Mormon - Beliefs - A civil Discussion Please

[mfbukowski]

So from the LDS viewpoint, what could be the Biblical basis for such a “restoration” from outside of Christ’s own, original Church?

Oh and one more thing. In each of these cases, the “restoration” was from “outside” the apostasy. It could not be otherwise. Prophets are usually not recognized for what they are/were for several hundred years.

Noah was thought to be crazy by the population. Abraham? Who would want to follow a crazy guy who talked with God and wanted to sacrifice his own son? The problems Moses had unifying his people are legendary-- they kept wanting to worship that golden calf. They crucified the savior-- he wasn’t exactly the most popular guy in his culture was he?

So I would dispute that God “promotes from within” if you will – all these individuals were not in harmony with “the establishment”

 

[mfbukowski]

bukowski, i saw this at madb. which, that thread was pointless.

anyway, the study itself indicates it is most likely the DNA came from a Spanish ancestor who had a Jewish ancestor, in Spain.

There is nothing there that shows a migration from the middle east. That is wishful thinking and a extreme twisting of facts to mold to your wishes.

You’re still not getting where I am coming from so your objections are not relevant to my position. We are talking at cross purposes as usual. This is what I have always personally believed, even before all this DNA stuff came up-- Bottom line is that there were thousands and thousands here when Lehi showed up

mormontimes.com/studies_doctrine/research_discoveries/?id=5364

 

[RebeccaJ]

You’re still not getting where I am coming from so your objections are not relevant to my position. We are talking at cross purposes as usual. This is what I have always personally believed, even before all this DNA stuff came up-- Bottom line is that there were thousands and thousands here when Lehi showed up

mormontimes.com/studies_doctrine/research_discoveries/?id=5364

No, we aren’t. I’m sorry bukowski, but this sort of “research” you post I can’t take seriously. It is so twisted and biased, it is like reading intelligent design theories. Or Jeff Lindsay’s “arguments”. You have to turn your head to a lot of facts.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Oh and one more thing. In each of these cases, the “restoration” was from “outside” the apostasy. It could not be otherwise. Prophets are usually not recognized for what they are/were for several hundred years.

Noah was thought to be crazy by the population. Abraham? Who would want to follow a crazy guy who talked with God and wanted to sacrifice his own son? The problems Moses had unifying his people are legendary-- they kept wanting to worship that golden calf. They crucified the savior-- he wasn’t exactly the most popular guy in his culture was he?

So I would dispute that God “promotes from within” if you will – all these individuals were not in harmony with “the establishment”

Mr. Bukowski, what you aren’t getting is that there is no outside. Christ died for all.

 

[mfbukowski]

Where/when did Jesus or any of the 12 Apostles ever teach this?

And those to whom Jesus was speaking didn’t even have the priesthood to perform those ordinances since that ordinance had not yet been instituted.

Paul speaks of becoming “one flesh” with one’s wife in the same way the church becomes one with Christ. That is clearly an eternal relationship.

Matt: 16

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What do Catholics bind in heaven?

We have never maintained that the temple ordinances are contained in the New Testament-- just hints. After all, the Catholics passed on what the passed on didn’t they? “Translated correctly” includes “transmitted correctly”.

 

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski;4819198:

You asked for an opinion, and I gave it to you.

No, I didn’t.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Paul speaks of becoming “one flesh” with one’s wife in the same way the church becomes one with Christ. That is clearly an eternal relationship.

Matt: 16

What do Catholics bind in heaven?

We have never maintained that the temple ordinances are contained in the New Testament-- just hints. After all, the Catholics passed on what the passed on didn’t they? “Translated correctly” includes “transmitted correctly”.

What I am asking is, where did Jesus or any of the 12 Apostles teach that marriage is required.

 

[mfbukowski]

Thank you for the answer and links.
If I have time to do such research and reading in between caring for my DW who has Alzheimers Disease, I shall certainly do so. If I do not have the time to do the research I will continue to ask my questions here and hope that the good folks on these pages will give me good answers.
I will also endevour to continue having a CIVIL discussion with ALL who come here. If you do not wish to discuss this with me I understand that. I’m sure another member of the LDS Church will provide an answer. In fact MEgus already has.

Peace
James

I’m sorry to hear that. My mom is in a similar predicament. You are in my prayers. Those sites are searchable and are more authoritative than taking our words for it, and are probably quicker and more accurate anyway.

