How do the Mormons do it?

[mwok]

People condemn Mormons for trusting in “feelings”. This is not how revelation is. When a person prays and ponders about a question, God can actually infuse knowledge into us. This experience is like your mind becoming extremely enlightened so that you can completely comprehend. It is likened to the eyes of our understanding being opened. We were blind before but now we can see. Once you have had this expereince, you know. There is 0 doubt. If you knew with a 100 percent surity that there is a God, you would feel a profound peace that can be liked to a burning in the bosom.

Through years of experience with this, a person learns to discern between what is the spirit and what is not. In this way, we can be sure that the direction we are taking is in accordance with the will of God.

Do you realize you just contradicted youself within a matter of sentences?

Note your first and last sentences: “People condemn Mormons for trusting in ‘feelings’.”
and you ended with “If you knew with a 100 percent surity that there is a God, you would feel a profound peace that can be liked to a burning in the bosom.”

you also described the exact “feeling” that mormons get scrutinized for.

 

[Miriam1947]

The last church meeting I ever attended was Elder’s Quorum, back in March 2006. I hadn’t been for over a year and attended at my wife’s and parents’ request. They wanted me to give it one more try. Ironically, the topic of the priesthood lesson that morning was how to know when you’ve received personal revelation. OMG. That’s why I stopped going to church in the first place. I couldn’t take any more “you’ll get a testimony if you’re sincere” and “I’d like to bear my testimony, I know this church is true.” You know very well what was discussed during the meeting and what the conclusions were during the summary. At the end, I asked “What if someone tries with all their might to have those experiences and it doesn’t happen, is it always because they did something wrong? Is it always their fault?” Every head nodded yes in unison. Of course. If there was any question before, there was none now. I could only remain a mormon if I assented to the circular logic, the mind control, and agreed with my fellow church members that I was an insincere sinner, unwilling to live up to the standards of the church. Since I knew the opposite to be the truth, I made the decision to free myself, finally, and leave the church and my culture behind. A few years later, I became a Catholic, the culmination of a years-long search for the Truth.

I have gone to numerous ex-Mormon sites and so many have become atheistic or agnostic

How did you become Catholic? What made the difference? How can we as fellow Catholics help Mormons learn the Truth?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I just read what you suggested. At first I would see a similarity of Christ welcoming his bride, which is the Catholic Church into Eternal life as a possible Celestial Marriage. But I am not seeing, and I will admit to being slow to understand, how this is meaning two married on earth, will be married in Heaven. I need Scripture to back it up.What I mean is Scripture to back up what the above article from the Mormon church, is saying.
Even in their quote in regards to Peter having the keys to bind and loose, I do not see where the act of sealing a marriage can be taken out of that quote.

Hello broallenjoseph and welcome.

LDS Do not have a concept of Christ’s Bride, other than, speculation by individual members that Jesus was married at least once, some Mormons speculate Jesus was a polygamist.

Mormon doctrine is that marriage is required for exaltation, so that is where the speculation re: Jesus comes from.

Hope that helps.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And that’s the extent of the point I’m trying to make, so I thank-you. As I originally posted, I believe that cognitive dissonance is at least smoothed (if not resolved) when expressions of faith can be accompanied by rational arguments that buttress one’s faith. I grant that for a very many Mormons their reliance solely on their faith (testimony) completely serves the purpose of cognitive dissonance resolution. I respect that, but I’m not one of those Mormons. I need some reason to accompany my faith. By the same token, I have known a very many Catholics who resolve their own cognitive dissonance by also ignoring any knotty problems of theology and history and simply fall back on the tradition that their grandparents and parents were Catholic, and so shall they too remain - end of story. I have no problem with that. Not everyone wants to tackle history and doctrine, and I think that when we attack the simple faith of others we do so at our own peril. None of us are nearly as smart as we think. But that’s not to say that Catholicism is unable to provide substantive reasons to believe nor that deeply thoughtful people haven’t wrestled with and resolved for themselves the knotty problems that others may simply choose to ignore. And it therefore follows that if I think Catholicism is stupid, then the problem most likely is mine. I may not agree or choose to follow its precepts, but trashing it, mocking it, and denigrating its adherents are not options if I’m honest.

lefty, this is one of the beautiful aspects of Christ’s Church. There is no cognitive dissonance. Which is why you have the question posed as the topic of this thread.

