Parts of LDS seem reasonable, others do not

[CleverUsername]

I have been doing my own careful study of world religions for the past few months, and lately I have been focusing on Restorationist Christianity (LDS, JWs, Seven-Day Adventists, etc.) I have been reading about the Book of Mormon and Mormonism lately, and I have some conflicting views about the faith based on the Book of Mormon versus the theology proposed by Smith and the later Presidents.

I would first like to say that I personally do not believe that the events described in the Book of Mormon are literal, and I do not see the book as a historical document in any way. I do, however, see the value of it as a religious work. I personally find it somewhat comforting to read and I like it as a way to think about how one should live life. I feel like if Mormonism were based off of the Book of Mormon alone, it really wouldn't be treated as poorly. The part that I take issue with is literally everything else: The infallibility of the presidents, the idea that they speak directly to God, the Book of Abraham, the concept of the origins of God, etc.

Does anybody else feel the same way-- that while the Book of Mormon seems like a very nice book, the rest of the theology seems far fetched and extremely convenient?

 

[Orontes]

I have been doing my own careful study of world religions for the past few months, and lately I have been focusing on Restorationist Christianity (LDS, JWs, Seven-Day Adventists, etc.) I have been reading about the Book of Mormon and Mormonism lately, and I have some conflicting views about the faith based on the Book of Mormon versus the theology proposed by Smith and the later Presidents.

I would first like to say that I personally do not believe that the events described in the Book of Mormon are literal, and I do not see the book as a historical document in any way. I do, however, see the value of it as a religious work. I personally find it somewhat comforting to read and I like it as a way to think about how one should live life. I feel like if Mormonism were based off of the Book of Mormon alone, it really wouldn't be treated as poorly. The part that I take issue with is literally everything else: The infallibility of the presidents, the idea that they speak directly to God, the Book of Abraham, the concept of the origins of God, etc.

Does anybody else feel the same way-- that while the Book of Mormon seems like a very nice book, the rest of the theology seems far fetched and extremely convenient?

There is no notion of infallibility in Mormonism: either in regard to prophets, presidents or texts.

Mormonism asserts all can speak directly to God. It's called prayer. If your intent was actually the reverse, you object to God speaking to prophets: Mormonism asserts all are entitled to personal revelation. The importance of and entitlement to religious experience is a fundamental positioning.

Mormonism has no formal position on the origins of Deity, or that there is such.

Mormonism doesn't have a set theology, per the normal sense of the term. Mormonism is not an orthodoxic faith. It is orthopraxic in it's thrust.

 

[Katzpur]

I have been doing my own careful study of world religions for the past few months, and lately I have been focusing on Restorationist Christianity (LDS, JWs, Seven-Day Adventists, etc.) I have been reading about the Book of Mormon and Mormonism lately, and I have some conflicting views about the faith based on the Book of Mormon versus the theology proposed by Smith and the later Presidents.

I would first like to say that I personally do not believe that the events described in the Book of Mormon are literal, and I do not see the book as a historical document in any way. I do, however, see the value of it as a religious work. I personally find it somewhat comforting to read and I like it as a way to think about how one should live life. I feel like if Mormonism were based off of the Book of Mormon alone, it really wouldn't be treated as poorly. The part that I take issue with is literally everything else: The infallibility of the presidents, the idea that they speak directly to God, the Book of Abraham, the concept of the origins of God, etc.

Does anybody else feel the same way-- that while the Book of Mormon seems like a very nice book, the rest of the theology seems far fetched and extremely convenient?

This is an interesting perspective. I was born and raised LDS, but by parents who strongly encouraged me to think for myself and never just blindly accept everything I ever heard spoken from the pulpit. Over the years, I have seen more than enough material about Mormonism that is, quite frankly, pretty inaccurate. Just in your example alone, I noticed that you mentioned the infallibility of the presidents of the Church. None of our presidents/prophets have ever claimed to be infallible and a good number of them have been very clear in stating quite the opposite. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but it's not correct. You find it odd that we believe the president/prophet speaks directly to God. Do you also find it odd that ancient prophets (Moses, Abraham, Isaiah) spoke directly to God? Just curious. With respect to the origins of God, I'll just say that we have no official doctrine on this subject at all. Yes, there has been speculation, but there is no revealed doctrine on God's origins.

I really don't know what sources you've been using in your study, but I have a strong hunch that they aren't the most reliable ones available. In terms of our actual doctrine regarding God's Plan of Salvation, I don't think there's a Christian denomination out there with more logical doctrine than ours. I realize that I'm probably oversimplifying this, but in talking to other Christians, I get the impression that most of them believe that God created us for some purpose we're still a bit unclear on, that we sprang into existence at the moment of birth, were born already condemned because of an act of disobedience committed by someone else 6000 years ago, and if we are among the fortunate few to have been born at the right time and in the right place, we may be restored to our previous innocent state and get back into Heaven by believing in Jesus Christ. Once there, we'll apparently sing praises to God forever more. Period.

The LDS version of this entire story has so much more depth and substance that it's not even funny. I bet you'd be surprised at what we really believe, and how little you really know at this point about the Church. Lest I'm coming across as condemning you for your misunderstandings, please know that I'm not. I've just been having conversations like this for well over 20 years now, and I know what I'm talking about. Don't rely on non-LDS sources to correctly explain our doctrine. While some of them may be making an honest attempt at getting it right, they really don't do a very good job of it.