LDS worship

[Patavium]

You say that God founded the Catholic church; the Mormon says that God founded the Mormon church. The Catholic excuses his church in spite of the ill behavior of its chosen leaders by saying that at least the doctrine has remained pure; the Mormon likewise argues that the extreme teachings of some past leaders were never raised to the level of doctrine through the means set out in our own scripture, and when they have been, he points to practices apparently not frowned upon in biblical times among the ancients.

Tell me, friend. What is the definition of a Prophet in the Mormon Church?. Didn’t the founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith said that God told him Yes to Polygamy?.

Do you know how teachings are decided in the Catholic Church? It is not by the unilateral decision of the Pope. There are councils. There are authorities: the bible, the traditions through apostolic succession since the the times of the founding of the Church…

Now, tell me what is the difference of an ill behaved “high” member of the Church versus an ill behaved doctrine of the Church that HAD TO BE REMOVED?. Hmmm?

 

[Stephen168]

No, not as such. You may find in some more speculative discussions, Mormons who talk about deification and the eternal progression. But even this doctrine does not find particular favor in the now-correlated doctrinal teachings. They believe that the act of establishing the Church was done personally by God through Joseph Smith.

So how does a Mormon reason their church was founded by God if Joseph Smith is not clearly God?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have little to say in defense of my church, or any other. I am an agnostic with a vicious streak of nihilism who attends and participates in the Mormon church because it is the faith of my fathers. At one time I felt strongly about the truth claims of my church; now I regard all such claims with equal skepticism. You say that God founded the Catholic church; the Mormon says that God founded the Mormon church. The Catholic excuses his church in spite of the ill behavior of its chosen leaders by saying that at least the doctrine has remained pure; the Mormon likewise argues that the extreme teachings of some past leaders were never raised to the level of doctrine through the means set out in our own scripture, and when they have been, he points to practices apparently not frowned upon in biblical times among the ancients.

From what I have been told by Mormons in this forum the Church established by Jesus died when He died. They can claim that God founded the Mormon Church all they want; Jesus founded a Church and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. He is not a liar. I do not excuse the individual members of the Catholic Church who have gone against her dogma and doctrine any more than I excuse myself for sinning. We all sin. Wrong is wrong. And first you say that the Mormon “argues that the extreme teachings of some past leaders were never raised to the level of doctrine” but then go on to say “and when they have been…” So, which is it? Never or have been? It can’t be both.

I do not decide what you shall say, I merely imagine what you could possibly have to say. Did you have something else to say about apologetic approaches to difficulties in past history that I did not cover (i.e., through claiming misrepresentation or by reconciliation)? I fail to see how your self-proclaimed honesty and alleged charity in calling a thing “frightening” has anything at all to do with the methods of apologia I commented about.

In all honesty I have no idea what you are trying to tell me. Would you care to rephrase it?

You misunderstand me. We cannot change what has happened, but we typically know very little about it. Do you think you know all about Jesus’ practices? Based on tradition? Based on several hundred pages of second-hand writings that appeared long after the history they purport to describe? Simply because a thing is not recorded does not mean that it did not happen. Jesus didn’t practice polygamy or blood atonement? Probably not. But little historic evidence remains on the matter, and the man is known to have lived for at least three decades if he lived at all. You have greater certainty in the past than I. The more I find out about what evidence there is, the less convinced I am that Jesus founded any Church at all (but that’s why we all have apologetics, to deal with these problems).

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

Well I certainly see an agnostic streak coming out. I’ve never run across an agnostic Mormon but then I suppose I was for some time an agnostic/atheistic Catholic so I shouldn’t complain about that. But the more I find out about evidence the more I am convinced that not only was/is there a Jesus but that He is God and that He founded the Catholic Church. I have never claimed to know all about Jesus’ practices. I’m certainly not omniscient nor am I infallible and have never claimed to be either. Catholics are not sola scriptura and so I agree with you that Jesus certainly did things that were never recorded; of course He did. Nowhere is it recorded (except perhaps in Heaven) when He took each and every breath or the other normal bodily functions of a human being. And I am sure that not every word He uttered was written down or kept in memory and taught about it orally. But what *is *written down or carried on via tradition is certainly important, and as God loves us it is enough to get us to Heaven.

see I have struck a nerve. I apologize. If it helps you to feel any better, you will notice that I brought up what many perceive to be the Catholic church’s “dirty laundry,” thus placing myself in the same censured company that I framed you, and thereby allowing me to turn my criticism to the general “we” rather than at “you” in particular. If you read closely, that is.

