LDS Question from a Baptist

[prisonchaplain]

Actually I believe that LDS is much easier to substantiate because the Lord required Joseph Smith to keep a written history and what was happening was also written in members journals, which they were also asked to keep. MUCH of this has been put on the internet FREE for others to pursue- while many churches have no such written records of their beginnings, and some even seem to disclaim their beginnings.

I'm not sure which churches you believe are "hiding" their past. My own organization has a heritage center, and many of the early publication are preserved for those studying religious history. My guess is that most churches have similar programs.

One example is that if I remember right (please correct me if I am wrong!!!) that The Watch Tower Society was the original name of Jehovhas Witnesses? Humm-- maybe I should go see if there is any JW on here to let them speak to this?

If I am not mistaken, they were first called International Bible Students. Their publishing arm is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Members are referred to as Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not seeing any deceit or hiding in any of this.

some churches say that they are just dammed to hell if not baptized

some others say there is no need for any water immersion baptism

some others say it takes no special priesthood authority to baptize another

(I understand that in the dark ages someone who was not even a Christian themselves was allowed to baptize someone else into the church of that time, and then of course there was when sprinkling instead of full immersion in the water was begun- I understand when some king wanted to wait till the last possible time to be sure he would be clean- but he waited so long that there wasn't time so they just sprinkled water on him?

Water baptism is an interesting subject, and yes, it does intermingle with the question of priesthood authority. The reality that there are a few different beliefs about this matter is disappointing, because we would very much like to be unified. However, if a non-Christian looked at that criticism, and saw Joseph Smith form a church to bring unity, would that person not simply say, "How does forming yet another division bring unity?" Of course, the Church's answer is that it is right, so righteous unity means joining it. However, that's a faith statement, not a conclusive argument.

I think that the best way is to look at the flow of the whole Bible and search for what matches the pattern.

This is great counsel. I often encourage students to read the Bible through quickly, in three months or so. Even skim some--just try to get the overall story--the grand design. Doing so is a great way to enhance discernment about doctrine.

There is a list that was compiled by some college students before the last world war. They called it Seventeen Points of the True Church. They (four of them) were not all of the same faith and one had even been a born again but lost his faith, when his whole family was killed in a tornado when in the very act of prayer for protection. They used the bible to compile the list and then went to the churches to find what matched, but hadn't found any when war took them into the service. Many years after the war they over time found each other (but the born again had died in the war) and they had all joined the same church.

Some have said that LDS just made up the whole thing and list to fit only LDS, but that is not true, as we would have had a LOT more points! ;0. Yorganson and Youganson later wrote a book titled The Quest, which they BASED on the true story, but added a girl and other elements not in the true happenings, -- but my point was that at the end of their book they have an appendage, where some LDS has made a list of points for a church to have to be the true church.

Anyway- that is one way to search, but it is important to "go to the source!"

You don't ONLY ask a Subaru dealer to tell you about the Ford car you are considering.

We at least need to let a knowledgeable member in good standing with the church, or the missionaries have a chance to teach us and answer our questions or go to LDS.org or Mormon.org .

I agree that going to primary sources is the best way to study. However, I believe even many members at this site would suggest that those "17-point stories," and other variations are mostly church urban legends. Other churches have the same type "faith-promoting stories." I remember hearing as an adolescent that Darwin recanted on his death bed, and became a born again Christian. I would love to believe it, but understand that it is probably not true.

[prisonchaplain]

I don't think this was taught by the Lord.

You don't think WHAT was taught by the Lord? What specifically do you disagree with? I cannot explain or defend my post, if I don't know what the alleged error is.

Jesus specifically said we can know if what He taught was from God that we could know by doing what He taught. This provides the most powerful witness man can attain - the confirmation of God to the teachings of Jesus Christ as being directly from the Father.

To base our faith on a lessor witness - well, it's just that - a lessor witness. "If you abide in My words, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

I have no issue with confirming by doing. But what is this lessor witness you are referring to?

[Gramajane]

About the 17 points-

it is no urban legend, as I had in my possession a casset tape made at a fireside by one of the very men it happened to.

Also I went to find the book

(which I still have) as most of my cassetts went the way of the world when the technology got raised :/)

The Book by the Yourgansons, is Titled "The Greatest Quest" .

(not JUST the Quest as I mistakenly posted before)

and with it on my knee right now, I find in the Authors note the name of one of the men

Floyd Weston. In the back of the book, I just looked at the

MORE points that one LDS made for the true church, and there are forty two.

I once made a list myself- but I came up with only about 30 odd.

I will go work to get the 17 points from the internet, as each has a Bible reference (though the authors had more than one ref. for many of them, but didn't put them all on their index cards, that the carried the list around with them written on.

I don't know how to go out and come back to the same post, so shall send this now.

