Why I stopped Judging Latter-day Saints but still worry...

[Civil Shephard]

You know... I don't know much about the Mormon Church. But let me be cliché' and say that some of the best Christians I ever met were Mormon. I've never been to a Mormon Church but have had occasion to speak with the young bike riding missionaries and find that I can tell jokes about getting a book from an angel who took it back and most laugh.

I only know that when the chips have been down in my life that a Mormon had my back. This mostly while I was in US Army green but to be sure in a conflict I'd rather be in a platoon full of Mormons than almost any other Christian denomination.

I suppose if there is a specific question I must ask... and without researching let me just ask off the top of my head.

1. Paul warns that if even an angel should preach another Gospel let him be accursed. I've understood that this Angels book is what founded the original teachings of Mormonism.

2. Joseph Smith to my understanding taught that Elohim had sons and among them were Jesus and Lucifer... and well... Jesus children were white and Lucifer's were black... this is I suppose a documented teaching?

3. Lastly, is it true that oaths are taken in the Temple that well... contain the symbol of cutting ones throat? And if so how does this not go against Christ Teachings?

My only disclaimer here is love that covers a multitude of sins. I think that organizations are not people and doctrines are not actions. I was taught at a young age to look for the similarities and not the differences going to AA meetings with me mum. It seemed to me that AA was more fun than church as everybody got a chance to talk about their life and God where as in church one man did all the talking. As I became a believer I tried to take on this or that set of what I now consider flawed man made teachings and have come to the conclusion that "I don't know" is perhaps the best doctrine our common creator has ever taught me. What I do know is that people have been there... and some said they were Mormon.

 

[silvermoon383]

1. The scriptures also talk about an angel proclaiming the gospel in the last days.
2. No.
3. No.

 

[madhatter85]

You know... I don't know much about the Mormon Church. But let me be cliché' and say that some of the best Christians I ever met were Mormon. I've never been to a Mormon Church but have had occasion to speak with the young bike riding missionaries and find that I can tell jokes about getting a book from an angel who took it back and most laugh.

I only know that when the chips have been down in my life that a Mormon had my back. This mostly while I was in US Army green but to be sure in a conflict I'd rather be in a platoon full of Mormons than almost any other Christian denomination.

I suppose if there is a specific question I must ask... and without researching let me just ask off the top of my head.

Hi Civil,

That's good to know! I'm glad we as a whole are making a good impression rather than an obnoxious one.

Let me see if i can answer your questions.

1. Paul warns that if even an angel should preach another Gospel let him be accursed. I've understood that this Angels book is what founded the original teachings of Mormonism.

I believe you are talking about Galations 1:
6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I have highlighted the section that I believe you are talking about. it says "Preach any other gospel." we preach the same gospel that was taught to Adam and Eve down through the generations and the Book of Mormon is only restoring the plain and precious truths that were lost over time. It is another testament of Jesus Christ. Just as it says in Matthew 18.
16. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
The Bible and Book of Mormon are two witnesses of the same thing. The Savior, Jesus Christ, his divinity, Resurrection, the Atonement, and Heavenly Father's plan for us.

2. Joseph Smith to my understanding taught that Elohim had sons and among them were Jesus and Lucifer... and well... Jesus children were white and Lucifer's were black... this is I suppose a documented teaching?

We are all literal children of our Heavenly Father and we are all brother and sisters regardless of skin color. Lucifer has no children in the literal sense. there are those who are considered to be "Sons of Perdition" but only in the sense that they deliberately choose to follow Satan's influence in open rebellion after knowing the truth of the Gospel.

3. Lastly, is it true that oaths are taken in the Temple that well... contain the symbol of cutting ones throat? And if so how does this not go against Christ Teachings?

well First, I will not be discussing Temple ceremonies in detail because I hold them sacred and are not to be discussed outside the temple. But I will let you know that the temple ceremonies did change a very long time ago. I have never seen anything like what you describe in the temple. It is a beautiful, reverent, and wholesome place where we go to learn more about our past, our purpose, and to feel closer to our Heavenly Father.

