Ask A Mormon

  • Thread starter Thread starter ErinGoBragh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
superwimp said:
Hello,
Code: 
I was an LDS convert many years ago and active for about a year and then inactive a few more.  I then joined the temple lot group.  The question I have is what is the basis for the claim that the present LDS church is the legitimate successor to the Church of Christ that was founded around 1830.
Click to expand...
The claim is made that Joseph Smith told Brigham Young that he should lead the Church if anything happened to JS. This occurred in the presence of the Twelve.

The LDS Church believes that, as part of the ordination of an Apostle, all of the keys and authority of the priesthood are conferred to that Apostle. Aside from the keys an authority of their position, these keys and authority lie dormant unless the individual becomes the senior priesthood holder in the Church. Thus the keys and authority are held in the event of death of other leaders.

Then there is the claim by witnesses that BY appeared as JS on August 8, 1844. An article discussing this can be found here.

Following this, over 70% of the Church followed BY.

Other claims were spurious, imo. Strang’s document was a forgery, and his position assigned by JS was not high in the hierarchy of the Church. JS tried to remove Sydney Rigdon prior to JS’s death. JS had stated that should Hyrum Smith be able, he would succeed JS. HS died with JS. Hyrum’s son and grandson were prophet’s in the LDS Church. Given this, the RLDS/CoC claim to familial descent of authority justifying their claim is invalid.

I don’t believe that other claims to succession hold sufficient weight from a position held at the time of the death of Joseph Smith. It is interesting that ~1/3 of the Church “fell away” at this time, given the possible symbolism of the number in LDS theology.
 
the foundation of mormonism appears to be an unsupportable belief that moroni was sent by a benevolent being.

there is more support for believing that moroni was sent by a malevloent being than there is support for believing that moroni was sent by a benevolent being.

afterall, moroni’s sole purpose was to destroy the True Church. it does not get any more malevolent than that.
 
eddie_too said:
after a mormon assumes moroni was sent by a benevolent being, the mormon then assumes that what moroni brought can be understood differently through time because the originally assumed benevolent being through revelations to a “special” human being wants its followers to believe differently then they had in the past?
Click to expand...
Hmm, kind of sounds like the Bible. The entire position of the Christian with regards to the Jews, Christ up and introduced new doctrine, restoring the law to what it should have been, Christ dies and the apostles suddenly get rid of things like circumcision and the dietary law, then there is a lot of shifting of beliefs as to creation and what God is, eventually resting on the Trinity 300 years later. All based in claims that God is speaking to Man, when God hasn’t spoken to Man in how long? All because a “special” human being wants its followers to believe differently then they had in the past?

Also, the leadership in the early Church disagreed with each other and taught conflicting teachings. The NT states this in Peter and Paul correcting one another. Peter completely changes his position on the dietary law right after stating that the opposite. Should the early Christian follow what Peter said ending the dietary law or what Peter said supporting the dietary law? Should they follow Paul or those who are disagreeing with him? There is precedent for internal misunderstandings of doctrine.

Also, isn’t this the position of Moses as well? He comes in claiming to have spoken to a bush and the next thing we know he’s creating a huge complex organized religion when such didn’t exist prior. Change is a constant in the Bible, an argument against change having Biblical precedent is invalid.
 
and there is the difference, christians believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Word, not a “special” human being as the mormons believe He is.

christians believe in Jesus because of His Life, Death and Resurrection.

mormons believe in the goodness of moroni because … . as far as i know, mormons believe in the goodness of moroni, just because. they have no reason to believe moroni was sent by a benevolent being.
 
eddie_too said:
and there is the difference, christians believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Word, not a “special” human being as the mormons believe He is.

christians believe in Jesus because of His Life, Death and Resurrection.

mormons believe in the goodness of moroni because … . as far as i know, mormons believe in the goodness of moroni, just because. they have no reason to believe moroni was sent by a benevolent being.
Click to expand...
I was speaking from a position of Jews at the time of Christ and the early Christians. They viewed Jesus as a deluded man, not as anything more. Your argument is the same as their argument. Jesus came to destroy the “True Church” from their perspective as well.

As to Moroni being malevolent, the first vision precludes the assumption from an LDS position.
 
Also, just by way of a FYI type statement. I believe that, if the LDS Church were not true, I would have to turn to the Catholic Church as it is the only other Christian Church from my perspective that has a valid claim to authority from God. The others tend to claim to be reformist of the original Christian Church and deny continued revelation. I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Church, I just don’t agree with various aspects of it.
 
