The Truth about the Mormons from a Devout Mormon

[Geocacher]

As far as the original Post of this thread from BYU-BOY, I believe that people simply made a mess of this Virgin Birth thing. This was no Physical act, which would make **MARY not a virgin, **but GOD had caused an egg to be seeded in her womb, without her knowing the moment that **GOD **had seeded an egg. I believe that MARY was a virgin myself as a long time Mormon in Michigan.

---

A question for BYU-BOY:

You didn’t mention anything about Pre-existance in your questions to answer, can you answer about where do mormons get the idea of a pre-existance ??

Can Pre-existance be proven via bible or NDE’s?

Thanks,
** Geoff**
Detroit Mich

 

[mormon_fool]

Katholikos:

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

1. I don’t believe in any instance when God gave contradictory and conflicting revelations although we might perceive them to be that way. He has a justification and rationale that we can’t fully comprehend, articulate, etc.
2. critics accuse the prophet of teaching false doctrine all the time.
   Some times LDS members do too. We work with them to try to show them the prophet is correct. They are free to repent or start their own church. If the prophet really is wrong he can be tried by the Quorum of Twelve apostles. This has never happened yet.

 

[mormon_fool]

Chris-WA:

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…

I reject your premise of revelation that “completely contradicts/reverses old revelation” in any real case on God’s part.

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

This is too simply of a model of revelation. God’s end of the conversation is perfect, the other side is open to human error.

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.

In this cases we are mostly talking about practices changes and not doctrine changes. Doctrinely we still believe in polygamy when God commands it, but not when he forbids it. When the priesthood ban for Blacks was changed there was no canonized doctrine to disavow. Before the revelation, the leaders interpretted some scriptures in a way that is seen in hindsight as “less understanding” compared to now.

 

[Chris-WA]

mormon fool:

I reject your premise of revelation that “completely contradicts/reverses old revelation” in any real case on God’s part.

This is too simply of a model of revelation. God’s end of the conversation is perfect, the other side is open to human error.

I don’t think you realize the magnitude of the can of worms you have opened here. True revelation is perfect. It requires no correction. If what you’re saying is correct, my friend, then we cannot depend on the bible, and you cannot depend on the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, because all of them are now open to correction at a later date. Who knows what will be changed later on? You don’t, so therefore anything contained within is now potentially errant.

There is a huge difference between deepening our understanding and outright changing a previous revelation. In fact, if a revelation is shown to be in error, then it was never true revelation at all, and the human that first communicated that revelation was not a prophet, but a fraud.

 

[mormon_fool]

Well I need to bow out for awhile, at least until finals are over next week. Thanks especially to, but not limited to, tkdnick for civil discussion. I think I was to argue that last point reductio ad absurdum, but I don’t think what I am defending can be simplified to something easily refuted. If it can it’s because I can’t articulate it well enough with message board brevity and inter-faith clarity…

What it boils down is how to charaterize mormon beliefs. If your objective is to maintain a negative image of the LDS faith, by all means search for the most negative statements on contraversial subjects by past mormon leaders and hold us to them. If you want to understand what mormons actually believe than allow us to represent ourselves. You’ll find that we most often appeal to our canonized works and current prophet on matters of fundamental belief.

I respect your religion and heritage. I appreciate the Catholic Church for all the good that it does!

 

[mormon_fool]

OK I will stay up past bedtime to respond to Chris-WA well thought out post.

Chris-WA:

I don’t think you realize the magnitude of the can of worms you have opened here. True revelation is perfect…

I will grant you your “revelation is perfect” semantics. This however doesn’t mean that our record of revelation is inerrant, immune to misinterpretations, or complete. It takes logical argumentation and a leap of faith to establish otherwise. A revelation is an event and shouldn’t be confused with how it was written up or taught. Allegations of changing an event make little sense to me.

I depend on scriptures despite their potential errancy. I consider them the best available source I have for official doctrine (along with help in interpreting them from the prophet and whatever inspiration I can receive from the Holy Spirit). I don’t consider myself accountable now to possible future corrections. One principle of mormonism is to not hold anybody accountable for something they don’t know.

 

[PaulDupre]

So then Mormon revelation is a set of communications that the recipient doesn’t understand and cannot record correctly, from a god that is unable to make himself properly understood, concerning “truths” that are subject to change without notice?

