Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 4

In some parts of the world, it's tomorrow.

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inqure for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not". -Brigham Young, second prophet of the Church

We do not believe our faith is so blind.  We believe that we must come to an understanding of truth through faith and prayer.  Simply trusting our leaders is not enough.  We must pray to know if what we are taught is right.

As for wives, let me check....*in the distance* Honey, how many wives I got?  You sure?  Would you consider the possibility of a spare?  Uh, no, I like my head where it is.  Okay.  *footsteps returning*

Honestly, I believe I already (at least implicitly) answered this question: post 54.

Tyrphanax said:

corellian77 said:

darth_ender said:

In response to Frink's inquiry, I'm sure I will take flak for this, but sometimes a person of faith acts on faith, even if they are not sure why.  Sometimes God simply wishes to test our obedience.  Looking at the kosher laws of the Old Testament, God did not mention how much cholesterol or the various parasites you might find in pork.  They simply obeyed because God wanted them to.  "Oh no!  Blind faith!"

More to follow soon...

Reading this made me want to chime in.  I think accepting something "on blind faith" simply because a religion advocates it is the first step down a potentially very dangerous and disturbing path.  When people forgo reason and common sense in the name of their religious beliefs, it opens the door to a whole host of questionable, and possibly terrible, acts.

Granted, abstaining from drinking coffee or tea is an innocuous rule to observe, and one with no societal repercussions.  But the same rationale of following a questionable rule on nothing more than faith could lead someone of another belief system to condemn others (e.g., homosexuals, people of other ethnicities) for no other reason than "our church/mosque/shrine/religious leader/religious text told us to."

Sorry for the rant, but I just find the observance of religious doctrine at the expense of logical thought a bit worrisome due to where it can potentially lead.

Yeah, this is another reason I'll never understand religion. Humans have been granted this pretty awesome brain that's far advanced over any other animal's brain, and yet they'd rather let an old book make their decisions for them.

I understand people don't like to think for themselves and make their own decisions because it's hard and can be scary and gives you a lot of responsibility for your actions and the outcome and whatnot, but damn; if you can't drink tea because a book says you shouldn't for really no reason other than "just because"... I mean, c'mon.

 

Also, I almost asked what Greeny asked, but thought I'd be a bit more tactful. =P

To address this a little more deeply, let me ask you, do I seem like the kind of person who simply follows authority because I'm told to or follows the crowd because of pressure?  I understand it's hard to get to know someone over the Internet, but I assure you, I'm not so naive or simplistic.  The answers I've given here, even the "cop out" (not sure if CP3S was joking or not) were simplistic in nature.  I have a very philosophical personality, and I am better read on this topic than your average Joe.  It takes a lot of courage for someone to put themselves and their faith on the line here and allow a bunch of others with their probing questions to try to answer everything honestly and with sufficient depth so as to improve understanding with the hope that you haven't further alienated these people from your belief.  This is not simply a Church project that my leaders told me to do.  This was a completely self-motivated challenge that I pray I am up to, simply to inform a few folks who will probably not be swayed to ever join my church, and for the basic reason that they may understand who I am and who we are.  You've all been very respectful thus far and I'm not getting offended, but I hope you appreciate the intelligence behind these comments and not take for granted the amount of time and energy it takes to provide you with this information.  Being a Mormon is not about ignoring your noggin.  You'd be surprised how intellectual Mormons tend to be and how many prominent scientists, philosophers, and historians, living or deceased, are members of my Church.

greenpenguino said:

Tyrphanax said:

Also, I almost asked what Greeny asked, but thought I'd be a bit more tactful. =P

Well, I'm drunk. So whatever.gs

See...this is why you should convert. ;-)

Flange?

greenpenguino said:

Are you allowed to drink alcohol? Or is that forbidden or something?

If so , that  seems kinda silly. Afterall, Jesus' first miracle was to make more wine, which was also the best alchohl that the people had at the party.

 

I apologise for the speling mistakes. I'm sure we'll all laug at them later.

laug out loud.

Anyway, I take it you are too drunk to read the rest of the thread, so I'll just mention alcohol has already been covered.

But the fact (?) that Jesus turned water into wine does make me wonder (again) why alcohol has to be off-limits.  How is this reconciled?

Page 4?! When you decide to ignore the three post rule you really go to town!

Going to be very busy today and I'm not sure I'll be able to respond to anyone's queries.  I will get to everyone as soon as possible, and again, if I overlook your question, I assure you it is an accident; please ask again.

TV's Frink said:

But the fact (?) that Jesus turned water into wine does make me wonder (again) why alcohol has to be off-limits.  How is this reconciled?

Back when I was in university I once had this discussion with an acquaintance of mine. His response: "Do you really think they put alcohol in wine back then?"

After a few moments of feeling dumbfounded and not knowing how to proceed, I decided the simplest thing would be just to concede his point and end the discussion right there. My response: "No, I suppose you're right. Adding alcohol to our fermented beverages is a fairly modern practice, I believe."

