The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[Stoked]

And as firmly as I believe in the LDS Church, I have no problem with those who hold to the opinion that Joeph and others came up with an elaborate ruse. In essence, that's the basis for one of the "Articles Of Faith" which Joseph penned as an outline as to what we believe:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

For those interested, I'll post a link to the 13 Articles of Faith. It's a good reference for those unfamiliar with LDS doctrine.

https://mormon.org/articles-of-faith/

I believe it is true as well. I am just saying that with that many witnesses it lends weight either being true or a fraud and not soemthing that Smith thinks happened but didn't.

 

[Stifle Tower]

I believe it is true as well. I am just saying that with that many witnesses it lends weight either being true or a fraud and not soemthing that Smith thinks happened but didn't.

Joseph on mushrooms...I hadn't considered that. Maybe he too had an amazing technicolor dreamcoat!

 

[Batman]

Why are Mormons, for the most part, only white?

Actually, at this point i believe there are more non-white Mormons than White Mormons on a global scale

 

[CONAN]

I'm curious where the two of you got the idea that they never waffled on whether or not they'd actually seen the plates and an angel.

We'll start with Martin Harris. The dude was, in all honesty, kind of a loon. He was all over the map his entire life on what religion he belonged to (including a couple of LDS sects like the Strangites) and made a lot of statements that would today sound objectively crazy even to religious people about angelic visitations that happened to him and all the things in his life that were affected by demonic actions (basically every minor household inconvenience). During the early Palmyra years there are MANY accounts from several different and independent sources that Harris stated that he did not see the plates physically but with his "spiritual eye." In his late life he started denying ever having made these statements and said that he saw the plates physically. But, to be honest, there are just too many accounts of him denying it over too long a period of time (about 7-8 years) to take those late-life claims very seriously.

Harris' belief in the now-mainstream version of the church does not appear to have fully survived the assassination of Joseph Smith.

David Whitmer died having rejected the LDS church and its authority to claim the priesthood. In the early 1830s he stated that he didn't see the plates physically but instead with "an eye of faith." Whitmer's story as to how and when he saw the plates changes dramatically over time as well. At various points he appears to claim that he found the plates independently or happening to have seen other items (such as Laban's sword) independent of Joseph Smith.

Of the three Cowdery appears to have hewed closest to the original story. One always wonders what is in the purported Cowdery history of the church.

So 2 of the 3 changed their story a little on the plates but didn't completely deny it. Am I reading that right? And these guys were all a bit off when it came to their lives but you are going to pin them down on those statements?

 

[Stoked]

Actually, at this point i believe there are more non-white Mormons than White Mormons on a global scale

People in America think the LDS faith is a mostly Utah, mostly white faith and that is simply not the accurate story. More Mormons are in the US but outside Utah than in it and more outside the US than in it. The LDS church is very strong in Mexico, Phillipines, Samoa and Tonga.

 

[One Brow]

I'd be more inclined to agree with what you are saying if he was the only one to claim to have seen the plates. Since 11, on record, others have claimed to have seen the plates that lends weight to either it is true or it is some elaborate deception.

If Mormonism were the only religion that had this sort of witnessing, your point might be believable. However, some early Muslims supposedly witnessed Mohammed talking to Gabriel. I don't believe they were all in on a conspiracy, nor do I think Gabriel was there. Even today in the USA, people talk about how faith healers have helped them, sometimes even after their various tricks have been exposed. So, I see no reason to suspect conspiracy, even though I don't believe Smith was visited by angels.

 

[colton]

Where does the "millenium" come in?

Yes, I didn't mention any about Christ's Second Coming in my plan of salvation post. As I think many Christian groups do, LDS believe the millennium will begin at the Second Coming of Christ. He will come in glory to reign personally on the earth. This will be a 1000 year period of peace and righteousness. The time period occurs more or less congruently with the resurrection... some people will be resurrected at the start of the millennium whereas others will be resurrected later on. The millennium will conclude with the final casting out of Satan, and the final resurrections/judgments. Or at least, that's the typical LDS view of things.

 

[Stoked]

If Mormonism were the only religion that had this sort of witnessing, your point might be believable. However, some early Muslims supposedly witnessed Mohammed talking to Gabriel. I don't believe they were all in on a conspiracy, nor do I think Gabriel was there. Even today in the USA, people talk about how faith healers have helped them, sometimes even after their various tricks have been exposed. So, I see no reason to suspect conspiracy, even though I don't believe Smith was visited by angels.