Thanks but no thanks.
God love you anyway,
Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

mormon fool:

I depend on scriptures despite their potential errancy. I consider them the best available source I have for official doctrine (along with help in interpreting them from the prophet and whatever inspiration I can receive from the Holy Spirit). I don’t consider myself accountable now to possible future corrections.

Wow, I’m glad I have the bible which is inerrant, and the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church which is not subject to “correction”. What a relief!
Paul

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

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

Hey, don’t sweat it.
This is a great thread.
And your LDS friends are welcome here anytime, as long they’re up to receiving full doses of unadulterated (un-polluted, non-convoluted) Truth!

God Bless <><

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

mormon fool:

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.

So, you have no assurance that anything taught by your church is actually an everlasting, unchanging Truth…

 

[mormon_fool]

PaulDupre:

So then Mormon revelation is a set of communications that the recipient doesn’t understand and cannot record correctly, from a god that is unable to make himself properly understood, concerning “truths” that are subject to change without notice?

Paul, nice points!

I believe in a relevatory experiences ranging from theophanies in the highest from all the way to warm fuzzies at the lowest. Actually I am kidding about the warm fuzzies part. If a person can’t understand a revelation what good is it? If the truth presented in a revelation is limited by the capacity of the receiver then it easy to imagine the following scenarios:
Prophet M receives wonderful truths that require certain beliefs and practices to maintain. His followers complain that these beliefs are too hard to accept so mercifully the Lord reveals a lesser amount of truth and easier duties. After all it is better to pay faith and devotion to some truths then none at all.

moral: God reveals things in a timely that are adapted to followers’ ability to understand and follow them.
Prophet W faces a scripturally and historically unprecedented dilemna threatening the very survival of the church. God reveals to him a timely solution.

moral: God reveals things on a need to know basis
Prophet J experiences a theophany at a very young age. As the prophet ages and becomes older and wiser, he receives more revelations. He then more fully understands the significance of the earlier revelation and elaborates on it to followers.

moral: again we see how the human element in recording or relating a revelation can come into play.
Followers ask Prophet F for help understanding a difficult topic. Prophet F is avid scripture reader and meticulously studies the issue in the process becoming convinced that a particular teaching is correct. While this teaching becomes a traditional belief it is never canonized in scripture. Later scientific knowledge show this teaching irrational and a closer reading of the scriptures cited by prophet F show an alternative reading is possible.

moral: where is the revelation?
Prophet L writes about his dealings with God that contains unique revelations that would have settled many doctrinal disputes. However this record was unavailable when decisions were made and orthodoxy established. Later L’s work surfaces and causes all kinds of trouble with tradition.

moral: Why would we want to claim we already have everything that can be revealed?
Prophet P compares revelation to seeing through a glass darkly. He drops hints that he is teaching only the milk of the gospel and that he could share much more. Centuries later Prophet J (again) is also revealed what P saw and is allowed to explain it. Critics point out that J sometimes contradicts P, but they haven’t had much luck convincing followers of J that alleged contradictions.

moral: sleepy time. . .

Really what I am trying to get at is that I feel blessed with living prophets and grant them maximal respect and flexibility inspite of perceived contradictions by others.

The Bible has a good collection of truth and a religion based on its teachings alone can be profoundly Christian. However having it to rely on and a living, genuine, prophet can’t be beat in my view. Which goes a long way to 'splaining why I am a mormon fool. Peace out! For real this time.

 

[mormon_fool]

Panis Angelicas:

So, you have no assurance that anything taught by your church is actually an everlasting, unchanging Truth…

I wouldn’t say this. For us the Holy Spirit can and does give spiritual assurance as to the validity of unchanging truth that underlies most church teachings. The way some unchanging truths are presently understood is open for improvement.

 

[rich123456]

The Revelation of Revelations is of who Jesus is to a Christian. It is in this Jesus that the Christian name has come to us.

“When I caught sight of him, I fell down at his feet as though dead. He touched me with his right hand and said, "Do not be afraid. I am the first and the last,

the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and the netherworld.”

The whole message of the fall in the garden is that if we think, or if we desire to be a god we will die. Not because God is a mean and does not want good things for us, but because we cannot live without Him who created us through Jesus (Colossians 1:15-20) It shows us that we can not live and have our being without coming to God unconditionally, not looking for any reward, glory or gain other than Him, other than Jesus. . He then accepts us unconditionally. It is the relationship between Christ and the Cross that will help us desire not to sin. Because we know what sin is and how it has been offered to us.

