Ask A Mormon

[LivingWaters7]

I think that this is overstated in the LDS Church. I don’t believe that it is the exact same. I don’t think this is the position of the Church itself regardless of the statements of the laity. I do believe that ordinances like the sacrament, baptism, etc. are the same, though, and I believe these to be what is referenced by the claim of being the same. But, we will disagree on that as well.

Typically, what the LDS Church means by the “same organization” is exactly what is stated in the Articles of Faith: that it is believed that there are apostles prophets, etc, just like the primitive Church. Obviously it can’t be taken to mean that it is an exact copy of the New Testament Church, since they had 12 apostles, while the LDS Church has 15, for example (and it’s always interesting when it is stated that Peter, James, and John were a First Presidency, when they were part of the Twelve, while the First Presidency in the LDS Church are outside of the Twelve.

What do you mean by the ordinances, like the sacrament, baptism, etc, being the same?

 

[LDSYep]

So whos theory is it? And why is everything a “misinterpretation” in the lds church? There are documents that state these things but they are misinterpretations?

Adam-God theory was never stated by the Church. The misinterpretations are typically the misinterpretations of people who are not LDS. Brigham Young’s comments are not understood well by those who claim Adam-God theory. To better understand BY’s statements you need to remember that some terms are used as titles. He uses Adam interchangeably with God the Father and Adam the man. He also uses God as a term referencing the role of Adam as judge over all mankind.

Journal of Discourses 1 pg 50-51

[Adam] is Michael, the Arch-angel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken - He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom We have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later … 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 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; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabenacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession.

Most commonly people do not read the entire statement, the bold is mine. How could Adam, the first of the human family, be his own father? This section specifically states that Adam’s father was his Father in heaven. It states that Christ was literally the physical offspring of Heavenly Father, in the same manner that Cain, Abel and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

Now, I am not entirely positive what BY meant earlier in the statement where he states “[Adam] is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” However, given the typical response of LDS critics stating that “gods” references “judges” combined with the LDS belief that Adam will sit as a judge over all Man, logic leads me to believe that Adam is the Father of all Man and is the judge of all mankind. This follows similar to the statement that the original 12 apostles will judge Israel.

Given that the statement of Adam being our Father and God and the statement that Adam’s father is his Father in heaven are conflicting, it is an error to assume that BY was stating that Adam was God the Father.

 

[kimg901]

Adam-God theory was never stated by the Church. The misinterpretations are typically the misinterpretations of people who are not LDS. Brigham Young’s comments are not understood well by those who claim Adam-God theory. To better understand BY’s statements you need to remember that some terms are used as titles. He uses Adam interchangeably with God the Father and Adam the man. He also uses God as a term referencing the role of Adam as judge over all mankind.

Journal of Discourses 1 pg 50-51

[Adam] is Michael, the Arch-angel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken - He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom We have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later … 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 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; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabenacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession.

Most commonly people do not read the entire statement, the bold is mine. How could Adam, the first of the human family, be his own father? This section specifically states that Adam’s father was his Father in heaven. It states that Christ was literally the physical offspring of Heavenly Father, in the same manner that Cain, Abel and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

Now, I am not entirely positive what BY meant earlier in the statement where he states “[Adam] is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” However, given the typical response of LDS critics stating that “gods” references “judges” combined with the LDS belief that Adam will sit as a judge over all Man, logic leads me to believe that Adam is the Father of all Man and is the judge of all mankind. This follows similar to the statement that the original 12 apostles will judge Israel.

Given that the statement of Adam being our Father and God and the statement that Adam’s father is his Father in heaven are conflicting, it is an error to assume that BY was stating that Adam was God the Father.