My only disclaimer here is love that covers a multitude of sins. I think that organizations are not people and doctrines are not actions. I was taught at a young age to look for the similarities and not the differences going to AA meetings with me mum. It seemed to me that AA was more fun than church as everybody got a chance to talk about their life and God where as in church one man did all the talking. As I became a believer I tried to take on this or that set of what I now consider flawed man made teachings and have come to the conclusion that "I don't know" is perhaps the best doctrine our common creator has ever taught me. What I do know is that people have been there... and some said they were Mormon.

We never claim to be perfect. The reason Christ organized his church in the first place was for perfecting the saints. We strive for perfection. We are not by any means perfect. The first Sunday of every month is called "Fast Sunday". Members are encouraged to go without food or water for 24 hours in a "fast" to grow closer to the spirit. They also take they money they would have spent on food during that time and give it as a "Fast Offering" which is deposited into a special account that goes directly to help those who are struggling to support themselves or families. The main meeting is dubbed "Fast and Testimony Meeting". There are no prepared talks given during the sacrament meeting. This time is reserved for members who feel impressed to bear their testimony to do so in a reverent manner. They sometimes share personal experiences that have strengthened their testimony of the Gospel plan. It is always my favorite Sunday of the month.

When we are baptized we take this scripture to heart:
Mosiah 18
8. And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;
9. Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—10. Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?
11. And now when the people had heard these words, they clapped their hands for joy, and exclaimed: This is the desire of our hearts.

 

[Katzpur]

You know... I don't know much about the Mormon Church. But let me be cliché' and say that some of the best Christians I ever met were Mormon. I've never been to a Mormon Church but have had occasion to speak with the young bike riding missionaries and find that I can tell jokes about getting a book from an angel who took it back and most laugh.

I only know that when the chips have been down in my life that a Mormon had my back. This mostly while I was in US Army green but to be sure in a conflict I'd rather be in a platoon full of Mormons than almost any other Christian denomination.

What a kind, gracious thing to say, Civil Shephard! Thank you so much!

I suppose if there is a specific question I must ask... and without researching let me just ask off the top of my head.

1. Paul warns that if even an angel should preach another Gospel let him be accursed. I've understood that this Angels book is what founded the original teachings of Mormonism.

Let me begin by stating beliefly the basic premise upon which Mormonism is built: As part of His earthly ministry, Jesus Christ established His Church. After His death, men changed it. He has re-established it in this day and age.

In Ephesians 4:11-14, Paul states:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..."

In other words, prophets and apostles were an essential part of the Church Jesus Christ established. They were its foundation. It wasn't just the words of the Apostles that would be needed until the Savior's return. It was individuals who held the same authority as the original twelve did and who functioned as they functioned in directing the affairs of the Church. Paul states that without this organizational structure, Christ’s followers would be like children, persuaded first one way and then another, and unable to distinguish between true and false doctrines, being subject to the teachings of those who were crafty and who desired to deceive them. He also pointed out that this organizational structure was to remain in place until we all became united in our faith and knowledge of Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you'll agree that we aren't there yet. It was precisely because the Apostles were all killed and that the leadership they provided ceased to exist. Look what the result is: 30,000+ different denominations of Christianity. Just imagine how different things might have been today if there had been twelve Apostles leading Christ’s Church from the very beginning! Christians could have looked to them to for guidance and direction all along, knowing that they were called by the real Head of the Church to lead it in His physical absence.

It is our assertion that Joseph Smith was called by Jesus Christ Himself to be the prophet through whom He would restore, or re-establish, His Church. We believe that those doctrines which are taught today by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the same doctrines which were taught by the Church of Jesus Christ anciently. In other words, ours is not "another gospel" but the "same gospel." While much of what we believe is not specifically taught in the Bible, most of our doctrines are alluded to there, and none of them -- when understood correctly -- contradict anything in the scriptures accepted by the rest of Christiandom.

2. Joseph Smith to my understanding taught that Elohim had sons and among them were Jesus and Lucifer... and well... Jesus children were white and Lucifer's were black... this is I suppose a documented teaching?

No, it is absolutely, positively false. We do believe that God is the Father of the spirits of all men and women who have ever lived (see Hebrews 12:9) and that we are not only His creations, but His offspring (see Actis 17-28-29). In that respect, we are all brothers and sisters. (When I say "all," I don't mean just "all Mormons" or "all Christians" but "all people.") We believe that prior to coming to earth and obtaining mortal bodies, our spirits lived in God's presence. Lucifer was one of those spirits. In the "war in Heaven" which is described in Revelation, Lucifer rebelled against our Father in Heaven and sought to thwart His plan for the happiness of His children. He and the third of the host of heaven who sided with him were cast out of God's presence and continue to fight against God today in trying to persuade us to make choices that would eternally separate us from Him. According to LDS doctrine, race in no way reflects righteousness. God does not see His black children any differently than He sees His white children.

