It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Mormon FAQ (by dragonsdemesne)

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I've read a fair amount of books & internet articles & ATS posts on Mormons, and I've noticed that there is a lot of information out there that is just plain incorrect. I'm not talking about people who simply disagree with my opinion on religion (I'm mormon) but people who have basic historical or theological facts wrong concerning Mormonism. I've also noticed a recent rise in ATS topics on Mormons, so there must be at least a few people who are interested in this topic.

I'm not sure if this counts as a 'conspiracy in religion', but there are a few people in the world that do deliberately spread lies about Mormons, just as there are those who spread lies about other religions, because, for whatever reason, they hate that particular religion, or all religion in general. Then some of those lies get spread around enough that some people start to believe them. Since the motto of ATS is 'deny ignorance', I think it is a good idea for me to dispel some ignorance on this topic.

It should be stated that I will not try to 'convert' anybody, and I will not bash any other religions (and will put on 'ignore' anyone who bashes mine or anybody else's). I simply want to help people to learn a few things that they might not have known otherwise.

Since I am not certain what your questions might be (if any), I won't suggest any questions, I'll leave that up to you to ask away. I'll try to reply promptly, although sometimes due to life's circumstances I may not be able to answer for a few days. I will also try to use sources to back up things rather than just my own personal opinions. Also feel free to find me in ATS chat and ask your questions there or use u2u/email if you want.

Let the
questions
begin...

[edit on 5-7-2005 by DragonsDemesne]




posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Dragonsdemense I do questions about the MORMON religion but I will ask only this one for now. Why is it that the Mormans believe they can have more than one wife? And that it's not wrong in the taking of young women I have read and seen docamentries that some of the women are mere girls 12 or 13 yrs of age. It is a known fact that here in the United States in the Utah, Arizona region there are communities where people of the Morman practice these things everyday. Now it has been said the Governments of these regions will put up with no more. There are documented stories of young women who have fled these communities and have told public officials of what really happens behind the fences. How can your religion let this happen.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Is it true that mormon's can't have caffiene and candy? And if so why?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Well, I have a question that I recently started thinking about regarding Mormons.


What does the Mormon religion think about Homosexuality/Lesbian and Bisexuality and Transgender?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
ASLTW:


Why is it that the Mormans believe they can have more than one wife?


Because of scriptural evidence that this is permitted, if God allows it. For example, in the Old Testament, Abraham had Sarah and Hagar, Jacob had Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah, King David had hundreds of wives, and was considered righteous until he fornicated with Bethsheba, and King Solomon had hundreds of wives as well.

There is also evidence that it is not always permitted. For example, in the book of mormon, in Jacob chapter 2, verses 27-30, to summarize, God tells the Nephites not to have multiple wives, but that if he were to command it in the future, they would be obligated to obey Him.

Also, even when polygamy is not permitted, like the present day, men can still have multiple wives in the afterlife. For example, if a man marries a woman, she dies, he remarries, then he will have two wives in the afterlife, although never more than one at a time on earth. (if a woman remarries, she ends up with the first man in the afterlife, in case someone thinks to ask that question) This assumes the marriages were all mormon temple marriages; otherwise, the marriage (according to mormons) is for mortality only.


And that it's not wrong in the taking of young women I have read and seen docamentries that some of the women are mere girls 12 or 13 yrs of age. It is a known fact that here in the United States in the Utah, Arizona region there are communities where people of the Morman practice these things everyday.


There is a mixed truth in here. What you are not considering is that there are different groups of mormons. The LDS church is the biggest one, the one with Gordon Hinckley as president (the one I belong to). There are also other groups, the only other one of any significant following being the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS).

There are other splinter groups that are more fundamentalist, such as the FLDS, who do marry off girls in the manner you mention. While these people call themselves mormons, mainstream mormons do not think of them as mormons at all. Groups such as the FLDS that behave so abhorrently with young girls should be condemned. Girls of that young an age have no ability to consent to a marriage, not to mention the illegality of it. It is wrong, and I hate the practice as much as you do, probably more, because their behaviour casts my church in a bad light, even though we aren't doing those things, we often get associated with it.

