Could The Mormon Church Be The "true Church" Of Christ

[Mystic_Warrior]

Thanks for the links.
I did find the passage I was looking for in an LDS site.

NOW HEAR THIS – THE FOLLOWING IS NOT AN ACCUSATION.

It is however an observation that I could not avoid when I first heard this and now that I see it from an Official LDS website, it just makes me very uncomfortable.
I welcome explanation of this reveleation from a member, or former member of the LDS.

The following Came from:
THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

Compare this passage from the Mormon Church Doctrines and covenants to this one from Genesis ch 3 (KJV)

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Again I Declare I am not accusing ANY Mormon of being a worshiper of the devil. I just could not miss making this connection between the Mormon Teaching and Genesis. I will grant that. in the Mormon text they use small “g” rather than Capital “G”.
I am asking if, as a Mormon this connection doesn’t make you a bit uncomfortable too.

Peace
James

I don’t see what you are getting at.

I’m not Mormon, but I don’t see the problem. Scripture says that we humans will judge angels here:

1 Corinthians 6:3 (King James Version)

3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

We are made in the image of God. Although I’m not a fan of the D&C, I don’t take offense to that passage. It is referring to the fact that we humans in a glorified body will be eternal - as God is. We are and will be “gods”, by God’s design. And the angels will be subject to us.

Humans are the climax of creation. Angels can never participate in the sacrificial death of Jesus. Jesus died for us, not for the angels. I’m not bad-mouthing angels. They are wonderful friends that God has sent to help us.

Remember the passage in Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:14

Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

If angels were sent to serve those who will inherit salvation (that is, us humans) then why is it hard to believe that we humans are greater than the angels? Again, I don’t say that to bad-mouth angels. They were wonderful creatures that I am very thankful for.

 

[dianaiad]

I realized this when I posted.

Ah. Please excuse me for not catching on.

I really am (sniff) sick.

(cough)

 

[JRKH]

I don’t see what you are getting at.

I’m not Mormon, but I don’t see the problem. Scripture says that we humans will judge angels here:

We are made in the image of God. Although I’m not a fan of the D&C, I don’t take offense to that passage. It is referring to the fact that we humans in a glorified body will be eternal - as God is. We are and will be “gods”, by God’s design. And the angels will be subject to us.

Humans are the climax of creation. Angels can never participate in the sacrificial death of Jesus. Jesus died for us, not for the angels. I’m not bad-mouthing angels. They are wonderful friends that God has sent to help us.

Remember the passage in Hebrews:

If angels were sent to serve those who will inherit salvation (that is, us humans) then why is it hard to believe that we humans are greater than the angels? Again, I don’t say that to bad-mouth angels. They were wonderful creatures that I am very thankful for.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
I see what your saying re: this being a condition after death rather than the Genesis situation being in this world.
Sometimes I can be a bit dense.

Peace
James

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
I see what your saying re: this being a condition after death rather than the Genesis situation being in this world.
Sometimes I can be a bit dense.

Peace
James

You are welcome, brother. Yes, a condition after death.

No, don’t worry about it.

Peace to you as well.

 

[Arandur]

The difference, I think, comes in with the understanding of “gods.” The OT and the Jews treat the word as meaning something great, greater than the mortal human condition that we are familiar with, greater even than our conception of angels, sharing in the work of the Lord. But, particularly in the context of the times of authorship, “god” could imply many sorts of special powers. Living mortal humans were recognized as “gods” for the greatness of their power over others. The term can have a variety of senses and meanings. We Catholics accept it as a term of the greatness that God will let us share in, an elevation and glorification as co-heirs with Christ that does not imply any sort of challenge to the distinct and unequaled power of the One True God. If God is omnipotent, as “gods” we will share His power united in His will, but we will not be the origin or ultimate arbiter of that power.

Some Mormons I have spoken to believe that this language of “gods” means that we must attain total equality with God, having our own power separate from Him. This may well be a minority view within Mormonism, but it is one that is quite alarming to outsiders, and rightly so.

Side Note:

This passage interests me:
"Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. "

Diana or any other Mormons, I thought that you believed that humans could become angels (Moroni being one). This line seems to assume that they are separate creatures. Could you please clarify the belief for me?

