Mormon - Beliefs - A civil Discussion Please

[NewSeeker]

This is fascinating to me. You claim you never heard God’s voice, but yet you were prodded by God to join the Catolic church. So then you have experienced revelation, right?

I never experienced anything that could remotely be construed as revelation as a Mormon, despite years of faithful, sincere seeking and service.

 

[RAR]

Are you sure your not trying to say that if a man claims he knows the whole gospel proclaims his own pride?

I doubt any of us know the whole will of God. If we did, we would not be here right now.

MEgus

No, I meant what I said - see Gal 1:8. I believe it refers pointedly to Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

RAR

 

[RAR]

Ah, but from our POV, pretty much the same thing can be said of you.

The solution is to study very hard, think even harder, and pray hardest of all in order to get the confirmation of the truth from the Holy Ghost.

MOST of us, Catholic and Mormon alike, tend to float along on our ‘father’s faith,’ and haven’t actually taken that challenge. (Though I believe that Mormons, since we have been told from our youth to do precisely this, are more likely to, y’know, actually DO it…) I can’t tell you how many people have actually cautioned AGAINST such an action.

(shrug)

I believe that if you do that, you will be led to where God wants you.

I was baptized Catholic at the age of 23 and spent 9 months living as a true Saint - what many call the “honeymoon.” I am not one prone to the supernatural. It was the only time in my life before or since I had felt so profoundly God’s truth - I would later come to believe, of course, that it was the Holy Spirit.

I am where I belong right now. Praise the Lord.

RAR

 

[web2009]

Polygamy
just because it was tolerated during the early period when the law was being revealed does not mean it was condoned and approved. God for reasons best known to Himself, and according to Jesus because of the hardness of heart of His people, revealed his law and will gradually over time and had to teach them the true nature of covenant, fidelity, unity etc. before they could accept the applications of these concepts in daily life.
Puzzleannie

God “tolerated” polygamy at the time. He did not “condone” it, and certainly did not approve of it.
Even the tolerance was only, as Puzzleannie puts it " during the early period when the law was being revealed". When I was a baby my mother put me in diapers because I had not yet learned bowel control. Once I was old enough to walk and talk, I was no longer put in diapers, and I was required to make appropriate use of a toilet.
So with God’s treatment of mankind: what was tolerated (never condoned) during the earliest stages is now forbidden, as it should be.
Reepicheep

God also permitted incest, does that mean we should allow it today?

Wow! Thanks Ricko!!! That clears it up for me.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Didn’t He command Abraham to take another wife?

No, God did not. God promised Abraham his wife would bear him a son, as prophesied by an angel. They did not believe, lacked faith, and so sought to fulfill the prophecy on their own, through a concubine. There is nothing in the story of Abraham that has God commanding anything of the sort. God fulfilled the prophecy through Abraham’s wife.

 

[PaulDupre]

Wow, the Mormon ignorance of the bible is staggering. Every bible student knows that Sarah, not God, commanded Abraham to “go in unto” Hagar and produce a son.

Genesis 16

1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.

2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

3 And **Sarai **Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
-Genesis 16:1-4

 

[RebeccaJ]

LDS teach that God commanded Sarah to give Hagar to Abraham, based on their polygamy doctrine found in D&C 132.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

“In Genesis 15 we read about Abraham’s doubts and concerns. In Genesis 16 we learn a little of how Sarah might have felt. The Lord commanded Sarah to give Hagar to Abraham for his wife and commanded Abraham to take Hagar as his wife (see D&C 132:34–35). Although it might have been difficult, when Sarah did this for Abraham, it showed how desirous she was to obey the Lord and fulfill His covenants. As you read this chapter, think about how Hagar might have felt throughout this brief story.” (“Old Testament Seminary Student Guide”)

This completely distorts what is actually related in Genesis.

 

[web2009]

LDS teach that God commanded Sarah to give Hagar to Abraham, based on their polygamy doctrine found in D&C 132.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

This completely distorts what is actually related in Genesis.

Paul and Rebecca, thank you so much. This is one of those instances where it is claimed that the bible has not been translated correctly, and the “correction” is in this case found in the Doctrine and Covenants. How truth can be distorted in a few words!!

All these years of confusion and indoctrination have now been cleared. I left the mormon church 5 years ago after 17 years of faithful attendance. I am now engaged to a catholic man and am investigating this church. It has been a long road for me. In the end, it boils down to one of two churches only that can be true. If priesthood authority continued after Jesus died, then it has to be the catholic church - because it originates from there.
If however, there was truly a period of apostacy, then there would be a need for a restoration, as the mormons claim happened through Joseph Smith.

I have read enough in this forum to believe there was no apostacy.

 

[JRKH]

We believe that there have been seven major dispensations in which the will of God has been made known to man by by establishing a new religious tradition, after the previous one has apostatized. These dispensations, which have been headed by great prophets, have been those of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abrahan, Moses, Jesus and His Apostles, and lastly Joseph Smith. This we believe to be the last dispensation which will not apostatize, but will culminate in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ in His own time.

zerinus

Thank you for the clarification.
Is there an understanding/consensus in the LDS Church as to how long each of these “Dispensations” lasted before they Apostasized.
I also am curious about the view of the LDS on the Major Prohets of the Old testament who were called by God to bring the Children of Isreal back to the faith. None of these men held “Keys”?

