Learning about the Church from LDS.net


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

A while back a couple of sister missionaries came to my house and asked, "So, what have you heard about our church?" Here's everything I learned from LDS.net. Please note this is arranged as "before and after," so don't jump to conclusions. :)

1. What had I heard about LDS soteriology? (Beliefs about salvation)

I had heard that LDSs believe in three heavens, that only married LDSs get into the highest heaven, that all sincere religious people get into the 2nd heaven, and that those that were not very righteous or god-fearing, but who had not been truly wicked would be assigned the 3rd heaven. Only the truly evil persons, like Hitler would be damned to the outer darkness.

How has my understanding changed? I’ve come to understand the importance for LDSs of temple work on behalf of the dead, so that many who might not be LDSs in this life, still might embrace the restored gospel in the afterlife–though many would suggest that only those who did not have a good opportunity to embrace LDSism in this life would be afforded such an opportunity. Furthermore, it is not the only truly wicked who go to the outer darkness, but those who had a testimony and knowledge of the truth, but abandoned it, or even opposed it.

2. What had I heard about LDS beliefs about the nature of God?

I had heard that LDSs are polytheist–that they believe that God was once a man, and that LDS men are trying to become gods. Also, that God has a physical body, and lives on a planet near KOBOL. That God is limited and changing in nature.

How has my understanding changed? I’ve come to understand that LDSs consider themselves Trinitarians and monotheists. They believe that God is three in one, but that these three are not only distinct personalities, but distinct beings. Furthermore, while LDSs may believe there are other gods, they only worship the God of the Bible, and further believe that while they may become gods, they will always worship the God of the Bible for all eternity. Finally, they do not believe God has changed, because they argue that both God and humanity are immortal. Thus, even if God was once a man, he always was, is, and always will be.

3. What had I heard about the LDS restored gospel?

I had heard that Joseph Smith claimed that all Christian churches, preachers and professors were apostate, and an abomination to God, and that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true Christian church today.

How has my understanding changed. I now understand that Joseph Smith, and modern LDSs, were most enraged by what they saw/see as the elevation of creeds and Greek theological definitions over the plain truths of Scripture. It is this insistence on flawed interpretation–especially the use of such against LDS distinctives that Smith and the Church considered abominable. Many progressives now consider Christians, especially evangelical Christians, to simply be wrong, and in need of greater truth (as was Apollos, in the New Testament). Some LDSs are still wary of the level of goodness in evangelicalism, especially in light of the many evangelical anti-LDS organizations and initiatives.

4. What had I heard about LDS views of authority?

I add this question, because my answer is, "Not much." I only knew that LDSs had two priesthoods, the Aaronic and Melchezidek (sp?) orders, and that the latter was for more mature members.

What have I learned? That for the members who have wrestled with the intellectual appeal of LDS teachings, this issue is quite often the crux of their decision to follow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The teaching is that after the apostles, the church fell into apostasy, and never really came out of it until the Latter Day truths were revealed to Joseph Smith, and the true gospel was restored. As such, only the LDS have the ultimate authority from God to represent Christ and carry out his work. While there are some significant differences, this teaching is not as strange as it first sounds to evangelical ears, because Roman Catholics also teach the apostolic succession, and claim that only the Roman church has the ultimate spiritual authority.

Conclusion: As an outsider, not sufficiently versed in LDS Scriptures, I’m sure I still explain LDS ideas with a good deal of clumsiness and imprecision. However, I’ve probably garnered a better understanding than I might have had I read the totality of anti-cult or specifically anti-LDS material that is out there.

Thanks to all that have helped me grow in understanding here, and blessings to you that have taken the time to engage my inquiries, as well as my explanations of my own faith tradition.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My comments may seem strange but Sister missionaries are hard to come by in Alberta. I was taught the discussions by Sister missionaries in the '70's and last saw them in my house in the early '90's but they don't seem to want to send them to Alberta anymore. I've wondered why that is.

Now back to the topic at hand.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much enjoyed reading your post. I take you as a straight shooter, PC.

