Comments for What Do Mormons Believe? http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men." -Joseph Smith Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:20:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Was Joseph Smith a Prophet? by Thaddeus http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2010/02/was-joseph-smith-a-prophet/comment-page-1/#comment-2144 Thaddeus Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:20:21 +0000 http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/?p=1511#comment-2144 <p>Hi Dave! Thanks for returning. I hope you are well.</p> <p>You indicated that you have done independent research and found convincing evidence that Joseph Smith was not a prophet. You believe that anyone with the courage to face these evidences will acknowledge that Joseph was not a prophet, and you are disappointed that so few people are interested in hearing your argument. You are proud of your own courage in resolutely facing these difficult issues and accepting their ramifications. You imply that a person's unwillingness to debate is directly related to their position's inherent weak defense. Is that all true?</p> <p>There are many options for you to find someone willing to debate these matters. A great resource is <a href="http://mormondialogue.org/" rel="nofollow">mormondialogue.org</a>, where you will find knowledgeable latter-day saints who are equipped with the necessary background information to talk about these topics with you.</p> Hi Dave! Thanks for returning. I hope you are well.

You indicated that you have done independent research and found convincing evidence that Joseph Smith was not a prophet. You believe that anyone with the courage to face these evidences will acknowledge that Joseph was not a prophet, and you are disappointed that so few people are interested in hearing your argument. You are proud of your own courage in resolutely facing these difficult issues and accepting their ramifications. You imply that a person’s unwillingness to debate is directly related to their position’s inherent weak defense. Is that all true?

There are many options for you to find someone willing to debate these matters. A great resource is mormondialogue.org, where you will find knowledgeable latter-day saints who are equipped with the necessary background information to talk about these topics with you.

]]> Comment on Was Joseph Smith a Prophet? by Dave http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2010/02/was-joseph-smith-a-prophet/comment-page-1/#comment-2143 Dave Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:36:42 +0000 http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/?p=1511#comment-2143 To whomever responded back to my comments of June 1, 2011 or owns this web site.  I have studied church history, its doctrines and the lives of many individuals involved. My reason for doing the research was to answer the question; was Joseph Smith acting under divine appointment? I am not 100% sure of my conclusion but am reasonably sure that he was not. I don't limit myself to the approved and official version of church history but limit my sources to testimony and information I consider to be truthful. Many of the events I talk about are alluded to in the official church history.  I have, over the years, had many discussions with church members who protest to some of the things I have told them saying that they are either not true or taken out of context on my part. They then refuse to continue any further discussion with me. They take the view that some things are either too painful to look at or too sacred to put under scrutiny. In the two cases where friends were willing to have a "no holds barred" discussion and study of things pertaining to church history, both conceded that I was correct in the things I had told them. One left the church and the other, although still active has spent much time reconciling himself to the new understanding of things. I refuse to shun controversy because it is too painful or the notion that some things are too sacred to explore or beyond my capacity to understand. I find it difficult to engage any church member in the "no holds barred" discussion of things with out ostracizing them from me so I avoid attempting to do so in the interest of retaining them as friends. Both of the individuals mentioned above are still my friends but others I have attempted to engage in this type of discussion have dropped me as a friend after they refused to continue any further discussion. I have also discussed church history with non members but find they have little interest. I am open to a dialogue on the matter with any one who is interested. It doesn't have to be made public although I would rather it be available for others. I am just happy for a forum for a dialogue.   I am of the opinion that there should be nothing under the sun that reasonable people cannot discuss respectfully no matter what the outcome. Dave    To whomever responded back to my comments of June 1, 2011 or owns this web site.
 I have studied church history, its doctrines and the lives of many individuals involved. My reason for doing the research was to answer the question; was Joseph Smith acting under divine appointment? I am not 100% sure of my conclusion but am reasonably sure that he was not. I don’t limit myself to the approved and official version of church history but limit my sources to testimony and information I consider to be truthful. Many of the events I talk about are alluded to in the official church history.  I have, over the years, had many discussions with church members who protest to some of the things I have told them saying that they are either not true or taken out of context on my part. They then refuse to continue any further discussion with me. They take the view that some things are either too painful to look at or too sacred to put under scrutiny. In the two cases where friends were willing to have a “no holds barred” discussion and study of things pertaining to church history, both conceded that I was correct in the things I had told them. One left the church and the other, although still active has spent much time reconciling himself to the new understanding of things. I refuse to shun controversy because it is too painful or the notion that some things are too sacred to explore or beyond my capacity to understand. I find it difficult to engage any church member in the “no holds barred” discussion of things with out ostracizing them from me so I avoid attempting to do so in the interest of retaining them as friends. Both of the individuals mentioned above are still my friends but others I have attempted to engage in this type of discussion have dropped me as a friend after they refused to continue any further discussion. I have also discussed church history with non members but find they have little interest. I am open to a dialogue on the matter with any one who is interested. It doesn’t have to be made public although I would rather it be available for others. I am just happy for a forum for a dialogue.
  I am of the opinion that there should be nothing under the sun that reasonable people cannot discuss respectfully no matter what the outcome.
Dave   

