The_Branch

I don't understand. Could you elaborate? Thank you for the suggestions. I'll look into those. I'm mostly just looking for kinda the basics. For example, if a non-christian apporached me, asking what to read first in the Bible, I'd likely recommend Matthew, since it's one of the more accesible gospels, and Luke and Acts, since they tell a continuous narrative of Christ's life and the formation of the early church. And as I mentioned previously, I'd started trying to read some Mormon scripture when I was in college, but as it was my freshman year, and I had a lot of adjusting to do otherwise, jumping into a completely unfamiliar theological tradition was a bit of a stretch then. I'll see if I can find my Book of Mormon, since I like to read things in book form rather than electronically, and look those up here soon. Any other suggestions, I'm open to, although it may take me a while to get through those already suggested.

All good to know. I tend to use the NIV, because it is the most common among Protestant churches, but I also really like the NASB. I don't have my KJV Bible accesible at the moment, since I just moved, so it's likely that any references I make will come from NIV or NASB. If there are significant or key differences or nuances of meaning in the KJV, feel free to point them out. As to readings in the Mormon canon, anyone have some suggested starting points? Any particularly important or influential sections or books? As I mentioned, just jumping in, not having a lot of direction, can be overwhelming.

Again, Maxel, thank you. This is not the way it was explained to me. I had been lead to believe that Mormons held that Jesus was born fully man, and achieved his divinity through his life. If I understand you, you're saying he was born fully man AND fully God, and simply grew into the fullness of his divinity, which is not the same things as the previous. This is why I'm here. As a side note, I keep using the Bible in references. I understand the LDS canon includes the KJV (only KJV?) Bible, along with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenant, and the Pearl of Great Price? Is this correct?

Wow! Thank you, Maxel! This really does help to clarify things for me. I appreciate your thought-out and thorough response. I've never had things delineated this way. Very articulate. I hope you'll reply to some of my other questions. So it's kind of the spiritual version of Noah and the flood? The wickedness had become so great, God simply started over, spiritual-authority-wise? If anyone has other thoughts on this, feel free to comment, but I'd like to move on to another of my questions. As explained to me, and I understand it, LDS theology holds that Jesus was born a man, but through his righteous life attained God-hood. This comes from Philippians 2:5-11, if I understand it correctly. If this right? And if not (or even if so), could someone elaborate or explain this?

Again, I'm not a troll. I trust you'll see this in time. In the meantime, I'd appreciate you keeping your opinion of that to yourself. I've offered, and will offer again. If you have issues with me, PM me and we can discuss them privately. As to the Authority issue, I'm not addressing issues of heretics or apostates, which certainly crept into the early church in droves and Paul mentions often. I'm talking about issues of legitimate succession, as when Barnabus traveled with Paul, and then later sent him out on his own. If Authority is simply transferred by phophecy (which I take to be the speaking of the word of God, not necessarily the predictive connotation) and the laying on of hands, many apostles were around long enough to certainly ordain new ministers and succesors. Do you believe these are not legitimate simply because they are not explicitly mentioned of delineated?

Hey now. I'm no troll, and not trying to cause problems. I'm just looking for some honest discussion. If you disagree with my intentions or my methods, PM me and I'd be delighted to discuss either with you. Again, I'm not arguing that division and corruption didn't find their way into the church. As any institution peopled with us fallen beings, that is inevitable I feel. I guess the gist of my question is why the Priesthood Aurthority depends upon actions by men rather than upon the presence of the Holy Spirit. Am I to take it based upon answers received thus far the Mormons do not subscribe to the doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer?

