Quetzalcoatl Still Proves The Book Of Mormon True

[cinepro]

I can understand the thinking behind letting average LDS submit answers to the public FAQ on Mormon.org, but sometimes you get a little more than you ask for:

Is it true that Jesus appeared in North America after his crucifixion and resurrection according to the Book of Mormon?

Nothing could be more true than that Christ visited the now known Native Americans during ancient times.

My proof is in history:

When the Spanish started sailing and arrived in the Americas, the Native Americans welcomed the conquistadors into their nations because of their lighter skin and shining armor. Their legends had spoke of a bearded white man who came down from the heavens to help them, and left, promising to return again. They called him "Quetzalcoatl" which means "Feathered Serpent" (which Christ is referred to sometimes as). They believed the Spanish to be their Quetzalcoatl. The earliest origins of "Quetzalcoatl" was around 500 A.D. The Book of Mormon's last chapter is dated about 421 A.D.

This piece of history alone to me, is a feeling of truth of Christ visiting the Americas after his resurrection.

- Nathan

http://mormon.org/en...rist-in-america

Why did your church previously practice plural marriage (polygamy)?

The main reason the Church practiced polygamy is because God commanded it at the time. I have wondered why a lot and as I have thought about it I have determined that God commanded this because of the large number of widows and families with single parents. Due to persecutions, mob violence, and war, many children lost their fathers or mothers. More than anything, this practice was to support these families giving food, shelter, and parental love and teaching. This is not the first time in the history of this world that the Church practiced polygamy and in all cases, the moment it is no longer necessary, God tells us to stop. This belief is supported by the official statement from the Church "The Lord’s law of marriage is monogamy unless he commands otherwise to help establish the House of Israel"

- Jordan

http://mormon.org/faq/plural-marriage

The site does note "Answers are the sole responsibility of the members", but do we really expect visitors to an official Church website to understand that the published answers don't have some approval by the Church (and some relationship to Church doctrines)?

Edited July 31, 2013 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

Must resist temptation to be......."helpful".

These answers are not nearly zany enough.

[omni]

Yeah, I think they should have had Brant Gardner respond to the Quetzalcoatl question. Do you know who's responding to these questions? Is it the missionaries or maybe average members who are donating their time?

[mfbukowski]

Must resist temptation to be......."helpful".

These answers are not nearly zany enough.

Actually that might not be a bad idea. Maybe they will figure out that letting anyone on there might not be such a good idea. But when you get a call from your Stake president....

[jim_mason]

Yeah, I think they should have had Brant Gardner respond to the Quetzalcoatl question. Do you know who's responding to these questions? Is it the missionaries or maybe average members who are donating their time?

Any member of the Church who signs up with Mormon.org can answer questions.

[bluebell]

Any member of the Church who signs up with Mormon.org can answer questions.

Is there some way to make sure that those who sign up actually ARE members?

[Senator]

Any member of the Church who signs up with Mormon.org can answer questions.

Mmmm......but we must filter the yokels!

[David T]

Is there some way to make sure that those who sign up actually ARE members?

Yes. They must use their Church Membership Number to obtain an LDS login to begin with.

And nothing I've seen repeated surprises me as a general belief of many members. You're seeing 'what Mormons believe', not "what the Church teaches." There are at times substantial disconnects.

[CV75]

The site does note "Answers are the sole responsibility of the members", but do we really expect visitors to an official Church website to understand that the published answers don't have some approval by the Church (and some relationship to Church doctrines)?

The disclaimer is about responsibility, not approval, and while it would be great if everyone understood that (and even if most people don’t, or don’t think about it), I don’t think that is the priority purpose for this website/module.

I do think the Church approves of members taking responsibility (whether their answers are right or wrong), and that in some venues like this one, flexibility for the sake of open discussion and opinion is better than a controlled message. It is a virtually more accurate representation of what investigators come across in the world of flesh and blood. If something seems weird or out of place (if such is even recognized or remembered) the truth will be borne out. As people follow the Spirit, God’s grace will help them through the foibles of Church members.

At least that is how it worked with me over the five years I investigated the Church before becoming a member. I knew when a person or an answer seemed “off,” but I didn’t let it put me off or dissuade me from something I attribute to a spiritual drive.

I think it is reasonable to understand that the published answers have some relationship to Church doctrine, but whether those relationships are well founded or correct is the member’s responsibility, and there are other ways to get to the correct doctrine whether those relationships are valid or not.

[bluebell]

Yes. They must use their Church Membership Number to obtain an LDS login to begin with.

And nothing I've seen repeated surprises me as a general belief of many members. You're seeing 'what Mormons believe', not "what the Church teaches." There are at times substantial disconnects.

I figured as much but had never signed up to check.

I agree that what some members believe and what the church teaches is sometimes a lot different.

[Freedom]

Answers are the sole responsibility of the members", but do we really expect visitors to an official Church website to understand that the published answers don't have some approval by the Church (and some relationship to Church doctrines)?

Anybody with any experience with the internet would know that these responses are random and unofficial. The format makes it abundantly clear that the comments are not official or expert in nature.

[The Nehor]

Actually that might not be a bad idea. Maybe they will figure out that letting anyone on there might not be such a good idea. But when you get a call from your Stake president....

Hello President.

Yes, I did say polygamy was authorized in order to create scarcity to get missionaries to go on missions to find a wife.

No, I did not say the Priesthood Ban was bad. I just said it was created as a ruse to confuse the Illuminati.

Yes, Shiz did have a zombie army. Look at the Book of Mormon. He was decapitated and still tried to rise and fight. Zombie....

But I am John the Beloved!!!!!!

