I Baptize Dead People

[Calgaryborn]

Doctrine and Covenants 130:14,15 basically predicts that if Joseph Smith lives to be 85 he will see Jesus' return.

I think the Mormon church sees the Bible as inferior to the book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The reasoning is that mistakes have been made in the copying over the centuries. Also the Mormons see the Christian churches as to have become corrupt and therefore changed the Bible to suite to conform to their new beliefs.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

As to your first question, I will refer you to the Articles of Faith, which is basicly a point for explaination of what mormons beleive.

Articles of Faith

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

So for the most part, scripture is considered correct and the truth. That does not mean that it should always be interpreted literally though.

So in cases where something probably shouldn't interpreted literally in light of more modern knowledge / values, re-interpreting it isn't that big a deal?

Just trying to compare that to the very strict religious upbringing I had where if something (anything) said one thing and the Bible said another, the Bible superceded it.

Originally Posted by Rathji

As to your second, yes the Book of Mormon tells of a family who escaped from Israel before Jerusalem was destroyed about 600 BC. This family managed to make it to the North American continent and established a civilization here. I am not sure of the actual Church position on this matter, but it is my belief that these people grew into the civilizations we know as the Aztecs, Mayans and eventually to what we know as Native Americans today.

I think historical and genetic evidence pretty much eliminates that possibility though doesn't it? This is what made me think of the question in the first place; I thought the evidence was clearly against this so I'd wondered if the general thoughts of the church populace changed with the change in information.

I know one of the major criticisms levied against Mormonism when I was young by the preachers was how the beliefs had changed over the years whereas Christianity hadn't, so much more apparent since Mormonism is young. To them change was bad, even then I didn't really agree.

(Yes our preachers went out of their way to preach against Mormonism.. they had a whole series in youth and young adults on cults, Mormons were at the very top.)

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

The question boils down to "did he make prophecies that didn't turn out to be true"?

It is possible that if you take a quote from scripture out of context in which is was meant by the author that you could prove that it should have happened by now and did not.

However given that pretty much no scripture is exact in what it says (Try Revelations if you want some examples), to take any prophetic scripture and claim that it is false because it hasn't happened yet seems rather foolish.

There are of course arguments that claim us crazy mormons rationalize away the things that didn't come true when some people might say they should have. I can see that that argument holding weight if you don't have any faith to support that rationalization.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by photon

I think historical and genetic evidence pretty much eliminates that possibility though doesn't it?

I am not a genetic's guy nor do I have a desire to understand genetics. I very much doubt that any genetic work has been done by the general scientific community regarding the validity of the Book of Mormon. I do know that there have been studies done by BYU that have attempted to track genetic stuff and how it relates to ancestory. I am not sure if they touched on this topic though.

I don't understand how historical evidence could be in contradiction to this, perhaps you could elaborate on your point.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I don't understand how historical evidence could be in contradiction to this, perhaps you could elaborate on your point.

There is significant historical and scientific evidence that the Mayans, Aztecs and current native population of North America does not descend from a single family that left Israel 2600 years ago.

[eddly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Heres a wiki on JS and his prophecies eddly...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophec...seph_Smith,_Jr.
It has the prophecy on the 2nd coming about 2/3s of the way down.
Again Im not trying to suggest you are wrong...Im just saying there are literally hundreds of sites that have the same "factual" info out there. As a matter of fact Id suggest there is likely more factual sites out there than LDS supported sites.
Thanks for suggesting that not everything on the anti-sites is a lie...thats important...like I said...if you think half of it is a lie...that means half is correct.
How do you justify the lies as a Mormon?

This quote from the wiki article seems to explain it satisfactorily:

Coming of the Lord within 56 years
"President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. . . . it was the will of God that they should be ordained to the ministry and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh — even fifty six years should wind up the scene.[23] [This was uttered in 1835, and 56 years was completed in 1891] It should be noted that Joseph Smith did not preface this statement with "Thus sayeth the Lord," as he generally did when he claimed to be quoting the Lord. Latter-day Saints generally assume he was stating his opinion, on the basis of an earlier, recorded revelation:
Doctrine & Covenants 130:14-17 states:
I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time. Joseph Smith, Jr., died at the age of 38, and so the terms of the revelation were not fulfilled.
While some consider this prophecy, uses of words and phrases such as "should", "without being able to decide", and "I believe" demonstrate this to be opinion, interpolation, and conjecture that can not be taken as prophecy.