With the sole intent of furthering you along in your understanding of LDS teachings, I'd like to make 2 corrections from what I've read:

KOBOL should be KOLOB. :)

We don't believe there are 2 Priesthoods, but there is one Priesthood with a lesser and greater division. The lesser teaches and points to the higher, much like the Law of Moses (especially the animal sacrifices of) taught and pointed to the coming higher law and the great and last sacrifice. It is one law with a lesser and greater portion. The Priesthood is the same, and in fact the lesser portion of the Priesthood was instituted when the lesser portion of the law was given. A lesser portion of the law required a lesser portion of the Priesthood. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what had you heard about the LDS people? :)

What I heard: Most LDS are people who are white, live in Utah and S. Idaho, vote Republican, eat green jello with carrots on the bottom (and consider such a dessert!!! :eek:), who live life decaffeinated, who's men have short haircuts with no facial hair, and who still wear dress clothes to their churches.

What I've learned: I was mostly right. :P

Seriously--that over one-half of LDS members are outside the United States, that there are minorities, and especially African-Americans, that many members enjoy caffeine, just not coffee/tea, that there are some that are articulately "liberal" or Democrat, and finally that no LDS have short hair, when compared with Funky Town. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comments may seem strange but Sister missionaries are hard to come by in Alberta. I was taught the discussions by Sister missionaries in the '70's and last saw them in my house in the early '90's but they don't seem to want to send them to Alberta anymore. I've wondered why that is.

M.

My guess is this lack of Sister Missionaries in Alberta is caused by several factors:

1. Harsh Canadian winters

2. Polygamous Mormons in Alberta may have figuratively poisoned the well.

3. Worry over both French Canadian uprisings and Snidely Whiplash tying Sister Missionaries to the Great Northern tracks.

4. Not wanting Sister Missionaries to learn the Lumberjack Song.

5. Sister Missionaries can't handle real maple syrup.

Hope this helps.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL I've just had 3 sets of sister missionaries teach me in N.Alberta!!! Most of them were Canadian themselves.

My guess is this lack of Sister Missionaries in Alberta is caused by several factors:

1. Harsh Canadian winters

2. Polygamous Mormons in Alberta may have figuratively poisoned the well.

3. Worry over both French Canadian uprisings and Snidely Whiplash tying Sister Missionaries to the Great Northern tracks.

4. Not wanting Sister Missionaries to learn the Lumberjack Song.

5. Sister Missionaries can't handle real maple syrup.

Hope this helps.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL I've just had 3 sets of sister missionaries teach me in N.Alberta!!! Most of them were Canadian themselves.

Canadian themselves, Excellent! They already knew the Lumberjack Song, could handle real maple syrup and were acclimatized to the weather. Besides, the French problem could easily be handled by offerings of goat cheese.

Tell them to keep up the Good Works.

BTW, do the Canadians have any soteriological problems with Mormons? If so, Prison Chaplain is nearby in Washington with keen observations.

:)

Edited by Moksha
Making it topical - of course!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much enjoyed reading your post. I take you as a straight shooter, PC.

With the sole intent of furthering you along in your understanding of LDS teachings, I'd like to make 2 corrections from what I've read:

KOBOL should be KOLOB. :)

We don't believe there are 2 Priesthoods, but there is one Priesthood with a lesser and greater division. The lesser teaches and points to the higher, much like the Law of Moses (especially the animal sacrifices of) taught and pointed to the coming higher law and the great and last sacrifice. It is one law with a lesser and greater portion. The Priesthood is the same, and in fact the lesser portion of the Priesthood was instituted when the lesser portion of the law was given. A lesser portion of the law required a lesser portion of the Priesthood. :)

I am most likely getting this wrong but I'm a bit confused about the lesser and the higher law in regards to the priesthood.

Taking sacrament is considered affirming your baptismal promises every week. And baptisim is the key requirement for membership in the Church. But, the "lesser" priesthood (Aaronic?) conduct them. What does the senior priesthood do? I know they can bless the sacrament and baptize as well but what additional duties/ rights/ responsibilities do they hold? How can baptism and sacrament be considered "lesser" when they form a very important part of the faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am most likely getting this wrong but I'm a bit confused about the lesser and the higher law in regards to the priesthood.

Taking sacrament is considered affirming your baptismal promises every week. And baptisim is the key requirement for membership in the Church. But, the "lesser" priesthood (Aaronic?) conduct them. What does the senior priesthood do? I know they can bless the sacrament and baptize as well but what additional duties/ rights/ responsibilities do they hold? How can baptism and sacrament be considered "lesser" when they form a very important part of the faith?

