Questions about the LDS (Mormon) faith

[MamaSheep]

They are just not accountable, because they are too young to really understand "right" versus "wrong". For example, a 9 month old doesn't know that biting someone is wrong and can cause them pain. It's something that it has to be taught. "The sin being upon the parents" is an onus on parents to be sure we DO teach our children right from wrong. That's not to say that our children's actions could potentially condemn us to Eternal torment, but we WILL have to answer to the Lord for our failure in teaching our children to know right from wrong.

 

That. It is understood that Christ's sacrifice automatically covers the sins of innocent children until the age He has declared them accountable. (And people who have mental impairments that prevent them from understanding right and wrong are understood to be 'covered' in the same way as little children.) Of such is the kingdom of heaven.

[MamaSheep]

Well, I'm Christian & I don't believe it the Apostle's Creed. The fact that it says Jesus went to hell for 3 days is heresy to me. If a homeschool group had that as part of their statement of faith, it wouldn't keep me from joining necessarily though...unless we were reciting it or something.

 

Susan

 

We understand that to mean that Jesus entered the 'spirit prison' in the 'spirit world' (see previous posts on this thread) to teach and free souls there who had not had the opportunity to hear the gospel. Not that he was in torment in 'hell' for three days. But I can definitely see where you would consider it heresy.

 

As far as joining a homeschool group with the Apostles' Creed as criteria...well for starters I haven't found homeschool groups to be particularly useful for our family, so probably I wouldn't join up but not necessarily on those grounds. If for some reason I wanted to join that group I might talk to its leaders about where I was with that and ask them if they would be comfortable with a Mormon in the group. I'm guessing they wouldn't, and I wouldn't want to push the issue.

[jenn1129]

"

2. i have a question about the 2 unforgivable sins. i think one is rejecting the Holy spirit. what if you reject Jesus but believe the Holy Spirit? and the other unforgivable sin is murder. what if the murder was in self defense? or involuntary(ie. car accident you caused)? and why is murder unforgivable when other heinous crimes are forgivable?

 

tia~

 

 

i'm resubmitting my question, I haven't seen anyone answer yet.:tongue_smilie:

[Soror]

I am wondering what is the LDS positon on birth control and family size?

[WistfulRidge]

I just want to jump in and add something about Mormons and Homeschooling...

 

One, I think that there are more LDS homeschooling than most people realize just because the majority of co-op/HS groups that I've come across all require us to sign a statement of faith - some of which are purposefully written to exclude those who are LDS and some of which just include things that we're not entirely comfortable agreeing all the way with. (That has been my experience and NC and OH... I'm assuming that it is probably similar in other places). I know my mom and a couple of other LDS homeschoolers made their own group because of it and they have 12 families that meet together regularly.

 

Second, I think the frequency of homeschoolers depends a lot on location and is not necessarily dependent on the quality of education. I know of several moms here in Utah that would homeschool if they lived elsewhere, but because it is Utah (aka "Mormon Central", lol) they feel obligated to send their kids to schools because so many of their classmates are LDS. These moms think that HSing would make their kids just "too weird". I don't really understand it, but on the reverse I've also known moms that homeschool simply because their children would be the only LDS kids in their schools.

[Avila]

We understand that to mean that Jesus entered the 'spirit prison' in the 'spirit world' (see previous posts on this thread) to teach and free souls there who had not had the opportunity to hear the gospel. Not that he was in torment in 'hell' for three days. But I can definitely see where you would consider it heresy.

 

Catholics believe something very similiar to that on this point.

 

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art5.shtml

 

I think a lot of people misunderstand this statement.

[Julie in Austin]

I am wondering what is the LDS positon on birth control and family size?

 

The matter is between the husband, the wife, and the Lord, but the theology of the Church emphasizes the importance of families, so you will find larger-than-normal families.

[WistfulRidge]

2. i have a question about the 2 unforgivable sins. i think one is rejecting the Holy spirit. what if you reject Jesus but believe the Holy Spirit? and the other unforgivable sin is murder. what if the murder was in self defense? or involuntary(ie. car accident you caused)? and why is murder unforgivable when other heinous crimes are forgivable?

 

I have always been taught that the only unforgiveable sin is to truly forsake Christ - ie: to have sure knowledge and faith in Christ and the atonement and then to completely and utterly forsake him.

I'm a firm believer that all other sins are weighed with circumstances. There's murder (pre-meditated etc) and then there is "murder" - protecting your family, accidentally hitting someone with your car etc. I don't believe that you can receive full forgiveness for those particular sins in this life, but I don't think something like protecting your family or fighting in the army is going to hold you back from Heaven.

[MamaSheep]

Asking this as respectful as I can . . . what makes Jesus Christ so special in your faith if he is just a child of God's just like we all are? Is there anything different besides being the firstborn?

 

Thank you for being respectful. :) I know this has already been responded to, but I just had to add a few thoughts.

 

To me, this is kind of like asking what makes the sun so special compared to a candle flame. The sun is the source of all life on Earth, its light comes from internal fuel held together by massively explosive nuclear forces perfectly balanced with unimaginable gravitational pull that would vaporize a candle instantaneously. A candle flame requires an external fuel source, can't power much of anything, and can be snuffed out by any whiff of a passing air current. Of course, this analogy has massive problems with it, but maybe you see what I mean.

 

Jesus is a divine member of the Godhead--the ruling entity of the entire universe and more. Jesus, in our belief, is the being known as Jehovah in the Old Testament. Under the direction of the Father, Jesus created the Earth. He is the source of all life. When he lived as a man, he is the ONLY person ever to live a perfectly sinless life. Through his sacrifice, he is the ONLY one through whom we have any hope of becoming more than the wavering little candle flames we are.

