DiscussMormonism.com

Thanks for being interviewed, Gazelam.

I have doctrinal questions that I would like you to answer.

I hope you wll not be too offended by some of these questions and, if I cross over the boundaries that insult your sensibilities, please let me know and do not feel required to respond. It is my intention to ask these questions very respectfully.

I do have two initial requests: 1) please do not post links to the kitschy pictures. They do not provide me with any particular insight since they represent someone else's views of biblical/Book of Mormon history, and 2) rather than just quoting large passages of scriptures, I would prefer your personal insights and understanding.

Okay, on to my doctrinal questions:

First, how do you know that the answer to your prayers is in fact from God? Why would an answer from God differ from an emotional response and can you articulate the differences for me?

Thanks so much for being interviewed!

MormonMendacity wrote:Thanks for being interviewed, Gazelam.

I have doctrinal questions that I would like you to answer.

I hope you wll not be too offended by some of these questions and, if I cross over the boundaries that insult your sensibilities, please let me know and do not feel required to respond. It is my intention to ask these questions very respectfully.

I do have two initial requests: 1) please do not post links to the kitschy pictures. They do not provide me with any particular insight since they represent someone else's views of biblical/Book of Mormon history, and 2) rather than just quoting large passages of scriptures, I would prefer your personal insights and understanding.

Okay, on to my doctrinal questions:

First, how do you know that the answer to your prayers is in fact from God? Why would an answer from God differ from an emotional response and can you articulate the differences for me?

Thanks so much for being interviewed!

I'm hoping you will take the time when you get a moment to answer these interview questions. While I'm waiting, I came up with another one that interests me. On another thread you sad,

Gazelam wrote:I said what I said because by the your posts you express the idea that pornography is something to be shared and enjoyed.

Can you help me understand the limits of pornography? My question is: Is nudity pornography?

Thanks for agreeing to be interviewed!

Thanks for the "interview"

Wow, no scripture refrences. ok

A person can have amazing emotional responses. I listed on another thread the feelings you get when you go to a concert and a crowd of 5,000 starts singing along to your favorite song.

But a concert is pleasure, not happiness.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is Eternal, the principles taught in it have eternal consequences.

The Holy Ghost has been testified of by the prophets past and present to be the witness of Eternal truths. His most common witness spoken of is the comfort he brings, the "Burning in the bosom". This is only half the story. Any time that the Holy Ghost bears witnes he is accompanied by revelation and knowledge. That knowledge will tie together scripture, and edify your understanding.

The Holy Ghost has also been spoken of as a sanctifier. Those who have been filled with the Holy Ghost describe it as being filled with light. D&C 88 and 93 both speak of this. Those who spoke with Joseph after many of his revelations were received described his face as glowing like Moses when he came down from Sinai. The number of journal accounts of the same thing forced Fawn Brodie ( a biographer and critic of Joseph) to make mention of it, she ascribed it to Johndis.(spellcheck that)

My point in mentioning the Light, is that when you feel the Holy Ghost, you will recognize it as this. My experience with the Holy Ghost was like this, the only way to describe it was as if I was filled with light.

Gaz

Of coarce nudity is not pornography.

You know what pornography is, why would you ask me that?

Gaz

Gazelam wrote:Thanks for the "interview"

Wow, no scripture refrences. ok

A person can have amazing emotional responses. I listed on another thread the feelings you get when you go to a concert and a crowd of 5,000 starts singing along to your favorite song.

But a concert is pleasure, not happiness.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is Eternal, the principles taught in it have eternal consequences.

The Holy Ghost has been testified of by the prophets past and present to be the witness of Eternal truths. His most common witness spoken of is the comfort he brings, the "Burning in the bosom". This is only half the story. Any time that the Holy Ghost bears witnes he is accompanied by revelation and knowledge. That knowledge will tie together scripture, and edify your understanding.

The Holy Ghost has also been spoken of as a sanctifier. Those who have been filled with the Holy Ghost describe it as being filled with light. D&C 88 and 93 both speak of this. Those who spoke with Joseph after many of his revelations were received described his face as glowing like Moses when he came down from Sinai. The number of journal accounts of the same thing forced Fawn Brodie ( a biographer and critic of Joseph) to make mention of it, she ascribed it to Johndis.(spellcheck that)

My point in mentioning the Light, is that when you feel the Holy Ghost, you will recognize it as this. My experience with the Holy Ghost was like this, the only way to describe it was as if I was filled with light.