From what im reading it doesnt state “gods” anywhere in what you typed from BY. Now dont you think if God wanted to be named Adam or Mickey He would have made it so? Gosh your beliefs are confusing! Plus you opened up a whole new can of worms here. So God came down and did the “nasty” with Mary in the flesh? The Bible clearly states she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, not God in a speedo. Anyways, God is the Father of us all, the One Living God. Adam is His child as we all are. The angels, well they are a different species. And your logic doesnt make sense when you say Adam is the father of all men and is the judge. God/Jesus are the only ones that can judge us, not His children. Adam had to have had a father, God. And ive never heard that the 12 Apostles will judge Israel (unless I missed something), that too is not their place.

 

[LDSYep]

is there a mormon catechism?

if there were a mormon catechism, it would put an end to all of these misinterpretations and incorrect understandings that are being preached by the mormon missionaries.

if the organization would put its teachings down on paper, everyone at least would be at the same starting point.

The problem is that with continuing revelation various aspects of a complete catechism would shift from time to time.

The following are a good beginning to understanding LDS doctrine:

LDS Manuals
James E. Talmage - Jesus the Christ
Bruce R. McConkie - Mormon Doctrine (This text has been criticized by Marion G. Romney, on assignment from David O. McKay, shortly after its publication due to the use of very blunt language at times, some strong statements based in McConkie’s opinion and not necessarily Church doctrine as well as some authoritative statements on some fringe LDS topics that we don’t have revelation on. The book was removed from print and was later allowed to be republished with various changes being made.)
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

 

[7armyrugrats]

From what im reading it doesnt state “gods” anywhere in what you typed from BY. Now dont you think if God wanted to be named Adam or Mickey He would have made it so? Gosh your beliefs are confusing! Plus you opened up a whole new can of worms here. So God came down and did the “nasty” with Mary in the flesh? The Bible clearly states she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, not God in a speedo.

I gotta hand it to you–this is the best response in the tread!
If it happened the way BY stated, I’m wondering if any of those stories about women getting pregnant by ghosts, goblins, aliens, etc. might by true.

I also am assuming that my question about the Mormon teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity has been answered.

 

[LDSYep]

From what im reading it doesnt state “gods” anywhere in what you typed from BY. Now dont you think if God wanted to be named Adam or Mickey He would have made it so? Gosh your beliefs are confusing! Plus you opened up a whole new can of worms here. So God came down and did the “nasty” with Mary in the flesh? The Bible clearly states she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, not God in a speedo. Anyways, God is the Father of us all, the One Living God. Adam is His child as we all are. The angels, well they are a different species. And your logic doesnt make sense when you say Adam is the father of all men and is the judge. God/Jesus are the only ones that can judge us, not His children. Adam had to have had a father, God. And ive never heard that the 12 Apostles will judge Israel (unless I missed something), that too is not their place.

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.

As to the 12 judging Israel:

Matt. 19:27

27 ¶ Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

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.

 

[LivingWaters7]

And ive never heard that the 12 Apostles will judge Israel (unless I missed something), that too is not their place.

Luke 22:29-30-
**
"29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.**"

Matthew 19:27-28-

**27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.**

 

[LDSYep]

Typically, what the LDS Church means by the “same organization” is exactly what is stated in the Articles of Faith: that it is believed that there are apostles prophets, etc, just like the primitive Church. Obviously it can’t be taken to mean that it is an exact copy of the New Testament Church, since they had 12 apostles, while the LDS Church has 15, for example (and it’s always interesting when it is stated that Peter, James, and John were a First Presidency, when they were part of the Twelve, while the First Presidency in the LDS Church are outside of the Twelve.

Thank you, at times my eloquence fails me.

What do you mean by the ordinances, like the sacrament, baptism, etc, being the same?

A few:

The Sacrament of the bread and wine is not viewed as transubstantiation.
Baptism remains by immersion and infant baptism does not occur.
Baptism for the Dead exists and is not dismissed.

 

[LDSYep]

So you think it should read as such?

“The fact that Thomas Monson is (LDS thought) the current prophet of the church then any other “prophet” that attempts to speak to or guide the church is -]either the new true prophet and Monson is no longer or Monson is the true prophet and the new guy is/-] false.”

