What One Lds Distinctive Truth Is Most Essential?

[prisonchaplain]

I'm still slowlly plodding my way through How Wide the Divide? A Mormon Evangelical Conversation. I'm about a third of the way through, and thus far, can highly recommend it as an intelligent, yet approachable discourse between LDS and evangelical theology.

Thus far, what I have found is that Mormon teaching challenges some beliefs that evangelicals take for granted. In other words, we evangelicals ASSUME things, before we even start talking with others.

Some examples:

1. Before God made the world, it was just him and the angels.

2. Humans begin their existance at conception.

3. On the day of judgment those whom God is pleased with will go to eternal reward. The rest will be damned to hell.

4. Many will be damned to hell.

These are just a few of the beliefs that we've been raised up to assume "go without saying." There are others, of course.

LDS believers likely have their set of assumptions too--especially those raised in the church. You see the four listed above and think, "What? Why would they believe that?"

So, here's my question: What one LDS truth, if any, holds the rest together, and justifies belief that the COJCLDS is the restoration of the Christian church and gospel?

IMHO (as a non-LDS) it seems to be the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims. If he really received the visions, and really translated the writings, then the rest of the distinctive teachings can be defended. If Smith was a deceiver, or he was deluded, then all the distinctives become obscure (not impossible) interpretations.

BTW, the same could be said about Jesus. If he really is the Son of God, sent from the Father, then his teachings and gospel hold true. If not, we'd all better find us some rabbis!

[glindakc]

i dont think there really can be just one thing. everything holds everything together. it's all its own support.

however, the book of mormon is the keystone to the lds religion, which is very important. without the bom, joseph smith wouldn't happen and everything would totally still be a mess. because the bom is true, everything else sometogether

[Ray]

Question: What one LDS truth, if any, holds the rest together, and justifies belief that the COJCLDS is the restoration of the Christian church and gospel?

Answer: I believe it is the truth concerning the fact that God reveals His will to us in this day and age just as He has done in any other, through Faith in Jesus Christ and through the power of the Holy Ghost. Or in other words, I believe the most indispensable truth is the idea that we need revelation from God to know the truth concerning anything.

And as I told you before, I have Faith in the “veracity of Joseph Smith’s claims” only because and to the extent that God has given me His assurance that Joseph Smith was telling the truth in making the claims he made, not because I have simply chosen to believe or put my faith in Joseph Smith.

[Ray]

Originally posted by glindakc@Dec 22 2005, 02:33 PM

i dont think there really can be just one thing. everything holds everything together. it's all its own support.

however, the book of mormon is the keystone to the lds religion, which is very important. without the bom, joseph smith wouldn't happen and everything would totally still be a mess. because the bom is true, everything else sometogether

←

Good point, about the Book of Mormon, but I believe the Book of Mormon is true only because and to the extent that God has given me His assurance of the truth on its written pages, not because I have simply chosen to believe or put my faith in the Book of Mormon.

And btw, I also have Faith in Jesus Christ only because God has given me His assurance that Jesus Christ is who God says He is, not because I have simply chosen to believe or put my faith in what the people said who wrote the Holy Bible... which I also know to be Holy only because and to the extent that God has given me his assurance of the truth on its written pages.

So, as I said, I believe the most fundamental truth that we cannot do without is the truth that God reveals the truth to us through personal revelation.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 22 2005, 02:15 PM

Thus far, what I have found is that Mormon teaching challenges some beliefs that evangelicals take for granted.  In other words, we evangelicals ASSUME things, before we even start talking with others.

Some examples:

1.  Before God made the world, it was just him and the angels.

2.  Humans begin their existance at conception.

3.  On the day of judgment those whom God is pleased with will go to eternal reward.  The rest will be damned to hell.

4.  Many will be damned to hell.

These are just a few of the beliefs that we've been raised up to assume "go without saying."  There are others, of course.

←

As I once said when I told you how I "left behind" some of my beliefs I had as a member of "another" Christian church, I believe you will also "leave behind" some of the beliefs you now have when God gives you a personal assurance of the truth concerning some things you simply do not know now.