I think of it as a outward priesthood and an inward priesthood. The Aaronnic priesthood deals with outward tasks: administering the sacrament, collecting fact offerings, even administering the business needs of the ward (the Bishop is an office of the Aaronic priesthood). But the more spiritual needs are carried out by the Melchezedek priesthood. Blessing the sick, blessing the sacrament, and administering to the spiritual needs of the ward (The bishop must have the higher priesthood to be called).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PrisonChaplain, I myself enjoyed reading your post as well. I'm glad to see you took the time to sincerely understand the LDS theology. I really appreciate the approach you took to the issue where so many jump to conclusions that often lead to misconceptions.

I have to admit, that I myself learned from your posts too though. They are always very uplifting and faith promoting. Thanks for being part of this online community, and for contributing in such a positive way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KOBOL should be KOLOB. :)

Klingon-Owned Business-Oriented Language? Or maybe it's a mispronunciation of element 27.

"The four elements, like man alone, are weak. But together they form the strong fifth element: Boron." (Everyone's favorite Dorkness Rising quote)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am most likely getting this wrong but I'm a bit confused about the lesser and the higher law in regards to the priesthood.

Taking sacrament is considered affirming your baptismal promises every week. And baptisim is the key requirement for membership in the Church. But, the "lesser" priesthood (Aaronic?) conduct them. What does the senior priesthood do? I know they can bless the sacrament and baptize as well but what additional duties/ rights/ responsibilities do they hold? How can baptism and sacrament be considered "lesser" when they form a very important part of the faith?

Baptism and Sacrament are ordinances that are directed under the direction of the lesser Priesthood. These are not the only ordinances, but are ordinances performed outside the temple. The ordinances that are performed in the temple are under the direction of the higher Priesthood.

The Doctrine and Covenants outline what the responsibilities are for every office in the Priesthood. Would you like me to give you a link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also am glad to know you, PC. You have shown yourself to be a true Christian on this list. You have befriended the Mormons and sought to find what links us together, rather than separates us.

Hopefully the day will come when all Christians will spend their time seeking truth together and in thoughtful dialogue, learning from one another, rather than attacking one another. This goes for Mormons, as well, for I know many who are eager to attack Catholics and Baptists, even as we are attacked by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel grateful for the back and forth of courageous folks like PC on this site who do seek to understand and who can allow differences of perspective without divisions in kindness. And I feel that my understandings and opinions have been improved by many of these discussions whether I was involved or just read as an observer. And I am grateful that from these people I have felt a degree of acceptance that I don't generally feel from the rest of Christianity.

I appreciate that now I understand more about what it means to be "saved by grace" and I even think that perhaps non lds group internalize the concept of grace in ways we could learn from. I am grateful to understand more the concept of the Trinity and other variations on the interpretations of the Bible. I will admit to retaining some confusion, but I think I have grown in my respect for those who do believe this way or who chose not to believe in a deity at all. I think my conversations with our resident atheists have been most rewarding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. What had I heard about LDS soteriology? (Beliefs about salvation)

I had heard that LDSs believe in three heavens, that only married LDSs get into the highest heaven, that all sincere religious people get into the 2nd heaven, and that those that were not very righteous or god-fearing, but who had not been truly wicked would be assigned the 3rd heaven. Only the truly evil persons, like Hitler would be damned to the outer darkness.

How has my understanding changed? I’ve come to understand the importance for LDSs of temple work on behalf of the dead, so that many who might not be LDSs in this life, still might embrace the restored gospel in the afterlife–though many would suggest that only those who did not have a good opportunity to embrace LDSism in this life would be afforded such an opportunity. Furthermore, it is not the only truly wicked who go to the outer darkness, but those who had a testimony and knowledge of the truth, but abandoned it, or even opposed it.

I don't get the whole concept of baptism for the dead, but in your analogy, what about the truly wicked who never had a chance to hear the restored gospel? I find the whole "truly wicked" concept a judgement, which belongs to the Lord.

2. What had I heard about LDS beliefs about the nature of God?

I had heard that LDSs are polytheist–that they believe that God was once a man, and that LDS men are trying to become gods. Also, that God has a physical body, and lives on a planet near KOBOL. That God is limited and changing in nature.

