The Truth about the Mormons from a Devout Mormon

[LDSLissa]

Obviously there is a difference in belief between our two churches. My understanding is that we are not here to try to convert you; we are simply here to correct misconceptions.

However, when looking at another religion, one must be objective. If you look at it through the eyes of what you believe, of course it will not match up - it’s not your church/belief! Some of the concepts might appear different or odd; that is to be expected. I know to me (and probably to a lot of my fellow LDS members) that anyone could believe in the Catholic church is just amazing, especially that they would convert from LDS to Catholicism. It appears that wrong to me. That is why I am a Latter-Day Saint. I would not go so far as to say that Catholics are not “Christians”, simply because they profess to believe in Christ and follow him (which is the definition of Christian), and they are basically doing the best they know how, which is all that any of us can do.

I agree that of all the Christian churches, as far as authority and Truth goes, it has to be either Catholicism or us. Logic, to me, shows that it is us. For an unchanging God who had prophets and revelation in former days to stop having prophets does not make sense. That changes in doctrine can occur over time makes sense as we receive further light and knowledge from Heavenly Father. He gives to us “line upon line, precept upon precept.” In the beginning Christ did not immediately tell the people that it was okay to eat any sort of meat, that the law of Moses regarding this had been fulfilled. He revealed it to His prophet, Peter, at a later date. I’d much rather have things revealed a little at a time, so that I have a better chance of being able to do and comprehend them all.

As for the sustaining process, it is part of our church belief. We do not “blindly” follow the prophet, and there are instances in the past history of the church when someone has NOT been sustained by a majority. However, we do believe that the prophet is entitled to revelation for the church, and we support that, which is really all that the sustaining signifies. If the Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles establish something as doctrine, then it is doctrine.

The thing is that we believe that the Prophet is a prophet and a man. When he is teaching something that is revealed from God, then he is teaching us doctrine. If he is teaching us something he thinks is true, from his own thinking, then it isn’t necessarily doctrine. It could be true; it could be not true. I do know that answers to peripheral questions such as whether God was a Man or has always been exactly as He is are not essential to my salvation, and I don’t need to understand them. I have what I consider my own knowledge concerning this, but I don’t see it as important to dwell on. The important thing to me as a member of Christ’s Church is that I communicate with Him, study the scriptures, and try to follow His example, repenting as I fall short. This is all that really matters and to get hung up on theological peripherals can be distracting from what our true purpose is. As the 9th Article of Faith states: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. We don’t know everything; it hasn’t all been revealed. To say that Mary conceived through sexual relations with the Father or through some other means that He has that we are unaware of is just not right because it HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED. It really does make sense, if you try to look at it from our angle…

 

[LDSLissa]

As for the Adam-God theory, here is a link that I think explains it very well:

lightplanet.com/response/answers/isgodadam.htm

Basically what the link explains is that this was Brigham Young’s opinion, he never indicated that it was revelation or brought it before the priesthood for acceptance. I can’t say that all LDS don’t take everything that their leaders teach them as absolute truth and doctrine, so even when a leader (be it bishop, teacher, apostle, prophet, etc.) speaks something that is their opinion but is not revealed, they might take it as doctrine, when in fact it is not. As we denote, it is a perfect church run by imperfect people.

We do, however, know through latter-day revelation that Adam, previous to living on the earth was the Archangel Michael. I’m not entirely sure what the Catholic view on this is, but we believe that all things were created spiritually before they were created physically, so it is not contradictory at all that for such a brave and well-known angel to know who he is and who he was before coming to earth.

 

[Exporter]

LDSLisa and others,

If God the Father has a “corporeal” body of flesh and bone: knowing the requirements of such a human body, need for air (oxygen) , need for proper air pressure, need for correct temperature range …where is this body located? The environment required for a flesh and bone person is defined. How do yyou explain this?

 

[PaulDupre]

LDSLissa:

I agree that of all the Christian churches, as far as authority and Truth goes, it has to be either Catholicism or us.

Yes, the Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on.

