# Question about mormons



## applejuice (Nov 2, 2012)

If Mitt wins, will he be sworn in by the mormon book or bible?


Figured I could get a better conversation in here than the political forum


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 2, 2012)

Oh, good question.....we probably need Hawglips to clarify for us.....


----------



## Four (Nov 2, 2012)

I assume he'll be sworn in by the bible, the old and new testament are still holy books to the Mormons.

Not to mention he'll want to downplay somewhat his Mormonism to appeal to the protestant republican base.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 2, 2012)

The Bible is holy scripture to Mormons, too.  Four beat me to the punch.


----------



## Four (Nov 2, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> The Bible is holy scripture to Mormons, too.  Four beat me to the punch.



BOOM

Yea, they even call themselves 

_*"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"*_

bit of a mouth full though


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 2, 2012)

Four said:


> BOOM
> 
> Yea, they even call themselves
> 
> ...



Yeah, I think they typically just say "LDS".


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 2, 2012)

The ones I've met do claim to be Christians.  But, I've met a lot of Christians who take issue with that description.

I don't care what he, or any president, uses.  Relevant to politics, I really only care about results.  So, I'd vote for a gay, atheist, pot smokin' hippie if they would balance the budget and return the gov't to constitutional parameters.

I don't even really care if Romney wins or not.  I got no dog in that fight.


----------



## Four (Nov 2, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The ones I've met do claim to be Christians.  But, I've met a lot of Christians who take issue with that description.



Nearly every type of christian doesn't think other Christians are 'real' Christians.

But I find most people dont even know that Mormons & Jehovah's witnesses use the same books they do.



JB0704 said:


> I don't even really care if Romney wins or not.  I got no dog in that fight.



Amen


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 2, 2012)

Four said:


> Nearly every type of christian doesn't think other Christians are 'real' Christians.



Just like all faiths, we tend to think we got it all figured out....



Four said:


> But I find most people dont even know that Mormons & Jehovah's witnesses use the same books they do.



I know very little about either except the "anti" positions against their faith.  I'm not sure if their books have a heirarchy, such as Book of Mormon trumps Bible, etc.


----------



## Four (Nov 2, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I know very little about either except the "anti" positions against their faith.  I'm not sure if their books have a heirarchy, such as Book of Mormon trumps Bible, etc.



I've spoken with a LOT of JW's I've had a few friends over the years.. not so many Mormons, although i have spoke with a few, and have a good idea about there beliefs.

In terms of the book hierarchy, it's much like how Christians use the OT vs. NT..  the newer books are used more, and the newer books 'clarify' the old books. Just like a christian wouldn't say the OT was wrong, they would say that it was a different time, or that jesus changed the laws in the NT so most of it doesn't apply, etc.

from what i've read though, the book of mormon doesn't step on the toes of the OT & NT all that much, but it adds some stuff, like that humans were 'spirit children' of god, and that god lives in outer space, with his wife, etc They dont believe in the trinity.. Jesus is the son of god (just like all humans) but jesus is the eldest son.


JW's however, dont have any other books... they tend to take the old testament more seriously than most christians though.


----------



## ACRAthens (Nov 7, 2012)

Hey guys. I'm a "Mormon."

Four has it mostly right. The gist of it is we believe in continuing revelation so as far as canonized scripture, we use the KJV OT and the NT, the Book of Mormon and a relatively modern (mid to late 19th century) book of church revelations called the Doctrine & Covenants. 

The BofM nor the D&C speak of God living in space or that he has a wife. Those ideas are speculations that some of our church leaders have pondered on in the past, but its definitely not doctrine with us by any means.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 7, 2012)

ACRAthens said:


> Four has it mostly right. The gist of it is we believe in continuing revelation so as far as canonized scripture, we use the KJV OT and the NT, the Book of Mormon and a relatively modern (mid to late 19th century) book of church revelations called the Doctrine & Covenants.



What about Pearl of Great Price?