While dissonance is a familiar aspect to many LDS, it is not familiar to Catholics. I have a LDS background, and living in SLC, come into contact with many former LDS who have converted or are in the process of converting to Christian faith. All, including myself, express relief at the reasonableness and rational faith that is Catholicism. Faith and reason are not at odds, as God is our Creator, and has made us as rational creatures and gifted us with Faith. So it should be that what God has Created is not at odds, as God is not a God of confusion.

Certainly, all have questions, because who we are and our purpose in this life are questions that all people ponder on. Always have and always will. The ultimate answer is Jesus Christ. It is that simple.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have gone to numerous ex-Mormon sites and so many have become atheistic or agnostic

How did you become Catholic? What made the difference? How can we as fellow Catholics help Mormons learn the Truth?

One of the first things is to ask a Mormon what it is they believe and ask if what I understand them to believe is true. Once that groundwork is set then a dialogue can start.

Oh, you’re a communist. It is my understanding that communists believe,
Well Comrade, this is what I as a communist profess
I believe this, let’s discuss this.

Oh, you are a Hindu. It ismy understanding that Hindu’s believe,
Well, spirit brother, this is what I as a Hindu profess
I believe this, lets discuss this

I have seen none of this. I cannot for the life of me imagine walking into a website with Fundamentalists and not expect them not to ask me what I profess and why. I suppose I could waste their time with codes of honor, Scholarship, Pullitzer prizes, cognative dissonance, knotty problems and Yawn…earned degrees and dance around the topic and get nowhere. I cannot imagine that I would get very far.

 

[ParkerD]

As Parker clearly pointed out… if you can’t believe it, there is simply something wrong with YOU. Were you sincere enough? Were you actually clear on what you prayed about? It all comes down to you. Did you DO enough?

As a former Mormon myself, I can tell you that this is common practice. IF you only believe everything you are told to believe and you still don’t get the burning in the bosom, there is simply something wrong with you.

Steph

Steph,

I suppose that I should respond to your comments.

Here was my statement:

 

[ParkerD]

Steph,

I suppose that I should respond to your comments.

Here was my statement:

"Christianley,

A testimony doesn’t “trump” logic, but it does have the following considerations involved:

1–Is the person being sincere in their prayers to Heavenly Father?

2–Is the person being sincere in desiring to live by truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, including keeping the commandments, repenting of sins, having faith in Jesus Christ as the Redeemer and Savior of the world and as the Good Shepherd, and earnestly living by the “word of God” found in the holy scriptures, including the Bible as a bedrock foundation of all the scriptures and recognizing that scripture came by revelation to prophets and apostles or by record keeping by those appointed to keep records of the house of Israel?

3–Is the person familiar with how the Holy Spirit bears witness to the soul of the person, as the disciples on the road to Emmaus experienced when Christ taught them about the scriptures that bore record of Him?

Those considerations being in place, including a sufficient knowledge of the Bible to be familiar with the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle John the Revelator, then there is no need for a feeling that the testimony has “trumped” logic–the truths are consistent with logic, but also consistent with the sifting process about motives and desires and faith that God set in place on this earth and allows to happen in the many ways that sifting process happens.

God is perfect, and His sifting process in His plan of salvation is perfect also–no mistakes."

I didn’t write that there is “something wrong” with anyone who prays and doesn’t get an answer or doesn’t get a “burning in the bosom” or makes a different choice in their life about religion.

The words “including sufficient knowledge of the Bible…” mean that the person needs to have read the Bible several times if they are coming from an analytical background, with what one could call a “fresh mind” meaning they are willing to let themselves be taught by the words they read and if they have questions about a particular passage, they are willing to pray about their questions with an open mind and a sincerity of heart about their questions. It also means they could go years with their questions on their mind and be getting no answers, and yet they are being taught through their own life’s experiences, and their own desires will have fruit in their lives while they still have their questions unanswered.

God answers prayers on His timetable, not ours. We are the learner, He is the Perfect Teacher, with perfect knowledge of how to go about the teaching.

 

[CopticChristian]

"Christianley,

A testimony doesn’t “trump” logic, but it does have the following considerations involved:

1–Is the person being sincere in their prayers to Heavenly Father?