Logic, to me, shows that it is us. For an unchanging God who had prophets and revelation in former days to stop having prophets does not make sense.

It makes sense because the bible tells us it is so:
Hebrews 1:1-2
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath **in these last days ** spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”

Jesus is the final and complete reveleation of the Father. No more revelation of doctrine is necessary.

That changes in doctrine can occur over time makes sense as we receive further light and knowledge from Heavenly Father. He gives to us “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

No, true doctrine never changes. We can grow in our applied understanding of the doctrine that was already revealed by Jesus and passed down by His apostles. That happens all the time as the Church lives the Gospel through the ages. But there is no new doctrine.

In the beginning Christ did not immediately tell the people that it was okay to eat any sort of meat, that the law of Moses regarding this had been fulfilled. He revealed it to His prophet, Peter, at a later date. I’d much rather have things revealed a little at a time, so that I have a better chance of being able to do and comprehend them all.

You’re almost correct here. Jesus did not establish or change religious disciplines, but rather left that to His Church (because that is one of the functions of the Church). The Church still regulates *religious disciplines * (the way we live the gospel from day to day in this time and place). But that is not new doctrine. Mormons, like Protestants, have somehow lost the ancient distinction between doctrines and disciplines.

As for the sustaining process, it is part of our church belief. We do not “blindly” follow the prophet, and there are instances in the past history of the church when someone has NOT been sustained by a majority.

Please cite an historical example.

Continued…

 

[PaulDupre]

However, we do believe that the prophet is entitled to revelation for the church, and we support that, which is really all that the sustaining signifies. If the Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles establish something as doctrine, then it is doctrine.

Obviously, not everything taught since the days of Joseph and Brigham has been presented to the members for their sustaining vote.
If something is taught for decades in Sunday School manuals, Elder’s Quorum manuals, articles in the Ensign magazine, conference talks and books written by apostles and published by Deseret Book, wouldn’t we be safe in calling it LDS Doctrine?

The thing is that we believe that the Prophet is a prophet and a man. When he is teaching something that is revealed from God, then he is teaching us doctrine. If he is teaching us something he thinks is true, from his own thinking, then it isn’t necessarily doctrine. It could be true; it could be not true. I do know that answers to peripheral questions such as whether God was a Man or has always been exactly as He is are not essential to my salvation, and I don’t need to understand them.

This is a peripheral question??? Jesus said
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3)

To know the true nature of God is absolutely essential to your salvation. When you get the nature of God wrong, everything else falls apart - as is obvious when you look at the mishmash that is Mormonism.
It is very important to know whether God is just some guy - one ascended master in a long line of ascended masters who evolved from existing matter and climbed the corporate ladder to godhood, or whether He is the Supreme Being, the Uncaused Cause, creator of the universe and everything in it.
That is hardly a peripheral question.

Your cavalier attitude about the person and nature of God (which I find to be typical of Mormons) is one result of your belief that your god is just some guy, no different from yourself but only more advanced.
Good luck with that,
Paul

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

BYU-BOY:

I hope that I was not over stepping my bounds by inviting some other active Mormons to join our conversation. I have felt bad that I started a thread that attracted so much interest and than left you high and dry as I try to finish up my finals.

BYU BOY

No problem, invite more, they’re all welcome.

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Welcome to this “exciting” discussion! It’s nice to have another voice other than BYU Boy from the LDS perspective.

Thanks for you kind welcome.

You have me TOTALLY confused!!! You say you believe in objective truth, and yet you also say that you believe whatever the prophet says. Hypothetical: So you have one prophet who says God has revealed to him that He was once a man just as we are. Then several years later, the next prophet comes out and says God revealed to him that He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow and was never a man.

Following your hypothetical situation I would be obligated to follow the current prophet. The current prophet is the church’s official interpreter of scripture and has the ability to correct past misunderstandings.

There’s a HUGE difference in those 2 stances/revelations!!! Where is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH in that? How is that a clarification of your belief? They’re contradictory!

