How do Mormons actually believe what they do?

[Horton]

There are a number of scriptures which point to his ultimate perfection after the cross. From the Bible we have:

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered (Heb 5:8). If Jesus were prefect how could he learn obedience through suffering?

1 Every high priest is taken from among men and made their representative before God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal patiently with the ignorant and erring, for he himself is beset by weakness 3 and so, for this reason, must make sin offerings for himself as well as for the people. 4 No one takes this honor upon himself but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 In the same way, it was not Christ who glorified himself in becoming high priest, but rather the one who said to him:
“You are my son;
this day I have begotten you”;
6 just as he says in another place:
“You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
7 In the days when he was in the flesh, he offered prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered; 9 and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, 10 declared by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Jesus was perfect at birth and remained so through His time on earth.

Of his anguish in Gethsemane Luke writes, “And being in agony prayed he more earnestly”. How could a perfect being pray more earnestly?

But this issue is more particularly brought up because of these scriptures:

“Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt 5:48). But contrast this with the Book of Mormon where after the resurrection Christ appears to the Nephites and tells them, "Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect. (3 Ne 12:48)

Love of Enemies.*
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors* do the same? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

And also from the Doctrine & Covenants: "he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. (D&C 93:13-14)

Again quoting JS “scripture” to prove to Catholics that you are correct is…well…silly. Only the LDS believe the D&C are the word of God(s). In the verse from Matthew Jesus is talking to His disciples, not Himself. Context is everything when quoting scripture. It’s easy to pick on verse, quote it out of context, and then use it to “prove” your point. I guess you also believed Catholics don’t know the bible

 

[RebeccaJ]

There are a number of scriptures which point to his ultimate perfection after the cross. From the Bible we have:

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered (Heb 5:8). If Jesus were prefect how could he learn obedience through suffering?

Of his anguish in Gethsemane Luke writes, “And being in agony prayed he more earnestly”. How could a perfect being pray more earnestly?

But this issue is more particularly brought up because of these scriptures:

“Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt 5:48). But contrast this with the Book of Mormon where after the resurrection Christ appears to the Nephites and tells them, "Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect. (3 Ne 12:48)

And also from the Doctrine & Covenants: "he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. (D&C 93:13-14)

Two things come to mind, one, LDS interpret the Bible through non-Christian scripture. So of course, the view of what is taught in the Bible, is changed to reflect the filter of Mormon scripture.

Second, 3 Ne 12:48 provides an example of the changes that have been made to the Book of Mormon from its original 1830 publication. Originally, this verse was: “I would that ye should be perfect even as I your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.”

 

[Janderich]

Two things come to mind, one, LDS interpret the Bible through non-Christian scripture. So of course, the view of what is taught in the Bible, is changed to reflect the filter of Mormon scripture.

Second, 3 Ne 12:48 provides an example of the changes that have been made to the Book of Mormon from its original 1830 publication. Originally, this verse was: “I would that ye should be perfect even as I your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.”

Hi Rebecca,
The 1830 version of the Book of Mormon did not have different wording. Here is an image of the reference in question from an 1830 Book of Mormon (see josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830#!/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830&p=487).

http://i61.tinypic.com/5u3j0y.png

I also checked Royal Skousen’s exhaustive work, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, which reviews all the changes ever made to the Book of Mormon from 1830 to now, and this scripture is not mentioned at all. So I’m going to cry false. If you feel I am in error please share your source for such a claim.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,
The 1830 version of the Book of Mormon did not have different wording. Here is an image of the reference in question from an 1830 Book of Mormon (see josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830#!/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830&p=487).

http://i61.tinypic.com/5u3j0y.png

I also checked Royal Skousen’s exhaustive work, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, which reviews all the changes ever made to the Book of Mormon from 1830 to now, and this scripture is not mentioned at all. So I’m going to cry false. If you feel I am in error please share your source for such a claim.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2629&pictureid=17931

Check any non-LDS source that has the 1830 Book of Mormon…maybe I have the reprinted one around here in a box somewhere. I’ll check and if I do I’ll let you know what it has.

ETA: Checking around myself, apparently, there are several different versions of the 1830 Book of Mormon. Some have the version you found, and others have the version I found.

How interesting! I never knew this before. Now I wonder which is the actual original, from the first print run, and who made the changes.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,
The 1830 version of the Book of Mormon did not have different wording. Here is an image of the reference in question from an 1830 Book of Mormon (see josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830#!/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830&p=487).

http://i61.tinypic.com/5u3j0y.png

I also checked Royal Skousen’s exhaustive work, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, which reviews all the changes ever made to the Book of Mormon from 1830 to now, and this scripture is not mentioned at all. So I’m going to cry false. If you feel I am in error please share your source for such a claim.