I may be poorly catechized but I have been viciously attacked by people throwing alleged “dirty laundry” in my face. I’ve lived through it, despaired, sobbed, shook, and now I get angry. No more crying, no more despair. I am not angry at you. If you think what you have brought up is “dirty laundry” you have no idea what I have been told in the last hour by a professed Christian on another (poorly moderated) forum. And of course you could not know. I read as well as I can; if you check my profile you will find a disclaimer. If you take the time to look. I don’t want to repeat it every time or waste my signature with an explanation; I’m becoming very tired of apologizing for being brain-damaged, especially when my explanation is rewarded with pity. And that is not your fault, either. It’s something I have to live with and deal with. I just hate dealing with it.

It is only that I understood the topic of the discussion to be a question about LDS worship, and here we are talking about blood atonement, polygamy, polyandry, and every other salacious and unsavory aspect of Mormonism that has long since been left behind; and even when it was current, it didn’t contribute significant character to Mormon worship due to its secretive nature. I suggested that perhaps such discussions are not becoming of goodly people (particularly in light of the original topic), an assertion understandably taken quite personally; and whereas I am to understand that your epithet of “frightening” is to be interpreted as rendered in a spirit of charity, the language of my original comment–even though I was careful to couch criticism and censure in general pronouns and abstractions rather than at you specifically–apparently does not qualify for the same consideration.

Now *that *is a valid complaint and certainly requires an apology from me. I’m sorry that I continued taking this thread off topic. My only excuse is that it was already off-topic but that is not a good excuse. I apologize. Every Mormon thread that I have run across turns into a general thread about the Mormon Church; I know very little and so I ask questions. And I guess you should know that this is only my second (or perhaps third) Mormon thread. I still know very little about an extremely complex church.

I am not personally offended at your commentary and am not concerned about any breaches of forum rules. As I said before, I have little attachment to my own religion, other than insofar as it provides me with a means of community engagement and common worship. I personally think it very unlikely that any Church is “true.” As an observer with no particular allegiance to any doctrine, I read the Catholic forums mostly for the positive affirmations of faith I find here. I had difficulty passing this unfortunate thread by after becoming acquainted with the overall tone of its contents–which to me seemed rather “unchristian.” I have no intention of making personally-directed implications, but rather generalizations under which others are always free to feel themselves categorized. Your comments gave me that opportunity to speak to the whole; and I am not surprised that offense was taken.

I want to ask you so many questions but I can’t do that without discussion “you.” And I’m not allowed to do that. I am *very *attached to my religion but that is all I can say without discussing “me.” And so I will only post to the topic at hand. If you have noticed I have asked specific questions about Mormon worship in a later post. I am trying to find out all I can about other churches. I have no desire to be uncharitable. I want to know. I felt like I was being pigeon-holed. I did not think that was fair. And here I go again: off-topic and about me. So I’ll just stop. Oh, one more thing: I have no desire to argue with you or anyone else, at least not on this forum.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And what, LittleSoldier, of Theodorus who would sanction the murder of heretics with his pen dipped in the holy wine? If true, this is very frightening.

What of the popes of the tenth century, whose histories are full of intrigues, debaucheries, violence, torture, murder, and so forth? Can you imagine? Holy men behaving in this manner! If true, this is very frightening.

Perhaps you shall say that these histories are incomplete, taken out of context, biased, misrepresented, oversimplified, falsified, or misunderstood. When Mormon apologists make these same kinds of claims, they are accused of “whitewashing” their history.

Or perhaps you shall say that these iniquitous pontiffs were misguided and that the Holy Church has since been placed on straighter paths. Perhaps you shall discover some doctrinal loopholes, or theories of affliction with which to excuse the Church even if its leaders sometimes misbehave. When Mormon apologists candidly admit the fallibility of their past leaders, and point out that the modern church disavows such errant doctrines and no longer practices them, it is said that this is just more evidence that the Mormon church could not be true, for what sort of God would have allowed such things in His holy and allegedly inspired Church?