 

[mfbukowski]

RebeccaJ;4819319:

The irony of it all is that I did a search on the subject on the LDS website, following bukowskis comment, and there are numerous occassions when the quoted passage is used by apostles, and other senior church members. It is also found in the church magazine, the Liahona which is considered modern day scripture for the members today.

You (plural) tend not to make distinctions well. I had about 20 seconds to spend on that post. Considering Liahona as modern day scripture would require a lengthy description of a complicated question. Only the standard works are “doctrinal” but many things are commonly believed which are not “doctrinal”. Limbo was “commonly believed” in the Catholic church for thousands of years before it was clearly labeled as not “doctrinal”

The couplet is commonly believed, but not in the standard works and is therefore not “doctrinal” any more than limbo is for you. Please try to understand the distinction.

 

[web2009]

web2009;4819297:

No, I didn’t.

Apologies, it was Realcatholicgk who asked for my opinion, which I gave. You responded to my posting, and I in turn am equally entitled to do so.

 

[PaulDupre]

You’re still not getting where I am coming from so your objections are not relevant to my position. We are talking at cross purposes as usual. This is what I have always personally believed, even before all this DNA stuff came up-- Bottom line is that there were thousands and thousands here when Lehi showed up

mormontimes.com/studies_doctrine/research_discoveries/?id=5364

I watched the video, and noted several big holes in Dr. Woodward’s story as it relates to LDS beliefs:

The video: claims that there were a million Asians in the Americas when Lehi arrived there.

The BOM: claims that the Americas had been “kept from the knowledge of other nations” prior to Lehi’s arrival (the Jaredites were extinct and the Mulekites were Jews, and there was only one of them left when Lehi arrived). The BOM goes on to say that had the Americas not been kept from the knowledge of other nations, the Lamanites would have had no place for their inheritance.

---

The video: claims that the Native Americans of today are not descended from Lamanites, but rather from these mysterious “Asians”.

Joseph Smith: taught and reported revelations that the Amerindians are indeed Lamanites, and names them as such in the D&C (see D&C 19:27, 28:9 and 54:8, among many others). Joseph even reported revelations that the LDS men were to take plural wives from among the Lamanites. How could this be possible if the Amerindians of his day were not descended from Laman and Lemuel?

---

The video: claims that 95% of the Native Americans were wiped out after the Europeans came in 1492, so their DNA could not be tested.

Fact: The 95% number seems very high, but even if - The DNA studies have been done not only on living Amerindians, but also of the remains of many Amerindians who died all over the Americas prior to 1492. No Hebrew DNA was found in them, either. Surely Dr. Woodward knew this.

---

This is the worst kind of sloppy LDS scholarship. The LDS are just stalling for time. Eventually they will have to abandon belief in the historicity of the BOM. If they don’t they will lose the vast majority of the next generation of members.

The truth is that the Amerindians prior to 1492 were descended exclusively from Mongolians. There were no Lehites, Nephites, Lamanites or any other BOM peoples, because the BOM is a 19th century work of fiction.

A religion founded on a fraud cannot last.

 

[mfbukowski]

web2009;4819297:

bukowski is part of a mormon segment that has gone sola scriptura.

Whatever. I am totally mainstream LDS and have shown you references to what is doctrine from the offical website. Beleive what you like.

 

[mfbukowski]

RebeccaJ;4819319:

What you are saying is true Rebecca: heres an extract as indicated below

Liahona, June 1980. First Presidency message - Nelson M. Tanner
Title: The Debate is Over

'We cannot serve God and mammon. Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over."

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5769fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

What is this supposed to prove?

 

[MEgus]

I am trying to synergize much of what I have learned here about the various aspects of the Mormon belief system. Certain problems/questions seem to continue to crop up in my head. What it all seems to boil down to is a question of Authority - and lineage - and how God has chosen to bring us more closely to Himself.

God has kept man alive from Adam - Through Moses to Abraham and to us.
With Abraham God promised a “People” dedicated to Himself.
Through the decendants of Abraham we have the nation of Isreal who were led out of Egypt by Moses as “God’s Chosen People”.
Finally, after many trials and trubulations among the Isrealites/Jews, God sends His own Son to extend savation to the entire world through Christ and His Church.

In each case, God is building up a people to himself. As He does so He remains true to that people, loving and chastizing as needed but never completely abandoning them.
Thus is was with Adam and Eve after their sin, (when it could truly be said that all of humanity was apostate).
Thus it was after the Flood when God repopulated the Earth from Noah’s line.
With Abraham God expanded this people from a “family” to a “clan” and through this to a “Clan - Nation - Race” of people.
Lastly through Jesus Christ, God has expanded “His People” to all nations/peoples/clans by way of the Church which Christ founded and leads.