[Gramajane]

This is from a copy on FAIR

"Question

Someone wrote the FAIR Ask the Apologist service saying:

"My question is about that fellow who wrote the "17 Points of the True Church" and the validity of his story. I stumbled into a web site that talked about a particular fireside this man gave where someone approached him on the truth of his story. Afterwards the man was told by a stake president that he must confess that he lied because he had been essentially "found out," and that many details of his story were fabricated.

My testimony is in no way based on the "17 Points," and I feel that it is overused and overemphasized within the Church, but regardless, I would like to know about the information claiming that his story his false."

Answer

The person responsible for the "17 Points of the True Church" is a man named Floyd Weston.

An ex-Mormon critic of the Church has claimed that Weston fabricated the details of how the "17 Points" were created. For example, Weston claims to have developed the list when he was a student at Cal Tech, and that during this time Albert Einstein visited the school. The critic has charged that Weston was actually at Cal Tech several years too late to see Einstein's visit. All of this is based on an email to the critic from an anonymous person who claims to know someone who knew Weston. So, the source is anonymous and almost impossible to verify. Anyone with further verifiable information is invited to contact FAIR.

What this has to do with the validity of Weston's "17 Points" is not entirely clear, but it seems that the critic is attempting to discredit Weston's list (and, by implication, the Church) by discrediting Weston himself. This would be a form of the ad hominem fallacy.

The assumptions underlying the "17 points" are highly dependent upon a worldview widely assumed by Utah Mormons, but which rarely reflects the situation of those who are not members of the LDS Church: the idea that there is "one true church" and that people will accept the LDS faith once they are logically convinced that it "matches" the New Testament Church in salient ways. In reality, these concepts are totally foreign to the worldview of most non-Mormons and depend a great deal on the assumptions which one brings to such an analysis.

"17 Points" is thus a resource that may be interesting to Latter-day Saints in examining the scriptural basis for certain features of the modern Church, but it is one that has relatively little value or relevance to the missionary effort unless the non-member already shares many aspects of the LDS world-view. Most non-members are likely more effectively approached about the gospel in entirely different ways, and following the Church's emphasis on such things as the mission of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are more likely to be effective missionary tools.

Conclusion

It makes little difference for the Church if Weston made up his story, since the truth or falsity of Weston's personal history has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the restored gospel.

Additionally, the "17 Points" may be used by certain individual members of the Church, but they have not been used in any official Church publications or adopted by the Church in any other way. The claims of the restored gospel stand independent of Weston's list. "

[prisonchaplain]

About the 17 points-

it is no urban legend, as I had in my possession a casset tape made at a fireside by one of the very men it happened to.

Wow...I guess my memory is like an elephant. Here's the string I had in mind...hey, what's five years between friends?

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/4297-17-points-true-church-christ.html

[Guest mormonmusic]

I didn't read all the comments leading up to this final post, so forgive me, but I do want to answer questions about misgivings about the Book of Mormon. I have noticed people citing historical problems with the BoM, of the fact there is no named evidence behind indicating the places mentioned in the BoM.

For me, the Book is FULL of inspiring ideas and stories which are pithy in eternal principles about life. I feel closer to God reading the Book of Mormon than any other book, save the 4 gospels in the Bible. Personally, I don't care if it's true or not anymore. I just care that it makes me feel close to God -- and that's good enough for me.

[Whynot]

You don't think WHAT was taught by the Lord? What specifically do you disagree with? I cannot explain or defend my post, if I don't know what the alleged error is.

I have no issue with confirming by doing. But what is this lessor witness you are referring to?

My comment had to do with your comment about Romans 1." Besides all that...how many of us are truly well enough versed in any particular science to either reject outright or pronounce as ordained any particular religion. Ultimately, Romans 1 suggests that nature itself proclaims that God is. If Paul is right, then we can indeed expect to find him, if we open our hearts. And, if we do find him, he will surely lead us where we need to go."

If nature itself were the power and knowledge required to find Him and know His will and get us on the pathway to be in the 'Set Apart People' of God, then one might wonder where all the Churches were when Columbus came to the new world. Fact is that faith follows preaching and proclaiming the word of God and that there is a true gospel - the gospel as preached by Jesus Christ and the original disciples.

I marvel that so many think they are going to turn atheists into Christians by arguing about creation/evolution. Why not teach what Jesus taught and make disciples of Him who are called to Him by His words from the Father? That seems to be a mode of operation and focus that would be true to the outline Jesus gave for the game-plan of taking the gospel to the world. (great commission at the end of Matthew)

Edited January 2, 2011 by Whynot

[Whynot]

Perhaps this would be better said as another thread topic, but I've come to see and believe with all my heart that the LDS book, Gospel Principles, should have more references to the Bible than it does, and specifically references to what the record says that Jesus actually taught. If the Church is about Jesus and the gospel of Jesus Christ, they should give references to His doctrine/teachings to support beliefs to those who are investigators. Most investigators are not familiar with the Book of Mormon, but are more accepting and familiar with the Bible.

