Hello I am an Ex JW looking into Mormonism

[sabastious]

Hello lds.net members, my name is sabastious (Sab-ash-tee-us) and I have had 7 visits with a few of your missionaries and have played basketball with them twice. You seem like a very nice lot, but your strict doctrine worries me a great deal. I was born and raised a Jehovah's Witness where children are subject to incredible pressure and indoctrination of a Gospel I now know to be completely false.

The missionaries that are spending time with me often say that Mormon's see "truth in all religions." While I like that you guys have this idea, it just seems to be a very large assumption on your part. You believe that LDS is the superior church so the fact that other religions have truth within them would only serve to draw people into to an inferior spiritual group.

I am interested in getting many questions answered. I will not deny that I remain very skeptical of your beliefs, but you seem to have a strong bond that is not found within my old church. Jesus was reported saying that to know his disciples of the future you would have to look for "love among them." The JW's take this and run with it saying that they are the only group on earth that shows that love to each other that Jesus was speaking of. To me Jesus was speaking about the bond of love which you can find in many places like a sports team or a band of brothers fighting on the battlefield. Jesus' mention of "love among ourselves" seems to be integral to his teaching about how love works: through us.

Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself before I jumped into your guy's conversations. I will try to be as respectful as possible, but like I said, I am extremely skeptical of your beliefs mainly involving the superiority of your apostles and prophet.

Regards,

-Sabastious

Edited July 9, 2012 by sabastious

[Vort]

You seem to be hung up on the idea of "superiority", Sabastious. But superiority is the Lord's attribute, not ours.

As a Christian, do you not believe Christianity to be "superior" in some sense to, say, Islam or Judaism or Buddhism? Yet this does not mean you think Christians are superior people or better loved of God than anyone else, only that they have truths more complete and precious.

We claim to be the Lord's Church, restored as in ancient days. That makes us unique among all Christianity and everyone else. We are not "superior" because we're smarter or naturally better; rather, we belong to the true and restored Church of Jesus Christ. This is a tremendous blessing for us, and of course also a tremendous responsibility.

Learn, pray, and let God himself answer your questions. Good luck. Keep your eyes open when playing basketball, and remember: The Church is true, but Church basketball sometimes isn't. :)

[sabastious]

You seem to be hung up on the idea of "superiority", Sabastious. But superiority is the Lord's attribute, not ours.

Well I think the issue of superiority is of utmost importance. For instance your church only allows baptisms to take place inside a specified building in a specified location. In order for you to have authority to dictate how and when someone relinquishes their life to Christ you must show evidence that such an authority even exists.

As a Christian, do you not believe Christianity to be "superior" in some sense to, say, Islam or Judaism or Buddhism? Yet this does not mean you think Christians are superior people or better loved of God than anyone else, only that they have truths more complete and precious.

I believe Christianity to be an adequate religious lifestyle that allows for communication with one's Creator. The same can be said for most mainstream religions. They all can easily be considered successful religious ventures. Do you feel they have been misled in some fashion?

Learn, pray, and let God himself answer your questions. Good luck. Keep your eyes open when playing basketball, and remember: The Church is true, but Church basketball sometimes isn't.

To me prayer is something I do when I come to a juncture in my life when I don't feel I have adequate information to progress forward. At that point I turn to God in prayer for direction. So far it's been very hard to get a real answer as to what God thinks about the Mormon church.

I am first and foremost an adherent of my own proprietary version of Confucianism. The I CHING to me is as much a word of God as the Bible is.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[prisonchaplain]

I once read a book by a former member of the Governing Board of Jehovah's Witnesses. After his spiritual crisis, he left the movement. He was extremely skeptical of any "spiritual authority." I believe he became involved in house group Bible studies, but was very reticent to join with larger churches, where there was a spiritual hierarchy.

Thus, the OP's concerns and skepticism are understandable. And yet, here he is, hoping to learn...kudos for the openness.