 

[dianaiad]

The difference, I think, comes in with the understanding of “gods.” The OT and the Jews treat the word as meaning something great, greater than the mortal human condition that we are familiar with, greater even than our conception of angels, sharing in the work of the Lord. But, particularly in the context of the times of authorship, “god” could imply many sorts of special powers. Living mortal humans were recognized as “gods” for the greatness of their power over others. The term can have a variety of senses and meanings. We Catholics accept it as a term of the greatness that God will let us share in, an elevation and glorification as co-heirs with Christ that does not imply any sort of challenge to the distinct and unequaled power of the One True God. If God is omnipotent, as “gods” we will share His power united in His will, but we will not be the origin or ultimate arbiter of that power.

Some Mormons I have spoken to believe that this language of “gods” means that we must attain total equality with God, having our own power separate from Him. This may well be a minority view within Mormonism, but it is one that is quite alarming to outsiders, and rightly so.

Side Note:

This passage interests me:
"Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. "

Diana or any other Mormons, I thought that you believed that humans could become angels (Moroni being one). This line seems to assume that they are separate creatures. Could you please clarify the belief for me?

We believe that ‘angel’ is, to put it bluntly, a job description. “Angel” means 'messenger," and of course anybody can become one, if God has something to tell someone–and sends one.

So the passage makes perfectly good sense in that light. As well, we do believe that there are ‘different mansions’ in heaven, and different rewards…some will be given responsibilities that others are not.

Of course, our understanding of what ‘heaven’ will be like is squishy; how could it not be?

 

[JRKH]

We believe that ‘angel’ is, to put it bluntly, a job description. “Angel” means 'messenger," and of course anybody can become one, if God has something to tell someone–and sends one.

So the passage makes perfectly good sense in that light. As well, we do believe that there are ‘different mansions’ in heaven, and different rewards…some will be given responsibilities that others are not.

Of course, our understanding of what ‘heaven’ will be like is squishy; how could it not be?

Never heard that term applied in that way. Couldn’t have anything to do with your being sick could it?
Sorry.

By the way have you been able ot look at my Post number 11 on this thread. I would like some (name removed by moderator)ut on it.

Peace
James

 

[Arandur]

We believe that ‘angel’ is, to put it bluntly, a job description. “Angel” means 'messenger," and of course anybody can become one, if God has something to tell someone–and sends one.

So the passage makes perfectly good sense in that light. As well, we do believe that there are ‘different mansions’ in heaven, and different rewards…some will be given responsibilities that others are not.

Of course, our understanding of what ‘heaven’ will be like is squishy; how could it not be?

Thanks.

The reference still seems pretty odd. If it’s just a job description and not a type of being, why say “and the ‘messengers’ are subject unto them?” Substituting ‘messengers’ for each occurrence of ‘angel’ seems to create some pretty odd situations, whereas referring to them as a certain type of being does not create such odd situations, in my estimation.

 

[RAR]

Thanks.

The reference still seems pretty odd. If it’s just a job description and not a type of being…

Along these lines and to the point of “progression,” how can a being “progress” to become another being? That is a rhetorical question, but I’m happy to hear an explanation. I know we’re talking theology here, but theology has a basis in philosophy and there is, for example, no natural instance of a being “progressing” to become another being. I understand that Mormons believe the initial message of Christ was warped by a Church apostatized - but this seems a difficult assertion.

RAR

 

[MrDickerson]

I Just Was Talking To Two Mormon That Said They Are The True Church Of Jesus Christ , What Do You Think About This Statement

Hogwash.

 

[paarsurrey]

I Just Was Talking To Two Mormon That Said They Are The True Church Of Jesus Christ , What Do You Think About This Statement

Hi

I don’t think that they are right. Jesus was neither Son of God nor God and he never believed in the Trinity invented by Paul and the Church.

Since Jesus was not God, so he could not send any tablets to Joseph Smith, the Junior. I respect the Mormons and their Religion but this is plainly what I believe.

Thanks

 

[MEgus]

OK, I am coming late into this conversation, but I hope I can give some insight.

First off, I’d like to answer the topic of this thread. “Could The Mormon Church Be The “true Church” Of Christ”?

