QuinSnydersHair
Well-Known Member
Succinct and to the point. I like it.
The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Succinct and to the point. I like it.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
Thanks for clearing that out.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
In addition to bigb's succinct and effective explanation, the reason the Church keeps getting mentioned in connection to it is that the groups that do practice polygamy try to maintain some connection to the mainstream church (e.g. Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). I have had people ask me if I went to a mormon church or the regular fundamentalist one and if I practiced polygamy. That tie-in will keep it in people's minds that the Church practices polygamy even while they don't any longer.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I had a question after family scripture study of 2 Nephi chapter 9. My daughter, who is serving her mission in Mississippi right now, asked us to read this chapter as a family and we did, but these verses kind of struck me:
Is this saying that we are better off NOT doing missionary work? If they do not have the law given (the gospel, the commandments, knowledge of the truth, etc.) then they get a free pass. But if they have the law and don't keep it then they are condemned (how many of us keep it fully?).
Is this saying that we are better off NOT doing missionary work? If they do not have the law given (the gospel, the commandments, knowledge of the truth, etc.) then they get a free pass. But if they have the law and don't keep it then they are condemned (how many of us keep it fully?).
I don't think "all those who have not the law given to them" necessarily means "all those who are not LDS", or anything along those lines. After all (a) people are being taught the gospel in the hereafter, so they will indeed have the law given to them before the judgment, and (b) people generally have SOME degree of law given to them (via the true principles in their religion or society, their conscience, etc.) and they are responsible for living up to those standards. (And when they do, they will receive more truth and knowledge, see D&C 50.)
So, to me it seems that the verse more properly applies to a small subset of people--those who are mentally handicapped, for example, or perhaps those who are raised in so horrible a society that they cannot truly understand right from wrong. Christ's atonement takes care of their unknowing transgressions of gospel law.
It also takes care of infants and small children, so I suppose another question might be "shouldn't we kill all of the babies so they go directly to heaven" but let's not go there.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
Then what happens to fate, or the meaning and intention behind the law? Also trying to play God with killing and decising who goes to Heaven, who dies when? If that would be the case, why would God test us in the first place? "Just be done with it and live happily forever in the Garden of Eden for eternity all my creations! " ?
Of course I have claimed to be a genius who knows everything, only to realize later. . . much later. . . . that while Paul might be the chief of the tribe called sinners, I might be the chief of the tribe called fools.
I've been all over the map with my thinking, my ideas, and opinions, rationally speaking, but have never escaped the simple faith of my mother. She was good. Just good. I used to ask her to take a stand on some complicated issue, and she'd say she didn't know, she just wished Jesus would come soon. And whoever she saw on any hand who needed anything could have anything she had to give. Paiute drunks sleeping it off in the barn in a haystack, when discovered were served breakfast. . . that sort of thing every time she turned around.
Nobody ever gets a "pass" on what they are. Joseph Smith said "bad doctrine doesn't make a bad man", and would seize upon some horribly twisted notion of scripture to explain the subject in a light nobody ever thought of before. Used to be a patent Mormon expression "Don't drive your stakes in too deep, you might not be able to get them out." A truth for pitching a tent, and a sublime expression of how we trap ourselves by our knowitallness.
We had two plans to choose between in the beginning, a plan of statism led by someone who knew it all and could make sure we all did what was right, the ultimate Big Brother of the Orwell sort, or a plan of freedom led by someone who loved us and would absolutely do whatever it takes to heal our wounds and bring us home if we simply could accept His sacrificial gift.
We still get to make that choice day by day.
I take it as a rule of thumb that while we live, and until the final judgment, we are not held strictly accountable for things we haven't understood yet, but we will until then face the effects of our judgment against God. I like the mainstream Chirstian hymn with the line "He loved me ere I knew Him, all my love is to Him".
I never had a Paiute drunk refuse the bacon and eggs and orange juice, and I think they knew my mom loved them somehow, if they just considered her foolish for doing so.
I have decided to make the effort to just take that love God has given, and try not to make Him look foolish for loving me.
God has given us the gift of life, what we give back in faith is our gift to Him. It becomes a definition of who we are that we won't be ashamed to be judged on.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Question:
If Jesus, who according to the Bible (and I would assume the BoM but idk) lived a perfect life, could drink alcohol (and make it), why does Mormonism teach against it? And I get the no drunkenness part, I just don't get the no alcohol part.
My in-laws (non-mormons) are the same way. No alcohol ever. It's annoying.
If Jesus, who according to the Bible (and I would assume the BoM but idk) lived a perfect life, could drink alcohol (and make it), why does Mormonism teach against it? And I get the no drunkenness part, I just don't get the no alcohol part.