----------



## Four (Nov 7, 2012)

ACRAthens said:


> Hey guys. I'm a "Mormon."
> 
> Four has it mostly right. The gist of it is we believe in continuing revelation so as far as canonized scripture, we use the KJV OT and the NT, the Book of Mormon and a relatively modern (mid to late 19th century) book of church revelations called the Doctrine & Covenants.
> 
> The BofM nor the D&C speak of God living in space or that he has a wife. Those ideas are speculations that some of our church leaders have pondered on in the past, but its definitely not doctrine with us by any means.



Awesome! 

So lets go ahead and get it out of the way (we're all thinking about it)

Tell us about the magic underwear.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 7, 2012)

Four said:


> Awesome!
> 
> So lets go ahead and get it out of the way (we're all thinking about it)
> 
> Tell us about the magic underwear.



Speak for yourself.


----------



## ACRAthens (Nov 7, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> What about Pearl of Great Price?



Yes. You're right. Its printed in the same book as the D&C so I sometimes forget to include it as a separate text.


----------



## ACRAthens (Nov 7, 2012)

Four said:


> Awesome!
> 
> So lets go ahead and get it out of the way (we're all thinking about it)
> 
> Tell us about the magic underwear.



Sure. 

The clothes are meant to be symbolic for us. We see it as a reminder of the clothes that God made for Adam and Eve when they left Eden. Like any piece of religious clothing/iconography they are made to remind us of our special relationship to God as his children and that we are spiritually (and sometimes physically) protected by Him. It encourages us to spiritually "cover our nakedness" and kind of "put on the armor of God." Its definitely symbolically important to us, but I don't think it magical.  

There definitely exists among Mormons relatively unreliable anecdotes of how people have been saved from danger of death by wearing it. While I can't say that this is true, I also can't say it's false. I wasn't there. Usually these kinds of stories get passed on by word of mouth by superstitious members as a kind of "Chicken Soup for the Soul" brand of story. Meant to be uplifting and encouraging perhaps, but unfortunately comes off sometimes as unbelievable and a bit creepy. I think for that reason some people have jokingly referred to them as "magical."

While somewhat odd to protestant culture, its existence and use can be likened to maybe the special ceremonial clothing of various church officers in other orthodox churches (priests, nuns, monks, bishops, pastors, etc.) with its purpose being to individually set one apart in the mind from the world. Its purely for meditative purposes - maybe like in the spirit of the rosary, etc.


----------



## Four (Nov 7, 2012)

Do you believe the book of Abraham was actually written by Abraham and that Joseph smith translated it correctly?

Also, thanks for showing up, it gets boring with the majority of theists here being vanilla protestants


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 7, 2012)

Four said:


> Do you believe the book of Abraham was actually written by Abraham and that Joseph smith translated it correctly?
> 
> Also, thanks for showing up, it gets boring with the majority of theists here being vanilla protestants



Yea! Well you're just a plain ol' atheist!


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 7, 2012)

Four said:


> Also, thanks for showing up, it gets boring with the majority of theists here being vanilla protestants



It goes with the territory.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Nov 7, 2012)

Four said:


> JW's however, dont have any other books... they tend to take the old testament more seriously than most christians though.



JW's print their own version, and "correct" the errors that don't line up with whatever view happens to be the flavor of the month.  JW's have changed their position so many times on different subjects, you have to read the latest stuff to even know what they believe.


----------



## ALLBEEF (Nov 7, 2012)

applejuice said:


> If Mitt wins, will he be sworn in by the mormon book or bible?
> 
> 
> Figured I could get a better conversation in here than the political forum



IF Mitt had won...he would have been sworn in the same way every other prez has been sworn in.


----------



## ACRAthens (Nov 7, 2012)

Four said:


> Do you believe the book of Abraham was actually written by Abraham and that Joseph smith translated it correctly?
> 
> Also, thanks for showing up, it gets boring with the majority of theists here being vanilla protestants



No worries. Glad to be here! No reason talking religion can't be interesting. 

Honestly, my "jury" is still out on how the Book of Abraham was received. Also, I recognize that I'm in the Mormon minority for questioning its origins - so please keep that in mind. 