]]> Comment on Judge not . . . by Bus http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2012/01/judge-not/comment-page-1/#comment-2142 Bus Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:53:32 +0000 http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/?p=3789#comment-2142 Ben, I too have been working in a place where I've had the chance to meet with and talk with many young people who find themselves in a bad place educationally and socially, but as I hear the stories I realize that no one comes to these circumstances by themselves, they are aided by erring or absent parents, dishonest friends and bad habits that trap them. So when Jesus says, "by what judgement ye judge, ye will be judged" that's a little scary. Ben, I too have been working in a place where I’ve had the chance to meet with and talk with many young people who find themselves in a bad place educationally and socially, but as I hear the stories I realize that no one comes to these circumstances by themselves, they are aided by erring or absent parents, dishonest friends and bad habits that trap them. So when Jesus says, “by what judgement ye judge, ye will be judged” that’s a little scary.

]]> Comment on Question Box: The Atonement by Bill Evans http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2011/11/question-box-the-atonement/comment-page-1/#comment-2140 Bill Evans Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:44:46 +0000 http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/?p=3645#comment-2140 Sorry, the scripture links on that last part wouldn't work.  Here are the links:  <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-jn/5.7?lang=eng#6" rel="nofollow">1 John 5:7</a> <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.28?lang=eng#27" rel="nofollow">Doctrine and Covenants 20:28</a> <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng#21" rel="nofollow">Doctrine and Covenants 130:22</a> Sorry, the scripture links on that last part wouldn’t work.  Here are the links: 
1 John 5:7
Doctrine and Covenants 20:28
Doctrine and Covenants 130:22

]]> Comment on Question Box: The Atonement by Bill Evans http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2011/11/question-box-the-atonement/comment-page-1/#comment-2139 Bill Evans Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:43:18 +0000 http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/?p=3645#comment-2139 (Part 4...)   Regarding the Holy Spirit, to my understanding, we entirely accept the Holy Spirit <em>as</em> God.  The scriptures speak of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.  (See, among others, 1 John 5:7 and Doctrine and Covenants 20:28.)  The Father <em>is</em> God.  The Son <em>is</em> God.  The Holy Spirit <em>is</em> God.  We often refer to the three as the "Godhead."  The separate nature of these three is one of the important truths that was restored through Joseph Smith.  (See Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)  We rarely refer to the Holy Ghost <em>as</em> God, I believe mainly to avoid confusion, as this term is most often used to refer to the Father.  More often we refer to Him as "the Spirit of God" or "a member of the Godhead."  (Admittedly, there are fewer scriptural sources referring explicitly to the Holy Ghost.  Clear references to the Father and the Son are much more prevalent.  If anyone has additional clarification to add on the subject, please do so.  Some good references on this from lds.org are found <a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-7-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng" rel="nofollow">Gospel Principles, Chapter 7</a> and <a href="http://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/05/the-holy-ghost?lang=eng&query=holy+ghost+god" rel="nofollow"><em>The Holy Ghost</em> -- a 1974 talk by President Marion G. Romney</a>.)    I hope this (admittedly long-winded) thought provides something of use.  Thanks for bearing with me.     (Part 4…)
 
Regarding the Holy Spirit, to my understanding, we entirely accept the Holy Spirit as God.  The scriptures speak of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.  (See, among others, 1 John 5:7 and Doctrine and Covenants 20:28.)  The Father is God.  The Son is God.  The Holy Spirit is God.  We often refer to the three as the “Godhead.”  The separate nature of these three is one of the important truths that was restored through Joseph Smith.  (See Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)  We rarely refer to the Holy Ghost as God, I believe mainly to avoid confusion, as this term is most often used to refer to the Father.  More often we refer to Him as “the Spirit of God” or “a member of the Godhead.”  (Admittedly, there are fewer scriptural sources referring explicitly to the Holy Ghost.  Clear references to the Father and the Son are much more prevalent.  If anyone has additional clarification to add on the subject, please do so.  Some good references on this from lds.org are found Gospel Principles, Chapter 7 and The Holy Ghost — a 1974 talk by President Marion G. Romney.) 
 