I believe your misunderstanding may have come from the words of a former LDS leader who suggested that African Americans were "on the fence," so to speak, in the war in Heaven. He later retracted that statement and admitted that he was wrong in making it.

3. Lastly, is it true that oaths are taken in the Temple that well... contain the symbol of cutting ones throat? And if so how does this not go against Christ Teachings?

Years and years ago, there was such an oath. It has not been a part of the temple endowment ceremony for a very long time. I would definitely agree that it would have gone against Christ's teachings. I did read something not too long ago in which it was explained that this oath was understood to be allegorical in nature, but I'd have to do some research to find it.

My only disclaimer here is love that covers a multitude of sins. I think that organizations are not people and doctrines are not actions. I was taught at a young age to look for the similarities and not the differences going to AA meetings with me mum. It seemed to me that AA was more fun than church as everybody got a chance to talk about their life and God where as in church one man did all the talking. As I became a believer I tried to take on this or that set of what I now consider flawed man made teachings and have come to the conclusion that "I don't know" is perhaps the best doctrine our common creator has ever taught me. What I do know is that people have been there... and some said they were Mormon.

That's a very good point. I have always found looking for similarities between religions and denominations to be a much more worthwhile pursuit than looking for differences. I've also come to realize that learning about the reasons behind the differences can help clear up a lot of misunderstandings.

 

[Civil Shephard]

OK thanks
Madhatter85 and Katzpur

I did do some reading on Joseph Smith and found that he did indeed ordain a black minister and this was apparently later changed by Brigham Young. I know, I know Wikpedia and it's citation needed thing but I try. At the time of formation of Mormon Church apparently there were two popular doctrines about the Curse of Cain and the something about Ham, Noah's son.

Anywho... I did find some references from the Book of Mormon on the subject of race and I must say that my knowledge base on the subject is wanting. I also suppose that I just wanted to say Hi to the Mormons in the house and invite you to help me discuss the Sermon on the Mount. Which I can pinpoint as the main reason I believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior and the Son or Image of our Creator.

You know... excuse me for not answering point by point but I just feel led to abolish some long standing partial beliefs within myself that I feel served in the past only to thwart a better understanding of my fellow believers in Christ Teachings. And while I may never make it to Salt Lake I really felt it necessary to stop taking my que's from shows like Big Love and such...

From what you two are saying above I see two fellow believers in Christ. What more can be said?

 

[Katzpur]

I did do some reading on Joseph Smith and found that he did indeed ordain a black minister and this was apparently later changed by Brigham Young. I know, I know Wikpedia and it's citation needed thing but I try. At the time of formation of Mormon Church apparently there were two popular doctrines about the Curse of Cain and the something about Ham, Noah's son.

That's correct. Joseph Smith did indeed ordain a black man to the Church's priesthood. The policy which prohibited black men from holding the priesthood was, in fact, instituted by Brigham Young. This was a policy (a practice) but not an official doctrine, and one which (in my opinion) should never have been instituted. I am not going to even attempt to defend or condone Brigham's decision because I don't feel it's my place to do so. The following two quotes may be of interest to you.

The first is from President (of the Church) David O. McKay, speaking in 1954, prior to when the ban was lifted:

“There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the Church of any kind pertaining to the Negro. ‘We believe’ that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the Priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.”

The second is from Dallin H. Oaks, LDS Apostle, speaking in 1988, ten years after the ban was lifted:

“…It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When do so, we are on our own. Some people put reason to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that…”

“I’m referring to reasons given by General Authorities and elaborated upon by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to be unnecessary risk taking…”

“Let’s [not] make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent.”

Anywho... I did find some references from the Book of Mormon on the subject of race and I must say that my knowledge base on the subject is wanting.

Yes, I think I know which verses you might be thinking of. I would just suggest that anyone reading the Book of Mormon pay special attention to the footnotes, which can shed
additional understanding to the verses and help to put them in the context of our overall beliefs.

