Can I go visit everything at my local Mormon Temple?

[majick275]

Mormons don’t claim to have an answer for everything. There are many things we don’t know, as most religions out there, and there are “mysteries of God” as in times all throughout the Bible. The fact of the matter is, Mormons claim to have a lot of details about God that other religions simply don’t have.

fair enough

It is because of these details that we get criticized, but frankly, what if they were true? I’d like to hear a better explanation about Who God is, His physical characteristics, relationship to us, etc. from any other Christian out there. I have yet to find one better, with more details, and more personable than the one I believe in.

this sounds very pagan. you CHOOSE your interpretation of God based on detailed characteristics and how personable he is? you seem to have chosen a god who is like you…much like the Greeks, Norse and many other pagans. I am not calling you a pagan, I am merely pointing out a perceived similarity in this one case. I counter with God and moses. very detailed accounts that appear very different than your view. burning bush, pillar of fire, cloud, etc. God as man only exists in Christ who became wholly man while still being wholly God.

Mormons do believe that Christ was a man on earth like us - He was still the God that created this earth however before He came, and He was the only being to live a perfect life, and lead the way with His example. He was the only being capable of atoning for our sins, because He was the only sinless being. Yes, he was not like the Father until Resurrection - however that doesn’t demean Him in any way. He was still way better than any of us, and He was still the God worshiped through all the Old Testament. He is and always has been the God of this earth, whether in man form or not.

i understand what you are saying but it is problematic for non-mormons to view that as even being possible.

As to the “other worlds” thing, as Mormons, we are only taught about our Gods, our Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost - I do not know if there are more Gods out there. There is nothing in the scriptures that says one way or another. I do know our God has one Fold, and one Savior Who suffered for our sins. I know of no other Savior out there - many have speculated, but I see that as pure speculation. I would think it would be scripture if it weren’t by now.

but it must be!!! you cannot have eternal progression once. it has to be perpetual in order to work. If you truly have eternal increase then you will have spirit children in heaven… they will require bodies and a planet in order to work out there salvation. the ones that succeed to exaltation will then also have spirit children and it continues forever. These individuals working out their salvation will require a savior. The LDS Temple ceremony teaches that isn’t the first time. that this has happened on other worlds. If we stay strictly within LDS publications we can see where LDS prophets have been very clear on God the Father having gone through this process himself. That means he has a God, and more importantly he had a savior. Who? I just don’t see this reconciling with what God taught us in scripture. It appeals to pride to have the opportunity to not only become a God but to eventually become a God of Gods. However it seems to reduce God from the only divine creator ever to just another guy who did good. I don’t see how this can be reconciled with isaiah or even abinadi in the BoM. both tell us that there is ONLY one God. Abinadi even makes the case for the orthodox trinitarian God. I don’t see a way to overcome the cognitive dissonance require to believe in this.

 

[thomasf]

I’ll tell you what - if you ask me your questions (you’ve had about 10 scattered throughout this forum) in list form, looking to see if I have already answered them in this forum topic already, and quoting me where I haven’t answered fully (with your additional questions), without any accusations, assumptions, or conclusions about my church, and if you ask them respectfully with sincere desire, I will answer your questions.

I have answered everyone else on this forum - most have been very respectful. If you can be respectful I will answer you as well.

Or in other words, you want to make sure you’re story is straight and you’re not contradicting yourself?

I can’t help but have contempt for someone that continually ducks and dodges simple, plain questions about their faith. Ask me anything, as much as you want, I can answer or find the answers for you. Because it’s the same answer, for 2000 years, that never changes or mutates to fit the situation. Mormons can’t even say that about the last 50 years.

And to be clear, I’ve only asked you 3 questions. Clarify the contradictory ‘conditions’ for entering the temple. Explain how plural marriage and polygamy helped bring people closer to Christ, and why if it did is it no longer practised? Explain how the failed anti-bank of Kirtland helped bring people closer to Christ.

 

[jstayii]

I wonder if it would be more accurate to say when we arrived on earth we have the choice to accept Christs plan, we couldnt have arrived on earth accepting the plan or there would be no free choice. If our spirit chose before, then our flesh would have to be separate from our spirit and they are not. If so our spirit could remain pure and go to Heaven. While all the time on earth our flesh could have done every sin it wanted to. (works from a protestant eh? see some of us get it.