The past is a foreign land; we can make of it what we wish. What we choose to see in the histories of other faiths speaks more to our own character than it does to those whom we wish to discredit. Mormon adherents cherish their faith for the beauty they find in it, not for the ugliness. Like the Catholic faith does for its many faithful, the Mormon church fills a God-shaped hole in the hearts of sincere Mormons.

I would hope, so as to avoid hypocrisy, that the generous Catholic whose Church has not always risen above reproach, would extend a certain courtesy to the Mormon who finds himself in similar circumstances. It does not become us, people of good will, to dig up the troubling past of our neighbor’s church. Does it really build our own faith to, like a voyeur, relish the immodest moments of someone else’s church?

I know that, as a Mormon agnostic, I am far more persuaded by the Catholics who share with me the awesome and faith-inspiring truths of Catholicism than by those who find something “frightening” to point out about my church.

Mormon, agnostic, nihilistic…that must be tiring! I was ex-Mormon, atheist, right and proper nihilist for more of my life than I’ve been Catholic (by a long shot).

Anyway, in my conversion to Catholicism, I studied the bad and the ugly. The strange. The horrific. For myself, I found Catholics and the Catholic Church admit the wrong-doings. Have even apologized for them, publicly, to the world. No one is hiding anything. There is no idea in the Catholic Church that we need to hide bad history, otherwise, people might think God has left the building. This is a Protestant idea, that is magnified in Mormonism to a level of doctrine.

 

[pmccombs]

Tell me, friend. What is the definition of a Prophet in the Mormon Church?. Didn’t the founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith said that God told him Yes to Polygamy?.

A prophet is understood to have direct communication with God and to hold authority, along with various others within the Church, to direct the work of God on the earth. Prophets are not considered infallible and have been known to at times preach incorrectly (as Brigham Young himself once admitted). It is generally thought by Mormons that a prophet is incapable of permanently leading the Church astray, however.

As I understand the story, the doctrine of polygamy came about as Joseph and some of the early church brethren inquired of God about how it is that Old Testament patriarchs could have more than one wife and not stand condemned. It is said that the Lord told them that they could not have the doctrine unless they were willing to live it.

Do you know how teachings are decided in the Catholic Church? It is not by the unilateral decision of the Pope. There are councils. There are authorities: the bible, the traditions through apostolic succession since the the times of the founding of the Church…

This is also familiar to Mormonism. While it may appear to outsiders that the Prophet can utter new doctrine at will, this is one of the things that Mormon apologists point to when they counter claims of misguided doctrine entering the Church: no new teachings or scripture may be accepted without being presented to the body of the Church, or to councils within the Church, and voted. This is how the doctrine of the Church is allegedly safeguarded.

Now, tell me what is the difference of an ill behaved “high” member of the Church versus an ill behaved doctrine of the Church that HAD TO BE REMOVED?. Hmmm?

The difference is found in the quality of the faithful. Those who are converted to the personality of the charismatic leader will find his poor example as good as any doctrine. Those attuned to a different standard will question every decree that issues from a Church full of fallen men whose leaders are often found among “the least of these.” Mormons join with Moses in declaring, “would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets.”

 

[pmccombs]

I have no desire to be uncharitable. I want to know. I felt like I was being pigeon-holed. I did not think that was fair. And here I go again: off-topic and about me. So I’ll just stop. Oh, one more thing: I have no desire to argue with you or anyone else, at least not on this forum.

Well spoken. Then, let us make peace! In all honesty, your comments have been among the least uncharitable I have found in this thread.

 

[pmccombs]

So how does a Mormon reason their church was founded by God if Joseph Smith is not clearly God?

Matthew 16:18 reads, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

This is the way in which Mormons reason their church was founded by God: “Thou art Joseph, and upon this rock I will build my church in the Latter Days”.

 

[Jerusha]

This is the way in which Mormons reason their church was founded by God: “Thou art Joseph, and upon this rock I will build my church in the Latter Days”.

Which leads to Joseph Smith founding a theocratic “Kingdom of God,” continued, in different guises, by J. Strang’s and B. Young’s theocracies. He was even crowned in the last months of his life.