Any (mainstream) mormon that practices polygamy will be excommunicated if discovered, in this current day. Polygamy was ended officially by the mormon church on October 6, 1890, by Wilford Woodruff (4th president of the church). The Mormons were facing increasing pressure from the US gov't, and eventually laws such as the Edmunds-Tucker Act were passed, forbidding plural marriage. This is when (the Mormon version of the story) Wilford Woodruff prayed to God and asked his advice what to do with the current situation, and was told to end the practice of polygamy.

Mormons believe in following the 'laws of the land' (Articles of Faith #12). Mormons don't see anything inherently wrong with polygamy, provided that it is between consentual adults (something the FLDS and similar splinter groups ignore
), we believe in honouring the law, so true Mormons will never practice it, unless it were both made legal again and the current prophet said it was okay, and the chances of both of those happening are slim to none.


Now it has been said the Governments of these regions will put up with no more.


Good for them! I wholeheartedly support this. Also, think about this for a minute, if you will. The state of Utah is approximately 70% Mormon. The gov't saying that they will not tolerate this kind of behaviour means that mormons in gov't are condemning this practice, along with non-mormons. Slightly closer to home for me is a place called Bountiful, British Columbia (I live in Alberta). There is a large community of fundamentalist mormons there who practice polygamy, and the gov't wants to end this practice as well. Unfortunately, the sticky issue of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing religious freedom (and the First Amendment for you Americans) makes it a difficult process for the gov't to go through.


There are documented stories of young women who have fled these communities and have told public officials of what really happens behind the fences.


I've read a few accounts from these sorts of women, too. It's horrible what they get put through. Any true Mormon would not subject women to the awful things that happen in those fundamentalist colonies. My church condemns what these people are doing.


How can your religion let this happen


I think it should be pretty clear what my answer to this will be by now. The LDS church is not committing these acts, it is other mormon sects. Any LDS mormon who is found practicing polygamy or abusing women or children, will find themselves excommunicated in short order.

***EDIT*** to add a link I found by accident while researching iori's question: Official LDS Position on Polygamy

[edit on 5-7-2005 by DragonsDemesne]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
Is it true that mormon's can't have caffiene and candy? And if so why?


If Mormons couldn't have candy, I would be going straight to Hell.


Nothing in the Mormon religion prohibits eating candy (thank goodness). The Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) does counsel us to treat our bodies with respect and live healthy, so I suppose if you ate nothing but candy three meals a day, that would be wrong (and just plain stupid, for obvious health reasons). There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a chocolate bar or two once in awhile.

As for caffeine, there is nothing that specifically prohibits it, that I know of. Among other things in the Word of Wisdom, coffee is prohibited, which contains caffeine. I am not familiar enough with the health effects of caffeine to say much about that, but my understanding is that it isn't particularly healthy for people, which if so, would mean it should be avoided.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well, I have a question that I recently started thinking about regarding Mormons.


What does the Mormon religion think about Homosexuality/Lesbian and Bisexuality and Transgender?


Straight from the source:
Official LDS stance on homosexuality
The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Basically, we believe that same sex relationships are wrong, in any form, and should not be practiced, no matter how strong the urge may be. People who are homosexual/lesbian can join the Mormon church (although I doubt many do; I don't know any, unless they are still 'in the closet'), but they cannot act on those feelings; if they were to do so, they would lose their good standing in the church and possibly face excommunication.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
dragons demesne, salute.

i admire your effort to dispell lies. i know a bit about the mormon religion. what bothers me most is the amount of faith it requires. i mean, the religion works i guess, but only if nod your head yes even when you really dont understand. take this for example;


Also, even when polygamy is not permitted, like the present day, men can still have multiple wives in the afterlife. For example, if a man marries a woman, she dies, he remarries, then he will have two wives in the afterlife, although never more than one at a time on earth. (if a woman remarries, she ends up with the first man in the afterlife, in case someone thinks to ask that question) This assumes the marriages were all mormon temple marriages; otherwise, the marriage (according to mormons) is for mortality only.


that all sounds nice, but it sounds like somebody just made it up. like they are rules to a board game or something. i dont get it. why can a man have two afterlife parters, yet women only one? it doesnt really bother me, but its just outright off the wall craziness. the congregation is supposed to just say 'ok' and accept it as some holymans devine inspiration. am i supposed to just believe one of the prophets prayed that up one day?

more comments later...