2–Is the person being sincere in desiring to live by truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, including keeping the commandments, repenting of sins, having faith in Jesus Christ as the Redeemer and Savior of the world and as the Good Shepherd, and earnestly living by the “word of God” found in the holy scriptures, including the Bible as a bedrock foundation of all the scriptures and recognizing that scripture came by revelation to prophets and apostles or by record keeping by those appointed to keep records of the house of Israel?

3–Is the person familiar with how the Holy Spirit bears witness to the soul of the person, as the disciples on the road to Emmaus experienced when Christ taught them about the scriptures that bore record of Him?

Those considerations being in place, including a sufficient knowledge of the Bible to be familiar with the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus Christ, and the Apostle John the Revelator, then there is no need for a feeling that the testimony has “trumped” logic–the truths are consistent with logic, but also consistent with the sifting process about motives and desires and faith that God set in place on this earth and allows to happen in the many ways that sifting process happens.

God is perfect, and His sifting process in His plan of salvation is perfect also–no mistakes."

I didn’t write that there is “something wrong” with anyone who prays and doesn’t get an answer or doesn’t get a “burning in the bosom” or makes a different choice in their life about religion.

The words “including sufficient knowledge of the Bible…” mean that the person needs to have read the Bible several times if they are coming from an analytical background, with what one could call a “fresh mind” meaning they are willing to let themselves be taught by the words they read and if they have questions about a particular passage, they are willing to pray about their questions with an open mind and a sincerity of heart about their questions. It also means they could go years with their questions on their mind and be getting no answers, and yet they are being taught through their own life’s experiences, and their own desires will have fruit in their lives while they still have their questions unanswered.

God answers prayers on His timetable, not ours. We are the learner, He is the Perfect Teacher, with perfect knowledge of how to go about the teaching.

From all of this I cannot discern the following:

Are you using your source of revelation as the Bible alone?

Do you consider your interpretation fallible or infallible?

Are there outside sources that you use as well?

This all sounds very Christieneze as Mormons portray themselves as reading Scripture to come to some conclusion. Is there more than just the Scripture? I cannot tell from this. Protestants as you know claim Scripture alone, however it is Scripture plus a Bible study, a Church teaching theology, etc. I cannot fathom that reading the Bible alone you can come out of your room with no outside influence and find yourself burning in the bosom declaring yourself to understand what Joe came up with.

 

[broallenjoseph]

Broallenjoseph,

Those who renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven would mean they accepted what the apostles were saying, that the kind of marriage Adam and Eve had, with no thought of divorce, was a “hard saying” and they would rather not be placed in that position so they opted out and remained single.

Are you sure that avoiding divorce is what is meant by Matt 19:12?

Looking at the whole quote Matt 19:12 "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, because they were made so by others,: some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. I am not sure that this is referring to the avoidance of possible divorce, I think that it is the incapability to have sex.

Certainly we see married couples who are unable to have children, we also see men and women who have renounced sex for the Kingdom of Heaven by entering religious life, or by just remaining single. We also see people incapable of the sex act, that have chosen not to marry because of it.

My conclusion is that Matt 19:12 is referring to the act of procreation, not the fear of divorce.

 

[CopticChristian]

Are you sure that avoiding divorce is what is meant by Matt 19:12?

My conclusion is that Matt 19:12 is referring to the act of procreation, not the fear of divorce.

John Chrysostom v.s. Mormon interpretation

But see herein a contradiction. For He indeed says this is a great thing; but they, that it is easier. For it was meet that both these things should be done, and that it should be at once acknowledged a great thing by Him, that it might render them more forward, and by the things said by themselves it should be shown to be easier, that on this ground too they might the rather choose virginity and continence. For since to speak of virginity seemed to be grievous, by the constraint of this law He drove them to this desire. Then to show the possibility of it, He says, “There are some eunuchs, who were so born from their mother’s womb, there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men, and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake,” Matthew 19:12 by these words secretly leading them to choose the thing, and establishing the possibility of this virtue, and all but saying, Consider if you were in such case by nature, or had endured this selfsame thing at the hands of those who inflict such wanton injuries, what would you have done, being deprived indeed of the enjoyment, yet not having a reward? Thank God therefore now, for that with rewards and crowns you undergo this, which those men endure without crowns; or rather not even this, but what is much lighter, being supported both by hope, and by the consciousness of the good work, and not having the desire so raging like waves within you.