Speaking of changes, check this out.

josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1840#!/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1840&p=534

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,
The 1830 version of the Book of Mormon did not have different wording. Here is an image of the reference in question from an 1830 Book of Mormon (see josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830#!/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830&p=487).

http://i61.tinypic.com/5u3j0y.png

I also checked Royal Skousen’s exhaustive work, Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, which reviews all the changes ever made to the Book of Mormon from 1830 to now, and this scripture is not mentioned at all. So I’m going to cry false. If you feel I am in error please share your source for such a claim.

It looks like you are correct!

The source I found had a transcription of the 1830 Book of Mormon, to a modern typed format. It appears to me whoever made the transcription, goofed! I emailed them to let them know. Also, it looks like their transcription was used at another website, and the two websites I looked at happen to have the same error. However in all photo facsimiles, it is as you found.



The differences between BoMs, from the same 1830 edition, are spelling corrections, for the most part. There are 41 known, and do not include this modern typo error.

 

[Janderich]

It looks like you are correct!

The source I found had a transcription of the 1830 Book of Mormon, to a modern typed format. It appears to me whoever made the transcription, goofed! I emailed them to let them know. Also, it looks like their transcription was used at another website, and the two websites I looked at happen to have the same error. However in all photo facsimiles, it is as you found.



The differences between BoMs, from the same 1830 edition, are spelling corrections, for the most part. There are 41 known, and do not include this modern typo error.

Thanks Rebecca for reviewing and correcting your statement.

 

[lax16]

There are a number of scriptures which point to his ultimate perfection after the cross. From the Bible we have:

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered (Heb 5:8). If Jesus were prefect how could he learn obedience through suffering?

Of his anguish in Gethsemane Luke writes, “And being in agony prayed he more earnestly”. How could a perfect being pray more earnestly?

But this issue is more particularly brought up because of these scriptures:

“Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt 5:48). But contrast this with the Book of Mormon where after the resurrection Christ appears to the Nephites and tells them, "Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect. (3 Ne 12:48)

And also from the Doctrine & Covenants: "he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. (D&C 93:13-14)

Hi Janderich - three questions:

1. So it is official Mormon teaching that Jesus was not perfect until his crucifixion and resurrection?
2. Do you (LDS) understand that Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants do not believe this about Jesus?
3. How did Mormons come to this understanding of scripture?

Thanks!

 

[Janderich]

1. So it is official Mormon teaching that Jesus was not perfect until his crucifixion and resurrection?

I’m not sure I could answer this question. What is “official” is harder to nail down then you may suppose. I know James E. Talmage said, “Plainly this Son of the Highest was not endowed with a fulness of knowledge, nor with the complete investiture of wisdom, from the cradle. Slowly the assurance of His appointed mission as the Messiah, or whose coming He read in the law, the prophets, and the psalms, developed within His soul; and in devoted preparation for the ministry that should find culmination on the cross…” (Jesus the Christ, p 110).

I should probably also clarify a point, when LDS say Jesus was not perfect until after the cross and the resurrection we mean to say that he had not yet passed all tests given him by the Father, nor had he received all power from on high (see Matt 28:18). However, we do not mean he sinned. At each moment in his life he was perfect according to the knowledge and grace given him of the Father.

1. Do you (LDS) understand that Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants do not believe this about Jesus?

Yes, but I don’t concern myself much with incorrect beliefs. I want to know the truth and so must listen to the spirit which whispers the truth.

1. How did Mormons come to this understanding of scripture?

I don’t have much more detail then explained previously.

 

[Horton]

So going back to the -it’s not ok for Christians to believe what they believe because someone told them too but…it’s ok for the LDS to believe because some guy wrote something once about it.

How about what John wrote. After all he was much closer to the time of Jesus than some guy from the 1800 century. I would trust John’s Truth much more.

John 1:1-18
1 In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.*
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 A man named John was sent from God. 7 He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to testify to the light.
9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him. 11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. 12 i But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name,
13 who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us,
and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.
15 John testified to him and cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said,l ‘The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.’” 16 From his fullness we have all received, grace in place of grace, 17 because while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. **The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.
**

 

[lax16]

I’m not sure I could answer this question. What is “official” is harder to nail down then you may suppose. I know James E. Talmage said, “Plainly this Son of the Highest was not endowed with a fulness of knowledge, nor with the complete investiture of wisdom, from the cradle. Slowly the assurance of His appointed mission as the Messiah, or whose coming He read in the law, the prophets, and the psalms, developed within His soul; and in devoted preparation for the ministry that should find culmination on the cross…” (Jesus the Christ, p 110).