It was the popular narrative among LDS for quite some time that Smith received the "Abraham" manuscript as a scroll included with a purchased mummy from an Middle-Eastern antiques dealer. (Apparently the practice of buying such ancient items was somewhat in vogue at that time, with the displaying of the item being the center-piece at high-brow parties. Some party in my opinion!) The story goes that Smith was asked about the nature of the scroll and responded saying that it was a lost book pertaining to Abraham's conversion experience. Apparently he then set about to translate it and in 1880, long after his death, the manuscript was canonized. 

That's one thought. The other is that the scroll inspired him to reflect on Abraham's conversion experience and, as a product of that reflection, he sought a revelation from God as to the life and conversion of Abraham. So the "book," in this theory, was really a divine revelation given and really not a translation at all. 

I tend to go with the latter hypothesis. However, I have no knowledge of what exactly happened one way or the other. But my gut instinct is that the book and its insights into creation of the world and man jive with what Smith revealed through the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. 

So no, I don't believe it was written by Abraham and I don't believe it was a translation. But once again, my view is probably somewhat at variance with what most modern-day LDS believe.


----------



## Four (Nov 8, 2012)

ACRAthens said:


> No worries. Glad to be here! No reason talking religion can't be interesting.
> 
> Honestly, my "jury" is still out on how the Book of Abraham was received. Also, I recognize that I'm in the Mormon minority for questioning its origins - so please keep that in mind.
> 
> ...



I hear Mormons tend to get pretty upset about Mormons that question joseph smith, etc... if you were to come out and say you dont believe that the book of Abraham was real... would there be social repercussions?

From what I've read about it, J.S. read them, announced they were written by Abraham, "translated" them... but then once we found the rosetta stone and we could translate the text for real, it turned out the documents were just funeral texts and had no resemblance to what J.S. wrote.


----------



## ACRAthens (Nov 8, 2012)

Four said:


> I hear Mormons tend to get pretty upset about Mormons that question joseph smith, etc... if you were to come out and say you dont believe that the book of Abraham was real... would there be social repercussions?
> 
> From what I've read about it, J.S. read them, announced they were written by Abraham, "translated" them... but then once we found the rosetta stone and we could translate the text for real, it turned out the documents were just funeral texts and had no resemblance to what J.S. wrote.



You're right. They were much later proven to be only funeral texts - and a common occurrence of one at that. That's why I say I can't believe they were "translated."

However, I can _feasibly_ believe that they were inspiration that caused Smith to wonder, ask God, then receive a revelation of the text. However, I can't be sure of that either. It just seems like a more reasonable theory. 

Either way, of course Mormons are going to want to support Smith and defend him when possible. But the facts are that sometimes we can't defend him when we don't even have all the facts ourselves. That's not to say that he is definitely in error with "revelation theory" of the Book of Abraham, but just to say - that from a Mormon perspective - there isn't enough evidence to say one way or the other. So if anything, most Mormons - and naturally so - when presented with incomplete information will choose to err on the side that Smith was telling the truth. I'm in that camp, but where I differ from some is that I cannot (and will not) say definitively that he was correct unless I have more information. I can only say its likely and that the product in question is a good/helpful one. 

As far as your question about social repercussions, that really is a MUCH larger conversation that might be worth disecting if you're interested. But basically, the gist of it - in my mind, at least - is that there is a large difference, church culturally speaking, between Western Mormons and the rest of us that have never had anything to do with the center of the church in Utah. Some born/raised in the church out west, and perhaps unknowingly so, mix quite a bit of doctrine with culture. Since we, here out east (and in other places in the world), approach Mormonism from a completely different cultural context we also approach doctrine - in my opinion - a lot more circumspectly. In essence, most _everything_ about the Mormon faith is new to us at some time or another, and since we didn't grow up with it we learn and adopt certain aspects of the faith at different rates. That's only natural to my mind. 

