For LDS only...some tricky questions

[Truth_Faith13]

I'm going to ask you to be a little more specific in your question, if you don't mind. I don't want to go off in an entirely different direction than where you had intended.

I think it's important to understand that nobody owns a symbol, i.e. in terms of having exclusive rights to it, and symbols don't inherently mean anything at all. Consider, for example, the Star of David, which most people today associate with Judaism. Before it was used by Judaism, however, it was used in Hinduism. So is it really a Jewish symbol, or is it a Hindu symbol? The Ichthys symbol, used to represent Jesus, was used by many pagan societies prior to being adopted by the early Christians. And then there are two of my favorites: The Petrine cross (i.e. an inverted cross) and the Swastika. When the Apostle Peter was crucified, he actually requested that he be hung upside down, as he said he was not worthy to be crucified in the same way Jesus Christ had been. For many years, the Petrine cross was considered to be a symbol of humility, and a number of old Christian churches were adorned with an upside-down cross. Today, most people -- particularly Christians -- think of an upside-down cross as representing Satanism. What was once probably the most pro-Christian symbol in the world has evolved into something Christians recoil at. The Swastika, associated today with Nazi Germany, is one of the most ancient symbols in the world, and up until it was used by Adolf Hitler, had virtually no negative connotations attached to it.

The same holds true with respect to a number of symbols commonly thought to be Masonic in origin. Several of these are found on the exterior walls of the Salt Lake temple. I'm really not sure whether you'll find any of them on any other LDS temples (except possibly the Nauvoo Temple), but I've never noticed them on most of the temples I've been in. One of these is the "Handclasp," a symbol familiar to Freemasons worldwide. On the Salt Lake temple, you can see this symbol on both the east and west center spires. It may very well represent the "right hands of fellowship" mentioned in Galatians 2:9, but could also signify entering into a covenant with the Lord (as is mentioned in Jeremiah 31:32).

The All-seeing Eye, sometimes associated with Freemasonry, can also be found on the outside of the Salt Lake temple, but it was used as a Christian symbol long before either Mormonism or Freemasonry were ever established. There are numerous references in the Bible to God having the ability to see all things, and the All-seeing Eye is symbolic of that godly capability.

The exterior walls of the Salt Lake temple also contain various cosmological symbols -- earthstones, moonstones, sunstones and starstones. Guess what? There are also even inverted pentagrams!!! And guess what else? There are inverted pentagrams on numerous Christian Churches throughout Europe, including one in England: St Mary's Church, Adderbury, Oxfordshire (See Picture).

I could go on and on, but I think you probably get the point.

Later, okay?

Orontes got the Joseph Smith question. I was referring to him being hired to find money. Critics say he was convicted and found guilty. Connected to this actually is how he translated the BoM. Critics seem to think he used the same process (stone in a hat) as trying to find the money. I cant remember if this is what is taught or not?

Actually you make a good point about symbols, im sure on a cathedral somewhere in the UK, there is a statue of a demon!

Ill be honest, while not a major issue, and I agree with you on symbols. The timing of JS becoming a mason and the symbology on the Temple etc is a little too coincidental.
Thanks Katz

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Thank

You have no comment about the first series of questions?


Per con artist: I'm not sure if you are thinking of a particular incident or just a general slur to describe Joseph Smith's character. The earliest specific example where I've seen this label used is tied to a 1826 incident in New York State. Smith would have been 19 or 20 years old. Joseph Smith was hired by a man to find gold on his property. Joseph Smith was thought locally to be able to find gold. This was through using a seer stone, which Smith had. In the early 18th Century belief in folk magic was common in rural New England. The Smith family seems to have been no different. After searching on and off for around a month the quest for gold was ended as a failure. Either the son or nephew of the man who hired Smith charged Joseph with (there are conflicting accounts) being either a disorderly person, vagrancy or an imposter. This affair is usually called the 1826 trial of Joseph Smith, but the surviving paperwork show it doesn't fit with what were actually trials. It looks to be a pre-trial examination. It appears the man who hired Smith was a witness on his behalf, Joseph also testified and maybe a few others (the number of participants conflict). Of the different accounts that exist the verdict is given as: he was found guilty, he was acquitted, it was dismissed, or it never moved forward to trial. It's likely one of the latter as there was a constable fee for 19 cents in the paperwork for a pretrial appearance commitment for want of bail. Under New York Law post trial commitments on conviction would have been 25 cents. We know that the man who originally hired Smith eventually became a Mormon and remained so for the rest of his life. The man's nephew was an ardent Methodist and it's likely the issue wasn't actually about money, but an attempt to disrupt Smith and the man's relationship.

