21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith

There are actually quite a few offshoots of the Mormon church that have formed over the years. They're obviously not within the church, but they're related. Some have their own prophets and secret texts.

 

To put it simply Mormons believe in absolute truth. Let's take every doctrine in the universe and lump them into two categories: things that matter to your eternal salvation and things that don't. The essential doctrines of salvation are absolutely spelled out. There really isn't much room for opinion. If you believe that God is speaking to a living prophet on Earth and that he's revealed his Gospel, it doesn't make any sense to come up with a different interpretation.

It's either true or it isn't.

That's why people who take opposition to some of the churches beliefs will often leave the church. Critics attribute doctrines to church leadership, and assume that the prophet or local leaders call all the shots. Members of the LDS church accept the teachings as God's truth, and who are we to question God?

Ultimately it comes down to a question of faith, and each Latter Day Saint is encouraged to do their own study and have their own prayers because we believe that each individual is entitled to their own personal revelation.

When it comes to things that don't have anything to do with our personal salvation, quite a bit is open to interpretation, but again, these things don't really matter. I'm sure you'd get a lot of opinions on how Jesus actually fed the 4000, but most people wouldn't care to speculate, and who cares anyway?

 

How do you know your prophet is not a fraud? Many people claim to be prophets, and many others follow them. What makes you right and them wrong?

 

What do the Protestants and Catholics think of Joseph Smith?

 

You can ask some other Mormons if you want. But really, when it comes to doctrines that matter, there is virtually no deviation.

 

Thanks for sharing, DarkHorse. It's always good to hear something directly from a member of a religion and not from a media outlet that may or may not have its facts straight.

I do have a question about one of the things you mentioned earlier. How does the Mormon view of eternal marriage reconcile with what Jesus Himself said in Luke 20?

This, of course, was in response to the Saducees asking him whose wife a woman was if she married several brothers while on Earth.

 

This is what Jesus had to say: (Matthew 7:15-20)
"7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire."
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."


I would say that Joseph Smith and the prophets who have followed him have brought forth good fruit. I would also say that I have read the Book of Mormon and have prayed about it's truthfulness, and that the Holy Spirit has personally witnessed to me that it is true. But that's how I developed my own testimony.

My only recommendation is that you could try the same for yourself.

 

I think it is very similar to the Catholic/Protestant split in that the offshoot groups question the LDS authority. Because of their beleif in continuous revelation through a prophet, I think that non-LDS churches would be considered illegitimate. This is why many of the offshoots have their own prophets with their own sets of revelations.

Basically, it's impossible to keep a large group of people beleiving in the exact same things over any significant length of time, especially when those beleifs are grounded in faith and not fact. This is true of all religions.

 

Thanks for the reply. I have two more questions:

1) What does it mean to "bring forth good fruit?" If one prophet preached polygamy, for example, how can a later prophet preach against it?

2) Would you describe in a little more detail how you came to beleive that you were personally "witnessed" by the Holy Spirit? Personally, for me to beleive that something is true without objective verification, I would have to have a clear and unquestionable spiritual experience.

 

If you recall, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection at all. Really they were just trying to trip up Jesus, and his response was obviously not what they were expecting.

Still it's important to understand that Mormon's believe that, while marriage can continue into the next life if the marriage is performed by proper authority in the temple, weddings (or any other earthly ordinance, like baptism) cannot occur in heaven.

This is an excerpt from a book written by James E. Talmage, which is an officially recognized resource from the church: “The Lord’s meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman shall be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only. … In the resurrection, there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.” (Jesus the Christ, p. 548.)

 

I'd just like to state that it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to answer all of these questions time-wise. I need to get some things done at work.

However... I'll try to come back to these later.

1) The long and short of polygamy is that is was practiced for a time because the Lord told us to. It was practiced at time during the Bible, and it ultimately boils down to: who are we to question God?

I can tell you this, it would have made things a lot simpler to not practice it at all, and my personal belief is that it was a deliberate test of faith by the Lord. I'm sure it wasn't a lot of fun for Abraham to go up to the mountain to sacrifice Isaac, but you do what the Lord tells you to.

2) I consider my own spiritual experiences to be deeply personal, and I won't go into much more detail in a public forum like this, but I can tell you that it involved a lot of study, fasting, and prayer. The experience was significant enough that I devoted two years of my life sharing the message with others, and I make it a point to share it with as many people as I can.

 

Should I start another thread to respond to this?? If we need to...I guess we can.

This is simply not true. The New Testament carries the weight of a lot more reliability...if not for the very obvious reason that it was written much closer to the events it purports to record than the Book of Mormon. The NT is not a book someone wrote while alone with the revelation of God. It's an account of events witnessed by people who lived in that era. Further, Jesus and his followers are discussed among various non-Christian sources.

To suggest there is no archaelogical evidence to support the New Testament is really quite absurd.

Jesus' story of crucifixion is easily deniable by first and second century Roman authorities...but it never happens. Instead we see correspondence between Roman officials about how best to deal with these Christians...particularly so between Pliny the Younger and Trajan. A more interesting source is Emperor Julian (whom the Christians called the Apostate) who lamented that he hated Christians and was embarassed that they and the Jews took better care of the poor than the state did.