When I was a missionary in Mexico I noticed in some small towns how if one claimed s/he was a Catholic then they better live the Catholic doctrine AND culture to the max. That included showing little to no disagreement with doctrinal or cultural beliefs/practices of the Catholic Church. That was quite foreign to me, growing up as I did a Mormon in the South where everyone was so very different, religiously speaking. However, years later when I was at college with my wife at Brigham Young University in the traditional heart of the Mormonism (I had a been a student at UGA up until I met my wife when we were juniors and we went out to BYU where she was studying to finish our senior year together) I noticed how that same principal was in play. It unnerved me quite a lot. And while I don't see it as an indicator that the LDS Church is to blame for it, I see it as a natural consequence of growing up anywhere that is overwhelmingly populated by the members of one religion. To question elements of what a majority believes might be seen as battling with their very foundation. I can't say from experience, but I imagine it might be similar in very Southern Baptist communities as well. 

So that is all to say that in my church community I share my opinions freely, usually only raising the eyebrows of those that either don't know me or those that are "fresh off the boat" from Utah and are living here for some reason. Those that know me know that I am a fully active, loyal member of my denomination. But activity and loyalty to me does not equate with having to agree with everything that is taught. In fact, I question and dig deep because I sincerely care all the more.


----------



## Cavalry Scout (Nov 8, 2012)

I almost never come in this thread. (saw the question about mormons heading)  It's awesome to see two people of different faiths having an interesting exchange and not a bunch of name calling.  Thanks ACR for the info, I have wondered bout the same things and believed the same mis-conceptions.  Keep up the "Grown up" consersations.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 8, 2012)

Don't have much to add here, but I look forward to The Mormon Tabernacle Choir's Christmas performance every year.  They put on a heck of a show, and are super talented.(for a bunch of heathens)


----------



## gordon 2 (Nov 10, 2012)

Regards revelations attributed to Joseph Smith, it was asked of him , after he had addressed an audience in Rochester NY I believe, by one attendee, a town official, what he (Joseph Smith) made his books and writings out to be. If I recall correctly his reply,Joseph Smith's, on his writings was "They are prayers."

I can try to dig up the reference if someone is interested.


----------



## ACRAthens (Nov 12, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Don't have much to add here, but I look forward to The Mormon Tabernacle Choir's Christmas performance every year.  They put on a heck of a show, and are super talented.(for a bunch of heathens)



I look forward to it too. Good times!


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 13, 2012)

ACRAthens said:


> I look forward to it too. Good times!



I was kidding about the heathen thing of course.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 13, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> JW's print their own version, and "correct" the errors that don't line up with whatever view happens to be the flavor of the month.  JW's have changed their position so many times on different subjects, you have to read the latest stuff to even know what they believe.



I'm glad Catholics and Baptist correct their errors. I think birth control is a good thing. I still don't see anything wrong with buck dancing. I don't even care if women wear pants to Church. Now don't get me wrong, some denominations have changed things I don't go along with like "eternal security" but that's just something i'll have to get use too.
Martin Luther changed a lot in our Church.


----------



## Four (Nov 14, 2012)

Well, in order to breath life into this thread, i've had to spice it up, and consequently.. bring the civility down a smudge..


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Well, in order to breath life into this thread, i've had to spice it up, and consequently.. bring the civility down a smudge..



....that's not as bad as if you had posted clips from the southpark mormon episode.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 14, 2012)

I see a lot of Mormon beliefs in other faiths. Things like our souls being eternal. God knew us before we were born. Don't Catholics believe man can become like God? Aren't we suppose to be like Jesus? The Holy Spirit dwells in us. Souls on other planets/heavens/unknown places? Jesus had other flock to attend, who was he talking about? Mormons think America. It could be other planets.  Some people believe God came to the Earth in a human form. I admit they have some weird beliefs to me but people from another land/religion would think my beliefs are weird. We always think the other person's beliefs are stranger than ours. When i was young, I couldn't get past Methodist sprinkling instead of dunking. I don't know where I picked up that weird belief.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 14, 2012)

Looking at the graph, which is interesting by the way, I can see how it is related to other faiths also. Having more than one wife is pretty common in the middle east where Christianity was born.
I've got a few aunts who were married at 14 and one cousin who married at 13. Adultery is nothing the Mormons have a monoply on and is wrong. Now getting into Leviticus, there aren't too many Christians that follow any of those laws. Having a wife under the age of 18 isn't that weird yet. It will be given time. Time changes a lot of Christians views & values, some good & some bad.


----------

