Church Politics

[prisonchaplain]

Well Ray, Lionheart and Maureen:

Im thinking of joining our brothers of Christianity, ....just as i was almost to do before I converted to mormonism....I have faith in Christ, but suddenly, not in Joseph Smith...

I'm in another post, discussing this issue with Ray. My question, why the near-idolatry of Joseph Smith. In Judaism, Moses is obviously the most important prophet, as the writer of the Torah. Nevertheless, Jews do not speak much about the Prophet Moses, but rather about the Law of God, and how to obey them. Likewise, Paul castigated the Corinthians in the first chapter, for bragging about who had baptized them--to the point of making factions.

The one religion in which the prophet is so highly esteemed is Islam. And, if I'm not mistaken, some here accused them of idolatry.

So, even if Joseph Smith was absolutely right in what he said, saw, and did, would God not have been more pleased if the corrections and truths he brought had been successfully communicated to the Christian community, rather than a new denomination being created, and allegiance to church and messenger being demanded (I know that the church is true, and that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God--however it is worded). Just a thought.

[oaf1984]

I would like the mention something that was said earlier

"Salvation based on works"

I am sorry, but that is NOT was the LDS religion is about.

It is Faith AND Works. BOTH are required. It is not one or the other.

Consider James 2:24:

" Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only"

The "only" implies that both are needed.

I am well aware that many other scriptues say that we are saved by grace, but it does not say that our "works" save us.

At the end of the day it is Christ who saves. He is the deciding factor, not our works.

On the other hand, are we true servents if we don't try to do all the works we can?

Again, we need both.

[prisonchaplain]

I would like the mention something that was said earlier: Salvation based on works" I am sorry, but that is NOT was the LDS religion is about. It is Faith AND Works. BOTH are required. It is not one or the other. Consider James 2:24: " Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" The "only" implies that both are needed. I am well aware that many other scriptues say that we are saved by grace, but it does not say that our "works" save us. At the end of the day it is Christ who saves. He is the deciding factor, not our works. On the other hand, are we true servents if we don't try to do all the works we can? Again, we need both.

In response--this is one teaching in which evangelicals and Mormons are probably a lot closer than we think. The difference is in focus. When evangelicals speak of salvation, we're referring to the moment of conversion. We come to Jesus "Just as we are, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me." It's all grace, and no works.

Mormons, when speaking of salvation, are actually referring to sanctification, and to our need to "endure to the end." Any salvation experience that is true will result in good works. Jesus said that if we really loved him we would obey his commands. The fruit of the Spirit (Galations 5) includes many difficult attributes, like long-suffering. The characteristics of love in 1 Corinthians 13 include many laborious attributes.

So, all Christians agree that faith, resulting in works, guarded to the day of Christ's return, or until our own home-going, results in a blessed day as we meet our Master. Amen?

[Cal]

On the issue of what to talk about in Sacrament meetings, I’m going to go in a slightly different direction here and say that you will always give your best talks when everything you say is prompted by the power of the Holy Ghost. Which means that it doesn’t really matter from which books you get your information, as long as the Holy Ghost prompts you to say what you are saying about the information you are presenting.

Or in other words, instead of “preparing” a talk, by figuring out “who” to quote and “what you are going to say “when”, I think it’s better to give a talk as prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Or in other words, I think it’s better to speak about what “you” think, about what you “feel”, as you are prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost, rather than simply trying to quote what some other people have said as they were prompted through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Heh, but if you really must have some notes, to direct you in what you are saying, I would then say that it’s better to quote people who spoke by the power of the Holy Ghost, instead of just quoting some information from some books.

And btw, I never heard anything about the “right-hand issue” until I read something here, and to me it sounds like superstition. And since my wife and I sit on the right side of the chapel, with me toward inside toward the aisle, I take the tray with my left hand, passing it to my right hand between me and my wife, and then take the emblems with my left hand so that we can take them together.

Or in other words, I’m not going to start trying to contort myself so that I can take everything with my right hand, for no reason other than superstition.