It was my understanding that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, that He did not “change” the OT, instead He showed us how to live it correctly. Jesus scolded people for missing the point of the laws, He never said that the laws didn’t count anymore. The Beattitudes do not change the Ten Commandments, they show us the proper way to live the commandments. You can spend your entire adult life living the Ten Commandments and still be a complete jerk. The Beattitudes help us to see that there is a better way to live than just “good behavior.” The reason Jesus was so troublesome for the Pharisees was that they couldn’t “trip him up.” He didn’t change or violate any of their laws, He knew scripture and could explain it better than anyone they dealt with, He was a “perfect Jew” in many ways. Therefore they couldn’t find good cause to condemn Him. That’s why they needed one of the 12 to betray Him.
 
7armyrugrats said:
It was my understanding that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, that He did not “change” the OT, instead He showed us how to live it correctly. Jesus scolded people for missing the point of the laws, He never said that the laws didn’t count anymore. The Beattitudes do not change the Ten Commandments, they show us the proper way to live the commandments. You can spend your entire adult life living the Ten Commandments and still be a complete jerk. The Beattitudes help us to see that there is a better way to live than just “good behavior.” The reason Jesus was so troublesome for the Pharisees was that they couldn’t “trip him up.” He didn’t change or violate any of their laws, He knew scripture and could explain it better than anyone they dealt with, He was a “perfect Jew” in many ways. Therefore they couldn’t find good cause to condemn Him. That’s why they needed one of the 12 to betray Him.
Click to expand...
I agree. I am simply stating that those who were Jews and against Christianity used the same arguments that is being used here. I think as LDS we are in good company.
 
some of the jews thought Jesus was wrong, not all.

Jesus practiced the jewish faith. He did not try to tell the jews they were full of it, like joseph smith told the christians of his day.

mormons need someone besides Jesus Christ. christians believe Jesus Christ is all they need.

the mormon god teaches humans that faith in Jesus alone is not enough. it is also necessary to know the teachings of joseph smith.

the mormon god teaches that Jesus set up an organization that Jesus knew would leave His followers without the truth for over forty human generations, not only would it leave them without the truth, but it would teach them falsehoods.

the mormon god is a finite man. the christian God is infinite, eternal and perfect being.

the mormon god convinces human beings that it is ok to call themselves christians, although they believe teachings that NO OTHER CHRISTIANS believe or ever have believed.
 
LDSYep said:
Two thoughts.

First, combined with the Prophet and Apostles personal revelation allows for continuous personal verification.

Second, I think that there is a misunderstanding. “Various aspects changing” does not equate to “any of their thoughts, beliefs or actions on uncertain, perhaps incorrect, teachings.” At times a revelation could lead to an alteration in perspective that would make general assumption incorrect (e.g. the Truth of Christ versus the general assumption of the Jews), not an alteration that would make teachings incorrect. In my studies I have not found teachings that conflict with current teachings/belief. In my studies I have seen that at various points when individuals hold too strongly to assumptions based in the doctrines that existed at the time of further revelation, those individuals tend to fall away, being unable to reconcile the Truth with their assumption and holding the assumption as true given the conflict. There are teachings, particularly by BY, that are easily misunderstood, which lead to such assumptions. BY stated things like the above discussed Adam-God theory, a literal fall of the Earth, creation concepts, etc. Adam-God theory is definitely an erroneous assumption based in difficult language, many other assumptions could be as well. Given the various positions on Paul with regards to law, I don’t think that this is unprecedented.
Click to expand...
lol…so when you dislike doctrine from an alleged prophet you call it assumption? Please provide comments from BY to support the idea it was just an assumption…
 
LDSYep said:
Yes, and thank you.
Click to expand...
You’re more than welcome! 👍

So we agree that the LDS view is that there is one church of Christ. We also agree that the LDS view is that there is only one earthly leader (prophet) of that church, any other supposed “leaders (prophets)” are by definition false.