The NT isn't one book...it's a collection of accounts and letters. We have copies of these letters. More by far than any other documents in antiquity...and closer by far than any similar religious text to the events which it purports to describe. Honestly, it's not even close in that regard.

I can tell you that time after time, archaelogists have said, "this can't be because we don't have evidence of it" (Old Testament and New Testament events)...only to find something substantiating the NT story. The biggest example in my memory was King Darius who was king of Babylon when Daniel was there. Archaelogists said forever this king was made up...that there was no account of him....until they found a document which showed that this guy acted as king when the real king was out fighting wars.

Honestly, I've had this discussion here with No Worries here before, quite a bit. It seems we have the same discussion over and over again. He is very civil about it, and that's appreciated. I'm not trying to get into a religious pissing match. There is no question that ultimately this is a matter of FAITH. But I do not believe it's entirely without reason...even though reasonable people might disagree.

The source below is admittedly biased...but it quotes to sources which are not.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html

Since it is from the New Testament that we gain our primary knowledge of Jesus, it is fitting to ask whether this literature is sound and historically accurate. Critics often describe the Gospels as pious legend, having no historical competence, and designed only for propaganda purposes. But while it is acknowledged that the Gospels are not biography in the strict sense according to 20th century definitions,[1] the following facts give immense weight to the historical accuracy of the New Testament.

OBJECTIVE SCHOLARSHIP UPHOLDS THE NEW TESTAMENT
Archaeologists studying ancient civilizations by uncovering ruins and examining artifacts, are with increasing success confirming the accuracy of the Biblical texts. Sir William Ramsey's vindication of Luke's writings is a classic example.[2] The findings of archaeology have in fact reversed the opinions of a number of former skeptics. Among these is the scholar Dr. William F. Albright, who writes:

"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details."[3]
Recent archaeological discoveries include both the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1f) and "The Pavement" (John 19:13). Their existence was doubted just a few decades ago. Confirmation of the accuracy of the setting of Jacob's well has also been found (John 4).[4] Such findings have caused many scholars to reverse earlier skeptical opinions on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. Its author has demonstrated an obvious intimate knowledge of the Jerusalem of Jesus' time, just as we would expect from the Apostle John. Such detail would not have been accessible to a writer of a later generation, since Jerusalem was demolished under Titus' Roman army in 70 A.D.

Also, the recent recovery of a Roman census similar to the one in Luke 2:1f, and the historical confirmation of his "synchronism"[5] in Luke 3:1f, underscores the care Luke took in writing his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4).

[Read more about archaeological discoveries that confirm the Bible's accuracy.]

Critics of Luke's Gospel often retreat into non-verifiable and subjective opinions, but they have not overthrown Luke's historical confirmations.[6] By extension, the other two "Synoptic"[7] Gospels of Matthew and Mark, painting essentially similar portraits of Jesus' ministry, are also trustworthy accounts of his life.

Additionally, outside the Bible, Jesus is also mentioned by his near-contemporaries. Extra-Biblical and secular writers (many hostile) point to Jesus' existence, including the Roman writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus and the Talmud. Gary Habermas has cited a total of 39 ancient extra-Biblical sources, including 17 non-Christian, that witness from outside the New Testament to over 100 details of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection

 

I think a new thread on this subject would be appropriate, though some of this is topical.

I maintain that neither text can be considered a legitimate historical account. We simply do not know the exact circumstances under which the NT was written, so that alone does not make it more reliable than the Book of Mormon. There may be details in the NT that have been independantly confirmed as accurate, but that does not make it a reliable text as a whole. Many works of fiction have historically accurate details, but that doesn't make the rest of the text (i.e. the parts that haven't been verified) true. I'm sure you could find historically accurate details in the Book of Mormon, too, if you looked hard enough.

 

You didn't really answer my question about how you determine whether or not a prophet brings forth "good fruit." I was using polygamy as an example--it demonstrates that you cannot objectively evaluate a prophet's legitimacy because you have already accepted it, whether he says "P" or "not P".

Again, how do you know that your prophet is not a fraud?

It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself here, but please explain if I am wrong. How can you say that your spiritual experiences are deeply personal and that you "make it a point to share it (sic) with as many people as I (sic) can"?

 

i read the case for christ. that is the worst book ive ever read. its awful.

 

Q: What specifically does the Mormon Church say about African-Americans and Native Americans?

A: Mormons believe that all mankind are sons and daughters of God and should be loved and respected as such. The blessings of the gospel are available to all.

such a cop-out.

 

You need just as much faith to believe in science and the theories of evolution as you do in believing in the NT.

We are very over confident in that we think as a species we know so much. I bet the Romans though they new everything too. We know very little and Satan likes nothing more then to could ones mind with questions in order to sew the seeds of doubt.

 

Science has nothing to do with faith. Nor does it purport to know everything. It is truly sad that you let your ignorance drive your beleif.