Is there any wonder why some LDS condemn even the descendants of those who opposed that con-artist and chronic adulterer?

 

[Patavium]

pmcombs,

I think you understand my point to some degree: If a Pope, Priest or a parishioner goes against the Church teachings that speaks of the man, not of the Church. On the other hand, if the doctrine asks people to go against God that speaks of the Church. I chose polygamy as an example as it is blasphemy according to the Holy Bible. If you want to discuss why, I suggest we start a new thread.

God Bless!

 

[Stephen168]

You say that God founded the Catholic church; the Mormon says that God founded the Mormon church.

Matthew 16:18 reads, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

This is the way in which Mormons reason their church was founded by God: “Thou art Joseph, and upon this rock I will build my church in the Latter Days”.

Christ is God
Christ founded the Catholic Church (historical event)
Therefore God founded the Catholic Church

Joseph Smith is not God
Joseph Smith founded the Mormon Church (historical event)
Therefore

 

[andrewstx]

So there would no difference in any action as long as the objective was the same. Murder and natural death both separate the soul from body, so both are equally good.

There was a practice years ago in the mormon church called blood atonement, the blood of Christ was not considered sufficient for the sinner to be forgiven and so his/her own blood was shed by murder. John Lee was killed after the Mountian Meadows massacre as a scapegoat. Mormons will not discuss this, they like to forget it. But blood atonement is still practiced by some of the more extreme fundamentalist mormon sects.

There was a monument built to commerorate the victims of the MMM, but it was of course destroyed by mormons. It had an awful Christian cross on it.

 

[Jerusha]

Joseph Smith is not God
Joseph Smith founded the Mormon Church (historical event)
Therefore

JD 1:122 − p.123, Orson Hyde, October 6, 1853
My reply to them was something like the following − “Joseph Smith cannot be everywhere, and the plates cannot be presented to every eye. The voice of Joseph Smith cannot be heard by every ear.” And I have said to them, " You that have seen me have seen Joseph Smith, for the same spirit and the same sentiments that are in him are in me, and I bear testimony to you that these things are verily true."

JD 4:298, Brigham Young, March 29, 1857
And I wish we had more Elders to go and preach just such sermons by the power of God, that is, “I know that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God, that this is the Gospel of salvation, and if you do not believe it you will be damned, every one of you.”

JD 5:331 − p.332, Brigham Young, October 7, 1857
Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, “I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;” and after a while you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, “Here; you have been faithful, good boys; I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass;” then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam.

JD 7:289, Brigham Young, October 9, 1859
Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter−day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgiving from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter−day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them − something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them −
namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding−up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are − I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation − the keys to rule in the spirit−world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit−world. He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim − “Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!” But it is true.

JD 9:312, Brigham Young, July 13, 1862
I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti−christ. All who confess that Joseph Smith is sent of God in the latter days, to lay the foundation of his everlasting kingdom no more to be thrown down, and will continue to keep his commandments, are born of God. All those who believe in their hearts and confess with their mouths that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet, at the same time trying with their might to live the holy principles Joseph the Prophet has revealed, are in possession of the Holy Spirit of God and are entitled to a fullness

JD 12:127 − p.128, Brigham Young, December 29th, 1867
I see around me a great people. Joseph Smith was called of God, and sent to lay the foundation of this latter−day kingdom. He presided over this people fourteen years. Then he was martyred.

 

[Jerusha]

