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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You've got your first taker, rocmonkey. Just a heads up, though... Over the years, a lot of previously anti-Mormon folks on this forum have come to actually change their opinions about "the Church" after similar discussions. Keep in mind that you may be risking that by starting this thread.
Some of these folks ("real" Christians like yourself, Muslims, atheists, etc.) may actually jump in from time to time to defend Mormonism when you post inaccurate information about it. When it comes to anti-Mormonism, you may be surprised at how relatively little there is of it here on RF.
You've got your first taker, rocmonkey. Just a heads up, though... Over the years, a lot of previously anti-Mormon folks on this forum have come to actually change their opinions about "the Church" after similar discussions. Keep in mind that you may be risking that by starting this thread.
Uh... who's "us," rocmonkey. For starters I never called you "anti-Mormon." I used the phrase, but nowhere did I imply that I was using it to describe you. If the shoe fits, put it on and get comfy. If it doesn't, just calm down and let's start over.
Yes and no. Allow me to elaborate...
, you could later that day have an online discussion with someone who had also attended an LDS worship service in Moscow and you would have been taught exactly the same lesson material during two of the three hours. 
Yes and no. Allow me to elaborate...
There are definitely certain core doctrines concerning the nature of God, the relationship between the members of the Godhead and God's Plan of Salvation for His children that are essentially understood the same way by practicing Mormons today. We believe that these doctrines are, by nature, eternal and unchanging, and were taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles as they are taught today by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is our belief that Jesus Christ did, in fact, establish His Church during His mortal lifetime, and that He ordained twelve men to whom He gave authority to guide and direct that Church in His absence. We contend that within a relatively short period of time after His death and the deaths of His Apostles, the purity and clarity of the doctrines He'd taught came to be lost. Each congregation essentially operated autonomously and, without apostolic leadership, Christ's followers began to be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine," just as Paul had prophesied would happen were the original organization of the Church to cease to exist.
We believe that these events took the Church into a period of Apostasy which lasted roughly 1700 years. This is not to say that there was no Christian Church on earth during those years and that there were no Christians. It is simply our belief that, due to lack of authority, scripture began to be tainted with the philosophies of men.
We believe that there exists in heirarchy in the institutional Church today, which existed in Christ's original Church. It exists today for the same reason it existed anciently -- to keep Christ's followers from being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine." If you were to go to an LDS worship service in Chili today and were to stay for the entire three hours
On the other hand, our leaders have consistently reminded the members of the Church that we are absolutely to think for ourselves and not blindly follow everything ever said by our leaders. In our 2008 General Conference, one LDS Apostle put it this way...
Members who have a testimony and who act upon it under the direction of their Church leaders are sometimes accused of blind obedience.
Of course, we have leaders, and of course, we are subject to their decisions and directions in the operation of the Church and in the performance of needed priesthood ordinances. But when it comes to learning and knowing the truth of the gospelour personal testimonieswe each have a direct relationship with God, our Eternal Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost. This is what our critics fail to understand. It puzzles them that we can be united in following our leaders and yet independent in knowing for ourselves.
Perhaps the puzzle some feel can be explained by the reality that each of us has two different channels to God. We have a channel of governance through our prophet and other leaders. This channel, which has to do with doctrine, ordinances, and commandments, results in obedience. We also have a channel of personal testimony, which is direct to God. This has to do with His existence, our relationship to Him, and the truth of His restored gospel. This channel results in knowledge. These two channels are mutually reinforcing: knowledge encourages obedience (see Deuteronomy 5:27; Moses 5:11), and obedience enhances knowledge (see John 7:17; D&C 93:1).
My personal experience was that from my earliest youth, I was encouraged by my parents to question. I was never, ever made to feel guilty for wondering if something or other was true. I learned from my parents not to be afraid of the hard questions, but to dig deep and find the answers.
I hope this answers your question. If it doesn't please feel free to ask me to try again.
Yes, thank you, except that it seems the personal testimony must harmonize with the governance. Is that correct?
When a person "turns in his papers" to his bishop, indicating that he wishes to serve a proselytizing mission for the Church, it is with the clear understanding that he or she will serve where called. When the mission call is actually issued (it comes in the mail and the opening of the letter is generally a huge family event), I'm sure there are more than a few young men and women who read the letter and think, "Kansas? :sad4:. Others, who are hoping to stay in the states might be equally disappointed to read, "Mongolia."
A prospective missionary is expected to either accept or decline the call, but its terms are non-negotiable. I personally know of no missionaries who have said, "Nope. I'm not going there," but it could conceivably happen.Are you referring to missionary service? Or something else? (My next post to savagewind pay answer your question, so you might want to read it before commenting.)
Again, that would all depend. You must understand (as not even all Mormons do, even though they should) that there is a difference between doctrine and policy.
Katzpur said:
Yes, I absolutely do.
You've got your first taker, rocmonkey. Just a heads up, though... Over the years, a lot of previously anti-Mormon folks on this forum have come to actually change their opinions about "the Church" after similar discussions. Keep in mind that you may be risking that by starting this thread.
"The greatest ever prophet"? I'm not sure I even believe he was "the greatest ever prophet." Mormons believe that Joseph Smith and every one of our prophets since him are called of God. Each of them is equal to the others and none is considered to the "the greatest" -- except, of course, by individual members who may have their own personal favorite. Joseph Smith, of course, had a more challenging role than any of those who followed him, and without him, the gospel would have never been reestablished. His accomplishments were monumental, particularly given the fact that he was murdered so early in his life. He suffered personally far more than any of the others, but that was a consequence of who he was and what he claimed to have heard and seen. Had any of the other 15 later prophets have been the first, they undoubtedly would have been seen the way a lot of people see Joseph Smith today.