Sadly he seemed content with this and we moved on to other topics. Surprisingly, I've heard the "Clearly it was non-alcoholic wine" on several other occasions. Leads me to believe people will contort their brain to believe anything, no matter how unlikely, as long as it supports what their religion teaches.  Never mind that in a time when refrigeration didn't exist non-alcoholic wine (grape juice?) would spoil in no time flat, clearly wine was non-alcoholic in those days.

Tyrphanax said: 

The British have been drinking it for literally a billion years and they're alright chaps, mostly. It's just such an inconsequential thing to me; I mean, is God really going to be THAT mad at you for having a nice, hot cup of tea on a cold day?

Look what a billion years of tea drinking has done to their teeth! Clearly God just wants his truly faithful in the Americas to keep their pretty smiles.

The confusing part is cold caffeinated beverages are okay, so it isn't about how unhealthy caffeine is, as Coca-Cola is perfectly acceptable, which has more caffeine than many teas. Well... I guess I have a personal antidote that indicates not all Mormons are okay with drinking Coca-Cola...

I grew up in city that had a large enough Mormon population that we had a massive temple in the middle of it. If you were white and middle-class in that town, there was a very high chance you were Mormon. I once had an elderly woman approach me in the toy section at some department store when I was six or seven and tell me what an adorable young man I was, then asked if I was LDS. When I told her "no" her response was to look away, say "That's ashame." and not say another word to me. Creepy to start with, that just made it creepier. All that to say, the Mormon population was very high. I was one of literally a very small number of kids in my entire school who were not LDS. So much so that I can recall my public school teachers often mentioning Mormon doctrines and teachings in the class room. So, as a result, just about ever friend I ever had as a kid was Mormon. Oh right, this is suppose to be about Coca-Cola...

... so, one time while I was in the fourth grade I had a friend over to my house, I offered him a Coke from the fridge, he crinkled his nose, looked at me funny, and in a slightly insulted tone asked, "Why are you offering me that? If you're going to drink that you might as well be doing drugs." I stared at him over the rim of my Coke can as I gently chugged away, blinked a few times, then pulling the can away from my mouth exclaimed, "Dude, your dad works for Pepsi!

"Yeah, so?"

"Doesn't that make him kind of like a drug dealer?"

Don't really remember his response. Something about it being okay since his dad doesn't drink the crap. So, at least back in the early nineties some Mormons took serious issue with any caffeinated beverage.

THIS THREAD HAS DONE NOTHING BUT CONFUSE ME FURTHER ABOUT THE MORMON RELIGION.

But that's fine.  I wasn't going to join up anyway. ;-)

Tyrphanax said:

Whatever.gs sounds like some obscure foreign website.

 

Anyway, Ender, I wasn't implying religious people are stupid; I know plenty of intelligent people from most of the major religions. I just don't understand why critical, free-thinking people would choose that route when you could go another route and be able to drink tea, too. The British have been drinking it for literally a billion years and they're alright chaps, mostly. It's just such an inconsequential thing to me; I mean, is God really going to be THAT mad at you for having a nice, hot cup of tea on a cold day? If he isn't, then why bother with the rule? If he is, then he sounds like a dick; because who gets mad over a cuppa?

Also: Could you take some tea leaves and chew on them?

It just seems odd to me for someone who is intelligent and critical to stop their line of critical questioning at, "Well, because that's what the book says." How would, say, a by-the-book Christian scientist reconcile their latent desire to know things about the Earth with the proven fact that the Earth is much older then the Bible says? And why would they even want or try to reconcile the two opposite lines of thought when one is obviously wrong? Why would someone deny the proven deliciousness of pork products when, in general, they have caused no spiritual harm to anyone over the centuries just because a book says so for really no reason? Doesn't God have better things to do than worry about who ate pork when he supposedly put it here in the first place? Isn't it kind of an un-God-like dick move (yes, I realize he is famous for dick moves) to do that?

 

I guess my point here is that tea ain't never hurt nobody. Give Tea A Chance.

Once again, quick replies, as I have lots to do today.  Probably can't answer them all right now.  As I've stated, Mormons believe in the scriptures, but are also quite open to the science of things.  Many of us are quite literal in our scriptural interpretation, but many of us are open to more broad interpretations, and are not so "by-the book," as you put it.  But let me posit a simple question:  If the whole aforementioned health revelation was given before the negative effects of many of the mentioned substances were known, and you were a Mormon following that revelation in spite of then-current knowledge that there is no negative health effect, how would you feel when scientists discovered that those substances do indeed have bad effects?  Would it strengthen your belief in the revelation, even if the whole had not yet been proved?  In other words, we are learning new health-related information all the time.  Some things thought healthy yesterday are now known to be bad.  For instance, the recent belief that a glass of red wine a day is good for you is now starting to look less and less correct.  Is it possible that such is the same for tea?  Furthermore, perhaps caffeine is the reason God would not want us to drink tea.  We haven't been told thus far, but while I do drink caffeinated beverages now and then, I certainly don't go for six Monsters and a Red Bull every day.  It is still a drug which can cause health issues in large quantities.  Perhaps God wants us to obey the letter and spirit of the law, and simply avoid it.  He hasn't specified caffeinated soft drinks as yet, but maybe he will.