**The 2000 Year Old Catholic Apostolic Faith was not built on the fall of another’s faith. It was built by Christ so that we could have hope in Christ because of the fall of Mankind. We will never be a perfect people here on earth, but we have a perfect Christ, and in Him we will be set free **

(Free from our pursuit of self glory)

---

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” We can come to know the truth and live in it for eternity but Jesus is the Truth not us. He is at the very relationship of love centered in the Father forever. There is one, who loves, and there is one who is loved and this bond is the Holy Spirit, this is our Godhead. This love has been gifted to us who were created by God. Where nothing becomes something and can know it. What a gift! In this love has no beginning or end. We either choose it or we choose ourself over it. One lives, One dies.

“All that the Father gives me shall come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me. And this is the will of Him who sent me, that of all that He has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:37-40)

What rewards to you look for when you think of heaven? What rewards did Jesus look for? If Jesus did the will of God perfectly where is the will of Jesus? How do you look at Jesus in your life. What in you is good about you?

 

[rich123456]

]
About the Church as the body of Christ

The image of the Church as the Body of Christ is found in the New Testament writings of Saint Paul. In chapter 10 of 1 Corinthians, Paul says that our communion with Christ comes from “the cup of blessing” which unites us in his blood and from “the bread which we break” which unites us to his body. Because the bread is one, all of us, though many, are one body. The Eucharistic body of Christ and the Church are, together, the (mystical) Body of Christ. In chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians (and in chapter 12 of Romans), Paul emphasizes the mutual dependence and concern we have as members of one another. In the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians, the emphasis is on Christ as our head. God gave Christ to the Church as its head. Through Christ, God is unfolding his plan, “the mystery hidden for ages,” to unite all things and to reconcile us to himself. Because this mystery is being unfolded in the Church, Ephesians calls the Church the mystery of Christ.

**1 Corinthians 12:12-27
**
As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.Now the body is not a single part, but many.
If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where would the body be? But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.” Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety,whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

mormon fool:

I wouldn’t say this. For us the Holy Spirit can and does give spiritual assurance as to the validity of unchanging truth that underlies most church teachings. The way some unchanging truths are presently understood is open for improvement.

Well, I hope it doesn’t all boil down to what someone’s definition of “is” is…

 

[Katholikos]

mormon fool:

I wouldn’t say this. For us the Holy Spirit can and does give spiritual assurance as to the validity of unchanging truth that underlies most church teachings.

Translation: Some church teachings are confirmed by the Holy Spirit, some are not. If you get acid reflux, you’ll know which is which.

The way some unchanging truths are presently understood is open for improvement.

Huh? :whacky: Say what?
So God gets a “needs improvement” on His report card!

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

Mormon fool wrote:

Really what I am trying to get at is that I feel blessed with living prophets and grant them maximal respect and flexibility inspite of perceived contradictions by others.

Translation: “Truth” is a meaningless concept.

 

[tkdnick]

1) I don’t believe in any instance when God gave contradictory and conflicting revelations although we might perceive them to be that way. He has a justification and rationale that we can’t fully comprehend, articulate, etc.

Does this mean that you are saying there are times that God reveals things that are not true? Or that God decides to reveal misleading ideas?

 

[tkdnick]

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!

Thanks.

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.

Well of course if two prophets are uniform then there is no need to question them (for LDS members), but we were specifically talking about two prophets teaching contradictory theological ideas, and you said it was possible that there was a “glitch” in the communication (to paraphrase). I personally find it very hard to believe that if God were going to reveal something, He would allow a communication glitch…but that’s just me.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

The Bible has a good collection of truth and a religion based on its teachings alone can be profoundly Christian. However having it to rely on and a living, genuine, prophet can’t be beat in my view. Which goes a long way to 'splaining why I am a mormon fool. Peace out! For real this time.

Not to sound contrary or anything like that, but…I got something that beats it. Relying on the teachings of the Bible and Sacred Tradition as interpreted INFALLIBLY by the church that Jesus established and that has existed for approximately 2,000 years through the guidance of the Holy Spirit!!!