For the excision of a member is not able to quell such waves, and to make a calm, like the curb of reason; or rather, reason only can do this.

For this intent therefore He brought in those others, even that He might encourage these, since if this was not what He was establishing, what means His saying concerning the other eunuchs? But when He says, that they made themselves eunuchs, He means not the excision of the members, far from it, but the putting away of wicked thoughts. Since the man who has mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, “I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” And very reasonably. For such a one is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God’s creation, and opens the mouths of the Manichæans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demoniacal agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the work of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security, as being irresponsible; and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members, and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds.

These are the ordinances of the devil, bringing in, besides the things which we have mentioned, another wicked doctrine also, and making way beforehand for the arguments concerning destiny and necessity even from hence, and everywhere marring the freedom given to us of God, and persuading us that evil deeds are of nature, and hence secretly implanting many other wicked doctrines, although not openly. For such are the devil’s poisons.

Therefore I beseech you to flee from such lawlessness. For together with the things I have mentioned, neither does the force of lust become milder hereby, but even more fierce. For from another origin has the seed that is in us its sources, and from another cause do its waves swell. And some say from the brain, some from the loins, this violent impulse has its birth; but I should say from nothing else than from an ungoverned will and a neglected mind: if this be temperate, there is no evil result from the motions of nature.

Having spoken then of the eunuchs that are eunuchs for nought and fruitlessly, unless with the mind they too practise temperance, and of those that are virgins for Heaven’s sake, He proceeds again to say, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it,” at once making them more earnest by showing that the good work is exceeding in greatness, and not suffering the thing to be shut up in the compulsion of a law, because of His unspeakable gentleness. And this He said, when He showed it to be most possible, in order that the emulation of the free choice might be greater.

And if it is of free choice, one may say, how does He say, at the beginning, “All men do not receive it, but they to whom it is given?” That you might learn that the conflict is great, not that you should suspect any compulsory allotments. For it is given to those, even to the willing.

But He spoke thus to show that much influence from above is needed by him who enters these lists, whereof He that is willing shall surely partake. For it is customary for Him to use this form of speech when the good work done is great, as when He says, “To you it is given to know the mysteries.”

And that this is true, is manifest even from the present instance. For if it be of the gift from above only, and they that live as virgins contribute nothing themselves, for nought did He promise them the kingdom of Heaven, and distinguish them from the other eunuchs.

But mark thou, I pray, how from some men’s wicked doings, other men gain. I mean, that the Jews went away having learned nothing, for neither did they ask with the intent of learning, but the disciples gained even from hence.

Chrysostom points out that the devil is producing wicked doctrines, true then and today

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

They are only contradictory if one doesn’t understand Hebrews 6:20 through Hebrews 7:3. The words “for ever” and the words “having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” have to do with the priesthood held by the Son of God, which He received from His Father, and is without beginning and without end, or is in other words “everlasting”.

And here we go again. They are only contradictory because I don’t understand. For your benefit, and that of the reader, I will repeat the quotes from the BoM.

"I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18).(Emphasis mine)

"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles." (Mormon 9:9-10). (Emphasis mine)

Please show me where this in any shape or fashion is speaking about the priesthood and not the nature of God. It speaks, rather, about his being, not his priesthood. In Hebrews, Paul is speaking of Melchizedek and comparing him to Christ who is “Without father, mother, or ancestry, with out beginning of day or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.” (Hebrews 7:3)

This is one of the biggest stretches I have seen you attempt to make. How can Christ’s priesthood precede him? How can anything precede eternity? I have recently written several posts addressing this exact issue and here is a great example. If it flies in the face of reason, it is because the one questioning it does not understand. Please address the words that are written by your own prophet, Parker. They are actually very plain and very clear.

The passages in Mormon and Moroni have to do with miracles, but could just as well have to do with prophets and with the fact that God upholds His priesthood on the earth and that miracles are wrought by faith, through the power of the priesthood, and that prophets teach the people and receive the ministry of angels by the power of the priesthood, which priesthood is after the order of the Son of God. The power of the priesthood is unchangeable, everlasting, without beginning of days or end of life, and will endure through all eternity. Those who receive it and are faithful have entered into the covenant that is an everlasting covenant, a priesthood covenant.