I hope this (admittedly long-winded) thought provides something of use.  Thanks for bearing with me.  
 

]]> Comment on Question Box: The Atonement by Bill Evans http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2011/11/question-box-the-atonement/comment-page-1/#comment-2138 Bill Evans Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:34:51 +0000 http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/?p=3645#comment-2138 (Part 3...)   You also referenced the "Inspired Version" of the Bible, often called the Joseph Smith Translation.  It's true that he made many edits to the standard text of the Bible that we have today.  To me, this is evidence of his calling as a prophet.  The Bible itself is thousands of years old.  Its text has been lovingly passed along and preserved in many different languages by prophets and scholars and faithful people for centuries.  However, there were times in which the Bible, or many parts of the Bible, were guarded by individuals who may not have been so faithful.  All too often, modern scholars and politicians try to impose their own interpretations onto the sacred text.  Isn't it possible that certain ancient scholars and ancient politicians would have tried to do the same?  Isn't it possible that ancient tyrants may have tried to "edit" parts of God's revealed text so as to further their own personal ambitions or to justify their own greed and sins?  Even though so many faithful scholars spent their lives ensuring the accurate translation and transcription of the Bible, isn't it possible that the texts found their way into hands that were not so faithful nor so careful?  Though so many of the faithful gave their lives protecting the word of God, isn't it possible that errors or ambiguities could have still crept in?  All it would take is one error in one manuscript, which would then have been perpetuated and transmitted as if it had been part of the original revealed word.  If this could possibly be the case, what then would be more natural, more reasonable for God, once He had called a new prophet, to have one of that prophet's first tasks to be to try to restore the Bible to its original purity? to fix all the mistakes made by ancient lazy grad students and corrupt rulers? to give us once again the words of Moses and Isaiah and Peter as they would have spoken if they lived today? to restore again the revealed word of God as God wanted it to <em>stay</em> revealed?  Doesn't this show the value and importance the God places on the Bible?    Calling Joseph Smith's version of the Bible a "translation" is not entirely correct.  Parts of it were, of course, an inspired re-translation from some of the original languages.  Other parts were entirely restored material, not present before in any surviving texts in any language.  Still other parts were likely prophetic annotations and commentary.  Many passages that would have been crystal clear to the Jews at the time of Moses may need a bit of further explanation or commentary to carry the same clarity to modern readers.  Who better to provide such commentary on the words revealed to Moses than someone who held the same office as Moses and was authorized to receive the same revelations that Moses received?      (Part 3…)
 
You also referenced the “Inspired Version” of the Bible, often called the Joseph Smith Translation.  It’s true that he made many edits to the standard text of the Bible that we have today.  To me, this is evidence of his calling as a prophet.  The Bible itself is thousands of years old.  Its text has been lovingly passed along and preserved in many different languages by prophets and scholars and faithful people for centuries.  However, there were times in which the Bible, or many parts of the Bible, were guarded by individuals who may not have been so faithful.  All too often, modern scholars and politicians try to impose their own interpretations onto the sacred text.  Isn’t it possible that certain ancient scholars and ancient politicians would have tried to do the same?  Isn’t it possible that ancient tyrants may have tried to “edit” parts of God’s revealed text so as to further their own personal ambitions or to justify their own greed and sins?  Even though so many faithful scholars spent their lives ensuring the accurate translation and transcription of the Bible, isn’t it possible that the texts found their way into hands that were not so faithful nor so careful?  Though so many of the faithful gave their lives protecting the word of God, isn’t it possible that errors or ambiguities could have still crept in?  All it would take is one error in one manuscript, which would then have been perpetuated and transmitted as if it had been part of the original revealed word.  If this could possibly be the case, what then would be more natural, more reasonable for God, once He had called a new prophet, to have one of that prophet’s first tasks to be to try to restore the Bible to its original purity? to fix all the mistakes made by ancient lazy grad students and corrupt rulers? to give us once again the words of Moses and Isaiah and Peter as they would have spoken if they lived today? to restore again the revealed word of God as God wanted it to stay revealed?  Doesn’t this show the value and importance the God places on the Bible? 
 