Have you ever noticed that when someone gets up and says they didn't prepare anything and are going to rely on the "spirit" to prompt them, within 5 minutes at least 10 people in the audience are snoring?

I can't say I've ever heard a really good speech that wasn't obviously well thought out and organized. And I sure as heck never gave one that wasn't.

[Serg]

Brethren:

I am sorry I brought this situation up...it was not intended.

Last thursday I was in a huge crisis of faith. I was not gonna come to Church on Sunday, and if I would have, it would have been to say BYE to my brethren there.

Suddenly, only one thing is making me REMAIN here...

On Friday I was meditating, i had been praying, and all the works, you know...One passage of Scripture came to my mind, and I sware, I had never even paid attention to it, so...even didnt know it was there at all. It was Daniel 9:9, it just came to me. Of course, it talks about one being reconciled to God after not believing in Him nor in His prophets...

Anyways, that was not enough. A sole statement of scripture CANT be the based of a testimony of Truth. So i remembered that on saturday Elder Cook(Seventy) was coming to our stake, so I went. I approached and told him that I needed to talk to him, not only say hi. I talked, he talked, it was satisfactory at least. So I am refraining from abandoning the Church, and suddenly feel the fantastic peaceful feeling of being in it, but I still have two or three vital questions to be answered.

My fellow Christian brothers will have to wait, but I assure you, that IF i leave this Church(for now, i will not) I will join them. I have been doing some more studying and well, we'll see.

PD: If Ray and Apostleknight might want to explain me a few things, it would be fine(Church History). Although this is not a matter of who knows more than who, because we in this forum can see who are equiped enough as to hold on a thoughtful conversation, but rather to get answers from them that I consider my brethren and people I respect.

Regards

(thanks Pushka-thanks Jason)

[BenRaines]

Serg, yo conozco Elder Gene R. Cook personalmente. Si hay alguien quien tiene el espiritu es el. Buena suerte en lo que buscas.

Ben

[Serg]

Que bueno encontrar un hermano de habla hispana aqui dentro,

Bueno hermano, lo que pasa es que aunque me satisfizo lo que me contesto y VI sus ojos y su conviccion, aun asi, MI conviccion la que TENGO del mormonismo, se basa en algo mas que el testimonio ajeno, y CREO en esta verdad, el problema es que hay alguna que otra cosa que al no tener explicacion aparente me perturba(no porque sea un misterio divino lo que persigo sino porque lo que es es historia y hechos que NO van a corde con lo que he creido aqui hasta ahora).

Gracias por hablarme de toda formas!

[Jason]

Que bueno encontrar un hermano de habla hispana aqui dentro,

Bueno hermano, lo que pasa es que aunque me satisfizo lo que me contesto y VI sus ojos y su conviccion, aun asi, MI conviccion la que TENGO del mormonismo, se basa en algo mas que el testimonio ajeno, y CREO en esta verdad, el problema es que hay alguna que otra cosa que al no tener explicacion aparente me perturba(no porque sea un misterio divino lo que persigo sino porque lo que es es historia y hechos que NO van a corde con lo que he creido aqui hasta ahora).

Gracias por hablarme de toda formas!

Amigo,

Hay muchas personas aqui en "LDSTALK" que hablan espanol.

La historia de la iglesia es una gran problema para muchas personas, especialmente para los apologistas que no gustan hablar acerda de ciertas hechos en el pasado. No obstante, tiene que recordar que no hay personas perfectas en este vida, y aunque la iglesia prefere hablar de lo bueno, hay cosas que occurio' que todos preferierian olvidar. Es mejor estudiar acerda de lo que hoy ensenan y hagan, en lugar de lo que ha pasado con una pequena por ciento de mormones.

Ojala que todo pasa bien.

[lisajo]

ya know some of us are illiterate to your talk

[BenRaines]

Jason, I agree with you. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is one thing and the membership is another. What someone said or did in the past should not entirely reflect on the church today.

Most people believe that we have become greatly enlightened in how we treat women, children, people of other races, referring to white anglo/saxons, and how they treat others. To attempt to judge people from 1,000, 500, 200 or even 50 years ago by what we consider normal today is an injustice.