[edit on 5-7-2005 by lost]



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
This should be fun and a source of genuine debate. I will also post to this thread to answer questions and while I am admittedly no longer associated with the LDS faith I endeavor to bring truth to what I post. May the truth be what comes out of this.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   
i hope you havent put me on ignore yet dragons. it was not at all my intention to offend you. its just, being an x-mormon of sorts, the religion enters my thoughts daily and in all honesty, i would like to discuss it.

to continue, i am in no position to say how a religion of the 'true God' should operate, but i do know the LDS religion claims just this; to be the one and only true church on the face of the earth. On any given fast sunday, you will hear those very words all over the world. The LDS church claims, as nearly all denominations do - to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH.

Ok, as every religion is, the LDS church is made up of people - humans; flawed.

I am not going to attack any individual character within the churches history or leadership, but I must admit the church had some fairly shacky founding decades. I know lies are spread about the church - and people will try to sling mud, but the very real facts without any bias are still:

polygamy, relations to freemasonry, pyramid like structure, and some eccentric individuals in high positions.

Let it be known, my every impression tells me the LDS leadership are good honest men.... but devine? -its really an act of faith.

(but hey, they beat the papacy by far!!!)

I guess that is the result when men try to interpret God - or relate to other men their exchanges with God? ......Confusion.

Because in all truth my experience with the mormon church has been confusion and serious mental stress. Much is my own fault I admit, but towards the end, the church was filling the same role religion had always played for man; an obstacle on the path to God when it should be a sign.

All the ritualistic movements take the thought out of it; AM I NOT SUPPOSED TO UNDERSTAND? because it makes sense that everything be built on faith and nobody really understand, all the while those odd rituals are built on solid logic that maybe only God can comprehend. I get that.

Im still open to the idea that the LDS church is the real deal, but why why why did God unfold it upon mankind in such a quirky way?! ~ it really doesnt come off as 'true' at first glance. The historical timeline I mean.

Religion (in general) demands it be the intermediary between you and God. And religion (in this case) is mostly a beaurocratic ladder of men who are ~inspired~ and make proclamations etc. that make the religion look somewhat kooky. Bottom line: the LDS church requires a lot of faith.

Its easy to start thinking it was all made up. Who knows? maybe theres something to it... I admit my faith was and has not been the strongest, but its really tough, because to truly cement myself in the religion, I have to believe it the way they write it; faith faith and more faith. damn.

either God works in ways more mysterious than i could imagine.
(read the history - its bizerk!)

or the LDS church is one of the most succesful scams ever.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Lol, sorry lost, no I did not put you on ignore, I just didn't see you asking a question, so I didn't reply.


but the very real facts without any bias are still:

polygamy, relations to freemasonry, pyramid like structure, and some eccentric individuals in high positions.


I already talked about polygamy a bit above, so unless you feel there's something I missed, I'll refer you to that.

As to freemasonry, it is a fact that many early Mormons were Masons, including Joseph Smith, the founder, and his brother Hyrum. Joseph joined in March 1842, and I'm not sure when Hyrum joined, but I believe it was quite a bit earlier.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'pyramid like structure', but I think you are talking about the way the church hierarchy is set up: 1st presidency, 12 apostles, seventies, area authorities, stake presidents, bishops. This is similar to the Catholic church; pope, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests.

Eccentric people in high positions: I guess that depends what you mean by eccentric. There probably were a few leaders that could be seen as a little bit odd in some ways, but nothing detrimental.

Here are a few links that have a bunch of good information. Except for the Wiki one, they are all websites authored by Mormons.

LDS official website
Wiki entry discussing some Mormon controversies
Website of Jeff Lindsay, a Mormon who has done a ton of research into Mormon issues
FARMS: a group of researchers at BYU who look into Mormon issues

Also, thanks jukyu for being willing to help out with the thread; hopefully between the two of us, one or both will be able to answer any questions.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
ok. what about the eery similarities between the old (notice now changed) endowment oaths taken in the temple and masonic rituals? i really hate myself for bringing this up, but it is a real question in my heart. and why doesnt the church teach this stuff in seminary etc. i dont hate the church so much for having a questionable past, but rather the 'purity' front it puts off today. i want to know real church history. can i believe these rumors? are these the lies you speak of?

www.utlm.org...

they have masonic symbols all over the temple too. and brigham was a mason. its just a little too coincidental for it all to be so hush hush. the best explanation i could find was here,

www.fairlds.org...

and i have to admit it starts to sound like another wierd rule book. i really dont know who to believe. it could all be lies, but what would i know. stories about joseph smiths childhood tell an interesting story too, his majic hobbies etc...

