Mormonism and Angels

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris-WA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My friends had to pay for their son to go on his “mission”, I’m not sure about other positions in the LDS church. I’m so blessed to attend a large Jesuit parish where we have 4 full time priests and 2 retired. By the time a Jesuit is ordained, he usually has almost a PhD in theology. I’m perplexed by LDS priesthood practices. No one in their right mind would go to a nurse’s aide for cardiac surgery, you would find the best cardiac surgeon in your area. Why would I attend a church where the bishops are not highly educated in theology or in marriage and family counseling, The very thought of a daytime accountant (Bishop at night and on weekends) giving advice to those with horrible family or personal issues is beyond horrific. :eek:
Origen noted that in his day the Church was growing rapidly in spite its untrained clergy.

This result [rapid growth] is the more suprising, that even the teachers of it themselves neither were men of skill [men of letters], nor very numerous (The Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:350)
 
Origen noted that in his day the Church was growing rapidly in spite its untrained clergy.

This result [rapid growth] is the more suprising, that even the teachers of it themselves neither were men of skill [men of letters], nor very numerous (The Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:350)
A little context here…Origen was the dean of the Catechetical School in Alexandria. A school founded by St. Mark the Apostle. The school did produce men who went on to become Priests, Bishops and Popes. But not all men who were teachers at the school, were priests.

It was also during a time of persecution of Christians, where Christian converts from paganism were targeted for execution.

The school taught new converts, giving the once-pagan men and women instruction in scripture and basic Christian doctrines. Their teachers didn’t need to be scholars, or what we would call professors, of the school. Like today, where our catechumens are taught largely by laypeople, the people teaching catechumens then could even have been new-ish converts themselves, who had a good grasp of scripture and Christian teachings to be able to teach catechumens.

The school was a very tight community, where there were no rich or poor, and all the people were steeped in a life of scripture, Christian teaching, fasting and prayer. New converts then would have also had this wonderful environment of a Christian community, where they would have learned the Christian lifestyle from everyone who was living there.

Other than that, the Church at an early age determined that education was foundational to its success, and it founded schools in the ancient world that are now infamous. For the life of me, I don’t know why Mormons have a problem with educating people, some who would become the leaders of Christ’s Church.
 
A little context here…Origen was the dean of the Catechetical School in Alexandria. A school founded by St. Mark the Apostle. The school did produce men who went on to become Priests, Bishops and Popes. But not all men who were teachers at the school, were priests.

It was also during a time of persecution of Christians, where Christian converts from paganism were targeted for execution.

The school taught new converts, giving the once-pagan men and women instruction in scripture and basic Christian doctrines. Their teachers didn’t need to be scholars, or what we would call professors, of the school. Like today, where our catechumens are taught largely by laypeople, the people teaching catechumens then could even have been new-ish converts themselves, who had a good grasp of scripture and Christian teachings to be able to teach catechumens.

The school was a very tight community, where there were no rich or poor, and all the people were steeped in a life of scripture, Christian teaching, fasting and prayer. New converts then would have also had this wonderful environment of a Christian community, where they would have learned the Christian lifestyle from everyone who was living there.

Other than that, the Church at an early age determined that education was foundational to its success, and it founded schools in the ancient world that are now infamous. For the life of me, I don’t know why Mormons have a problem with educating people, some who would become the leaders of Christ’s Church.
Thanks for the context!!
 
That is a wonderful thing since I could not remain a Catholic any longer, mainly due to doctrine and other issues.

I would recommend Paul L. Williams new book “Among the Ruins: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church”. My limited review of the book makes it clear why Catholicism is on the road it is on.
Nothing new! The equivalent would be like suggesting Ellen G. Gould material.
 
How pretentious! You were given the same record of the prophets and apostles as everyone else. Written by mortal men. Nobody made you a special friend, that’s a title you are putting on yourself.
Pretentious? LOL. Oh but there is a big difference between the prophets in the Bible and your 19th century charlatan. How many versions of his so-called vision?