In Old Testament, was David a prophet? At one time. Did he commit the worst sin imaginable? Caused for the murder of someone. Yes. Will he be judged for it or all his generations after? He will. Does not make any less true what happened or it's reperucssions.

I believe that the organization is what Christ would have upon the world if he were here today. Would some things change? Most likely. Would that make what was before it any less true, I don't believe so.

Enough of that.

Ben

[Ray]

If Ray and Apostleknight might want to explain me a few things, it would be fine (Church History). Although this is not a matter of who knows more than who, because we in this forum can see who are equipped enough as to hold on a thoughtful conversation, but rather to get answers from them that I consider my brethren and people I respect.

Thank you for the vote of confidence, Serg, but rather than offering myself as a person you should lean upon when you have trouble understanding doctrinal issues, I will instead suggest that you study from the prophets of God who are now leading the true church of Christ on this Earth… as well as asking God to help you to know the truth of all things.

But, as I often do, I will answer a few questions, from time to time, as I feel the Spirit move me. :)

[Snow]

I am a very objective person, also of great faith. But faith alone, does not work. God provides witnesses, and one of those is the bible, and it doesnt point me towards mormonism. The book of Mormon, beig the cournerstone of our faith, does not teach the complete messege of our faith. Basic and "true"things pertaining salvation. This is:

1)eternal marriage

2) The Gods

3) God being a Man with a wife(or many)

4) plural marriage as a Celestial prefference

5) Salvation based on works

6) the ordenances in the temple(it does not even mentions it)

7) that Joseph Smith is going to be the GATE KEEPER of Heaven, instead it teaches that ONLY CHRIST is BOTH the GATE and the GATEKEEPER, and also says "and nonelse does He" appoint for that Job.

8)That God are TREE different Gods, instead, its pretty diferent(in many passages) to the one version we have now...

Why should the Book of Mormon have to contain any of those principles or others? Did God reveal all his truths to every prophet or time?

3) But now, changes in the Book of Mormon? If JS publicly announced that there was NO book on earth as PERFECT as the BoM, why does it have SO many changes from the first version? Not gramatical changes, but DOCTRINE, THOUGHTS, VERSES, please??!!!

I would dispute that. For example, what material doctrinal changes are there?

[Snow]

[

So, even if Joseph Smith was absolutely right in what he said, saw, and did, would God not have been more pleased if the corrections and truths he brought had been successfully communicated to the Christian community, rather than a new denomination being created, and allegiance to church and messenger being demanded (I know that the church is true, and that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God--however it is worded). Just a thought.

I guess that presupposes that you know how God ought to behave but let me ask - is that how the scriptures tell us God has behaved in the past? Did God send Christ to reform the Jewish religion? Haven't many or most prophets been a voice in the wilderness, calling people to repentence and being mostly unsuccessful at it - for that matter?

I don't know what allegiance to Joseph Smith you are referring to. I respect JS, I find him fascinating. I think he is a symbol of the God's restoration of the the gospel in the latter-days but I, nor anyone I know idolizes him.

[BenRaines]

I know what you mean Snow. While we have just finished celebrating the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith's birth he is not someone I worship but someone who I respect for the trials he experienced and the willingness to give his life as a testimony of his belief and knowledge.

[prisonchaplain]

I guess that presupposes that you know how God ought to behave but let me ask - is that how the scriptures tell us God has behaved in the past? Did God send Christ to reform the Jewish religion? Haven't many or most prophets been a voice in the wilderness, calling people to repentence and being mostly unsuccessful at it - for that matter?

In a sense, yes, Jesus did come to reform, or bring completion to the Jewish religion. He claimed to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. His followers continued to worship in the Temple and in synagogues, even after the resurrection. Then there is the passage about us non-Jewish believers being grafted into the seed of Abraham. In a sense, Christianity was not a new religion, but rather the result of a synagogue split, in which the new outperformed the old. The expulsion of followers of The Way came about generation after the resurrection, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't know what allegiance to Joseph Smith you are referring to. I respect JS, I find him fascinating. I think he is a symbol of the God's restoration of the the gospel in the latter-days but I, nor anyone I know idolizes him.

