A living Apostle answers the question...

[KingM]

You'd have to ask God that, but I'm inclined to believe it has to do with the notion that God's not going to force his gospel upon mankind.

Only doesn't the LDS church believe that the gospel won't be taken away again? What's different now?

In general the people at the time were simply not receptive -- a coming apostasy was even prophesied. God decided to bring it back at a time when the world was more prepared -- after 1800 years a nation was finally formed in which religious freedoms and tolerance were at the forefront.

Still, why not bring the gospel back in 1650 in Rhode Island or 1700 in Pennsylvania, or 1750 in New York? Better yet, Langue d'Oc in the 12th Century. Plenty of religious freedom there. Seems like the 1840s was a worse time than many and at best, arbitrary.

 

[KingM]

I know it seems like I'm arguing with everything just for the sake of arguing. And to a certain extent I am. For Mormonism to be true you need a whole series of unlikely things to be true. To the outside observers it's all explainable as just another man-made religion that was a product of its times.

 

[Polaris]

Only doesn't the LDS church believe that the gospel won't be taken away again? What's different now?

Yes, we believe that this is the last dispensation -- in preparation for the second coming of Christ.

Still, why not bring the gospel back in 1650 in Rhode Island or 1700 in Pennsylvania, or 1750 in New York? Better yet, Langue d'Oc in the 12th Century. Plenty of religious freedom there. Seems like the 1840s was a worse time than many and at best, arbitrary.

Beats me. I'm sure God has his reasons. Maybe a little persecution was needed to test and strengthen the faith of the early saints.

I know it seems like I'm arguing with everything just for the sake of arguing. And to a certain extent I am. For Mormonism to be true you need a whole series of unlikely things to be true. To the outside observers it's all explainable as just another man-made religion that was a product of its times.

You could say that about any religion -- most religions are based on faith not hard evidence, and to some extent are a product of their times.

 

[KingM]

You could say that about any religion -- most religions are based on faith not hard evidence, and to some extent are a product of their times.

I agree and considering that there are literally thousands of sects I've got to think that maybe it doesn't matter to God which church we should join. If it mattering to Him, wouldn't it be more clear?

 

[Polaris]

I agree and considering that there are literally thousands of sects I've got to think that maybe it doesn't matter to God which church we should join. If it mattering to Him, wouldn't it be more clear?

That's a valid point. I think he's more concerned that we do the best we know how and that we make an honest effort to seek the truth. In the end all will be given opportunity to hear and accept the truth.

 

[KingM]

That's a valid point. I think he's more concerned that we do the best we know how and that we make an honest effort to seek the truth. In the end all will be given opportunity to hear and accept the truth.

The universalist tendency of Mormonism is one thing I appreciate about the faith. It's a humanist and humane theology in that regard.

 

[silvermoon383]

For Mormonism to be true you need a whole series of unlikely things to be true.

And going to the Moon involves a whole series of events to happen just right, at the right time, and in the right order. Pretty unlikely thanks to Murphy's Law. But it happened.

 

[sojourner]

How can God dwell in unholy temples?

God does not dwell in temples anymore. The Temple was the place where they yearly sacrifice for atonement was made. Once Christ offered himself as a sacrifice, the Temple curtain was torn in two, signifying the reconciliation of God and humanity -- no more sacrifice was necessary. Even the Jews haven't had a Temple since 70 c.e.

Plus, the word "holy" simply means "set apart," not "pure."

The temples in which God dwells are the hearts of human beings and God's own creation. Since we have been reconciled, those hearts are set apart for God.

it Is through the grace of God that we can live with him again, but that requires action on our part. that requires repentance and proper baptism.

This is your POV -- not mine.

but you said God compromises, now youa re contradicting yourself.

We're splitting hairs. I think God mitigates God's wrath always, in favor of reconciliation. If you want to look at that as compromise, that's your prerogative. I don't think God compromises on truth, however, because God is truth.