[HSmomNY]

i have a question about the 2 unforgivable sins. i think one is rejecting the Holy spirit. what if you reject Jesus but believe the Holy Spirit? and the other unforgivable sin is murder. what if the murder was in self defense? or involuntary(ie. car accident you caused)? and why is murder unforgivable when other heinous crimes are forgivable?

I only know of one unforgivable sin and that is discribed in D&C 76:35

 

35Having adenied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having bcrucified him unto themselves and put him to an open cshame.

 

My understanding is that everything else can be washed clean be true repentance thru the attonement of Christ.

[Amira]

i'm resubmitting my question, I haven't seen anyone answer yet.:tongue_smilie:

 

As is always the case with murder, the motivations matter. God knows our hearts. It certainly is not a rule that murder is unforgivable, although it is very difficult to repent of.

 

As for rejecting the Holy Spirit but not Jesus, well, I've never thought of that. I don't really see how you could reject one but not the other. I've always felt that the rejection of either would do it. The Holy Spirit's primary mission is to testify of Christ.

 

It is extremely difficult in our theology to reject the Holy Spirit and we believe there are very, very few people who have done so. It certainly does not apply to people who simply choose to not follow Jesus in the first place. It means that you knowingly committed to following him, and then knowingly decided to reject him. The scripture quoted above explains it well.

[SeekingSimplicity]

There's several pages of this thread I haven't gotten to yet. Slowly making my way through it. So excuse me if this has been asked already.

Are there historical in accuracies in the book of Mormon? I have heard that there are some really big ones. Honesly I've never read it, so I don't know first hand. But I've heard that the accounts there clash with actual history.

[MamaSheep]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenn1129

"

2. i have a question about the 2 unforgivable sins. i think one is rejecting the Holy spirit. what if you reject Jesus but believe the Holy Spirit? and the other unforgivable sin is murder. what if the murder was in self defense? or involuntary(ie. car accident you caused)? and why is murder unforgivable when other heinous crimes are forgivable?

 

tia~

 

 

i'm resubmitting my question, I haven't seen anyone answer yet.:tongue_smilie:

 

Thanks for resubmitting. This has all been pretty overwhelming and I, for one, have had a hard time keeping up. If we've missed anyone else's questions I hope they'll also ask again.

 

 

My understanding is that in LDS teaching blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only truly unforgivable sin. A primary role of the Holy Ghost is to be a divine witness of Christ; He speaks to our hearts and minds of the reality and divinity of Christ and of His atonement. If you believe the Holy Ghost, you believe Christ. You can't reject Christ without rejecting the Holy Ghost. If you reject the clear, unmistakable witness from the Holy Ghost (most of the time He uses a "still, small voice" but I can say from personal experience that He knows how to shout...) you also reject Christ, because the Holy Ghost testifies of Christ. I can't really see how it would be possible to reject either one without rejecting the other.

 

Regarding murder, I understand it to be extraordinarily hard to repent of, because in murder you have intentionally deprived another person of God's precious gift of life, and there is no way for you to make restitution to that person. However, it's also my understanding that sometimes Christ does permit repentance even from that. Accidental deaths and self-defense are not the same thing as murder.

[DianeW88]

respectfully, why are there secrets in the LDS church? i think it makes LDS an easy target because people tend to think the worse when you are hiding things. Again, i mean no disrespect.

 

We don't consider things in our church to be "secret", we consider them "sacred", and therefore we don't discuss them in general conversation, even among our own members. I'm sure other churches have aspects of their own faith they consider to be the same. Some parts of your relationship with God are just very personal. But nothing is a "secret" per se and we're not trying to hide anything.

[jenn1129]

I only know of one unforgivable sin and that is discribed in D&C 76:35

 

35Having adenied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having bcrucified him unto themselves and put him to an open cshame.

 

My understanding is that everything else can be washed clean be true repentance thru the attonement of Christ.

 

 

thank you. that makes sense.

 

ETA. thanks everyone else for posting too. some of our questions must seem silly to you, but this is the stuff i've been told or read. i think i have a better understanding about LDS now.

Edited January 1, 2011 by jenn1129

[Julie in Austin]

There's several pages of this thread I haven't gotten to yet. Slowly making my way through it. So excuse me if this has been asked already.

Are there historical in accuracies in the book of Mormon? I have heard that there are some really big ones. Honesly I've never read it, so I don't know first hand. But I've heard that the accounts there clash with actual history.

 

You will find people upset that there are horses or the word "adieu" in the BoM. I don't think that this is any more of a problem than the fact that there are farthings and pence in the KJV Bible.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Julie in Austin
spelling!

[Amira]

There's several pages of this thread I haven't gotten to yet. Slowly making my way through it. So excuse me if this has been asked already.

Are there historical in accuracies in the book of Mormon? I have heard that there are some really big ones. Honesly I've never read it, so I don't know first hand. But I've heard that the accounts there clash with actual history.

 

Depends on your point of view. Horses are mentioned, for example, and scholars agree that horses were not in the western hemisphere before Columbus. Personally, I don't have a problem with this because the Book of Mormon is not intended as a historical document. (I don't turn to the Bible for history either, even though I think it is often historically accurate.) I also don't have a problem with this because I have no idea if the word that was translated as "horse" actually meant the animal we know as a horse.

 

But yes, if you read the Book of Mormon looking for historical inaccuracies, you will find them, as you will in any book of scripture. I think any person of any with has to look beyond that, at least a little. I can't reconcile all those differences logically.

[Amira]

thank you. that makes sense.