Different, yes. Being drastically different would only matter to me if both teachings are thoroughly understood as revelations and canonized and there wasn’t a jointly rational/spititual explanation for the differing stances taken by prophets past and present.

In my view, though, this is entirely hypothetical. I see the current prophets as mainly harmonious with past canonized revelations.

I have heard (and I don’t have references for this) that Bringham Young declared a revelation from God that Adam was in fact God. And later, another prophet came out and declared the revelation from God that Adam was Michale the Archangel. Which is it?

Good example. Adam was identified as Michael by Joseph Smith who was before Brigham Young to clear things up a little. Brigham Young didn’t require members to believe his Adam/God theory, it was never canonized, so I don’t feel obligated to believe it.

Where is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH there? How can they BOTH be direct revelations from God? They are contradictory!

Who knows? I am happy to live with uncertainty regarding the meaning of Brigham Young’s teachings on the subject. The truth is out there, but in this case I don’t feel it important for me to know it right now. The current prophet has not stressed the importance of these teacings, either, so I am in good company.

Again, this is just something I have heard. I don’t know that it’s true, and I apologize if it is not (just use that as another hypothetical if so).

No apology, needed. An excellent line of questioning for me to clear up confusion.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

Following your hypothetical situation I would be obligated to follow the current prophet. The current prophet is the church’s official interpreter of scripture and has the ability to correct past misunderstandings.

Ok, so I can understand, let me sum what I got out of this…What you are telling me is that no matter what a previous prophet stated about a certain topic, the current prophet supercedes him. Even if both claim contradictory revelations FROM GOD?!?!?

Thanks for clarifying for me the Adam-God, Adam-Michael thing.

 

[PaulDupre]

tkdnick:

Ok, so I can understand, let me sum what I got out of this…What you are telling me is that no matter what a previous prophet stated about a certain topic, the current prophet supercedes him. Even if both claim contradictory revelations FROM GOD?!?!?

It boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

They will trumpet the belief that they are led by “living prophets” and therefore they have “the truth”. But these prophets are only speaking their own opinions, just like any Protestant preacher.

When a Mormon prophet teaches something new, everyone gets all excited about his new “revelation” and celebrate it as proof that they are the true church because they have a living prophet. Then later on, when that teaching is superceded by a new one, they shrug and say “well it wasn’t really doctrine, it was just his own opinion.”

This reminds me of once-saved, always saved. When an evangelical gets “saved”, everyone is so excited. They rejoice and bear witness of the saving power of their religion. The newly saved person is a celebrity. Then later on when he sins, they all say “well he wasn’t really saved.”

Just as the OSAS-believer can never be sure if he is saved or not (until he’s dead), neither can the Mormon ever be certain that he is following the correct doctrine from God.

Thank God for the deposit of faith found in the Catholic Church!
Paul

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

Ok, so I can understand, let me sum what I got out of this…What you are telling me is that no matter what a previous prophet stated about a certain topic, the current prophet supercedes him. Even if both claim contradictory revelations FROM GOD?!?!?

Good summary. I have no objections to it.

God would not contradict himself. If a contradiction is seen it is probably because of human elements involved in communicating the revelation or the situation in which the revelation was received has changed.

 

[tkdnick]

PaulDupre:

It boggles the mind, doesn’t it?

It sure BAFFLES me! Maybe I am just too logical, but…I can’t even possibly FATHOM that idea or how someone could EVER accept such “logic”. Guess that would be the reason I am Catholic and not LDS.

Thank God for the deposit of faith found in the Catholic Church!

Amen to that!!! :dancing:

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

If a contradiction is seen it is probably because of human elements involved in communicating the revelation or the situation in which the revelation was received has changed.

So are you saying that you can never really be sure your prophet is actually speaking the revelation that God intended for him to receive? I mean, if human elements can interfere with proper dissemination of information, how can you know that what the prophet says is correct? Man that would be confusing for me!