There are really only two possibilities when it comes to the true Church of Christ. One, either the Catholic Church is the true Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true Church.

There are no other possibilities.

Either the Church continued to exist from the time Christ restored it to the earth, or it fell into Apostasy and was restored by revelation from God as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. All other churches fall by the wayside since they came out of the other church and would have no authority.

So, with that basis, we can begin to discuss from there.

MEgus

 

[mfbukowski]

Oh, let me chime in here with the obvious thread stopper:

Those of us who are Mormon will say 'yeah, of course…" and those of us who are not will say “no” in various ways, polite or indignant.

Arguments will ensue.
People will get insulting…or not…

And nobody will change their minds.

One last thing: I would HOPE that those who are Mormon would say yes, and that those who are not would say no–any other answer would be supremely hypocritical, and that, I believe, is a sin that Christ hates more than most.

So I guess that settles that.

I agree. So I won’t post anymore here. There is no point to it.

 

[MEgus]

SO WHAT ,WAS I OFF 4 TO 6 MONTHS AND WHAT IS MY OPINION ’ THAT OUR LORD STARTED HIS CHURCH IN 33AD ALMOST 1800 YEARS B4

Now Bill, lets look at this. Did the Lord start his Church in 33 AD?

Or did he restore his Church that was started with Adam?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believe that the Lord’s Church was started with Adam. That through the years it fell into apostasy many times and was restored again and again by Prophets after the people went astray.

We believe that at the time of Moses things had gone so far wrong that Moses was only able to restore the lessor portion of the Church that was to point to Christ and his restoration of the Church to the fullness when he came.

So, I ask you again, Did the Lord start his Church in 33 AD, or with Adam?

MEgus

 

[dzheremi]

Who is the “you” being referred to in “upon YOU I will build my Church”? Last time I checked, it was not Adam.

 

[MEgus]

I have a paphlet here given to my by a couple of your fellows called The Restoration. Are you familiar with it?

On page 7 it says this:
When Jesus established his Church, He recieved instructions from Heavenly Father. He then instructed His disciples. Jesus taught His followers that revalation from God was the rock on which He would build His Church. (underline added)
I would appreciate the Biblical Foundation for this.
It appears to be a complete and utter misquoting of Matthew 16:18-19

James, good questions. I will try to answer them one at a time.

First, let’s look at Matthew, but let’s look at the whole conversation.

13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now, looking at this in context, what was the question about? Was it about setting up a new Church? Or was it one of understanding who Christ was?

Christ was asking his Apostles if they had an understanding of just who he was. And when Peter testified that he was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Jesus acknowledged it and stated to all the Apostles that Peter had received this knowledge not by scripture study, or listening to teachers, or by observation, but he had received this knowledge by Revelation from God himself.

Then he goes on to say that on this rock he will build his church.

We look at that rock as Revelation direct from God on a continual basis to lead and guide us always just as God led and guided the Children of Israel through the desert as a sign of things to come.

And while he continues to say that he will give Peter the keys to bind on earth and in heaven, we also believe he did this. And Peter was the lead Apostle and the head of the Church. But the rock talked about being the foundation of the Church was not Peter, it was God. If you will also search the scriptures, you will find that many talk of God as the rock. This is the same here. The Church that Christ will build, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against, is one built on continual revelation from God at its head.

MEgus

 

[JRKH]

James, good questions. I will try to answer them one at a time.

Thank you.

First, let’s look at Matthew, but let’s look at the whole conversation.

13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now, looking at this in context, what was the question about? Was it about setting up a new Church? Or was it one of understanding who Christ was?

Christ was asking his Apostles if they had an understanding of just who he was. And when Peter testified that he was the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Jesus acknowledged it and stated to all the Apostles that Peter had received this knowledge not by scripture study, or listening to teachers, or by observation, but he had received this knowledge by Revelation from God himself.

Then he goes on to say that on this rock he will build his church.
OK so far.