[edit on 7-7-2005 by lost]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Sorry for taking awhile to reply; stupid job...


ok. what about the eery similarities between the old (notice now changed) endowment oaths taken in the temple and masonic rituals?


Changes made in the early church (i.e. Joseph Smith's day) are easy to explain. From the fairlds link that lost posted:


The endowment did not arrive as a whole in the Nauvoo period, but in parts over many years. Indeed, the Rigdonite branch (a splinter group from early Mormonism that followed the leadership of Sidney Rigdon) continues to practice only the portions of the endowment which were given in Kirtland.


The endowment was not given by J.S. fully formed; in fact, when he first told people about the endowment, he explicitly mentioned that he was not revealing everything for them, yet. For the masonic similarities, I'm not an expert in masonry, but I think the fairlds explanation is reasonable.

The changes in 1990 are probably what you were actually referring to, and while I had some concern over this issue when I learned of it a few years back in my research, I am not overly concerned by it. I read both the links you provided above, and was surprised to see that fairlds gave almost the same answer I would have, so I will quote that and add a few comments of my own:


The ritual is changed to meet the needs of members and to better communicate the endowment to them. Remember, there is a difference between the endowment ritual and the endowment itself. The ritual is not the endowment, but how the endowment is taught--in much the same way that the Catholic Mass is not Holy Communion but how Holy Communion is given to the congregation.


Before I read that, I thought of an analogy that I could present that is actually fairly similar in concept to that quote.

Imagine a person praying. Suppose they want to pray for a friend who is sick to have better health. What words should he/she use in the prayer? My answer would be that it doesn't really make that much difference. It is the intent of the matter that is key, here. You could be a four year old praying for your sick mommy, with little command of language, or a PhD in English and give an eloquent, verbose plea to God for your friend, and God treats them the same, since the intent is the same; you are concerned for your friend, and want them to feel better.

Similarly, I feel that the endowment is not just the words we use in the ceremony when it is performed. Those are just a tool to help understand it. The endowment isn't a list of words on a sheet of paper. It is an experience that Mormons feel is sacred and vital to their salvation. The manner of its performance isn't that important, so long as it is done with respect and reverence to God.


stories about joseph smiths childhood tell an interesting story too, his majic hobbies etc


I've read some of those, too. I'm not really sure what to think of those. I have noticed a lot of the reports for this sort of thing contradict each other. It's also possible that (assuming J.S. was exactly what he claimed to be) some of the things he did could have been misinterpreted as 'majic', like his book of Mormon translation process, or instances of healing and visions and speaking in tongues. 'History of the Church', by B.H. Roberts, is a good read, but really long, it covers all of Joseph Smith's adult life, plus a few years afterward and the important parts of his childhood, like the First Vision. It has a lot of interesting stuff there, and even though it was written by a Seventy, it still includes most of the historical events that are not so favourable to the church.


i want to know real church history.

Me too! That's why I read a whole bunch of it, from both pro- and anti- Mormon sources. (although admittedly more pro than con ones) I guess it's like anything else in history; keep reading and studying and questioning.


are these the lies you speak of?

I was probably rather vague when I mentioned 'lies about mormons' being circulated about. Since I don't mean to be vague, I'm going to dig up a few of these lies as an example and show why they are untrue. See next post for that.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   
#1
One lie that some people perpetuate about Mormons is regarding the Book of Abraham. They claim that nothing in the book of Abraham has any relation to scriptural or historical evidence. This turns out to be absolutely false, as shown by ancient documents that have been discovered much more recently. Jeff Lindsay is a Mormon who is extremely well educated and well read, and he has done massive amounts of research into Mormon history, here is a few articles he has written about this.

www.jefflindsay.com...
www.jefflindsay.com...
www.jefflindsay.com...

#2
Some critics say that Mormons are not Christians. This is about as insulting as telling a Catholic he is not a Christian. It's utterly false.

The full name of the Mormon church is 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'. We believe Christ to be at the head of the church. The Book of Mormon is full of references to Christ. (The word Christ appears 326 times and the word Jesus 164 times, according to this ) Our prayers are 'in the name of Jesus Christ.' We use the Bible, as do all Christian churches.