Thanks for that! I didnt know that the man in question had later become an LDS. I dont have any specific comments on the first lot. Katz is right, im trying to keep within the rules but also your responses were very informative and made sense. Im going to go over everything though so I am sure some questions will arise at some point!

As Katz said, I jumped into mormonism far too quickly before and if its meant to be this time, I am going to take my time studying! I also have an interest in Catholicism though.

 

[Katzpur]

Unfortunately what I have heard (yes I have never been in) about the Temple Ceremony also. Dont want to say too much as know its scared but lets say links between Ceremony and Masonry and things that have changed/been removed etc. I understand Joseph Smith joined masonry a month before the Temple Ceremony was restored?

It would be both unreasonable and dishonest to deny that there are elements of Freemasonry in the LDS Temple ordinances. It would be every bit as great a mistake, however, to overemphasize the similarities or manufacture parallels where they do not exist. Keep in mind that, as I explained earlier, symbols have no inherent meaning and may be used differently by different groups. This is true whether the symbol is carved in the facade of a building or utilized within a ceremonial context. In both the Masonic rituals and in the LDS temple ceremony, symbols are incorporated as a teaching tool.

Joseph Smith actually grew up surrounded by Masonry. As a fraternal organization, Masonry was extremely popular in United States in the early nineteenth century. Many of the people Joseph Smith interacted with throughout his early years were Masons, and like pretty much anyone living in western New York state at that time, he would have at least been exposed both to Masonry and to its counterpart, the anti-Masonic movement, the epicenter of which was not far from his home in Palmyra. When the temple endowment was first established, those who participated in the rituals of both groups would have been quick to pick up on the fact that while there were similar symbols, emblems, and gestures in their rituals, they were used differently and incorporated to convey a different message. Furthermore, Joseph Smith made absolutely no effort to deny any of this.

Does this mean that the temple ordinances are a rip-off of Masonic rituals? Clearly, some people believe this to be the case. Several early Jewish and Christian documents mention elements found in Mormon temple ordinances. To me, this confirms the fact that these rites are actually ancient in their origin. These are pseudepigraphic documents Joseph Smith could not even potentially have known existed. Admittedly, I haven't studied these except very superficially myself, but I suspect Clear has made a pretty exhaustive study of them, as this is really his area of expertise.

One final thing. You asked about the fact that changes have been made to the temple endowment ceremony over the years. You are correct in this. My explanation would be simply that the "endowment" itself has not changed, but the means by which it is given has changed. In other words, the elements which have been dropped over the years pertain to the "packaging," not to the "gift" itself.

Here is a link to one of the best sites I know of on this subject.

 

[Katzpur]

Connected to this actually is how he translated the BoM. Critics seem to think he used the same process (stone in a hat) as trying to find the money. I cant remember if this is what is taught or not?

I always feel so guilty when I just produce links to other websites instead of writing my own answers to people's questions, but honestly, with respect to this question, it just seems so pointless and such a waste of time to reinvent the wheel. I hope you'll forgive the cop-out, but this site will tell you everything I could, plus much, much more.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Thanks Katz. Don't feel guilty for posting links, they are very useful and as I have time on my hands at the moment, I have had time to read through some of the links you have given me.

I suppose reading them has created another minor issue though in that for some of the topics, while there are explanations, there seems to be multiple explanations and there isn't a definite answer. I'm not sure how well unsurety fits with restoration if that makes sense? I thought restoration should answer questions, not create more?

One example is the book of Abraham, I don't know what your thoughts are? But reading some of the sites, there seems to be multiple 'ideas' but no real definite knowledge.

Perhaps I am expecting too much?

