T
Tmaque
Guest
accidental post…sorry
- Status
J
JMJ4
Guest
ParkerD- Hi I was reading some of the older posts on this thread and noted the discussions on the Apostle John.
Do you believe John lived to be an old man or was he killed with the other apostles?
Do you believe John lived to be an old man or was he killed with the other apostles?
P
paul_c
Guest
Can you provide the actual link that we should use to see definitive Mormon teachings that all LDS members would acknowledge?
T
TheosisM
Guest
Yes, I also wish the Orthodox Church had a Catechism, but they don’t. I also wish the Catechism was more reflective of Eastern Catholic differences.I didn’t say that there were!
When I was an investigator, it would have been very helpful to me if the LDS had some sort of equivalent to the CCC. Because in my RCIA class, we read from and use the CCC all the time. I appreciate that it exists in book and is not just something to look up online.
The closest thing to a Catechism in Mormonism is Gospel Principles, which is very basic (kind of like the Baltimore Catechism in scope).
X
Xavierlives
Guest
That has always cracked me up, An Investigator.I didn’t say that there were!
When I was an investigator, it would have been very helpful to me if the LDS had some sort of equivalent to the CCC. Because in my RCIA class, we read from and use the CCC all the time. I appreciate that it exists in book and is not just something to look up online.
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
If it takes a perfect man such as Christ or the Father to become a god, how can we hope to be exalted someday? Because we are definitely not perfect . . .
S
sablouwho
Guest
It isn’t all that different from the term that Catholics use for people who are new to RCIA – they are called inquirers until they have gone through certain rites and decided to proceed towards baptism and/or confirmation.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Orthodoxwiki.org is the closest I’ve found for the East.Yes, I also wish the Orthodox Church had a Catechism, but they don’t. I also wish the Catechism was more reflective of Eastern Catholic differences.
The closest thing to a Catechism in Mormonism is Gospel Principles, which is very basic (kind of like the Baltimore Catechism in scope).
P
ParkerD
Guest
Tmaque,
There are two distinct beliefs that each involve using the King Follett Discourse, but if one reads the entire discourse and the foundational teaching that Joseph Smith gave using reference to the New Testament and what Jesus said about what He had seen His Father do, then the conclusion to be drawn is that Jesus did what He saw His Father do. It is a simple concept. There are many LDS who draw the conclusion I’ve drawn based on the same reading of the transcription of Joseph Smith’s talk.
You may go ahead and ask whomever you like, of course, and then follow up with the question of how familiar they are with the King Follett Discourse.
You were probably taught the couplet by Lorenzo Snow that he wrote as a young man.
P
ParkerD
Guest
JMJ4,
John the Beloved Apostle lived to be an old man, then after the Book of Revelation was written and the Book of John was written, he was “translated” and no longer was subject to death until the Second Coming of Christ, and had a different mission on earth. He still leads people to Christ in remote parts of the world.
J
JMJ4
Guest
Hi ParkerD-
On page 8 of The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ it states “The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority -including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church-was taken from the earth…”
I asked the visiting LDS missionaries if they were aware that John lived to be an old man, into his nineties, and that he was not killed as stated in the pamphlet they provided.
They said it shouldn’t matter and that I should let them move forward with their presentation/talk.
It does matter because the pamphlet is misleading and incorrect.
How can the LDS distribute literature that does not correlate with church teachings?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Zach Dunn,
One would need to be quite familiar with the Book of Revelation and the Book of John to figure out why humankind has been given that hope, and why it is important. The teachings are there, and can be read, simply.
K
kikkichan
Guest
ParkerD,
Hi! I hope you and your family are doing well. if you get a chance, could you please expound on your comment to JMJ4:
" … he (John) was “translated” …" and “He still leads people”
Specifically, what does “being translated” mean? and in what capacity does he “still leads people”?
–kc
Hi! I hope you and your family are doing well. if you get a chance, could you please expound on your comment to JMJ4:
" … he (John) was “translated” …" and “He still leads people”
Specifically, what does “being translated” mean? and in what capacity does he “still leads people”?
thanks and prayers,
–kc
S
sablouwho
Guest
The problem with this is that not everyone reads Revelation in the same manner. Not all, but many Catholic (those who read and study the bible–admittedly not everyone does this) read it with a background of historical-critical method of Bible study. (However there do exist fundamentalist Catholics who read things differently, to be sure.) Then you have fundamentalist Protestants reading things in a more literal, fundamentalist manner.