This doesn't appear to be a false prophecy to me.

Your next question "if you think half of it is a lie...that means half is correct. How do you justify the lies as a Mormon?" How do I justify there being lies on anti-mormon sites? Quite easily, they have an agenda. They are using pieces or parts of facts and twisting them. In some cases whole "facts" are simply created.

For example, while I served as a missionary the local paper in the city I was in published an "advertisement" that claimed Mormons pray to Joseph Smith and only he can forgive our sins. That was created by the author of the advertisement to generate a reaction. It is based on nothing.

Here is another example, the statement that we believe Jesus and Lucifer to be brothers is in fact true. When I say nothing more than that it certainly leaves you with a fowl taste in your mouth. Understandable! The explanation that you would not see is the fact that we believe that we are all God's children created in his image. Jesus is our brother, and so is Lucifer. That lessens the severity of the statement in my opinion.

Perhaps a more interesting question you could have asked me would have been "how do you justify the church's stance that anti-mormon literature is entirely false when you in fact disagree?". But you didn't ask that question.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am not a genetic's guy nor do I have a desire to understand genetics. I very much doubt that any genetic work has been done by the general scientific community regarding the validity of the Book of Mormon. I do know that there have been studies done by BYU that have attempted to track genetic stuff and how it relates to ancestory. I am not sure if they touched on this topic though.

I don't understand how historical evidence could be in contradiction to this, perhaps you could elaborate on your point.

I don't know if genetic work would have been done specifically to speak to the Book of Mormon, but there's tons of work tracing the genetics of people all over the word to determine the migration patterns of people over tens to hundreds of thousands of years, so that question would be answered as part of that.

Historical evidence would be pretty easy, you would be able to see the migration of people over time, technology levels and art and such being influenced by the origin of ancient Israel, etc..

A Google search of Mormon Indian and DNA brought up this: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...-dna-lds_x.htm

Anyway, I don't want to get too bogged down in the detail of one facet, I was more after the bigger picture.

Lets assume for the moment that the evidence precluded the notion of a single family coming over and populating this hemisphere, what would be the Mormon reaction to that? Would they adjust their core beliefs and reinterpret that portion of scripture and move on to better things to worry about, or would they maybe more hold on to the idea based on an adherence to scripture despite evidence? That's the core of my question I guess.

[eddly]

Originally Posted by Cheese

My final question to you eddly...I promise I wont bother you with this anymore. You suggest in this post that "Mormons are not actively taught every little detail about church history" and "Mormons generally don't care that they don't know every single detail about the early church" yet you obviously have bought into the system 100%.
IF I was to tell you that you could use that same reasoning and try to get a job as a doctor/lawyer/engineer...would it work? If not why wouldnt you study every little piece of church history you could find. Isnt it important to have all the knowledge?

I actually haven't bought into the system 100%. Although I do go to church every Sunday. There are some things in the church that trouble me that I have not been able to resolve for myself yet.

Religion relies significantly on faith. Hoping for things that are not seen. By the will of the father it is done etc etc.

When it comes to wordly things like a career, it is generally understood that effort is required (actually the same is true in spiritual matters, we have to work for our salvation as well, faith alone is not enough to save us). When I said "Mormons generally don't care that they don't know every single detail about the early church" notice how I said generally. I in fact do research to learn about the early days of the church.... time permitting as I do have a very demanding job.

[eddly]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Maybe y'all believe he was capable of making mistakes and that's part of the deal and you don't make a big hubbub about it. That would make sense.

To an extent yes. It is troubling for a prophet to be making false claims. However, factors can change making the situation around the prophecy to be completely irrelevant. God will not intervene to ensure a prophecy will occur. We have our free agency.

A prophet is still a human being susceptible to the same weaknesses we all have. As such, they can make mistakes. King David made a pretty mighty mistake for example.