 

ETA. thanks everyone else for posting too. some of our questions must seem silly to you, but this is the stuff i've been told or read. i think i have a better understanding about LDS now.

 

I doubt any of us think any of these questions are silly. We believe lots of things that look really weird ;) and it's nice to have a chance to explain them a little better.

[3littlekeets]

One of the beliefs of the LDS church is summed up in this statement from one of our former prophets Lorenzo Snow - As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be. We believe that God the Father started out like us - on an earth, trialled and tested, found worthy and attained Godhood. The purpose of our life is to do the same. It says very plainly in the Bible that we should become perfect like unto God and Jesus - this is a literal commandment. We are all created in the image of God -we all have the divine potential to become as he is - a God.

 

We do not believe that we are God's now -but we can be if we do what God requires of us and perfect ourselves. This of course will not be completed in our natural lifetime - we believe we are eternal beings and it will take who knows how long after we die to obtain this Godhood -but we can eventually do it - it's the ultimate goal.

 

 

If the LDS Church believes that God was once Man, are there many gods? Who created Earth? What accounts for Genesis? :bigear:

Edited January 1, 2011 by 3littlekeets

[DianeW88]

If the LDS Church believes that God was once Man, are there many Gods? Who created Earth? What accounts for Genesis? :bigear:

 

No. We believe in God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God, the Holy Spirit (whom we refer to in our church as the Holy Ghost). We believe the world was created by Jesus Christ under the direction of God the Father. We believe in the literal account of creation as described in Genesis.

[8circles]

No, I do not believe I can become God like Jesus in the afterlife. He is far greater than I could ever be. But I do believe, and this is hard to explain, so bear with me, that I can become like God in many ways, and even possibly have many divine roles and attributes, but I will never be God.

 

This is a fuzzy doctrine in the Church and you'll run into a variety of interpretations. My answer may not be right, but it's the way I look at it. I believe we all have great potential for growth and development after we die and our goal is to always become more like God.

 

One of the beliefs of the LDS church is summed up in this statement from one of our former prophets Lorenzo Snow - As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be. We believe that God the Father started out like us - on an earth, trialled and tested, found worthy and attained Godhood. The purpose of our life is to do the same. It says very plainly in the Bible that we should become perfect like unto God and Jesus - this is a literal commandment. We are all created in the image of God -we all have the divine potential to become as he is - a God.

 

We do not believe that we are God's now -but we can be if we do what God requires of us and perfect ourselves. This of course will not be completed in our natural lifetime - we believe we are eternal beings and it will take who knows how long after we die to obtain this Godhood -but we can eventually do it - it's the ultimate goal.

 

These seem like opposites to me. Is this just because there is no official doctrine & people come to their own conclusions? Is the above an actual quote from the prophet? What weight does is carry? (i.e. could he have been wrong?)

[susankenny]

I am bookmarking this. How wonderful of you ladies to open up about your faith and allow us to ask tough questions with nothing off-limit. I've learned so much!

 

Thank you!

 

Susan

[Amira]

These seem like opposites to me. Is this just because there is no official doctrine & people come to their own conclusions? Is the above an actual quote from the prophet? What weight does is carry? (i.e. could he have been wrong?)

 

There is no official, currently taught doctrine about this. Different nuances on the topic have been taught at different times and different members of the Church believe different things.

 

The basic principle is that we believe in eternal progression. How exactly that plays out in each of our minds is different. I don't think I can ever become as God is, because I think He is always progressing too, even though He is perfect. Clear as mud? I feel that way too. Like I said, this isn't something a Mormon has to believe, nor should we ever be officially asked about it. And you'll likely get a different answer from each different Mormon you ask, although there will be some consistent threads through most of the answers.

 

The line about what God was and what we can become is quoted from a previous prophet. It's a short line that I think needs more clarification, and currently that isn't something we are getting clarification on from our prophet.

[Veritaserum]

If the LDS Church believes that God was once Man, are there many gods? Who created Earth? What accounts for Genesis? :bigear:

 

Well, we just don't know everything about God. I did some digging and Lorenzo Snow's is the only statement I could find saying that God was once like us. It's not something that is a focus because we really do not know. We do hope to become as like him as possible. :)

 

We only worship Heavenly Father (and, to a lesser extent, Christ). If he was like us (mortal) and there are other gods in other universes or something (hard to imagine, lol), it doesn't change the fact that we only worship Him.

 

I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis in the sense of six days, etc., nor do I find anything within the Church's teachings that say I must. :) I believe God directed Jesus to orchestrate the Earth's creation, but I believe it took billions of years and evolutionary processes to accomplish. The Church takes no official position on evolution or the age of the Earth. We don't know for certain and it is not that important. LDS members decide what they believe about evolution. When I took biology at BYU (a university owned by the Church), evolutionary processes were accepted and taught.

[DianeW88]

These seem like opposites to me. Is this just because there is no official doctrine & people come to their own conclusions? Is the above an actual quote from the prophet? What weight does is carry? (i.e. could he have been wrong?)

 

It's really not conflicting when you have time to read more than the little snippets of information we can give you on a message board, and I apologize if it seems to be so. The main point of our doctrine is in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we believe in eternal progression. We know that if we live worthy lives on this earth that we will inherit the Celestial Kingdom and dwell with our Heavenly Father there throughout the eternities. I think it would be safe to assume that since our Heavenly Father has already created worlds without number, He will continue to do that in the future. Will we be called upon to help Him? We probably will, but beyond that, we have no explanation as to the specifics, because it isn't something that is necessary for our salvation.