I don’t know how the LDS read Rev, but from my own experiences with them and from talking with an LDS friend who has a Ph.D in theology from a Protestant seminary (and thus is fluent in both the LDS and Protestant ways of viewing the Bible), my take is that LDS read much of the bible in a literal manner. (Much of it, not all–certainly the part of Eucharist is not read literally, but that is a rabbit trail to chase in another thread.)
Therefore, I am not so sure how “simply” these things can be read/understood. If a person has a background in historical-critical method (I have found that this is generally NOT a part of LDS tradition and thus most members are unaware of how to understand the Bible in this manner) they are going to come away from Rev with a very different, and more complex, understanding of what it means. It’s more complex and rich when not taken literally.
(The same could be said for much of the rest of the Bible, I am just using Rev as an example since it was what was mentioned.)
All that said, I admittedly do not know how you meant the word “simply”. You may very well have had training in historical-critical method, so I didn’t mean to assume that you don’t.
T
Tmaque
Guest
The only relevant question is what does the LDS Church teach on this matter? That will be my question for my friends and family. Are you saying that what you’ve stated here is what the LDS Church teaches?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Sablouwho,
I don’t think John had in mind that people would need a historical-critical background to read his words and understand them by the very spirit of revelation through which the words were written. I have not had such training, but I have read the Bible many times and love it in its words as they are. That is what I meant by using the word “simply.”
Thanks for asking for the clarification, and for your generous spirit of seeking understanding of points of view.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Tmaque,
The couplet I referred to has been quoted many times, but usually it is not explained other than to say that humankind has the “capacity to become as God”. People don’t usually go right to the King Follett text and quote the words, so if they talk about where God came from then they are speculating (which does happen).
The LDS church, officially, has not made a specific statement to refine what Joseph Smith was quoted as having said. The current Gospel Principles manual does not teach that God was once a man in the same way that I am a man right now (nor does it imply that God the Father was once a perfect man before He was resurrected, but for Joseph Smith to have said what he said, that is the direct inference).
P
ParkerD
Guest
JMJ4,
I think you have asked a relevant question here. I’ve thought about such a question myself, and am aware that it is a case where the details of explaining about “translated beings” goes off on a tangent that would easily side-track a communication process.
If I had been writing such a piece, I myself would have felt it necessary to explain something about John being an exception. That certainly is a known thing in the LDS church. I don’t think the intent is to be “misleading”, but the intent is to explain that the apostleship calling was taken from the midst of the people. But, yeah, it can be argued that saying all the apostles died or were killed is an incorrect statement.
S
sablouwho
Guest
I don’t even know that John could have anticipated that people would be READING what he wrote almost 2000 years later–let alone being able to forsee that his highly symbolic use of language in Rev would be misunderstood and read literally by people not familiar with this type/style of literary form. (I am not saying that you specifically are reading it literally, Parker, but I do know enough fundamentalist Protestants to know that this kind of literalist reading is done by some Christians. I find it makes for some pretty wacky theology.)
But then, one of my limitations is that I really do not “get” the fundamentalist/literalist mindset. I have found it in Catholic, Protestant, LDS and Jewish circles and I cannot relate to that way of looking at the Bible in the context of any of the above faiths.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Hi, Kikkichan,
I hope your family hasn’t had too much difficulty with the weather issues there in Washington DC. Thanks for asking about this in your always-kindly way.
A “translated being” is like what happened to Enoch and the city of Enoch, except that they were taken into “heaven” whereas John had asked to remain on the earth to bring people to Christ. It means he does so without revealing to them who he is, and does so wearing the clothes their own culture would wear, but he is able to be a “preparer of the way” just like John the Baptist was a “preparer of the way.” He visits with isolated people in remote parts of the world, and we don’t hear about it because they are not aware of who paid them a visit, but know their life is changed by the visit in that they come to a better understanding about Christ, because of the sincerity of their heart.
John will eventually “die” and be resurrected, and that will be a different kind of change in his body than the change that involves being “translated”. It is something God knows how to do with a mortal body so that it is not subject for the time being with aging and death.
Peace to you and your family, Kikkichan (R.E.)
- Status