Mormonism and Angels

[Stephen168]

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.

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.

 

[CourtingTex]

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.

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.

 

[JMM1957]

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.

Of course he didn’t, otherwise there would be no Mormon church today.

 

[CourtingTex]

Of course he didn’t, otherwise there would be no Mormon church today.

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.

 

[JMM1957]

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.

Ok, defend it then, just don’t keep saying people can believe what they want. To be a good apologist for your church, you should be willing and able to defend church teachings with some substantiative comments unlike the ones quoted above.

 

[CourtingTex]

Ok, defend it then, just don’t keep saying people can believe what they want. To be a good apologist for your church, you should be willing and able to defend church teachings with some substantiative comments unlike the ones quoted above.

I am willing to give my conviction of the truth, nonetheless those who want to know further why I am loyal, I will refer you to the words of the Brethren or other General Authorities. They just teach and preach, without a thought if folks like what they have to say ---- they understand as I do ---- you can hate my church and doctrine, have issues otherwise, because you can and do.

 

[JMM1957]

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.

Never heard of him or the book, doesn’t matter though because most likely he’s just another disgruntled Catholic, ex-Catholic, etc., that has an axe to grind with the Church. Just because someone writes a book against the Catholic Church, doesn’t mean there is truth in it, of course if you are anti-Catholic to start with, books like this probably help solidify your beliefs, because somehow if it’s in the bookstore, it must be true, eh?

 

[Stephen168]

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 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!

Clearly God and Christ are one.

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.

In the 1832, version of the first vision, Joseph Smith said he was 16 and saw the Lord [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:

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.

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.

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 1837 Book of Mormon added the phrase “the son of” as in "the Mother of the son of God,” to the Book of Mormon

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.

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.”

In 1844, Joseph Smith claimed God was once a man.

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.

In 1844, after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young used his position as the senior Apostle to take control of the Mormon Church.

In 1920, the Lectures on Faith were removed from Mormon scripture.

 

[CourtingTex]

Never heard of him or the book, doesn’t matter though because most likely he’s just another disgruntled Catholic, ex-Catholic, etc., that has an axe to grind with the Church. Just because someone writes a book against the Catholic Church, doesn’t mean there is truth in it, of course if you are anti-Catholic to start with, books like this probably help solidify your beliefs, because somehow if it’s in the bookstore, it must be true, eh?

That is a harsh thing to call me “Anti Catholic”, Believe it or not, I will defend your choice to be loyal. I repsect the things Catholicism does for the needy and poor, Obviously the doctrine and me or no more.

Paul L. Williams new book does have a significant of truth to it ---- you should consider whether you agree with it or not.

 

[JMM1957]

That is a harsh thing to call me “Anti Catholic”, Believe it or not, I will defend your choice to be loyal. I repsect the things Catholicism does for the needy and poor, Obviously the doctrine and me or no more.

Paul L. Williams new book does have a significant of truth to it ---- you should consider whether you agree with it or not.

I didn’t say you in particular were anti-Catholic, just meant if someone in general was. Guess I could have worded things differently so there was no misunderstanding, my fault.

What is the “significant truth to it”, in the book? I would have to read the whole book, not just parts of it, to make a determination, which I have no plans to do, plenty of other things to read which I know for a fact are truth based without question.

 

[CourtingTex]

I didn’t say you in particular were anti-Catholic, just meant if someone in general was. Guess I could have worded things differently so there was no misunderstanding, my fault.

What is the “significant truth to it”, in the book? I would have to read the whole book, not just parts of it, to make a determination, which I have no plans to do, plenty of other things to read which I know for a fact are truth based without question.

One thing he noted, back years ago folks dressed appropriately on Sundays for Mass ---- now if someone walks in shorts or mini skirts etc so be it. My church you are welcome to come as you wish ---- if you are coming regularly, men/boys dress shirts/ties/dress pants or suits and dress shoes girls/women dresses or blouses with appropriate skirts He also cited climate change that the current pope places a lot of importance in yet parish numbers are dropping and slowing more are going into the priesthood versus when I was a child, priesthood and religious orders had larger numbers.