 

Perhaps this perspective will be helpful to you. If it is not possible for us to become like God, what did the Savior mean when He instructed us in Matthew 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect?" That perfection does not come in an instant. It is something that evolves over time. But if He is our Father, our teacher, our mentor; if He wants his children to have all that he has, and if He continues to properly instruct us as He has thus far, then if we are willing to not only learn the lessons but to do everything He has asked us to do, it would seem that over eons of time we will gain greater and greater knowledge and a greater and greater understanding of things as they really are. We will know what He knows. Thus the potential of becoming perfect even as He is. The words eternal life, which we all hope to obtain, simply mean "God's life." We will never take His place. He will always be our Father in the same way that a father here on earth remains to be a father even though his earthly son becomes a father to his own children, and so on and so on. Our Father in Heaven will never get old and retire. He will never be replaced by anyone, including ourselves regardless of our achievements and progression. But it is possible for us to eventually know what He knows and do what He does.

 

He has promised us throughout the scriptures that if we will do all of these things (keep his commandments, serve others, bear one anothers burden, comfort those who are in need), there are great blessings in store for us after we leave this life and live in His presence. Isn’t it logical to think that if His never ending teaching of us continues on and on, we will gain more and more knowledge, we will gain more and more Christ-like attributes, we will gain ability and power? Is it not conceivable that over an unknown period of time, we might actually get to the place where we come to know all that He knows? If He is our teacher, and we believe that He is and will continue to be, wouldn’t we gain His abilities? It’s an interesting thing to ponder isn’t it?

Edited January 1, 2011 by DianeW88
clarity and the usual grammatical errors

[8circles]

 

Thanks for your explanation. I can't say that I get it but I appreciate that you're willing to share. :)

[Amira]

I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis in the sense of six days, etc., nor do I find anything within the Church's teachings that say I must. :) I believe God directed Jesus to orchestrate the Earth's creation, but I believe it took billions of years and evolutionary processes to accomplish. The Church takes no official position on evolution or the age of the Earth. We don't know for certain and it is not that important. LDS members decide what they believe about evolution. When I took biology at BYU (a university owned by the Church), evolutionary processes were accepted and taught.

 

Same here. The vast majority of members of the Church believe in the creation, but we're not all literal interpreters of Genesis, nor do we have to be.

[DianeW88]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be confusing about the Genesis thing. I don't believe that God created the earth in six neat 24 hour periods. I think the term "day" is a convenient way to divide time for man, but not at all necessary for God. I have no idea how long a "day" is in that account, nor do I care. The only important thing is that God created the earth. How He did it or how long it took is neither here nor there for me. And, that's what I meant by we believe in the "literal" account of Genesis. We believe the earth was created by God. Sorry....I'll probably continue to be confusing. :lol: I apologize.

[MamaSheep]

I'm not going to try to figure out who to quote on this one, I think I'll just toss out a few thoughts.

 

All Christian faiths teach that God was once man. Jesus, who is God, was born of Mary and lived on Earth as a man. So we agree this far at least. (And it has always seemed odd to me when Christians take issue with the idea that God was ever man, because most Christians believe that the Father and Son are the very same being, so if the being who is the Son became man, and the Father is the same being then.... I honestly don't understand the logic behind the objection. But the objection has been raised enough times to me that I understand it must make sense to the inquirers.)

 

Anyway, where we part company is on whether the same might also be true of the Father. In a funeral sermon, Joseph Smith said the following: "...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." The Lorenzo Snow couplet quoted earlier is a rephrasing of some of the things said in this sermon.

 

Ok. So then let's look at the Bible for a minute. Specifically, John 5:19.

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he aseeth the bFather do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

If we take this literally, Jesus is saying that he has done nothing that he did not see his Father do before him. Logically, that would include an incarnation, since Jesus is standing there as a man.

 

And in John 10:

17Therefore doth my Father alove me, because I blay down my life, that I might ctake it again.

18No man ataketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have bpower to lay it down, and I have cpower to take it again. This commandment have I dreceived of my Father.

 

 

IF the Son does nothing except what he sees the father do, and the Father commanded him to lay down his life and take it up again, and he has power in himself to do so, it stands to reason that the Father also had power to lay down his life and take it up again, and that he did so at some point.

 

This made logical sense to Joseph Smith, who, when he saw the Father and the Son in vision, saw two embodied beings. It makes sense to me too.

 

ETA: Regarding man's potential to be "like" God, when we talk about that we mean something very similar to what C.S. Lewis said:

"It is a serious thing," says Lewis, "to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no 'ordinary' people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whome we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit -- immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously -- no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner -- no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment."

 

ETA some more...lol. : There's a phrase in the Joseph Smith quote above which I find significant: "...the same as Jesus Christ himself did...". If the Father's mortal experience was, indeed, "the same" as that of Jesus Christ, then presumably the Father was, like Jesus Christ, already divine--already God--when it occurred. And it would be inaccurate to say that God 'originated' as a man as well. We don't even believe that WE originated as embodied human beings, remember. An embodied God would still be an eternal, divine spirit being, just clothed in a physical form. Like Jesus.

Edited January 1, 2011 by MamaSheep

[Julie in Austin]

We believe in the literal account of creation as described in Genesis.

 

You will find some differences among LDS on this topic; I believe that there is some literal truth in the Genesis creation account, but that much of it is poetic and/or metaphorical.

[Xuzi]

When it comes to the Eternal Progression thing, I always think of the verse in the Bible (sorry I don't have time to look it up just now, but I know it's in the NT) about our being "joint heirs with Christ". What did Christ inherit from the Father?