Well, we may have accepted Christ’s plan (or you are right - Christ chose God’s plan, therefore it would be God’s plan), but accepting it verbally with a Spirit body was the easy part. We had yet to gain a physical body, bringing us many more temptations and imperfections - we couldn’t fully accept God’s plan until we had been on this earth, received a body, and had the opportunity to repent, accept our Savior, and follow His plan here on earth. You understand this well - I’m impressed!

once again satan was created but as a angel, that doesnt make him a human brother, just a hmmm how about a cousin angel But angels and humans are different but both with free will. Dogs and cats are different but both can bite or be nice.

I think that’s probably a good way to put it. I agree with you on this. Satan never came down to this earth, therefore he is not human like us. He was however an angel before just as all of us were.

Now you are right to call Christ our redeemer and Lord. But as our Lord He created us, we cannot be His brother. We are His children, created and loved by Him. Even John the Baptist said he was unworthy to untie Jesus sandals.

In Christ’s role in creating the earth, and suffering for our sins, yes, we are His Children. Where Mormons believe in God the Father and Christ being separate beings though, we cannot be Christ’s Spirit children. We are God the Father’s Spirit children. He created our Spirits, and He created our bodies. We are loved by our Savior, the Son of our Heavenly Father, who was so great, He chose to come down on behalf of us and the Father and suffer greatly to make it possible for us to return to our Father. We are also loved by our Father “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Mormons believe that Christ too was God’s spirit offspring, but He happened to be the greatest Spirit of all, the one who honored the Father, and chose to be the perfect example for us all and lead the way for us all back to the Father. Christ, giving glory to the Father, is one with the Father in that sense, and His will is the Father’s will. He created this world and all things within - He is the God of the Old Testament, the God of the New Testament, and the same God Mormons honor and worship. We are certainly unworthy of what He has done for us, just as John the Baptist said.

 

[jstayii]

this sounds very pagan. you CHOOSE your interpretation of God based on detailed characteristics and how personable he is? you seem to have chosen a god who is like you…much like the Greeks, Norse and many other pagans. I am not calling you a pagan, I am merely pointing out a perceived similarity in this one case. I counter with God and moses. very detailed accounts that appear very different than your view. burning bush, pillar of fire, cloud, etc. God as man only exists in Christ who became wholly man while still being wholly God.

This goes back to the very councils and arguments that occured when Constantine called the Council of Nice - what is the nature of God? Mid-3rd century Sibellius advocated the concept of “Trinity in Unity” - it was not unified doctrine at the time, and not all Christians of the time embraced it. It was not unique to some Christians at the time who before their conversion embraced Platonic views of similar theories. Then around the 4th century we see the contention between Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and Arius, a subordinate officer of the same church. Alexander proclaimed that the son was in all aspects equal to the Father, and also of the same substance or essence. Arius insisted that the Son had been created by the Father, and therefore could not be co-eternal with His divine Parent; that the Son was the Agent through whom the will of the Father was executed, and for this reason also the Son was inferior to the Father in both nature and Dignity. In like manner the Holy Ghost was also inferior to other members of the Godhead.

The Arian concept at that point was both preached by many with fury, and denounced by others. Such contention existed that Constantine called the Council of Nice to settle on the matter. Alexander’s belief was accepted and Arius was banished from the faith.

So you can see this is not a unique concept that Mormons teach here (I realized I said that earlier, but after further research I realize there are actually roots of it in early Christian faith, and it is supported through scripture). The council of Nice, and organized group of very righteous men chose Alexander’s viewpoint of the Trinity. At that time I believe it was pretty much considered the Priesthood (being, in this sense Prophets and Apostles) was no longer on the earth.

Mormons however take Arius’s viewpoint. Our viewpoint is supported by who we believe to be a Prophet of God, supported by 12 apostles, not just a few righteous men. I say this not to argue, but rather to show Mormons are simply saying the same thing that was argued by Arius in 4th century A.D.! I see few other religions disputing that today. Christ Himself made a very clear point in His resurrection to show His role in that, and that He, in His glorified state, had a body of flesh and bones, just as we. He asked the Jews at the time to come up, feel the wounds in His hands, touch His body, and feel evidence that He, our Savior, the Ultimate example, was Whom we could become.