Wow! Thanks everyone for all the responses. There are a few things I'd like to reply to specifically, then a few more general thoughts. I understand your skepticism, but please believe me when I say I am not Jono, but am simply here because I know him. I told you I'd be as honest as possible, and to leave out that I found my way here through a troll who caused trouble would be a lie of omission. You can go to forum.travian.us if you like, and see that there is a member named Jono there, and also The Branch. That's the other forum I mentioned. I trust that you'll see in time that I do not have the trouble-making intention os some others. I would be ridiculous to deny that the church has had contentions and splits in its 2000 year history. I myself am a Protestant, so I'm acutely aware of the divisiveness that can seep into the church. However, as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I firmly believe, as Martin Luther did, that salvation can exist outside of a particular "church," but never outside Christ. Whichever of those branches in that chart subscribe to the belief that Christ was the perfect son of God, became flesh incarnate, lived a perfect life, and died as payment for mankind's sins, that is what is important. All the rest is details. Yes, people will argue over details, because often details are important, but the ultimate importance is Christ. If you believe that, and allow it to change you, allow Christ to change you, then anything else we believe right or wrong will either be clarified here on earth if we truly and honestly seek the truth, or will be clarified in heaven one day, when we meet Him face to face. Until then, I say again, "let each man be convinced in his own mind, and live at peace with the brothers." Now, as to all the answers I got. First off, thanks to all who responded. I must admit, I was surprised to see more than just one or two posts added! I guess this is the sticking point for me. I've had it explained that the spirit of God was removed. That seems to have been corrected, so I'll ammend my beliefs. This raises another, related question then. If it wasn't indeed the spirit of God that was removed, but rather the Priesthood Authority... Why? What's the difference? If the authority does not come from the Spirit of God, but rather from any act we here perform, is that not moving dangeroulsy close to a salvation by works rather than faith? Does that not give us, the created, power on par with God, the creator? I guess I'm still fuzzy as to the difference between the Spirit of God and the Priesthood Authority. And, along those same lines, what do you do with things like the promise of Jesus to send His Spirit, and the revelation of the Holy Spirit at Antioch?

Oh, I understand about the sleeping thing. I should be doing that myself, and will probably be heading there as soon as I post this, and will check in tomorrow afternoon. And thanks to all, in advance, for the willingness to talk. I guess I'll start at the start. Like I said, I've got quite a few puzzlers (to me, anyway), but I think the most basic is the belief that the church became apostate. I don't understand where the belief that God removed His spirit after the deaths of the original 12 apostles comes from. If you claim that God renewed His spirit with Joseph Smith, and authority is passed to all the prohpets in turn now, why should it have been any different in the first century? Why did divine authority simply not continue to be passed by Peter through that line of sucessors? (I'm aware that I'm making quite a few assumptions here, eg, diminishing the doctine of the priesthood of the believer (which is a pretty standard protestant tenet), but that's a question for another time.) This I've read about, and had explained to me before, but I still don't get it. Someone care to take a crack at it?

I'll be honest. I wasn't looking for a place to do research. I've done some of my own, and could always do more. I was hoping for actual people to talk to, and engage in discussion with, not just read blocks of text, and sift my own thoughts from that. In my experience, the research answer and the answer that actual people will give because it's what they live by aren't necessarily the same thing, and I'm looking for the second one. If this isn't the place for that, that's ok, and like I said, I'll move on. I just want to be clear about my intentions.

First off, any mods, if this is not in the appropriate section, could you please move it? I wasn't sure where to go with this. Secondly, let me explain why I'm here. I'll be as honest as I can. I am not a troll, promise (I'm aware you've had your share of those lately), and I'm not here spoiling for a fight. I am a protestant believer in Jesus Christ, born and rasied in Baptist churches. I am not considering switching to LDS. Let me be upfront about that. If that's an issue, I understand, and will happily go about my own way. However, I am somewhat curious about your faith. One of the youth workers in my church growing up had been raised in a Mormon home, and a very good friend of mine in high school, and for a few years after, was a Mormon. This is what initially piqued my interest, and in college, I obtained a Book of Mormon and began reading parts of it. However, I quickly got bogged down. I think part of my interest stems from the fact that there is so much misinformation about the LDS faith in particular, sorting truth from half-truth becomes difficult for one such as me, not raised in the culture of the Mormon church. All of that said, I found my way to this particular site tonight because I participate in another forum with a visitor you've had recently, Jono. I know he caused some trouble, and I don't blame any flared tempers for that. He was looking to rock the boat. I'm not. I told you I'd be honest, and if my association with him causes you to not want to reply to me, again, I understand. He posted a link here, and I thought this might be a good place to go for some honest discussion. (I've recently discovered online forums... great way to talk to actual people!) Now, my real purpose. I'm wondering if there are people on here who can talk civily (not a veiled jab, really) and to whom I can bring some of the lingering questions I've had. I'm really not trying to cause problems, because, while I do not believe a lot of the things many of you do, the important thing is Christ. I take the attitude of Paul in the New Testament saying "let each one be convinced in his own mind and live at peace with the brothers." So. If anyone would like to talk, or if I can shoot some questions out there, PM me or reply to this thread I suppose.