Also I note here that we have another new term introduced. The term is “Dispensation”. I thought that the term for each of these “renewals” would be “Restoration”. Is there a difference between a “Dispensation” and a “Restoration”? If not, why the different terms?

 

[JRKH]

No one has categorized that as far as I know, but a careful study of the Old Testament will show many times. Isaiah and Malachi are also some that come to mind.

One other note. The Priesthood existed outside of the Children of Israel as well. Mose’s Father in Law, while not a member of the House of Israel was a High Priest.

So, there are many things in play here. You can’t just look at it from one perspective.

MEgus

Well MEgus,
It appears that Verinus has a list of the major ones anyway.
I am interested in the role of the Prophets that you mention in Revelation.

Peace
James

 

[truthsilence]

Paul and Rebecca, thank you so much. This is one of those instances where it is claimed that the bible has not been translated correctly, and the “correction” is in this case found in the Doctrine and Covenants. How truth can be distorted in a few words!!

All these years of confusion and indoctrination have now been cleared. I left the mormon church 5 years ago after 17 years of faithful attendance. I am now engaged to a catholic man and am investigating this church. It has been a long road for me. In the end, it boils down to one of two churches only that can be true. If priesthood authority continued after Jesus died, then it has to be the catholic church - because it originates from there.
If however, there was truly a period of apostacy, then there would be a need for a restoration, as the mormons claim happened through Joseph Smith.

I have read enough in this forum to believe there was no apostacy.

Praise God for His faithfulness. Blessings to you, in your journey.

I’m very excited for you. Soon you’ll know why!

 

[zerinus]

Thank you for the clarification.
Is there an understanding/consensus in the LDS Church as to how long each of these “Dispensations” lasted before they Apostasized.

There are several definitions of “dispensation,” none of which I quite like. I see a dispensation as a period of time during which mankind are dependent on the last revelation of the will of God to man. For example, the dispensation that Jesus introduced lasted around 1800 years, before it was brought to an end with the rise of this new dispensation. It is true that we believe that Christian church apostatized early one; but that did not mean that it could not serve as an agent to inculcate faith in Jesus Christ, and thus bring salvation to many people. A dispensation may have apostatized, but until a new one is established, the old one still remains in force, if that is not too confusing way of putting it.

I also am curious about the view of the LDS on the Major Prohets of the Old testament who were called by God to bring the Children of Isreal back to the faith. None of these men held “Keys”?

They did, see above. Many Israelites apostatized at various times; but for most of their history they had had prophets among them to guide them in the right way. Their dispensation was finally lost when they rejected the Messiah, and the dispensation of the gospel was taken away from them and given to the Gentiles.

Also I note here that we have another new term introduced. The term is “Dispensation”. I thought that the term for each of these “renewals” would be “Restoration”. Is there a difference between a “Dispensation” and a “Restoration”? If not, why the different terms?

Dispensation is a biblical term (as is restoration / restitution). Here is a quote:

Ephesians 1:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

That we believe refers to the present dispensation established through Joseph Smith.

zerinus

 

[truthsilence]

The LDS church teaches that Joseph Smith was the prophet who ushered in the fullness of times.

The fullness of times actually has nothing to do with Joseph Smith and literally everything to do with Jesus Christ.

 

[truthsilence]

Zerinus,

In other words, Ephesians 1 has nothing to do with Joseph Smith and everything to do with Jesus Christ.

 

[zerinus]

The LDS church teaches that Joseph Smith was the prophet who ushered in the fullness of times.

The fullness of times actually has nothing to do with Joseph Smith and literally everything to do with Jesus Christ.

Zerinus,

In other words, Ephesians 1 has nothing to do with Joseph Smith and everything to do with Jesus Christ.

Every dispensation has everything to do with Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was a servant of Jesus Christ, just as Moses was, or Abraham, or Noah, or Enoch had been; who introduced a new dispensation at the commandment of Jesus Christ.

zerinus

 

[nebula]

Every dispensation has everything to do with Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was a servant of Jesus Christ, just as Moses was, or Abraham, or Noah, or Enoch had been; who introduced a new dispensation at the commandment of Jesus Christ.

zerinus

zerinus,

Perhaps this is OT insofar as this seems to be largely an informational post, but one thing that has never set well with me is the fact that notions such as the fullness of times and the great apostasy downgrade the centrality of the works of Christ. What could be more central, more ‘full’, add more to the incarnation, death and resurrection of God in the flesh? All else seems like such a terrible distraction.

 

[truthsilence]

Every dispensation has everything to do with Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was a servant of Jesus Christ, just as Moses was, or Abraham, or Noah, or Enoch had been; who introduced a new dispensation at the commandment of Jesus Christ.

zerinus

Ephesians 1 has nothing to do with Joseph Smith.

 

[NewSeeker]

Ephesians 1 has nothing to do with Joseph Smith.

…and Joseph Smith’s “restoration” has nothing to do with the real Jesus Christ.

 

[zerinus]

Ephesians 1 has nothing to do with Joseph Smith.

It has everything to do with Joseph smith.

zerinus

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

It has everything to do with Joseph smith.

zerinus

How in the world can you think that??? There is not one thing in that chapter that remotely pertains to JS! I can not believe anyone could think that! Why do think that chapter has something to do with JS?