I also suppose that I just wanted to say Hi to the Mormons in the house and invite you to help me discuss the Sermon on the Mount. Which I can pinpoint as the main reason I believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior and the Son or Image of our Creator.

I saw that thread, and had planned to participate on it. Watch for something from me tomorrow!

You know... excuse me for not answering point by point but I just feel led to abolish some long standing partial beliefs within myself that I feel served in the past only to thwart a better understanding of my fellow believers in Christ Teachings.

There's no need to comment point by point. I'm just glad you asked your questions and hope our answers helped clear some things up. Please feel free to inquire more at any time.

And while I may never make it to Salt Lake I really felt it necessary to stop taking my que's from shows like Big Love and such...

LOL! I actually really like "Big Love." Of course, I know which parts of it to trust and which parts to take with a grain of salt. The thing many people don't realize is that "Bill and Wives" are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at all. That said, the show is definitely entertaining and the casting rocks!

From what you two are saying above I see two fellow believers in Christ. What more can be said?

What more can be said? Probably just that the feeling is mutual!

 

[zomg]

re - The temple oaths.

After each covenant the person would then act out the "pentalty", which included slitting one;s throat and having the bowels cut open and spilled upon the ground. This sounds crazy until you realize the Masons had the exact same penalties and teaching method as found in the endowment. Since Joseph Smith was heavily involved in Masonry it is only obvious where the throat slitting came from.

The penalties, along with a lot of other things, were removed in 1990. I guess most people were creeped out by the throat slashing. Go figure, eh :cover:

I don't know how old silvermoon is but I can tell you most younger people do not know about the changes. Thank heavens I went through the temple in 2005, shortly after even more changes were made.

You are right, though. Mormons can be great people.

 

[TJ73]

You are right, though. Mormons can be great people.

Everyone can be great people... But I have yet to meet a Mormon (not that i have met a whole lot,lol) that wasn't kind and considerate. I told katzpur about the Mormon family that I have as customers. We talked about our faith one time, just a little bit. And we smiled and she said
" well... we both believe in Jesus and we both begin with M". So cute...

 

[Katzpur]

I'd like to address this if I may.

Well, it looks like you already did. May I point out, jbug , regardless of your interest in Joseph Smith, non-LDS posters are not permitted to respond to posts on the LDS DIR forum. This includes people who are just "studying [Joseph Smith's] theology." If you really are LDS, you need to make that clear to everyone before continuing to contribute to our forum.

 

[Katzpur]

Since Joseph Smith was heavily involved in Masonry it is only obvious where the throat slitting came from.

The second part of your statement is correct. The first part is not. Joseph's personal involvement with Freemasonry was extremely limited. While it is true that Joseph attained the "sublime degree," this this was not as difficult as might be supposed, and definitely did not require a lifelong commitment, or even an extended involvement with the organization. Joseph went from being a non-Mason to a Master in three days. During the remainder of his lifetime, he attended about three more meetings.

 

[kylixguru]

Well, it looks like you already did. May I point out, jbug , regardless of your interest in Joseph Smith, non-LDS posters are not permitted to respond to posts on the LDS DIR forum. This includes people who are just "studying [Joseph Smith's] theology." If you really are LDS, you need to make that clear to everyone before continuing to contribute to our forum.

I come from an LDS background and have numerous friends and family who are active LDS. If that doesn't qualify me then I'll stop contributing here.

Thanks.

 

[zomg]

The second part of your statement is correct. The first part is not. Joseph's personal involvement with Freemasonry was extremely limited. While it is true that Joseph attained the "sublime degree," this this was not as difficult as might be supposed, and definitely did not require a lifelong commitment, or even an extended involvement with the organization. Joseph went from being a non-Mason to a Master in three days. During the remainder of his lifetime, he attended about three more meetings.

I'd disagree but this is DIR so I won't comment any further

 

[Civil Shephard]

Well, it looks like you already did. May I point out, jbug , regardless of your interest in Joseph Smith, non-LDS posters are not permitted to respond to posts on the LDS DIR forum. This includes people who are just "studying [Joseph Smith's] theology." If you really are LDS, you need to make that clear to everyone before continuing to contribute to our forum.

You know... I was an adventurous youth who heard most of what Jbug is talking about on the streets listening to old timers tell me about every conspiracy theory to the secrets of the these or those supremists... I was fascinated but hoped that most of it was a full load of bad karma.