 

[Scott C.]

The timing of JS becoming a mason and the symbology on the Temple etc is a little too coincidental.

Joseph Smith was a Christian and was exposed to Christian symbols, such as baptism, the laying on of hands, anointing the sick with oil, and communion. Joseph didn't make up these symbols or learn them through revelation. He did receive revelation on how to use them in priesthood ordinances and we see them in the church today. Perhaps the same holds true for similarities of Mormon symbols to Masonic symbols. Most Mormons who are aware of these similarities have asked themselves the same question.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Joseph Smith was a Christian and was exposed to Christian symbols, such as baptism, the laying on of hands, anointing the sick with oil, and communion. Joseph didn't make up these symbols or learn them through revelation. He did receive revelation on how to use them in priesthood ordinances and we see them in the church today. Perhaps the same holds true for similarities of Mormon symbols to Masonic symbols. Most Mormons who are aware of these similarities have asked themselves the same question.

That's an interesting point! Thanks

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Sorry random question..... How would you guys explain the belief that marriage carries on for eternity etc (and in some circumstances are sealed by proxy)? When there is a Bible passage which says there is no marriage in heaven etc. Thanks

 

[Katzpur]

Sorry random question..... How would you guys explain the belief that marriage carries on for eternity etc (and in some circumstances are sealed by proxy)? When there is a Bible passage which says there is no marriage in heaven etc. Thanks

You're probably thinking of one of the three following passages of scripture: Matthew 22:23-31, Mark 12:18-25, or Luke 20:27-36.

I don't know that we need to prove that Jesus never said that in the resurrection there is no marriage." I think that we need, instead, to understand His statement in the context in which He made it. I believe that the verse you mentioned is among the most universally misunderstood of any in the New Testament. At first glance, it does appear to be saying that marriage does not survive the grave. But for those willing to look a little deeper, there are some significant clues which imply that the truth is a bit more involved. Matthew, Mark and Luke all relate this same conversation, but with some slightly different details, so I'm quoting all three of them.

Matthew 22:23-31 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:18-25 “Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”

Luke 20:27-36: “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”

I would also post the entire text of John 17, because it is very important to an accurate understanding of these passages on marriage, but I don't want to clutter my post up with any more scriptures than I already have. Interested readers may, however, wish to review that chapter themselves. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the subject:

1. We need, as always, to be aware of who Jesus’ audience was. In this instance, He was speaking to the Sadducees. What do we know about the Sadducees? First of all, they didn’t believe in a resurrection at all. In asking a question of this sort, do you honestly think they were looking for the truth? Or do you think that, as on many other occasions, they were simply trying to stump Jesus by asking a question that would cause Him to have to contradict something He’d previously taught. (It's also likely that the subject of marriages enduring beyond the grave had been mentioned before. At least this question seems to be hinting that it had.) At any rate, it’s entirely logical to assume that Jesus, knowing their hearts as perfectly as He did, would have given them an answer that, whileentirely honest, would pertain to them specifically. In teaching a truly receptive audience, His answer would likely have reflected His concern with their genuine interest in knowing.

2. John 17 (which I referred to earlier) makes frequent use of the phrases “of the world” and “not of the world.” These phrases are, in fact, used so many times that it’s almost impossible to brush them off as inconsequential. In the prayer recorded in this chapter, Jesus made a clear distinction between His followers, in other words, those individuals who, like Him, were “not of this world,” and those who rejected Him, thereby falling into the group who were “of the world.”

In Luke’s account of this event, Jesus once again uses the phrase, “of the world.” Jesus was telling the Sadducees, who were obviously “children of the world” what they could expect in the next life. Because they were not His followers, they would not receive the blessings of eternal marriage, but would instead be as angels. Jesus did not explain to them the blessings that the children “not of this world” would receive. Why should He have done? They would have believed Him to exactly the same extent that they believed they would be resurrected.

