1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For LDS only...some tricky questions

Discussion in 'Latter-day Saints DIR' started by Truth_Faith13, Feb 27, 2016.

  1. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,551
    Ratings:
    +5,487
    Religion:
    LDS Christian

    This is categorically false. Why would Joseph Smith have claimed to have personally spoken to the Savior and then established a Church bearing the Savior’s name but claimed it wasn’t really a “Christian Church”? There has never been a time in our history when we did not claim to be Christians. I can’t imagine why anyone would claim otherwise.

    I really don’t need to think I need to convince you that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian Church, and frankly, I find comments like this to be both hurtful and malicious. We do not accept Catholic and Protestant Baptisms because (1) we believe the baptism must be by immersion, (2) we believe the person performing the baptism must hold the proper priesthood authority to do so and (3) we believe the person being baptized must have reached an age where he can repent of His sins and accept the need for Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice in his life. Many churches baptize by sprinkling; literally any other Christian can perform the baptism; a baby can’t concent to the baptism nor can it repent. (At a few days old, I can’t imagine what sins it might have to repent of anyway.)

    We believe that our Prophet can, in fact, receive revelation for the Church as a whole, but in order for this revelation to be deemed from God, it must also be received by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. No one man, not even the Prophet, can change doctrine or policy on his own.

    It’s hard for me to respond to posts like this. They are mean-spirited and misleading. I grew up during the period of time when Black men were not permitted to told the priesthood. I was 29 years old when the policy changed in 1978. Many reasons were proposed why the policy was instituted (and they all turned out to be nothing but conjecture), but I was never in my life taught that “dark-skinned people were evil and God gave them dark skin so the good LDS could tell who was good or bad.” That’s an appalling way to put it.

    Most educated Mormons today realize that the policy withholding the priesthood from Black men was not given by revelation at all. It came to exist as a result of the racial tensions in force during Brigham Young’s day, and he evidently believed that there was a scriptural precedent for the ban. The Apostles who served with him obviously went along with his perspective. They were wrong. People make mistakes, even prophets and apostles. (I wonder if the Catholic poster who made these comments would welcome a discussion into the history of the Papacy. Probably not.)

    They may believe that there have been no revelations given to the Church since the first century, but they have no scriptural precedent for that conclusion. God has never said He was through providing us with His guidance and wisdom. Oddly, this poster says, “People can and do have private revelations which are sometimes accepted the Church.” If God can give some random person (Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe) a revelation, why couldn’t He – why wouldn’t He – speak to a Prophet? We believe that only the Prophet (and then subsequently the Apostles) receive revelation pertaining to the Church as a whole. A bishop may receive revelation pertaining to his governance of the ward that is under his stewardship. A Primary teaches may be receive revelation as to how to best convey a gospel message to a class of 5-year-olds. God communicates to His Church through the proper channels. That’s a safeguard.

    So we “offer all kinds of feel good stuff,” huh? The gospel of Jesus Christ is “GOOD NEWS”! It’s worth feeling good about! Yes, sometimes the missionaries do get super stoked when an investigator knows as much as you did when you first got baptized, and they may encourage a person to get baptized before the person is really ready. Your poster makes it sound like a kind of a conspiracy, though, and that’s not the case. I think you’re learning that this time around.

    One final thought… You know how relatively easy it was to leave Mormonism when you decided what you wanted. Ask your Catholic friends how Catholic baptism works. Unless I’m mistaken, they will tell you that once you are baptized, you cannot have your name removed from the membership rolls of the Roman Catholic Church. You may become a “lapsed Catholic,” but you’ll always be a Catholic. (I wouldn’t personally worry too much about that, because I believe that God has what you might call veto power over any baptism, particularly one performed on an infant. Baptism is only part of what is required of us; belief is the other half and baptism without belief is meaningless.) Regardless of whether you choose to become a Catholic or a Mormon, you will be a Christian. I hope you won’t allow anyone to convince you otherwise.
     
    #201 Katzpur, Nov 6, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,551
    Ratings:
    +5,487
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Unfortunately not. He posts really sporadically.
     
  3. Jane.Doe

    Jane.Doe Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    321
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    Mormon Christian
    LOL-- Katz totally finished this up with an ace-in-the-whole.

    Truth, let me know if you have any follow up questions.

    I'm not going to bother replying on CF because I'd just talk to you, and skip correcting to the rest of the them for the 20th time.
     
    #203 Jane.Doe, Nov 6, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2016
  4. Jane.Doe

    Jane.Doe Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    321
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    Mormon Christian
    Perhaps try PM'ing him and see if he answers?
     