In the providences of Almighty God, and according to the plan before ordained in the councils of eternity,
Joseph Smith, Jr., was born into mortality, December 23, 1805. As a pre-existent spirit he had ranked with Adam
and Abraham; he was one of the noble and great ones of whom Abraham wrote (Abra. 3:22-23), a truth which
President Joseph F. Smith also saw in vision. (Gospel Doctrine, 4th ed., p. 601.) In that prior existence, by
diligence and obedience, he gained the spiritual stature and capacity which entitled him to be foreordained to
stand as the head of the greatest of all gospel dispensations. (Teachings, p. 365.)
So great was his assigned mission, with reference to the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21), that holy
prophets spoke of him, by name, thousands of years before his mortal birth. (2 Ne. 3.) And as to the mighty
work to be started by him - there are as many prophecies foretelling it as there are about any other single
subject, not even excepting the host of prophetic utterances about our Lord and his redemptive sacrifice.
During the millennium the kingdom of God will continue on earth, but in that day it will be both an
ecclesiastical and a political kingdom. That is, the Church (which is the kingdom) will have the rule and
government of the world given to it. When inspired teachers speak of the future setting up of the kingdom of
God on earth, they have reference to the millennial day when “The kingdoms of this world are become the
kingdoms of cur Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.” (Rev. 11:15.)
Daniel also saw the day when “the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom
for ever, even for ever and ever.” (Dan. 7:18, 22, 27.) The Prophet prayed that the present ecclesiastical
kingdom of God on earth might roll forth that the future political and millennial kingdom of God on earth might
come. (D. & C. 65; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 229-246.) McConkie, B. 1966, p. 297-298

 

[pmccombs]

Is there any wonder why some LDS condemn even the descendants of those who opposed that con-artist and chronic adulterer?

A con-artist and chronic adulterer he may have been; I never knew the man personally. Plenty were willing to malign him, and plenty to defend him. The fact is that obviously none of this calumny is believed by devout Mormons, nor does it factor into their worship.

 

[pmccombs]

pmcombs,

I think you understand my point to some degree: If a Pope, Priest or a parishioner goes against the Church teachings that speaks of the man, not of the Church. On the other hand, if the doctrine asks people to go against God that speaks of the Church. I chose polygamy as an example as it is blasphemy according to the Holy Bible. If you want to discuss why, I suggest we start a new thread.

God Bless!

One man’s blasphemy is another man’s religion, and orthodoxy ever a tool of jealousy. To be convinced that someone’s interpretation of the Bible is superior to another’s, I would have to first be convinced that the Holy Bible ought to be taken that seriously in the first place. Unlike the majority of my fellow Mormons, who revere the Bible (and there is a point regarding Mormon worship for you), I do not regard the book as an ultimate and absolute authority on anything at all.

 

[benjohnson]

In my opinion, from reading this thread, I think we all would be wise to learn on how to be persuasive in gathering people closer to God.

Being charitable, knowledgeable, and humble would be the first steps.

 

[Jerusha]

Unlike the majority of my fellow Mormons, who revere the Bible (and there is a point regarding Mormon worship for you), I do not regard the book as an ultimate and absolute authority on anything at all.

Do you therefore hold the Book of Mormon to be superior to the Bible? Do you believe that the Book of Mormon was translated correctly? “If there are errors, they are the errors of man.”

 

[TexanKnight]

I have little to say in defense of my church, or any other. I am an agnostic with a vicious streak of nihilism who attends and participates in the Mormon church because it is the faith of my fathers. At one time I felt strongly about the truth claims of my church; now I regard all such claims with equal skepticism. You say that God founded the Catholic church; the Mormon says that God founded the Mormon church.

I see you are ignoring me, too…do I frustrate you Mormons that much? Anyway, That is not really true. We claim that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Church and we have a direct line of authority from that. There is one version of that story, straight from the Bible. The LDS Church has a guy who was a known con man who has at least 9 versions of a tale of a visitation where in his church starts.

The Catholic excuses his church in spite of the ill behavior of its chosen leaders by saying that at least the doctrine has remained pure; the Mormon likewise argues that the extreme teachings of some past leaders were never raised to the level of doctrine through the means set out in our own scripture, and when they have been, he points to practices apparently not frowned upon in biblical times among the ancients.

Again, not really true. The Catholic Church is 2000 years old. Its origins are in a different time and different culture. Were their bad leaders? Yes. But that does not change the truth of the Church. Do our leaders claim face to face with God? No. The LDS Church, founded by the con-man who claims LDS prophets talk face to face with God has leaders who, despite those convos with God, have done and said things to prove beyond a doubt they are not led by God. It is LDS folks who try to foolishly compare the two eras and cultures…

 

[TexanKnight]

A con-artist and chronic adulterer he may have been; I never knew the man personally. Plenty were willing to malign him, and plenty to defend him. The fact is that obviously none of this calumny is believed by devout Mormons, nor does it factor into their worship.

The fact that Mormons turn a blind eye to Joseph’s crimes and cons does not make them less factual.