[sabastious]

Hello prisonchaplain, I too have read Crisis of Conscience and Raymond Franz is a type of hero for me. Going to the top of the JW ladder and then defecting is something only a person with a special spiritual constitution could accomplish. Thanks for the sentiment and I look forward to learning all about Mormonism. So far, you guys are nothing short of fascinating.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[prisonchaplain]

Hello prisonchaplain, I too have read Crisis of Conscience and Raymond Franz is a type of hero for me. Going to the top of the JW ladder and then defecting is something only a person with a special spiritual constitution could accomplish. Thanks for the sentiment and I look forward to learning all about Mormonism. So far, you guys are nothing short of fascinating.

Regards,

-Sabastious

I grew up with neighbor friends who were Jehovah's Witnesses, and so found the book fascinating. By way of disclosure, I'm one of the roughly 15% or so at this site who are not LDS. We have great discussions here.

[HiJolly]

Welcome to the site.

HiJolly

[Dravin]

Well I think the issue of superiority is of utmost importance. For instance your church only allows baptisms to take place inside a specified building in a specified location. In order for you to have authority to dictate how and when someone relinquishes their life to Christ you must show evidence that such an authority even exists.

Unless this is a reference to proxy work, baptisms for the dead, that's entirely untrue. Yes, we tend to hold baptisms in Church buildings within the font but nothing prevents a baptism from occurring in any body of water in which the baptized can be fully submerged. A baptism occurring in, for instance, a natural body of water isn't considered invalid. We do maintain it has to be done by the proper authority but that doesn't really have anything to do with location.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Dravin

[sabastious]

Unless this is a reference to proxy work that's entirely untrue. Yes we tend to hold baptisms in Church buildings within the font but nothing prevents a baptism from occurring in any body of water in which the baptized can be fully submerged. A baptism occurring in, for instance, a natural body of water isn't considered invalid.

I apologize if I misrepresented your church. What would you think the ratio is for members who get baptized in a temple as compared to the ones who do not? Also what if the baptism was conducted by another religion? Are those considered invalid?

Also, I was told that you are to declare your faith in the prophet of the church before baptism (recognize the legitimacy). What if someone wanted to be baptized in the Mormon church but reject the idea of it's prophet and apostles. Would that be permitted?

Regards,

-Sabastious

[jerome1232]

I apologize if I misrepresented your church. What would you think the ratio is for members who get baptized in a temple as compared to the ones who do not? Also what if the baptism was conducted by another religion? Are those considered invalid?

No one gets baptized in the Temple, we only do proxy baptisms there for those who have passed without being baptized in this life.

[sabastious]

No one gets baptized in the Temple, we only do proxy baptisms there for those who have passed without being baptized in this life.

Sorry, I don't know the names of everything very well. The reason why I bring it up is because the Jehovah's Witnesses put their organization as the go between for Christ and man. The end of Matthew has Jesus saying to baptize everybody in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the Watchtower, before getting baptized at one of the tri annual gatherings you must affirmatively answer that you are doing it in the name of the "God's SPIRIT-directed organization." So they replace the Holy Spirit with their organization. They teach the the Holy Spirit is an "active force" and is not a person in any shape or form.

I am fearful of other organizations taking on this role of "baptizers." To me Baptism was just a way for the 1st century people to be able to do something simple that wasn't connected to the religion or government at the time. It put the power back in the people's hands so to speak. It pains me that organizations out there have stripped away that power that was handed out all those years ago.

What if I wanted to have a baptism at my local lake? Would that be permitted? What would HAVE to be there in order for the baptism to be legit?

Regards,

-Sabastious

[Vort]

I apologize if I misrepresented your church. What would you think the ratio is for members who get baptized in a temple as compared to the ones who do not?

0 to 1. As others have noted, we do not do baptisms for the living in a temple.

Also what if the baptism was conducted by another religion? Are those considered invalid?

Baptisms must be done by the authority of God (or, in other words, the restored Priesthood). No other organization has God's Priesthood; that exists only within the restored Church. Indeed, the restoration of Priesthood authority was a necessary precursor to restoring the Church, for it could not exist without Priesthood authority.

So no, baptisms done by non-LDS persons are of no effect. God requires baptism, and futhermore, requires baptism by his authority, the Priesthood. So it must be done by a Priesthood holder (necessarily LDS) who is authorized to exercise that power.

