LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[JMJ4]

Evanfaust - I went to the link. What’s the connection?
You said there is much proof. Where?
Can I go to Palmyra NY and see evidence of a great battle?
How about South America (the Mayan ruins area?) and see evidence of swords, coins, and shields?
I love archaelogy and anthropology and would be the first to board a plane to view these archaelogical wonders. According to the book of Mormon, which so greatly details battle, thousands of dead soldiers, etc etc etc. there should be much for a person to see.
You see, the problem with your argument is that we CAN hop a plane to Israel and SEE ancient artifacts, such as coins, pottery, even early churches complete with altar and reference to Jesus Christ.
I await your answer. (Logical only)

 

[JMJ4]

ParkerD - Are you there? Maybe you can answer my questions.
You are a good apologist and answer in great detail.
Thanks!

 

[ParkerD]

Of course he/she was sincere unlike SeattleCatholic who is insincere. Why is that?

Hi, Zaffiroborant,
Thanks for asking for an explanation about this.

He/she was raised a Jew, and prayed to know if Mormonism was “true” but felt “spiritually nauseous” when attending an LDS service. He/she said that they knew Mormons whom he/she acknowledged had a sincerity in their beliefs and a sincerity in feeling the truth of those beliefs, including the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is quite a different thing than to say one has prayed and “received a testimony” that the Book of Mormon is not from God. One can read and study and say they don’t believe it, but if they prayed and received that answer, then they were merely bringing their preconceived answer they had already decided, to the prayer.

One can sincerely pray and not get an answer, or have a preconceived belief that one expects God to confirm. It is a simple matter for a “false spirit” to “whisper” “you are correct.” The Holy Spirit will not force belief, and will not “override” the influence of a “false spirit” just to prove a point to the one who has prayed. That is why the prayer needs to have been completely sincere, without a preconceived answer and also with having studied enough to be able to sincerely kneel before Heavenly Father and expect an answer because one has put forth the effort to study.

As I had read the words of the person of Jewish background and teachings and the expression of belief in Christ, I could tell we were missing something in the story, and come to find out within a day or so that the reason for the “nauseous” feeling was that the LDS service was so different than the “liturgy” of their former Jewish service that it made the person uncomfortable, whereas attending a Catholic service made the person feel more “at home” because it was a type of service they were used to.

Again, there is not an expectation that God would override the uncomfortable feeling of the person who attends expecting the service to be similar to what they had previously experienced, unless they were willing to not “put new wine in old bottles.”

But “he that is not against us is on our part” is what the Savior said about one who “followeth not us” but used Jesus’ name thus acknowledging Him as Savior. (Mark 9:38, 40) Not only that, but we are headed toward the Millenium and a person such as this can play a very important role among their “peers” or “heritage group” and lead them toward Christ, and if the comfort zone for doing that is within Catholicism, then they are going to lead their friends to some of the major fruits of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that is a good thing.

 

[evanfaust]

*Stephen168 says
You have been shown to be incorrect in your assumption that the Pope has violated God’s laws as described in the Bible. A celibate clergy goes back to Christ himself.

Joseph Smith may CLAIM to receive revelation but you have not shown it to be consistent with the New Testament and therefore; from God.
Your Apostles are contrary to the New Testament.
Your Melchizedek Priesthood is contrary to the New Testament.
Polygamy is contrary to the New Testament.
Adultery is contrary to the New Testament.

Christ or the Apostles did not teach any of these by word or example.*

Evanfaust says,
First of all you are assuming Christ was not married! We don’t have evidence he was not! Besides, I Tim 3:1-12 states that Bishops and Deacon should be married! The Popes are Bishops, why don’t they marry? They are in violation of the scripture! They are also in violation of the biological laws of the human body. God is in favor of marriage and establishing families.

“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” 1 Cor 11:11-12

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” Mat 19:5

On top of that the Popes changed what the Bible says by forcing the celibate on priests a thousand years later. If the celibate was so important, why wait a thousand years to change it? Besides, the Pope does not claim to receive revelation, so why would he then make changes contrary to the cannon of scripture?

