Mormon - Beliefs - A civil Discussion Please

[zerinus]

As to which version of the Bible that would be:
I would have to go with one that has an imprimatur of the Catholic Church.
Why?
Because the Catholic Church is the one who assembled the Bible as we know it today.

I fully agree with the Bible quote above. We do depend upon the Holy Spirit for our understanding. Which is another reason why I would reamin with the Catholic Church. For it is through the Holy Spirit that the Church has assembled, protected, copied, translated, defended and preached the Holy Bible since ca. 400 AD.
However if one believes that the Church fell into apostacy well before the assembly of the Bible into the book we know today, then one must consider the entire canon as suspect for an aposate church cannot be led by the Holy Spirit. So how could an apostate church be trusted to properly assemble the Books of the canon?

“Apostate” means that it lost the priesthood and Apostolic authority. It does not mean that there were not good people in it who could be “led by the Holy Spirit”.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I don’t know that the mormons actually engage in this sort of thing.

Thank you; we don’t!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I’m beginning to see another reason why we have so much trouble understanding and communicating. It seems that we have different definitions of “Priesthood”…

It appears (correct me if I’m wrong) that in Mormon belief “Prieshood” or a “Priest” would be one who is empowered to receive revelation from God to teach the People.

The priesthood is defined a the authority deligated by God to man to act, speak, officiate in the name of God. They are God’s “officials” in His kingdom, if you like. For example, to baptize or lay on hands for the Holy Ghost, the priesthood is required. A baptism performed by one who does not have the proper priesthood is invalid in the sight of God.

(This is based on what I read on page 4 of the Pamphlet, “The Restoration”) Of course, what they are refering to in the OT are called “Prophets”, and in the NT are called Apostles.

This means that the Jewish Priests did not have “Priesthood Authority”. Unless, of course, a given individual was called by God to be a “Prophet”.

Am I understanding this correctly?

No! This part of your post didn’t make a lot of sense to me.

zerinus

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Most of the early Mormon leaders were Freemasons. Joseph Smith joined the Freemasons and a few months later “revealed” the temple endowment ceremony, which includes a direct borrowing from the first 3 degrees of Freemasonry, complete with the secret hand clasps and passwords (the Mormon hand clasps are exactly the same as the Freemason, but the passwords are different).

Here is the Wikipedia article on Mormons and Masons.

So, they do not believe that Freemasons are bad people? I watched a show on the history channel about them, and they seem to be very mysterious people, and at the same time, very dangerous, especially when their secret society was first formed. I also find it strange that everything is so secretive when you do attend these temple ceremonies. I just do not believe that God cares about passwords and hand clasp and all of the very strange symbolisms that they do. Please correct me if I’m wrong about any of this. I am Catholic and my husband is Mormon, and I just really am trying to find a reason to justify him believing in any of this. From my experience with all his friends and family that are Mormon, They are such awesome nice people!! I love them to death! I guess I am mighty confused about their views!

 

[dianaiad]

OK, I agree that the translation is important, which is why we look for the imprimatur of the Church.

However I did want to comment on one point you make above which I highlighted.
This is not really true at all.
I have no wish to derail the thread, but allow me to make the following points:

1. The Protestant Reformation was started by a relatively few people

Yes, and the first Christians numbered something like…twelve?

1. The reformers had problems with Church Practices much more than with Church Doctrine

I see. that’s why the Protestants all use Duauy-Rheims?

1. The reason that Protestantism became entrenched was more to do with politics than with religion.

That may be–and in fact IS–true for the Church of England…but I don’t think Martin Luther, et. al. were all that interested in politics.

1. Once the Reformers came up with Sola Scriptura and yanked the Bible away from the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, “all bets were off” in so far as proper interpretation was involved.

this is true…but then I am neither Catholic nor Protestant, so have a slightly different POV from both.

Now back to the topic at hand.

Peace
James

Ok.

er…

what was that???