3. Looking at Mark’s account, we see another important indication of what Jesus really meant. Here, Jesus is recorded as having said, “Ye know not the power of God.” What on earth could He have meant by that? The power of God to do what – un-marry someone? In the context of His statement, He could only have meant that the Sadducees did not understand that God has the power to unite a husband and wife forever. Without such power, death would certainly end the marriage covenant, but with it, the covenant is eternal. Jesus gave Peter the keys to bind in heaven that which he would bind on earth. Having that authority, he would be able to exercise the power of God to make the marriage relationship endure. We know from the Old Testament that “whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever.” When Peter received the keys to the kingdom of God, he received the power of God to do something that would have eternal significance. A marriage performed by someone not holding that power would endure only under one or the other partner died.

4. Finally, it is significant that Jesus never did say that no one would be married in Heaven. He merely said that no one would get married in Heaven. There is a difference between these two things. The Greek word translated as “marry” is “gamosin,” the third-person form of the verb “gameo,” which means “to enter into the marriage state or to get married.” The term “gamizonai” (“giving in marriage”) is another way of saying the same thing. But, He never used the word, “gemesas,” (as is found in 1 Corinthians 7:33) to describe “a married person.” He never said that there will be no married individuals in Heaven; He only said that marriages won’t be performed there. And I believe this to be the case.

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks Katz. Don't feel guilty for posting links, they are very useful and as I have time on my hands at the moment, I have had time to read through some of the links you have given me.

That's good. I'm glad you're okay with that. I like to answer in my own words when I feel that I'm able to adequately respond. But some questions just require a more extensive answer than I feel I can give.

I suppose reading them has created another minor issue though in that for some of the topics, while there are explanations, there seems to be multiple explanations and there isn't a definite answer. I'm not sure how well unsurety fits with restoration if that makes sense? I thought restoration should answer questions, not create more?

I'm not really sure what you mean. I think that with respect to "doctrines, teachings, and beliefs," the Restoration does answer the questions that mainstream Christianity simply can't. That, in large part, is what draws me to Mormonism. It is able, better than any other Christian denomination (IMO) to give reasonable, logical answers to so many of the questions other denominations just have to guess at. There is an internal consistency within LDS doctrine that simply isn't found elsewhere. Now, if you're thinking in terms of your question about Mormonism's ties to Freemasonry, you're right. It is practically impossible to know to what degree Joseph incorporated elements of Masonic rites into the temple endowment and to what extent there was actually an ancient link. That would be an question that probably cannot be answered conclusively.

One example is the book of Abraham, I don't know what your thoughts are? But reading some of the sites, there seems to be multiple 'ideas' but no real definite knowledge.

I'm not even going to attempt to answer this question as I don't believe I am qualified. I know of no better source of information on the Book of Abraham than Clear. He is an absolute treasure chest of knowledge on the subject and I hope he sees your post and answers this question for you. I also believe he kind of has an edge over most of us on this forum in that he was an adult convert to the Church and is therefore probably more objective than I would be on this subject.

Perhaps I am expecting too much?

Well, I'm not 100% sure just exactly what you're expecting, but if it's just answers to your questions, you're not expecting too much. You have every right to want answers and to be able to trust the people who give them to you to be honest and forthright in their explanations. That's why I jump right in and answer some questions, but hold off on others.

 

[Jane.Doe]

One example is the book of Abraham, I don't know what your thoughts are? But reading some of the sites, there seems to be multiple 'ideas' but no real definite knowledge.

The best resource I know on the Book of Abraham issue, is the official LDS.org essay on "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham": https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

 

[Scott C.]

I thought restoration should answer questions, not create more?

The way I look at it, every answered question raises many more unanswered questions. The more we learn, the more questions we have. I believe that the restoration answers many very important gospel questions. But each answer raises additional questions that the Lord may or may not deem necessary to answer for now.

 

[Orontes]

,

Thank


Thanks for that! I didnt know that the man in question had later become an LDS. I dont have any specific comments on the first lot. Katz is right, im trying to keep within the rules but also your responses were very informative and made sense. Im going to go over everything though so I am sure some questions will arise at some point!

As Katz said, I jumped into mormonism far too quickly before and if its meant to be this time, I am going to take my time studying! I also have an interest in Catholicism though.

I'm going to include two different posts of yours to reply to.