Granted, Mormons do not worship Joseph Smith, or any of the prophets. On the other hand, the level of respect, fascination, deference given to this "symbol of God's restoration" is quite extraordinary to Protestants. It is akin, from this outsider's view, to the adoration (not worship) Catholics offer their saints, or perhaps even Mary, and very much like Muslims offer Mohammed. So, no, I'm not accusing the LDS of idolatry. I am suggesting that the level of respect given to your prophet, Joseph Smith, is unusual by Old Testament, New Testament, and Protestant traditions.

I know what you mean Snow. While we have just finished celebrating the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith's birth he is not someone I worship but someone who I respect for the trials he experienced and the willingness to give his life as a testimony of his belief and knowledge.

I believe I understand why Mormons honor Joseph Smith as they do. My reaction--which may help many here understand "outsider Christian responses"--is that of concern. To Protestants, highly honoring any human raises red flags. We do not see Old or New Testament prophets treated this way. We criticize Catholics for over-emphasizing Mary and the Saints. We criticize Muslims for over-reacting to cartoon caricatures of Mohammed--a mere human prophet, after all.

Bottom-line: Give honor to whom honor is due, but understand when those uncommitted raise eyebrows and wonder.

[shanstress70]

If you do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, your church does not allow entry into your temples in order to do the ceremonies that will allow you into the CK. You have to do these either before death, or after, in order to go to what you believe is the highest kingdom of heaven.

So yes, there is naturally an allegiance to him.

Although it may exist, I know of no other Jesus-based religion that requires you state your belief in a certain prophet, other than Jesus, in order to be glorified.

I'm not usually a scripture quoter, but here goes...

John 14:6 (KJV) - Jesus saith unto Him I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

That's all great if you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, but IMO, getting into the highest level of heaven should not hinge on him.

[Serg]

Guys;

I as much as many of you still defend this Curch, and have indeed done it in the past. And Snow, yes, I agree with you in that God did not have to reveal ALL the doctrines all the time, also , that it makes sense that BOM doctrines teach as those in the OT and NT. But my guess was not of mine, i was referring to one of many people's objections. But only two of those i mentioned really bother me: 1) the thing concernin JS as the GATEKEEPER of Heaven when God said in the BOM that is not possible and 2) the literal changes in FRASES(not doctrines) in the BOM. If the BOM was(as i believe it IS) a translation of another record, can only be CORRECTED in manner of the writting NOT the frases or ADDING and TAKING frases in and out(even if its sometimes a few).

And in respect of our Church NOT being judged by the past, What ? How can one rely or not on the Jehova Witnesses? Or in any other Church IF NOT based on what they teach, have taught and will teach?

Its an important part , the one of JUDGING(what can be judged-not all) the behaviour and teachings of a prophet in order to believe or do not, or am I wrong?

Dont worry, I believe(i just dont get some things)

Regards

[Ray]

In case it might help any, I’d like to quote something Hugh Nibley wrote in a book I’m now reading, which will hopefully shed some more light on the subject of what the “fullness of the gospel” really is.

”In the temple we are taught by symbols and examples; but that is not the fullness of the gospel. One very popular argument today says, “Look, you say the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel, but it doesn’t contain any of the temple ordinances in it, does it? Ordinances are not the fullness of the gospel. Going to the temple is like entering into a laboratory to confirm what you have already learned in the classroom and from the text. The fullness of the gospel is the understanding of what the plan is all about—the knowledge necessary to salvation. You know the whys and wherefores; for the fullness of the gospel you go to Nephi, to Alma, to Moroni. Then you will enter into the lab, but not in total ignorance. The ordinances are mere forms. They do not exalt us; they merely prepare us to be ready in case we ever become eligible.” – from his book, ‘Temple and Cosmos’, page 26.