  5. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,551
    Ratings:
    +5,487
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I'll try that.
     
  6. Truth_Faith13

    Truth_Faith13 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2013
    Messages:
    277
    Ratings:
    +15
    Thank-you both as always for your replies!

    I will probably have some follow up questions but not tonight now as its 20:20 here and I have been awake since 3:30am this morning!

    The branch president invited us over for Sunday lunch today (I haven't been to church yet) and it was a lovely afternoon. I've given him some questions too and well discuss them over the next couple of weeks. He knows I'm looking into Catholicism too and he is being respectful of my need to take things slowly this time around
     
  7. Jane.Doe

    Jane.Doe Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    321
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    Mormon Christian
    Yeah! Get some good sleep :)
     
  8. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,551
    Ratings:
    +5,487
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    That's great! Take care and we'll talk to you soon.
     
  9. DeepShadow

    DeepShadow White Crow

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,928
    Ratings:
    +335
    Religion:
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
    Okay, I'm late to the game and not sure which questions are still sincerely being questioned, so I'll just settle for a mostly tongue-in-cheek fisking of the stuff everyone else has answered:

    Which makes it all the more strange that they have not done so. Of all the corrections Joseph Smith made to the Bible, the number that were self-serving with regard to LDS doctrine is close to zero. If the "translated correctly" part was intended to make the Bible more consistent with LDS doctrine, why have so few of the changes been serviceable to that doctrine?!

    *yawn* Take the scare quotes off "scripture." This is begging the original question: if it IS scripture, it is naturally equal to all other scripture. That's the power of the label once it is applied. Just like anyone who attains a given public office gains all the powers of that office. If it's scripture, it's scripture.
    upload_2016-11-6_18-28-29.png

    All of which means is completely consistent with the narrow conditions for polygamy as set forth in the Book of Mormon: under the rare conditions when rapid birth rate was necessary, the Lord would authorize it. The rest of the time, it was expressly forbidden. One man with multiple wives increases the birth rate. One woman with multiple husbands decreases it. Marriages during those few times when it was authorized are still valid after the window closes and it's not allowed anymore.

    All of this means that LDS doctrine on the matter has actually been completely consistent on the matter since long before polygamy was ever proposed in the early church. Go figure.

    [deleted uncharitable speculation about the motives of the original source]

    We've always claimed to be Christians, but at times our leaders have tried to encourage us to build bridges of understanding, focusing on common ground. And every time they do, those who want the opposite jump all over it and call it a recent change to rebrand ourselves as Christians.

    Oh, for the love of...
    upload_2016-11-6_18-35-43.png

    Wait, so the fact that revelations came at opportune times is evidence that the revelations are false? Would it be better if they came at inopportune times?! No, that's nonsense. God has excellent timing, so...

    upload_2016-11-6_18-40-16.png

    ...with a bonus
    upload_2016-11-6_18-40-42.png

    Those monsters!!!1!

    Or you could learn for as long as you want. Took Brigham Young two years of study, and he went plenty far.

    Seriously, I think the problem with this last part is that we are orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy: the conditions for baptism are based on your behavior rather than your knowledge. So yes, there are very few knowledge-based limits on baptism--you just have to understand enough for the behavioral commitments you are making. Orthopraxy basically means keep your behavior in line, and the knowledge will come to you as it comes.

    Please pardon the sarcasm in the above rebuttal, as this post of mine is basically a bookmark in this discussion while I wait to figure out which questions to take seriously. If you want me to make an in-depth reply to any of the above, or elaborate to any degree, I am at your disposal.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  10. DeepShadow

    DeepShadow White Crow

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,928
    Ratings:
    +335
    Religion:
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
    Well, if he's as sporadic as I am, maybe we can tag-team this. What's the question about the Book of Abraham?
     
  11. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,818
    Ratings:
    +257
    Religion:
    Christian
    True_Faith13 said : “Katz - at the start of the thread you mentioned that Clear was very knowledgeable about the Book of Abraham? Have you seen him around thw forums lately?


    Hi True_ Faith13;

    I cannot claim to be very knowledgeable about the book of Abraham. My area of interest as a historian is early Judeo-Christian theology and practices. As an adult convert to restorational theology it occurred to me that if the LDS theology was a restoration of early theology, then the early texts should have objective historical evidence of parallel interpretations and teachings to the LDS. It is from that viewpoint that I have an interest in the Book of Abraham and other texts. Though I have compared Smiths version to other ancient versions discovered after he died, I didn’t have any interest in its modern history per se, but rather in its uncanny and impossibly correct descriptions of early Abrahamic and enochian literature that existed in the pre and peri-c.e. eras. Almost all of it was discovered years after his death.