The growth of the church shows it is believable.

 

[One Brow]

The growth of the church shows it is believable.

We humans are indeed willing to believe a wide variety of things. I'll try to choose a better word next time.

 

[The Midnight]

Here is my problem with calling Joseph Smith a fraud, not saying you were PKM, but just in general. Isn't it possible he truly believed what he saw? Just because he may or may not have been mistaken doesn't mean he is being fraudulent. What about Mohammed, what about Moses, what about Jesus? If a religion, any religion, when lived as taught makes you a better person then who really cares whether it is true or not? When you get down to the basis of basically all religions they are exactly the same. Be a good person and treat others well. The rest is just semantics IMO.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference between Jesus and Mohammed & Smith, is that Jesus himself was the evidence. People interacted with him. His disciples wrote about him and these stories were scrutinized by people who were around at the time. Nobody would have believed the gospels if there were people denying Jesus' existence or what he was able to do. If I remembered correctly, the gospels were written 30 years after Jesus' death? That's enough time for people who had seen Jesus to point out the discrepancies between the gospels and what he'd done (if that was the case).

However in the case of Mohammed and Smith - who were visited by angels - we've got to take it by faith alone that what they're telling us is true. That whatever they said about the angels appearing to them is true. There is no way of verifying that. (except for the 12 witnesses).

 

[Stoked]

We humans are indeed willing to believe a wide variety of things. I'll try to choose a better word next time.

What word would you like to use? Probable? Plausable? Likely? Rational?

 

[Batman]

How can a nonmormon get the Mormon honnies?

I'd say 95% of active Mormon Girls would not consider marrying a nonMormon guy

 

[One Brow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference between Jesus and Mohammed & Smith, is that Jesus himself was the evidence. People interacted with him. His disciples wrote about him and these stories were scrutinized by people who were around at the time. Nobody would have believed the gospels if there were people denying Jesus' existence or what he was able to do. If I remembered correctly, the gospels were written 30 years after Jesus' death? That's enough time for people who had seen Jesus to point out the discrepancies between the gospels and what he'd done (if that was the case).

Since you asked, you're wrong. Even with Paul writing some 10 years after the fact (and there is very little of a physical Jesus in Paul's early writing), no one was around who wanted to take the time and effort to travel a few hundred miles to skeptically investigate some claims about the guy executed over a decade ago. It would be harder for them than for you to travel to Africa today. Would you go visit Somalia to debunk some claim that some guy who was shot to death in the 1990s was a resurrected, because some 30 people who gather in a little place in the city told you so?

By the time the gospels are written, it's 40 years after the fact. By comparison, try finding out who lived at 3001 LaClede Ave., St. Louis, MO in 1973. If I tell you they laid their hands on some blind people and restored their sight, how would you go about finding evidence one way or the other?

I don't know if there was a Jesus/Joshua in Palestine around the time of 30 AD who was the model for the figure in the book. However, the notion that evidence of such a person would be easy to find is laughable.

 

[sirkickyass]

So 2 of the 3 changed their story a little on the plates but didn't completely deny it. Am I reading that right? And these guys were all a bit off when it came to their lives but you are going to pin them down on those statements?

No, you're reading it the way you want to read it. Two of the three had long periods where they stated that they never physically saw the plates. That's what I'm telling you.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Back to the 1st question.


Do Mormons pleasure themselves?

Negged because "inappropriate". Colton avoiding the hard questions.

 

[The Midnight]

Since you asked, you're wrong. Even with Paul writing some 10 years after the fact (and there is very little of a physical Jesus in Paul's early writing), no one was around who wanted to take the time and effort to travel a few hundred miles to skeptically investigate some claims about the guy executed over a decade ago. It would be harder for them than for you to travel to Africa today. Would you go visit Somalia to debunk some claim that some guy who was shot to death in the 1990s was a resurrected, because some 30 people who gather in a little place in the city told you so?

By the time the gospels are written, it's 40 years after the fact. By comparison, try finding out who lived at 3001 LaClede Ave., St. Louis, MO in 1973. If I tell you they laid their hands on some blind people and restored their sight, how would you go about finding evidence one way or the other?