As you explore your religiosity, I want to quote to you from Krister Stendahl's* Rules for Religious Understanding:

(1) When trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

(3) Leave room for holy envy.

I think points (1) and (2) are clear enough, per point (3): this means to allow space, not just for respect of different belief systems, but to be able to feel inspiration from them. Most devotional movements that have had time to nurture and develop a following with any significant number will have a fecundity to them, something that speaks to one deep down. Finding those elements of different faiths is very rewarding and will make one better for it. Catholicism has a rich and wonderful tradition with centuries of spiritual depth.


*Stendahl was the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm, Later in life he taught at Harvard's Divinity School and Brandeis University. I was able to meet him a few times before he died in 2008.

I suppose reading them has created another minor issue though in that for some of the topics, while there are explanations, there seems to be multiple explanations and there isn't a definite answer. I'm not sure how well unsurety fits with restoration if that makes sense? I thought restoration should answer questions, not create more?

If you don' feel or find definitive answers in Mormondom, I think that is because the base rhetorical orientation is different from most Christian Sects. Mormonism is orthopraxic whereas the Great Traditions of Christendom (Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy (to a lesser extant)) are orthodoxic. What does that mean? Orthodoxy refers to right belief. Since we made the reference to Catholicism earlier, it is a perfect example. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is vast. The copy I have in my library is over 800 pages long. It contains the official position of the Church on all manner of subject matter as determined by the Magisterium. By contrast, the closest Mormonism has to such are the Articles of Faith that are only 13 points. Orthopraxy refers to right behavior. Mormonism focuses more on conduct than belief, the idea being that right behavior may lead to creating a moral person and the moral man is better positioned to receive Christ. For example, the questions to be baptized or enter a LDS Temple are, aside from base identifier questions like: belief in Jesus Christ or that Joseph Smith was a prophet, focus on behavior: paying tithes, following the law of chastity etc. When it comes to metaphysics, or the grand questions, Mormonism is more akin to Judaism. Perhaps you've heard the old adage: "two Jews, three opinions". Mormonism has some positions on such, but not a fully worked out official cosmology. Part of this is because we believe in continuing revelation, so we do not claim to know all there is, but the other reason is because of the orthopraxic focus.

As a final point on orthopraxy, I am comfortable in the arena of logic and formal argument, but I don't think such moves the soul. To enter into that realm, something else is needed. Right action is not a guarantee to make one a good person. For example, if we say helping old women cross the street is a good act, doing so, even repeatedly, does not thereby mean the acting subject has instilled goodness into their person, but perhaps, by learning self discipline, and doing things for others rather than the self, there is a chance the acting agent's heart will soften and make them more open to empathy and feeling the spirit. Spiritual experiences can move the soul and is the key thrust of Mormonism. LDS missionaries sent out into the world are young and don't really know anything, but their role is not to convince the mind, but to introduce and point via testimony to personal revelation. Personal revelation is the foundation of the belief system, each can know of themselves whether X or Y is true. Thus, in one capacity, the Church tries to act as a vehicle through focusing on right action, to open a person's heart so they can have spiritual experiences. Spiritual experience is to commune with the Divine and the basis of at-one-ment. Make sense?

 

[Katzpur]

Superb post, Orontes! Thank you for sharing.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

,


I'm going to include two different posts of yours to reply to.


As you explore your religiosity, I want to quote to you from Krister Stendahl's* Rules for Religious Understanding:

(1) When trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

(3) Leave room for holy envy.

I think points (1) and (2) are clear enough, per point (3): this means to allow space, not just for respect of different belief systems, but to be able to feel inspiration from them. Most devotional movements that have had time to nurture and develop a following with any significant number will have a fecundity to them, something that speaks to one deep down. Finding those elements of different faiths is very rewarding and will make one better for it. Catholicism has a rich and wonderful tradition with centuries of spiritual depth.


*Stendahl was the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm, Later in life he taught at Harvard's Divinity School and Brandeis University. I was able to meet him a few times before he died in 2008.




