I have been visited many times by two missionaries and have some doubts as to whether or not I can accept the commandments, especially the one concerning the usage of substances such as coffee, tobacco, also I have some misgivings over Joseph Smith, could you be of any assistance with these issues
4 Responses to “I have been visited many times by two missionaries and have …”
Antoniwe
2010-07-04 20:50:22
It is simple for me about coffee, tobacco, etc., because I wouldnt accept those things even I wasnt a member. I think every person with clear mind wouldnt smoke or drink. And Joseph Smith... Hmm... Just try to learn a lil bit more about him... What kind of man he was, how did he treat his children and others, what did he preached and you will notice, that he actuallu was a Lord's prophet... U will feel.
Fernando Ramos: Wow! A Ukrainian Mormon! Antoniwe, I can tell you are a very interesting person. :) You're English is excellent too.
Fernando Ramos
2010-07-05 05:13:44
Missionaries in Alagoas, Brazil.
Hi Nicholas. I'm very happy that you've been meeting with the missionaries and that you decided to post your questions on my site. The best way to learn whether or not the teachings you mentioned are true is to study them, ponder them, and then ask God through prayer if they are right. I'd be happy to share some of my thoughts, which might help you as you study and ponder, but in the end the praying is what's critical. God can communicate with us through what is metaphorically called the still small voice. I've felt His guiding influence in my life many times and know this "voice" is real.
Regarding the word of wisdom, many religions teach that when the body is a slave to the physical, the mind cannot be fully freed to comprehend the spiritual. Religions may disagree over the best way to free the body, but the teaching is nearly universal. For example, Catholics believe in lifelong abstinence for their clergy; the idea is that by forgoing marriage and reproduction, the clergy can better dedicate their lives to God. They can better connect with the spiritual. Mormons, of course, see marriage and reproduction as being central to God's plan; consequently, we teach that marriage is ideal and that a married man and woman should not be celibate. However, the idea of not being a slave to the physical still rings true. For Mormons, greater spirituality is likewise obtained by freeing ourselves from dependence on the physical through the word of wisdom, fasting, rejection of materialism, etc.
It's worth pointing out that the Word of Wisdom has tremendous physical benefits as well. Studies have shown that Mormons live, on average, up to 10 years longer than other Americans. Think about what an extra 10 years of life really means. This longevity is almost certainly due in large part to our unique health code.
Joseph Smith was the first president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He received a message from God to restore Christs ancient church in modern times.
Regarding Joseph Smith, it's hard to know exactly what your concern is without additional information, but tell me try. The story of Joseph Smith is incredible. Joseph himself said, "no man knows my history; if I hadn't lived it I wouldn't have believed it myself." All religions have at their core a transcendental history. The bottom line is, either God intervenes in the universe He has created, or He does not. If He does intervene, and I know that He does, then why wouldn't He communicate with prophets in our days if He communicated with them in Biblical times? Do we need Him any less? Does He love us any less than He loved the ancients? Is there any doubt that if God wanted to communicate with modern prophets, He could call them and make them His spokesmen? If God is really the same yesterday, today, and forever, why would He change His modus operandi? He communicated with His children through prophets and apostles anciently, and He communicates through prophets and apostles today. Joseph Smith was the first of these prophets and apostles in modern times.
If you have any additional questions, or more specific details about your doubts, I'd be happy to help. Best of luck with your future missionary visits!
Nicholas
2010-07-10 12:58:07
Antonwie and El Gringo, I humbly ask of you why did God allow tobacco and coffee to be grown naturally if we were not to partake in them? In regards to Joseph Smith, exactly what is it that his teachings are different than those of Martin Luther, John Knox, John Wesley or John Calvin, founders of major religions that exist in todays society, I am not attempting to be contentious here but these questions perplex me, and would truly appreciate your comments here, thank you in advance... Nicholas
Fernando Ramos
2010-07-11 00:27:58
Hi Nicholas. I'm happy you sent your follow up question. First regarding tobacco and coffee, I'm afraid I simply don't understand your logic. Cocaine, arsenic, snake venom, tetanus, botulism, and a whole host of carcinogens and teratogens also occur naturally. Their existance does not prove they are good for us. The purpose of life is to learn to choose between right and wrong. For us to learn to choose, the universe must present us with options. Just because something exists does not mean it is good, nor does it mean God wishes us to make use of it.
Your question about Martin Luther, John Knox, John Wesley, and John Calvin is a good one. There are some detailed theological differences between the teachings of these men and Joseph Smith, but allow me to provide a big-picture response instead. The men you mentioned all played a role in the Protestant Reformation. The idea at the time was that the Catholic Church had deviated from Christ's original church in both its teachings and its authority, and so the church needed to be reformed. Protestants attempted to correct some Catholic teachings (i.e. to reform the church), and so established new, Protestant branches of Christianity.