As in Old Testament times, Mormons too believe God could smite the earth in an instant. All Mormon accounts in scripture in addition to the bible (aka Joseph Smith’s accounts) are very similar to that of Moses’. Mormons believe God to be just as glorified today as He was back in those days. God has not changed since then. We just support the same viewpoint of Arius, and many other Christian followers that supported him, and many that preceded those, that God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Ghost are distinct, separate beings, each of whom we dearly worship and admire.

The LDS Temple ceremony teaches that isn’t the first time. that this has happened on other worlds. If we stay strictly within LDS publications we can see where LDS prophets have been very clear on God the Father having gone through this process himself.

The LDS temple does not mention this explicitely. Maybe you remember something I don’t - I was there just last week. Yes, I believe the quote you refer to is by Joseph Smith. He said, “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God…He was once a man like us; …God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” I believe that is the most detailed account we have recorded in any official Church publication of God’s origins, and I agree with it. Early Christian doctrine disputed concepts such as this as well - the nature of God was sincerely sought by those in and out of the faith in those days.

 

[jstayii]

I can’t help but have contempt for someone that continually ducks and dodges simple, plain questions about their faith.

How have I ducked or dodged anyone in this forum topic but you? In fact, I openly and honestly answered a few of your first questions, which, if I remember correctly were accusing us of being a cult. I have given you a way to get your answers - take it or leave it. I don’t feel you are sincere in your desire to learn about the Mormon faith, but rather to find fallacies and imperfections in it. Were anyone else in this forum topic to ask me the questions you ask sincerely wanting answers, I would be happy to share my viewpoint on them.

 

[thomasf]

How have I ducked or dodged anyone in this forum topic but you? In fact, I openly and honestly answered a few of your first questions, which, if I remember correctly were accusing us of being a cult. I have given you a way to get your answers - take it or leave it. I don’t feel you are sincere in your desire to learn about the Mormon faith, but rather to find fallacies and imperfections in it Were anyone else in this forum topic to ask me the questions you ask sincerely wanting answers, I would be happy to share my viewpoint on them.

I never accused you of being a cult. I’ve been very plain and upfront on this, and repeatedly asked the same questions over and over again. Yet you refuse to answer. You are ducking and dodging right now. You have set a fine example of a mormon apologist, as I have experienced in the past. From my experience, which is further proven here, Mormons either won’t or can’t answer tough questions about their faith. Won’t because it makes them uncomfortable to face the contradictory nature of their religion. Can’t because they’re not allowed to even consider the contradictory nature of their religion.

Coming from the catholic faith, it’s very sad to see that. I would think people would expect more from their religion.

 

[jstayii]

I never accused you of being a cult.

I think I’ve had you confused with someone else - I apologize for that. There have been some accusatory tones in your previous posts, and I must have mixed them up with a few of the other accusations made on here. These questions themselves are also very much trying to point out flaws in our religion, and have roots in many organizations whose sole purpose is to belittle and demean our faith. However, to make up for my mistake here I’ll answer your questions. I trust you will take my answers respectfully, and truly try to learn from them rather than find faults in my understandings.

Keep in mind a lot of these answers (in respect to the bank, in particular) I’m just going out on Google to find answers for. They are out there in plain view for any to find - why does the Mormon church not openly teach them? Well, they do not openly deny them - there are plenty of accounts out there, by Mormons, from Mormon historical records (and others) that support these facts. Perhaps your experience in people hiding things from you are just due to the fact that people think you may not understand them, or perhaps they are worried they will be further criticized - it was bending of the truth such as what you see here that drove the Mormons out of Illinois, Missouri, and Kirtland and forced them out West as they are Headquartered today after all. Many Mormons feel they are still persecuted today. Many of the early Christians after Christ’s death held things secret as well in order to avoid persecution. Was that right, or is it right for Mormons to not share all with others? I don’t think so personally - I think one should stand up for their beliefs in the face of persecution, but I definitely understand their reasoning. Also, the answers to many of these questions many Mormons simply don’t know, nor do they care to know. As Mormons we know our Prophet is a Prophet of God - many to most of us have prayed and received answer that this is the case directly from God. We have no reason to doubt what our Lord has revealed through the Prophet. When the people doubted Moses, they got the 10 commandments, not the other law that was originally written. We follow our Prophet, and we do so because it brings us closer to Christ.

