What's new

The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

Forget how many Mongolians are watching BYU football.. until it effects recruiting, that is.
 
I'm just going to put in my own experience about the getting married young question:
I got married 9 months after I got home from my mission (I was not quite 22), but I married my highschool sweetheart. She dated while I was gone and I dated a little after I got back. That's all it took for me know what I wanted. I had my first kid just over 4 years later. I was not quite done with school as I had one year left. The only "advice" or "counsel" I was given about any of those subjects was from my mission president. He said basically this: "Go home and date. Look for your spouse. Once you've found her, marry her. Don't delay getting married to 'have fun'. Have kids when you feel it's time and you're ready."
We've been married almost 13 years and have 4 kids.
 
A true and honest question: Why are mormons locked into ward/stake boundaries that geographically determine where they must worship when essentially all other religions allow parishoners to freely choose their pastor?

I suspect bad bishops would have a lot more accountability if people more frequently voted with their feet.
 
Not to mention that there are more Mormons outside Utah but within the US than in Utah and more Mormons outside the US than in the US. Over 1 million in Mexico and approaching 1 million in Brazil and the Phillipines...

People do not realise how large and diverse the LDS religion really is.

Correction: Over 1 million in Brazil already.

But what's the REAL number?

How many of those 1 million are active?
 
My former coworker was a mormon. Very hypocritical one I must say, had no problems smoking, doing drugs, alcohol and group sex, but did not drink cofee or tea because of religion. So I have a question - cofee and tea are forbiden because they are hot drinks I was told.... so can you drink cold tea?
 
The Mormon view is that the restoration was part of God's plan all along. It wasn't part of any sort of rescue attempt.



A more accurate way of looking at the Mormon view is to say "BUT for the fullest degree of glory, you must follow the teachings of His Son, which among other things include being baptized by someone with the proper authority."

Also please keep in mind that Mormons believe that the gospel is being taught in the hereafter, so it's not like we think only Mormons will be saved. But we DO think that only those that accept Christ through baptism--be it in this life or in the next--will be saved. It's just that in the here and now, the authority to baptize is only present in the LDS Church.

Just out of curiosity - what is the historical reasoning/evidence for this?
 
Just out of curiosity - what is the historical reasoning/evidence for this?

We believe the Priesthood must be passed down by the laying on of hands by somebody who worthily holds the Priesthood. That authority was lost with the Great Apostasy (basically nobody was worthy) after the death of the Apostles. Thus we believe that Peter, James, and John returned to restore the Priesthood to Joseph Smith.
 
But what's the REAL number?

How many of those 1 million are active?
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?
 
I'm just going to put in my own experience about the getting married young question:
I got married 9 months after I got home from my mission (I was not quite 22), but I married my highschool sweetheart. She dated while I was gone and I dated a little after I got back. That's all it took for me know what I wanted. I had my first kid just over 4 years later. I was not quite done with school as I had one year left. The only "advice" or "counsel" I was given about any of those subjects was from my mission president. He said basically this: "Go home and date. Look for your spouse. Once you've found her, marry her. Don't delay getting married to 'have fun'. Have kids when you feel it's time and you're ready."
We've been married almost 13 years and have 4 kids.

sounds like you had a sensible pres and followed the advise sensibly. I wouldn't fault the ones who try harder to "do what's right" but I can say it often doesn't work out smoothly.
 
A true and honest question: Why are mormons locked into ward/stake boundaries that geographically determine where they must worship when essentially all other religions allow parishoners to freely choose their pastor?

