ForeverFaithful
Son Worshiper
That was it
Please!
Also another Question, in Mormonism marriage extends into the afterlife, but how does that reconcile with Matt 22:30?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
LDS Frequently Asked Questions
- Thread starter SoyLeche
- Start date
Please!
Also another Question, in Mormonism marriage extends into the afterlife, but how does that reconcile with Matt 22:30?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
"Supposed quotes" don't count.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I'll get back to you on this one.
The same incident (the discussion on marriage in Matthew 22) is also discussed in both Mark and Luke. Unless I am mistaken, John is the only gospel writer who does not include it in his account. I believe that these verses are among the most universally misunderstood of any in the New Testament. At first glance, they do 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. I’ll cover some of these points in this post. First, here are Mark’s and Luke’s words.
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 that would make what will already be a pretty long post even longer. You may, however, wish to review that chapter yourself. 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 entirely logical to assume that Jesus, knowing their hearts as perfectly as He did, would have given them an answer that, while entirely honest, would pertain to them specifically. In teaching a truly receptive audience, His answer would likely have been expressed somewhat differently.
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 the 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.
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.
ForeverFaithful
Son Worshiper
on the topic of Eternal weddings, Once a spouse dies is one allowed to marry?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Yes. Normally, the second marriage is not a temple marriage, though. I'm married to my husband "for eternity." If he were to die, I could remarry. If this was my new spouse's second marriage, too, and his first marriage was a temple marriage, he'd be married to his first wife "for eternity." He and I would be married "until death do you part."
ForeverFaithful
Son Worshiper
What is the Church's position on suicide
is it true Mormon's have confessionals like the Catholics
is it true Mormon's have confessionals like the Catholics
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I honestly don't believe our leaders have ever come out with an official statement on the subject. I do know that if a member of the Church were to commit suicide, his or her funeral would be conducted with the same reverence and respect as would the funeral of any other member of the Church. I think that most Mormons (including our leadership) realize that someone who has committed suicide must have had mental and/or emotional problems the rest of us are unable to even imagine. Technically, suicide is taking a life, and we believe in the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." On the other hand, we believe that our Father in Heaven is loving and forgiving beyond our capability to understand.
Yes and no.
I'd say the answer is closer to being "no," but this requires some explaining. We do not confess on a regular basis like the Catholics, and when we do, it's not in a "confessional booth." We believe that there are some sins for which we need not confess to any living person. We merely need to recognize that we have done wrong, apologize to the person we've sinned against (if our sin involves another person), feel true remorse over what we've done, ask God for forgiveness, and sincerely commit to to better in the future. Actually, most of the things we as Mormons think of as "sins" would fall in this category. If a member of the Church commits a really serious sin, he is supposed to go to his bishop -- in person, face-to-face -- and confess that sin. The bishop is not believed to have the power or authority to forgive the sin, but he is believed to have the spiritual guidance and discernment to help the person through the repentance process. Serious sins would keep a person from being worthy to go to the temple. They would include sexual sins (adultery and fornication), murder, rape, any kind of abuse against a family member, or anything that would be considered a felony crime by the legal system.
ForeverFaithful
Son Worshiper
What is the opinion of the LDSers about everyone making a racket about archaeology and the Book of Mormon?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I would say that, for most of us, our belief in the Book of Mormon doesn't require physical evidence any more than my belief in the Bible does.
To begin with, I don't personally think there will ever be conclusive proof that the events described in the Book of Mormon took place. Most LDS archeologists today are of the opinion that a great many of the events described in the book probably took place somewhere in Central America, but their has never been any official statement to that effect. So, not only do they not know precisely where to look, they don't even know exactly what they're looking for. Obviously, there are a great many archeological sites being excavated at this time. We all know that there were people here in ancient times. But here's the question we must ask: How would anybody be able to identify a site as being Lamanite or Nephite specifically? How would archeologists know, based on the very minimal clues found in the Book of Mormon, that they'd found an ancient Nephite city? I'm pretty sure they're not going to stumble upon a road sign that says "Zarahemla: 5 km."