Gaz

Thanks for your sincere responses! They are very helpful to me!

When you say that it has been described as a "burning in the bosom" and is tied to "revelation and knowledge" I wonder how some of this knowledge did not get transmitted to me. For example, why wouldn't have my testimony been accompanied by knowledge about all the corrections in the Book of Mormon? I thought that when he translated it would have been exact. God gave him a perfect word or meaning for everything that he was reading. I didn't get a revelation that he looked into his hat at a stone he found in a stream...I thought he wore spectacles called the "urim and thummim". I didn't get it revealed to me that no evidence would ever be found to authenticate the Hebrew origins of the American Indians -- or that DNA would as near to absolutely as we can get, refute a Hebrew link.

I got the "burning in the bosom" but now I get that whenever I sit in quiet reflection about my life, my morals, my hopes and my wishes. It feels the same.

What knowledge and revelation did you get from the Holy Ghost about these things that I missed?

Thanks for being interviewed and giving me your honest answers to these questions. I really do appreciate it!

Gazelam wrote:Of coarce nudity is not pornography.

You know what pornography is, why would you ask me that?

Gaz

Thanks for responding!

I am not sure where the line is drawn and I was trying to understand where the limits of propriety lie. I do not want to get into too much detail about specifics because I prefer posting in the Celestial forum. I know you and I would agree on that!

Is nudity bad then? I do not know of any specific scriptures about it -- other than oblique references to the body being a temple. I am essentially asking for doctrine -- something in what you and I would agree are either canonized texts or inspired revelations, in your opinion.

Do you have any scriptures that outline the appropriate measures of clothing for men and women? Follow-up question: How do different activities make various amounts of clothing "appropriate"?

Thanks again so very much for being interviewed!

MormonMendacity wrote:Thanks for your sincere responses! They are very helpful to me!

When you say that it has been described as a "burning in the bosom" and is tied to "revelation and knowledge" I wonder how some of this knowledge did not get transmitted to me. For example, why wouldn't have my testimony been accompanied by knowledge about all the corrections in the Book of Mormon? I thought that when he translated it would have been exact. God gave him a perfect word or meaning for everything that he was reading. I didn't get a revelation that he looked into his hat at a stone he found in a stream...I thought he wore spectacles called the "urim and thummim". I didn't get it revealed to me that no evidence would ever be found to authenticate the Hebrew origins of the American Indians -- or that DNA would as near to absolutely as we can get, refute a Hebrew link.

I got the "burning in the bosom" but now I get that whenever I sit in quiet reflection about my life, my morals, my hopes and my wishes. It feels the same.

What knowledge and revelation did you get from the Holy Ghost about these things that I missed?

Thanks for being interviewed and giving me your honest answers to these questions. I really do appreciate it!

Hi, Gaz! Thanks for being interviewed!

I really am interested in your thoughts on my responses and those additional questions, when you have a minute.

Please and thank-you for agreeing to be interviewed!

Corrections in the Book of Mormon : This is an old and silly arguement. For an explanation read here:http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

Urim and Thummim vs Seerstone: From what I understand, Joseph used both at first. Useing the Stone Joseph would see the words, then the translation. Over time Joseph learned the language and no longer needed the stones. As with all things in the gospel, they were a tool to exalt.

DNA: Last I heard this is still up in the air. The fact of the matter is, there were lots of people in the americas. Nephites and Lamanites were just a part. How far they eventually spread out I don't know, and who they intermingled with I don't know. Someone said that there was a recent discovery of DNA among a people found that supports the Book of Mormon. Doesent really make a difference to me. Its like the Old Rabbi who was confronted by archeologists who stated "We can prove there was no Moses". The Rabbi replied after a bit "All right, I'll concur, there was no Moses, but he had a first cousin by the same name who did all the things Moses was supposed to have done."

Garments: From the time of the fall Adam and Eve were told to cover their nakedness. (Gen. 3:21) In our clothing we are asked to wear plain clothing (D&C 42:40-42)

Sacred clothing is also asked to be worn by us in representation of the Covenants we make.(Ex. 28, Lev. 16, Ezek. 42:14) In refrence to Angels we learn that their clothing is pure and white (D&C 20:6) And this is symbolic of what we should seek after. (D&C 112:33, 88:85, 135:5) We cleanse our garments through the blood of Christ (1 Ne. 12:10, Alma 5:21-27, 7:25, 13:11-12, 3 Ne. 27:19, Rev. 6:11, 7:9-17.)