Also, I was told that you are to declare your faith in the prophet of the church before baptism (recognize the legitimacy).

You were told wrongly. We do not have faith in men, even in mighty prophets. We have faith in Jesus Christ. But we do believe that prophets are on the earth, and we revere and listen carefully to them.

What if someone wanted to be baptized in the Mormon church but reject the idea of it's prophet and apostles. Would that be permitted?

Doubtful, although it would ultimately be at the discretion of the one holding Priesthood keys, the mission president. It would make little sense to baptize someone who rejected the idea of living prophets and apostles. Baptism is a covenant, an agreement to live life in a certain manner. That manner includes hearkening to the words and teachings of the prophets and apostles. Someone who makes that covenant with no intent of keeping it is damning himself. I doubt any worthy Priesthood holder would knowingly sanction such a thing. Much better for such a soul to remain unbaptized than to enter into a covenant he has already determined to break.

[Vort]

So they replace the Holy Spirit with their organization. They teach the the Holy Spirit is an "active force" and is not a person in any shape or form.

Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, an actual being, and not merely some force or "breath of God" or something of the sort.

I am fearful of other organizations taking on this role of "baptizers." To me Baptism was just a way for the 1st century people to be able to do something simple that wasn't connected to the religion or government at the time. It put the power back in the people's hands so to speak. It pains me that organizations out there have stripped away that power that was handed out all those years ago.

Your political viewpoint is inappropriate, in my opinion. This is not and never was about "put[ting] the power back in the people's hands". God has the power. We are saved by him, not by our own efforts. The only power we have been given by God is the power to benefit those around us, and in doing so, benefit ourselves.

What if I wanted to have a baptism at my local lake? Would that be permitted? What would HAVE to be there in order for the baptism to be legit?

If no regular font were available, the missionaries might well use your local lake, especially if you voiced a desire to be baptized there. But the location of baptism is at the discretion of the missionaries and the mission president, and in any case is irrelevant. Yes, there is romance in being baptized in a beautiful lake or a river of living water or a picturesque pond or whatever, but the baptism by authority is the important thing, not where it happens.

For the baptism to be legitimate, you need a worthy candidate of sufficient age and mental acuity who understands to a reasonable extent what baptism is about* and who wishes to be baptized; a Priesthood holder authorized to perform the baptism; two witnesses to the event; and a body of water sufficient to submerge the person.

*The caveat "to a reasonable extent" exists because no one fully understands his or her covenants with God upon making them. It takes years of living those covenants before the fuller and deeper import of the covenants begins to become apparent. But a person does need to have at least a basic understanding of what the covenant requires and what the blessings of the covenant are so that s/he can make an informed decision.

[sabastious]

Baptisms must be done by the authority of God (or, in other words, the restored Priesthood). No other organization has God's Priesthood; that exists only within the restored Church. Indeed, the restoration of Priesthood authority was a necessary precursor to restoring the Church, for it could not exist without Priesthood authority.

The end of Matthew states a very simplistic approach to baptism. It's done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is no mention of a priesthood being required in order for the baptism to be legitimate. Acts 8 shows baptism to be almost spontaneous and a nearby river is made use of in the account.

Most Christian denominations believe that baptism is some sort of commandment. Jesus said that the greatest commandments were to love your God and your neighbor as yourself. Which would make those commandments greater than the commandment of baptism. Love for God is shown by dedication and possibly by some sort of ceremony, but for a Priesthood to emerge and hold a singular authority for a religious rite like baptism seems odd to me. I feel like I should be able to do it in my home pool. Jesus said that everyone must be born in both water and Spirit, but again he makes no mention that this process is tied to some Priesthood or authority. I don't mean to be disrespectful, I just don't see the necessity.

Doubtful, although it would ultimately be at the discretion of the one holding Priesthood keys, the mission president. It would make little sense to baptize someone who rejected the idea of living prophets and apostles. Baptism is a covenant, an agreement to live life in a certain manner. That manner includes hearkening to the words and teachings of the prophets and apostles. Someone who makes that covenant with no intent of keeping it is damning himself. I doubt any worthy Priesthood holder would knowingly sanction such a thing. Much better for such a soul to remain unbaptized than to enter into a covenant he has already determined to break.