When people point out that the cities, landmarks, etc. in the Bible can be positively identified, they seem to forget that these places have been almost continuously populated for thousands of years. Had no one lived in Jerusalem or Jerico or Capernaum for the past 2000 years and their locations with respect to other cities never described in the Bible, I wonder how easy it would be to zero in on them? People also will occasionally mention certain plants or animals that they say did not exist in the Americas prior to the Spanish conquest but which are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Ever student of the Bible is aware that lions were known in Israel in Biblical times, and yet the very first two lion skeletons ever unearthed in that part of the world were found as recently as 1983. Prior to the 1960's, not even any artistic depictions of lions had been found. Did these people come to accept the Bible as true only after archeological evidence of lions came to light in 1983? After all, by their own logic, if there is no archeological evidence for something, obviously it's false. Furthermore, neither archeologists nor Egyptologists have found evidence to prove that the Exodus ever took place, even though billions of people today believe it did.
Speaking of something along the lines of archeological evidence, I'm just going to give you one very brief example of something that I personally found to be interesting.
The Book of Mormon, was translated by Joseph Smith, Jr., then a 23-year old boy with a third-grade education. His background was in farming. He lived in rural New York state in 1830 and had no knowledge of ancient cultures, either American or Middle-eastern. Joseph claimed that the record he translated was written on plates that had the appearance of gold. They were etched with strange characters which resembled Egyptian hieroglyphics and were bound together using metal rings, like a book. They had been stored in a large stone box and buried for centuries in a hillside near his home. When Joseph described these plates, he immediately became the laughing stock of upstate New York. Egyptian letters engraved on gold plates and hidden in a stone box! How couldnything be so ludicrous? No one had ever heard of such a thing, and so of course it was dismissed as not only far-fetched but as virtually impossible.
Now, jump forward almost 100 years. In 1933, the Plates of Darius I were discovered in a stone box in a palace in Persia. They dated from about the same time as the earliest Book of Mormon plates. Half of the plates were gold and half were silver. They were very similar in appearance to the plates Joseph Smith had described. Since then, a number of other ancient records have been discovered -- all of them written on metal plates, any many deposited in stone boxes. They are on display at museums throughout the world (Chicago, Tehran, Lima, Rome, and Paris). Don't make the mistake of assuming that their content is the same as the content of the plates Joseph Smith translated, because it wasn't. The content, of course, is beside the point. What is significant is that archealogists now know that it was common for ancient people in various parts of the world to record their histories and other important information in this way. Joseph Smith didn't know this, and yet, in spite of all the ridicule, he never changed his story. History has now vindicated his claims in this regard.
Finally, although archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon story on the American continent may be minimal, the book does start in Jerusalem and describes in some detail the journey by Lehi (the group's patriarch), his sons and their families from there to a location somewhere along the Arabian Peninsula. Not only did Joseph Smith have absolutely no background whatsoever about the Arabian Peninsula, neither did any but a handful of scholars. It is possibly today, to recreate that journey and to spot natural landmarks described in the Book of Mormon, included an extremely isolated oasis where they camped, at the exact locations they would be expected to be found. There is even an ancient burial ground with almost exactly the same name as the one given in the Book of Mormon. This burial ground is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible or in any sources Joseph would have had access to.
At any rate, with respect to the lack of archeological evidence to prove the Book of Mormon, and in answer to your question, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. For one thing, many of the plants, animals, etc. that were once thought not to have existed here in Book of Mormon times have now been identified. So the list of proof against the Book of Mormon is steadily dwindling. There is considerable linguistic and cultural evidence to support the premise that the Book of Mormon truly is what it purports to be. In my opinion, this evidence is more compelling than anything else. The existence of highly complex chiasms, distinctly Hebrew sentence structures and idioms, etc. and various wordprint analyses are clear evidence in my opinion that the book is an ancient record and not the product of a 19th century imagination. Perhaps I find those evidences more compelling simply because I have an interest in linguistics, etc. But again, I don't base my belief in the book on any of those things. They are just frosting on the cake, as far as I'm concerned.