However, while a reformation of theology wasn't impossible, the restoration of the apostolic authority had in Christ's original church was a good deal more difficult. As Cotton Mathew once said of Roger Williams, an Protestant theologian from the 17th century: "Mr. Williams [finally] told [his followers] 'that being himself misled, he had [misled them,' and] he was now satisfied that there was none upon earth that could administer baptism [or any of the ordinances of the gospel], ... [so] he advised them therefore to forego all ... and wait for the coming of new apostles."
In other words, even if Protestants had been successful in restoring the teachings of the original church, they could not have restored the apostolic authority. If the Catholic Church had that authority, than the Protestants didn't, for they broke from the Catholic Church. Furthermore, if the Catholic Church didn't have the apostolic authority, then that authority must been lost hundreds of years before the Protestant reformation even began. If we accept the idea that the authority was lost and a reformation was needed, than we must recognize that God Himself needed to restore that authority, since no man had it, and no man could pass it on to another through the laying on of hands, as was done in Biblical times. As Roger Williams simply put it, only the "coming of new apostles" could lead to a full restoration of Christ's original church.
That's perhaps the main difference between Joseph Smith's teachings and those of the Protestant reformers. Joseph didn't just reform the church's teachings. More importantly, God restored the apostolic authority through Joseph, opening the floodgates of modern revelation and divine direction. Through God's grace, Joseph Smith took the Protestant Reformation to its logical conclusion. He did not just reform the church's teachings. He restored Christ's original Church, both its teachings and its authority.
Fernando Ramos: Wow! A Ukrainian Mormon! Antoniwe, I can tell you are a very interesting person. :) You're English is excellent too.
Regarding the word of wisdom, many religions teach that when the body is a slave to the physical, the mind cannot be fully freed to comprehend the spiritual. Religions may disagree over the best way to free the body, but the teaching is nearly universal. For example, Catholics believe in lifelong abstinence for their clergy; the idea is that by forgoing marriage and reproduction, the clergy can better dedicate their lives to God. They can better connect with the spiritual. Mormons, of course, see marriage and reproduction as being central to God's plan; consequently, we teach that marriage is ideal and that a married man and woman should not be celibate. However, the idea of not being a slave to the physical still rings true. For Mormons, greater spirituality is likewise obtained by freeing ourselves from dependence on the physical through the word of wisdom, fasting, rejection of materialism, etc.
It's worth pointing out that the Word of Wisdom has tremendous physical benefits as well. Studies have shown that Mormons live, on average, up to 10 years longer than other Americans. Think about what an extra 10 years of life really means. This longevity is almost certainly due in large part to our unique health code.
If you have any additional questions, or more specific details about your doubts, I'd be happy to help. Best of luck with your future missionary visits!
Your question about Martin Luther, John Knox, John Wesley, and John Calvin is a good one. There are some detailed theological differences between the teachings of these men and Joseph Smith, but allow me to provide a big-picture response instead. The men you mentioned all played a role in the Protestant Reformation. The idea at the time was that the Catholic Church had deviated from Christ's original church in both its teachings and its authority, and so the church needed to be reformed. Protestants attempted to correct some Catholic teachings (i.e. to reform the church), and so established new, Protestant branches of Christianity.
However, while a reformation of theology wasn't impossible, the restoration of the apostolic authority had in Christ's original church was a good deal more difficult. As Cotton Mathew once said of Roger Williams, an Protestant theologian from the 17th century: "Mr. Williams [finally] told [his followers] 'that being himself misled, he had [misled them,' and] he was now satisfied that there was none upon earth that could administer baptism [or any of the ordinances of the gospel], ... [so] he advised them therefore to forego all ... and wait for the coming of new apostles."
In other words, even if Protestants had been successful in restoring the teachings of the original church, they could not have restored the apostolic authority. If the Catholic Church had that authority, than the Protestants didn't, for they broke from the Catholic Church. Furthermore, if the Catholic Church didn't have the apostolic authority, then that authority must been lost hundreds of years before the Protestant reformation even began. If we accept the idea that the authority was lost and a reformation was needed, than we must recognize that God Himself needed to restore that authority, since no man had it, and no man could pass it on to another through the laying on of hands, as was done in Biblical times. As Roger Williams simply put it, only the "coming of new apostles" could lead to a full restoration of Christ's original church.
That's perhaps the main difference between Joseph Smith's teachings and those of the Protestant reformers. Joseph didn't just reform the church's teachings. More importantly, God restored the apostolic authority through Joseph, opening the floodgates of modern revelation and divine direction. Through God's grace, Joseph Smith took the Protestant Reformation to its logical conclusion. He did not just reform the church's teachings. He restored Christ's original Church, both its teachings and its authority.