My coworker stated she learned of this in her lessons. What does that mean?
Are the LDS lesson manuals official teaching?

I should probably also clarify a point, when LDS say Jesus was not perfect until after the cross and the resurrection we mean to say that he had not yet passed all tests given him by the Father, nor had he received all power from on high (see Matt 28:18). However, we do not mean he sinned. At each moment in his life he was perfect according to the knowledge and grace given him of the Father.

Okay.

Yes, but I don’t concern myself much with incorrect beliefs. I want to know the truth and so must listen to the spirit which whispers the truth.

All of Christendom has believed that Jesus was God from the beginning of Christianity.

Did the Holy Spirit completely abandon the Christian church on earth? If so, when?

Your primary source of information on this topic comes from whisperings of the spirit? How do you know what you are getting from these whisperings are true?

I don’t have much more detail then explained previously.

You don’t know where the teaching comes from but know it is true? From spirit whisperings as well?

Thanks!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Nearly two thousand years ago Jesus gave the startling commandment, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Then, after the triumph of the atonement and resurrection, when he had become fully perfected, Jesus Christ amended that proclamation to include himself: “What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.”

-Niel A. Maxwell

Although Jesus was without sin, he did not become perfect—complete, finished, fully developed—until after he was resurrected

–https://www.lds.org/manual/preparin...al/lesson-22-striving-for-perfection?lang=eng

 

[Jerusha]

Bingo.

biblehub.com/luke/13-32.htm Again, another LDS error brought about by exclusive dependency on the KJV. 58% of translations available there use another word than “perfected.”

 

[Horton]

Bingo.

biblehub.com/luke/13-32.htm Again, another LDS error brought about by exclusive dependency on the KJV. 58% of translations available there use another word than “perfected.”

 

[Janderich]

My coworker stated she learned of this in her lessons. What does that mean?
Are the LDS lesson manuals official teaching?

-Niel A. Maxwell

–https://www.lds.org/manual/preparin...al/lesson-22-striving-for-perfection?lang=eng

Sorry, don’t see the issue here. I have no problem with it being a teaching of the church as I have explained. However, Lax asked if it is an “official” teaching and I couldn’t find anything to that effect. It looks like Rebecca has found it in a teacher’s manual which may indicate it is “official”. Fine.

 

[Janderich]

Bingo.

biblehub.com/luke/13-32.htm Again, another LDS error brought about by exclusive dependency on the KJV. 58% of translations available there use another word than “perfected.”

It is useful to use other versions. I use them regularly along with Strong’s Concordance. The LDS version of the Bible often gives alternate Greek and Hebrew translations for words including the word “perfect” in Matt 5:48 as “complete, finished, fully developed”. The distinction between “perfect” and “complete” is very well understood by LDS and taught regularly.

 

[Janderich]

All of Christendom has believed that Jesus was God from the beginning of Christianity.

Did the Holy Spirit completely abandon the Christian church on earth? If so, when?

Your primary source of information on this topic comes from whisperings of the spirit? How do you know what you are getting from these whisperings are true?

You don’t know where the teaching comes from but know it is true? From spirit whisperings as well?

There are multiple sources for the teaching, many of which have been given here, including the Bible. But as always, the most important source is the spirit of the Lord which will guide a person to truth if he does not cut it off.

 

[lax16]

There are multiple sources for the teaching, many of which have been given here, including the Bible. But as always, the most important source is the spirit of the Lord which will guide a person to truth if he does not cut it off.

Other than a few Bible verses, what are the multiple sources?

Does the spirit of the lord speak different truths to different people or does everyone get the same message?

Why would you believe the Bible scriptures you posted about Jesus when you don’t take the Bible literally in other circumstances, such as “there is no marriage in heaven”?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

There are multiple sources for the teaching, many of which have been given here, including the Bible. But as always, the most important source is the spirit of the Lord which will guide a person to truth if he does not cut it off.

Evidentally if one believes in Mormonism one has to believe the spirit was taken or not given to anyone. One has to wonder why the apostles failed to appoint successors to continue and ensure the spirit would be with the faithful.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sorry, don’t see the issue here. I have no problem with it being a teaching of the church as I have explained. However, Lax asked if it is an “official” teaching and I couldn’t find anything to that effect. It looks like Rebecca has found it in a teacher’s manual which may indicate it is “official”. Fine.

May make it official? What makes a LDS church teaching certainly official?