Mormon - Beliefs - A civil Discussion Please

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

It seems as though the Mormon members care more about their own importance in the afterlife, rather than them trying to be as close to God as possible (I’m talking about Heaven, God’s Heaven, not the Mormon members own universe). Is there any worship of God or Jesus? Don’t misunderstand my comment because I know that Mormons are wonderful people, again, I am married to one. I hear it is more of a reflection of their own life experiences when attending a Mormon church, rather than a day of worship. I am sorry if I sound blunt, but I have a hard time believing that the God I worship is the same God Mormons worship. It seems as though I am reading about a whole different Bible when I read ya’lls interpretation of it. I, on the other hand, love the idea of me going to Heaven with God for all of eternity, and serving him for eternity. I do not like the idea of me being subordinate to someone that I was on earth with, in our own universe. I want to know that the God I worship here on earth will be the God I will be subordinate to for all of eternity in God’s Heaven! I’m sorry if I do not make any since, it’s very hard to put into words what I am trying to explain. I feel that I am being blasphemous if I even let my mind think I could be at the same stature of GOD or should I say my husband be at the same stature as God, with our own universe. Thank you so much, please do not take me as being criticizing, it really sounds as though I am when I read this back, but I do not know how else to explain what I am thinking.

 

[nebula]

It seems as though the Mormon members care more about their own importance in the afterlife, rather than them trying to be as close to God as possible (I’m talking about Heaven, God’s Heaven, not the Mormon members own universe). Is there any worship of God or Jesus? Don’t misunderstand my comment because I know that Mormons are wonderful people, again, I am married to one. I hear it is more of a reflection of their own life experiences when attending a Mormon church, rather than a day of worship. I am sorry if I sound blunt, but I have a hard time believing that the God I worship is the same God Mormons worship. It seems as though I am reading about a whole different Bible when I read ya’lls interpretation of it. I, on the other hand, love the idea of me going to Heaven with God for all of eternity, and serving him for eternity. I do not like the idea of me being subordinate to someone that I was on earth with, in our own universe. I want to know that the God I worship here on earth will be the God I will be subordinate to for all of eternity in God’s Heaven! I’m sorry if I do not make any since, it’s very hard to put into words what I am trying to explain. I feel that I am being blasphemous if I even let my mind think I could be at the same stature of GOD or should I say my husband be at the same stature as God, with our own universe. Thank you so much, please do not take me as being criticizing, it really sounds as though I am when I read this back, but I do not know how else to explain what I am thinking.

Well, I think you’re right. Mormon theology is very unique. According to MOrmonism, God (well actually the Mormon godhead posits 3 separate Gods and Mormon doctrine goes further to teach of a Heavenly Mother goddess making at minimumn 4 Gods) is an exalted human being, a perfected human like you or me, and we have the potential to do as God has done and become gods and goddesses. We are all inherently eternal, although we require the help of the gods who came before us for us to progress ourselves to godhood.

According to historic/orthodox Christianity God is the Creator and we are creatures- we are qualitatively different than God is. God is completely indepedent and we depend on God from moment to moment for our very existence.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Well, I think you’re right. Mormon theology is very unique. According to MOrmonism, God (well actually the Mormon godhead posits 3 separate Gods and Mormon doctrine goes further to teach of a Heavenly Mother goddess making at minimumn 4 Gods) is an exalted human being, a perfected human like you or me, and we have the potential to do as God has done and become gods and goddesses. We are all inherently eternal, although we require the help of the gods who came before us for us to progress ourselves to godhood.

According to historic/orthodox Christianity God is the Creator and we are creatures- we are qualitatively different than God is. God is completely indepedent and we depend on God from moment to moment for our very existence.

I would like to know Mormons take on the fact that God said he was a jealous God, also he is infinite, the only one. How do you explain that? This is so bizarre to me that anyone could think that there was a God before our God and before that and before that one and so on, where does it end? What would be the point? How could you want another world like this, why would they want to risk having a corrupt world like we have now? So I guess they would make their own rules for their own universe? It just doesn’t make since! I guess there would also have to be another bible written for your own universe because it wouldnt be the same history we know now because it would be our own beginning. Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[nebula]

I would like to know Mormons take on the fact that God said he was a jealous God, also he is infinite, the only one. How do you explain that? This is so bizarre to me that anyone could think that there was a God before our God and before that and before that one and so on, where does it end? What would be the point? How could you want another world like this, why would they want to risk having a corrupt world like we have now? So I guess they would make their own rules for their own universe? It just doesn’t make since! I guess there would also have to be another bible written for your own universe because it wouldnt be the same history we know now because it would be our own beginning. Am I understanding this correctly?