 

[dianaiad]

I’m beginning to see another reason why we have so much trouble understanding and communicating. It seems that we have different definitions of “Priesthood”…

It appears (correct me if I’m wrong) that in Mormon belief “Prieshood” or a “Priest” would be one who is empowered to receive revelation from God to teach the People. (This is based on what I read on page 4 of the Pamphlet, “The Restoration”) Of course, what they are refering to in the OT are called “Prophets”, and in the NT are called Apostles.

This means that the Jewish Priests did not have “Priesthood Authority”. Unless, of course, a given individual was called by God to be a “Prophet”.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Peace
James

To us, “Priesthood” equals 'authority." Authority to perform ordinances necessary to our salvation, authority to make decisions, authority to receive revelation for the performance of whatever task is assigned them. An Apostle holds the priesthood, but not all those who hold the priesthood are apostles. Or prophets.

A twelve year old Deacon has the priesthood…and the authority to pass the sacrament to people–but he doesn’t have the authority to “bless” it, or to perform weddings, or…???

As a Catholic, I’m sure you understand the concept of hierarchical authority. I’m not certain what you mean by the comment regarding Jewish priests–of course they had authority to do what their offices required of them. I may be confused about what exactly you are asking there.

 

[dianaiad]

Mormons believe priesthood is a power. God the Father gave this power to Jesus. Jesus gave this power to the Apostles. Mormons believe the Apostles did not give this power to anyone else.

All worthy male members of the LDS church are believed to have this power given to them at the age of 12, when they are called deacons. At age 14 they get an increase of priesthood power, and are called teachers. At age 16 they are called priests. At age 19 they are called elders. That is the set path. After elder, a man can be made a high priest. A prophet is a high priest who has been called to the position of prophet. This position gives him more powers of their priesthood.

This power is only available to worthy males, and this power will wax and wane depending on the boy’s/man’s worthiness. “While the power of the priesthood is unlimited, our individual power in the priesthood is limited by our degree of righteousness or purity.” (Priesthood Power, lds.org)

Well said. I would add that “authority” is also a very important aspect of this, since ‘faith’ is the basis for ‘power’ and is very individual.

Catholics would understand this thusly, I think: a priest may not be personally ‘worthy’, but his ability to take confessions and grant absolution is not diminished by his personal standing with God, is it? (Please excuse me if I said that incorrectly.)

By the way, we do NOT claim that the apostles “didn’t give it to anybody else.” they most certainly did. However, only apostles, we believe, CAN authorize the bestowing of priesthood, and once there were none left, that priesthood authority died along with those who held it.

 

[dianaiad]

Does the Bible cease to be the Word of God if someone translates it “furniture” when it should be “hosts?” How do you know if it should be “hosts” and not “furniture?” How does the LDS church know that the King James Version is translated correctly?

Why isn’t the same standard applied to the Book of Mormon? How do you know it has been “translated correctly,” not only from the original language through Joseph Smith and his scribes, but also though the various printings in English, and from English to the many other languages it has been translated into? Shouldn’t there also be a disclaimer that, “we believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God as long as its translated correctly?” Or is the Book of Mormon held to be the word of God regardless of the correctness of translation?

We ‘know’ this for the same reason we ‘know’ that the bible is pretty darned accurate: we have worked very hard to make it that way, and as individuals we go to the ultimate source for understanding: God and the power of the Holy Ghost.

 

[dianaiad]

So, they do not believe that Freemasons are bad people? I watched a show on the history channel about them, and they seem to be very mysterious people, and at the same time, very dangerous, especially when their secret society was first formed. I also find it strange that everything is so secretive when you do attend these temple ceremonies. I just do not believe that God cares about passwords and hand clasp and all of the very strange symbolisms that they do. Please correct me if I’m wrong about any of this. I am Catholic and my husband is Mormon, and I just really am trying to find a reason to justify him believing in any of this. From my experience with all his friends and family that are Mormon, They are such awesome nice people!! I love them to death! I guess I am mighty confused about their views!

What, do you believe Freemasons are bad people?

