AnthonyB Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I think LDS would be better described as Doctrine and Covenant Christians not BoM Christians. When I read the BoM and that it states one of its purposes to be, to show that "Jesus is the Christ, the eternal God" I clearly interpret what that means quite differently to LDS. LDS see a statement like that through D&C and Pearl of Great Price. I see it with regtards to NT and OT oneness of God statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) If we want to talk about all the "denominations" and all the acceptable mutations along the historical way, then this logic about kingdoms and provinces and variety in doctrine must apply to the whole earth. God's work didn't start with the ministry of Jesus Christ. Doctrinal departure didn't start with the persecution of the early Saints. So where exactly can one correctly draw the line when using this reasoning? If it were only faith that was important....and doctrinal variance was something God generously allowed, then everyone on this planet is doing just fine. Even the ones who disregarded the idea of a messiah. They would be no worse than those who said baptism wasn't important either. No need for missionaries. No need for right fighting. Let's just all touch fingers and hum. But there is right and wrong ... truth and error. There are doctrines that save and doctrines that are erroneous..... even if the people who believe them have their hearts in the right place. And even if the shout the name of Jesus from dawn to dusk. There is no doubt in my mind that God is working though out this entire earth and helping the humble no matter what denomination or religious organization they may find themselves according to his wisdom and mercies. This in no way proves or shows that Jesus did not restore his original church. It is like making a cake and failing to put sugar in it.... (Or chocolate if you are me. :)) .... and then saying that it is ok for someone to add carrots and another to add mashed berries just as long as we have flour. All we need is flour! The recipe calls for sugar AND flour AND all the other parts in their correct measures and it won't taste right if the recipe isn't followed to exactness. And we can set around all day and argue how great the cake is because it has the best quality flour and the most important doctrine of salt. But I think you and I would both agree that something very important is missing. It seems to me this idea of acceptable denominations is a man made, modern notion. And has less biblical proofs than the idea of authority and organization. I think it is a big comforting band-aid that is spread over a very big doctrinal wound....(or lots and lots of mini micro wounds). God didn't allow the early Israelites to vary from his commandments anymore than he wants us to vary his commands today. I also find it an interesting argument that any modern revelation would be in perfect agreement with old revelation. That seems to defeat the purpose of the update. You know.....I don't think I have a problem with things changing over time. I think I just have a problem with the origin of the changes. If the changes (much like the Israelites and the golden calf) come from man (because of politics or popular vote or popularity disputes, misguided peity or even educated consensus), then I must question it. If the changes come from God thru absolute up to date revelation and verification thru the Spirit, then I must put my faith AND works in that direction. Humans are wild and unruly and prideful creatures. Why wouldn't He, like any good parent, course correct his people thru the whole of time by restoring what needs restoration and putting false ideas to rest? I think it is clear to all of us that Jesus started something really big and really important. Do we really all think He wouldn't continue and finish what He started? Edited July 9, 2009 by Misshalfway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
its_Chet Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 As a convert, I think I can explain to you where this guy is coming from. Not that you need to adapt to it, mind you. Just to explain some things that are not normally obvious to someone who is born and raised in the Church. Most Protestants view the Bible as being so inerrant that they believe every last tidbit of information imaginable that God wants us to know is contained in the New Testament. The fact that your brother's acquaintance disregards the Old Testament is not shocking to me. A lot of Protestants view the Old Testament as little more than a history book (for example, Gideons commonly distribute the New Testament only). They believe that Christ's ministry did away with everything that was considered Gospel in the Old Testament. They mistakenly assume that the Law of Moses fully encapsulated the Gospel up to the day Jesus was baptized. They have no understanding of what a dispensation of the Gospel is, or that there were several of them prior to Christ's dispensation (the previous one). Many Protestants also view the New Testament like directions printed out from mapquest, in that they read each verse, line by line, as if it was originally written in English, contains no metaphors or allegories, and is meant to convey its intended thoughts and message without any participation on the part of the Holy Spirit whatsoever. They believe the Bible can be read the same way one would read a cookbook. You will experience great difficulty convincing the quintessential Protestant that the Bible may have ever been mistranslated, whether intentionally by ancient heretics or accidentally by well meaning scribes, both of which happened. You will experience great difficulty getting the average Protestant to realize that the Scriptures are meant to be read by the power of God, through the Gift of the Holy Spirit, so that their full value and message can be revealed to us through personal revelation. You'll find it next to impossible to convince most Protestants that the ancient Apostles and Seventies who wrote Scripture were at times vaguely referring to doctrines with which their audiences were familiar, but Christianity at large today is not, and