I beg your pardon? Title? I am claiming to be a prophet as Joey?
 
The number of versions of the First Vision ----- a nothing point and argrument.

Joseph Smith never denied or refuted what he experienced so anyone who calls him names, etc, they have the choice of their opinion.
Opinion? Facts are not opinions.
 
False and wrong again.

As I have said, you have the choice to believe what you want about the restored gospel and Joseph Smith, even when it not correct.
I read “From Apostasy to Restoration” by Kent Jackson. Interesting. He makes good points if you are willing to believe that Christ lied in Matthew 16:18
TheHolyBible:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
 
My church does not deal with salaries — you may know local bishops, branch presidents, stake presidents, even the mission presidents are not paid.

Something I read, the pope is open to divorced folks receiving the Eucharist ---- how can that be in light of their former marriage? Correct me if I am wrong.

Another for this pope, women being ordained deacons ---- he he serious?
Your church does deal with thousands of salaries. Of course everyone who works at Bonneville, Deseret, etc., get paid, but we can disregard these because they aren’t the same category as “church officers.”

However, every one of those officers you named does receive compensation! Now they may call it “compensation” or “reimbursement” (for transportation, lodging, meals, dry cleaner, rent, whatever), or anything else they want to call it. Regardless, it is “income” which is what “salaries” also are. A rose by any other name…

There was a time when Bishops kept 10% of the tithing they collected, and Stake presidents kept 1% of the tithing in their stake. They also received pensions when they left office. Patriarchs charge a set fee to give a patriarchal blessing. (D&C 42:71-73)

The Prophet/President of the Church has been provided with his home, and I believe that is still going on. The other prophets (apostles, etc.) may receive money for their homes, but I don’t think the church provides them directly. I could be mistaken.

Seminary teachers and institute teachers were paid, and I at least one institute teacher where I live still is.

From the 2006 Mission President’s Handbook: “While you are serving as mission president, the Church reimburses the necessary living expenses for you, your wife, and your dependent children. Dependent children are defined as those who are under age 26, have not been married, and are not employed full-time. Living expenses include food, clothing, household supplies, family activities, dry cleaning, personal long-distance calls to family, and modest gifts (for example, Christmas, birthdays, or anniversary).”

“The amount of any funds reimbursed to you should be kept strictly confidential and should not be discussed with missionaries, other mission presidents, friends, or family members.” - not just confidential, but totally secret.

“Never represent in any way that you are paid for your service."

(Sharon Lindblum: “Additional reimbursable or paid expenses are also listed including (but not limited to) medical expenses; support for children serving full-time missions; dance lessons (and the like) for elementary and secondary school-aged children as well as their school tuition, fees and books; undergraduate college tuition; a gardener; a housekeeper; internet and other utilities; babysitters; transportation expenses including the use of a car and all fuel and maintenance expenses; and personal health and life insurance premiums.”

No tithing needs to be paid on any of this, because it is “not a salary.” So, these people also get to go to the temple without paying any tithing, unlike more honest Mormons. As an example, an officer being paid - I mean “compensated” - $100,000 a year, who would normally pay $10,000 in tithing, pays zero in tithing. Instead of a 10% loss after income, it’s like an 11% bonus if he had paid tithing.
 
Add all missionaries to your list. At one time the family of missionaries supported their own children, directly. Now they donate to a fund and the LDS Church disperses funds to missionaries as they see fit. Essentially this makes all Mormon missionaries** paid volunteers of the LDS Church with the missionaries receiving a per diem to cover their expenses. If their costs exceed the per diem, those additional costs are their own to pay for.

**Except retired couples who continue to pay their own way.
 
Part One of response.
I believe the truth.

In 1830, Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon which contained Trinitarian language.
"Book of Mormon page 25:
And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh. … And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!
There is no trinitarian language in neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon. Isn’t the Trinity described something like this?

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Holy Spirit.