So now that I know my understanding was pretty much correct here is my main question. Who is the false prophet St. Peter or Nephi? We agree that Peter was the first leader of Christ’s church. However the LDS believe that Christ after His crucifixion and before His ascension to heaven, He preached among the Nephites in Bountiful, appointed Nephi to be the head of His church and selected 12 more apostles. All of which supposedly occurred while St. Peter was very much alive along with all the other apostles (save Judas). So which church is false, the one founded in Jerusalem or the one founded in Bountiful? Who is the false prophet St. Peter or Nephi? My guess is that your answer would probably be along the lines of Christ saw fit to preach to the people in the Americas because it was a time of limited travel capabilities and communication and He did not want to make the Nephites wait over a 1000 years before his message was brought to them by the Spaniards.

The problem with that position, that 1000 year wait, is exactly what the CoJCoLDS are telling us Christ imposed on all of us when the keys were lost not once but twice, not only did one church fail in Jerusalem but so did another in Bountiful. But at the same time the CoJCoLDS tells the world that there is and has only ever been one true church that is identified by having 12 apostles and is lead by a prophet. The CoJCoLDS tells the world that any other church that espouses the claims for itself to be the true church must necessarily be false because there can be only one. So to reiterate which church is the false one, the one founded in Jerusalem or the one in Bountiful? Who is the false prophet St. Peter or Nephi?
 
The problem I see with restorationist churches is that they are saying Christ failed in His first attempt to create a church. Okay. So if thats the case, how do you know how/when Christ will fail again? We are talking about Jesus, the son of the One True Living God. So God would let His only begotten Son fail miserably? It does not make any sense what so ever. This is why Christians dont consider these churches christians because they have taking Christ and made Him a mere mortal. If you truly believe in Christ one wouldnt say He failed and would be part of His Universal Church.
 
LDSYep said:
God can, and does, reference a judge in the context BY uses it in regards to Adam.

We do not believe that physical intercourse occurred. Only that conception occurred in the same manner as it does with any child. Claiming physical intercourse is in conflict with LDS belief. Given current scientific understanding, we do not need to jump to such a crude assumption as this.
Wow, are you sure of this? I can remember reading from BY (I may be incorrect) that intercourse did take place, no Holy Spirit, just God & Mary. If thats the case, why did God send Gabriel when God was on His was down already? And what scientific understanding? Are you limiting God again? Ill get the proof soon enough.
As to the 12 judging Israel:
We as LDS believe that similar is the case with Adam, Abraham, Israel, Moses Joseph Smith, and possibly most the other prophets. There will be various of the leaders that God has placed over Mankind sitting in judgment over Mankind.
Click to expand...
 
I found a little something,
“The Holy Ghost is the messenger of the Father and the Son. Mortal beings
could not endure the presence of the Father without the Spirit overshadowing
them, and that was the mission of the Holy Ghost, but not to beget the Son of
God, THAT WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE FATHER. Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten
Son of God the Father in the flesh, and in holding to this doctrine President
Brigham Young is in perfect accord with the teachings in the Bible.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, p. 128).

Here is the statement of BY’s that JFS supports:
“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in
his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the
Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a
tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as
the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”
(JoD 1:50-51, also “Answers”, vol. 5, p. 121).

To illustrate more clearly that BY meant that Christ’s conception was actual
physical sex, here is another of his statements:
“The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD–was begotten
of his father, as we were of our fathers.” (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).

Hmm?
 
The original church founded straight from Christ/God
Catholic Church Founded in 33 AD by Jesus Christ who made Saint Peter the first Pope.

Orthodox Church 1054
Epicopalian King Henry VIII 1534
Presbyterian John Knox 1560
Congragationalist Robert Browne 1583
Baptist John Smith 1600
Methodist John Wesley 1739
Adventist William Miller 1831
Scientology Mary Baker Eddy 1879
Mormon Joseph Smith 1830:-
He claimed to have received a personal visit from God the Father and Jesus Christ who told him that all churches and their creeds were an abomination

Hmmm… sounds a lot like Islam
 
Transalosania said:
The original church founded straight from Christ/God
Catholic Church Founded in 33 AD by Jesus Christ who made Saint Peter the first Pope.

Orthodox Church 1054
Epicopalian King Henry VIII 1534
Presbyterian John Knox 1560
Congragationalist Robert Browne 1583
Baptist John Smith 1600
Methodist John Wesley 1739
Adventist William Miller 1831
Scientology Mary Baker Eddy 1879
Mormon Joseph Smith 1830:-
He claimed to have received a personal visit from God the Father and Jesus Christ who told him that all churches and their creeds were an abomination

Hmmm… sounds a lot like Islam
Click to expand...
So God/Jesus are abominations according to Smith? How could Jesus be so wrong? 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top