Other "false" prophecies are often rationalized away by saying that the prophet was merely stating his own opinion and not his own. When speaking for the Lord, they may say "the Lord sayeth..." or something to that extent. In my opinion I find this a little troubling as it leaves them an out in case they are in fact uttering false prophecies. There are several well known prophecies that are rationalized away by saying that that what they were saying was just popular opinion at the time. Perhaps you know some of these prophecies I am referring to.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by photon

Lets assume for the moment that the evidence precluded the notion of a single family coming over and populating this hemisphere, what would be the Mormon reaction to that? Would they adjust their core beliefs and reinterpret that portion of scripture and move on to better things to worry about, or would they maybe more hold on to the idea based on an adherence to scripture despite evidence? That's the core of my question I guess.

That is something that really can't be interpreted any other way. I don't know how I could explain it so that you could understand without giving you a Book of Mormon and saying "here, read this" and get back to me with any questions you have.

[eddly]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Doctrine and Covenants 130:14,15 basically predicts that if Joseph Smith lives to be 85 he will see Jesus' return.

I think the Mormon church sees the Bible as inferior to the book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The reasoning is that mistakes have been made in the copying over the centuries. Also the Mormons see the Christian churches as to have become corrupt and therefore changed the Bible to suite to conform to their new beliefs.

You neglected to read the next two verses that work to clarify the matter further:

14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the acoming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore alet this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.

17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

Verse 16 seems to explain it quite well. So essentially he was told that the Second coming wouldn't be within the next ~50 years! So I guess he was right.

Saying that mormons believe that the Bible is inferior is not quite the correct way to describe it. Inferior is too strong of a word. We happily use the Bible and the Book of Mormon. However, you are right in the sense that we may turn to the Book of Mormon first. I love the Bible though... although the Old Testament can be a little difficult to grasp...

[eddly]

Originally Posted by photon

So in cases where something probably shouldn't interpreted literally in light of more modern knowledge / values, re-interpreting it isn't that big a deal?

Just trying to compare that to the very strict religious upbringing I had where if something (anything) said one thing and the Bible said another, the Bible superceded it.

Basically the more recent source (prophet or scripture) trumps the other.

Originally Posted by photon

I think historical and genetic evidence pretty much eliminates that possibility though doesn't it? This is what made me think of the question in the first place; I thought the evidence was clearly against this so I'd wondered if the general thoughts of the church populace changed with the change in information.

This is an interesting subject. No one can deny the DNA evidence showing that the Native Indians and the people of the Pacific Islands actually do not have Israel DNA. This is a confusing matter for me as well. Very troubling actually as I have studied the related science in university. That being said, the response from the Church has been subtle. The introduction to the Book of Mormon now reads that the people in the Book of Mormon were among the inhabitants of America. Implied is the fact that the Book of Mormon people's DNA became so mixed with the other inhabitants that you can't trace it. I'm waiting for a better explanation.

Originally Posted by photon

I know one of the major criticisms levied against Mormonism when I was young by the preachers was how the beliefs had changed over the years whereas Christianity hadn't, so much more apparent since Mormonism is young. To them change was bad, even then I didn't really agree.

(Yes our preachers went out of their way to preach against Mormonism.. they had a whole series in youth and young adults on cults, Mormons were at the very top.)

Oh, all churches have evolved over time. Hard to argue with that in my opinion.

[eddly]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am not a genetic's guy nor do I have a desire to understand genetics. I very much doubt that any genetic work has been done by the general scientific community regarding the validity of the Book of Mormon. I do know that there have been studies done by BYU that have attempted to track genetic stuff and how it relates to ancestory. I am not sure if they touched on this topic though.

I don't understand how historical evidence could be in contradiction to this, perhaps you could elaborate on your point.

There has been extensive research on this Rathji.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

That is something that really can't be interpreted any other way. I don't know how I could explain it so that you could understand without giving you a Book of Mormon and saying "here, read this" and get back to me with any questions you have.

What do you mean, the part about the ancestry of people on this hemisphere can't be interpreted any other way, or the part about adhering to scripture even if something contradicts it?

If it's the first, sure it could be interpreted other ways.. interpret it as a myth; a story told to make a point rather than something that's literal truth.