Alisha,

Mormonism teaches that God became God by mastering the laws of the cosmos- and these laws are true for every being, for you, for me and for all the gods. If we want to become exalted ourselves, we must learn these laws and with the help of the gods above us master them too. The ‘point’ is to progress as far as we can, to reach our highest potential. According to Mormons, we will always give homage to our particular God the Father- Elohim and Jehovah (Jesus) and everything we accomplish will give THEM glory too, not just us. Mormons believe that God is infinite in a relative way- relative to us God seems completely infinite and omnipotent, like a square mile sheet of paper would seem infinite to an ant.

I hope this helps you come to a further understanding of Mormon theology.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

Alisha,

Mormonism teaches that God became God by mastering the laws of the cosmos- and these laws are true for every being, for you, for me and for all the gods. If we want to become exalted ourselves, we must learn these laws and with the help of the gods above us master them too. The ‘point’ is to progress as far as we can, to reach our highest potential. According to Mormons, we will always give homage to our particular God the Father- Elohim and Jehovah (Jesus) and everything we accomplish will give THEM glory too, not just us. Mormons believe that God is infinite in a relative way- relative to us God seems completely infinite and omnipotent, like a square mile sheet of paper would seem infinite to an ant.

I hope this helps you come to a further understanding of Mormon theology.

Nebula, thanks for trying to help me with this. I also asked a question earlier that I was trying to get clarification on, and it was, why are the Mormon Temple practices almost identical as the Freemasons? Also, why all the secretive passwords and hand clasps, what is the point? God, I am sure, could care less about a password or hand clasps. I truly believe that God would have told us that we will become a God one day. This does seem like a very important thing to have discussed. Only thing I read about is enjoying heaven with God one day and that he is infinite! Thanks Nebula, you are great!

 

[nebula]

Nebula, thanks for trying to help me with this. I also asked a question earlier that I was trying to get clarification on, and it was, why are the Mormon Temple practices almost identical as the Freemasons? Also, why all the secretive passwords and hand clasps, what is the point? God, I am sure, could care less about a password or hand clasps. I truly believe that God would have told us that we will become a God one day. This does seem like a very important thing to have discussed. Only thing I read about is enjoying heaven with God one day and that he is infinite! Thanks Nebula, you are great!

No problem, glad to help .

Mormons, if they know, will admit that the temple endowment ritual has many similarities to masonic rituals but will likely arguet hat is because masonry really does have ancient roots and preserved true, ancient traditions. Joseph Smith restored them to their proper context with correct teachings and includes women. The hand clasps and words are symbolic of a series of sacred covenants made to God, they are signs of the covenant just as baptismal water is the sign of the baptismal covenant, or the bread and water of the sacrament (for MOrmons, Lord’s supper) is a sign of a covenant renewal…

Mormons may also argue that God did teach us that we can become like him andt hat teaching is in the Bible. Jesus tells us to be perfect like our father in heaven is perfect, and we are often told that we are going to be perfected and made like Christ in heaven. Mormons take statements such as these that we will become gods like Christ is a God.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Because the post to which this was a response used ‘know’ in such a way as to require it. It’s a qualified ‘know,’ being more than belief, and a little less than absolute knowledge/surety. Best faith, I suppose.

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”)?

We use the KJV mostly because it’s traditional, we have the KJV annotated and cross referenced, and it’s still one of the most beautifully written works there is. There is no prohibition against using other translations/versions–we are as likely to go to Strongs or Young’s or the NIV or whatever as not. In fact, if there is a problem with translation, it’s a good idea to go to the different versions to see what the consensus of opinion regarding the meaning actually is.

So it’s not as if we believe that the KJV is translated better than any other; it’s just—the one we use. They’re all pretty good.

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.

Actually, there is. Oh, not in that particular ‘article of Faith,’ but the title page of the Book of Mormon does have a disclaimer about any mistakes being the mistakes of men. If we thought that the Book of Mormon was absolutely error free, there would be no need of such a disclaimer.

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?

The latter.

Let’s face it; men are not perfect. I can’t imagine that anything human beings touch could be guaranteed to be perfect in the way that God is.

 

[zaffiroborant]

According to historic/orthodox Christianity God is the Creator and we are creatures- we are qualitatively different than God is. God is completely indepedent and we depend on God from moment to moment for our very existence.