Anyway, here are your questions, and their answers:

Clarify the contradictory ‘conditions’ for entering the temple.

Again, my answers are littered throughout this forum on this topic. Mormons do not believe they are sinless. As you said, nobody is without sin. Only the repentant and those that are on the right path to making their lives better are worthy to enter the temple however. This does not mean they are sinless - Christ was the only sinless being to live on earth.

Yes, it is a simple question and answer session between yourself and your Bishop and Stake President to obtain your recommend. Believing however that when confessing and answering to them is as though you are answering to God, you will have to face God for any lies you state in those sessions after this life. Does it mean some still lie and get into the temple? Of course it does. Will the temple really benefit those people? Well, I doubt their intentions, but if anything I would hope it encourages them to repent and get back on the right path with God. Those people will have to face God in the end though for entering His House unworthily.

I’m out of room - my answers to the remaining questions below:

 

[jstayii]

Explain how plural marriage and polygamy helped bring people closer to Christ, and why if it did is it no longer practised?

To fully understand this you need to truly believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, just as Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Peter were. Mormons believe this, and devoutly follow the Prophet’s teachings. There have been times scattered throughout the bible where polygamy was practiced. Other times where it wasn’t. Israel practiced it. Abraham and Isaac both practiced it. Ishmael practiced it. For some reason in other times it was not practiced. Why this is the case some times, and not the case others, I don’t know - the Bible doesn’t answer it.

The same goes with Mormons. For some reason the Prophet of God (being Joseph Smith at the time) received revelation from God to institute Polygamy. He actually only instituted it among about 25% of the Church at the time - only 3-5% of men at the time had only one wife. Many speculate the reasons, but the fact is, a Prophet of God revealed it, and the followers of the Lord’s Prophet followed! Due to increasing persecution against the Saints, the Government eventually outlawed polygamy. The Mormon church however did not disband polygamy until a revelation from God came to the Prophet several years after it was deemed illegal. Why did it bring followers closer to Christ? I guess we could try to ask those that followed it, I’m sure you could study their lives and accounts of how they believe it brought them closer, but in the end, the followers of Christ were following God’s prophet. Following the God’s prophet, as it did in olden times, brings one closer to Christ. The fact is we don’t practice it now, so I don’t think anyone living today can tell you why polygamy has brought them closer to Christ.

That was my answer - here is a good answer with citations from a wiki run by a group of members of the LDS church (not an officially supported LDS church website though I must mention):

fairwiki.org/index.php/Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy

Explain how the failed anti-bank of Kirtland helped bring people closer to Christ.

I believe you are talking about the Kirtland Safety Society. The fact of the matter is, Joseph Smith put more of his own money into that bank, save one than anyone else. He paid more for his stock than 85% of the other owners. The bank failed, as did hundreds of other banks, due to nation-wide banking panic. He did not flee with his money, and only went further into debt trying to save the bank, ending up with over $100,000 worth of debt in the end when it finally failed. He continued to pay his creditors long after the bank failure. Even long after, far away in Nauvoo he remained faithful in his payments. You tell me how that isn’t Christian. I suggest you also read this for more (also from the same wiki):

fairwiki.org/index.php/Kirtland_Safety_Society

 

[colliric]

To fully understand this you need to truly believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, just as Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Peter were. Mormons believe this, and devoutly follow the Prophet’s teachings. There have been times scattered throughout the bible where polygamy was practiced. Other times where it wasn’t. Israel practiced it. Abraham and Isaac both practiced it. Ishmael practiced it. For some reason in other times it was not practiced. Why this is the case some times, and not the case others, I don’t know - the Bible doesn’t answer it.

