What's new
By:

The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

If I can chime in to see if my understanding is correct... I thought that faith was the keystone virtue for any Christian. If the plates had been displayed for all to see then no one could have faith. We all simply would have known the truth and therefore spoiled this grand test known as life.

Do I have that right? Evidence of God destroys faith and faith is very important for your soul?
 
Hotttnickkk said:
colton said:
the authority to baptize is only present in the LDS Church.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity - what is the historical reasoning/evidence for this?
Click to expand...

Bigb responded already, but to put in my 2 cents...

According to his account,(*) Joseph Smith's first vision came when he was 14, when he prayed to discover which church he should join. He had a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ, who told him to join none of them. Later, when he was 24-25, he had another series of visions which resulted in him (a) bringing forth the Book of Mormon, (b) receiving the authority to baptize from John the Baptist who appeared as an angel, (c) receiving the authority to lead the church of Christ from the apostles Peter, James, and John, who similarly appeared as angels, and (d) founding a new church himself in 1830. He went on to have a series of additional revelations which have been compiled in the book, "Doctrine and Covenants" which we consider as scripture (like the Bible and the Book of Mormon). As far as evidence that he actually did have those experiences, some of them were in the presence of other witnesses, but mostly it's a matter of faith.

(*) You can read some of it here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng
 
Hotttnickkk said:
bigb said:
Thus we believe that Peter, James, and John returned to restore the Priesthood to Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...

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)?
Click to expand...

Oliver Cowdery was present for that particular event. So either he's a first hand eyewitness, or else he was colluding with Joseph Smith. Similarly, there were 11 men who witnessed the "golden plates" from which the Book of Mormon was translated; three of them (including Oliver Cowdery) said they were shown the plates by an angel, and the other eight said they were shown the plates by Joseph Smith.
 
Here's a question I have asked many Mormons and have been shocked by their answers (all answered the same).

I said.. "if we both die and both go to Heaven.. and at that time it is revealed to me that the Mormon church is what you say it is.. I will high five you for being right, being glad God allowed me into Heaven anyway. However.. lets say we both make it and it is revealed that Jesus alone paid the price for our entry and Joseph Smith was a fraud.. though the LDS church did many wonderful things.. would you still be happy you made it because of your calling Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior?"

They fumble around a bit before ultimately saying yes. I push.. so you're saying God had a perfect plan, created a perfect place, and sent His Son so you may have everlasting life and you'd be disappointed?? They fumble.. yes. Thats a major red flag for me.

Two things;
1) These are very devout, non weird Mormons.. one is in the bishopric and one a stake Prez. The others are just good members.
2) I asked the questions with the caveat that if the LDS church were not the one true church.. there would be no levels of glory in the sense of varying degrees of Heaven.

Thoughts?
 
Sirkickyass said:
It is hotly hotly contested whether the Three Witnesses actually stated that they saw the physical plates.
Click to expand...

Not really, but I know what you're talking about. However, I think it's clear from their statements that they all considered themselves to have physically seen the plates. See here, for example, for some quotes from the three individuals: https://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Spiritual_or_literal

All were excommunicated from the church at some point in time.
Click to expand...

True, or at least they all left the church (not certain excommunications were involved for all three). The unbeliever looks at that and says "Aha! They left the church! They must have been lying!" The believer looks at that and says, "Even though they left the church, they still didn't take back their statements. There must be something there! Plus: why the heck would Joseph Smith take the risk of excommunicating someone who was in on a conspiracy with him?"
 
PKM said:
Here's a question I have asked many Mormons and have been shocked by their answers (all answered the same).

I said.. "if we both die and both go to Heaven.. and at that time it is revealed to me that the Mormon church is what you say it is.. I will high five you for being right, being glad God allowed me into Heaven anyway. However.. lets say we both make it and it is revealed that Jesus alone paid the price for our entry and Joseph Smith was a fraud.. though the LDS church did many wonderful things.. would you still be happy you made it because of your calling Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior?"

They fumble around a bit before ultimately saying yes. I push.. so you're saying God had a perfect plan, created a perfect place, and sent His Son so you may have everlasting life and you'd be disappointed?? They fumble.. yes. Thats a major red flag for me.

Two things;
1) These are very devout, non weird Mormons.. one is in the bishopric and one a stake Prez. The others are just good members.
2) I asked the questions with the caveat that if the LDS church were not the one true church.. there would be no levels of glory in the sense of varying degrees of Heaven.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'm confused. See the bolded parts. Were you asking if they'd be happy or if they'd be disappointed? And did they answer yes, they would be happy, or yes they would be disappointed?
 
colton said:
Interesting question. I suspect part of the reason is simply tradition... that's how Joseph Smith set things up, so that's still the way it is. I can't think of anywhere it's in the Doctrine & Covenants, although it's possible there's something there along those lines.

Here's what Wikipedia says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_(LDS_Church)


Personally I think it works well, especially considering the LDS practice of choosing bishops from the congregation and only having them serve for about 5 years.
Click to expand...

It's a lot easier to minister to your flock when you know who they are.

There are definitely members who try to take advantage of more freely giving bishops when it comes to welfare, too. They'll move around until they find one to their liking. This problem would be more prominent with a "no boundaries" rule.
 
PKM said:
Here's a question I have asked many Mormons and have been shocked by their answers (all answered the same).

I said.. "if we both die and both go to Heaven.. and at that time it is revealed to me that the Mormon church is what you say it is.. I will high five you for being right, being glad God allowed me into Heaven anyway. However.. lets say we both make it and it is revealed that Jesus alone paid the price for our entry and Joseph Smith was a fraud.. though the LDS church did many wonderful things.. would you still be happy you made it because of your calling Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior?"

They fumble around a bit before ultimately saying yes. I push.. so you're saying God had a perfect plan, created a perfect place, and sent His Son so you may have everlasting life and you'd be disappointed?? They fumble.. yes. Thats a major red flag for me.

Two things;
1) These are very devout, non weird Mormons.. one is in the bishopric and one a stake Prez. The others are just good members.
2) I asked the questions with the caveat that if the LDS church were not the one true church.. there would be no levels of glory in the sense of varying degrees of Heaven.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think it goes to show how complex things are to us mere mortals. Believing that Heaven is a certain way, it would seem disappointing to me now to know Heaven was really different and Joseph Smith was a fraud. But assuming that Heaven is the best possible destination in your question, I can't imagine someone being there and not being happy. So I think that saying they'd be disappointed is more based on how they would feel NOW and not truly accurate as to how they would feel if they found out Joseph Smith was a fraud after death but still got into Heaven.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I realize it's them saying it, and not you PKM.
 
colton said:
I'm confused. See the bolded parts. Were you asking if they'd be happy or if they'd be disappointed? And did they answer yes, they would be happy, or yes they would be disappointed?
Click to expand...

They admitted they'd be disappointed
 
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.
 
bordelais7 said:
It's a lot easier to minister to your flock when you know who they are.

There are definitely members who try to take advantage of more freely giving bishops when it comes to welfare, too. They'll move around until they find one to their liking. This problem would be more prominent with a "no boundaries" rule.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Not to mention bishops would be tempted to say things from the pulpit that wouldn't offend. I think they call that priestcraft.
 
I'll try again.

Obviously faith is important to religious people. Does faith require a lack of evidence?
 
colton said:
Oliver Cowdery was present for that particular event. So either he's a first hand eyewitness, or else he was colluding with Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's a false dichotomy. People convince themselves of all kinds of things that they don't actually witness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top