LDS: I still don't get it (Jesus Christ, priest, Latter-Day Saints, moral)

[tomspug]

I really don't want other Christians to get involved in discussing this topic, just LDS please.

My question is: Why did Jesus come to America? I just don't get it.

It seems to defeat the purpose of everything. He came to the remote nation of Israel, born into a tiny, insignificant town and an insignificant family. He died like a criminal and began his revolution with insignificant commoners like fisherman and tax-collectors.

So what was the significance of coming to America OTHER than "because of Mormonism". Why did Jesus not appear anywhere else? It just makes no sense to me. All of Jesus's actions in the New Testament were a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. It was as if his very existence was governed by them. And yet there is no reference in the New Testament that seems to point to another, reformed church. There is no prophecy that indicates that anything truths would be lost over time.

And that brings up another question. If the Bible is God's Word, why would he allow it to be altered? Would God allow his word to slowly be corrupted over time, deceiving not simply the foolish, but entire generations of wise and learned and faithful people? Imagine, for a moment, that you yourselves were growing up under the Roman Catholic Church of the first millennium. You believe with all your heart that the book you are taught is the authoritative word of God. How is that any different from how you live now?

The difference, of course, is that over time Mormonism doctrine has been slightly altered, for the purpose of clarification. Meanwhile, when we look at original Greek texts from the first hundred years after Jesus was resurrected, we find that the Bible we have now is NEAR IDENTICAL to what Christians believed in the time of Paul and of Constantine.

So if the truths are NOT corrupted and not changed over time by a corrupt church, then exactly what is the point of Jesus's Second Ministry and the Latter-Day Saints?

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by tomspug

I really don't want other Christians to get involved in discussing this topic, just LDS please.

My question is: Why did Jesus come to America? I just don't get it.

It seems to defeat the purpose of everything. He came to the remote nation of Israel, born into a tiny, insignificant town and an insignificant family. He died like a criminal and began his revolution with insignificant commoners like fisherman and tax-collectors.
So what was the significance of coming to America OTHER than "because of Mormonism". Why did Jesus not appear anywhere else? It just makes no sense to me.

It surprises me that you find this hard to understand. God is a loving and fair god who would want ALL of his children to have the gospel. We don't know that Christ did not visit other parts of the world. We only know that he visited America because we have the record. We believe that other records will come forth in the future and we will learn that he DID visit other people.

All of Jesus's actions in the New Testament were a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. It was as if his very existence was governed by them. And yet there is no reference in the New Testament that seems to point to another, reformed church. There is no prophecy that indicates that anything truths would be lost over time.

We've posted the scriptures that tell of the Apostasy. They are in the Bible. I can find them again, if you like.

And that brings up another question. If the Bible is God's Word, why would he allow it to be altered? Would God allow his word to slowly be corrupted over time, deceiving not simply the foolish, but entire generations of wise and learned and faithful people? Imagine, for a moment, that you yourselves were growing up under the Roman Catholic Church of the first millennium. You believe with all your heart that the book you are taught is the authoritative word of God. How is that any different from how you live now?

I can understand your question. You ask: Why would God forsake his people? We believe that God never forsakes his people. The Church left him. God's true church is living; meaning that it must have continued revelation--guidance from heaven. Times and needa change so continued revelation is needed. Doctrine does not change, and God does not change. But we change. Just as the Children of Israel lived under a different law, according to their readiness.
During the Apostasy, God did not forsake his people. He still heard and responded to their prayers. He still blessed and guided them as individuals. But his priesthood authority was gone from the earth for a time. He still recognized the efforts of his children to do their best to live what they were taught. Therefore he provided a way for all of them to eventually hear the Gospel and choose to be baptized. No one will be overlooked.

The difference, of course, is that over time Mormonism doctrine has been slightly altered, for the purpose of clarification. Meanwhile, when we look at original Greek texts from the first hundred years after Jesus was resurrected, we find that the Bible we have now is NEAR IDENTICAL to what Christians believed in the time of Paul and of Constantine.

So if the truths are NOT corrupted and not changed over time by a corrupt church, then exactly what is the point of Jesus's Second Ministry and the Latter-Day Saints?

Mormon doctrine has not changed. The principles are eternal. Some are not practiced, and some are withheld for periods of time, but they are always true. Polygamy is an example of this. Animal sacrifice is another example of a principle that is no longer required, because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Some parts of the Bible have been lost. We've discussed this in length. Many Biblical prophets quote from sources that we no longer have. We don't have all the letters of Paul. The decisions made in the Nicene Creed are not necessarily Biblical, though many perceive them to be. Letting his word become distorted and misinterpreted is in suit with God's pattern. He gives us free will. He allows wickedness to exist. However, he ALWAYS provides a way for his true word to come through. Enter the Book of Mormon. This was his way of preserving his pure gospel.

[Sola'lor]

Originally Posted by tomspug

I really don't want other Christians to get involved in discussing this topic, just LDS please.

My question is: Why did Jesus come to America? I just don't get it.

It seems to defeat the purpose of everything. He came to the remote nation of Israel, born into a tiny, insignificant town and an insignificant family. He died like a criminal and began his revolution with insignificant commoners like fisherman and tax-collectors.