Saying read the Book of Mormon doesn't help much, I'm trying to get a sense of how the current religion views the world, not how the scripture is written. Scripture doesn't exist without interpretation, so you have to find out how scripture is interpreted to learn anything. Reading it on my own isn't going to tell me much on how the current church operates.

So I still have the question; if evidence made it 100% clear that it is impossible that the ancestry story of the Book of Mormon were as written, how would the religion respond?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by eddly

You neglected to read the next two verses that work to clarify the matter further:

I found the reference to the "false prophesy" on the Utah lighthouse web site. It only referenced the two verses. I did look it up in a copy of the D&C and you are right: I didn't read any other verses in the passage. I thought the fact that Joseph had to live to 85 to see this made it a non issue because he didn't live that long..

Originally Posted by eddy

Saying that Mormons believe that the Bible is inferior is not quite the correct way to describe it. Inferior is too strong of a word. We happily use the Bible and the Book of Mormon. However, you are right in the sense that we may turn to the Book of Mormon first. I love the Bible though... although the Old Testament can be a little difficult to grasp...

Where the book of Mormon conflicts with the Bible you do see the Bible as incorrect. Right?

[eddly]

Originally Posted by photon

So I still have the question; if evidence made it 100% clear that it is impossible that the ancestry story of the Book of Mormon were as written, how would the religion respond?

If there was undeniable evidence I guess the religion would be in hot water.

But, what if there was undeniable evidence that there is no God, all religions would be pretty well screwed.

What if there was evidence that the Bible was a work of fiction? Well I guess that would hurt a lot of religions as well.

The what if game is pointless. But perhaps you feel like you have this undeniable evidence against the Book of Mormon?

[eddly]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Where the book of Mormon conflicts with the Bible you do see the Bible as incorrect. Right?

Give me an example to work with if you can.

[photon]

Originally Posted by eddly

Basically the more recent source (prophet or scripture) trumps the other.

Interesting! That's pretty different than current Christianity though Christianity has had 2000 years to work out the kinks and harmonize things.

Originally Posted by eddly

That being said, the response from the Church has been subtle. The introduction to the Book of Mormon now reads that the people in the Book of Mormon were among the inhabitants of America. Implied is the fact that the Book of Mormon people's DNA became so mixed with the other inhabitants that you can't trace it. I'm waiting for a better explanation.

Hm yeah, DNA doesn't quite work like that.

Originally Posted by eddly

Oh, all churches have evolved over time. Hard to argue with that in my opinion.

Some are just more willing to admit it than others

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

So I still have the question; if evidence made it 100% clear that it is impossible that the ancestry story of the Book of Mormon were as written, how would the religion respond?

That's not a question that can be answered. If the book of Mormon is infaliable then the science would have to be wrong. It does happen you know: Look at global warming.

[photon]

Originally Posted by eddly

If there was undeniable evidence I guess the religion would be in hot water.

Not really IMO, one simply has to change the interpretation of the scriptures. To me it's amusing when interpretation of scripture changes organically over time to reflect the changing morals of society and that's fine, but when changing in response to new scientific evidence is suggested, people get all upset.

That's why I was asking about the Mormon view on scripture.. only if a religion views its scripture as inerrant and infallible is it in trouble if a fact contradicts it.

Originally Posted by eddly

But, what if there was undeniable evidence that there is no God, all religions would be pretty well screwed.

I guess, but in general you can't prove a negative.. well you can but not this kind of negative (there is no God).

Originally Posted by eddly

What if there was evidence that the Bible was a work of fiction? Well I guess that would hurt a lot of religions as well.

The what if game is pointless.

I don't think it is, what if's are useful in finding flaws in reasoning. If my world view depends on something to the point that I can't even contemplate a "what if" question around changing in a way that would contradict my view, then that's a pretty good demonstration that my world view is flawed: "My world view cannot be wrong because if there was something that invalided my world view my world view would be wrong!"

Originally Posted by eddly

But perhaps you feel like you have this undeniable evidence against the Book of Mormon?

Not at all, I haven't read the Book of Mormon. I only picked that example as something I recalled from years ago (something that could be verified or dismissed based on evidence) to get to my question about how Mormonism views its own beliefs and scriptures.