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

So are you saying that you can never really be sure your prophet is actually speaking the revelation that God intended for him to receive? I mean, if human elements can interfere with proper dissemination of information, how can you know that what the prophet says is correct? Man that would be confusing for me!

I can empathize with your concern about how difficult it to follow a living prophet and yes sometimes the “peripheral things” as Lissa would call them can get confusing. However the fundamental things-- the pillars of my faith–have been attested to very often, very clearly, and sans contradiction by many prophets. To me there is no cause to cite communication difficulties on these issues.

I think having a current prophet is an aid to overcoming communication barriers. In other words, I think we have more tools to work with to figure out doctrinal matters. The Holy Spirit is an additional aid in helping confirm when the prophet is speaking important truth.

 

[Katholikos]

LDSLissa wrote:

Okay, the Bile. “We believe the Bible to be the word of God so far as it is translated correctly” (Articles of Faith, v. 8). It is true that the Book of Mormon discusses that some of the plain and precious parts were removed from it. Someone earlier mentioned the Great Apostasy. I know that as Catholics, you will not hold that it occured, but to historians, Protestants and Latter-Day Saints, it has (I was just studying this in secular college, as well), even if some don’t call it such.

Which “Protestant or secular” historians? Name them and give the books, page numbers, and quotations where this “great apostasy” is discussed – either in name or in fact. Name the college you attended where these books were used for the academic study of “history.”

There was no Bible per se until the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. It was formed by the Catholic Church, the alleged “apostate” Church. The NT was written by the Catholic Church, who selected 27 of her own writings from among many that circulated among the local churches during the first four centuries of Christianity and named them the New Testament. The Catholic Church was the Agent of the Holy Spirit in writing, selecting, collecting, canonizing, naming and preserving the New Testament and canonizing, naming, and preserving the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint Old Testament that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles. The Church named both collections of writings “the Bible”; she was nearly 400 years old at the time.

Tell me why you accept the Bible that was written and canonized by an “apostate” Church?

Tell me why, if you believe the KJV is “translated correctly,” Joseph Smith Jun. had to “correct it.” Or was it “translated correctly” only after his “corrections”?

“Correctly translated” to a Mormon means that it agrees with Mormon doctrine. “Correctly translated” to a Christian means that there is accurate correspondence between the English and the Greek.

Tell me why you believe Joseph Smith? How can he have “translated” the Bible when he had no knowledge of Greek and no access to the underlying 4th century manuscripts? He merely manipulated the text of the KJV to accommodate his doctrines. That’s not a "translation’ – that’s fraud.

Every copy of every Bible in existence came from Catholic hands. The Church copied it by hand for fifteen centuries until the printing press was invented.

Strange that the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (a Protestant publication), Fourth Edition, edited by Everett Ferguson (Garland, 1998) makes no mention of any apostasy in any article in the entire 1,213-page book, nor does any history I’ve ever read – and I’ve read a lot of histories, especially of early Christianity. Neither Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, the writer of the Didache, nor the other Early Church Fathers knew about it, and it supposedly happened right under their noses, as they watched. The Popes, the martyrs, the Roman persecutors – no one ever noticed that the Church had totally “apostacized” and had been removed. Hmmmm.

JMJ Jay

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

I can empathize with your concern about how difficult it to follow a living prophet and yes sometimes the “peripheral things” as Lissa would call them can get confusing. However the fundamental things-- the pillars of my faith–have been attested to very often, very clearly, and sans contradiction by many prophets. To me there is no cause to cite communication difficulties on these issues.

I think having a current prophet is an aid to overcoming communication barriers. In other words, I think we have more tools to work with to figure out doctrinal matters. The Holy Spirit is an additional aid in helping confirm when the prophet is speaking important truth.

So I can understand what we are talking about here…What constitutes “the pillars of my faith”? And what constitutes “peripheral things”?