I don't know if there was a Jesus/Joshua in Palestine around the time of 30 AD who was the model for the figure in the book. However, the notion that evidence of such a person would be easy to find is laughable.

Quick question, what are you beliefs? Or are you an atheist/agnostic?

 

[One Brow]

What word would you like to use? Probable? Plausable? Likely? Rational?

If Mormonism were the only religion that had this sort of witnessing, your point might be reliable evidence.

 

[sirkickyass]

I'd venture a guess that "active" membership is probably about the same as any other Christian religion. And it also depends upon what your definition of active is. Do you need to attend worship services one time a month, one time a year? Do you exclude elderly people who no longer attend services but consider themselves to be "active" in their faith?

Apparently the REAL number of mormons in Brazil is closer to a quarter million.

https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/54497395-180/church-census-lds-reported.html.csp

The Brazilian government believes there are far fewer Mormons in the country than the LDS Church does.

The 2010 Brazilian census found that 225,695 people identified as Latter-day Saints whereas the LDS Church reported 1,138,740 members in Brazil in 2010.
"These findings indicate that self-identified Latter-day Saints on the census account for only 20 percent of total membership officially reported by the church in Brazil," writes Matt Martinich, an independent LDS researcher. "Furthermore, the percent of official LDS membership self-affiliating as Latter-day Saint on the census has declined over the past decade."
In 2000, the census reported 199,645 Latter-day Saints, or 26 percent of Mormon membership reported for that year (775,822) by the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
To Martinich, who lives in Colorado Springs, the "most concerning finding" was about the LDS Church's growth rate.
The church reported that Brazilian "membership increased by 362,918 members between 2000 and 2010 yet the censuses for these two years indicate a mere 26,050 increase in self-identified Latter-day Saints," Martinich wrote on his blog. "In other words, the increase in census-reported Latter-day Saints was only 7 percent of the membership increase reported by the church."
The numbers were "surprising," Martinich said in a phone interview. "The church has experienced such steady congregational and stake growth over the last decade, especially the past five years."
That's a trend the LDS Church noted as well.
"A good indicator for membership growth and activity in any area can be found in the construction of meetinghouses and temples," church spokesman Scott Trotter said Monday. "We only build them where members need them, not in anticipation of future growth. Our construction of both types of buildings in Brazil continues at a brisk pace."
Because he doesn't know Portuguese, Martinich, project manager for the Cumorah Foundation, which tracks LDS growth, couldn't read background on Brazil's census to know if there was any difference in the data collection this time around.
In many Latin American countries, for example, only the head of household fills out the census forms, he said. "If the father is Catholic, and his wife and children are Mormon, he might fill out the form as if everyone is Catholic."
Still, the numbers are concerning, said Martinich, who is Mormon.
"We know that the church is struggling to maintain self-sufficiency in Brazil, with Brazilians staffing all 27 missions. The church can't do it, even with all the members they have."
During the same period, the census revealed that Protestants have experienced major growth reflected in both church-reported members and census-reported members. In the past 30 years, the Brazilian census has revealed that the percentage of Protestants in the population jumped from 6.6 percent to 22.2 percent.
It is clear, Martinich said, that the LDS Church continues to have "significant convert-retention issues in Brazil."

Many religions actually lowball their estimates of global membership (see Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists). The LDS' membership assumptions are, and always have been, extremely aggressive. Not quite Scientology aggressive, but close. I haven't gone to church in years. I'll be on the membership roster until I'm at least 90 based on current policies.

 

[One Brow]

Quick question, what are you beliefs? Or are you an atheist/agnostic?

Does my answer change your response?

I'm a freethinker.

 

[Beantown]

I'm an active Mormon but there are two questions/issues I struggle with. No person has been able to give me a sufficient answer on these. So I figure Jazzfanz is my last resort

1. Why did Joseph Smith allow blacks in the Priesthood only to have Brigham Young ban them around 1848?

2. Why did the church continue Plural marriage even after the "revelation" of the 1890 Manifesto?


I'm not trying to cause issue but I would really like answers to these to clear my mind. The only thing I can offer up is that leaders of the church make mistakes and sin and these were clearly human policy mistakes that were of human error.