How has my understanding changed? I’ve come to understand that LDSs consider themselves Trinitarians and monotheists.

This is not true according to the doctrine of Joseph Smith. LDS theology in henotheism. Joseph Smith's visions saw two spearate entities, so saying they are one in LDS theology is wrong. Agree/disagree?

They believe that God is three in one, but that these three are not only distinct personalities, but distinct beings. Furthermore, while LDSs may believe there are other gods, they only worship the God of the Bible, and further believe that while they may become gods, they will always worship the God of the Bible for all eternity. Finally, they do not believe God has changed, because they argue that both God and humanity are immortal. Thus, even if God was once a man, he always was, is, and always will be.

I fail to see how one could believe this and consider themselves a monotheist, especially considering Joseph Smith said this:

"God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . " (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409).

and this...

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens...I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man....it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the veil, so that you may see....and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did."

(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 3).

3. What had I heard about the LDS restored gospel?

I had heard that Joseph Smith claimed that all Christian churches, preachers and professors were apostate, and an abomination to God, and that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true Christian church today.

For the record that is what Joseph Smith said.

"Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (President Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, p.266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282).

[There is] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Joseph Fielding Smith , Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).

"no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are" (Brigham Young , Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).

How has my understanding changed. I now understand that Joseph Smith, and modern LDSs, were most enraged by what they saw/see as the elevation of creeds and Greek theological definitions over the plain truths of Scripture. It is this insistence on flawed interpretation–especially the use of such against LDS distinctives that Smith and the Church considered abominable. Many progressives now consider Christians, especially evangelical Christians, to simply be wrong, and in need of greater truth (as was Apollos, in the New Testament). Some LDSs are still wary of the level of goodness in evangelicalism, especially in light of the many evangelical anti-LDS organizations and initiatives.

I don't understand what you mean. If all the Mormon prophets were truly prophets and spoke to God, then BY had the most to say about this and there really is no denying his stance on Christianity. For the record, the term "Anti" is used a lot. Any opinion that points things out that seem against the church (even the enclosed quotes which are just factual quotes) are deemed "Anti". If it's not "Pro" it's "Anti".

4. What had I heard about LDS views of authority?

I add this question, because my answer is, "Not much." I only knew that LDSs had two priesthoods, the Aaronic and Melchezidek (sp?) orders, and that the latter was for more mature members.

What have I learned? That for the members who have wrestled with the intellectual appeal of LDS teachings, this issue is quite often the crux of their decision to follow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The teaching is that after the apostles, the church fell into apostasy, and never really came out of it until the Latter Day truths were revealed to Joseph Smith, and the true gospel was restored. As such, only the LDS have the ultimate authority from God to represent Christ and carry out his work. While there are some significant differences, this teaching is not as strange as it first sounds to evangelical ears, because Roman Catholics also teach the apostolic succession, and claim that only the Roman church has the ultimate spiritual authority.

Conclusion: As an outsider, not sufficiently versed in LDS Scriptures, I’m sure I still explain LDS ideas with a good deal of clumsiness and imprecision. However, I’ve probably garnered a better understanding than I might have had I read the totality of anti-cult or specifically anti-LDS material that is out there.

Just to clarify, "Anti" means "aganist". If one is against polygamy/polyandry, racism and the use of magic, are they "Anti"? I fail to understand the logic is how something can be good at one time, and bad in another? To me, polygamy is fundamentally wrong and in God's eyes it wrong and always has been. This goes for racism too, but to express these opinions make me "Anti"... is that justified?

I don't mean to badger you, but LDS theology is henotheistic and that's what the doctrine of Joseph Smith taught. To water it down to accept part, but not all is sort of choosing which parts make sense. To call Mormon theology monotheist in nature would be to completely change the definition of who the God head was per Joseph Smith himself. I apologize in advance if I offended anyone.

Edited by thews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the whole concept of baptism for the dead, but in your analogy, what about the truly wicked who never had a chance to hear the restored gospel? I find the whole "truly wicked" concept a judgement, which belongs to the Lord.

Doesn't the whole assigning of positions belong to the LORD, regardless of theology? Heaven vs. Hell or 3 heavenly kingdoms vs. outer darkness...the judging is still God's. No?

This is not true according to the doctrine of Joseph Smith. LDS theology in henotheism. Joseph Smith's visions saw two spearate entities, so saying they are one in LDS theology is wrong. Agree/disagree?