Speaking of the cleanseing that comes with going through the temple Joseph Smith stated: "that our garments may be pure, that we may be clothed upon with robes of righteousness, with palms in our hands, and crowns of glory upon our heads, and reap eternal joy for all our sufferings." (D&C 109:76.)

15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. (Rev. 16:15)

From Ardeth G. Kapp, “Question and Answer,” Tambuli, Mar. 1978, 38

"I have often wondered as I have seen little girls in two-piece swimsuits and revealing dresses at what age their mothers will attempt to reteach and retrain their tastes. How will they teach a new standard concerning what seemed acceptable at one time. If the first standard might be like flying into the trees when compared to a more rigid standard at a later date, it seems that the risk factor of the first is tremendously dangerous. It would be wise if young people would choose to accept as their standard of modesty in dress that which will, at a later date, allow them to wear the temple garment with no adjustment. However, that is a personal decision, and we must not stand in judgment since everyone is free to choose for himself."

"Until you have chosen to accept the temple endowment and the blessings that come with it of wearing the appropriate clothing, the responsibility of keeping that part of the body clothed which is covered by the garment is not the same as it is before having accepted the responsibility. But at all ages we are counseled to dress modestly and appropriately. And so it seems clear that there should be a certain consistency about appropriate clothing whether or not you have been to the temple and received the commandment."

For further reading on this topic, read "More than Hemlines and Haircuts By Joseph Walker" on the LDS Gospel Library search engne.

Hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction, if not let me know.

Gaz

Gazelam wrote:Corrections in the Book of Mormon : This is an old and silly arguement. For an explanation read here:http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

First, questions about the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims should not be considered silly. They're honest questions. They come from the assumption -- rightly or wrongly -- that a prophet receives a revelation from a perfect god in a perfect form. It is not a leap to assume it would be as close to perfect as possible. Certainly you can make the claim that people misunderstand how it works but it is condescending to say their questions are "silly".

A significant point is this (and it goes back to the part of my question you have still not answered, i.e. "knowing the truth"), when Joseph put forth a work as a revelation -- and it's full of mistakes -- and people can't examine the source to determine if it's an authentic revelation, then it is normal, fair, reasonable and human to question the claim. That is what you characterize as "silly". A human being told that a man is a prophet and then discovering that there are problems with the revelation and with his abilities.

I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. I appreciate your explanations but I find that they are the explanations that others (like Lindsay) have provided you. People like Lindsay provide explanations -- whether they are accurate or just the easy way out for believers every individual must decide.

Gazelam wrote:Urim and Thummim vs Seerstone: From what I understand, Joseph used both at first. Useing the Stone Joseph would see the words, then the translation. Over time Joseph learned the language and no longer needed the stones. As with all things in the gospel, they were a tool to exalt.

That's a convenient explanation to give to people who doubt his claims. If he can't produce them -- plates, seer stones, Liahonas, sword of Laban, Nephite bones, Hebrew inscriptions -- then it's really not illogical to conclude that he might not have them. When someone makes a claim and then refuses to provide evidence, it's not unreasonable to conclude that he could be lying.

Have you ever considered that? Have you ever thought that it's a little more than convenient that we have none of the amazing things that Joseph said he used to translate? Isn't it convenient that the witnesses were all his friends?

Gazelam wrote:DNA: Last I heard this is still up in the air. The fact of the matter is, there were lots of people in the americas. Nephites and Lamanites were just a part.

Please quote a scripture to support this claim. You know, the claim that "The fact of the matter is, there were lots of people in the americas." I must have forgotten to mark that scripture in Seminary.

Gazelam wrote:How far they eventually spread out I don't know, and who they intermingled with I don't know. Someone said that there was a recent discovery of DNA among a people found that supports the Book of Mormon. Doesent really make a difference to me. Its like the Old Rabbi who was confronted by archeologists who stated "We can prove there was no Moses". The Rabbi replied after a bit "All right, I'll concur, there was no Moses, but he had a first cousin by the same name who did all the things Moses was supposed to have done."

Don't you see the Moses comment is a disingenuous attempt at dodging the question? It's a joke, right? The rabbi believes and just keeps evading so that he doesn't have to accept the facts. I think that sounds very much like Mormon apologists who are confronted with very strong evidence from many sources that there is no Hebrew link in ancient America and they run in a different direction. Why? Because they have a testimony...so there's an explanation...they just haven't produced it yet.