However... the flip side of my life was that I did meet those few who claimed Mormon and basically told me I was an abomination in shoes from birth. (and I've humorous stories not a few about those times) Funny how as I got older and realized that I'd better focus on the good... on things that made me grateful and then I started to realize that the good outweighed the bad.

And the funny thing Katzpur... Jbug is one of the reason I came into this forum and it's not so much a matter of setting some documented record of doctrines strait but of seeking out what folks believe now.... what folks defend now.

In fact... Flip Wilson used to do a spoof on the "Church of What's Happening Now" in the 70's... oh I was too young to appreciate the humor but sometimes when folks ask me what church I go to I like to say "The Church of what's Happening Now".

On the Mason thing... I was once told my Uncle, an Apostolic Bishop, was a Mason. Turns out that he only went to a few meetings a long time ago and told the Masons thanks but no thanks and in a big way. I'm sure it's hard to get the strait story on Joseph Smith... however, if the fruit of his labor is any indication. Then a Master Sergeant, a Command Sergeant Major and a Katzpur... well, that's whats happening now...

 

[Orontes]

The other brother at that time who was the leader of the opposition was known as Lucifer. He too was a Son of the Morning, although I know of no Mormons who know what that means. They say it anyway.

Hello,

I'm Mormon and so part of the "they". I know what Lucifer means. It has Latin roots and was used to refer to the Morning Star (Venus). It is a title.

 

[Katzpur]

You know... I was an adventurous youth who heard most of what Jbug is talking about on the streets listening to old timers tell me about every conspiracy theory to the secrets of the these or those supremists... I was fascinated but hoped that most of it was a full load of bad karma.

However... the flip side of my life was that I did meet those few who claimed Mormon and basically told me I was an abomination in shoes from birth. (and I've humorous stories not a few about those times) Funny how as I got older and realized that I'd better focus on the good... on things that made me grateful and then I started to realize that the good outweighed the bad.

You know something? You are one of the few people I have ever heard say this, which really says a lot about you as a Christian. If only more people could see things from your perspective, this world would be a lot better place.

And the funny thing Katzpur... Jbug is one of the reason I came into this forum and it's not so much a matter of setting some documented record of doctrines strait but of seeking out what folks believe now.... what folks defend now.

In fact... Flip Wilson used to do a spoof on the "Church of What's Happening Now" in the 70's... oh I was too young to appreciate the humor but sometimes when folks ask me what church I go to I like to say "The Church of what's Happening Now".

I think far, far too many people, in wanting to know what Mormons believe, go to websites sponsored by people who have no desire whatsoever to accurately explain LDS doctrine. The reason this is so evident to me is that when people quote from these sites, they almost always post some comment Brigham Young made in volume 10 or so of the 26-volume "Journal of Discourses," as if they have actually read volumes 1 through 9 and have just stumbled upon a statement that caused them to wonder what Brigham must have been thinking. The "Journal of Discourses" to begin with, is not a part of the LDS canon, nor are a lot of other publications these websites love to quote from. We can tell folks where to find our official doctrines, as opposed to non-doctrinal interpretations dating back 150 years or so, but that doesn't seem to matter to them. If Brigham Young taught something, it must be what Mormonism teaches today and what Mormons today believe, right? Wrong. If people are sincere in wanting to know what we believe, what we are likely to hear taught in church week after week after week, it's not a hard thing to do. They can start by going to www.mormon.org and reading answers to their questions given by literally hundreds of practicing Latter-day Saints. They can watch our semi-annual General Conferences online. They can hear what the men we believe to be Apostles called by Jesus Christ have to say. Is it any wonder that we get fed up with these disingenuous attempts to understand what we believe?

Besides going to official sources and directly to members of the Church to learn about the religion, it would do people well to understand that there are certain things that could be described as core doctrines and other doctrines that are way, way less central to our understanding of God's plan for us. These are doctrines which we believe to have been revealed to latter-day prophets and which have been included in our canon. Perhaps the central doctrine of the Church is that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God who was sent to the earth to atone for our sins and to provide a means for us to be reconciled to our Father in Heaven. Essentially, everything else we teach is nothing more than an appendage to that doctrine. Furthermore, it only makes sense (or at least it should) that when a person wants to learn about someone else's religion, he begin with the core doctrines and gain a good grasp of them before exploring some of the peripheral doctrines.