What strikes me about each of these “phases”, if you will, is that in each God remained completely faithful to that group. Calling them back through prophets and leaders from within the group and sent TO the group. God never sent a Prophet to the Jews telling them that the temple in Jerusalem is now Apostate and they need to build a new temple somewhere else. There is recorded no prophet telling the people that the office of the “Judges” needed to be restored and the king removed. In other words, God worked with the group from within the group.

This leads us to the question of how Christ would chose to “Restore” His Church given that God always restored His People from Within. This is actually a fairly easy question to answer for Christ has been Calling back His Church and “Restoring” it repeatedly throughout it’s history. The early heresies are examples of Christ’s protection of His Church. Many great Saints and writers of the Church, refer to the need for greater holiness and restorations. St Francis was called By God Personally to, “rebuild My Church”. Many other examples can be found up to and inclding our last two popes who are leading the call to greater holiness on the part of God’s People.

At no time did God, or Christ ever allow His People/Church to become so corrupt that it became “Apostate”. Each time He sent a prophet, chatizement, savior to call His people back. Thus it can be truly seen that God could never abandon His Own Church to complete Apostacy requiring the kind of “Restoration” from without that is taught by the LDS.

There have been many Apostacies, including the Protestant Apostacy which is still in force today, but one cannot equate such apostacies with an Apostacy of the original Church. After all, 10 of the twelve tribes of Isreal eventually went apostate and were lost, but God remaind true to the 2 tribes who remained true to the Temple in Jerusalem.

So from the LDS viewpoint, what could be the Biblical basis for such a “restoration” from outside of Christ’s own, original Church?

Thoughts?

Peace
James

James, I think your confusing the point.

God never abandons any of his children. Not a single one of them since the time of Adam. It does not matter what group they are in or have ever been in and it is the same today.

I can see where your trying to go with this, but it’s more of a justification of what you believe. And your welcome to believe that if you want. Some of us have spent some time studying and come to a different conclusion. That’s all.

MEgus

 

[mfbukowski]

If it is not doctrinal, then why is it still taught consistetly in your church manuals and by your prophets?

The prophet Joseph Fielding Smith:

The current Gospel Principles manual:

If your prophets and apostles and church teaching manuals are teaching it, then it is your church’s doctrine. Stop denying it - your denials indicate that you are ashamed of your church’s teachings, or else you are being deliberately deceptive.

Paul

We have discussed this so many times that I know by now, you are not at all honest

As I have personally told you many times before the “theosis half” of the couplet is doctrinal, the “God was once a man” part is not.

It is believed by some as limbo was believed by some, but is not doctrinal. It is taught sometimes as Limbo was taught sometimes without being doctrinal.

I was taught Limbo as doctrine when I was a Catholic but those who taught me were mistaken. Give us the same right to be inconsistent as you give yourselves.

As regarding theosis, the Catholic catechism says

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p1.htm

 

[PaulDupre]

As I have personally told you many times before the “theosis half” of the couplet is doctrinal, the “God was once a man” part is not.

That is only your personal opinion. Your church teaches that God was once a man like us.

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us;

• Gospel Principles, Chapter 47

I’m glad you don’t agree with the LDS church on this, but please don’t pretend that your church doesn’t teach it.

That is dishonest.

 

[mfbukowski]

No, we aren’t. I’m sorry bukowski, but this sort of “research” you post I can’t take seriously. It is so twisted and biased, it is like reading intelligent design theories. Or Jeff Lindsay’s “arguments”. You have to turn your head to a lot of facts.

This is not research at all. It is a point of view about research. You didn’t even look at it did you?

 

[mfbukowski]

What I am asking is, where did Jesus or any of the 12 Apostles teach that marriage is required.

What do Catholics bind in heaven? Second time

 

[MEgus]

Hi MEgus, perhaps you are under the belief that Catholics believe the scriptures found Genesis are to be taken literally.

As has already been stated, the word of God is related using literary devices. The book of Genesis comes from an oral tradition, which existed long before it was ever written down. The word of God was passed down, by telling stories.

There are great truths to be found in the book of Genesis, but I think if you studied with a Catholic biblical expert, you would find that Abraham is the point where you can begin to see a relating of historical events.

So what you are telling me is that the Catholic Church does not believe the Old Testament? Is that correct?

MEgus

 

[truthsilence]

What do Catholics bind in heaven? Second time

Sin.