So the passages in Mormon and Moroni have to do with either miracles, prophets or priesthood, but in now way could they have to do with exactly what JS said they had to do with which is God’s being. I’m sorry, but this is just silly at this point.

 

[CopticChristian]

And here we go again. They are only contradictory because I don’t understand. For your benefit, and that of the reader, I will repeat the quotes from the BoM.

"I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18).(Emphasis mine)

"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles." (Mormon 9:9-10). (Emphasis mine)

Please show me where this in any shape or fashion is speaking about the priesthood and not the nature of God. It speaks, rather, about his being, not his priesthood. In Hebrews, Paul is speaking of Melchizedek and comparing him to Christ who is "Without father, mother, or ancestry, with out beginning of day or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." (Hebrews 7:3)

This is one of the biggest stretches I have seen you attempt to make. How can Christ’s priesthood precede him? How can anything precede eternity? I have recently written several posts addressing this exact issue and here is a great example. If it flies in the face of reason, it is because the one questioning it does not understand. Please address the words that are written by your own prophet, Parker. They are actually very plain and very clear.

So the passages in Mormon and Moroni have to do with either miracles, prophets or priesthood, but in now way could they have to do with exactly what JS said they had to do with which is God’s being. I’m sorry, but this is just silly at this point.

The guiding principle of Mormon apologetics is not to give meat when milk will suffice. The milk appears to be sour.

 

[SteveVH]

The guiding principle of Mormon apologetics is not to give meat when milk will suffice. The milk appears to be sour.

I dont’ even mind a glass of mik, if it is actually a glass of milk. But don’t pour me a glass of water and tell me it is a glass of milk.

 

[SteveVH]

Parker, lets just break this down into specifics. Please answer the following, if you don’t mind:

Do you believe:

1. That God is not a partial God? Yes or no.
2. That God is not a changeable being? Yes or no.
3. That God is unchangeable from eternity to all eternity? Yes or no.
4. That God is the same yesterday, today and forever? Yes or no.
5. That in God there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? Yes or no.
6. That God was once as we are now? Yes or no.

Thank you.

 

[Miriam1947]

SteveVH, yes or no questions? For Parker?
Excuse me while I

 

[OHCAC]

Thanks Parker (hope you’re well BTW) as I think what you’ve given us in your post is a good example of what the OP is talking about. Obviously you see no contradictions in your logic nor experience cognitive dissonance regarding what you see/understand. But we see a lot - in large part simply from the conclusions you draw from your reading of Bible verses and the eisigesis that (at least in my opinion) you perform below.

They are only contradictory if one doesn’t understand Hebrews 6:20 through Hebrews 7:3. The words “for ever” and the words “having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” have to do with the priesthood held by the Son of God, which He received from His Father, and is without beginning and without end, or is in other words “everlasting”.

I think we understand Hebrews 6:20 - 7:3 quite well. You may be right in thinking that God gave Christ the priesthood but that’s not in the text (please show us if we’re missing it). Nor is it implied in 7:3 in stating “Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever” that the priesthood is everlasting. This is your eisigesis Parker - it ain’t there my friend.

The rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist and since the OT nowhere mentions Melchizedek’s ancestry, birth or death the conclusion is drawn that he remains forever. The rest of Hebrews 7 tells us basically that Christ is a new order of priest in that He’s different from the Levitical priests, his priesthood is perfect, brings us a new covenant (different from the Mosiac law) and that he is our priest forever (see 7:20 - 25). The verses main point is that Christ is our perfect High Priest, not that Christ is the holder of a priesthood.

It may also be good to make clear that “the order of Melchizedek” means “in the manner of Melchizedek.” (“Order” does not refer to a religious order, as there was no such thing in Old Testament days.) The only “manner” shown by Melchizedek was the use of bread and wine. A priest sacrifices the items offered—that is the main task of all priests, in all cultures, at all times—so the bread and wine must have been what Melchizedek sacrificed. Which fits in perfectly with 1) Christ making clear for us in John 6 and Luke 22 that His body and blood through the Eucharist are efficacious for ongoing salvation, 2) that Christ is our only high priest as He is eternal (Heb 7:23-24), 3) the priesthood does not pass away because Christ is eternal - not the other way around (7:24) and 4) by implication that there is no need for another priest - so the LDS Melchizedek priesthood is unnecessary.