ForeverFaithful
Son Worshiper
I've been trying to find a balanced documentary on this, do you know of one?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I've never seen a documentary that presented both positions, just separate documentaries presented by both sides. It would be an interesting project; I'll grant you that.
ForeverFaithful
Son Worshiper
Is it true LDSers keep a stock pile of food in their home for the great falling away of society?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I wouldn't put it that way, but we are encouraged to be prepared for unforeseen circumstances, such as loss of income, natural disaster, etc. Having adequate food storage is part of such preparation. So is being debt free and living within ones income.
HeatherAnn
Active Member
I think this is an important question, not just of literature, but of common practice.
There are beautiful aspects of the LDS faith, including eternal progression. Often as the term gospel implies ("good news") we never stop learning & growing spiritually.
When one falls away from this particular religion & lets it be known, a common process is: pity for being lost, attempts to persuade the person to return to the fold. If they have stopped paying tithing (10% of income to church leaders), but they still do everything else they're told to do by church leaders, they will be denied temple access and will be considered falling away & unworthy. LDS beliefs teach of more serious consequences of those who fall away after going through the temple to receive temple ordinances.
The LDS church offers a great sense of belonging & a sense of having The Truth.
If one is committed to being a good group member & complies well with the rules required to belong, one may fill that universal need of belonging.
Some think it is social suicide to "come out" about any lack of belief in Mormonism & that's partly why Utah leads the nation in anti-depressants.
But I'd say each experience is unique. Although the headquarters of the church are in Salt Lake City, Utah, the church has congregations in many parts of the world.
I no longer believe the LDS church is the only true church, but my husband wants me to attend & that we raise our children in this religion.
So, although I have brought up some concerns with my bishop, I continue attending church every Sunday & feel good helping & loving others through callings (volunteer church jobs).
I do like my children to be taught high standards, but I'm careful to supplement their teachings, in ways I feel are most healthy.
Last edited:
DavyCrocket2003
Well-Known Member
You know what? I am not worried about people falling away in this sense. Those I am worried about are those that believe it's true yet don't want to live it. This is trouble spiritually. It is not good to live out of harmony with your religious beliefs. However, for those who simply do not believe the church is true, there isn't much to worry about IMO. I cannot believe that God would fault someone for doing what they sincerely believe is right. Even if that means leaving the church or "falling away." If that is what you honestly believe deep down, then that is what you ought to do.
Also, on a related note, you should never discourage people from seeking truth and questioning what they are taught. If X is true, it will hold up under scrutiny and there is no reason to fear examination. In fact, it should allow you to know, understand, and appreciate X better. If X is false, then you will be greatly benefitted by examining it closely and correcting or replacing it with truth. And just because X is true, doesn't mean that Y is false.
Truth should be accepted and welcomed regardless of the source.
NoraSariah
Active Member
Yes, and all of us have a shotgun in the basement in case of zombies.
But yes, we are counseled to keep about a year's worth of food just in case there's a natural disaster or something of the sort.
Zomg, your footer can be added to. JFS also said the same of Mormonism/JS in his 3-set book series titled 'Doctrines of Salvation'. And which I believe is the truth. If the evidence isn't there to support JS's claims about God, the church, LDS prophecies (that JS and others issued) and other important aspects of the religion then the LDS church is false.
But, my question to you is, since you're an admitted atheist, why are you here and what are trying to prove? One would think you would have no interest in religion of any kind. I'm kinda confused. Can you explain?
I'm stealing Amy's idea
Answers to many FAQs can be found here:
[Had to erase the site address]
Not really. Would you like to discuss some of the LDS church's doctrines and see for yourself that that site doesn't answer 'any' of them. There is a lot to Mormonism major teachings (doctrines) that aren't and won't be answered on any LDS website- Church run, owned, operated or not.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
That's what this forum is for, rocmonkey. Be my guest...
I would say it probably isn't a good thing if you are an apostate and fight against the Lord's Church but as for the judgement of those people that is up to God. Everyone is different and we believe that God will judge our hearts. I just pray for them as I do for myself and others. We are all sinners.