But Nauvoo had a brothel. I was just curious how it worked. Did you need a recommend to get in?

Yes, I can be at the Stake Center at 8.

[mfbukowski]

:rofl:

[Ahab]

I can understand the thinking behind letting average LDS submit answers to the public FAQ on Mormon.org, but sometimes you get a little more than you ask for:

The site does note "Answers are the sole responsibility of the members", but do we really expect visitors to an official Church website to understand that the published answers don't have some approval by the Church (and some relationship to Church doctrines)?

Not much difference between this and someone giving a talk in a Sacrament meeting, with visitors sometimes attending.

Nobody stands up to correct false statements that are made then, either, and that's in an actual Church meeting.

Apparently someone believe we should be given a LOT of slack when it comes down to what we believe.

[strappinglad]

And we on this board ALWAYS agree as to what the Church teaches and what is true.

[cinepro]

Not much difference between this and someone giving a talk in a Sacrament meeting, with visitors sometimes attending.

Nobody stands up to correct false statements that are made then, either, and that's in an actual Church meeting.

Apparently someone believe we should be given a LOT of slack when it comes down to what we believe.

I would suggest that publishing something in the FAQ on the Church's official outreach website is quite a bit different than a person saying something in a Sacrament Meeting talk.

[Freedom]

I would suggest that publishing something in the FAQ on the Church's official outreach website is quite a bit different than a person saying something in a Sacrament Meeting talk.

I would suggest that, given the churches willing less to let people publish pretty much what ever they want on their mormon profiles, that you are wrong on this point. The church is establishing that conformity is not enforced and we are all free to have our own opinion. The page makes it clear that the opinions are those of the posters.

[Calm]

I would suggest that, given the churches willing less to let people publish pretty much what ever they want on their mormon profiles, that you are wrong on this point. The church is establishing that conformity is not enforced and we are all free to have our own opinion. The page makes it clear that the opinions are those of the posters.

And I think they are conveying that the Church belongs to its members as well, not the members to it.

[canard78]

I noticed an answer on there a few weeks back where someone had said: "we no longer practice polygamy, polyandry or any other plural marriage." It's gone now. I guess that cuts too close to the bone but Quetzalcoatl as a faith promoting rumour is ok.

Having said that, if they start cutting mentions of Quetzalcoatl from mormon.org they'll have to do the same with a 1995 General Conference talk:

The crucial messages or purposes of the Book of Mormon are shown on its title page: “To show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord … And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD, manifesting himself unto all nations.”

Ancient American literature contains references to a white, bearded god who descended out of the heavens. He is called by many names; one example is Quetzalcoatl. Historians of the sixteenth century, whose texts I have, recorded pre-Hispanic beliefs concerning the white, bearded god who came to the Americas long before the arrival of the Spanish conquerors. The following paragraphs contain examples of these beliefs.

Bernardo de Sahagun (born 1499) wrote: “Quetzalcoatl was esteemed and considered as a god, and was worshipped in older times. He had long hair and was bearded. The people worshipped only the Lord” (Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España, Mexico: Editorial Porrua, S. A., 1985, pp. 195, 598).

Diego Duran (born 1537) wrote: “A great man—a person venerable and religious—bearded, tall, long hair, dignified deportment, heroic acts, miracles—I affirm he could have been one of the blessed apostles” (Historia de las Indias de Nueva España, 1867, first ed., 2 vols., Mexico: Editorial Porrua, S. A., 1967, 1:9).

Bartolomé de las Casas (born 1474) wrote that Quetzalcoatl, the plumed serpent, was white, had a rounded beard, was tall, and came from the sea in the east, from whence he will return (see Los Indios de Mexico y Nueva España Antologiá, Mexico: Editorial Porrua, S. A., 1982, pp. 54, 218, 223).

The Tamanacos Indian tribes in Venezuela have the same legend of a white, bearded god: “[Amalivacá] had a face the color of the light fluffy clouds of the morning, and white was his long head of hair. … He said: ‘I am Amalivacá, and I come in the name of my father INA-UIKI’” (Arturo Hellmund Tello, Leyendas Indígenas del Bajo Orinoco, trans. Ted E. Brewerton, Buenos Aires, Argentina: Imprenta Lopez Peru 666, 1948, pp. 19–22).

The Book of Mormon gives an accurate account of the coming of the Lord to ancient America.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-book-of-mormon-a-sacred-ancient-record?lang=eng

[Judd]

Haven't current trends promoted buzzwords such as "uncorrelated Mormon" and balked at the idea of the church highly scrutinizing its message but then we're upset that the church isn't hammering down on Mormon.org profiles and sacrament meeting talks?

[cinepro]

Haven't current trends promoted buzzwords such as "uncorrelated Mormon" and balked at the idea of the church highly scrutinizing its message but then we're upset that the church isn't hammering down on Mormon.org profiles and sacrament meeting talks?

Who's upset? I think it's fantastic.

[Dr.JD]

I always liked the idea of Pahana being Christ.

[Brian 2.0]

Quetzalcoatl brought up today in my wards fast and testimony meeting. Had to laugh beciase i remember this thread. Still going strong.

[Brian 2.0]

Also in the same talk he mentioned someone dressing up as a Native American and he asked him who he was dressed up as. The guy said "king Noah" and he laughed because the guy was really tall and lean. He then asked him "you're supposed to be short and fat to be King Noah."

Is he just getting that from the Freiberg painting? Is there any scriptural description of King Noah's stature?

[Calm]

He is sai to have indulged in riotous living and winebibbing

Mosiah 11

But he also had a high tower he used to climb so he might have been over fit...sex is a healthy form of exercise usually.