The Book of Mormon verse quoted here basically says the Son is the Father. Not exactly trinitarian…
Clearly God and Christ are one.
In a non-trinitarian manner…
In1831, the Book of Moses was written via “revelation.” In it references to God are singular.
Book of Moses Chapter 2:
I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.
There are clearly two Gods referenced in this verse, God Almighty and His Only Begotten.
In the 1832, version of the first vision, Joseph Smith said he was 16 and saw the Lord [Jesus Christ].
Actually he said he was in his 16th year. He did say he saw the Lord and he also said the Heavens were opened upon him. This provides room for him to have seen more that just Christ.

For the full transcript see josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1
In 1834, the Mormon leadership, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams wrote Lectures on Faith which were included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (Mormon scripture).
"Lectures on Faith-1834:
There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, … And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father—possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things:
Clearly the Father is a spirit, and the Father and Son and maybe the Holy Spirit are one.
FAIR Mormon addresses this here: fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/God_is_a_Spirit/Lecture_of_Faith_5_teaches_the_Father_is_%22a_personage_of_spirit%22#Question:_What_does_Lecture_5_of_the_Lectures_on_Faith_say_about_the_nature_of_God.3F

Christopher Stead of the Cambridge Divinity School (non-Mormon scholar) explains how a statement that “God is spirit” would have been interpreted within ancient Judaism:

By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body … but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure. (Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 98.)
In 1834, Mormonism taught that there was one God which consisted of the Father and the Son and maybe the Holy Spirit. The authority of the Mormon Church was led by the First Presidency and there were no Mormon Apostles.

In the 1835 accounts of the first vision, Joseph Smith said he was 14 and saw two personages. It seems the break from orthodoxy is becoming more strained. Also, Joseph Smith invented the Mormon Apostles as the traveling missionary leadership under the Standing Council and First Presidency.
Restorations take some time to unfold. Catholic doctrine also seems to need time to unfold… doctrinal development anyone?
In 1835, Joseph Smith translated papyrus into the Book of Abraham. In it references to God are plural.
The Bible also teaches the plurality of gods, as does Moses chapter 2 previously cited.
Book of Abraham Chapter 4:
And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.
And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
Ahh… pure light on CAF!!
 
Part 2 of response
The 1837 Book of Mormon added the phrase “the son of” as in "the Mother of the son of God,” to the Book of Mormon
Not sure what the point is here. Catholics make several kinds of references to Mary’s maternity.

CCC 963 Since the Virgin Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is ‘clearly the mother of the members of Christ’ . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head. "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church.

Also, the REDEMPTORIS MATER found here: w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater.html

says this…

The Council emphasizes that the Mother of God is already the eschatological fulfillment of the Church: “In the most holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5:27)”; and at the same time the Council says that “the followers of Christ still strive to increase in holiness by conquering sin, and so they raise their eyes to Mary, who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as a model of the virtues.” The pilgrimage of faith no longer belongs to the Mother of the Son of God: glorified at the side of her Son in heaven, Mary has already crossed the threshold between faith and that vision which is “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12). At the same time, however, in this eschatological fulfillment, Mary does not cease to be the “Star of the Sea” (Maris Stella) 16 for all those who are still on the journey of faith. If they lift their eyes to her from their earthly existence, they do so because “the Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren (Rom. 8:29),” and also because “in the birth and development” of these brothers and sisters “she cooperates with a maternal love.”
In the 1838, version of the first vision, Joseph Smith said he was 15 and saw two Personages, one introduced the other as his Son (The Father and Son by implication).
It is clear that Joseph Smith no longer believed that the Father and the Son are one, but two separate Gods.
He still believed They are one in purpose. And he said he was in his 15th year. See lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng.
In 1843, Joseph Smith had a ‘revelation’ to say, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”
Sounds like D&C 130:22. This section of the D&C is not referred to as a revelation, but rather as an item of instruction. See lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130?lang=eng.
In 1844, Joseph Smith claimed God was once a man.
Maybe it’s just me, but I like it when God imparts additional light through His prophets.
Mormonism had now apostatized against Christianity. They no longer worship one God of spirit. They worship a God of flesh and bone who was once a man, while also believing in many gods; the Son, the Holy Spirit, and individual Mormons who can become god. The Divine Nature is gone, so the words ‘begotten’ and ‘son of God’ now have a different meaning in Mormonism.
Lots of false statements in this paragraph.
In 1844, after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young used his position as the senior Apostle to take control of the Mormon Church.
Like Peter, Brigham Young was the senior apostle when Joseph Smith was murdered. So Brigham Young took his rightful place as head of the LDS church.
In 1920, the Lectures on Faith were removed from Mormon scripture.
For more information see fairmormon.org/answers/Doctrine_and_Covenants/Lectures_on_Faith/Removed
 