My in-laws (non-mormons) are the same way. No alcohol ever. It's annoying.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
My take is the word of wisdom (as the mormons refer to the set of laws given under which alcohol is proscribed) is not a literal expression of what was always required of all believers forever and ever. Rather it is a set of laws to help members in modern times to live "in the world but not of the world", as mormons like to say as well. I view it as more of "the word of obedience" as I believe it is more a test of obedience in the face of temptation than it is directly rules of healthy living.
But if you want to bring historicity into it, why do we not see many tanners around anymore? And when was the last time you went to a cooper to get a barrel repaired? Times change, and that is the point of a living prophet, that the message can be tailored to everyone in a given time, and not always rely heavily on thousand year-old adages and norms. There was a time when brewing and fermenting made water and storage of juice safe for those times when it wasn't readily available in the absence of refrigeration. Of course people enjoyed getting drunk too, but the initial purpose of it was for feeding people safely.
Another example, in the time of Abraham it was socially accepted to hold multiple wives or concubines (which does not mean prostitute, fyi) due to the difficulties in child-birth and infant mortality (not to mention mother mortality) so those they viewed as leaders and people of importance had a better chance of successfully reproducing. Not every Joe Schmoe had concubines or multiple wives.
TL;DR, times change.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I get that Log, but I don't think you can say Jesus lived a perfect life, and then say we shouldn't do something He did because of a cultural change.
Under Mosaic law, Jews abstained from pork products. That’s not because pork is evil, just that it was part of a covenant.
People don't do 90% of the things the Jesus did on a daily basis.
Can you imagine how silly it would be if they did?
Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
BP said it well.
So should we all abstain from riding on cars, so we can WWJD? Or using cell phones? Or should we all eat only unleavened bread? Or should we all wear sandals instead of gym shoes or whatever? How about if we all shave with a knife if at all? If we don't adjust at least a little then it would really make no sense. You asked for the reason mormons do what they do and I gave you a reason. You can argue that reason all you want, but it won't make anyone go "hey you are right, Jesus did lots of stuff we don't do, I am going to throw this religious belief out the window and do whatever I want now". It doesn't really work that way. You can disagree all you want and make reasons for that disagreement, that is cool, and maybe you can get someone you have a personal connection to to question their beliefs as a results (I think questioning beliefs of any kind is healthy, be is religion or politics, or whatever), but there is really nowhere to go with it on an internet forum. But I wish you luck in getting your in-laws or whatever to realize they are dumb and to start getting drunk with you, whether they abstain from a religious stand-point or not.
This confusion must be annoying for you and your many wives.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not talking about minute details, nobody cares if Jesus wore sandals or not because it didn't have anything to do with his beliefs. Now if a religion that claims the Bible is true were to say that you can't wear sandals because so and so prophet said so, then I think it would be valid to say that Jesus wore them, and He never said anything about them. Trying to relate that to cars/cell phones or whatever is missing the entire point.
I just find the Mormon teaching on alcohol contradictory to how Jesus actually lived, and I was curious as to their reasoning behind it. That's all. I have no real desire to change my in-laws beliefs...I think they're fairly silly about it, but it's not a big enough deal to me to where I'm actually going to argue with them about it. I just don't drink around them, pretty simple. I know you were probably joking, but just to clarify, I think there's a huge difference between having a drink or two and getting drunk. I do drink alcohol, I don't get drunk. Big difference, imo.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Of course, it would be silly. We don't need to wear a robe, grow a beard, or walk everywhere. I'm not saying we need to live the exact same lifestyle as Jesus, I'm just saying that if a religion that believes in Him and His teachings says we can't do something, it is more than fair to point out that He did that certain something, and He deemed it ok. That isn't saying we need to live the same way He did, it's just saying that if He did something, we should be able to say that it's ok for us to do too.
So if you want to wear a robe, grow a beard and walk everywhere and not use modern technology, that's totally fine. You don't need to, it won't make you any better of a person, but you can do it. I'm really just talking about the restrictive nature of some laws, and how we can decide whether they should be legit or not based on how Jesus lived.
seattlejazzfan
Well-Known Member
Except they don't.
The real answer to the question is we don't know why modern day prophets have said no alcohol. Just like we don't know why no coffee or beards at BYU for that matter. Having said that even though the no alcohol thing is weird and seems made up, I sure as hell am glad i was taught to stay away from it.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Someone please photoshop Jesus with a box of grapejuice.
I thought Colton said something to that effect once.
But without refrigeration or sanitation grapejuice would become wine eventually. The powdery white stuff on the skin of grapes is yeast.
Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app
But without refrigeration or sanitation grapejuice would become wine eventually. The powdery white stuff on the skin of grapes is yeast.
Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app