[Snow]

I agree with Ray.

You can't stress enough the contributions that Joseph Smith made to the restoration but continuing revelation (and authority) is what drives the Church forward.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 22 2005, 02:15 PM

I'm still slowlly plodding my way through How Wide the Divide?  A Mormon Evangelical Conversation.  I'm about a third of the way through, and thus far, can highly recommend it as an intelligent, yet approachable discourse between LDS and evangelical theology.

Thus far, what I have found is that Mormon teaching challenges some beliefs that evangelicals take for granted.  In other words, we evangelicals ASSUME things, before we even start talking with others.

....

So, here's my question:  What one LDS truth, if any, holds the rest together, and justifies belief that the COJCLDS is the restoration of the Christian church and gospel?

←

I commend you for your efforts. There are a number of items that come to my attention:

1. Are you doing this as an exercise in your personal understanding? Or do you have something else in mind?

2. Are you searching with the idea that you might change your thinking and philosophy? (find a truth you might be missing)

3. Do you intend to find a weakness and therefore alter LDS thinking and philosophy? Or use that weakness to seek converts?

4. Are you looking for allies to help in support of causes you feel are most important in this day, age and time.

As you may have observed, I do not dedicate a lot of time to internet interfacing. Sometimes I may miss a few days on the internet because of higher priority commitments. While you have been active in your posting I have dropped a few concepts (that I have been asked to answer by well meaning and well informed colleagues that are not Christian or religious) to see how you might respond.

Now, may I make an attempt at your question?

In Genesis chapter 1 we learn of G-d’s view concerning creation and his role, goal or work as it relates to man. I believe he makes an interesting summery of himself and his intent in creation when he points out that everything was existing in a state of “darkness” and was without “form” and was “void” and then he said, “Let there be light”. G-d then tells us that light is a good thing and continues in his work by separating the light from the darkness.

I would say that all LDS thinking and philosophy is based on the understanding that G-d is about this same work even today as in times past among all mankind. G-d has said “Let there be light” in our dispensation. This is so that all things that have affinity to that light may be separated from those things that have an affinity instead to darkness. Personally I believe there is a reason that a certain period of man has been called “The Dark Ages”.

LDS are taught that this is a time that light is being restored. What may surprise you is that LDS also believe we are yet in a beginning stage of the restoration of light – more to come. The more advanced stages will occur as the time draws near when Jesus will return in power and glory (light) and completion will not happen until the Christ (in all his majesty of light) is among us.

Now your question seems to me to be a question of identifying what is light and what is darkness. Again I would refer you to Genesis and G-d’s witness that light is good. G-d seems to be about separating good from evil.

I think it wise to associate with all good and light one can find and disassociate with all evil and dark that may be thrust upon us. The question for LDS and evangelicals (and all mankind for that matter) is a question of what is good and light and what is evil and dark. -- In particular how can we shine a light that glorifies G-d? One thing I am sure of is that it cannot be done if one is associated with or doing dark and evil things.

The Traveler

[Guest funkyfool416]

Yeha i think that one major point that holds the LDS religion together is the validity of the Joseph Smith and the first vision story. If Joseph really did see God and Jesus...and they really did aid him to come out with the book of mormon...then it all really must be true..the book of mormon and the living prophet that the mormons have today....

I think that is the main point that keeps the lds religion together. If the Joseph smith story is correct then we b right....IF..

[roman]

The answers by some here have me asking a couple of questions.

1. Why express the thought on JS vision as "the first" ---is it because there are more than one vision and that there is a difference in them

2. if the BoM is the thing that hold the lds church together-----then why are not most of the doctrines and practices of the lds church --from that book? Why do they come from other books----

Your responses have me thinking----that all. I'm just looking for alittle insite here.

[Snow]

Originally posted by roman@Dec 23 2005, 05:55 PM

The answers by some here have me asking a couple of questions.