Joseph Smith changed his version of the First Vision and he changed the Book of Mormon to match his changing belief in the nature of God. They were changed as Joseph Smith’s belief in God changed from a Christian understanding to a polytheistic understanding of God.
So the number of versions of the First Vision is a huge point when Joseph Smith claims to “restore” a religion when, in fact, he is making a new religion; like Muhammad, or Buddha.
I believe the truth.
The truth is Joseph Smith changed his teaching on the nature of God from a triune Christian belief, before 1835, to a polytheistic, anthropomorphic belief in God. And the Mormon Apostles invented in 1835 and were never the church ‘authority’ according to Joseph Smith. Brigham Young changed it.
Book of Mormon page 25 said:
And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh. … And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!
Clearly God and Christ are one.
The Book of Mormon verse quoted here basically says the Son is the Father. Not exactly trinitarian…

Yes, it is trinitarian language. When a Christian refers to the Theotokos, “Mother of God,” it is a statement of belief in the trinity. And saying the Son is the Father is not a rejection of the trinity.
The 1837 Book of Mormon added the phrase “the son of” as in "the Mother of the son of God,” to the Book of Mormon.
gazelam;14894866:
Not sure what the point is here. Catholics make several kinds of references to Mary’s maternity.
The point is that after 1835, the Book of Mormon was changed to remove the Theotokos from the Book of Mormon. It was removed because Joseph Smith no longer believed in one triune God.
In 1831, the Book of Moses was written via “revelation.” In it references to God are singular.
Book of Moses Chapter 2 said:
I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.
There are clearly two Gods referenced in this verse, God Almighty and His Only Begotten.

Moses references God as singular using the pronoun “I” never “we” or “us.”
In 1835, Joseph Smith translated papyrus into the Book of Abraham. In it references to God are plural.
Book of Abraham Chapter 4:
And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.
And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
The Bible also teaches the plurality of gods, as does Moses chapter 2 previously cited.
The God of the Christian Bible is singular. Unlike Moses Chapter two, per 1835, Joseph Smith now has god referring to himself in the plural; ‘us,’ and ‘they.’
In the 1832, version of the first vision, Joseph Smith said he was 16 and saw the Lord [Jesus Christ].
gazelam;14894866:
Actually he said he was in his 16th year. He did say he saw the Lord and he also said the Heavens were opened upon him. This provides room for him to have seen more that just Christ.
Which doesn’t change the fact he saw only Jesus Christ.
 
In 1834, the Mormon leadership, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams wrote Lectures on Faith which were included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (Mormon scripture).
Lectures on Faith-1834 said:
There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit,
glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, … And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father—possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: …
Clearly the Father is a spirit, and the Father and Son and maybe the Holy Spirit are one.
By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body … but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure. (Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 98.)