Paul was not a witness of the resurrection and he did not walk with the other 12. So, Paul does not fit the NT description of what an apostle should be. Does that mean we should not consider him an apostle of Jesus Christ? No, it means an apostle does not necessarily need to fit the standard used to select Mathias. The 11 apostles simply used a certain criteria to select a new apostle, Mathias. An apostle is a special witness of Christ. That can be by seeing the Lord, or by having revelation that Jesus is the Christ and that he is resurrected and is alive today.

Our Melchizedek priesthood is not contrary to what is stated in the New Testament. Maybe you can point out the discrepancy.

Polygamy is a prerogative of the Lord. It is up to him when to institute Polygamy. We believe Joseph was a prophet of God and we know he communed with God. Therefore, he was entitled to receive revelation to institute polygamy at God’s command for a certain period of time.

Being married and having sex with whom you marry is not considered adultery. Was Abraham an adulterer?

 

[TheosisM]

! Besides, I Tim 3:1-12 states that Bishops and Deacon should be married! The Popes are Bishops, why don’t they marry? They are in violation of the scripture! They are also in violation of the biological laws of the human body. God is in favor of marriage and establishing families.

I’m glad you note that 1 Timothy 3 also states that deacons “must” be the husband of one wife. Again, you can’t validly say that Catholic bishops are in violation of scripture because they are unmarried if there are also unmarried Mormon deacons (since generally they are 12 year old males), making them also in violation of the scripture if you’re using the same standard.

 

[ParkerD]

Evanfaust - I went to the link. What’s the connection?
You said there is much proof. Where?
Can I go to Palmyra NY and see evidence of a great battle?
How about South America (the Mayan ruins area?) and see evidence of swords, coins, and shields?
I love archaelogy and anthropology and would be the first to board a plane to view these archaelogical wonders. According to the book of Mormon, which so greatly details battle, thousands of dead soldiers, etc etc etc. there should be much for a person to see.
You see, the problem with your argument is that we CAN hop a plane to Israel and SEE ancient artifacts, such as coins, pottery, even early churches complete with altar and reference to Jesus Christ.
I await your answer. (Logical only)

Hi, JMJ4,
I’m probably going to disappoint you here, but:

1. Everybody wasn’t killed in the battle at “Cumorah”. A numerous host of what were then called “the Lamanites” (by Mormon and Moroni) were still living after that battle, and the Book of Mormon tells that all of the people still living would continue to have fighting among them, and that their weapons and possessions would be “slippery” meaning there would either be continual robbery by others or the earth would actually “swallow up” the possessions. So there would be no expectation of swords, or shields, or any possession in the area of the battle, because anything left on the ground would have been carried off.

The people left can be expected that as they continued on with their cultures, they would have superstitions such as hiding the really well-made weapons, leaving the more primitive weapons as the ones generally used such as arrowheads. There are many of those, and also a larger mini-sword blade that are artifacts.

There is also a historical event that happened in the 1800’s which is that European visitors were more interested in the artifacts in the United States than were the Americans, and they carried many of those artifacts over to Europe in private collections or to sell. There was no official attempt at the time to stop them from doing that.

1. If you are interested in “coins”, then you may be disappointed in that the Book of Mormon speaks of “different pieces of their gold, and of their silver”, which does not mean “coins”–it just means a unit of measure that was distinctly known and quantifiable and had an assigned value. (Alma 11:4)
2. I will add that the Catholic church and the Bible have made people of the Middle East aware of artifacts relating to beliefs in Christ, whereas the people who became the dominant cultures in the New World (who were not the Lamanites–the Lamanites were only a small cultural remnant who were nearly decimated by other groups) would have had no reason to retain artifacts if there were any from 100-300 AD related to Jesus Christ. In 300 AD began the pillage of all possessions of anyone in the Nephite-Lamanite cultures, so the cultural artifacts would have been pillaged and carried off, then carried off again by conquering cultures.

However, there is evidence that there were significantly advanced cultures among the New World inhabitants, and some of those do have artifacts. The New World inhabitants also had many different languages. So be that as it may, the idea that there is no conceivable way that among all of those cultures, one could not have been the survivor remnant of the Lamanites, is simply reaching a conclusion that is untenable. Not enough is known about every single one of those remnant cultures from Ancient America.