• The syntax for strike through is - instead of b. Your bold didn’t work because it should have been /b at the end, you were missing the /.

Yes, and thank you.

 

[LDSYep]

lol…so…we disagree on the false things you cannot defend. That is certainly ONE way to handle the issues that prove your church false. Bottom line, your church is NOTHING like the original church. Your church is manmade.

No, I simply am not going to go through the effort to argue about something that we will not come to an agreement on. I will answer questions and from time to time might indulge in some small debate, but I don’t plan on wasting my time arguing with any individual that cannot show a modicum of respect.

It makes perfect sense. As the Church grew, the positions grew. You have been unable to defend the titles your folks bear and the changes it made, yet it seems hard for you to accept apostles being called Bishops. And you seem willing to accept that Jesus just was not very bright and His Spirit was even less intelligent

Not without revelation from God it does not. Such a change conflicts with Christ’s structure. At the time of the change, was there continued revelation from God still occurring? If there was not, there is not justification for a change.

 

[LivingWaters7]

The Sacrament of the bread and wine is not viewed as transubstantiation.
Baptism remains by immersion and infant baptism does not occur.
Baptism for the Dead exists and is not dismissed.

Perhaps you might be interested in a thread I started somewhat recently:

Mormonism: Restoration of Ancient Christian Church?

What are your evidences for the Sacrament/Eucharist not being viewed as transubstantiation (I think it’s more precise to refer to this belief as “the Real Presence”, meaning, the belief that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. “Transubstantiation” is a philosophical/metaphysical explanation of how that change supposedly occurs, an explanation that is not necessarily accepted by all churches that believe in “the Real Presence”, such as Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, etc) by the primitive Church? Or put positively, what is your evidence that the primitive Church believed in a symbolic Sacrament/Eucharist? This has always been an issue for me, as the historical evidence seems to point to all of the most ancient Christian communities, whether in Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Syria, Constantinople, Ethiopia, etc, believing in the Real Presence, and still do today.

Baptism by immersion, well, the Catholic Church accepts both immersion and pouring as valid methods of baptism, with the Eastern Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) performing baptisms to this day by immersion as the normative practice (including immersion of infants). It seems that very early in Christian history, as we see in the Didache, baptism by pouring was accepted as a valid form. The argument that many LDS tend to make is something like this-“baptism by immersion was the original practice. there was a change in the form of baptism, where pouring and sprinkling were accepted, changing the ordinance, which is a sign of apostasy”. What is interesting to me is that the same thing can be found in LDS practices as well. For example, without getting into specifics, the Initiatory (the Washing and Anointing) has changed in form. Prior to 2005 it was done differently, while now, it is a symbolic washing and anointing. The form of the Initiatory has changed. This is just like what purportedly happened with baptism. The only difference I see is that LDS would probably say that the Initiatory changes were guided by revelation, while the baptismal changes (or more precisely, additions in form since immersion is still accepted and practiced by Catholics) were not inspired. How would you view this?

 

[LDSYep]

How would you view this?

Thanks for the link I will read through it.

I think it is mainly a perspective position. However, I do believe that if the Bible is the end of revelation to Man, then any change made is a change made by man, not God. Thus change becomes a threat to validity. Given LDS believe in a continuing revelation, change is not a threat to validity.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Thanks for the link I will read through it.

I think it is mainly a perspective position. However, I do believe that if the Bible is the end of revelation to Man, then any change made is a change made by man, not God. Thus change becomes a threat to validity. Given LDS believe in a continuing revelation, change is not a threat to validity.