Flesh is weak and susceptible to failure, no matter what position of spiritual authority they hold. The Doctrine is there but we are told and admonished to pray about it to be sure of what is true and right, Who better to ask for the truth than God himself?

Now who's talking out of both sides of his mouth? God is capable of delivering truth unblemished to God's prophets, yet those prophets are "weak flesh" and "susceptible to failure." That's my point exactly! Thank you for agreeing. While your prophets may or may not be prophets (I'm willing to concede that for you they are), they still interpret truth through their hermeneutical cloud.

so you admit you over analyze your own religion, and mis comprehend it?

I've never claimed otherwise! We all do that.

Of course interpretation is the problem when things are ambiguous and complex. But, the truth is plain and simple. why this need for ambiguity? why this need for things to be complex? the thing is, Man makes things complex, God's truth and light is simple even for the most unlearned people to be able to comprehend.

You've answered your own question: Because "man makes things complex." I rather suspect, even Mormon men...

 

[sojourner]

So did God say to change the structure of his church? or was it man?

Since the Church, which is made up of human beings, is the Body of Christ, and Christ is God incarnate, I'd say that God does whatever we do...

 

[sojourner]

Because truth cannot contradict itself. Why is that such a hard concept?

Either a complete and widespread apostasy occurred or it didn't. Which is it?

Truth doesn't contradict itself. But humanity brings contradictory perspectives of truth, as humanity understands truth. Why is that such a hard concept?

Why does it matter whether an apostasy occurred? "Martha, Martha, you are worried about many things. But Mary has made the better choice..."

 

[sojourner]

However the problem is that the very foundation of the church: apostles and prophets, happened to evolve completely out of the picture. Paul clearly taught that prophets and apostles were intended to always be part of the church:

"(11) And he agave some apostles and some prophets... (12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (13) 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: (14) 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;" (Ephesians 4:11-14).

Apostles and prophets are needed for the work of the ministry so that the church can authoratively and divinely maintain a purity of doctrine.

Do you know that "apostle" means simply, "one who is sent out?" The Church still does send out people with authority to evangelize. Now we call them..."missionaries."

 

[sojourner]

You'd have to ask God that, but I'm inclined to believe it has to do with the notion that God's not going to force his gospel upon mankind. In general the people at the time were simply not receptive -- a coming apostasy was even prophesied. God decided to bring it back at a time when the world was more prepared -- after 1800 years a nation was finally formed in which religious freedoms and tolerance were at the forefront.

God's not going to force God's gospel upon humanity, but God is going to force millions of people, with different cultural backgrounds and different stories and different traditions into a uniform little box?

"A nation was finally formed in which religious freedoms and tolerance were at the forefront." Yet, the "true" religion is intolerant of the beliefs and claims to authority of other groups. They claim to be the only "real" Church. Seems like the philospohies are mutually exclusive here. The American government is tolerant of diversity, freedom of choice and freedom of expression, without favoritism for one over the other. That's precisely why there is no state church in the US. The Mormons don't appear to foster such diversity.

What about modern Israel? They're pretty tolerant of religious diversity. In Bethlehem, you can see a Christian cross, a Jewish Star of David and an Islamic crescent all in the same city block!

Many Christians don't believe that the apostasy prophecy has happened as you say it has.

Jesus promised to be with us always. Since the Church is the Body of Christ, it only makes sense that the Church has been with us always, as well.

 

[sojourner]

That's a valid point. I think he's more concerned that we do the best we know how and that we make an honest effort to seek the truth. In the end all will be given opportunity to hear and accept the truth.

Didn't I just say that recently?

We do follow as best as we know how. In the end, that's all God asks of us.

If God is more concerned that we do the best we can and that we make our best, honest effort to seek truth, then it seems more likely that God would express truth within the diverse ways of understanding inherent to humanity. If "doing our best" is the most important thing to God, then uniformity of understanding must be only of secondary importance.