 

[evanfaust]

*TheosisM says…
I’m glad you note that 1 Timothy 3 also states that deacons “must” be the husband of one wife. Again, you can’t validly say that Catholic bishops are in violation of scripture because they are unmarried if there are also unmarried Mormon deacons (since generally they are 12 year old males), making them also in violation of the scripture if you’re using the same standard. *

Evanfaust says…
The difference is in the age. Of course a 12 year old is not ready for marriage. The Deacons in the New Testament were grown up men, while in the Mormon Church in this dispensation we ordain boys as Deacons. But that does not mean we cannot ordain older men to the office of Deacon. For example, when I joined the LDS Church at the age of 21, I was ordained a Priest before becoming an Elder, but I also performed the duties of a Deacon.

 

[evanfaust]

Stephen168,

I forgot to add something to my argument, but here it goes.

There is also indication that the “first Pope” Peter was also a married man. Please see Mat 8:14. Why then the next line of Popes would not marry?

 

[TheosisM]

*TheosisM says…
I’m glad you note that 1 Timothy 3 also states that deacons “must” be the husband of one wife. Again, you can’t validly say that Catholic bishops are in violation of scripture because they are unmarried if there are also unmarried Mormon deacons (since generally they are 12 year old males), making them also in violation of the scripture if you’re using the same standard. *

Evanfaust says…
The difference is in the age. Of course a 12 year old is not ready for marriage. The Deacons in the New Testament were grown up men, while in the Mormon Church in this dispensation we ordain boys as Deacons. But that does not mean we cannot ordain older men to the office of Deacon. For example, when I joined the LDS Church at the age of 21, I was ordained a Priest before becoming an Elder, but I also performed the Duties of a Deacon.

Yes I’m aware of this. My point is simply that, if you interpret the chapter as saying that bishops must be the husband of one wife, and if they are not, they are in violation of the scripture, then you also have to be consistent and say that deacons must be the husbands of one wife, and if they are not, they are in violation of the scripture (and it doesn’t give any qualification, such as, if the person is a pre-teen, then this can be ignored).

This actually has me thinking: in the days of plural marriage, how was this interpreted? The passage states that the bishop must be the husband of one wife. Now, I think it’s clear that 1 Timothy 3 cannot be interpreted as saying a bishop MUST have a wife, since the deacon part is not interpreted as saying that a deacon MUST have a wife. However, the passages do say “one wife”, so, how did this work during the plural marriage days? Even if we accept a literal interpretation of the passage (focusing on the word “must”), this still seems problematic, since 1 Timothy 3 calls for bishops and deacons to have one wife.

 

[Stephen168]

Isn’t the 5th for Catholics, “Thou shalt not kill” or are you talking about their 5th which I am guessing is “honor your father and mother?”

Yes, the 5th for Catholics and I think Lutherans

 

[sablouwho]

He/she was raised a Jew and prayed to know if Mormonism was “true” but felt “spiritually nauseous” when attending an LDS service. He/she said that they knew Mormons whom he/she acknowledged had a sincerity in their beliefs and a sincerity in feeling the truth of those beliefs, including the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is quite a different thing than to say one has prayed and “received a testimony” that the Book of Mormon is not from God.

Indeed, I did not receive a “negative testimony” re: the BoM. That said, neither did I receive an affirmative testimony that the LDS Church (or any of the LDS offshoots, for that matter) was the True Church.

Nor, for that matter, do I have a “testimony” that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. And yeah, I’ve prayed and studied about that one too, so please (not you Parker, but to the Catholic contingent) spare me the proof-texting, I’m already quite well acquainted with them.)

Yup, I can see I am going to make a lot of friends here…saying all this stuff!

One can read and study and say they don’t believe it, but if they prayed and received that answer, then they were merely bringing their preconceived answer they had already decided, to the prayer.