Which jives with the idea our world is a hologram as put forth in this article.

newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true

Well maybe it doesn’t really tie in with Nebula’s quote and I shouldn’t be threadjacking but I was wondering if anyone else had read this.

 

[dianaiad]

No problem, glad to help .

Mormons, if they know, will admit that the temple endowment ritual has many similarities to masonic rituals but will likely arguet hat is because masonry really does have ancient roots and preserved true, ancient traditions. Joseph Smith restored them to their proper context with correct teachings and includes women. The hand clasps and words are symbolic of a series of sacred covenants made to God, they are signs of the covenant just as baptismal water is the sign of the baptismal covenant, or the bread and water of the sacrament (for MOrmons, Lord’s supper) is a sign of a covenant renewal…

Mormons may also argue that God did teach us that we can become like him andt hat teaching is in the Bible. Jesus tells us to be perfect like our father in heaven is perfect, and we are often told that we are going to be perfected and made like Christ in heaven. Mormons take statements such as these that we will become gods like Christ is a God.

Nicely done. We actually believe that we will become ‘heirs and joint-heirs’ with Christ (yes, that IS in the bible) and have all that He does. It’s a little hard not to follow that logical thought to its inevitable conclusion.

the problems come when that is morphed into 'Mormons believe that we will become gods of our own planets and produce spirit babies to populate them."

Me? I dunno what it means specifically–but if it is godhood the way our opponents describe it, I want to create universes, not measly planets. All the planets in THIS universe are taken already.

You know, by our Father in Heaven…God.

 

[nebula]

Nicely done. We actually believe that we will become ‘heirs and joint-heirs’ with Christ (yes, that IS in the bible) and have all that He does. It’s a little hard not to follow that logical thought to its inevitable conclusion.

the problems come when that is morphed into 'Mormons believe that we will become gods of our own planets and produce spirit babies to populate them."

Me? I dunno what it means specifically–but if it is godhood the way our opponents describe it, I want to create universes, not measly planets. All the planets in THIS universe are taken already.

You know, by our Father in Heaven…God.

Thanks dian, I try to be fair and accurate.

I would state the normative Mormon position on exaltation stronger than you take it to be (not that anyone is going to become the god of mars and have endless sex with 10 wives who will be perpetually pg- that is very unfair I agree, but I would say that the usual position on exaltation has been that we can become creator gods and goddesses of perhaps our own universes whilst always having a lower position to the God(s) who came before and helped us become exalted), based on church published materials, but I think your point of view is important because that is increasingly where the LDS church is going. THanks for the feedback.

 

[JRKH]

I think the best way that I can clarify that for you is to ask you to temporarily forget how you understand the priesthood in your tradition, and try to get into the LDS mindset of how it is to be understood. God anciently instituted a priesthood among the Israelites that was hereditary. It is called the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood, because it was bestowed on the tribe of Levi, and on Aaron and his descendents (who were also Levites). That is what we call the lesser priesthood, because it is a priesthood of a lower order. John the Baptist was the last in the line of descendents of Aaron who officiated in this priesthood, before the “kingdom of the Jews” were overthrown, meaning that they lost status as the propagators of the gospel of Jesus Christ through Apostasy and the rejection of the Messiah at that time. The spiritual “kingdom” of God was then transferred to the Gentiles. There is also a higher priesthood that we call the Melchizedek Priesthood, that was not bestowed on Aaron or the Levites, but we believe was selectively bestowed on some of the ancient prophets. That was also the priesthood that was bestowed on the Apostles of Jesus Christ and Elders of the church in New Testament times. As a result of the Apostasy, we believe that that priesthood was lost to the Christian church, but has now been restored to the LDS Church by revelation and visitation of angels from heaven.

Thanks for that clear explanation.

Yes, it continued as long as the Apostles were alive to lead the church. But it died out after they disappeared from the scene as result of the Apostasy. I have written a lengthy article in my Blog to explain the LDS concept of the apostasy, which you can read here. It would take too long to explain it all in this thread.

Unfortunately my current circumstances (Wife’s illness) prevents me from doing a great deal of reading. That is why I appreciate the folks here helping me out with these questions. If I get a chance I will surely lookinto your article.

Both the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods were restored to Joseph Smith and his associate by the ministration of angels. John the Baptist returned as a resurrected being and conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on Joseph Smith; and later on, Peter, James and John came and ordained them to the Apostleship, which includes the higher Melchizedek Priesthood. John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John returned as resurrected beings. Resurrected beings can act as God’s messengers, which is another definition of an angel. They are agents in the hands of God to minister to mankind for the salvation of the human family.