 

ETA: Romans 8:16-17

 

16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

[snipsnsnailsx5]

my father was raise reorganized LDS (not sure what the difference is?). ... i've always wondered what the difference was. ...do you know what the difference is with reorganized?

 

The reorgnized LDS church - now called the Community of Christ is a different church from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ( ie. Mormon). Think Roman Catholic and Luthern. Very different scriptures, doctrine and practice. I am not a member of the Community of Christ so I will not speculate on their teachings but I know they have a very different cannon of scriptures from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

They do have a web site http://www.cofchrist.org/

and so do we http://lds.org/?lang=eng

 

if that helps. :001_smile:

 

I was "raised" in the RLDS or Community of Christ church and baptized in it when I was 8. However, because a church was not often close to where my parents moved (and we moved around a lot), we were not regular attenders. However I still have a lot of memories about it and going to annual family camps, etc.

 

The reorganized church had the same roots as the LDS church with Joseph Smith. However they split off after Joseph Smith's death and a differing of opinion on who should be the next prophet. The reorganized church thought that it should stay within his bloodlines, his family. The LDS church didn't. Present day (well when I last went to church there over 10 yrs ago lol) they still use the Book of Mormon, but they have their own Doctrine and Covenants. MUCH is different though. Women can hold the priesthood, and there really is not much for many ordinances other then baptism, anointing the sick..(?) They have one temple, but its an open building used for holding services, education, and a lot more. They don't have a Word of Wisdom to follow (so they can drink coffee, tea...).

[TXMary2]

I do not disagree with you that 'secrets' make us easy targets. However, we feel that we have been commanded not to reveal details of the temple ceremonies, so we don't. That said, there is an awful lot of info about the temple that is made publicly available by the church, and those interested could start here.

 

ETA: Here's something I wrote about temple 'secrecy' before that might be helpful.

 

The temple stuff is one of my MIL main rants. She says she and her siblings experienced sexual abuse in the temple. I know this can happen in all churches, however, she did give me a book - I can't remember the title but I will find it- and there is much discussion about sexual stuff related to the temple. What I would like to know, and forgive me if this crosses a line, those of you here who are LDS, where are you in the hierarchy and are you allowed in the Temple? Is s*x ever discussed there? My MIL was in therapy for many years and is actually a therapist now and counsels many former LDS people and according to MIL (anecdotal I know) she hears lots of stories similar to hers. Just for reference, MIL is almost 70 so her experience was quite a few years ago.

 

Regarding Joseph Smith, MIL also says he married women already married to other men. Is this true? If not, where might this accusation come from?

 

Thanks! I am finding this thread very educational and I am writing down tons of questions to call my MIL with later!

 

Edited to add: The book was called Out of Mormonism.

Edited January 1, 2011 by TXMary2

[snipsnsnailsx5]

I am wondering what is the LDS positon on birth control and family size?

 

Birth control is between husband and wife. From the LDS.org website:

 

Husband and wife are encouraged to pray and counsel together as they plan their families. Issues to consider include the physical and mental health of the mother and father and their capacity to provide the basic necessities of life for their children.

Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple.

[8circles]

All Christian faiths teach that God was once man. Jesus, who is God, was born of Mary and lived on Earth as a man. So we agree this far at least. (And it has always seemed odd to me when Christians take issue with the idea that God was ever man, because most Christians believe that the Father and Son are the very same being, so if the being who is the Son became man, and the Father is the same being then.... I honestly don't understand the logic behind the objection. But the objection has been raised enough times to me that I understand it must make sense to the inquirers.)

 

Anyway, where we part company is on whether the same might also be true of the Father. In a funeral sermon, Joseph Smith said the following: "...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." The Lorenzo Snow couplet quoted earlier is a rephrasing of some of the things said in this sermon.

 

Ok. So then let's look at the Bible for a minute. Specifically, John 5:19.

 

 

If we take this literally, Jesus is saying that he has done nothing that he did not see his Father do before him. Logically, that would include an incarnation, since Jesus is standing there as a man.

 

And in John 10:

 

 

IF the Son does nothing except what he sees the father do, and the Father commanded him to lay down his life and take it up again, and he has power in himself to do so, it stands to reason that the Father also had power to lay down his life and take it up again, and that he did so at some point.

 

This made logical sense to Joseph Smith, who, when he saw the Father and the Son in vision, saw two embodied beings. It makes sense to me too.

 

ETA: Regarding man's potential to be "like" God, when we talk about that we mean something very similar to what C.S. Lewis said:

 

ETA some more...lol. : There's a phrase in the Joseph Smith quote above which I find significant: "...the same as Jesus Christ himself did...". If the Father's mortal experience was, indeed, "the same" as that of Jesus Christ, then presumably the Father was, like Jesus Christ, already divine--already God--when it occurred. And it would be inaccurate to say that God 'originated' as a man as well. We don't even believe that WE originated as embodied human beings, remember. An embodied God would still be an eternal, divine spirit being, just clothed in a physical form. Like Jesus.

 

We seem to get completely different meanings from the same scriptures. I appreciate the further explanation. Regarding the Lewis quote, I'm not sure he meant what it seems when only reading that quote, but the explanation is helpful.

[Julie in Austin]

The temple stuff is one of my MIL main rants. She says she and her siblings experienced sexual abuse in the temple. I know this can happen in all churches, however, she did give me a book - I can't remember the title but I will find it- and there is much discussion about sexual stuff related to the temple. What I would like to know, and forgive me if this crosses a line, those of you here who are LDS, where are you in the hierarchy and are you allowed in the Temple? Is s*x ever discussed there? My MIL was in therapy for many years and is actually a therapist now and counsels many former LDS people and according to MIL (anecdotal I know) she hears lots of stories similar to hers. Just for reference, MIL is almost 70 so her experience was quite a few years ago.