I suspect bad bishops would have a lot more accountability if people more frequently voted with their feet.
You can request your membership records be moved to a different ward/stake if you so desire. We have a few people in our ward who live outside the boundaries. I think generally families would want to attend meetings with others who live in their neighborhood to form friendships. The last thing I'd want to do on a Sunday is drive 25-30 mins to another ward when there's one 10 mins away. And I'm not sure there's an epidemic of "bad bishops" out there. Bishops only serve for about 3-5 years. And unlike other faiths, bishops do not give sermons every week. So it's not like we're shopping for Oral Roberts and fleeing from Stuttering Sam. For the most part, you can pretty much expect the same type of Sacrament Meeting (Mass/Worship Service) in any LDS ward. I've never had a "bad bishop." I've had some I liked more than others, some I thought did an amazing job, but never one I considered "bad."

Now if I felt uncomfortable going to my bishop for an interview, I could always talk to the stake president. I did have kind of a situation like that, when my uncle was the presiding authority. And if I knew of some specific wrongdoing that made my bishop "bad," I would certainly report it.
 
We believe the Priesthood must be passed down by the laying on of hands by somebody who worthily holds the Priesthood. That authority was lost with the Great Apostasy (basically nobody was worthy) after the death of the Apostles. Thus we believe that Peter, James, and John returned to restore the Priesthood to Joseph Smith.

Again just out of curiosity, what is the evidence for this? Are there any first hand eye witness accounts supporting this claim (i.e., similar to the 4 gospels)?
 
My former coworker was a mormon. Very hypocritical one I must say, had no problems smoking, doing drugs, alcohol and group sex, but did not drink cofee or tea because of religion. So I have a question - cofee and tea are forbiden because they are hot drinks I was told.... so can you drink cold tea?
Wow!
I would have counseled her to just go ahead and drink the coffee. She's kind of like those that made Christ so angry, arguing over exactly how many steps you could take on the Sabbath, while commiting far more egregious sins.

The Word of Wisdon does say hot drinks, which were basically coffee and tea when it was given. Further clarification has defined those as the drinks to avoid. It's not breaking the WOW to have a hot chocolate or Ovaltine, for example. Iced tea is out, as is chilled coffee; the temperature doesn't change the content. While not at the level of a commandment, we've been counseled that no caffeinated beverages are good for us. And we've also been counseled that energy drinks, which have become so popular over the course of the past decade are not good for us, either, due to the high levels of sugar and/or caffeine (if it says "guarana"...that's also caffeine!).
 
Again just out of curiosity, what is the evidence for this? Are there any first hand eye witness accounts supporting this claim (i.e., similar to the 4 gospels)?
Well, the four gospels are generally regarded as not first-hand...i.e. the gospels are widely believed to have been written by others as accounts that had been passed on by the disciples. So if you are to believe the Bible to be the "gospel truth," so to speak, you are accepting the undocumented accounts of others claiming to have witnessed or been told of certain events. Believe in the Catholic Bible and you'll be forced to acknowledge the existence of dragons. Are the gospels factual? Certainly a great number of people would argue against that; otherwise, there would be a universal acceptance of Jesus as the Christ. If you do believe in the gospels as eyewitness or truthfui accounts, then the same could be said of the Book of Mormon. Koran, or any other religious text - or even historical books. Even "documented" events can be viewed in completely different lights depending on the author's prejudices. For example, The American Revolution...a heroic uprising according to those in the U.S. Pick up a British textbook and you'll read a less glowing review of the American mutineers who murdered British soldiers.
 
Well, the four gospels are generally regarded as not first-hand...i.e. the gospels are widely believed to have been written by others as accounts that had been passed on by the disciples. So if you are to believe the Bible to be the "gospel truth," so to speak, you are accepting the undocumented accounts of others claiming to have witnessed or been told of certain events. The same could be said of the Book of Mormon. Koran, or any other religious text - or even historical. Even "documented" events can be viewed in completely different lights depending on the author's prejudices. For example, The American Revolution...a heroic uprising according to those in the U.S. Pick up a British textbook and you'll read a less glowing review of the American mutineers who murdered British soldiers.

Yeah but it was a story of Jesus, written by people other than Jesus himself though right?

I guess my question was, were there anyone else other than Joseph Smith who were there at the time accounting for what Smith did or discovered?
 
Back
Top