therefore, doctrines like baptism for the dead were known to the ancient Saints, even if they did not spell them out in minute detail somewhere in the New Testament. I'd venture to say that most of the whole world, LDS included, is unaware of how the New Testament was compiled, and how many worthy writings by inspired men may have been lost along the way. I do believe that if something was missing from the New Testament, not adequately covered by the Doctrine and Covenants, Old Testament, Pearl of Great Price, or Book of Mormon, and was necessary at this point in time for us to know, God would reveal it to President Monson and the Quorum of the Twelve. I also believe that if we read the scriptures we already have while inspired by the Holy Spirit, we can discover many important things that are not commonly known, even among us LDS. I reiterate that I am a convert. I was born Catholic. I was Protestant for a while. I have nothing but respect for Catholics and Protestants. My differences with them are exclusively doctrinal, and devoid of malice or contempt. I hope nothing I've said would lead anyone to believe otherwise, and I apologize if any non member finds what I've said offensive. I used to be a non member, and am only trying to explain the non member perspective to those who are born in the Church, and find the allegedly unorthodox doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be as natural as the sun and the rain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I appreciate your comments, Chet. I know sometimes I do find that the LDS thought process is as natural to me as the sun and the rain. I apologize for not always seeing what is just as natural to the other side of things. And I don't want anyone to think that because I argue the way I do on these threads that I have any less respect for good Catholics or Protestants or Buddhists who make this world a remarkable and wonderful place to be. Having doctrinal disputes or alternate perspectives and even arguments against one train of thought I don't think deminishes the respect we have for one another. Heck, if I could adopt Dr. T and Prison Chaplin, I probly would! And Maureen is a big sweetie too. Love to all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Nothing but love 1/2. I for one, do not take anything I've read from you as wanting to start trouble at all. I appreciate your thoughts :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I simply mean that not every "prophetic word," that is ended with "Thus saith the Lord," is from the Lord. Sometimes it's not even directly from the Enemy. It can simply be "flesh." For example, have you never heard someone bear a testimony that included a thought you found questionable? Then, the speaker concludes that the Holy Spirit has given her confirmation that what was spoken is true? PC: I am having trouble with this post. I do agree that not everyone that says they are influenced by the Holy Spirit - is. Where I disagree is the notion that a person not directly influenced by the Holy Spirit has the ability to identify and avoid the influences of unclean spirits. The only method I know to discern what kind of spirit a person follows is by their deeds (or fruits). (See John 8:39-42 and John 10:25:29)The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie123 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) · Hidden Hidden Most Protestants view the Bible as being so inerrant that they believe every last tidbit of information imaginable that God wants us to know is contained in the New Testament.There's a lot of truth here, but the term "Protestant" covers a lot of different attitudes. James White (and people like him) talk about about every last grammatical structure in the Bible being "God's inspired word", and drone on about the exact meanings of "hinna clauses" etc. At the other extreme there are Protestants who won't even accept that all Jesus' parables derive from Jesus himself; many were made up by the people who recorded them and should therefore be treated with suspicion. Listen to too many sides of the argument and you come out not knowing what to believe.Having said that, Mormons have many curious misconceptions about the Bible too. I remember reading on on one Mormon website (Donny Osmond's "My Belief's" page no less) that the Bible was only brought together into its current form about a thousand years ago. What utter nonsense. Some Mormon (as well as non-Mormon) literature conveys the impression that the Bible contains ALL Christian literature surviving from the Apostolic period. Some LDS I've spoken to believe that biblical scholarship relies upon correct Hebrew/Greek to English translation and that the original language texts have (like Joseph's golden plates) been taken away. (The statement "correct so far as correctly translated" may have something to do with this.) Edited July 9, 2009 by Jamie123 Link to comment
rameumptom Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 I would prefer to call us Restorationist Christians, compared to Traditional Christians. Both BoM or D&C Christians is too limiting. But then, so is Traditional Christian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted July 9, 2009 Report Share Posted July 9, 2009 Traveler, it is possible to discern good from unclean spirits. There's even a gift of discernment. Also scripture commands us to test the spirits. Miss 1/2: You mention the extreme of people not believing Jesus is the Christ, but supposedly being okay because we say "just believe in Jesus." I mentioned that doctrinal gnat of centralized vs. congregational selection of church leaders. I would say to you that of course a Christian must believe that Jesus is the Christ. Doctrine is important. I'm simply not convinced that 100% accuracy is to be found in any one particular denomination--even those who claim to have the restored truth. The willingness to accept "change" by modern revelation could even be interpreted as an admission that there is room for some fluidness in doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I just want to point out that Romans chapter 4 talks about belief in God vs. works and it's all about the belief in God and NOT the works.Romans 4 is talking about living the law of Christ not the law of Moses.Interesting how the Law of Moses was a law of works, yet to live the Law of Christ we don't have to do any works, just believe, yet Christ's law is a higher law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 PC, I think you know the flaw in searching for that wiggle room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Romans 4 is talking about living the law of Christ not the law of Moses.Interesting how the Law of Moses was a law of works, yet to live the Law of Christ we don't have to do any works, just believe, yet Christ's law is a higher law. A "higher law" based on faith and not based on works? Is that what you meant sir? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 PC, I think you know the flaw in searching for that wiggle room. And so, rather than trusting in the doctrines of men alone (though the core teachings of the church are a useful anchor), I must go to my Christ, who is perfect. I must trust the testimony of the Spirit. A difficulty with believing that final truth is found in an organization that God raised up and authorized is that it creates an unncessary gatekeeper between my Lord and I. As my signature suggests, absolute power corrupts absolutely. With all do respect to my Catholic brothers and sisters, a good measure of the corruption of the Crusades, of the selling of indulgences etc., is likely the monopoly the Church hierarchy held on power over spiritual matters. My New Testament teaches me how to discern truth. If I was simply to trust my leaders, Paul could have simply said, "He's right, she's wrong, this is true, this false--any more questions, write me or my designee." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
its_Chet Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 No offense, but the fallibility of a Prophet is a hard sell with us. True they are mortal men and imperfect, but we know they'd be removed out of their place if they tried to lead us astray. We also believe that the Savior prefers to reveal His will through a Prophet whenever possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 A "higher law" based on faith and not based on works? Is that what you meant sir? Thanks.It is my understanding the obedience sometimes comes as a natural extention faith. It is also my understanding that sometimes one must act in order to build faith. Yes, the higher law was meant to lift the people to a higher way of expressing faith. But it didn't stop the need for works and rituals. The ending or fulfilling of the law of Moses was to end animal sacrifice, but not to end sacrifice itself. It meant only to shift the focus from outward works to inward ones. Jesus now requires, instead of the first of the flock, our broken hearts and contriteness of spirit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 And so, rather than trusting in the doctrines of men alone (though the core teachings of the church are a useful anchor), I must go to my Christ, who is perfect. I must trust the testimony of the Spirit. A difficulty with believing that final truth is found in an organization that God raised up and authorized is that it creates an unncessary gatekeeper between my Lord and I. As my signature suggests, absolute power corrupts absolutely. With all do respect to my Catholic brothers and sisters, a good measure of the corruption of the Crusades, of the selling of indulgences etc., is likely the monopoly the Church hierarchy held on power over spiritual matters. My New Testament teaches me how to discern truth. If I was simply to trust my leaders, Paul could have simply said, "He's right, she's wrong, this is true, this false--any more questions, write me or my designee."I don't think believing in or following a designated prophet of God means that we are to stop discerning truth for ourselves. I think that both following ones leaders as they are led by God AND discerning the truth for ourselves are both required of God. I trust that God will choose the best of men to lead and that He will keep them in the right way. Even Joseph Smith was chastised on a few occasions for not strictly following the commands of Christ. It is all about trusting God. It is all about literally following Christ thru the organization Christ organized himself. Following a prophet is an exercise of trust and testimony and faith and knowledge. There is no conflict in my mind. And there is no fear that a chosen prophet will lead the church into such mistakes as those you mentioned above. He would be taken out of his place before such could happen. And if there was another apostasy where the prophets were stoned and put to death, like it has happened so many times before, then I would be forced to rely completley upon spiritual discernment and God to lead my footsteps thru such confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 No offense, but the fallibility of a Prophet is a hard sell with us. True they are mortal men and imperfect, but we know they'd be removed out of their place if they tried to lead us astray.We also believe that the Savior prefers to reveal His will through a Prophet whenever possible.But there is a difference between them intentionally leading us astray, and being mistaken in some areas. Our prophets ARE fallible. That is why not everything they say becomes canon. And of the things that become canon, not everything is considered core doctrine.We believe our prophets to be inspired, not infallible. We believe our prophets to have the authority of God to seal on heaven and earth all things necessary for the exaltation of mankind.That said, we also believe that God inspires men in other religions, as well. They receive the amount of truth they are ready to receive, and they are expected to use that level of truth as a blessing upon the earth.Is the Pope inspired/led of God? Insofar as he follows the Spirit and guidance that is given him, yes. Is Billy Graham inspired of God? Insofar as he follows the Spirit and guidance that is given him, yes. Is Prison Chaplain inspired/led of God? Insofar as he follows the Spirit and guidance that is given him, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