One can sincerely pray and not get an answer, or have a preconceived belief that one expects God to confirm. It is a simple matter for a “false spirit” to “whisper” “you are correct.” The Holy Spirit will not force belief, and will not “override” the influence of a “false spirit” just to prove a point to the one who has prayed. That is why the prayer needs to have been completely sincere, without a preconceived answer and also with having studied enough to be able to sincerely kneel before Heavenly Father and expect an answer because one has put forth the effort to study.

Parker, what I really like about your comments above is that it very neatly reflects my own experiences when I converted from atheist/agnostic secular Jew to faith in Christ.

I can very much imagine that another Jewish person could come to the “Jesus question” in prayer yet NOT get the same answer that I got, because either they didn’t study solid Christian apologetics, or because they were not sincerely open to getting an answer other than the one with which they were “comfortable”, etc.

As I had read the words of the person of Jewish background and teachings and the expression of belief in Christ, I could tell we were missing something in the story

Well, yes, there is more to the story than what I have shared so far…HOWEVER…

***…and come to find out within a day or so that the reason for the “nauseous” feeling was that the LDS service was so different than the “liturgy” of their former Jewish service that it made the person uncomfortable, ***whereas attending a Catholic service made the person feel more “at home” because it was a type of service they were used to.

**
NO! NO! NO! ** (Sorry, I am probably overreacting, but please read on)

I *really * wish you would have checked this out with me before making assumptions here about how I felt when you could have no way of knowing. You seem very polite and kind from what I can see from your posts overall so I’m a little surprised by this.

My reasons for discomfort with the LDS Church was not due to difference in worship styles. FWIW, this didn’t happen just at sacrament meeting, so it cannot simply be chalked up to difference in worship styles. It also happened at firesides, FHEs, RS meetings, etc. And at the time I hadn’t yet developed an appreciation for Catholic Mass and I certainly wasn’t pining away for the synagogue services of my youth.

Yeah, I definitely know what it’s like to sit through a church service that is stylistically different from what I would ideally prefer. Heck, I’ve sat through Catholic masses that had “kumbaya” music that I’ve thought was horrid! But those kinds of experience are MUCH different than what I experienced as “spiritual nausea” in the LDS context.

Sorry, I realize that this is probably not what you want to be hearing Parker…

But “he that is not against us is on our part” is what the Savior said about one who “followeth not us” but used Jesus’ name thus acknowledging Him as Savior. (Mark 9:38, 40) Not only that, but we are headed toward the Millenium and a person such as this can play a very important role among their “peers” or “heritage group” and lead them toward Christ, and if the comfort zone for doing that is within Catholicism, then they are going to lead their friends to some of the major fruits of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that is a good thing.

Okay, well, it’s true that I’m not against the LDS thing (and I’ve got a feeling a lot of Catholic posters here are probably not liking me too much for that very reason!). As for the “followeth not us”, well, I don’t happen to affirm the LDS belief that it is THE one and only “real” Church, and that I am thus somehow following Jesus on the outside of things… but I do affirm that you believe it. And I don’t believe in the Millenium either but that’s not something I loose sleep over.

But I do generally appreciate the accepting viewpoint that seems to be an LDS trait–that many of its members will affirm the good in other Christian faiths (as well as non-Christian ones, for that matter.) I find it much preferable to the “I am right and you are wrong…oh, and by the way, because you are wrong, you are lost, you poor thing” attitude. Or the “oh, I’m right and you are not, so you’re going to hell.”

Parker, I’m not sure how good of a role model I will be, but I will do my best!

 

[Xavierlives]

Just a wild guess here but, Mormons think polyandry is ok because when Jesus was talking with the woman at the well (with 5 husbands) he didn’t rebuke her?

 

[Stephen168]

Paul was not a witness of the resurrection and he did not walk with the other 12. So, Paul does not fit the NT description of what an apostle should be. Does that mean we should not consider him an apostle of Jesus Christ?

Paul was not one of the 12.