The Apostle Peter once told Clement of Rome, "The teaching of all doctrine has a certain order: there are some things which must be delivered first, others in the second place, and others in the third, and so on, everything in its order. If these things be delivered in their order they become plain; but if they be brought forward out of order, they will seem to be spoken against reason." When Latter-day Saints themselves explain our believes, we start with the doctrines on which we agree with traditional Christianity. From there, we introduce doctrines that we believe to have been lost shortly after the deaths of the Apostles. It's not a matter of our trying to hide these initially. It's just as Peter told Clement, we teach one principle at a time and present our unique doctrines in the context in which they would be best understood by our listeners. People like to jump ahead, to the doctrines we don't have in common, but these will always make more sense if some background material is introduced first. I realize that some of our doctrines may appear strange to non-LDS Christians. Most of the time is because (1) they hear them introduced by people who don't understand them and want to make them appear strange, and (2) they hear them presented "out of order."

I'm sure it's hard to get the strait story on Joseph Smith... however, if the fruit of his labor is any indication. Then a Master Sergeant, a Command Sergeant Major and a Katzpur... well, that's whats happening now...

I'm flattered, particularly hearing these comments from someone whose Christianity I have grown to respect in a very short period of time.

 

[idea]

Anywho... I did find some references from the Book of Mormon on the subject of race and I must say that my knowledge base on the subject is wanting.

There are two races in the B.O.M., but it is not the "white supremacy" thing that many try to make it out to be. Throughout the book sometimes one race is more righteous, while at other times the other race is more righteous. At the end, the "white guys" are slaughtered, every last one of them.... I don't think a "white supremacy" book would end with all the white people becoming corrupt and being wiped off the face of the land, do you?

You should the Book of Mormon, it's got some great stuff in it!

 

[Clear]

FIRSTLY :

Civil Shephard said : You know... I don't know much about the Mormon Church. But let me be cliché' and say that some of the best Christians I ever met were Mormon. I've never been to a Mormon Church but have had occasion to speak with the young bike riding missionaries and find that I can tell jokes about getting a book from an angel who took it back and most laugh.

I only know that when the chips have been down in my life that a Mormon had my back. This mostly while I was in US Army green but to be sure in a conflict I'd rather be in a platoon full of Mormons than almost any other Christian denomination.

I suppose if there is a specific question I must ask... and without researching let me just ask off the top of my head.

1. Paul warns that if even an angel should preach another Gospel let him be accursed. I've understood that this Angels book is what founded the original teachings of Mormonism.

The tenor of this wonderful post reminds me that I also, used to make fun of mormons and missionaries. I had friends that were LDS that I thought were fine people, but I had no interest in their religion when I was a youth. I suppose that finding meaning and belief is something that comes with maturity.

I also have used the quote in Galatians 1:6 against mormonism perhaps more than once. But that was before I understood the actual mormon claim of BEING a restoration of early Christian salvational doctrines. Everyone who sees any of my posts, realizes my deep interest in the earliest Christianities and in their texts and their beliefs. It has not only been a profound spiritual discoveries for me to compare early Judao-Christian texts to the LDS salvational doctrines, but as a historian, discovery of LDS theology and literature has been one of the most profound historical discoveries I’ve ever made.

For examples : Though Judao-Christian historians have known about the doctrine of pre-existence in early judao-christian theology, the loss of this doctrine by early christianity and it’s context has resulted in 1700 years of undeflectable criticism by philosophers and religious critics. With the loss of such early doctrines, Christians could not defend the justness of God in having “created” unequal spirits with unequal chances for salvation. The LDS restoration of pre-existence is not “another gospel”, but represents a return TO early christianity AND importantly, reveals the role of the pre-mortal spirit itself in the characteristics it has upon entering mortality and demonstrates the justness of God is retained, simply by a knowledge of pre-mortality and what happened in the pre-existence.

Another example regards the debates between proponents of “grace” versus “works” who have spent great energies over the years, trying to prove their theories superior at the expense of “the other side” of their argument. The LDS restoration of both “Grace” and “works” as synergystic principles restores the balance of and the profound importance of both principles; destroying and degrading neither principle in a return to the sensible context of earliest christian theology.