I agree. However Catholics don’t believe that the Bible is the end of revelation to man (this isn’t the same as saying, as Catholics believe, that there is no more public revelation, i.e., all that is necessary for salvation, embodied in the revelation of Christ), nor that the Church is stagnated. They believe that their Church is guided by the Holy Ghost, has Christ at its head, and can make inspired decisions. Catholics differ from various Protestant churches on significant points, points that many LDS typically see as fundamental to traditional Christianity, but really aren’t accepted by the most ancient traditional Christian churches (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc). So change is not a threat to validity for Catholics anymore than LDS (they readily accept change and evolution in the presentation of various sacraments, a concept familiar to those that have participated in the Endowment in various forms, with various changes, throughout the years). Hence why I don’t see the LDS apologetic on the alleged change on the form of the ordinance/sacrament of baptism (immersion vs pouring) as valid, for the reasoning and LDS example I gave earlier.

 

[TexanKnight]

No, I simply am not going to go through the effort to argue about something that we will not come to an agreement on. I will answer questions and from time to time might indulge in some small debate, but I don’t plan on wasting my time arguing with any individual that cannot show a modicum of respect.

lolol…I disagree with you and point out the errors in the arguments and suddenly I am not respectful and you won’t answer? White Flag much? I have asked you to show proof that your church even remotely resembles the early church, and you can’t.

Not without revelation from God it does not. Such a change conflicts with Christ’s structure. At the time of the change, was there continued revelation from God still occurring? If there was not, there is not justification for a change.

Wrong. When Jesus left, He did not say, “I will send many Revelations to you”. He said "I will send my Holy Spirit to guide you. He KNEW there would be too many folks like Joseph Smith and Jim Jones to claim revelations. He made it impossible for folks to be led away by such folks by building His Church HIS way…and not Joseph’s way.

Also…good call on refusing to discuss the false doctrine spewed by your prophets. No need to post them all again to prove your error if your silence acquiesces with my point.

 

[TexanKnight]

Thanks for the link I will read through it.

I think it is mainly a perspective position. However, I do believe that if the Bible is the end of revelation to Man, then any change made is a change made by man, not God. Thus change becomes a threat to validity. Given LDS believe in a continuing revelation, change is not a threat to validity.

So you do not believe in the Guidance of the Holy Spirit? Odd. And since you believe in continuing revelation, why have you not followed the teachings of Jim Jones, or Beth Moore, or Ellen White, or any of the other multitude of people who have claimed, or are claiming, to receiving revelations from God?

 

[eddie_too]

i think it is admirable that the lds acknowledges that everything that it teaches today could be changed tomorrow.

however, to me that begs the question of why should a person base any of their thoughts, beliefs or actions on uncertain, perhaps incorrect, teachings.

i wonder if the lds leaders preface their comments to the young and new mormons with that reminder, what we teach today may be changed tomorrow.

i myself would never follow something that might not be true tomorrow.

to me, that would be what is called a “fool’s errand”.

 

[kimg901]

Luke 22:29-30-
**
"29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.**"

Matthew 19:27-28-

**27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.**

Haha. Very nice. thank you for this. I really must have missed it. Dont ask me how but duh.

 

[superwimp]

Hello,
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.

 

[LDSYep]

i think it is admirable that the lds acknowledges that everything that it teaches today could be changed tomorrow.

however, to me that begs the question of why should a person base any of their thoughts, beliefs or actions on uncertain, perhaps incorrect, teachings.

i wonder if the lds leaders preface their comments to the young and new mormons with that reminder, what we teach today may be changed tomorrow.

i myself would never follow something that might not be true tomorrow.

to me, that would be what is called a “fool’s errand”.

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.

 

[eddie_too]

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?

the essence of mormonism seems to be, mormons know nothing for certain. all is subject to reinterpretation. blacks can’t be priest today, but they can tomorrow. a man can have more than one wife today, but only one wife tomorrow. the planet kolob exists today, but is gone tomorrow. the gold plates were here today, but were gone tomorrow.

sex outside of marriage is wrong today, but ok for homosexuals tomorrow. abortion is wrong today for some, but ok tomorrow for others.

what did the Lord say about building your house on sand?