it. . . ) and repeating the process. The missionaries were allowed to participate in sauna, but they were supposed to stay where they could touch when they went into the water.

 

And yeah, that particular interpretation of D&C 61 has always seemed 'off' to me too. . . I've sort of chalked that one up to Mormon Urban Legend.

Edited January 4, 2011 by LemonPie

[Forget-Me-Not]

A prophet is different from a scholar or a theologian. Revealed truth that comes directly from God is different from academic consensus arrived at through human intellect and debate. For me, the AGE of an idea is not as important as the SOURCE of the idea. I love the Bible not because it's been around so long, but because the things in it came from God, by revelation. And I am very firmly convinced that God has shown me, personally, that Joseph Smith really was called by God, and that the doctrines he preached were revealed to him by God. I'm not going to talk about the various events and experiences that have led me to this conclusion because they are so very deeply personal to me, but I am convinced, and it was not man that convinced me. That said, though, the more deeply I study, and the more I come to understand the teachings, the more intellectually sound and satisfying I find it. It's like there are an infinite number of fascinating rabbit trails, and they all 'work'--they all make sense and form a cohesive whole, no matter how deep I dig or how far I go. I do sometimes run into places where there just isn't any more information (that happens in my scientific inquiries too), like some of the things talked about on this thread, but what information there is meshes wonderfully. This has not been the case for other Christian denominations I've looked into. Interestingly, though, the churches that have held most strongly to the traditions, and the writings of the church fathers are places I find more common ground than in the more recently evolved forms of Christianity.

 

You put it much more eloquently than I ever could, so I'm just going to borrow your words Amy :D I agree with this 100%. My DH often says the gospel is 'elegant'.

[MamaSheep]

You know, another question I remember whizzing by was something to do with whether we're offended at being called "Mormons". Or something like that. Things were moving so fast at that point that I decided to let the responses already posted suffice and try to catch the next thing flying past. But it keeps popping into my head, so I'm going to add a couple of things about that, even though it was waaaay back there somewhere in the thread.

 

For those who don't know, we believe Mormon was a prophet in the Americas several centuries ago. The Book of Mormon is a compilation of records that he assembled and abridged, covering the history of his people, with particular focus on spiritual things. Mormon was an amazing, honorable man, and bears a powerful witness of redemption through Christ. I, for one, am honored to be associated with such a man.

 

However. This is not Mormon's church, any more than it's Moses's church, or Paul's church, or Joseph Smith's church. It's Jesus's church. My personal preference is for the church to be referred to by it's right name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I prefer to be called a Latter-day Saint, because it more accurately reflects my relationship with Christ (I wrote an earlier post about what the "saint" part means, but basically it refers to people who have entered into a covenant relationship with Christ, as it is used in the NT). But I'm not offended when people use "Mormon" either. He's a good guy, and I respect him a lot, even though I don't worship him, and he is not the head of our church.

 

I will confess to having a minor personal pet peeve about the misspelling "Morman", though I have seen worse things done to the spelling.

Edited January 4, 2011 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

Holy SMOKE, Batman! I just looked at the "views" count on this thread. There are over seventeen thousand views. I feel incredibly self-conscious now....lol...heh...heh...:001_huh:

[Mekanamom]

What on EARTH? I have NEVER heard that. I've never seen that in any church publication. It doesn't even make sense with LDS belief, since baptism is by immersion in water, which we regard to be symbolic of Christ's power to cleanse, and since we use water in the sacrament as a symbol of Christ's pure, sinless blood shed for us.

 

Do you have any references for that?

 

No, I don't have any references... I was just a kid, and this was taught to us in church. LOL, it never would have occured to me to ask for references. ;) Having read through this thread with great interest, it appears that a LOT of what are now considered Mormon Urban Myths were taught to my generation right alongside scripture. I do not know enough about the scripture itself to separate the two completely.

 

For instance... The becoming gods and inheriting a planet of our own someday? Yep, that was part of what we learned too. I didn't actually know that was considered a myth now until this thread. For us, it was just a part of the eternal plan of salvation. I wasn't going to bring it up because I didn't want to derail the thread with myths that are no longer taught. But the more I think about it, the more it seems that it is probably people like me, who were taught this stuff and then left the church before it evolved into what it is today, that perpetuate these myths. Certainly, we (I) don't do it on purpose to plague current LDS... It's just part of what we/I thought were official church teachings.

 

You don't even want to know what they taught us prior to 1978. (It was mentioned earlier in the thread, which is why I'm referencing it.) It was so troubling to me, it played a great part in my leaving the church. I was there when that teaching changed... But as someone else said, the explanations for it were not enough for me.

 

Edited to add: Just to clarify... I thought the change was a GOOD change. (Most of the changes I'm hearing about in this thread seem like good changes.) Actually, I was at such a young age in '78, I *remember* it, but didn't think about it a lot until I was an older teen. What bothered me was that it was ever taught in the first place. No apologies were issued, and I never got a very satisfactory explanation for why the church used to teach it.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Mekanamom