Do you have a documented unbroken line of prophets up until Joseph Smith? It seems like there is a very large gap between the 1st century and the Christian boom of the 19th. Do you acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Priesthood up until the advent of Joseph Smith?

Do you believe there is enough evidence to support that your current prophet was elected by God? It's extremely important to prove this, imo, because you say that none of your priests would baptize someone who rejected the authority of the current prophets in the LDS church. How do you know they are not corrupt when people like Moses and David did that just. They were punished for it however. Unfortunately, when I visited your website the process of which your prophets are "called" is not well described. Coming from an organization that willfully abuses their "Priesthood" authority upon their rank and file I cannot help but be very wary about any group of men who hold the authority to baptize in the name of the One True God. Frankly it has me shaking in my boots at the very thought.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[skippy740]

First - I welcome Sebastious to the forum! Don't worry about all the terminology. You'll get it all in time. It's a spiritual and intellectual learning process. Just take your time and let the spirit guide you.

Second - let's remember that this is the INTRODUCTIONS part of the forum. We look forward to answering questions - in the rest of the forum.

Of all the 'sub-forums' here, this is the one that should be more like walking into a chapel for the first time. It's all 'smiles and handshakes' and 'happy to have you here'.

You can 'ambush' people once you're on the way to Sunday School! :)

[sabastious]

Your political viewpoint is inappropriate, in my opinion. This is not and never was about "put[ting] the power back in the people's hands". God has the power. We are saved by him, not by our own efforts. The only power we have been given by God is the power to benefit those around us, and in doing so, benefit ourselves.

Yes, but our understanding of the extent of that power has been dimmed by society as it was in Jesus' day. The people were oppressed and with no hope of being saved by their contemporaries. Religion was pigeonholed by the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Romans and their rites and rituals were extensive. The simple elegance of total water immersion flew in the face of the convoluted religious structure of Jesus' time.

Here we are again 2,000 years later and with the same problem, but this time around it's the act of baptism that has been corrupted. Jesus spoke about one Shepard, one flock. Bodies of water are something that are freely available to all and work as the perfect individualized ritual signifying one's servitude to the One True God and all that is good and separate from the world and it's wiles.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[Vort]

The end of Matthew states a very simplistic approach to baptism. It's done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is no mention of a priesthood being required in order for the baptism to be legitimate. Acts 8 shows baptism to be almost spontaneous and a nearby river is made use of in the account.

Jesus went to John the Baptist to be baptized. Why, if he could have asked the guy next door? In the case of Acts 8, notice who the baptizer was: Philip, an apostle -- that is, someone who had both the authority to baptize and the keys to administer that ordinance.

I feel like I should be able to do it in my home pool.

That's fine. You may think whatever you like. But you should realize that the fact that you think thus-and-such doesn't make thus-and-such true. Truth is defined by God and taught by the Holy Spirit, and often bears but little resemblance to the philosophies of men.

Jesus said that everyone must be born in both water and Spirit, but again he makes no mention that this process is tied to some Priesthood or authority.

Everything Jesus did was done under his authority as the Son of God. He specifically commissioned his apostles and gave them authority.

Do you have a documented unbroken line of prophets up until Joseph Smith?

Yes. It goes like this:

For the Aaronic Priesthood: God -> Moses -> Aaron -> {many generations of Aaron's descendants} -> John the Baptist -> Joseph Smith

For the Melchizedek Priesthood: Jesus Christ -> Peter, James, and John (and the other apostles) -> Joseph Smith

Each of us who holds the Priesthood likewise traces his own lines of authority back through those given above.

Do you acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Priesthood up until the advent of Joseph Smith?

Not at all. Priesthood authority was lost with the death of the apostles and restored to the earth by them through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Do you believe there is enough evidence to support that your current prophet was elected by God?

Absolutely. The evidence is conclusive, and is provided to all who seek it with honest intent and open heart.