If you don' feel or find definitive answers in Mormondom, I think that is because the base rhetorical orientation is different from most Christian Sects. Mormonism is orthopraxic whereas the Great Traditions of Christendom (Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy (to a lesser extant)) are orthodoxic. What does that mean? Orthodoxy refers to right belief. Since we made the reference to Catholicism earlier, it is a perfect example. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is vast. The copy I have in my library is over 800 pages long. It contains the official position of the Church on all manner of subject matter as determined by the Magisterium. By contrast, the closest Mormonism has to such are the Articles of Faith that are only 13 points. Orthopraxy refers to right behavior. Mormonism focuses more on conduct than belief, the idea being that right behavior may lead to creating a moral person and the moral man is better positioned to receive Christ. For example, the questions to be baptized or enter a LDS Temple are, aside from base identifier questions like: belief in Jesus Christ or that Joseph Smith was a prophet, focus on behavior: paying tithes, following the law of chastity etc. When it comes to metaphysics, or the grand questions, Mormonism is more akin to Judaism. Perhaps you've heard the old adage: "two Jews, three opinions". Mormonism has some positions on such, but not a fully worked out official cosmology. Part of this is because we believe in continuing revelation, so we do not claim to know all there is, but the other reason is because of the orthopraxic focus.

As a final point on orthopraxy, I am comfortable in the arena of logic and formal argument, but I don't think such moves the soul. To enter into that realm, something else is needed. Right action is not a guarantee to make one a good person. For example, if we say helping old women cross the street is a good act, doing so, even repeatedly, does not thereby mean the acting subject has instilled goodness into their person, but perhaps, by learning self discipline, and doing things for others rather than the self, there is a chance the acting agent's heart will soften and make them more open to empathy and feeling the spirit. Spiritual experiences can move the soul and is the key thrust of Mormonism. LDS missionaries sent out into the world are young and don't really know anything, but their role is not to convince the mind, but to introduce and point via testimony to personal revelation. Personal revelation is the foundation of the belief system, each can know of themselves whether X or Y is true. Thus, in one capacity, the Church tries to act as a vehicle through focusing on right action, to open a person's heart so they can have spiritual experiences. Spiritual experience is to commune with the Divine and the basis of at-one-ment. Make sense?

I think that makes sense! It was my first day out of PJs and out the house today since my operation so feeling quite tired! will take another look tomorrow and will ask any questions I have.

Thanks so much for the effort you (and Katz) etc are putting into your responses!

 

[Orontes]

Superb post, Orontes! Thank you for sharing.

Thank you Katzpur

 

[Orontes]

I think that makes sense! It was my first day out of PJs and out the house today since my operation so feeling quite tired! will take another look tomorrow and will ask any questions I have.

Thanks so much for the effort you (and Katz) etc are putting into your responses!

OK.

(any reason to stay in PJs is a good thing, in my opinion)

 

[Truth_Faith13]

OK.

(any reason to stay in PJs is a good thing, in my opinion)

OK so if I have this right, instead of saying right belief creates a good action, the right behaviour will open up the spiritual to the person and will create the right belief? This means that where as some religions of numerous Creed's about belief etc, Mormonism does not?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Another couple of "issues" (I don't like calling them that, but its the best word I have!)

A critical site mentions the following:

Although in the Bible God destroys the veil, Mormonism replaces it in the Temples? (I think I know the answer to this but would still be interested to hear from you guys!)

Mitochondrial DNA - apparently research has proven that native Americans (lamanites) are descendent from Asians and not the ten tribes of Israel? It shows no connection to middle Eastern. I'm conscious that the introduction to the Book of Mormon may have recently been changed to reflect this?

 

[Jane.Doe]

OK so if I have this right, instead of saying right belief creates a good action, the right behaviour will open up the spiritual to the person and will create the right belief?

Correct. The general philosophy is that being a disciple of Christ is not about passing some theological multiple choice test, but rather becoming disciple of Christ is about becoming Christ-like: learning to love as He loved, walking in His footsteps, and doing as He did. We learn by doing, rather than sitting in a lecture hall.

This means that where as some religions of numerous Creed's about belief etc, Mormonism does not?

Correct. Mormonism rejects the creeds of mainstream Christianity and the only "creed" we have is a simple one pager (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.1-13?lang=eng#1)