    I do hang around the forums and I love the interaction, I just get busy in the winter with my job. Is there some specific point that has come up regarding the theology in the Book of Abraham?


    I even tried to come up with alternate theories as to how Joseph Smith could possibly have generated so much accurate historical restoration without revelation, but they quickly became unworkable. You’ll also notice that out of thousands of anti-LDS rhetoric, none are able to create a historically rational and coherent model that explains just how he got so much restoration correct.

    Since I am a convert, I also remember working through a lot of silly anti-mormon stuff that my family and friends would send me. My Father and one sister were really, really, really, anti- Mormon. When my Father converted to LDS restorational theology it through my sister off from attack mode and she started to actually LOOK at the theology and also converted. Actually all three siblings and both parents converted.

    As far as believing in the bible “as far as it’s translated correctly”, the same caveat applies to the book of Mormon and all other sacred literature. I don't feel obligated to accept a poor translation and neither do the translators who create the bibles the populations read. I think it is a standard rule for historians and language scholars of the ancient texts. If you need examples, let me know.

    How can I help?


    In any case, I hope your journey is Good.

    Clear
    p.s. Tag Katzpur, - Haben Sie der film, "Der Marsianer" (auf english) gesehen? (der/die/das film? - mein deutsch ist schlecht, kaput, abfall, etc.)
    δρακφιεω
     
    #211 Clear, Nov 6, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Jane.Doe

    Jane.Doe Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    321
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    Mormon Christian
    I'm not Katz, but I am a botanist and loved the Martian!!
     
  13. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,551
    Ratings:
    +5,487
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Well, look who just showed up! (And I hadn't even gotten around to sending him a PM!)

    "Der Marsianer"? Ja, ich habe er gesehen! Er war gut!

    And about the Book of Abraham, you may not claim to be all that knowledgeable, but you sure do have the rest of us beat!

    Tchuss!

    Note to Truth_Faith: The reason I find Clear's input on this subject so valuable is precisely the fact that, as he says, "[His] area of interest as a historian is early Judeo-Christian theology and practices."

    Jane, I didn't know you're a botanist! I'm impressed! The sciences were always my hardest subjects in school. I would have gotten practically straight A's in college, except that I had to take a couple of science classes, which I practically flunked!
     
    #213 Katzpur, Nov 6, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2016
  14. Jane.Doe

    Jane.Doe Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    321
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    Mormon Christian
    Yep, I am halfway through my phD in botany/ecology/biology/statistics/programming. Since, math, computers: those I can do. Writing... suffice it to say my final Master's Thesis was edited by my sister in high school. One reason I love my job is because I am paid to study God's handiwork of creation. And my, the majesty of His work continually blows my socks off.
     
    #214 Jane.Doe, Nov 6, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,551
    Ratings:
    +5,487
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    You better mean that!
     
  16. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,551
    Ratings:
    +5,487
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Okay, now I'm feeling seriously inferior.

    LOL! We're all different, aren't we? My career was in computer software design and programming, but my educational background was in English! To me, the link between the two made perfect sense. After all, coding is just writing in a different language, and I love to write.

    Cool!
     
  17. Jane.Doe

    Jane.Doe Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    321
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    Mormon Christian
    Nonsense: computers speak a language of logic, where everything is specifically defined in a specific format and everything serves a specific function. English is... illogical and flowery.
     
  18. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,818
    Ratings:
    +257
    Religion:
    Christian
    I'm not a botanist but I have a avocado plant and I talk nicely to it and make sure it is exposed to good music every once in a while. I'm going to bed and close my eyes and watch the little films but I'll check in tomorrow.
     
  19. Jane.Doe

    Jane.Doe Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    321
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    Mormon Christian
    One misconception about being a botanist: people always think I grow things. Nope, I study plant DEATH. I shoot plants with a 20 gauge, drought them, dump them in acid, stretch them out under 1000+ psi.
     
  20. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,551
    Ratings:
    +5,487
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    True, English is that! What I loved about programming was the logic, and the idea that the code either worked or it didn't. Even when I was in college (and I just have a B.A.), I knew I didn't want to write for a living because I didn't want to have to deal with editors, etc. Writing fiction or even non-fiction to some extent is so subjective. I have never liked having my words critiqued, because I'm actually very confident in my ability to say what I want to say. I suppose that if I'd gone into writing as a career, it would have had to be as some sort of an essayist. With coding, nobody complains about how you did it if the program works. And it was always fun to try to be creative in the process. :)
     
Loading...