 

[JRKH]

(This is based on what I read on page 4 of the Pamphlet, “The Restoration”) Of course, what they are refering to in the OT are called “Prophets”, and in the NT are called Apostles.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
In the Pamplet “The Restoration” on page 4 it says:
"The Scriptures reveal a pattern of God repeatedly reaching out to His children, even though we do not always listen:

• God Chooses a prophet.
• The prophet teaches the gospel and leads the people.
• God Blesses the people.
• The people gradually disregard or disobey the teachings of the prophet. They eventually reject the prophet and his teachings and fall into apostacy.
• Because of apostacy, people lose knowledge of the gospel. Priesthood authority is taken from among them.
• When the time is right and people are ready to follow Him again, God chooses another prophet, restores the priesthood and the Church, and directs the prophet to teach the gospel."

So by this, it is clear that the LDS do not hold that a person holding the title “Priest” does not hold any “Priesthood authority”, even though the “Priesthood” in the Old testament was established by God among the Israelites.
In the NT the Priesthood was established by Jesus upon the twelve apostles who, by the laying on of hands and involking the Holy Spirit, passed on their Priestly Authority to others who followed them.

So how is it that the “Priesthood Authority” is passed on in the Mormon Church?
How did JS recieve his “Priesthood Authority?”

Peace
James

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

What, do you believe Freemasons are bad people?

Well, I do not know anything about them, except what I saw on the History Channel. I am asking if they are bad people because I don’t know. From what the history channel had documented, it seemed they have a bad rep, which doesn’t necessarily mean that the History Channel has a correct view on them. But why would they have a bad rep, you know, about all the bizarre sacrifices they have done to people in the beginning of their formation? Is the History Channel wrong about this? The reason I am wondering all this, is because I have been told that the Mormon temple ceremonies are just like that of a Freemasons. I was wondering why the Mormons carry out almost identical ceremonies, or if they are like a Freemason’s ceremony at all?

 

[JRKH]

Well said. I would add that “authority” is also a very important aspect of this, since ‘faith’ is the basis for ‘power’ and is very individual.

Catholics would understand this thusly, I think: a priest may not be personally ‘worthy’, but his ability to take confessions and grant absolution is not diminished by his personal standing with God, is it? (Please excuse me if I said that incorrectly.)

I think you stated this very well. Many do not understand that there is a distinct difference between the person and the office. The same is true often of the Church, as you well know, when we have to listen to others tell US what we believe - It is frustrating.
Also I think that this is a main problem with the Idea of the Apostacy. In order for the Church to fail, IT would have to become COMPLETELY Apostate and that includes in it’s teachings. Yet, in spite of bad people, the Church has remained true to the teachings of Christ and built up His Church.
So corrupt people do not equate to corrupt teachings and therefore there is no Apostacy of the Church.

By the way, we do NOT claim that the apostles “didn’t give it to anybody else.” they most certainly did. However, only apostles, we believe, CAN authorize the bestowing of priesthood, and once there were none left, that priesthood authority died along with those who held it.

OK. So given that we have established that those with “Priesthood Authority” might be caled something other than “Priest”, it follows that there can be persons who have Apostolic Authority without being called “Apostles”.
Dictionary.com gives the following definitions for Apostle:
. any of the early followers of Jesus who carried the Christian message into the world.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) any of the original 12 disciples called by Jesus to preach the gospel: Simon Peter, the brothers James and John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot.
**3. the first or the best-known Christian missionary in any region or country. **
4. Eastern Church. one of the 70 disciples of Jesus.
5. the title of the highest ecclesiastical official in certain Protestant sects.
**6. (among the Jews of the Christian epoch) a title borne by persons sent on foreign missions. **
7. one of the 12 administrative officials of the Mormon Church.
8. a pioneer of any reform movement.

Please note that in number 3 the term “Apostle” is applied to Christian “Missionaries”. Thus it can be said that anyone bearing the term of missionary is, in fact, also an Apostle.
More importantly, Number 6 points out that the title Apostle was given to “persons sent on foreign missions”. Therefore we can see that this title, as used in the Bible texts did not necessarily convey a special “rank” or calling different or higher than the Bishops or Presbyters or others involved in Spreading the faith.