 

Regarding Joseph Smith, MIL also says he married women already married to other men. Is this true? If not, where might this accusation come from?

 

Thanks! I am finding this thread very educational and I am writing down tons of questions to call my MIL with later!

 

Edited to add: The book was called Out of Mormonism.

 

A few things:

 

1. Are you sure she meant 'temple' and not 'church'? I ask because, unfortunately, we have sexual abusers in our church just like anyone else. However, children virtually never go into the temple (only situation would be a one-time thing if their own parents had not been married in the temple before they were born and were getting married there now).

 

2. There is nothing sexual in the temple.

 

3. You need to be preparing to go on a mission or get married or a mature adult (i.e., not 19) to go to the temple. So, basically any adult who wants to can and will go to the temple.

 

4. Yes, Joseph Smith did marry a few women already married to other men.

[MamaSheep]

Regarding my first question about Joseph Smith predicting the return of Jesus, I made the mistake of Googling it since I can't call MIL just yet and :tongue_smilie:I am sorry I did that! I don't have time to wade through it all. So, let me just ask, how does the LDS church handle/resolve/address the false prophesies he made, with respect to Deuteronomy 18:20-22?

 

Usually the bit about Joseph Smith predicting the return of Jesus at a particular time stems from a statement in a revelation in which God said that if Joseph lived to a certain age he would see the second coming. That's not how it's phrased...and I can't remember off the top of my head where it's at to look it up just now. At any rate, when Joseph was asked about it during his lifetime, he said it could mean several things, and he wasn't sure himself what God was getting at. And God didn't offer further clarification. So if the guy God said it to wasn't sure what it meant, it seems a little arrogant, to me, when his critics pretend they understand it completely. That said, though, Joseph did not live to the specified age, he was killed by a mob prior to that point. Perhaps it meant that if the people in the world were prepared to accept the teachings of God's new prophet they would also be prepared to receive the Son of God himself, but they were not. I don't know. But since the "IF" part of the prophecy didn't happen, I would not expect the "THEN" component to come into play. Sort of like when Jonah prophesied that IF the people of Nineveh didn't repent, THEN they would be destroyed. The IF didn't happen (because they DID repent), so neither did the THEN part. A lot of prophecies contain those kinds of contingencies, and if we only look at half the equation, then we would have to say that Jonah was a false prophet because he predicted the destruction of Nineveh--and even EXPECTED it to the point of building a little booth from which to watch the fireworks. But it didn't happen. To me, this particular prophecy of Joseph's falls into a similar category.

 

As far as other 'false prophecies'--I haven't met any yet. I once came across a list that purported to be 55 (or something like that) failed prophecies of Joseph Smith, and went down it point by point. I couldn't find anything on the list that actually 'worked' as a 'failed prophecy'. Some of them took a bit of research, but a lot of them all I had to do was look the things up in context. Some of the statements were obviously Joseph's personal opinion about things, and not prophecy at all, and he never pretended they were. Some of them were if-then prophecies like I talked about above, in which certain blessings for the church were offered IF the church would do certain things. When the church failed in their part of it (which sadly they did at times), of COURSE the blessing did not come to pass. That's not a failed prophecy, it's just a matter of people not holding up their end of a bargain. Other things on the list weren't prophecies at all, but commandments. "So and so will go such and such a place.." or whatever. But he didn't, and some people try to claim that as a failed prophecy. But that's a little like saying Moses was a false prophet because he said, "Thou shalt not worship graven images" and then the Israelites made a gold calf. If you see what I mean. The guy didn't go where he was told to go. That's personal disobedience to an instruction, not a false prophecy. Anyway, it turned out that everything on the list sorta went that way. There were a few actual prophecies on the list that have not yet come to pass--but there's also nothing preventing them from happening in the future, which makes them unfulfilled (yet), but not 'failed'.

 

Anyway...HTH.

[Veritaserum]

The temple stuff is one of my MIL main rants. She says she and her siblings experienced sexual abuse in the temple. I know this can happen in all churches, however, she did give me a book - I can't remember the title but I will find it- and there is much discussion about sexual stuff related to the temple. What I would like to know, and forgive me if this crosses a line, those of you here who are LDS, where are you in the hierarchy and are you allowed in the Temple? Is s*x ever discussed there? My MIL was in therapy for many years and is actually a therapist now and counsels many former LDS people and according to MIL (anecdotal I know) she hears lots of stories similar to hers. Just for reference, MIL is almost 70 so her experience was quite a few years ago.

 

Regarding Joseph Smith, MIL also says he married women already married to other men. Is this true? If not, where might this accusation come from?

 

Thanks! I am finding this thread very educational and I am writing down tons of questions to call my MIL with later!

 

Good heavens! No, nothing sexual happens in the temple and I have a hard time understanding how your MIL (or her siblings) would have been in a position to be sexually assaulted in the temple. That sounds, well, ludicrous! Children only enter a temple if they are being sealed to their parents or, in the case of 12yo - 18yo, to participate in proxy baptisms. I've gone to the temple many times and I don't ever remember being alone with another person, and I can't imagine abuse even being possible, given how things normally operate. :confused:

 

Any adult member in good standing in the Church (pays tithing, attends meetings, keeps the Word of Wisdom, has a testimony, etc.) may enter any temple at any time. Such a person may participate in any of the ceremonies as well. There is no "hierarchy" in that sense.

[TXMary2]

A few things:

 

1. Are you sure she meant 'temple' and not 'church'? I ask because, unfortunately, we have sexual abusers in our church just like anyone else. However, children virtually never go into the temple (only situation would be a one-time thing if their own parents had not been married in the temple before they were born and were getting married there now).