doubleofive said:

 

Tyrphanax said:

It just seems odd to me for someone who is intelligent and critical to stop their line of critical questioning at, "Well, because that's what the book says." How would, say, a by-the-book Christian scientist reconcile their latent desire to know things about the Earth with the proven fact that the Earth is much older then the Bible says? And why would they even want or try to reconcile the two opposite lines of thought when one is obviously wrong? Why would someone deny the proven deliciousness of pork products when, in general, they have caused no spiritual harm to anyone over the centuries just because a book says so for really no reason? Doesn't God have better things to do than worry about who ate pork when he supposedly put it here in the first place? Isn't it kind of an un-God-like dick move (yes, I realize he is famous for dick moves) to do that?

I don't have a problem with an old earth. A literal reading of Genesis causes all sorts of problems. Days could be eons, so on and so forth.

I believe the Jewish dietary laws were more for the Israelites of the time. Uncooked pork can have all kinds of bad things in them, and the locals were using them for sacrifices and stuff. Instead of giving the Israelites a cook book, God said to just avoid it completely.

One of my big things with Mormonism is that a lot of the events of the Old and New Testament and most of the places have other historical sources and archaeological evidence to support that they existed at one time. You literally can't throw a rock in the Middle East without breaking a clay pot with some historical document or hit an ancient city in the sands.

But the Book of Mormon seems to be the only record of an entire Jewish civilization that lived in America for thousands(?) of years. How do the leadership explain that no one has ever found their currency, old city walls, etc.?

Speaking of the leadership, one of my other big things is that I find it really hard to believe that Jesus would let the entire salvation of the world fall apart so soon after the Resurrection and would let it continue that way for 1800 years, until He remembered that He made this newer testament and needed to establish a succession of prophets He never mentioned needing. To me, letting the church wander about for 1800 years when they couldn't rebel against things they were never told sounds like one of those moves Tyr was talking about.

 

I've got not problem with the scriptures not always being literal.  I too believe in an old earth.

Again, logical with the reason for kosher laws.

As far as historicity, knowing that Jerusalem and Jericho exist still does nothing to prove the Bible is true.  Your faith and belief that God has communed with you tells you the Bible is true.  The same can be said of the Book of Mormon, though it lacks the obvious evidence.

That being said, it is not without real evidence.  I know of various surprising evidences, such as Hebrew style poetry that was not even known in Hebrew documents till the 20th century, yet is present in the 19th century Book of Mormon (see chiasmus here and here), various potential locations, names, gold and silver weights/currency (not coinage, but a system of weights that is similar to that described in Alma 11 (see here for starters), etc.  It's not enough to prove to skeptics and scientists, but it's more than one would expect out of sheer coincidence and supports the testimony of the faithful.

As for succession, I am assuming you are Roman Catholic or something related (such as Orthodox), given your belief that Christ would not have allowed such a fall of his Church shortly after his death.  It should not be terribly surprising, however, given that previously people were quick to reject God's message.  Paul's letters themselves speak of the consistent intrusion of false doctrine among those who had only recently proselyted.  See here for a nice start on our understanding of a Great Apostasy following Christ's and his apostles' deaths, with scriptures to back it up.  It's not of great depth, but as is most of this stuff, it's a starting point for understanding our perspective.

CP3S said:

TV's Frink said:

But the fact (?) that Jesus turned water into wine does make me wonder (again) why alcohol has to be off-limits.  How is this reconciled?

Back when I was in university I once had this discussion with an acquaintance of mine. His response: "Do you really think they put alcohol in wine back then?"

After a few moments of feeling dumbfounded and not knowing how to proceed, I decided the simplest thing would be just to concede his point and end the discussion right there. My response: "No, I suppose you're right. Adding alcohol to our fermented beverages is a fairly modern practice, I believe."

Sadly he seemed content with this and we moved on to other topics. Surprisingly, I've heard the "Clearly it was non-alcoholic wine" on several other occasions. Leads me to believe people will contort their brain to believe anything, no matter how unlikely, as long as it supports what their religion teaches.  Never mind that in a time when refrigeration didn't exist non-alcoholic wine (grape juice?) would spoil in no time flat, clearly wine was non-alcoholic in those days.

 

In 1833 when the revelation was given, it was termed a "word of wisdom," which is now our general term for the whole principle.  However, it originally meant just that, a wise suggestion.  Over time, it later came to be held as a commandment.  Joseph Smith drank alcoholic wine on occasion, even after this revelation, and it was used for religious services prior.  Sometimes God adjusts his commandments to meet the needs of his people.  I am under the impression that you are religious, so you should understand this.  God does not hold all people at all times to the exact same standards.  This is apparent in the Bible, even within the same timeframes, such as the taking of the gospel to the Gentiles, the disbanding of circumcision, etc.