The same goes with Mormons. For some reason the Prophet of God (being Joseph Smith at the time) received revelation from God to institute Polygamy. He actually only instituted it among about 25% of the Church at the time - only 3-5% of men at the time had only one wife. Many speculate the reasons, but the fact is, a Prophet of God revealed it, and the followers of the Lord’s Prophet followed! Due to increasing persecution against the Saints, the Government eventually outlawed polygamy. The Mormon church however did not disband polygamy until a revelation from God came to the Prophet several years after it was deemed illegal. Why did it bring followers closer to Christ? I guess we could try to ask those that followed it, I’m sure you could study their lives and accounts of how they believe it brought them closer, but in the end, the followers of Christ were following God’s prophet. Following the God’s prophet, as it did in olden times, brings one closer to Christ. The fact is we don’t practice it now, so I don’t think anyone living today can tell you why polygamy has brought them closer to Christ.

That was my answer - here is a good answer with citations from a wiki run by a group of members of the LDS church (not an officially supported LDS church website though I must mention):

fairwiki.org/index.php/Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy

I believe you are talking about the Kirtland Safety Society. The fact of the matter is, Joseph Smith put more of his own money into that bank, save one than anyone else. He paid more for his stock than 85% of the other owners. The bank failed, as did hundreds of other banks, due to nation-wide banking panic. He did not flee with his money, and only went further into debt trying to save the bank, ending up with over $100,000 worth of debt in the end when it finally failed. He continued to pay his creditors long after the bank failure. Even long after, far away in Nauvoo he remained faithful in his payments. You tell me how that isn’t Christian. I suggest you also read this for more (also from the same wiki):

fairwiki.org/index.php/Kirtland_Safety_Society

How can one become “one Flesh” with multiple wives? I don’t understand that. Jesus taught that 1 woman and 1 man make 1 flesh when they become married. How can multiple wives become “one flesh” with the husband? I don’t get it and probably never will.

Pologomy seems to directly contradict Mark 10: 6-9

“But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

P.s are you payed or encouraged by the mormon church to do this here? because it seems like you are…

 

[thomasf]

So then, people who get into the temple are not somehow sin-less, or without a majority of sin, or have to pass a qualifying test. It’s just a promise to do better and try to live without sin. And it divides certain people in your church from others, as well as people within your church from people outside. It stops you from making ALL of your mormon message available to everyone. Where did Jesus say to preach only to those who meet these qualifications? Why is it that almost all other churches are open to members and non-members? How can you spread your religion to non-members who cannot understand the full measure of your teachings? And why would Jesus want the mormon church to be exclusionary and divisive?

As far as the plurality thing goes, again you admit it only was something done with a small portion of your church. Why is God revealing these things to only certain people? Why would He not include everyone? When in the past have His revealations been meant for only certain people? And then when it was reversed, was it because He made a mistake? Can God make mistakes? If it was a true prophecy meant to bring people to Christ and Him, why rescind it, why teach it only to a few, why create a divisive, exclusionary revealation? And I have read many accounts from women who were involved with this practice, who did not find it particularly spiritual or holy or that it brought them closer to God. Many talk about how they had to lie and decieve their husbands because they were involved with sexual relations with these plural marriages. Why would God need someone to lie for Him to take part in this revealation, or conceal or mislead anyone about this revealation?

He continued to pay his creditors long after the bank failure. Even long after, far away in Nauvoo he remained faithful in his payments. You tell me how that isn’t Christian.

I didn’t ask how that was Christian, I asked how that brought anyone closer to Christ, other than Joseph Smith. You asserted that for everything that your church and Joseph Smith did you could show 4 to 5 fold how that brought people closer to Christ. I fail to see how him paying his debt brought anyone closer to Christ.

 

[jstayii]

How can one become “one Flesh” with multiple wives? I don’t understand that. Jesus taught that 1 woman and 1 man make 1 flesh when they become married. How can multiple wives become “one flesh” with the husband? I don’t get it and probably never will.

Pologomy seems to directly contradict Mark 10: 6-9

See the link I posted with that - there are some good contradictions showing support elsewhere in the Bible, actually supporting polygamy. Within that article is a link to some writings of Orson Pratt - this will show you some of those.