It's extremely important to prove this, imo, because you say that none of your priests would baptize someone who rejected the authority of the current prophets in the LDS church.

Actually, I said the following:

I doubt any worthy Priesthood holder would knowingly sanction such a thing.

I have no doubt that unworthy Priesthood holders might sanction such a baptism. There are things in place to keep this from happening, but given that we are imperfect human beings, and given that baptismal candidates are free to lie when asked about their beliefs, convictions, and intentions, I am sure this has happened before.

Unfortunately, when I visited your website the process of which your prophets are "called" is not well described.

At the local level, the bishop is the Priesthood leader who holds the keys to exercise Priesthood authority for the benefit of the people, and he (the bishop) calls people to various positions as he feels inspired to do. At the higher stake level, the stake president does the same. And so it goes throughout the Church. Upon the death of an apostle, the remaining apostles gather and, as was done in ancient times and recorded in the book of Acts, they confer about whom to call to fill the vacancy. The President of the Church, who is recognized as the prophet and the only man authorized to exercise all keys of the kingdom, then calls that man to the holy apostleship and ordains him an apostle by the laying on of hands. Thus each man called as an apostle, including the Church's President, has been called of God by prophets and by the laying on of hands by those who have authority to do so.

[Vort]

Religion was pigeonholed by the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Romans and their rites and rituals were extensive. The simple elegance of total water immersion flew in the face of the convoluted religious structure of Jesus' time.

Not really. The idea that baptism originated with Christianity is false -- the Bible itself disproves that, showing that John the Baptist was baptizing before Jesus ever began his ministry. In fact, the Jewish ritual purification "mikvah" had been around since the beginning of the Hebrew religion. Baptism was doubtless a very old ordinance even in the time of Jesus.

Note that the Jewish authorities of the time were not recorded to have taken offense at baptism per se. Rather, it was the individuals who were baptizing and the covenants the people being baptized were supposedly making that rankled those in charge.

It is also the case that the religious authorities of Jesus' time were also in authority in a secular sense. This is the key point; they could levy punishments far beyond mere excommunication. Such is not the case in modern Western society, so the parallel is nonexistent.

[sabastious]

Not really. The idea that baptism originated with Christianity is false -- the Bible itself disproves that, showing that John the Baptist was baptizing before Jesus ever began his ministry. In fact, the Jewish ritual purification "mikvah" had been around since the beginning of the Hebrew religion. Baptism was doubtless a very old ordinance even in the time of Jesus.

No, religious total water immersion was not started by John the Baptist, but that doesn't take away the reasoning as to why it was used in relation to liberating the Jews from enslavement of both religion and government. The point was not to start a new religion or priesthood of baptizers, but to offer something to the public that could serve as a universal means of salvation APART from an organized religion. Now, we have Christianity today where salvation is much easier than it was in the days of the Pharisees, but now we have Christian sects throwing a broom in the spokes by making baptism into an official means of church membership instead of what was originally intended.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[skalenfehl]

Welcome! And may I begin by recommending a serious study of the Book of Mormon? In it you will find what Jesus Christ terms "the fullness of the gospel," which is also found in our church today via the restoration through Joseph Smith. First and Second Nephi alone testify to this.

[Vort]

No, religious total water immersion was not started by John the Baptist, but that doesn't take away the reasoning as to why it was used in relation to liberating the Jews from enslavement of both religion and government. The point was not to start a new religion or priesthood of baptizers, but to offer something to the public that could serve as a universal means of salvation APART from an organized religion.

No offense, but where on earth do you get this interpretation? It makes no sense at all, especially in the context of the lives of Palestinian Hebrews of 2,000 years ago. "Apart from organized religion"? What does that even mean? Even Jesus himself recognized the authority of the corrupt Jewish officials. It seems to me that you are anachronistically grafting modern ideas of "unorganized religion" (whatever that means) into the acts of ancient peoples who did not look at things in at all the same manner that you do.

[Vort]

Might be better to move this discussion to your other thread. As skippy pointed out, this is for introductions and welcomes, not in-depth discussions.

[estradling75]

Thread Closed...

Such debates are off topic in this subforum