 

[Polaris]

Truth doesn't contradict itself. But humanity brings contradictory perspectives of truth, as humanity understands truth.

Exactly and in many cases those contradictory perspectives can't both be correct.

Why does it matter whether an apostasy occurred? "Martha, Martha, you are worried about many things. But Mary has made the better choice..."

Honestly seeking and adhering to truth is worth our time and effort.

Do you know that "apostle" means simply, "one who is sent out?" The Church still does send out people with authority to evangelize. Now we call them..."missionaries."

I believe Paul was referring to those called to the office of apostleship.

God's not going to force God's gospel upon humanity, but God is going to force millions of people, with different cultural backgrounds and different stories and different traditions into a uniform little box?

Nope, he doesn't force anyone to do anything.

"A nation was finally formed in which religious freedoms and tolerance were at the forefront." Yet, the "true" religion is intolerant of the beliefs and claims to authority of other groups.

How are we intolerant? We're tolerant and respectful towards those of differing faiths. Just because we believe that only we have true priesthood authority doesn't mean we're intolerant of others.

What about modern Israel? They're pretty tolerant of religious diversity. In Bethlehem, you can see a Christian cross, a Jewish Star of David and an Islamic crescent all in the same city block!

Are you suggesting that Mormons would try to persecute and destroy anyone who tried to do the same here? You're highly misinformed if that's what you think. We have great respect for all people of faith.

Many Christians don't believe that the apostasy prophecy has happened as you say it has.

And they're perfectly free to do so. We simply disagree that's all, and last I checked disagreement does not equal intolerance, like you seem to be suggesting.

If "doing our best" is the most important thing to God, then uniformity of understanding must be only of secondary importance.

Both are important. Consider how many times he commanded his disciple to be "one", I would tend to believe that unity/uniformity was not of minor importance.

 

[sojourner]

Exactly and in many cases those contradictory perspectives can't both be correct.

I don't think "correct" is what we're after here. "Seeking" and "perseverance" are what Jesus asks of us.

Honestly seeking and adhering to truth is worth our time and effort.

So are keeping one's proper social place and getting the dinner served. But which acitivity is more important to the One we serve? Our own curiosity about "the truth," or serving?

I believe Paul was referring to those called to the office of apostleship.

I don't find the word "office" in the Bible. Paul was speaking of those called to be sent out.

Nope, he doesn't force anyone to do anything.

But you do, in God's Name, by virtue of refusing to acknowledge that God is working quite authoritatively within other groups. Whatever we do, God does, because we represent God.

How are we intolerant? We're tolerant and respectful towards those of differing faiths. Just because we believe that only we have true priesthood authority doesn't mean we're intolerant of others.

You are intolerant of their perspective with regard to authority. "They" are not "you." If "they" were "you," then "they'd" have "true priesthood authority. That is intolerance of other groups.

Are you suggesting that Mormons would try to persecute and destroy anyone who tried to do the same here? You're highly misinformed if that's what you think. We have great respect for all people of faith.

I know that a group of Mormons came into my home, ganged up on me, and tried to undermine my faith by insisting that my baptism was invalid, and then asked me to have a "real" baptism in their church and be saved. I'm not sure what to call it, but I wouldn't call it "great respect" -- especially when they did it again on a subsequent visit, after we requested them to refrain from doing so the first time. Had they been tolerant, they would have accepted my baptism as "real," and accepted me as a brother, no matter what group I belong to.

And they're perfectly free to do so. We simply disagree that's all, and last I checked disagreement does not equal intolerance, like you seem to be suggesting.

Except that, if they disagree with you, you cut them out of the will. Sounds intolerant to me.

Both are important. Consider how many times he commanded his disciple to be "one", I would tend to believe that unity/uniformity was not of minor importance.

I keep saying that we are One. Y'all seem to be the ones to draw distinctions here.
Remember that Jesus also said, "those who are not against us are for us."