Some religions say we are not Christians because of the Trinity issue. We believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct entities, just as I, jukyu & lost are three separate people, for example. Thus, Mormons have a different view of Christ than some Christian religions who believe that all three are the same being. I look at Luke 3:22 as proof that they are distinct beings.

Here is a short article that helps explain why Mormons are Christians.

#3
That no evidence supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon exists. This is false. It is true that there is no PROOF, but there is evidence that agrees with the book.

Here is a long list of evidences for the Book of Mormon. None of them are more than circumstantial, but there are many things Joseph Smith got correct that he could not have known about, like cement in ancient America.

Three should be enough for now, I just wanted to put up a few concrete examples of points that people lie/are mistaken about.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Hi there


I'm curious as to whether or not you've read Davis' "Who Really Wrote The Book of Mormon", and if so, do you have any commentary?

I've read Jeff Lindsay's writings; alas, I've come away being convinced that he's no more accurate than the material he's defending and challenging.

To that end, do you have any thoughts on the Kinderhook Plates?

Kinderhook Plates link

Link to Davis' work



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
I'm curious as to whether or not you've read Davis' "Who Really Wrote The Book of Mormon", and if so, do you have any commentary?

I've read Jeff Lindsay's writings; alas, I've come away being convinced that he's no more accurate than the material he's defending and challenging.

To that end, do you have any thoughts on the Kinderhook Plates?


Sorry, I have not read Davis' work. I read the link you provided, and noticed several quotations from Larson's "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus", which I did read about 5-6 years ago. Davis' work seems to be similar to Larson's, if that link is any indication. Incidentally, I found Larson's work to be incredibly biased, and thought that he completely ignored any information that might disprove his case.

I am surprised you didn't think much of Jeff Lindsay's writings. I found his website to be quite good, personally. A lot of websites I've seen (pro and anti mormon) are usually full of biased opinions rather than actual facts. Lindsay has done a heck of a lot of research, and I found his site very useful.

Kinderhook Plates...
This, as you are probably aware, is a very interesting issue. This was one of the first things I came across in my study of Mormon history. I must admit, I was quite shocked when I first came across this, and had to keep researching them until I got the entire picture. I will first give a summary of the historical facts, and then a summary of my interpretation of them.
---

The Facts:

In 1843, two men created the Kinderhook plates, a set of six small bell-shaped pieces of brass, with engravings on them that were made to look like writing. They faked a 'discovery', in the presence of several others, including an unwitting Mormon that they had arranged to have when the plates were 'found' (to add credibility to the find for other Mormons).

Of course, people got excited at this 'discovery', since everyone in the area knew of Joseph Smith's claims to translation abilities. The two men hoped that Smith would provide a 'translation' and then they would be able to prove him a fraud beyond question.

Smith never provided any translation, at least nothing that has survived. The only historical document that claims a translation even took place is in William Clayton's journal, but even that does not have any specific translation in it. The Times and Seasons, a Nauvoo newspaper, said that Smith had seen the plates, but hadn't as yet made any comments about them.

Before his death, one of the men who had set up the hoax confessed to having fabricated the plates, and that he had planned to trap Smith with them.

B.H. Roberts, a Mormon Seventy (a high ranking Mormon leader, just below an Apostle), in the 7-volume "History of the Church", stated that he believed the Kinderhook plates to be genuine, in spite of the deathbed confession. He had no factual basis to make this claim, however.

In modern times (about 20-30 years ago) a professor was allowed to run tests on the only Kinderhook plate that we have left. He found that it was indeed a fake, based on its age, composition, and etching techniques used.
---

The Opinions:

I think that Joseph Smith was shown the Kinderhook Plates. I think that he recognized them as fake; the writing on them looks like child's scribbles, to me. I think that is why no translation ever appeared; there never was one. I think that when Clayton wrote in his journal, he recorded information he had heard from a mistaken third-party, and believed it to be true. (How often do we hear false information today from people who are lying or mistaken? *cough*WMDs in Iraq*cough*) I think that the Plates are fake, and I think that B.H. Roberts, while mistaken about his belief that they were genuine, came up with what to him would have been the most logical conclusion, based on his faith and knowledge at the time.
---

I shall have to get ahold of Davis' work somewhere. Unfortunately, I have a *very* long list of books on my waiting list right now, made even longer by my recent discovery of Limewire
I have too many different things I want to read on so many different subjects, I cannot promise when I will get to it.