1. Why express the thought on JS vision as "the first" ---is it because there are more than one vision and that there is a difference in them

←

Awwwh Roman, you cheeky monkey you.

You were trying to make a sarcastic and derogatory remark but you blew the delivery. What you meant to say in pretending to ask the question was "is that because there is more than one version of the account?"

As it is, your question makes no sense and that's sad.

[prisonchaplain]

Taoist Saint says: I commend you for your efforts. There are a number of items that come to my attention:

1. Are you doing this as an exercise in your personal understanding? Or do you have something else in mind?

Frankly, I was thinking outloud. I've learned much from this site--not just the dogma, but some of the flow-of-thinking amongst LDS. Additionally, it's become clear to me that much of LDS teachings can be defended, IF we assume that Joseph Smith truly was a prophet. I was throwing these thoughts out for feedback.

2. Are you searching with the idea that you might change your thinking and philosophy? (find a truth you might be missing)

At this point I'd say I hope to "enhance" my thinking. However, how thin is the line between major enhancement and change?

3. Do you intend to find a weakness and therefore alter LDS thinking and philosophy? Or use that weakness to seek converts?

Not specifically. However, all conversations change seriously engaged participants. Perhaps others will gain some "enhancement" from what I have to offer, as well. I shouldn't be the only blessed by these cyber-interactions.

4. Are you looking for allies to help in support of causes you feel are most important in this day, age and time.

I do not have anything in mind at this time, other than the hope that, if nothing else, my posts leave people feeling better, rather than worse, about evangelicals and evangelicalism.

Now, may I make an attempt at your question? Sure, go ahead.

LDS are taught that this is a time that light is being restored. What may surprise you is that LDS also believe we are yet in a beginning stage of the restoration of light – more to come. The more advanced stages will occur as the time draws near when Jesus will return in power and glory (light) and completion will not happen until the Christ (in all his majesty of light) is among us.

I'd be interested to see how some other LDS posters view this. If I'm reading you right, latter day prophecies are meant to help the LDS prepare the world for Jesus' return. Does this mean that society will become increasingly ready for the Savior's coming? In other words, is the world supposed to become increasingly more godly? Or, does this simply mean that the gospel will become more fully understood as the time approaches?

FYI: Evangelicals generally believe that the world will gradually degenerate until Christ's return. There seem to be parallels here between the late-19th century theological divide between modernists (post-millenialists) and fundamentalists (pre-millenialists). However, I may be reading way too much into what Tao is saying.

Now your question seems to me to be a question of identifying what is light and what is darkness. Again I would refer you to Genesis and G-d’s witness that light is good. G-d seems to be about separating good from evil.

I think it wise to associate with all good and light one can find and disassociate with all evil and dark that may be thrust upon us. The question for LDS and evangelicals (and all mankind for that matter) is a question of what is good and light and what is evil and dark. -- In particular how can we shine a light that glorifies G-d? One thing I am sure of is that it cannot be done if one is associated with or doing dark and evil things.

Separating the goat from the sheep, perhaps?

[prisonchaplain]

Snow says: I agree with Ray. You can't stress enough the contributions that Joseph Smith made to the restoration but continuing revelation (and authority) is what drives the Church forward.

It only makes sense. Yes, Snow is certainly right that in order for anyone to consider Joseph Smith a prophet, s/he must first accept that possiblity that God continues to offer revelation on a level that informs Scripture (rather than Scripture providing the check for it, as evangelicals teach). BTW, the evangelical professor in How Wide the Divide does seem to make room for the possiblity (though not the reality) of latter day revelation on a par with current Scripture.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 23 2005, 09:12 PM

It only makes sense.  Yes, Snow is certainly right that in order for anyone to consider Joseph Smith a prophet, s/he must first accept that possiblity that God continues to offer revelation on a level that informs Scripture (rather than Scripture providing the check for it, as evangelicals teach).  BTW, the evangelical professor in How Wide the Divide does seem to make room for the possiblity (though not the reality) of latter day revelation on a par with current Scripture.