The fact of the matter is Mormons no longer practice polygamy, and in fact see it as unChristian by any faith that does practice it, as it was disbanded by a Prophet of God, just as it is deemed unChristian in the quote you provided.

P.s are you payed or encouraged by the mormon church to do this here? because it seems like you are…

Mormons have no paid clergy - why would I be paid to be here? I am a normal, church-going member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Until some of these questions with roots in organizations devoted to find faults in the Mormon Church showed up, I was quite enjoying being here and answering your questions.

 

[majick275]

The LDS temple does not mention this explicitely. Maybe you remember something I don’t - I was there just last week. Yes, I believe the quote you refer to is by Joseph Smith. He said, “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God…He was once a man like us; …God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” I believe that is the most detailed account we have recorded in any official Church publication of God’s origins, and I agree with it. Early Christian doctrine disputed concepts such as this as well - the nature of God was sincerely sought by those in and out of the faith in those days.

I was referring the “what you are doing? that which has been done on other worlds” conversation. there is also the “that is how father gained his powers”. I realize who is saying that but is never refuted or corrected and appears to be him using the truth to support his lies.

 

[jstayii]

Thomasf, as I predicted, I don’t think any explanation I gave you would change your pre-conceived opinions on what we believe. My church is very united, unfaltering, and faithful members feel they are one with Christ. You can try to read what you want and accuse us how you want, but as a member of the Mormon church I can tell you from my experience I simply just do not believe your opinions to be true. The Mormon church is not divisive, and teaches us to be truthful about all doctrines within. You can believe that or not, but before going on making accusations I suggest going in and looking at your own beliefs - I think in every religion out there one could find parallels to criticism of the Mormon church. You accuse us of being “secret” and “holding back our teachings” when you have yet to explain the secrecy of the temple in Christ’s days and why it was the case then. There are parallels to this in many religions, especially that of the one while Christ was on earth - we do not contradict that. As I said, I’m not going to continue to try and argue my points here - I answered your questions.

As far as the plurality thing goes, again you admit it only was something done with a small portion of your church. Why is God revealing these things to only certain people? Why would He not include everyone? When in the past have His revealations been meant for only certain people?

This is a mute point again - Mormons do not practice polygamy today so it doesn’t really matter. We follow our prophet. There was nothing to say polygamy was or wasn’t church wide in Jacob or Isaac’s time. Frankly a lot of it wasn’t church wide in Joseph Smith’s time a lot because many did not want to listen to the concept by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith mostly taught it among those willing to follow and obey their prophet in this concept.

And then when it was reversed, was it because He made a mistake?

No. It was because it was a revelation from God. Mormons practiced polygamy years after it was made illegal in the US. It was not practiced in most of the New Testament that we know either, yet we have evidence of it being practiced in the Old.

Can God make mistakes?

No - He is perfect. I am not one to question why He makes the decisions He does. Mormons just follow.

If it was a true prophecy meant to bring people to Christ and Him, why rescind it, why teach it only to a few, why create a divisive, exclusionary revealation?

I don’t believe the revelation itself was divisive or exclusionary. I believe it was many did not want to hear or follow it. The same goes for the temple - anyone is welcome into the temple that are willing to follow the teachings of God through the Prophet. Not all accept that, and therefore are not privilidged to the teachings within. God keeps His non-followers out of Heaven. Even He is exclusionary in this regards. We all have the opportunity to return to Him, yet not all of us choose to do so.

I didn’t ask how that was Christian, I asked how that brought anyone closer to Christ, other than Joseph Smith. You asserted that for everything that your church and Joseph Smith did you could show 4 to 5 fold how that brought people closer to Christ. I fail to see how him paying his debt brought anyone closer to Christ.

Again, your motives aren’t to gain true answers about our religion, but rather to try and make me eat my words. Consider your questions answered. There is plenty of information on the web, written by Mormons themselves that you can find. Before starting to believe writings of someone that wants to tear our church down, be sure to research the entire story - these people do not give the entire view of the church, and never show contradictory points of view when they demean and belittle us. After you have that, make up your own opinion.