The return to an accurate context for the atonement of Jesus and it’s relation to the dead who’ve never had the chance to hear about the atonement frees modern christians from the claim that all who had no chance to accept Jesus (the mentally infirm, the infant, those who have not heard the gospel, etc), are given the same opportunities as anyone else. Though modern christians have attempted to “excuse” the damnation of innocent infants through such mechanisms as “pre-destination to hell”, or by claiming that “God gets to do what he wants to do” etc, the return to early christian theology does away with the complaint itself, rather than trying to make injustice appear just.

A simple return to the earliest christian doctrines regarding salvation was always the principle underlying the mormon claim.

When Paul told the Galatians “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel ...” (Gal 1:6 rsv), he was speaking of an apostasy that was already happening in his day and age. If Paul WAS correct, that christians were abandoning the early doctrines, then we cannot claim that subsequent christianity remained original without a restoration or return of some sort.

Like Civil Shephard; I knew a mormon who “had my back”. My friend was a Lutheran scholar, turned Mormon scholar. Had this person not been so incredibly outstanding, I do not think I could have overcome my own prejudices against the LDS so as to even allow me to consider the LDS theology with any degree of objectivity. Like Civil Shephard, I owe and respect a believing and committed LDS person for my life as well.




SECONDLY :

Katzpur posted regarding jbugs unusual posts regarding LDS theology : May I point out, jbug , regardless of your interest in Joseph Smith, non-LDS posters are not permitted to respond to posts on the LDS DIR forum. This includes people who are just "studying [Joseph Smith's] theology." If you really are LDS, you need to make that clear to everyone before continuing to contribute to our forum.

Jbug reponded : I come from an LDS background and have numerous friends and family who are active LDS. If that doesn't qualify me then I'll stop contributing here.

Thank you Jbug for ceasing to make posts that have the superficial appearance of coming from a “believing LDS” person. Regardless of any methodist background I might have had, the fact that I do not believe in their theology disqualifies me from any pretentions to represent my views as though I was a methodist.

If language professors are correct in the oft repeated statement that “words, plus grammar, plus context, equals meaning”, then even if one uses LDS words and grammar, their lack of context from the standpoint of a current, active believer, prevents them from teaching the accurate meaning of authentic LDS theology.

A disgruntled LDS may be able to teach what a “disgruntled LDS” might believe. But a disgruntled LDS may never teach with the same context as a content and deeply believing and committed LDS christian will teach. Thus, the ultimate meanings that come from “non-believing OR non-LDS” are necessarily skewed.

Even the symbolism of your having used Joseph Smith as an Avatar, will, for many, be a mis-que and cause them to have expectations of accurate representation of LDS theology which you will not be able to deliver since you are not a committed and believing LDS. Like you, I also had numerous friends that were active LDS, and, like you, that did not qualify me to teach authentic LDS theology as an authentic, believing LDS would have. I might have been able to quote names and dates in LDS theology, maybe even quote some of their scriptures at some point such as you have done, but, until I believed in the restoration of the gospel, I simply possessed too many contextual errors of which I was unaware to teach accurate LDS theology.

I STILL feel like deferring to the teachings of “tried and true” LDS such as Katzpur, or Madhatter, or Idea, or Orontes and other "known, tried and true" LDS posters, when it comes to determining what is an ACCURATE representation of LDS doctrines.

There ARE simply too many pretenders, "prior LDS", "used to be LDS", "wanted to be but didn't LDS", "new type of LDS", "was really, really, really interested but declined LDS", etc, and way too much garbage information on the forum to waste time with poor sources or “wannabee” religious teachers. This principle holds true whether one is trying to understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Catholic Church, or Jehovah's witnesses, or Islam. Seek the best sources FROM INSIDE their religion, rather than information from outsiders.

Thank you Jbug for not attempting to post as representing as an LDS

Clear

p.s. there are many others I would have named in my personal list of "tried and true" LDS, but the list is simply too long to have used in my example. Please forgive me if I didn't name some that I should have... davycrocket, etc.

twacsehh

 

[Civil Shephard]

You know... In AA they have a saying "Principles before personalities..."

For my part the personalities who are looking for true principles with whatever hand they are delt are... priceless.