If apologists keep this up long enough, the people who are relying on smarter people to know the answers to the unanswerable questions don't have to do any work and question their own testimonies.

Gazelam wrote:Garments: From the time of the fall Adam and Eve were told to cover their nakedness. (Gen. 3:21) In our clothing we are asked to wear plain clothing (D&C 42:40-42)

Do little children have this shame? Do people who live in isolated villages in remote countries?

Gazelam wrote:Sacred clothing is also asked to be worn by us in representation of the Covenants we make.(Ex. 28, Lev. 16, Ezek. 42:14) In refrence to Angels we learn that their clothing is pure and white (D&C 20:6) And this is symbolic of what we should seek after. (D&C 112:33, 88:85, 135:5) We cleanse our garments through the blood of Christ (1 Ne. 12:10, Alma 5:21-27, 7:25, 13:11-12, 3 Ne. 27:19, Rev. 6:11, 7:9-17.)

Speaking of the cleanseing that comes with going through the temple Joseph Smith stated: "that our garments may be pure, that we may be clothed upon with robes of righteousness, with palms in our hands, and crowns of glory upon our heads, and reap eternal joy for all our sufferings." (D&C 109:76.)

15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. (Rev. 16:15)

From Ardeth G. Kapp, “Question and Answer,” Tambuli, Mar. 1978, 38

"I have often wondered as I have seen little girls in two-piece swimsuits and revealing dresses at what age their mothers will attempt to reteach and retrain their tastes. How will they teach a new standard concerning what seemed acceptable at one time. If the first standard might be like flying into the trees when compared to a more rigid standard at a later date, it seems that the risk factor of the first is tremendously dangerous. It would be wise if young people would choose to accept as their standard of modesty in dress that which will, at a later date, allow them to wear the temple garment with no adjustment. However, that is a personal decision, and we must not stand in judgment since everyone is free to choose for himself."

"Until you have chosen to accept the temple endowment and the blessings that come with it of wearing the appropriate clothing, the responsibility of keeping that part of the body clothed which is covered by the garment is not the same as it is before having accepted the responsibility. But at all ages we are counseled to dress modestly and appropriately. And so it seems clear that there should be a certain consistency about appropriate clothing whether or not you have been to the temple and received the commandment."

But there is no "standard". If a woman wears a one-piece suit, she's exposing much more of her body during swimming than she would in Church. Why is it appropriate on the beach and not in Church? Where is the skirt length limit? Is there a revealed length?

The problem with these notions of modesty is that there is no standard. There is no point where everyone knows and can agree that it is modesty. There is no one who can give a clear, unambiguous declaration.

I have never heard anyone ban members from going to the beach because of the potential for impure thoughts. I have never heard a standard for swimwear, something like, "Young ladies, only wear to the beach what you would wear to sacrament meeting."

Why the different standards?

The reason I ask the question is that the Mormon standards appear arbitrary. "Don't attend R-rated movies." Yet few in the Church know what it takes to make a movie R-rated. PG-13 movies, for example, can have brief nudity. Oops! Maybe the standard should be that everyone in the Church should be in the world but never see a movie. How long do you think that rule would be enforced?

Gazelam wrote:For further reading on this topic, read "More than Hemlines and Haircuts By Joseph Walker" on the LDS Gospel Library search engne.

Hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction, if not let me know.

Gaz

Those are excellent answers to my questions! I look forward to your additional explanations!

Thanks for agreeing to be interviewed!

OK, I'll ask, what doctrine changed in the Book of Mormon? I have never read of a single signifigant change in the Book of Mormon, I must have missed something, please share.


As far as seer stones, if I remember correctly, the church has three seer stones in its vault. Everything Moroni delivered to Joseph was returned after the translation was finished.

I don't know that there is a scripture about others in the Americas, but I do have a paper somewhere that talks about all the different people who came to ancient America. I don't know much about the DNA thing, I have tried to read a number of papers on it, but its writen in half scientific jargon that I don't have the patience to trod through, its almost as bad as trying to read old Catholic books. I know the Book of Mormon is true, the DNA stuff will come along later.

You know what thew answer is to the garments, you don't need it explained to you. Its about modesty and remembering your covenants. If the swimsuit thing is an issue, wear a wrap at the beach. Since PG-13 is dodgy, don't go see it.

D&C 58:26-27
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;


In all those lessons you taught in church, and in all your attendance, what is your remembrance of the Holy Ghost. How often did you feel him?

Gaz