←

Of course there has to be the possibility... else man would be placing a limit on God but as you say, in practice, for the Evangelical, it ain't never gonna happen. Makes one wonder, at the second coming if some would say... nope - not interested, we got the bible.

[roman]

Ah snow your a riot. You pretend to know my motives and the intent of my heart and try and make a funny. all you do is expose yourself.

You do all of this ---because you have no answers to my very legitimate questions. Your gutless---gutlesss my friend. If you had any backbone you would just answer my questions---but you can't--just like you couldn't on the Christmas Myth thread.

You can keep up your little games if you want---you don't know how and don't have the capability to push my buttons----You can't embarrass me into going away. I will continue to ask questions and give all my opinions when and where I want to--------inspite of your behavior

Now---either answer the questions---one of them that you didn't even address----or you go away----please

waiting for your next-------attemp

[Snow]

Originally posted by roman@Dec 23 2005, 11:25 PM

Ah snow your a riot. You pretend to know my motives and the intent of my heart and try and make a funny. all you do is expose yourself.

You do all of this ---because you have no answers to my very legitimate questions. Your gutless---gutlesss my friend. If you had any backbone you would just answer my questions---but you can't--just like you couldn't on the Christmas Myth thread.

You can keep up your little games if you want---you don't know how and don't have the capability to push my buttons----You can't embarrass me into going away. I will continue to ask questions and give all my opinions when and where I want to--------inspite of your behavior

Now---either answer the questions---one of them that you didn't even address----or you go away----please

  waiting for your next-------attemp

←

Sweetie,

Why all the venom?

Here's the answer to your insincere question. It's called the First Vision because of all the visions, it came First, hence the use of the word first. Had they used the word second it would have confused people since it was the first and not the second.

As anyone can tell, this takes a rocket scientist, AND his brother, to figure out.

I do so hope, dearest, that you no longer consider me gutless now that I have acquiesed to your demand that I explain the meaning of the word first to you - you philomath you.

[Snow]

...and by the way, I know exactly what your motives are and you are lying when you say that your question is legitimate. I know this because you said:

"is it because there are more than one vision and that there is a difference in them"

As a legitimate question is makes no sense. If they were different visions then yes, there would be a difference between them and no person with an IQ higher than their age would ask that. What is, however, a very stock and rote piece of anti-Mormon attack-dog rhetoric, is challenging the First Vision by claiming that the different versions of the First Vision are irreconciable.

You lack the finesse and subtely to hide your intent.

Your second question is equally as stupid as the first. You have zero idea what LDS beliefs come from the BoM and which ones do not. I challenge you, a challenge I predict you will avoid like the plague that is antimormonism, to tell us which LDS beliefs are in the BoM and what percentage of the body of LDS beliefs are not found within the BoM.

You philomath.

[roman]

snow;

Your still gutless because you still are afraid to answer my second question---this is the 2nd time you dodged it.

BTW---you didn't really answer my first question ------why the differences in visions-------as usuall your avoiding answering my questions

and what about the Christmas Myth tread---gutless there tooooooo

And there is no venom---see you think you know---but your lose on that disearnment toooooo

[roman]

See you try and cloud the issues with your reckless retoric

please show me the passages from the BoM on the baptism of the dead---lets start there

[Snow]

...and the reason you frothed venom at the maw is because I caught what you were up to and it pissed you off enough to call me gutless (like that even makes sense) exposed (like that related to something), no backbone (as if that makes any sense) and embarrassed (as if that meant something).

Still, if you think you can (you can't) please make a logical case about how I was gutless, exposed, embarrassed and had no backbone.

[Snow]

Originally posted by roman@Dec 24 2005, 12:05 AM

See you try and cloud the issues with your reckless retoric

please show me the passages from the BoM on the baptism of the dead---lets start there

←

Nope, that's not what I challenged you on. Go back and read the challenge but let me predict a second time that you won't - just like you demonstrated in your last post.