Yes - this is what is stated in the Pamphlet. It would be good if we could have a common understanding of words. It seems to be a real stumbling block.

The procedure is through the laying on of hands, as was done anciently.

So it is the same as has been done by the Catholic Church since the time of Christ and the Apsotles in unbroken succession from then to now. Those called to ordination in the Priesthood are ordained by the laying on of hands and the invokation to recieve teh Holy Spirit. Through this the Power of Christ to the apostles is confired upon the next generation. The Apostolic line and “Priesthood” remains unbroken.

Apostles are called by revelation to the Prophet and President of the Church. They are usually people who have had long experience in the work of the Church, and may come from all walks of life. Prior to their being called to the Apostleship, they will have served in various capacities in the Church, which means that they will have been ordained to various priesthood offices previously.

zerinus

Very much as in the Catholic Church. Those called to Priesthood are “advanced” according to their strengths and talents received of God. Once a person receives the appointment to be Cardinal, if falls to he and his brothers to select the pope, all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course.

Thanks for the good answers

peace
James

 

[MEgus]

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

James,

I have been doing a little research and I think your right. We look at Priesthood in a totally different light than you do.

The idea you put forth here though is not close to what we believe.

We believe that the head Apostle, like Peter, has the authority to exercise all the Priesthood keys. He has been given authority from God to use these in person, or delegate those to others to build the kingdom of God.

Now, all the Apostles have these keys, but only the head Apostle has the authority to exercise those. These are given by the Laying on of Hands to those who have been called of God by Revelation.

Through this, there is order in who is called and what they are able to do.

We have two Priesthoods. The “Preparatory”, or Aaronic Priesthood, and the “Higher” Priesthood after the Holy Order of the Son of God. This has been called the Melchizedek Priesthood as to not use the name of God to often and out of respect for Melchizedek who was a great High Priest.

The office of a Melchizedek priesthood holder is an Elder.

The offices of an Aaronic Priesthood holder are Deacon, Teacher, and Priest. A Priest may exercise the authority to baptize, but confirmation has to be an Elder.

I’ll try to get more to you later when time permits.

MEgus

 

[JRKH]

No, that is not the reason. We know that firstly because the institution of the Twelve Apostles no longer existed in the Church; and secondly, because we can see that the church was no longer being led by revelation, as was the case when the Apostles were still alive.

Bishops were not Apostles and never have been. Bishops are bishops and Apstles are Apostles. Two different things.

Glad to!

zerinus

Thanks for the clarification and correction.

Of course the problem is that the LDS confuses the term “Apostle” or “One who is sent” with an Office, being the 12 closest disciples who were named the Apostles.
The Fact is that Bishops, Priests, Deacons etc have all shared in the Apostolic mission and have been considered to be successors to the Apostles since the beginning of the Church.
As to the “Seeing that the Church was no longer being led by revelation”, would be a matter of opinion. Christ Promised that He would always lead and protect His Church. If He failed to do this, then everything collapses since Jesus would be shown to be a fraud.

Peace
James

 

[MEgus]

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 do apply the same standard. In fact, the first writer of the Book of Mormon also applied the same standard.

1 Ne. 19: 6
6 Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.

Again, we take the Bible passage very seriously in that it is the Holy Ghost who is to teach us and help us understand what we read and learn. He will teach us the truth of all things.

MEgus

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you for your response but these are all very simple answers to very complex questions. I actually knew that a man can be sealed to two or more woman for eternity but my question was wanting to know more along the lines of whether or not there will be multiple wives for every “god” in eternity.

No. How’s that for simple?

If you want to know the truth, as a woman who has read the diaries of her ancestors and knows, from the people who actually participated in the practice as it is SUPPOSED to work, I don’t have a problem with polygamy.

when, that is, it is practiced properly. It seldom is; men can’t handle the limitations to their machismo that properly practiced polygamy represents.

Still, men and women are ‘stuck’ with the folks they got married to on earth. Which means, of course, that the idea of celestial harems is pretty much out.

Your answer on apostacy is the standard stock answer that I got from the missionaries the very first time that I met with them. We have debated the apostacy…and well, no reason to restate my question–I am just looking for a more in depth answer since the missionaries seem to have trouble providing proof for either of their theories.

We believe that the apostasy happened; we believe that the hints of it are very clear in the NT; most of the letters were written to combat it, after all.