The passages in Mormon and Moroni have to do with miracles, but could just as well have to do with prophets and with the fact that God upholds His priesthood on the earth and that miracles are wrought by faith, through the power of the priesthood, and that prophets teach the people and receive the ministry of angels by the power of the priesthood, which priesthood is after the order of the Son of God.

Wow! I expect, almost by definition, for LDS to read things into the Bible that aren’t there but you’re doing that Parker with the BoM. Moroni 8 has nothing to do with miracles, prophets or the priesthood - it’s about JS smacking infant baptism. Moroni 8:12 says little children are alive in Christ from the foundation of the world, if that is not so then God is a partial God and also a changeable God (my paraphrase). And God’s non-partiality is reinforced in 8:18 where Mormon again proclaims that God is not partial or changeable. Nothing about everlasting priesthood in that chapter.

Mormon 9 is about God being a God of miracles, that men need to believe in Him, turn to Him, that revelations, prophecies, gifts, healing, etc have not “left the earth” (my words), etc. Mormon 9:9 -10 state quite clearly that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, that in him there is no variableness and if you imagine God as changeable you have not imagined a God of miracles. 9:19 says He changeth not; if so He would cease to be God…The chapter goes on regarding several other things but nowhere that I see does it get into what you’ve referred to Parker. And it states quite clearly that as least for Mormon he understood God to be unchanging.

The power of the priesthood is unchangeable, everlasting, without beginning of days or end of life, and will endure through all eternity. Those who receive it and are faithful have entered into the covenant that is an everlasting covenant, a priesthood covenant.

So I think your post is a good example of the OP’s point. You seem to be reading things into the text that are not there and are either not aware of it or somehow justify it based on eisigesis, text taken from the D&C or other LDS scripture, modern LDS interpretation of the BoM, or whatever. The Bible is not talking about the priesthood being unchangeable and everlasting - it is talking about Christ/God being unchanging and everlasting and Christ being the only worthy one to hold that high priesthood - your emphasis is in the wrong place.

The BoM text SteveVH cited does not support your post. If God was once a man then by definition, unless He was a different type of man than men on earth, he changed - he had to. Yet the BoM clearly states he doesn’t change. Yet you seem to be ok with both His unchanging"ness" from the BoM and His changing"ness" from King Follett. That’s Steven’s point - and many of the other posters points. If you reason in an illogical way for most people that won’t work for long and that’s a very common reason why people leave LDS - many, many in our church. That’s the OP’s point - how (and I would add why) would you continue to do that?

 

[CopticChristian]

Thanks Parker (hope you’re well BTW) as I think what you’ve given us in your post is a good example of what the OP is talking about. Obviously you see no contradictions in your logic nor experience cognitive dissonance regarding what you see/understand. But we see a lot - in large part simply from the conclusions you draw from your reading of Bible verses and the eisigesis that (at least in my opinion) you perform below.

I think we understand Hebrews 6:20 - 7:3 quite well. You may be right in thinking that God gave Christ the priesthood but that’s not in the text (please show us if we’re missing it). Nor is it implied in 7:3 in stating “Without father, mother, or ancestry, without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever” that the priesthood is everlasting. This is your eisigesis Parker - it ain’t there my friend.

The rabbis maintained that anything not mentioned in the Torah does not exist and since the OT nowhere mentions Melchizedek’s ancestry, birth or death the conclusion is drawn that he remains forever. The rest of Hebrews 7 tells us basically that Christ is a new order of priest in that He’s different from the Levitical priests, his priesthood is perfect, brings us a new covenant (different from the Mosiac law) and that he is our priest forever (see 7:20 - 25). The verses main point is that Christ is our perfect High Priest, not that Christ is the holder of a priesthood.

It may also be good to make clear that “the order of Melchizedek” means “in the manner of Melchizedek.” (“Order” does not refer to a religious order, as there was no such thing in Old Testament days.) The only “manner” shown by Melchizedek was the use of bread and wine. A priest sacrifices the items offered—that is the main task of all priests, in all cultures, at all times—so the bread and wine must have been what Melchizedek sacrificed. Which fits in perfectly with 1) Christ making clear for us in John 6 and Luke 22 that His body and blood through the Eucharist are efficacious for ongoing salvation, 2) that Christ is our only high priest as He is eternal (Heb 7:23-24), 3) the priesthood does not pass away because Christ is eternal - not the other way around (7:24) and 4) by implication that there is no need for another priest - so the LDS Melchizedek priesthood is unnecessary.