 

[JMM1957]

One thing he noted, back years ago folks dressed appropriately on Sundays for Mass ---- now if someone walks in shorts or mini skirts etc so be it. My church you are welcome to come as you wish ---- if you are coming regularly, men/boys dress shirts/ties/dress pants or suits and dress shoes girls/women dresses or blouses with appropriate skirts He also cited climate change that the current pope places a lot of importance in yet parish numbers are dropping and slowing more are going into the priesthood versus when I was a child, priesthood and religious orders had larger numbers.

The pope can comment and have personal opinions on anything outside of Church doctrine that he wishes, he’s no different than any other person on this planet. Climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is important, it boils down to being good stewards of creation, caring for the environment, being responsible, and caring (love) for all people, especially the disadvantaged. As far as falling attendance in churches, and less priests/religious, its just a sign of the times we live in. Self-centered, materialistic, lovers of pleasure. All churches are going through it, regardless of denomination.

 

[CourtingTex]

The pope can comment and have personal opinions on anything outside of Church doctrine that he wishes, he’s no different than any other person on this planet. Climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is important, it boils down to being good stewards of creation, caring for the environment, being responsible, and caring (love) for all people, especially the disadvantaged. As far as falling attendance in churches, and less priests/religious, its just a sign of the times we live in. Self-centered, materialistic, lovers of pleasure. All churches are going through it, regardless of denomination.

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?

 

[JMM1957]

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?

Ok, since your questions here do not deal with current Church doctrine, only speculation on changing doctrine, I cannot give you a solid answer. Pope Francis says many things on a daily basis, and depending on the news media sources that hear it firsthand or secondhand, or etc., you can come away with widely different stories about what he actually said. Because of this, I don’t usually pay a whole lot of attention to speculation in these news stories, unfortunately. That being said, and maybe someone else can comment on this better than me, I “think” Pope Francis may be having a committee of some sort look into women deacons being a possibility at some point. As far as divorced people getting the Eucharist, I “think” he is open to it under strict conditions depending on each individual circumstance. That’s all I really care to say about it, as I’m not absolutely sure. As I said, its not doctrine.

 

[JMM1957]

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?

If someone dedicates their entire life to proclaiming the Gospel and doing church related work, and that is all they do except eating and sleeping, shouldn’t they get some sort of salary from the church, just askin’?

 

[JMM1957]

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?

We are getting way off this thread topic, but one last comment on the bolded above. I just read where there is some “possible” early church documents or writings that say some women had active roles including something similar to a deacon of the church. But there is no absolute proof whether they were ordained as such, or what their actual roles were. The investigation continues into the truth of the matter.

 

[kozlosap]

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.

 

[JMM1957]

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.

There are some average people out there who know their theology and have excellent common sense, but it sure doesn’t hurt to have the book knowledge and hands on experience to go along with those things.

 

[Melchior_1]

I believe the truth.

In 1830, Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon which contained Trinitarian language.

Clearly God and Christ are one.

In1831, the Book of Moses was written via “revelation.” In it references to God are singular.

In the 1832, version of the first vision, Joseph Smith said he was 16 and saw the Lord [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).

…
Clearly the Father is a spirit, and the Father and Son and maybe the Holy Spirit are one.

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.

In 1835, Joseph Smith translated papyrus into the Book of Abraham. In it references to God are plural.

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

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.

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.”

In 1844, Joseph Smith claimed God was once a man.

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.

In 1844, after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young used his position as the senior Apostle to take control of the Mormon Church.

In 1920, the Lectures on Faith were removed from Mormon scripture.

I would love to see a LDS response to this.

 

[cthulhubryan]

You might wish to read the “King Follet” discourse or sermon. This is where I first encountered Joseph Smiths’ idea of a “Council of Gods” and the idea that man can become a god.

Regarding Angels, memory seems to recall that Angels (in LDS theology) can be either people who are sons of the Heavenly Father who have not yet some to earth or else are those who have completed their earthly journey but have not gone onto one of the three kingdoms.

My memory may not be exact.