We believe that, while the apostles attempted to keep twelve of 'em going, the times, the apostasy, the persecutions and sheer distance mitigated against it; without a quorum, the line of authority couldn’t be maintained, and so it was lost.

When the priesthood was lost, so was the inclination to listen to direct revelation–men figured that since they weren’t getting any, that there wasn’t supposed to BE any, and if there wasn’t supposed to BE any, then any hint that there might still be some was either ignored–or stamped out. “Heretics” were not given a whole lot of understanding back then, unless it was the popular heresy. I believe that this is a prime case of ‘the winner writes the history.’

So…the priesthood was lost, and so were ‘many plain and precious things.’ This is our belief.

That said, the wonder to me isn’t that there was an apostasy. the wonder to me is that so many plain and precious things were NOT lost.

 

[MEgus]

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.

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.

James, I would just not that these are present day terms for Apostles. Not the terms at the time the Lord made them.

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

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?

They could, and Did. Did you see my post of the other 12 Apostles in the Bible called after the original 12?

This is an indication that they were to continue to call future Apostles as well.

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

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

Correct!

We believe the keys to Priesthood Authority rested with the Apostles. That only through them could the office of Bishop be bestowed on those who God chose by revelation.

I think I can explain this in a way that might make sense. For instance, suppose the Pope ordained a Bishop who went to a tropical Island and established a Church. On this Island there were many called as Deacons and a few priests. One day, a tropical storm comes along and the Bishop and all the priests are killed. Only the Deacons remain. These deacons decide to get together and choose a new Bishop. They choose one of the Deacons and ordain him to be their Bishop. He then calls others and ordains them priests and the church continues. Now, several hundred years go by and again the head of the Church comes to this Island. Here are the questions.

Would they still have Priesthood keys?

Would the Bishop be considered a Bishop by the Catholic Church?

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

I would also like a member of Lds to clear up a few other questions:
Does the church teach polygamy in eternity? For example will each man who achieves godhood only be married to the woman he was sealed to on earth or will he have more than one wife?

Dianaiad: you said in the other thread that you would love to discuss “why some aspects of the Word of Wisdom are requirements for Temple Recommends and others are not”
I would love to understand this.

Also in talking with the missionaries extensively on the subject of apostacy their latest assertion is that the apostacy should not be looked at as an apostacy of succesion, but an apostacy of “plain and precious truths” and the corruption of doctrine. This confuses me. They tried for a long time to prove that the succesion was broken and therefore there was an apostacy. When they could not prove to me that there was a break or show me when the break occured they changed to the much more vague “loss of precious truths” but have not been able to tell me which “precious truths” were lost. Is it apostolic succesion that is important or is it the corruption of doctrine that is important and caused a need for a restoration? And if it is the corruption of doctrine can you state what has been lost or corrupted?

I can also state that the missionaries have told me that they don’t use the word “virgin” in the same way as Catholics do. They DO believe that God had sex with Mary to concieve Jesus but their definition of virgin still allows that Mary was a virgin because she was untouched by a mortal man. I probably should have posted that last part in the other thread but there it is. It is very confusing to try to understand the beliefs or doctrine, if you will, of LDS when you have several members telling you contradictory things.

First- Polygamy

There will be some who will practice this who lived when it was ordained of God. Just like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and several other old testament prophets. And those of the early Church when God commanded it.

But for the most part, it will be one man and one women as it has been for the most part of the Lords kingdom on earth. Just as it says in the Book of Mormon in Jacob.

Only those who lived when the Lord commanded it will live that law.

Apostasy: Two aspects. One, the loss of Priesthood Authority
Other, plain and precious truths, the main one being the Nature of God.

Third, ask those nice young missionaries to ask their mission President if God had sex with Mary. I’m sure they will come back with a different answer.

MEgus

 

[nebula]

First- Polygamy

There will be some who will practice this who lived when it was ordained of God. Just like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and several other old testament prophets. And those of the early Church when God commanded it.

But for the most part, it will be one man and one women as it has been for the most part of the Lords kingdom on earth. Just as it says in the Book of Mormon in Jacob.

Only those who lived when the Lord commanded it will live that law.

Apostasy: Two aspects. One, the loss of Priesthood Authority
Other, plain and precious truths, the main one being the Nature of God.

Third, ask those nice young missionaries to ask their mission President if God had sex with Mary. I’m sure they will come back with a different answer.

MEgus

Megus,

You never know, the mission president could be old school. Some of those guys are still around teaching institute and in leadership positions… you might be out of luck, though the chances are on your side.