Calling Joseph Smith’s version of the Bible a “translation” is not entirely correct.  Parts of it were, of course, an inspired re-translation from some of the original languages.  Other parts were entirely restored material, not present before in any surviving texts in any language.  Still other parts were likely prophetic annotations and commentary.  Many passages that would have been crystal clear to the Jews at the time of Moses may need a bit of further explanation or commentary to carry the same clarity to modern readers.  Who better to provide such commentary on the words revealed to Moses than someone who held the same office as Moses and was authorized to receive the same revelations that Moses received? 
 
 

]]> Comment on Question Box: The Atonement by Bill Evans http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2011/11/question-box-the-atonement/comment-page-1/#comment-2137 Bill Evans Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:33:37 +0000 http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/?p=3645#comment-2137 (For some reason, I had to break up my comment into parts...)   As far as some of Tim's concerns, I can really see how, from one point of view, it must seem like we're "masking" our religion -- trying to look more like "real" Christians.  Please understand this is not the intent at all.  We call ourselves Christians because we follow Christ, at least to the best of our poor mortal abilities.  We're not perfect.  We don't claim to be.  We are constantly trying to learn how to be a little better, a little more Christlike, and how to understand His will for us a little better than we do now.  That is why we so value modern prophets and modern revelation.  We believe that God guides this church through His prophets and His authority.  We don't understand everything right now.  Sometimes God sees that one thing is the best thing for us to do at a certain time or the best way for us to build His kingdom.  Later He may, in His wisdom, see that the time for such actions has passed, and He will instruct His people to do the opposite.  From the outside, this may look like self-inconsistency, but really it is evidence of an all-wise and all-loving Father who knows how to respond to changing times and who sees fit to test the patience and faith of His people.    You asked about eternal life without "Mormon" baptism, tithing, etc.  I would ask if there is eternal life without "Christian" baptism and tithing.  It may certainly seem presumptuous to a Buddhist for Christians to claim Christ as the ONLY way to salvation.  It could also seem frustrating for a Jew to wrestle with the idea that in addition to following all of the Old Testament prophets, even though they were all true prophets, they would also have to follow the teachings of Peter, Paul, and those prophets who came afterwards.    For example, at the time of Peter and Paul, there were many of the Jewish Christians who were offended at the idea of Gentiles joining the church of Christ without first accepting Judaism.  <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/acts/15?lang=eng" rel="nofollow">Acts 15</a> describes how one such issue was decided.  Is it possible that there were some Christians at the time who were offended by and rejected this decision?  Would it seem improbable to any Christian that these, even though they had once accepted Christ, would remove themselves from His greatest blessings because they were no longer willing to follow the directions of His prophets and apostles?  We claim that God's authority, His prophets and apostles are found today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Is it any wonder that we place such an emphasis on following God's commandments and receiving His ordinances by His authority as directed by His modern apostles and prophets?  Is it odd that we place the same level of importance on Joseph Smith that the ancient Jews placed on Moses or that the early Christians placed on Peter?  None of these prophets hold a candle in comparison to the Savior.  However, as they are His representatives and they speak for Him, obedience to God's word as revealed through them is just as important as obedience to God's Word as revealed in <strong><a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/1.1?lang=eng" rel="nofollow">the Word</a></strong>, even the Savior Himself.       (For some reason, I had to break up my comment into parts…)
 
As far as some of Tim’s concerns, I can really see how, from one point of view, it must seem like we’re “masking” our religion — trying to look more like “real” Christians.  Please understand this is not the intent at all.  We call ourselves Christians because we follow Christ, at least to the best of our poor mortal abilities.  We’re not perfect.  We don’t claim to be.  We are constantly trying to learn how to be a little better, a little more Christlike, and how to understand His will for us a little better than we do now.  That is why we so value modern prophets and modern revelation.  We believe that God guides this church through His prophets and His authority.  We don’t understand everything right now.  Sometimes God sees that one thing is the best thing for us to do at a certain time or the best way for us to build His kingdom.  Later He may, in His wisdom, see that the time for such actions has passed, and He will instruct His people to do the opposite.  From the outside, this may look like self-inconsistency, but really it is evidence of an all-wise and all-loving Father who knows how to respond to changing times and who sees fit to test the patience and faith of His people. 
 