 

[majick275]

Mormons have no paid clergy - why would I be paid to be here? I am a normal, church-going member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Until some of these questions with roots in organizations devoted to find faults in the Mormon Church showed up, I was quite enjoying being here and answering your questions.

no paid clergy? what about general authorities? you might consider Church Education employees and a few others in that category as well. I don’t think that claim is entirely true. You may have more lay ministers than paid clergy and your paid clergy doesn’t appear to get exorbitant compensation but I don’t think you can accurately say NO paid clergy.

 

[jstayii]

I was referring the “what you are doing? that which has been done on other worlds” conversation. there is also the “that is how father gained his powers”. I realize who is saying that but is never refuted or corrected and appears to be him using the truth to support his lies.

Again, your assumptions are inferred by what you quote here. Not many details are given in the quotes above. The quote by Joseph Smith has many more details than even that, and you don’t have to delve into temple teachings for that. I have not denied what you claim. I am simply disputing that which has been disputed since the very early days of the Christian church. Mormons are not unique in our belief in this regard. Being supported by a Prophet and 12 Apostles as in the days of Peter, I believe the Mormon point of view, and support what Arius and hundreds to thousands of others in the early Christian church argued as well.

 

[jstayii]

no paid clergy? what about general authorities? you might consider Church Education employees and a few others in that category as well. I don’t think that claim is entirely true. You may have more lay ministers than paid clergy and your paid clergy doesn’t appear to get exorbitant compensation but I don’t think you can accurately say NO paid clergy.

My apologies - we have no paid lay clergy. At the local congregational level, it is all volunteer, and even appointment, no money paid. Church educational employees are not part of the priesthood organization, and are just that - a job. The general authorities only get paid for what they need.

 

[jstayii]

And no, I have not even been so much as asked by my church to be here.

 

[majick275]

Again, your assumptions are inferred by what you quote here. Not many details are given in the quotes above. The quote by Joseph Smith has many more details than even that, and you don’t have to delve into temple teachings for that. I have not denied what you claim. I am simply disputing that which has been disputed since the very early days of the Christian church. Mormons are not unique in our belief in this regard. Being supported by a Prophet and 12 Apostles as in the days of Peter, I believe the Mormon point of view, and support what Arius and hundreds to thousands of others in the early Christian church argued as well.

fair enough. of course i have to point out that arius was a heretic. these disputes have gone on but aren’t indicative that the truth isn’t obvious. they tell us that the bible was correct and the warnings against false prophets with new gospels are true. 2 peter 2

 

[majick275]

My apologies - we have no paid lay clergy. At the local congregational level, it is all volunteer, and even appointment, no money paid. Church educational employees are not part of the priesthood organization, and are just that - a job. The general authorities only get paid for what they need.

there are stipends for some of these people and the CE folks fulfill duties that most churches would consider a ministry. I don’t criticize paying the clergy. the bible supports it. I merely point out the seemingly hypocritical contention of many LDS that it’s a bad thing and they (LDS) don’t do it. LDS DO have paid clergy. that’s okay…admit it and quit saying that’s one of the reasons everyone else is apostate. (the sectarian minister in the temple was really bad on this)

 

[jstayii]

fair enough. of course i have to point out that arius was a heretic. these disputes have gone on but aren’t indicative that the truth isn’t obvious. they tell us that the bible was correct and the warnings against false prophets with new gospels are true. 2 peter 2

The Catholic viewpoint is that Arius was a heretic, as that is what was decided by the Council of Nice. In fact, after Arius was banished from the faith, most to all records surrounding that theology were destroyed. The little we do know about his viewpoints comes from opposing literature. We do know however that a very large part of the early Christian church believed in the Arian viewpoint of the Godhead, and those contentions even continued after the Nicene Crede. These were actual beliefs by people that lived closer than we do to the life of the Savior showing that the Mormon standpoint on Godhead is a valid possibility. While one cannot prove the Mormon concept of Godhead in the Bible one also cannot prove the Trinitarian concept of Godhead through the Bible. That is why there was so much contention in the early days of the Church. They had no Prophets or Apostles to lead or guide them any more, just written records and various conflicting viewpoints on the interpretation of those records.