 

I am fairly certain she said temple. She has talked about secret ceremonies and the undergarments thing. She was a teenager at the time.

 

2. There is nothing sexual in the temple.

 

3. You need to be preparing to go on a mission or get married or a mature adult (i.e., not 19) to go to the temple. So, basically any adult who wants to can and will go to the temple.

 

4. Yes, Joseph Smith did marry a few women already married to other men.

This was/is OK? Has the church ever addressed this?

 

 

Thanks.

[MamaSheep]

We seem to get completely different meanings from the same scriptures. I appreciate the further explanation. Regarding the Lewis quote, I'm not sure he meant what it seems when only reading that quote, but the explanation is helpful.

 

No I don't think Lewis's understanding was exactly identical to LDS belief either, but it's the closest parallel I could think of that might make it understandable. They are very close to each other there.

[mytwomonkeys]

I was "raised" in the RLDS or Community of Christ church and baptized in it when I was 8. However, because a church was not often close to where my parents moved (and we moved around a lot), we were not regular attenders. However I still have a lot of memories about it and going to annual family camps, etc.

 

The reorganized church had the same roots as the LDS church with Joseph Smith. However they split off after Joseph Smith's death and a differing of opinion on who should be the next prophet. The reorganized church thought that it should stay within his bloodlines, his family. The LDS church didn't. Present day (well when I last went to church there over 10 yrs ago lol) they still use the Book of Mormon, but they have their own Doctrine and Covenants. MUCH is different though. Women can hold the priesthood, and there really is not much for many ordinances other then baptism, anointing the sick..(?) They have one temple, but its an open building used for holding services, education, and a lot more. They don't have a Word of Wisdom to follow (so they can drink coffee, tea...).

 

very interesting. thank you so much for taking the time to reply! my relatives do drink coffee & have afternoon tea. it never crossed my mind that was different from LDS (i didn't realize LDS couldn't have caffeine). i don't recall my dad's family using the book of mormon at their church (i've visited several times growing up), but i certainly could be wrong about that (i was younger and not paying too much attention honestly). but i've never heard them mention it, or even joseph smith for that matter. i know in their minds, they seem to think of their church as just another denomination & seem to see no real differences between their church and other mainstream churches. perhaps that's why they feel so weireded out when i ask them questions?? i'm going to ask my mom some more stuff...not that i care a great deal really....just totally curious:)

[TXMary2]

Good heavens! No, nothing sexual happens in the temple and I have a hard time understanding how your MIL (or her siblings) would have been in a position to be sexually assaulted in the temple. That sounds, well, ludicrous! Children only enter a temple if they are being sealed to their parents or, in the case of 12yo - 18yo, to participate in proxy baptisms. I've gone to the temple many times and I don't ever remember being alone with another person, and I can't imagine abuse even being possible, given how things normally operate. :confused:

 

Any adult member in good standing in the Church (pays tithing, attends meetings, keeps the Word of Wisdom, has a testimony, etc.) may enter any temple at any time. Such a person may participate in any of the ceremonies as well. There is no "hierarchy" in that sense.

 

 

I don't know the details of why she and her siblings were in the temple, but I do know they were teenagers and there wasn't any "alone" aspect to it, but a group thing.

 

What percentage of Mormons actually participate in Temple ceremonies? I am just curious if the people who talk about what happens there are people that have actually participated in one of the secret/sacred cermonies or is it just hearsay?

 

I just wanted to add that most of what I "know" about Mormonism is from my MIL or books she has given me. Honestly, before my MIL I didn't have an opinion on the LDS church one way or the other, but with all I have heard from her I haven't had a favorable view. I know there may be some out there who have written books that may have financial motivations or want revenge on someone so what they say could be suspect. With regards to my MIL though, she has nothing to gain by sharing her experience with me or being untruthful. In fact, she is now pretty much an atheist and her big reason for discussing religion with me is because she thinks it is all dangerous. She is especially vehement against LDS because of her personal experience and one thing that makes her really angry is when current LDS people say that people like her are lying or they "don't understand how that could have happened." Do you chalk these stories up to being not true or is it something you deal with much like Catholics have to deal with the reputation of many priests being sexual abusers?

Edited January 1, 2011 by TXMary2

[Julie in Austin]

Thanks.

 

Given the logistics of teen temple trips, it is very difficult for me to imagine an opportunity for sexual abuse, but I suppose anything is possible. That said, there is absolutely nothing normal or acceptable about sexual activity of any kind in the temple.

 

I'm not sure what you mean be OK or addressed by the Church. Joseph Smith's polygamy is a part of history and you will find different beliefs among the members as to why it happened. Most LDS believe it was God's will; a small minority do not.

[Julie in Austin]

I don't know the details of why she and her siblings were in the temple, but I do know they were teenagers and there wasn't any "alone" aspect to it, but a group thing.

 

What percentage of Mormons actually participate in Temple ceremonies? I am just curious if the people who talk about what happens there are people that have actually participated in one of the secret/sacred cermonies or is it just hearsay?

 

There's nothing secret about what the teens do on a temple trip, so let me outline it for you: they drive to the temple as a group. They go into gender-segregated locker rooms and change into white clothing. They go into another room with a baptismal font and are baptized by full immersion. They change into dry clothes. They have hands placed on their heads and are confirmed. They go home.

 

Virtually all kids 12+ will do this. I don't know stats for adults participating in other temple activities, but if you look around an LDS congregation on Sunday, maybe 80% of adults will have participated at some point. The other 20% will be strongly encouraged to do so.