Jesus had an earthly ministry. During his ministry, he taught his disciple all they needed to know for salvation. Many of his disciples were called Apostles. The term ‘Apostle’ means one who is sent. Jesus selected The Twelve: Simon (Peter/Cephas/Rock), James (the Greater/son of Zebedee/brother of John), John (the Evangelist/the brother of James), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James (the Lesser/the son of Alphaeus), Jude (Thaddaeus), Simon (the Zealot/Canaanite), and Judas Iscariot. Christ sent the Twelve (Matthew 10:5). Christ selected 70 more and they were sent (Luke 10:1). Mark and Luke the Evangelists are referred to as Apostles. By tradition, James, Luke, and Mark were members of the seventy. Paul and Barnabas were called Apostles (Acts 14:14). Barnabas was taught by the Twelve and was with Paul on his first journey. These Apostles are the witnesses and recorders of Christ’s earthly ministry. Most were witnesses to his resurrection.

Just as sheep have four legs but not all animals with four legs are sheep; all the Apostles were not ‘The Twelve.’ The Twelve were the foundation of his Church (Eph 2:19-22), but not just any 12 but THE Twelve (Rev 21:14). The corner stone and the foundation are laid once. Just as Christ is eternally the head of the Church, The Twelve are the eternal foundation.

Because of Judas’ apostasy (Acts 1:25), the Twelve needed to be restored. The eleven chose Matthias.
According to Peter there are two requirements to be a member of the Twelve. The two requirements are:
a) Witness the resurrected Lord
b) Been in the company of the twelve while the Lord walked on earth.
These requirements limit the council membership to the first century. After all the men that walked with the twelve, while the Lord walked the earth, died; no one else qualified. The Twelve was never meant to be on going. This was the only time eleven selected a twelfth; one apostasy, one replacement. Revelation 21:14: Peter/Cephas/Rock, James son of Zebedee, John the Evangelist, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Jude, Simon the Zealot, and Matthias.
Just as there was no need to replace Christ as the head of Church after the crucifixion, or replace The Twelve as the foundation after their deaths; the Twelve were not replaced after their deaths. If Apostle was only an office to be filled, they could have easily been replaced; just like Bishops have been replaced for almost 2000 years.

The only consistent meaning to being called ‘Apostle’ seems to be an Evangelist who was taught by Christ or The Twelve. The Twelve would pass from the earth by design. The title of Apostle would pass from the earth because The Twelve were not here to commission them. When Eusebius (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History © 324) refers to an Apostle being replaced it is as the Apostle’s position of Bishop (Peter in Rome, James in Jerusalem) not as Apostles. As the Apostles died, IF they were also Bishops, they were replaced by Bishops.

Eusebius:

For by her activity the machinations of her foes were promptly shown up and extinguished, though one after another heresies were invented, the earlier ones constantly passing away and disappearing, in different ways at different times, into forms of every shape and character. But the splendor of the Catholic and one true Church, always remaining the same and unchanged, grew steadily in greatness and strength,

 

[Stephen168]

First of all you are assuming Christ was not married!

Men are born single. Show me where he got married

Our Melchizedek priesthood is not contrary to what is stated in the New Testament. Maybe you can point out the discrepancy.

I can’t point out what is not there.

Show me where Christ or the Apsotles taught these by word or example–

Polygamy is contrary to the New Testament.
Adultery is contrary to the New Testament.

 

[Xavierlives]

Here is an interesting tidbit:

Anyone who practiced plural marriage before the date that D&C 132 was written (12 July 1843) was guilty of adultery.

Joseph Smith at 29 wives on 12 Jul 1843.

Now Diana has told me, we can look to the “teaching” as church doctrine, only the scripture. So, while JS might have been teaching about Plural marriage since 1931, it was not official until 12 Jul 1943.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen168,

I forgot to add something to my argument, but here it goes.

There is also indication that the “first Pope” Peter was also a married man. Please see Mat 8:14. Why then the next line of Popes would not marry?

Yes, Peter had been married but show me where he has a wife.
If my wife were to die tomorrow, I would still have a mother-in-law.

 

[evanfaust]

TheosisM,

I am doing some research on the topic of Deacon. I will report back to you on what I found out.

 

[evanfaust]

*Just a wild guess here but, Mormons think polyandry is ok because when Jesus was talking with the woman at the well (with 5 husbands) he didn’t rebuke her? *

Evanfaust comments,
Xavier…Mormons do not practice polygamy or polyandry! These are not acceptable practices in the church today.