We look at that rock as Revelation direct from God on a continual basis to lead and guide us always just as God led and guided the Children of Israel through the desert as a sign of things to come.

hmmm - I have a bit of a problem right here. If revelation is continual, then it remained with the Church (The New Covenant) founded in 33 AD just as it remained with the Isrealites under the Old Covenant, regardless of their sinful ways. So if revelation rmained with us continually, how could a “Great Apostacy” occur?

And while he continues to say that he will give Peter the keys to bind on earth and in heaven, we also believe he did this. And Peter was the lead Apostle and the head of the Church. But the rock talked about being the foundation of the Church was not Peter, it was God. If you will also search the scriptures, you will find that many talk of God as the rock. This is the same here. The Church that Christ will build, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against, is one built on continual revelation from God at its head.

MEgus

Revelation is not a “Who” it is a “what”. Therefore trying to read the above commission as being revelation makes no sense in the context of the passage.
Lets examine this:
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, (That is Simon Bar Jonah) That thou (That is Simon Bar Jonah)art Peter(Petros in Greek, Kepha in Aramaic which means rock), and upon this rockKepha I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee (That is Simon Bar Jonah - Now named Kepha, or Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou (That is Simon Bar Jonah - Now named Kepha, or Peter)shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou (That is Simon Bar Jonah - Now named Kepha, or Peter)shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In the entire 3 verses Jesus is speaking to Peter, He makes no distinction Simon Peter and Peter’s Faith, or Revelation or any other “thing”. He says Thou, or You. Revelation is simply not a “Who”
So now to read it your way the, the “Thou” (you) in verse 17 Thou refers to Simon/Peter, then in verse 18 Thou is not Peter, but Revelation and yet in the very next verse, without any indication of change, you are saying that “Thou” is back to refering to Peter.

Gramatically it makes no sense.

As to searching Scriptures relating to Rock, I have no contention with God being our Rock, nor do I have a contention that Peter’s profession of Faith, of revelation, was the reason that Christ Gave the the Apostolic Leadership to Peter.

I will pause here because there were other questions I had posted and so will wait to see your answers to them.

Please be patient with mw though if I don’t answer right away. My wife has been in the Hospital. I’m hoping to bring her home today and after that I’m not sure how often I’ll be able to get on the boards.

I do appreciate your taking the time to answer my question.

Peace
James

 

[MEgus]

Revelation is not a “Who” it is a “what”. Therefore trying to read the above commission as being revelation makes no sense in the context of the passage.
Lets examine this:
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, (That is Simon Bar Jonah) That thou (That is Simon Bar Jonah)art Peter(Petros in Greek, Kepha in Aramaic which means rock), and upon this rockKepha I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

James, I agree with you. Revelation is not a who. The Who is God. Revelation is the communication from God to man that Christ speaks of between Peter and his Father in Heaven. We look at both.

The Church is built upon the “Rock” “God”. But for the Church to be built upon God, that Church must have continual revelation from God to man. Just as Christ told Peter, that he had gained his personal testimony of who the Savior was from God, and not man. That upon this principal, the Church would be built and it would be God’s Church.

James, I’m sorry to hear about your wife. I hope things are better and I will keep you and her in my prayers.

Also, I am a patient guy, and I ask your patience as well, as I am also a very busy guy and so I’ll do the best I can when I have a chance.

MEgus

 

[reff]

I Just Was Talking To Two Mormon That Said They Are The True Church Of Jesus Christ , What Do You Think About This Statement

Mormons always say that, regardless of what the religion of the person they’re talking to is.

I have no problem with that, of course they believe it’s so called “true.”

Now having said that, I have a serious problem with them calling the Catholic Church the “Great and Abominable Church.” Or denying blacks to hold the priesthood up until the 70’s, and saying that their dark skin is from a “curse.”

I would suggest watching the dvd titled “The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon” it’s done in good taste, out of love for Mormons, and it really gives so many reasons why the BoM is false.

I knew it was false long before I decided to become Catholic.

 

[reff]

Yep, I’m saying that.

At least I’m saying ‘that’ to the part about God having sex with Mary.

Honestly, it boggles my mind here; it’s as if you guys are actually disappointed to find out that we don’t believe that God had sex with Mary. What is THAT all about?

I was told by several seminary teachers in high school, that God came down and had a physical relationship with Mary in order to conceive Jesus.