You’re the one who cited communication difficulties, not me…

And since we’ve been speaking hypothetically…If a prophet came out and said that he had received new revelation from God that was completely contradictory to one of “the pillars of your faith”, how would that affect you? I know if the Pope SOMEHOW managed to come out and declare something totally contrary to Catholic teaching, it would create HUGE turmoil for me!!! (obviously as a Catholic I believe it impossible for the Pope to go against Catholic teaching on faith and morals)

 

[mormon_fool]

tkdnick:

So I can understand what we are talking about here…What constitutes “the pillars of my faith”? And what constitutes “peripheral things”? )

I won’t rigorously separate these things just sketch what the two lists might contain.

Pillars
Jesus is our Saviour and related beliefs
The Bible and Book of Mormon are contain the word of God.
There are living prophets and a designated true church.
Some ordinances are essential for salvation and need to be attended to by proper priesthood authority.
We can receive answers to prayers especially in regards to learning truth.

Peripheral
The exact means by which Mary became the Mother of Jesus.
Brigham’s Adam/God theory and opinions on racial matters
How many angels dance on the head of a pin, etc.

These lists are by no means complete!

You’re the one who cited communication difficulties, not me…

True enough. I cite this as an area of exploration if two prophets are perceptually found to be in contradiction. On the other hand, where there is no contradiction and a uniform message, I don’t worry about it so much.

And since we’ve been speaking hypothetically…If a prophet came out and said that he had received new revelation from God that was completely contradictory to one of “the pillars of your faith”, how would that affect you? I know if the Pope SOMEHOW managed to come out and declare something totally contrary to Catholic teaching, it would create HUGE turmoil for me!!! (obviously as a Catholic I believe it impossible for the Pope to go against Catholic teaching on faith and morals)

If our prophet started teaching false doctrine, he can be tried and removed from office.

 

[Katholikos]

Mormon fool wrote:

I think having a current prophet is an aid to overcoming communication barriers. In other words, I think we have more tools to work with to figure out doctrinal matters. The Holy Spirit is an additional aid in helping confirm when the prophet is speaking important truth.

How does the Holy Spirit confirm the “truth” of a revelation?

Weren’t previous “revelations” that are now believed invalidated by Mormons as having been “interfered with by human elements” originally “confirmed as truth” by the Holy Spirit as well?

 

[Katholikos]

Mormon fool wrote:How does the Holy Spirit confirm the “truth” of a revelation?

Weren’t previous “revelations” that are now believed invalidated by Mormons as having been “interfered with by human elements” originally “confirmed as truth” by the Holy Spirit as well?

 

[Katholikos]

If our prophet started teaching false doctrine, he can be tried and removed from office

Since you Mormons believe your prophet receives ongoing (and sometimes contradictory and conflicting) doctrine from God, how could anyone ever accuse him of teaching anything false? Has this removal of a prophet ever happened in Mormon history?

JMJ Jay

 

[Chris-WA]

mormon fool:

Thank you for your kind welcome.
I don’t see this as a problem because the idea of receiving new revelation is a founding principle of Mormonism. I believe in objective truth that originates with God but not in man’s ability to objectively comprehend it. For mormons, prophets and revelations were important in Bible times and we see no reason this should be changed for our troubled times.

I understand why you believe in new revelation, but when new revelation completely contradicts/reverses old revelation, that’s not objective truth. I don’t think you can reasonably argue that this can be explained by our limited ability to comprehend it.
mormon fool:

Faith, scripture study, prayer, guidance of the Holy Ghost all lend checks and balances in my search for truth and give me confidence in the path that I am following pleases God. I can live with uncertainty on topics I see have little importance to my salvation that might be corrected by some revelation in the future. I am accountable only for the things that have been revealed (and canonized) up to this point.

By definition revelation is direct inspiration from God. It’s perfect the first time. How can it be corrected?
mormon fool:

As stated above I believe in objective truth, but I am open to my understanding being improved by the many methods and channels made available to me, including receiving the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

But we’re not talking about increasing our understanding here. We’re talking about complete 180-degree reversal of doctrine (polygamy, blacks in the priesthood). One cannot believe in objective truth and see that objective truth completely reversed at the same time. That doesn’t make sense.