its_Chet Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 But there is a difference between them intentionally leading us astray, and being mistaken in some areas. Our prophets ARE fallible. That is why not everything they say becomes canon. And of the things that become canon, not everything is considered core doctrine.We believe our prophets to be inspired, not infallible. We believe our prophets to have the authority of God to seal on heaven and earth all things necessary for the exaltation of mankind.That said, we also believe that God inspires men in other religions, as well. They receive the amount of truth they are ready to receive, and they are expected to use that level of truth as a blessing upon the earth.Is the Pope inspired/led of God? Insofar as he follows the Spirit and guidance that is given him, yes. Is Billy Graham inspired of God? Insofar as he follows the Spirit and guidance that is given him, yes. Is Prison Chaplain inspired/led of God? Insofar as he follows the Spirit and guidance that is given him, yes.You might have misuderstood me. I did acknowledge that Prophets are just men, and are imperfect. But if I have to err, I'd rather err on the side of thinking more of them than I should rather than less. You've been through the Temple, right? I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.I'm not knocking anyone outside the Church. I used to be outside the Church. Almost all my relatives are outside the Church.I just didn't want to get as close to a particular line as this thread was heading. Still not comfortable going there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 A "higher law" based on faith and not based on works? Is that what you meant sir? Thanks.No. That's the trap that many fall into. Christ's law, or the Law of Faith, is based on living a Christian life. There are things you need to do in order to do that. Christ spends most of His time teaching what those works should be in believers.The Bible never says you don't have to do anything to gain eternal life. That has been read into the words for a very long time now. The Bible places a specific meaning to the word believe. It is not the meaning that most Christians use today. The "believe in Christ" as spoken of in the Bible requires good works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim108 Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 My Brother is talking with a friend and has hit a snag.His friend has brought up the subject of Baptism for the dead and the fact that its only mentioned once. Are there other things that are only mentioned once in the New Testament which are common practice in most Christian churches. What we want to show is that the Baptism for the dead is not unique in only being mentioned once.He is also talking about other Temple Ordinances not having any scriptural basis in the New Testament.As you can see, he seems to base his whole faith on the New Testament only and will not accept quotes from the BoM or even the Old Testament.My Brother feels that this guy could be a real possability for joining the church, as long as we can get past the indoctrination of his Catholic upbringing. He goes to a modern style church now however, Not exactly born again, But with some elements of that. This is where he gets the idea that the New Testament is all that matters and the Old Testament as simply being a history book, with no real spiritual value.Thanks"My Brother feels that this guy could be a real possability for joining the church, as long as we can get past the indoctrination of his Catholic upbringing..."For him to give up his Catholic upbringing, he would have to deny Jesus as the one and only God. Be sure he knows that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 If I was simply to trust my leaders, Paul could have simply said, "He's right, she's wrong, this is true, this false--any more questions, write me or my designee."Actually, Paul did say something very similar.You know, every time the Lord has had a people on the earth He has spoken to them through a prophet.Not doing so adds confusion, like the early Catholic Church you mentioned. It led to a fallen organization, no logner inspired. Now, for the reformationists to break away was a good thing. But, when the tree is dead the branch that break off will be too. The only way was to plant a new tree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 "My Brother feels that this guy could be a real possability for joining the church, as long as we can get past the indoctrination of his Catholic upbringing..."For him to give up his Catholic upbringing, he would have to deny Jesus as the one and only God. Be sure he knows that.I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying since I'm not Catholic that I deny Jesus and the one true God?Being LDS, holding a similar view to you that my Church is the one true Church, I don't think people who aren't members deny Jesus, they just don't have the whole truth.That seems pretty harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim108 Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying since I'm not Catholic that I deny Jesus and the one true God?Being LDS, holding a similar view to you that my Church is the one true Church, I don't think people who aren't members deny Jesus, they just don't have the whole truth.That seems pretty harsh.It is my understanding that Jesus to the LDS is not God as in the father. The traditional Christian view is that Jesus (Son), Father and Spirit are one. So as I unerstand, Jesus is not the one and only God in the LDS religion. If this is not true than please correct me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 "My Brother feels that this guy could be a real possability for joining the church, as long as we can get past the indoctrination of his Catholic upbringing..."For him to give up his Catholic upbringing, he would have to deny Jesus as the one and only God. Be sure he knows that. What exactly are you saying here Jim? Are you saying we, as LDS, don't believe in Christ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Okay you kind of answered my question as I was typing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.