I should probably clarify that when brother Nibley was referring to “salvation”, and when most other [LDS] refer to “salvation”, we are actually talking about “exaltation”, which is the highest degree of salvation to those of us who truly want to know God.

And btw, when he was referring to the "classroom", he was referring to the world we live in.

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

If you do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, your church does not allow entry into your temples in order to do the ceremonies that will allow you into the CK.

I just had a temple recommend interview last Sunday - no mention of Joseph Smith.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

If you do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, your church does not allow entry into your temples in order to do the ceremonies that will allow you into the CK.

I just had a temple recommend interview last Sunday - no mention of Joseph Smith.

Well, by sustaining the current president of the Church, you are in fact sustaining the notion that his authority derived from Joseph Smith.

Therefore, you are actually stating that you believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet. If you say you don't sustain the current leadership, do you think you'd get your recommend?

[Snow]

In a sense, yes, Jesus did come to reform, or bring completion to the Jewish religion. He claimed to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. His followers continued to worship in the Temple and in synagogues, even after the resurrection. Then there is the passage about us non-Jewish believers being grafted into the seed of Abraham. In a sense, Christianity was not a new religion, but rather the result of a synagogue split, in which the new outperformed the old. The expulsion of followers of The Way came about generation after the resurrection, if I'm not mistaken.

Alright, but in another sense Jesus didn't come to reform but to replace and in a sense, since Christianity is not Judaism, it is a new religion.

So, no, I'm not accusing the LDS of idolatry. I am suggesting that the level of respect given to your prophet, Joseph Smith, is unusual by Old Testament, New Testament, and Protestant traditions.

I suggest that maybe one reason that is - is that Joseph Smith (and his successors) was a real live breathing human being with a full palette of human emotions, thoughts, struggles, failures, successes. His trials were were/are our trials. There is so much known history about him that we have a collective remembrance of him.

Of the ancient prophets, by comparison, practically nothing is known and none of it is known for sure. It a matter of live human beings next to cut out cardboard silloettes

I believe I understand why Mormons honor Joseph Smith as they do. My reaction--which may help many here understand "outsider Christian responses"--is that of concern. To Protestants, highly honoring any human raises red flags. We do not see Old or New Testament prophets treated this way. We criticize Catholics for over-emphasizing Mary and the Saints.

I guess my response is why are you criticizing Catholics? Since Catholics are Christian and Christians are saved, why are you more judgemental than Christ?

[Snow]

But only two of those i mentioned really bother me: 1) the thing concernin JS as the GATEKEEPER of Heaven when God said in the BOM that is not possible and 2) the literal changes in FRASES(not doctrines) in the BOM. If the BOM was(as i believe it IS) a translation of another record, can only be CORRECTED in manner of the writting NOT the frases or ADDING and TAKING frases in and out(even if its sometimes a few).

Your position presupposes 1. that Joseph Smith and only Joseph Smith received inspiration on the Book of Mormon and 2. That Joseph Smith's inspiration and recording of the inspiration was perfect and therefore no fine-tuning is needed.

Why should either of those two things be true?

Joseph Smith had no problem fine-tuning his revelations after the fact as he came to a greater and greater understanding of truth. He also had no problem fine-tuning scriptures written by others (the Bible) as he believed he had a better understanding of what our current day versions ought to say. In fact, I suggest that is the way everything in the gospel work... line upon line, precept upon precept. Christ didn't come to an understanding of his mission in an instant - he grew in knowledge and understanding. So did Joseph. So does the Church.

And in respect of our Church NOT being judged by the past, What ? How can one rely or not on the Jehova Witnesses? Or in any other Church IF NOT based on what they teach, have taught and will teach?

Its an important part , the one of JUDGING(what can be judged-not all) the behaviour and teachings of a prophet in order to believe or do not, or am I wrong

Sure - I don't think there is anything wrong with judging. We grow through our trials and tribulation ans in as much as the Chruch has had plenty of both, it has grown correspondingly. The key is whether or not your judgement is sound. However, even if your judgement is grand, it's still a matter of faith, not fact.