So what was the significance of coming to America OTHER than "because of Mormonism".

He came to the Americas to bring the Law f teh Gospel to those people. Befoere that time they were living the old law. There was no way for them to recieve the Law of the Gospel because there weren't any airplane or cellphones or what nots. So to bring the fullness of teh Law to them His visited them. He established His church among them aswell. He did this becuase He loves all people, not just those in Jerusalem.

Why did Jesus not appear anywhere else?

Personally I believe He did go to other places. He probably visited many of the other lost ten tribes as well.

I'm also sure He visit other planets that Our Heavenly Father's children inhabit.

It just makes no sense to me. All of Jesus's actions in the New Testament were a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. It was as if his very existence was governed by them. And yet there is no reference in the New Testament that seems to point to another, reformed church. There is no prophecy that indicates that anything truths would be lost over time.

We've seem to have identifies many scriptures that indicate there would be.

And that brings up another question. If the Bible is God's Word, why would he allow it to be altered?

The Bible is just a book. It's not God's word. But it does CONTAIN His word. But I don't think He allowed it to be alterer that much. I think it's pretty much accurate. But if your looking at inaccuracies then it's not up to us. We simply have to look at the bible itself to see that it does contain errors. So the question goes for you as well. Why would He allow the Bible to be altered?

Would God allow his word to slowly be corrupted over time, deceiving not simply the foolish, but entire generations of wise and learned and faithful people? Imagine, for a moment, that you yourselves were growing up under the Roman Catholic Church of the first millennium. You believe with all your heart that the book you are taught is the authoritative word of God. How is that any different from how you live now?

I'm not quitre sure what you mean about the Roman Catholic thing.

The difference, of course, is that over time Mormonism doctrine has been slightly altered, for the purpose of clarification. Meanwhile, when we look at original Greek texts from the first hundred years after Jesus was resurrected, we find that the Bible we have now is NEAR IDENTICAL to what Christians believed in the time of Paul and of Constantine.

Yes we can see that the translations of teh Current Bible are pretty much accurate to their source documents.

So if the truths are NOT corrupted and not changed over time by a corrupt church, then exactly what is the point of Jesus's Second Ministry and the Latter-Day Saints?

It's not about what is in the Bible. It's about the practices of the churches. Those interpretations of what was written because there were no more Apostles or prophets. The Book of Mormon was preserved through time to support the Bible. The point of Christ's visit to the ancient Americas was to bring the Law of the Gospel and Christ's chruch to those people who were living the old law.

The purpose of the Book of Mormon was to help clarify and support the meaning of the Bible. It is to help people believe In Jesus Christ.

The Latter-day Saints live the Gospel as brought by Christ. After the Apostles died the priesthood authority was lost. There was no more direct revelation from God for the governing of the Church. So the practices of the churches became corrupted, because they had to rely on their own knowledge rather than revelation. The Latter-day Saints posess both living Prophets and Apostles, and priesthood authority. Both of those things that were lost have been restored.

[tomspug]

I don't believe in the Apostacy. I understand that you do, but I think you're wrong.

I think it takes too much faith in man to believe that an entire church founded by the same Scriptures as your own could turn away from God, when it is obvious that it didn't.

Interestingly, in one of my earliest discussions about LDS, I quoted the Book of Mormon's reference to the Apostacy, and the conclusions that I drew from it were vehemently denied. Now you're saying that the Apostacy is real and that the entire modern church as we know it has corrupt roots.


As for Jesus visiting other countries, what proof? Where is the Biblical prophecy that fortells such an action? Like I said before, Jesus's life was governed by the Old Testament prophecy.

[Sola'lor]

Originally Posted by tomspug

I don't believe in the Apostacy. I understand that you do, but I think you're wrong.

I think it takes too much faith in man to believe that an entire church founded by the same Scriptures as your own could turn away from God, when it is obvious that it didn't.

And that's where we have to agree to disagree.

Interestingly, in one of my earliest discussions about LDS, I quoted the Book of Mormon's reference to the Apostacy, and the conclusions that I drew from it were vehemently denied. Now you're saying that the Apostacy is real and that the entire modern church as we know it has corrupt roots.

It's possible there was a misunderstanding.

As for Jesus visiting other countries, what proof? Where is the Biblical prophecy that fortells such an action? Like I said before, Jesus's life was governed by the Old Testament prophecy.

Christ Himself said He has other sheep that He must bring. We believe this includes but is not limited to the people of ancient Americas.

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by Sola'lor

He came to the Americas to bring the Law f teh Gospel to those people. Befoere that time they were living the old law. There was no way for them to recieve the Law of the Gospel because there weren't any airplane or cellphones or what nots. So to bring the fullness of teh Law to them His visited them. He established His church among them aswell. He did this becuase He loves all people, not just those in Jerusalem.

The Bible says that God's law is written on people's hearts. It does not need to be spoken to them directly. Otherwise, if what you say is true, how is Abraham saved? He didn't have the old law OR the new law!