You asked about eternal life without “Mormon” baptism, tithing, etc.  I would ask if there is eternal life without “Christian” baptism and tithing.  It may certainly seem presumptuous to a Buddhist for Christians to claim Christ as the ONLY way to salvation.  It could also seem frustrating for a Jew to wrestle with the idea that in addition to following all of the Old Testament prophets, even though they were all true prophets, they would also have to follow the teachings of Peter, Paul, and those prophets who came afterwards. 
 
For example, at the time of Peter and Paul, there were many of the Jewish Christians who were offended at the idea of Gentiles joining the church of Christ without first accepting Judaism.  Acts 15 describes how one such issue was decided.  Is it possible that there were some Christians at the time who were offended by and rejected this decision?  Would it seem improbable to any Christian that these, even though they had once accepted Christ, would remove themselves from His greatest blessings because they were no longer willing to follow the directions of His prophets and apostles?  We claim that God’s authority, His prophets and apostles are found today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Is it any wonder that we place such an emphasis on following God’s commandments and receiving His ordinances by His authority as directed by His modern apostles and prophets?  Is it odd that we place the same level of importance on Joseph Smith that the ancient Jews placed on Moses or that the early Christians placed on Peter?  None of these prophets hold a candle in comparison to the Savior.  However, as they are His representatives and they speak for Him, obedience to God’s word as revealed through them is just as important as obedience to God’s Word as revealed in the Word, even the Savior Himself.  
 
 

]]> Comment on Question Box: The Atonement by Bill Evans http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2011/11/question-box-the-atonement/comment-page-1/#comment-2136 Bill Evans Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:32:40 +0000 http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/?p=3645#comment-2136 I just found this post, and I wanted to take a shot at answering some of the concerns that were brought up.    First of all, to Tim, Cindy and everyone, thanks so much for your comments!  I love when we can have a discussion like this without being disagreeable.  It is so easy for comment threads to degenerate into insults, especially on sensitive topics like this.  I'm so glad that that is so rare on this site.       I just found this post, and I wanted to take a shot at answering some of the concerns that were brought up. 
 
First of all, to Tim, Cindy and everyone, thanks so much for your comments!  I love when we can have a discussion like this without being disagreeable.  It is so easy for comment threads to degenerate into insults, especially on sensitive topics like this.  I’m so glad that that is so rare on this site.  
 
 

]]> Comment on How do I become a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? by A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2012/01/how-do-i-become-a-member-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/comment-page-1/#comment-2135 A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:54:47 +0000 http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/?p=3680#comment-2135 Very nice basic resource for beginning an investigation of the LDS Church. You're doing a great job here!  tDMg  Very nice basic resource for beginning an investigation of the LDS Church. You’re doing a great job here! 
tDMg 

]]> Comment on Question Box: Why did Jesus not visit every place on earth? by Bill Evans http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2012/01/question-box-why-did-jesus-not-visit-every-place-on-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-2134 Bill Evans Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:30:47 +0000 http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/?p=3776#comment-2134 Actually, modern physics doesn't preclude free will.  To my understanding, complete determinism went out of vogue physics-wise decades ago.    More to the point, however, is that there are a lot of things that vitally must be taken on faith.  I'm sure this was intentional.  One of my physics friends pointed out to me that for God's plan for humanity to work, the world must be set up it a way that atheism must be a logical option.  A major part of the plan is helping us to develop faith.  This would not be possible if one could "derive" the existence of God.  Therefore it shouldn't really surprise us that there are many aspects of the gospel for which there is little or no scientific evidence.  As <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/4.8?lang=eng#7">Jacob</a> said, "Behold, great and marvelous are the worksof the Lord. How unsearchableare the depths of the mysteriesof him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knowethof his wayssave it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelationsof God."  Actually, modern physics doesn’t preclude free will.  To my understanding, complete determinism went out of vogue physics-wise decades ago. 
 
More to the point, however, is that there are a lot of things that vitally must be taken on faith.  I’m sure this was intentional.  One of my physics friends pointed out to me that for God’s plan for humanity to work, the world must be set up it a way that atheism must be a logical option.  A major part of the plan is helping us to develop faith.  This would not be possible if one could “derive” the existence of God.  Therefore it shouldn’t really surprise us that there are many aspects of the gospel for which there is little or no scientific evidence.  As <a href=”http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/4.8?lang=eng#7″>Jacob</a> said, “Behold, great and marvelous are the worksof the Lord. How unsearchableare the depths of the mysteriesof him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knowethof his wayssave it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelationsof God.” 

]]>