The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[colton]

Two of the three had long periods where they stated that they never physically saw the plates. That's what I'm telling you.

I disagree with this statement, but getting into a discussion like that isn't really the point of this thread so you're free to PM me or start a new thread if you like. (Or discuss this with someone else in this thread, I suppose, as you were doing.)

 

[CONAN]

No, you're reading it the way you want to read it. Two of the three had long periods where they stated that they never physically saw the plates. That's what I'm telling you.

No, you just have a beef with the Church and are seeing things the way you want to see it. They claimed they saw the plates with spiritual eyes. That is not a denial. And again, you go to great lengths to discredit these guys but yet you want to cherrypick statements. Good luck with that.

 

[sirkickyass]

I disagree with this statement, but getting into a discussion like that isn't really the point of this thread so you're free to PM me or start a new thread if you like. (Or discuss this with someone else in this thread, I suppose, as you were doing.)

Not certain this is a discussion you want to have in public anyway. It didn't turn out well for Grant Palmer.

 

[sirkickyass]

No, you just have a beef with the Church and are seeing things the way you want to see it. They claimed they saw the plates with spiritual eyes. That is not a denial. And again, you go to great lengths to discredit these guys but yet you want to cherrypick statements. Good luck with that.

What is my beef with the church exactly?

I'm going to ask you, in all honesty, who do you think has researched this specific issue more between the two of us?

 

[colton]

I'm an active Mormon but there are two questions/issues I struggle with. No person has been able to give me a sufficient answer on these. So I figure Jazzfanz is my last resort

1. Why did Joseph Smith allow blacks in the Priesthood only to have Brigham Young ban them around 1848?

Great question, and we probably won't know until we can ask him personally. My personal answer--because Young was just plain wrong, and he'll have to answer for the hurt that came because of that. But I could be wrong.

2. Why did the church continue Plural marriage even after the "revelation" of the 1890 Manifesto?

Great question. This is completely glossed over in the usual church history. My opinion is that the church was basically trying to have its cake and eat it, too. That is, they stopped plural marriages *in the US*, because they wanted statehood. But they hadn't yet completely abandoned the practice in totality, and so Pres. Woodruff allowed some plural marriages to take place in Mexico and other places. Or at least, there's some evidence that he did. As you probably know (but most members don't), it wasn't until the "second manifesto" in 1904 that the church really got serious about the crackdown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Manifesto

 

[sirkickyass]

I'm an active Mormon but there are two questions/issues I struggle with. No person has been able to give me a sufficient answer on these. So I figure Jazzfanz is my last resort

1. Why did Joseph Smith allow blacks in the Priesthood only to have Brigham Young ban them around 1848?

The party line you'll get will be something in the neighborhood of "Brigham Young was a flawed man and the reception of revelation comes through a flawed vessel" and/or "Blacks were deserving of the priesthood beginning in 1978, and some exceptional blacks such as Elijah Abel were deserving before then."

Personally, my view is that Brigham Young was something of a 19th Century David Miscaivage and did some weird things.

2. Why did the church continue Plural marriage even after the "revelation" of the 1890 Manifesto?

Because the Revelation was political rather than spiritual. I'm not certain anyone really questions this.

 

[sirkickyass]

Great question. This is completely glossed over in the usual church history. My opinion is that the church was basically trying to have its cake and eat it, too. That is, they stopped plural marriages *in the US*, because they wanted statehood. But they hadn't yet completely abandoned the practice in totality, and so Pres. Woodruff allowed some plural marriages to take place in Mexico and other places. Or at least, there's some evidence that he did. As you probably know (but most members don't), it wasn't until the "second manifesto" in 1904 that the church really got serious about the crackdown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Manifesto

There is even more evidence that there were many plural marriages long after the 1904 manifesto, at least into the 1920s.

The scars of the LDS' history of having "hush hush" plural marriages that they performed but wouldn't acknowledge lingered for a long time. Mark Hofmann, for example, started seriously delving into church records in order to find evidence that his grandparents had been married in such a fashion after the manifesto. He found it, and remarkably, he didn't forge the evidence.

 

[The Midnight]

Does my answer change your response?

I'm a freethinker.

Yes it does, because an experience of the Holy Spirit can change how you view the evidence.

I don't think I can explain it in words, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[sirkickyass]

Yes it does, because an experience of the Holy Spirit can change how you view the evidence.

I don't think I can explain it in words, so I'll just leave it at that.

I'll tell you that One Brow has been a believer of religion in the past and as such I can assume he has had experiences of the Holy Spirit.

I'm in the same boat. These days I get my elevation fix from watching Ru Paul's Drag Race.

 

[The Midnight]

I'll tell you that One Brow has been a believer of religion in the past and as such I can assume he has had experiences of the Holy Spirit.

I'm in the same boat. These days I get my elevation fix from watching Ru Paul's Drag Race.

Can you really assume that though? I know of people who have strong faith, but have not yet experienced the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bronco70]

The party line you'll get will be something in the neighborhood of "Brigham Young was a flawed man and the reception of revelation comes through a flawed vessel"...

If by "flawed" they mean pretty weird and very racist, then I guess it's an accurate appraisal.

I'm an active mormon, but Brother Brigham baffles me.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Mormons believe in other records being discovered... Records, I'm assuming of Christ or of Christian believing people's, right? Or what? Could it also be referring to books like the apocrypha? Gnostic texts? Stuff that Mormons actually use(such as conference talks?)

The world is much older than thousands of years old. So what happened to the Dino's and continents? Wasn't the world innocent and in a state of peace/immortality before the fall? So what happened to the Dino's? When Adam and Eve were expelled, did the continents begin to break apart? Or could the whole 7 day thing just be one large symbol?

Could Noah's ark also be a symbol just like the epic of Gilgamesh or the hundreds of other flood stories out there?

Mormons believe in modern day revelation. First off, when do you know a prophet is receiving revelation or merely spouting off? Pres. Benson clearly spouted off most of the time when referring to political matters. And more of a comment ban a question, how interesting it would be to be a fly on the wall when the 12 meet. Someone like elder perry or oaks might have different political views or opinions on social issues than someone born in Europe.