[bbbrhatt]

I was reading your post and I feel that there is allot of people within the church that don't know how to accept truth... We are told time and time again to prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good. The only problem is they only look to the truths they are exposed to. I have found that so many members fear so much of the world. When if they would only trust their testimonies and believe in God as we are taught. I do have a testimony of the gospel but have found so many people who don't trust their own beleifs. If you read in the scriptures (as the prophets have guided us to do) they will strenghten your testimony. I have found this in my own life. Fear is there from the advisary not our heavenly father Right??? BBBRHATT

[prisonchaplain]

I guess my response is why are you criticizing Catholics? Since Catholics are Christian and Christians are saved, why are you more judgemental than Christ?

What, you've never had squabbles in your family?

[prisonchaplain]

Alright, but in another sense Jesus didn't come to reform but to replace and in a sense, since Christianity is not Judaism, it is a new religion.

The original point I made was that Joseph Smith started out by rejecting the established Christian churches, and establishing a new religion--one to which he called lovers of God to join--leaving the others behind. In contrast, the Old Testament prophets and Jesus called religious leaders on the carpet for their corruption and distortions, and he endorsed John the Baptist's 'baptism of repentence.' He never called anyone to leave the established Jewish faith. The schism happened a generation after Jesus' death.

It is more than a nuanced difference to say that Jesus did not come to destroy or compete with Judaism, but to fulfill and complete its mission, so the faith might be brought to all nations--that all nations might be blessed by Israel, as they prophets had promised would happen.

I suggest that maybe one reason that is - is that Joseph Smith (and his successors) was a real live breathing human being with a full palette of human emotions, thoughts, struggles, failures, successes. His trials were were/are our trials. There is so much known history about him that we have a collective remembrance of him. Of the ancient prophets, by comparison, practically nothing is known and none of it is known for sure. It a matter of live human beings next to cut out cardboard silloettes.

Okay, this is a plausible partial explanation. However, my own denomination, and the Pentecostal movement are even newer than Mormonism. Our first General Council was in 1914. The fathers of this movement are Parham and Seymour. Parham, in particular, formulated the doctrine of tongues as initial evidence of Holy Spirit baptism. Yet, ask 100 Pentecostals who the forumulator of the doctrine is, and less that 10% will know. Parham was also a flawed teacher, very much a product of the racial attitudes of his day. Seymour, a handicapped, self-educated African-American might be better known--especially in the Church of God in Christ. Yet, again, the vast majority of Pentecostals don't know about him. (I majored in Pentecostal church history). These guys are only about 3-4 generations back, yet are little known outside our theological schools.

All that explanation to suggest that there is something theologically and culturally unique about the way Mormons honor Joseph Smith.

I believe I understand why Mormons honor Joseph Smith as they do. My reaction--which may help many here understand "outsider Christian responses"--is that of concern. To Protestants, highly honoring any human raises red flags. We do not see Old or New Testament prophets treated this way. We criticize Catholics for over-emphasizing Mary and the Saints.

I guess my response is why are you criticizing Catholics? Since Catholics are Christian and Christians are saved, why are you more judgemental than Christ?

The same reason you criticize Ray or Traveler, or especially the ARIs--we disagree. I'm hardly more judgmental than Jesus. Judgment does begin in the house of God. And, as I intimated in another response to this, family can often tell us truths that others are too polite to mention.

Sure - I don't think there is anything wrong with judging. We grow through our trials and tribulation ans in as much as the Chruch has had plenty of both, it has grown correspondingly. The key is whether or not your judgement is sound. However, even if your judgement is grand, it's still a matter of faith, not fact.

The reason anti-cultists tread so heavily upon the histories of both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses is that both groups (Mormons to a much lesser extent) lay claim to exclusive hold on true Christianity in this age. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that all who do not convert to their faith will be annhilated at the Day of Judgment. Most Christians understand Mormons to teach that non-Mormons cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom (Yes, I know this is an issue that is nuanced, and that some LDS believe that non-LDS have potential to enter it).

Bottom-line: The self-proclaimed sole holders of gospel truth will be held to a much igher standard than other churches.