In fact, it is my understanding that the Church stopped using the term Apostle out of deference to the original twelve. Not because the office of “Apostle” died out.

 

[JRKH]

To us, “Priesthood” equals 'authority." Authority to perform ordinances necessary to our salvation, authority to make decisions, authority to receive revelation for the performance of whatever task is assigned them. An Apostle holds the priesthood, but not all those who hold the priesthood are apostles. Or prophets.

A twelve year old Deacon has the priesthood…and the authority to pass the sacrament to people–but he doesn’t have the authority to “bless” it, or to perform weddings, or…???

As a Catholic, I’m sure you understand the concept of hierarchical authority. I’m not certain what you mean by the comment regarding Jewish priests–of course they had authority to do what their offices required of them. I may be confused about what exactly you are asking there.

Thank you for that nicely put together explanation.
So a person CAN hold “Priesthood authority” without having the title of Apostle - And - If I read your first paragraph correctly - a person can receive “revelation” without being one of the 12 “Apostles” of the Mormon Church. If God so Chose, could He choose to sen a revelation to a deacon? How about a Bishop?

Peace
James

 

[zerinus]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
In the Pamplet “The Restoration” on page 4 it says:
"The Scriptures reveal a pattern of God repeatedly reaching out to His children, even though we do not always listen:

• God Chooses a prophet.
• The prophet teaches the gospel and leads the people.
• God Blesses the people.
• The people gradually disregard or disobey the teachings of the prophet. They eventually reject the prophet and his teachings and fall into apostacy.
• Because of apostacy, people lose knowledge of the gospel. Priesthood authority is taken from among them.
• When the time is right and people are ready to follow Him again, God chooses another prophet, restores the priesthood and the Church, and directs the prophet to teach the gospel."

So by this, it is clear that the LDS do not hold that a person holding the title “Priest” does not hold any “Priesthood authority”, even though the “Priesthood” in the Old testament was established by God among the Israelites.

My apologies, but your statement is still unclear to me. I don’t see how you come to that conclusion from the passages cited. Your conclusion itself is not worded clearly enough for me to make much sense of. At least I do not clearly understand it.

In the NT the Priesthood was established by Jesus upon the twelve apostles who, by the laying on of hands and involking the Holy Spirit, passed on their Priestly Authority to others who followed them.

Agreed.

So how is it that the “Priesthood Authority” is passed on in the Mormon Church?
How did JS recieve his “Priesthood Authority?”

It was done through the ministration of angels.

zerinus

 

[JRKH]

My apologies, but your statement is still unclear to me. I don’t see how you come to that conclusion from the passages cited. Your conclusion itself is not worded clearly enough for me to make much sense of. At least I do not clearly understand it.

Sorry again - I am just trying to get some terminology clarified. Also I should read my posts better before hitting the send button. I meant to say:
In Mormon belief the term “Priest” and “Priesthood Authority” do not connect. I say this since, in the Old testament there was a Priesthood Established by God among the Isrealites. But in the LDS liturature the “Priesthood Authority” is not equated with them, but with individuals whom God chose directly - These are called Prophets.
Hope that is clearer.

In the NT the Priesthood was established by Jesus upon the twelve apostles who, by the laying on of hands and involking the Holy Spirit, passed on their Priestly Authority to others who followed them.

Agreed.

So the Priesthood Authority DID continue on After the Original Apostles, to any whom they Layed Hands opon and ordained into the Priesthood. This would include those called deacons, presbyters, priests, Bishops or whatever.

So how is it that the “Priesthood Authority” is passed on in the Mormon Church?
How did JS recieve his “Priesthood Authority?”

It was done through the ministration of angels.

zerinus

Could you be more specific?
I know from your pamphlet that JS recieved his “Laying on of hands” from Peter, James and John, (Not angels)
So what is the procedure for ordination and the passing on of “Priesthood Authority” in the Mormon Church. Are the Apostles elected from among certain elders like the Pope is chosen from among the Cardinals?

Peace
James

 

[majick275]

Well said. I would add that “authority” is also a very important aspect of this, since ‘faith’ is the basis for ‘power’ and is very individual.