The Bible is just a book. It's not God's word. But it does CONTAIN His word. But I don't think He allowed it to be alterer that much. I think it's pretty much accurate. But if your looking at inaccuracies then it's not up to us. We simply have to look at the bible itself to see that it does contain errors. So the question goes for you as well. Why would He allow the Bible to be altered?

If you've got substantial proof that there are errors, I would like to see them.

It's not about what is in the Bible. It's about the practices of the churches.

If you look at history correctly, you wouldn't view 'the church' as one entity. While interpretations can come and go, the message remains the same. There is evidence of corruption of doctrine as early as the letters of Paul, merely decades after the resurrection! But the power of the truth of the resurrection is indominable. It cannot be corrupted. No power of man can overcome it and overpower it.

This is why I do not accept the doctrine of Apostacy. The church has, historically, been ultimately good and a voice for the Word of God. There has, in my mind, never been a need for Latter-Day Saints. The word of God continues to spread throughout the world, changing people's lives without the need of any additional 'revelations'. Theologies pop up all the time... Liberation theology, feminist theology... These come and go and are effective at addressing particular needs and peoples. But they are not necessary. That is what I am trying to communicate.

The concept of Latter-Day Saints is noble. Revolutions in moralism and evangelism are excellent and good. But it is folly to say that it is any different from any other church today. There is nothing exceptional about it. The idea of Latter-Day Saints is, in my mind, nothing more than religious elitism. As if to say, "we carry the gospel of Christ, but we know more than other Christians. We have extra gospel." Perhaps that is why there is much animosity between many Christians and Mormons. What matters is the gospel of Christ, above all. That is all that matters. "Performance" and "holiness" are strictly concerning the relationship between the individual and God. In no way do they 'corrupt' what "The Way" is ultimately about, spreading the Gospel, which (regardless of your views of church history) it has absolutely accomplished.

The doctrine of Apostacy is unfounded, historically, and simply demeaning to the history of Christianity today. Yes, humans make mistakes, but the impact of the history of Christianity is what created the Western World. And while human ambition may have distorted that message, it is by no means an evil of the "church" but of man.

[Sola'lor]

Originally Posted by tomspug

The Bible says that God's law is written on people's hearts. It does not need to be spoken to them directly. Otherwise, if what you say is true, how is Abraham saved? He didn't have the old law OR the new law!

We believe Abraham lived under the same law given to Adam. It was a pre-atonemnt version of the higher law.

If you've got substantial proof that there are errors, I would like to see them.

I posted them in the bible contradictions thread.

If you look at history correctly, you wouldn't view 'the church' as one entity. While interpretations can come and go, the message remains the same. There is evidence of corruption of doctrine as early as the letters of Paul, merely decades after the resurrection! But the power of the truth of the resurrection is indominable. It cannot be corrupted. No power of man can overcome it and overpower it.

I definatly agree. the truth of the ressurection cannot be sorruoted. However our human imperfect understanding of it can. The truth of the resurrection is independent of our understanding. So corruption in doctrine would lead away from the truth of the resurrection.

This is why I do not accept the doctrine of Apostacy. The church has, historically, been ultimately good and a voice for the Word of God. There has, in my mind, never been a need for Latter-Day Saints. The word of God continues to spread throughout the world, changing people's lives without the need of any additional 'revelations'. Theologies pop up all the time... Liberation theology, feminist theology... These come and go and are effective at addressing particular needs and peoples. But they are not necessary. That is what I am trying to communicate.

If that is your understanding then that is what you should believe. We believe that preisthood authority is neccesary from the performing of ordinancdes neccesary to salvation. That authority was lost when the apostles died. CHrist resored that priesthoiod to Joseph Smith. That is my understanding and that is what I believe.

The concept of Latter-Day Saints is noble. Revolutions in moralism and evangelism are excellent and good. But it is folly to say that it is any different from any other church today. There is nothing exceptional about it. The idea of Latter-Day Saints is, in my mind, nothing more than religious elitism. As if to say, "we carry the gospel of Christ, but we know more than other Christians. We have extra gospel."

We don't believe we have extra gospel. We believe we have the orignal gospel, that the rest of the church fell away from. It's not really elitism, anyone can join us.

Perhaps that is why there is much animosity between many Christians and Mormons. What matters is the gospel of Christ, above all.

That is all that matters. "Performance" and "holiness" are strictly concerning the relationship between the individual and God. In no way do they 'corrupt' what "The Way" is ultimately about, spreading the Gospel, which (regardless of your views of church history) it has absolutely accomplished.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.

The doctrine of Apostacy is unfounded, historically, and simply demeaning to the history of Christianity today. Yes, humans make mistakes, but the impact of the history of Christianity is what created the Western World. And while human ambition may have distorted that message, it is by no means an evil of the "church" but of man.

We don't believe it to be unfounded. Yes humans make mistakes, that' why we need living prophets to constantly keep us on the right path.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by tomspug

. Meanwhile, when we look at original Greek texts from the first hundred years after Jesus was resurrected, we find that the Bible we have now is NEAR IDENTICAL to what Christians believed in the time of Paul and of Constantine.

Sources? Which Greek documents are these?