[roman]

I'm not mad at you or anybody-----you just gotta make stuff up don't you to avoid the subject matter---you need to get a clue my friend---and using swear words ---proves a lot.

well since your trying your old tactics of avoiding answering a direct question----------------which is Where in the BoM is the doctrine of baptism for the dead.

I don't reconise or bow to your challenge----since its the theme of this tread that the BoM is essential to the lds church---I asked[your just using your stalling-avoiding tactics] why most lds doctrine is not from the BoM . All you have to do is show me--thats all. Your challenge has nothing to do with what I'm asking

Now its 215 Am __Im going to bed---while you continue the show

[Snow]

Originally posted by roman@Dec 24 2005, 12:18 AM

I'm not mad at you or anybody-----you just gotta make stuff up don't you to avoid the subject matter---you need to get a clue my friend---and using swear words ---proves a lot.

well since your trying your old tactics of avoiding answering a direct question----------------which is Where in the BoM is the doctrine of baptism for the dead.

I don't reconise or bow to your challenge----since its the theme of this tread that the BoM is essential to the lds church---I asked[your just using your stalling-avoiding tactics] why most lds doctrine is not from the BoM . All you have to do is show me--thats all. Your challenge has nothing to do with what I'm asking

Now its 215 Am __Im going to bed---while you continue the show

←

For the record: I correctly predicted that you would avoid like an antiMormon plague offering an evidence whatsoever to support your claim - a claim which by the way is as likely false as your First Vision flub was clumsy. Though you certainly don't understand how or why it is false.

And here's a little hint lover: When you call someone names, like gutless, clueless or accuse them of making something up, you ought to be able to say how or why that is - it ought bear some semblance to reality.

My basic premise about you is that you are a antiMormon, very ignorant of LDS beliefs and practices and with a poor understanding of the rules of reason and logic, whose behaviors is of the very ugliest sort, rather than promoting one's own belief, you tear down other's beliefs - the very model on unChristian behavior. Everything I post re. you works off that premise. Through some misunderstanding of the English language, you call that gutless and other such dandies. That is just a fulfillment of my premise that you don't understand reason. What you should be doing instead is insulting me in a way that actually relates to my behavior; that way it might get to me - like the way you blew a gasket when I caught you being disingenuous with your First Vision question and they you melt down and start calling names etc, etc.

Now my lovely, I didn't answer your question because it is 1. Rhetorical and 2. Stupid. It's rhetorical because the answer is already known and it's stupid because you thought (though you have now changed your mind) that it answers something that it does not. I challenged you to prove your statement most LDS beliefs are not in the BoM and so you immediately asked if Baptism of the Dead was in the BoM thinking that somehow met the challenge and that's why the question is stupid. It's not whether one or five or 60 beliefs are in or not in the BoM but rather as you claimed that MOST are not. That realization has now dawned on you and now you refuse to meet your burden of proof though but you still ask the question.

Puppet, I understand that you probably aren't reading this far along in the post as you don't do well with compound thoughts and propositions so most of this will simply be lost on you - like how you now understand that you have no chance of proving your point but can't quite figure out what to do with your question - so you keep parroting it back but claiming that it is unrelated to the challenge that you failed at.

St. Augustine was right when he said: "70% of antiMormons are idiots and the other 23% are morons." Nitche wrote: "Augy baby, you got it going on."

[Josie]

BACK TO THE SUBJECT!! The way I see it, the single most important act that has occurred since the beginning of this earth is the atonement. And I think I would be safe in saying that that is a teaching of the church too. Without the atonement (In the garden, not on the cross) all would be lost and there would be nothing for any of us. The atonement was God and Christ's gift to us to give us the opportunity to return to live with them. The resurrection was the fulfillment of that promise. To give us the hope and faith of life after death and a second gift to build faith on that something better is waitting for us.....

[Snow]

Josie,

The subject was about "distinctive" LDS beliefs. The atonement is a widespread belief although there are some aspects that are uniquely LDS... ie what it atoned for, where it happened, what one must do to take advantage of it...

[Josie]

I understood the subject Snow, LOL. But I think our belief of the atonement and it's importance is different from most.