[mytwomonkeys]

oh. i am wrong. i just looked at my aunt sarah's bible (she died & left it to me) and the inside clearly says:

 

the holy scriptures

containing the old and new testaments

an inspired revision of the authorized version

 

by joseph smith jr.

 

A new correction edition

 

the reorganized church of jesus christ of latter day saints

 

herald publishing house

independence, missouri

 

the preface also clearly tells the history of joseph smith. so, they did incorporate that. i stand corrected:)

[snipsnsnailsx5]

The temple stuff is one of my MIL main rants. She says she and her siblings experienced sexual abuse in the temple. I know this can happen in all churches, however, she did give me a book - I can't remember the title but I will find it- and there is much discussion about sexual stuff related to the temple. What I would like to know, and forgive me if this crosses a line, those of you here who are LDS, where are you in the hierarchy and are you allowed in the Temple? I just joined the church two years ago, and my husband and I went to the temple last year. :)

Is s*x ever discussed there? My MIL was in therapy for many years and is actually a therapist now and counsels many former LDS people and according to MIL (anecdotal I know) she hears lots of stories similar to hers. Just for reference, MIL is almost 70 so her experience was quite a few years ago.

We've only been to the temple once, but there was nothing even remotely s*xual about it. So that's very puzzling to me. I'm not sure what happened to your MIL. However what age was she when this happened? Children under 12 can't go through the temple (unless they were adopted and are being sealed to their family, or their family recently joined the church...this is a one time ceremony very much like a marriage ceremony). Children over 12 can participate in the baptisms for the dead. But I don't think they can start going through the temple until when they get their mission call at 19 at the earliest? I'm fuzzy on my time range here so someone else help me out! :)

 

Regarding Joseph Smith, MIL also says he married women already married to other men. Is this true? If not, where might this accusation come from?

Hmm doubtful. I've never heard that?

 

Thanks! I am finding this thread very educational and I am writing down tons of questions to call my MIL with later!

 

I'm very sorry to hear about your MIL's difficulties. One thing to note, its never a good idea to get information from a book that is going to be bias on anti-Mormonism. It would be like trying to find information on cats from a book that was anti-cats. Sorry poor example, but general idea. ;) The anti-LDS literature out there is always taking things way out of context and adding untruths based on a few truths. For example, sacred temple ceremonies are suddenly spun around to look like weird secret rituals, when really its not at all. I went to the temple for the first time last year (well the year before last now!) and had NO prior knowledge or experience with it. I never felt weirded out or uncomfortable. It was all very spiritual.

 

Edited to add: The book was called Out of Mormonism.

 

My answers in red. :)

[MamaSheep]

I don't know the details of why she and her siblings were in the temple, but I do know they were teenagers and there wasn't any "alone" aspect to it, but a group thing.

Hmmm....well, teens can go to the temple to do baptisms for the dead. They don't go to the other parts of the temple then. Maybe it could have been a youth group trip to do baptisms? If that's the case, I find the idea that a sexual predator could have taken advantage of them there horrific beyond words. Honestly, it makes me sick on a number of levels just thinking about such a thing. It would be hard for it to happen, there are individual changing stalls in the changing rooms, boys are separate from girls, the actual baptisms are required to have a certain number of witnesses, and both adult men and women are present. I can't imagine that it could happen, but I know that sexual predators can be rather clever and find ways. But oh to think of something that horrible happening in a TEMPLE of all places! How AWFUL! I sincerely hope they reported what happened and had the perpetrator prosecuted and excommunicated. How dreadful!

 

What percentage of Mormons actually participate in Temple ceremonies? I am just curious if the people who talk about what happens there are people that have actually participated in one of the secret/sacred cermonies or is it just hearsay?

 

I don't really know percentages. Lots....? I don't know if those who talk about it have been there or not either.

[snipsnsnailsx5]

I am fairly certain she said temple. She has talked about secret ceremonies and the undergarments thing. She was a teenager at the time.

 

The temple ordinances and receiving the garments can't happen until 19 and preparing to go on a mission or if the person is married. (right fellow LDS'ers?) So she couldn't have been part of that unless she was preparing to go on a mission, already married, or an adult.

And there is nothing even remotely s*xual about it?

[MamaSheep]

I'm wracking my brain to try to think of ANYTHING in the temple that could even be misconstrued as sexual. There is only one thing I can think of. There is a point in one of the ceremonies where a person is anointed with consecrated oil, and the person performing the ceremony (who is always of the same sex as the person receiving) touches various body parts (not 'private' ones) with the oil, VERY briefly, and in a COMPLETELY non-sexual way. Could that be an underlying source of what you're hearing about? But yeah, this would only be adults, unless someone is getting married when they're still a teenager. It's not something that a group of teens would go do. I dunno, I've been through all the temple ceremonies myself, and that's the only, only thing I can think of (and I don't think I'm saying too much here because this much is described in temple prep classes that pretty much anyone can go to). My mom's almost 70, has been through the temple gajillions of times in every possible manner, and serves now as a temple worker helping other people through the ceremonies. She would never in a million years be involved in anything even remotely resembling sexual abuse. She was a guardian ad-litem for abused kids for years. It's not something she would stand for. It's not something I would stand for. My dad is also a temple worker, and my husband has been too, though he isn't currently.

Edited January 1, 2011 by MamaSheep

[DianeW88]

I'm am so sorry to hear about your MIL's story. I, too, am wracking my brain trying to think of what on earth she could have been referring to. I'm sure abuse could have happened, as predators are everywhere, but there is NOTHING, and I mean, NOTHING, within the context of temple ordinances that is even REMOTELY sexual.