I find it interesting also that the first two questions I had when I began my research have already been asked about; the Book of Abraham first of all, and then I came across the Kinderhook plates while reading about the Book of Abraham.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Hi Dragon. I no longer attend the mormon church, althought they still visit my house. I ask a lot of questions to them, and they are open to it. Here are a few for you.

What say you about how DNA testing is showing no middle eastern DNA in any Native Americans? Here is a neutral link about it.

www.religioustolerance.org...

Also, can you explain the significance of the upside down pentagrams on the Nauvoo temple? If you're not familiar, there is a lovely picture in the July Ensign. Or you can see it here. Note also the sunstones, moonstones, and the all seeing eye on other temples on this same page.

cfac.byu.edu...


My final comment of the day is one that really bothers me. It is well know that LDS prophets proclaim to have the gift of tounges. It is also well known that the LDS faith "belive the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly". Pray tell, in 200 years, why hasn't at least one prophet taken the time to give the world the "perfect translation" of the Bible? I can't speak for everyone, but as for me, it would make me take a second look. The fencesitting on this just blows my mind. Why read from a book in church that might not be translated correctly? Wouldn't that be teaching false doctrine if you are knowingly quoting from a book that may not be translated correctly? I wrote to my bishop, stake counselor, and Salt Lake about this as well. It's time to step up to the plate, use the gifts that God has given them, and show the world the TRUE words of God. I'll continue to research and ask questions, but untill that happens, I'll stay on my side of the fence.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   

What say you about how DNA testing is showing no middle eastern DNA in any Native Americans? Here is a neutral link about it.


I've read some articles on this issue, although that particular one is new to me, it doesn't say anything I haven't seen before. Because my schooling is as an electrical engineer rather than a geneticist, I don't fully understand everything about genetics, so I may make some mistakes, here, but I'm trying not to :p

I read one article by Jeff Lindsay on this issue quite awhile back. I quote from page 30-31:

Unfortunately, in their struggle to avoid samples contaminated with modern genetic matter and to avoid using Native American subjects who appear to have genes brought by Europeans after the time of Columbus, scientists may discard any evidence of relatively recent introduction of European haplogroups. And 600 B.C. is recent compared to the assumed time frame for settling of the Americas, which spans 12,000 to 40,000 years ago.

But whether the source is recent admixture or admixture from Lehi's group, there IS direct evidence of Jewish ancestry among some modern Native Americans. Of course, this will be assumed to be due to modern admixture--but can we really be sure?
Full article here

(I have about a half dozen other articles related to DNA and the BoM that I would be happy to email if you u2u me your address. I haven't read them all yet, so I don't know how good they are, though)

I don't know whether DNA testing can tell when particular genetic material entered the population, so I don't know whether they can pinpoint just when Jewish DNA entered the population. Also, another hypothesis that I thought of while studying this issue, that I don't recall seeing anywhere else, is that Lehi's group, while calling Jerusalem home, may have had ancestors hailing from some other region, causing them to have less Jewish DNA than a fullblood Jew. (They had to have some, though, if the Book of Mormon is true, because the BoM states that one of Lehi's ancestors is Joseph of Egypt)


Also, can you explain the significance of the upside down pentagrams on the Nauvoo temple? If you're not familiar, there is a lovely picture in the July Ensign. Or you can see it here. Note also the sunstones, moonstones, and the all seeing eye on other temples on this same page.


Unfortunately, I can't. I tried to do this once on another thread that, if I recall correctly, you were also following. I don't have anything I can add to that at this time. The only suggestion I can think of is to say don't assume that the pentagrams, etc, are evil satanic symbols or anything like that. Symbols often have very different meanings in different contexts. (the swastika used to be a symbol of good luck, until the Nazis came along) I don't really understand the Nauvoo temple symbolism, I would just caution against jumping to conclusions without more info.


Pray tell, in 200 years, why hasn't at least one prophet taken the time to give the world the "perfect translation" of the Bible?