I've had LDS tell me their church is monotheistic and trinitarian (but with a looser definition), others say they are henotheist, and still others openly say they are indeed polytheistic. You're probably right that most would fall in the henotheistic camp, though my guess is that official church organs would not embrace the term.

I don't mean to badger you, but LDS theology is henotheistic and that's what the doctrine of Joseph Smith taught. To water it down to accept part, but not all is sort of choosing which parts make sense. To call Mormon theology monotheist in nature would be to completely change the definition of who the God head was per Joseph Smith himself. I apologize in advance if I offended anyone.

There are LDS, including scholars, who embrace the term henotheist. My outsider opinion is that the term is appropriate. On the other hand, if we remove that obscure option, and must pigeon-hole LDS theology as either monotheistic or polytheistic, strong arguments could be offered either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the whole assigning of positions belong to the LORD, regardless of theology? Heaven vs. Hell or 3 heavenly kingdoms vs. outer darkness...the judging is still God's. No?

I agree, but the question was related to LDS theology.

I've had LDS tell me their church is monotheistic and trinitarian (but with a looser definition), others say they are henotheist, and still others openly say they are indeed polytheistic. You're probably right that most would fall in the henotheistic camp, though my guess is that official church organs would not embrace the term.

I see the Mormon faith changing and going away from its roots. Some may disagree, but saying LDS theology is anything but henotheism is for all intent and purposed wrong IMO. By "wrong" what I mean is that's not what the religion dictates, which is a Godhead where God the father is a higher order than Jesus Christ. This is what the LDS prophet that was Joseph Smith taught, so to call oneself LDS but also monotheist is really claiming to be two different things that are in fact different.

There are LDS, including scholars, who embrace the term henotheist. My outsider opinion is that the term is appropriate. On the other hand, if we remove that obscure option, and must pigeon-hole LDS theology as either monotheistic or polytheistic, strong arguments could be offered either way.

I disagree. Mormonism embraces Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and Joseph Smith taught that God and Jesus were separate beings. That by definition is henotheistic. This is my observation, but there are a lot of Mormons that believe Joseph Smith was a messenger of sorts, and God chose him to reveal this new doctrine, but the doctrine stands by itself and is not associated with Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. This not only doesn't make sense, it doesn't change the theology of plural Gods per the Mormon doctrine. Either it's all true or none of it's true, but to say you're LDS and fail to associate belief with Joseph Smith and claim to be a monotheist would remove you from being LDS IMO, but it still doesn't change the LDS henotheist foundation in its doctrine.

Anyone disagree with me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thews, perhaps one difference between our approaches is that I am trying to discern what actual LDS people believe, rather than trying to authoratively define what a church position paper on the nature of God might look like. In other words, you may well be absolutely right. But, if I'm talking with LDSposterjoe, and he tells me he believes in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit--just like evangelicals, only the persons of the Godhead are three personages, but one in purpose and thought, and so are, in essence a "social Trinity," who am I to say, "Well--you just don't know--you're actually a henotheist!" I become absurd at the outset. Far better for me to discuss the single essence of God than to waste time convincing that he believes there are multiple gods, when he already proclaims he doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize in advance if I offended anyone.

It's not that you offend, it's that you claim not to believe what he taught because you "don't understand it." Well, that makes perfect sense to me. It's very difficult to believe something you don't understand.

In my case, I understand it, and I believe it.

You point at me and say I am wrong and believe in magic and lies, yet you claim you don't understand it. I think if you really understood it you might feel very differently about it.

The problem is, you rely on 3 fallible sources:

1) Youself

2) Man's understandings (science)

3) Non-LDS interpreation of LDS doctrine

As long as you rely on those 3 sources you will never understand.

Saul knew he was right, and he fought with all his might. He came to understand the truth by a vision. He didn't fundamentally change; he was still the same person. But, after his vision he fought on the side of what he then knew to be true, and became Paul.

There are millions of Sauls in the world today, such as yourself. They are valiant and fighting for the cause of what they believe to be true.

Only God can deliver a conviction of the truth. Your 3 sources can't. This forum can't.

God has outlines the method for any man to come to an understanding of the truth. It is not in any of the 3 ways you are seeking it. It can only happen one way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share