Except when Joseph Smith says spirit he means without a body, as he said in 1843.
In 1843, Joseph Smith had a ‘revelation’ to say, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”
gazelam;14894866:
Sounds like D&C 130:22. This section of the D&C is not referred to as a revelation, but rather as an item of instruction
In 1920, the Lectures on Faith were removed from Mormon scripture.
The reason given by fairmormon for removing the Lectures on Faith was that they were not ‘revelation’ like the rest of D&C; therefore D&C is revelation. It is clear from D&C 130:22 that when Joseph Smith says ’spirit’ he means a being without a body. Lectures on Faith show that Joseph Smith and Mormonism believed, per 1835, in a God of spirit, which has changed. And Mormon scripture was changed again.
In 1834, Mormonism taught that there was one God which consisted of the Father and the Son and maybe the Holy Spirit. The authority of the Mormon Church was led by the First Presidency and there were no Mormon Apostles.
In the 1835 accounts of the first vision, Joseph Smith said he was 14 and saw two personages. It seems the break from orthodoxy is becoming more strained. Also, Joseph Smith invented the Mormon Apostles as the traveling missionary leadership under the Standing Council and First Presidency.
A true restoration should be instant and unchanging; you don’t have to ‘develop’ what already was. Changing the nature of God is not development. If the Church truly requires Apostles as leaders with authority, then Joseph Smith would have established them at the very beginning; maybe the first twelve people who convert.
In the 1838, version of the first vision, Joseph Smith said he was 15 and saw two Personages, one introduced the other as his Son (The Father and Son by implication).
It is clear that Joseph Smith no longer believed that the Father and the Son are one, but two separate Gods.

One in purpose is NOT the God of Christianity; not the pre-1835 God of Mormonism.
In 1844, Joseph Smith claimed God was once a man.
Maybe it’s just me, but I like it when God imparts additional light through His prophets.
The God of Christianity was never human. Atleast you don’t deny this change in the teaching of Joseph Smith. Most Mormons on CAF want to deny it. Again this in not the pre-1835 God of Mormonism either.
Mormonism had now apostatized against Christianity. They no longer worship one God of spirit. They worship a God of flesh and bone who was once a man, while also believing in many gods; the Son, the Holy Spirit, and individual Mormons who can become god. The Divine Nature is gone, so the words ‘begotten’ and ‘son of God’ now have a different meaning in Mormonism.
Lots of false statements in this paragraph.
It is a summary of the case I made which you have not really refuted.
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]
 
In 1844, after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young used his position as the senior Apostle to take control of the Mormon Church.
gazelam;14894941:
Like Peter, Brigham Young was the senior apostle when Joseph Smith was murdered. So Brigham Young took his rightful place as head of the LDS church.
In 1830, Joseph Smith started the Latter-Day-Saint Movement by making himself First Elder and Oliver Cowdery ‘Second Elder.’ They both claimed to be given the ‘Keys.’ Smith established the First Presidency, Jesse Gause and Sidney Rigdon, to run the Church in 1832.

The First Presidency held the keys to the kingdom of heaven (D&C 81:2)
This High Council was the chief judicial and legislative body of the church supervised by the First Presidency. The Presiding High Council was established in 1834 by the First Presidency.
In 1835, Smith told Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, to select the Twelve Apostles to head the missionary work of the Church.
By the end of 1835, the Church was run by the Elders in the First Presidency who was over the Elders in the Presiding High Council who was over the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. ‘The Keys’ were held by the First Presidency.

At the time of Joseph Smith’s death the First Presidency included: Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and Sidney Rigdon. The head of the Presiding High Council was William Marks. The head of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was Brigham Young. After the Smith’s were killed, only Sidney Rigdon remained in the First Presidency.

As the member of the First Presidency (holder of the keys) Rigdon claimed to be guardian of the church. Apostle John Page, and Elder William Marks supported him in that claim.
Brigham Young as the head Apostle claimed Joseph Smith was an Apostle and held the keys. Because Young was the head Apostle he claimed to replace Smith as the holder of the keys. This was the first time any Mormon thought of an Apostle as being a key holder.
The Church membership voted for Young, as leader of the third level church council, to lead the church; and raise the Quorum of Twelve Apostles over the Presiding High Council while taking over the First Presidency.

To summarize: Five years after the start of the Mormon Church, Smith invented the position of Apostle. The Quorum of Twelve Apostles ran the missionary effort of the church, not the whole church. The Apostles did not hold ‘the keys’ during Smith’s lifetime. The association of ‘keys’ with ‘apostles’ was an invention by Brigham Young to get control of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top