The primary difference between the LDS Church and the rest of the denominations or orthodox Churches is that faith requires faithfulness and doing the will of God - not merely professing a confession of faith or such things as some believe true that are nothing but misrepresentations or twisting what Paul said. Truth is centered in and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

That the Bible has suffered mistranslation problems is evident, even in the KJV or NKJV or NIV or ASV. I would strongly recommend the Aramaic English New Testament by Netzari Press LLC to any Christian who wants to know what was originally said by the Lord and recorded by the disciples. The more I read it the more I'm convinced that the Greek and Latin texts promoted by the RCC have put a hedge around some issues of the complete truth as Jesus and His disciples gave them to us in their native tongue.

[prisonchaplain]

My comment had to do with your comment about Romans 1." Besides all that...how many of us are truly well enough versed in any particular science to either reject outright or pronounce as ordained any particular religion. Ultimately, Romans 1 suggests that nature itself proclaims that God is. If Paul is right, then we can indeed expect to find him, if we open our hearts. And, if we do find him, he will surely lead us where we need to go."

If nature itself were the power and knowledge required to find Him and know His will and get us on the pathway to be in the 'Set Apart People' of God, then one might wonder where all the Churches were when Columbus came to the new world.

You read more into my words than I intended. Romans 1 informs me that anyone who sincerely seeks after God can find him. General revelation is all that God is required to provide. It is up to us (call it free will, or free agency) to seek God sincerely.

And, you are right that seeking God is not enough. Once we find him--or he reveals himself to us--we must receive him and his life--which does result in holiness. Many conclude that the journey is too hard.

So, as I hoped and suspected, we do not so much disagree. I only intended to say that nature can be enough to convince us of God, and you thought I was implying much more.

Fact is that faith follows preaching and proclaiming the word of God and that there is a true gospel - the gospel as preached by Jesus Christ and the original disciples.

I marvel that so many think they are going to turn atheists into Christians by arguing about creation/evolution. Why not teach what Jesus taught and make disciples of Him who are called to Him by His words from the Father? That seems to be a mode of operation and focus that would be true to the outline Jesus gave for the game-plan of taking the gospel to the world. (great commission at the end of Matthew)

Why force a dichotamy here. Creation is a witness of God, and Christians who follow Christ's teaching is another. The latter may be more powerful, but these two means are not in competition. Different people respond to different approaches. Why try to force one, and exclude all others?

[rameumptom]

I'm not sure which churches you believe are "hiding" their past. My own organization has a heritage center, and many of the early publication are preserved for those studying religious history. My guess is that most churches have similar programs.

There are many Christian churches that hide or at least ignore portions of their past. You won't find much discussion anywhere about the key reasons why the Southern Baptists broke away from the American Baptist Church. The major reason was slavery. In the Jim Crow days, they supported segregation. Again, you won't see much regarding this from them.

Some religions were involved in the witch trials at Salem and elsewhere, but you won't see much concerning it in their heritage centers.

Others also have skeletons that they tend to hide. These are just a couple examples.

[prisonchaplain]

I took U.S. history to 1865, ironically, at Hong Kong Baptist College. The professor was a Southern Baptist missionary. Without prompting, he readily offered that much intelligence and academic energy was wasted attempting to defend slavery as a biblically accaptable institution. My guess is that you could indeed find books and studies done on this period. Doesn't make very good interfaith converation material, but neither is it hidden.

USATODAY.com - Black Southern Baptist pastors move past slavery

As for "white church" support of segregation, there has been much discussion of this. Baptist and other leaders have publically apologized for those stances. During the nineties there were quite a few meetings in which white ministers washed the feet of black ones, as a demonstration of regret and humility.

http://www.pctii.org/arc/adobe/Legacy_4.pdf

There is no doubt that church public relations departments do not choose to highlight the poor decisions and incidences of its past. However, I see very little "hiding" of those events.

Edited January 3, 2011 by prisonchaplain
add link

[ashleybstarr]

Coming from a Pentecostal/Baptist back ground myself I have had these same questions.

At this time in my life where I am studying LDS I can say that they do not teach another gospel. If a gospel is teaching the word of God and knowing what it means to live life as a Christian. I think more then anything they uphold with no fear the truths of the bible. I have found in my communities that Christianity here is tepid and wishy washy. The leaders of our churches do not seem to have uniformity in the meaning of many aspects of Christianity. If I as a mother would not want to teach my children in such an ambiguous, vague sort of way why do I accept that I can not understand Gods will for me if he is trying to show me? I have considered that when I put an argument against LDS to my mind and an answer comes back that it could be from the enemy but I have to ask myself; Why would the enemy want me to live in a way so in line with Christianity and deep morality and accountability?

He could put more effort into living a worldly life and trying to dispel all Christianity. In any case, this has just been my thoughts and experience so far. If you believe in God and you say to him "Please put the answer in my heart" I am sure he will tell you. Any father would. Hope that helps :) Take Care.