One did. His name was Joseph Smith
He re-translated many verses of the Bible. (King James version) There is debate about whether his translation is considered to be completely finished, however. My personal opinion is that it was completed. If that is so, there is no need to translate it, obviously. It would seem to me that the inaction of any prophet since Joseph Smith to translate the Bible implies a tacit approval of the Joseph Smith translation of the KJV.

Also, in regard to Tinkleflower's previous post, about 3 days ago I came across a link to Davis' "Who really wrote the Book of Mormon?" I haven't read it yet, so I cannot speak for it's contents at this time, but it is there for anyone to read free online. Because it's free, they don't have the entire book there, just selections, so I don't know how much of it is actually there or not, but it seems there's enough there to make it worthwhile reading. (I really need to take up speed-reading, my backlog of reading material is starting to dwarf some libraries, lol)



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I realize that the posts so far are questions from people with more knowledge about the Mormons than I do...But one of my questions is this and I'll qualify it..because I do not agree that it is proper for a man to have more than one wife as in the New Testament, I don't agree that the old testament was correct ( Jews) in having multiple wives either...I will ask:
How could someone that would have been an enlightened one of his era- Joseph Smith ever think it was acceptable to during that time to believe that polygamy was better than monogamy....

Obviously the Mormans at that time had no regard for the female kind of our species....Surely anyone with half of a brain or any feelings would understand the distress it puts on a woman in this kind of marriage. (Feelings????) I regard the mormans as taking a step backwards in this and other many other regards. I equate them as I do the Jews. I respect their dedication to their God and religion, but it certainly isn't what Jesus taught, In my opinion.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   

How could someone that would have been an enlightened one of his era- Joseph Smith ever think it was acceptable to during that time to believe that polygamy was better than monogamy....


It wasn't that Smith thought polygamy was better than monogamy. It was more like saying there was no limit on how many wives a man could have at one time. I don't know how prevalent non-Mormons think polygamy was, but only about 1 or 2 percent of Mormons practiced it. While it was certainly acceptable (by Mormon standards) to have multiple wives, it was equally acceptable to have a single wife, as well.

Joseph Smith claimed that he was able to talk with God, and receive revelations from him. It is this that he used for justification of polygamy. (and revelation was used to justify the end of its practice later) While you state that you do not agree that the Old testament was correct in allowing men to marry multiple wives, (ex: David, Solomon, etc) Joseph Smith and Mormons do accept the Old testament, including polygamy.

In modern times, ever since 1890, polygamy has not been officially practiced by the mainstream Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) (see official declaration 1 by Wilford Woodruff) Due to the actions of the US gov't (bills like the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which outlawed polygamy and disenfranchised the Mormon church for its practice of it) the current president of the church, Wilford Woodruff, prayed to God and the result of that was the official declaration I linked to above.

Anyone in mainstream Mormonism who is found to be practicing polygamy is now excommunicated. (note: groups such as the polygamist colony in Bountiful, British Columbia, are NOT mainstream Mormons, they are splinter groups. They are people who broke away after refusing to accept Wilford's revelation)


Obviously the Mormans at that time had no regard for the female kind of our species


I have to respectfully and vehemently disagree with that statement. Mormon women were (and are still) part of the 'sustaining' process in church, where when someone is proposed to fill a particular position in the church, the members raise their hands in approval or disapproval of the person put forward. This was at a time when women were denied the vote at all levels of government. (if Utah had not been denied statehood at first, in part because of Mormon polygamy, they would have been the first to allow women the vote) Men were only permitted to marry multiple wives if all of the women gave their consent first. (unfortunately, a few didn't adhere to this rule, and as you can imagine, things didn't work out for them so well!) The men also had to have permission from church authorities to take multiple wives, and only let men of high moral standing in the church practice polygamy. The Relief Society, a women's group, was founded by Joseph and Emma Smith in 1842, especially for women and their interests.


Surely anyone with half of a brain or any feelings would understand the distress it puts on a woman in this kind of marriage. (Feelings????)


I have to agree that polygamist marriage would be extremely difficult. I have one polygamist ancestor who had two wives at once. The two wives got along very poorly, and the husband eventually had to divorce the one that was the cause of all the troubles. It should be noted, however, that many polygamist marriages worked out just fine, and all parties were happy with the arrangement.

I'm not sure how well I answered your points, if you aren't satisfied with the answers just let me know, and I'll try again.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join