 

[kylixguru]

SECONDLY :Thank you Jbug for ceasing to make posts that have the superficial appearance of coming from a “believing LDS” person. Regardless of any methodist background I might have had, the fact that I do not believe in their theology disqualifies me from any pretentions to represent my views as though I was a methodist.

If language professors are correct in the oft repeated statement that “words, plus grammar, plus context, equals meaning”, then even if one uses LDS words and grammar, their lack of context from the standpoint of a current, active believer, prevents them from teaching the accurate meaning of authentic LDS theology.

A disgruntled LDS may be able to teach what a “disgruntled LDS” might believe. But a disgruntled LDS may never teach with the same context as a content and deeply believing and committed LDS christian will teach. Thus, the ultimate meanings that come from “non-believing OR non-LDS” are necessarily skewed.

Even the symbolism of your having used Joseph Smith as an Avatar, will, for many, be a mis-que and cause them to have expectations of accurate representation of LDS theology which you will not be able to deliver since you are not a committed and believing LDS. Like you, I also had numerous friends that were active LDS, and, like you, that did not qualify me to teach authentic LDS theology as an authentic, believing LDS would have. I might have been able to quote names and dates in LDS theology, maybe even quote some of their scriptures at some point such as you have done, but, until I believed in the restoration of the gospel, I simply possessed too many contextual errors of which I was unaware to teach accurate LDS theology.

I STILL feel like deferring to the teachings of “tried and true” LDS such as Katzpur, or Madhatter, or Idea, or Orontes and other "known, tried and true" LDS posters, when it comes to determining what is an ACCURATE representation of LDS doctrines.

There ARE simply too many pretenders, "prior LDS", "used to be LDS", "wanted to be but didn't LDS", "new type of LDS", "was really, really, really interested but declined LDS", etc, and way too much garbage information on the forum to waste time with poor sources or “wannabee” religious teachers. This principle holds true whether one is trying to understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Catholic Church, or Jehovah's witnesses, or Islam. Seek the best sources FROM INSIDE their religion, rather than information from outsiders.

Thank you Jbug for not attempting to post as representing as an LDS

I feel I should mention I was born in the covenant LDS and raised LDS. I have held just about every calling in the wards I've attended over the years. I served a mission and am married in the temple. I am non-apathetic and I take my oath and covenant of the Melchizedek Priesthood seriously.

I am willing to forebear from posting here because I do not identify with the mainstream LDS mindset.

I also believe the knowledge I hold is only appropriate to share with people who are in a state of questioning things going on in the church that trouble them and they are in a crisis of faith and deseperately wanting answers. These are people who love the Lord and want to hold out faithful to Him but are bewildered by things they see going on that grieve them. They hesitate to share their grievances with others for fear of being branded apostate. I know a lot of people's secrets because when they get to know me they come to understand they don't have to maintain any image with me. I see a side of Mormonism that unfortunately people are too afraid to show.

One example was an individual who is very faithful in the church who due to her career in health care became aware of a disturbingly high frequency of LDS individuals suffering from mental disorders that point to child ritual abuse having occurred in an LDS setting. She was very troubled because she had finally seen enough evidence that she began to question things. She somehow figured out I could have this conversation in a totally objective and non-offensive manner. Because of all the things I was able to share with her she came to understand things in a way that enabled her to keep her testimony of the Savior and His Church and see everything in context. I taught her things she already knew in scattered bits and pieces but just had not put it all together yet. Most members are not confronting these kinds of troubling things so I don't trouble them with the information I am aware of.

As I see it, all of us at some point have a crisis of faith that tests us to the core. Some of us handle them better than others. My friend in the health care field was very sincere in seeking answers to her questions. I know God put me in her path in an answer to her prayers. I am also aware of people who simply get bitter and lose heart and no amount of information will help them. It doesn't seem to me the DIR forum is a good setting for these types of dialogs to occur.

 

[Clear]

FFH-Jbug claims in post #19 "I am willing to forebear from posting here because I do not identify with the mainstream LDS mindset."

FFH-Jbug ;

forebearance at posting, MEANS that you simply do not post. It does not mean that you post and then claim you will "forebear from posting".

The masking of a negative claim that LDS have a "high frequency of" "mental disorders" inside other comments is NOT a mainstream, or "pro-lds" claim. I have to wonder if it was such claims that was part of your being banned from the forum.

Clear