Wow! I expect, almost by definition, for LDS to read things into the Bible that aren’t there but you’re doing that Parker with the BoM. Moroni 8 has nothing to do with miracles, prophets or the priesthood - it’s about JS smacking infant baptism. Moroni 8:12 says little children are alive in Christ from the foundation of the world, if that is not so then God is a partial God and also a changeable God (my paraphrase). And God’s non-partiality is reinforced in 8:18 where Mormon again proclaims that God is not partial or changeable. Nothing about everlasting priesthood in that chapter.

Mormon 9 is about God being a God of miracles, that men need to believe in Him, turn to Him, that revelations, prophecies, gifts, healing, etc have not “left the earth” (my words), etc. Mormon 9:9 -10 state quite clearly that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, that in him there is no variableness and if you imagine God as changeable you have not imagined a God of miracles. 9:19 says He changeth not; if so He would cease to be God…The chapter goes on regarding several other things but nowhere that I see does it get into what you’ve referred to Parker. And it states quite clearly that as least for Mormon he understood God to be unchanging.

So I think your post is a good example of the OP’s point. You seem to be reading things into the text that are not there and are either not aware of it or somehow justify it based on eisigesis, text taken from the D&C or other LDS scripture, modern LDS interpretation of the BoM, or whatever. The Bible is not talking about the priesthood being unchangeable and everlasting - it is talking about Christ/God being unchanging and everlasting and Christ being the only worthy one to hold that high priesthood - your emphasis is in the wrong place.

The BoM text SteveVH cited does not support your post. If God was once a man then by definition, unless He was a different type of man than men on earth, he changed - he had to. Yet the BoM clearly states he doesn’t change. Yet you seem to be ok with both His unchanging"ness" from the BoM and His changing"ness" from King Follett. That’s Steven’s point - and many of the other posters points. If you reason in an illogical way for most people that won’t work for long and that’s a very common reason why people leave LDS - many, many in our church. That’s the OP’s point - how (and I would add why) would you continue to do that?

This would be the appetizer:thumbsup:

 

[rick43235]

Of course hosts will look the same and have the same characteristics. It’s called a mystery.

Calling it “a mystery” does not make it a reasonable thing to believe. It just means that you can’t explain it but have chosen to believe it anyway and try to justify it by giving it a special label.

You either believe Christ or you think he is a liar.

Your choice.

You realize, don’t you, that these are not the only choices?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Calling it “a mystery” does not make it a reasonable thing to believe. It just means that you can’t explain it but have chosen to believe it anyway and try to justify it by giving it a special label.

My own thoughts are pretty brief but I feel we can use reason to establish a few things: 1. God exists, 2. God does not lie, 3. Jesus Christ is God, 4. the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, 5. Christ has given His Church both teaching authority and infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

Although it is completely beyond the scope of this thread to defend each of those points, I would say that each of those points can be established through reason. Once we have done so, we can establish that, while we might not be able to perfectly explain the Real Presence, we do have good reasons to trust that it is true.

I would also argue that there are good reasons to accept an Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics as true. One can then use that metaphysics to establish the Real Presence as a reasonable belief. Of course, all this is beyond the scope this thread, which is supposed to be about Mormon beliefs.

The task for a Mormon apologist, I believe, is to use reason to establish that the Mormon Church is really the true church of Jesus Christ.

 

[CopticChristian]

My own thoughts are pretty brief but I feel we can use reason to establish a few things: 1. God exists, 2. God does not lie, 3. Jesus Christ is God, 4. the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, 5. Christ has given His Church both teaching authority and infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

Although it is completely beyond the scope of this thread to defend each of those points, I would say that each of those points can be established through reason. Once we have done so, we can establish that, while we might not be able to perfectly explain the Real Presence, we do have good reasons to trust that it is true.

I would also argue that there are good reasons to accept an Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics as true. One can then use that metaphysics to establish the Real Presence as a reasonable belief. Of course, all this is beyond the scope this thread, which is supposed to be about Mormon beliefs.

The task for a Mormon apologist, I believe, is to use reason to establish that the Mormon Church is really the true church of Jesus Christ.

This would be meat.