Catholics would understand this thusly, I think: a priest may not be personally ‘worthy’, but his ability to take confessions and grant absolution is not diminished by his personal standing with God, is it? (Please excuse me if I said that incorrectly.)

By the way, we do NOT claim that the apostles “didn’t give it to anybody else.” they most certainly did. However, only apostles, we believe, CAN authorize the bestowing of priesthood, and once there were none left, that priesthood authority died along with those who held it.

i have to challenge this last bit. LDS scriptures and doctrine do NOT state that “only apostles” can authorize bestowing of priesthood. JS led the LDS church for some time before calling apostles. Quite a few LDS priesthood ordinances can be validly performed without Apostles, ordinations being among them. aaronic priesthood ordinations only require the authorization of the local bishop and conferring the Melchizedek priesthood (along with ordinations to the offices of elder and high priest) can be authorized by the Stake President. so the only tricky part would have been calling new bishops and stake presidents. A literal interpretation of the D&C in a time without the CHI would seem to indicate that as long as there was a validly ordained elder around, both priesthoods could continue to be passed down. The LDS belief that John never left and that the 3 nephites also have stayed on earth would appear to eliminate any other obstacles.

So the LDS claim of a global loss of priesthood authority seems to be on very shaky ground.

 

[wilsonpd]

The Johanine comma is a very big case in point.

So yeah, it’s “we believe the bible to be the word of God as long as it is translated correctly,” NOT “we believe the bible to be the word of God unless we don’t like what it says.”

The problem being, of course, that just because you claim it says one thing, it doesn’t mean that it actually does say what you think it does. You could be wrong–and in that case it wouldn’t be US who are ‘not liking what it says,’ is it? In fact, the reason that there are Protestants today is because a great many people decided that the Scriptures didn’t really say what the Catholics think they did.

But again…how do YOU know which parts are translated correctly? Missionaries often quote from the Bible (KJV), how do you or they know that they are not quoting a verse that has been translated incorrectly?

 

[wilsonpd]

By the way, we do NOT claim that the apostles “didn’t give it to anybody else.” they most certainly did. However, only apostles, we believe, CAN authorize the bestowing of priesthood, and once there were none left, that priesthood authority died along with those who held it.

If they “gave it to someone else” wouldn’t that mean that all of the apostles didn’t die out? Why can Mormon apostles pass on authority to “new” apostles but the Apostles of old couldn’t?

 

[amontoya]

We ‘know’ this for the same reason we ‘know’ that the bible is pretty darned accurate: we have worked very hard to make it that way, and as individuals we go to the ultimate source for understanding: God and the power of the Holy Ghost.

I’m sorry, but what do you mean “know?” Why use quotation marks?

What I’m really wondering about is, if the Bible is the Word of God “as long as its translated correctly” then, as in the verses you quoted previously, if someone translates “furniture” or “vast array” when the LDS church believes it should be “host,” does that mean that Bible is no longer the Word of God? In other words, since the LDS church accepts the KJV as the Word of God(meaning it is “translated correctly”), then do you believe that the NIV or RSV are not the Word of God(because neither is “translated correctly”)?

I understand that the LDS church works very hard to make sure that the Book of Mormon is accurate, but I still don’t know why there is no translation qualifier regarding it, like there is with the Bible. For instance, let’s suppose I decided to translate the Book of Mormon into French, or I wanted to write my own “The Message” style version. Now I don’t know French, so the translation would naturally be abysmal, and I don’t know what the message of the Book of Mormon is, so I’d probably get it wrong. Would those translations still be considered the word of God, or is the Book of Mormon in the same boat as the Bible, and only considered to be the Word of God as long as its translated correctly?

 

[JRKH]

If they “gave it to someone else” wouldn’t that mean that all of the apostles didn’t die out? Why can Mormon apostles pass on authority to “new” apostles but the Apostles of old couldn’t?

I will not presume to speak for the Mormons here, but it is my understanding that since the term apostle disappears from use early in the Church, the assumption is that there were no more apostles.
Those called Bishops by the Early Church don’t seem to count.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Peace
James