 

[Xavierlives]

*Just a wild guess here but, Mormons think polyandry is ok because when Jesus was talking with the woman at the well (with 5 husbands) he didn’t rebuke her? *

Evanfaust comments,
Xavier…Mormons do not practice polygamy or polyandry! These are not acceptable practices in the church today.

But for a season, from 1833 to 1843 Joseph Smith went from one wife to 29 wives. This was before the “plural marriage.” So he was committing adultery even according to Mormon standards. He was definitely committing adultery according to Christian Standards, because he was having sex with other men’s wives.

So, whether it has been repealed now does not change his adulterous acts. Repealing it only makes Mormonism inconsistant and kowtowing to public opinion.

 

[ParkerD]

Indeed, I did not receive a “negative testimony” re: the BoM. That said, neither did I receive an affirmative testimony that the LDS Church (or any of the LDS offshoots, for that matter) was the True Church.

Nor, for that matter, do I have a “testimony” that the Catholic Church is the One True Church. And yeah, I’ve prayed and studied about that one too, so please (not you Parker, but to the Catholic contingent) spare me the proof-texting, I’m already quite well acquainted with them.)

Yup, I can see I am going to make a lot of friends here…saying all this stuff!

Parker, what I really like about your comments above is that it very neatly reflects my own experiences when I converted from atheist/agnostic secular Jew to faith in Christ.

I can very much imagine that another Jewish person could come to the “Jesus question” in prayer yet NOT get the same answer that I got, because either they didn’t study solid Christian apologetics, or because they were not sincerely open to getting an answer other than the one with which they were “comfortable”, etc.

Well, yes, there is more to the story than what I have shared so far…HOWEVER…

**
NO! NO! NO! ** (Sorry, I am probably overreacting, but please read on)

I *really * wish you would have checked this out with me before making assumptions here about how I felt when you could have no way of knowing. You seem very polite and kind from what I can see from your posts overall so I’m a little surprised by this.

My reasons for discomfort with the LDS Church was not due to difference in worship styles. FWIW, this didn’t happen just at sacrament meeting, so it cannot simply be chalked up to difference in worship styles. It also happened at firesides, FHEs, RS meetings, etc. And at the time I hadn’t yet developed an appreciation for Catholic Mass and I certainly wasn’t pining away for the synagogue services of my youth.

Yeah, I definitely know what it’s like to sit through a church service that is stylistically different from what I would ideally prefer. Heck, I’ve sat through Catholic masses that had “kumbaya” music that I’ve thought was horrid! But those kinds of experience are MUCH different than what I experienced as “spiritual nausea” in the LDS context.

Sorry, I realize that this is probably not what you want to be hearing Parker…

Okay, well, it’s true that I’m not against the LDS thing (and I’ve got a feeling a lot of Catholic posters here are probably not liking me too much for that very reason!). As for the “followeth not us”, well, I don’t happen to affirm the LDS belief that it is THE one and only “real” Church, and that I am thus somehow following Jesus on the outside of things… but I do affirm that you believe it. And I don’t believe in the Millenium either but that’s not something I loose sleep over.

But I do generally appreciate the accepting viewpoint that seems to be an LDS trait–that many of its members will affirm the good in other Christian faiths (as well as non-Christian ones, for that matter.) I find it much preferable to the “I am right and you are wrong…oh, and by the way, because you are wrong, you are lost, you poor thing” attitude. Or the “oh, I’m right and you are not, so you’re going to hell.”

Parker, I’m not sure how good of a role model I will be, but I will do my best!

Sablouwho,
You’re certainly right that I should have “checked with you first” before trying to interpret what you had written on an earlier post about “liturgy” by putting it into my frame of reference. Thank you sincerely for clarifying that I was incorrect in making that assumption. (It just seemed logical based on the post itself and your earlier personal experience comment. Otherwise, I don’t know what to make of the expression “spiritually nauseous”, but I take it that you weren’t comfortable in a religiously spiritual way at those times. But I still don’t know why, then.)

I think with your honesty and sincerity and forthrightness and charitable heart, that you will be a good “role model” and that it will serve you and others well. All the best to you!