Anything Goes LDS Thread (Everyone Welcome)

[kadzbiz]

I'm just going to direct you to an article that should answer this question. ........

Brown does address the critics well. Interesting. Thanks Katzpur.

 

[Scott C.]

How does progressive revelation work in the LDS? If the prophet came out and declared God revealed to him that it was day and it looked like night, would you be bound to beleive it was day?

If a person has doubts about something the Prophet teaches, I think they should prayerfully seek their own confirmatory witness through the Spirit. I can't personally remember any council I've received from the Prophets, alive in my lifetime, which caused me great consternation. But, I generally pray to understand and know that the council is from God.

 

[Katzpur]

How does progressive revelation work in the LDS? If the prophet came out and declared God revealed to him that it was day and it looked like night, would you be bound to beleive it was day?

Well, to begin with, he wouldn't declare any new doctrine unless that same doctrine had subsequently been revealed to his two counselors and to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We as members of the Church wouldn't be bound to believe it was day unless the Holy Ghost also confirmed it to us -- which seems rather unlikely, in light of the fact that we're not stupid enough to mistake night for day. How would it work if the Pope were to declare the same thing in an ex cathedra statement to that effect?

 

[Scott C.]

Tell me something, when was the last president that WASN'T the kindest and humblest individual you will ever have the pleasure of meeting?

As an insider in the LDS Church (meaning a member for a number of years) I have a perspective on the General Authorities of the Church that non-members generally don't have. I'm intimately aware of the culture, the integrity of leaders, how leaders are called, their motivations, etc. One reason for this is that we have a lay clergy. For example, my Stake President was not LDS when he married his LDS wife about 25 years ago. A few years later, he was baptised. He was sincere at the time. He believed he was doing the right thing. He came to church for a couple of years as an "investigator" before he was sure he wanted to be baptised. He was later called to serve in a Bishopric, then as Bishop, then in a Stake Presidency, and now as Stake President. He didn't ask for any of these positions. He is not compensated. He has a full time job and being Stake President requires many hours on top of that. He is a very kind man, just as sincere in his beliefs today as he was the day he was baptized. He could (but not necessarily) be later called to higher positions, including General Authority or Apostle. The culture and calling system within the church engenders within me a sure knowledge that those who lead are good and honest. I know my own heart, beliefs and honesty, and I know my leaders are chosen from among my friends and people who are like me. There are a few exceptions. Every now and then a leader in a high position will betray the trust of the members in a significant way, but such is unusual. The strength, integrity, and consistency of our leaders is a remarkable testament to this revealed system of church governance.

 

[Bishka]

How does progressive revelation work in the LDS? If the prophet came out and declared God revealed to him that it was day and it looked like night, would you be bound to beleive it was day?

No, and it would never happen.

God will never let the Prophets lead the people astray. God would never reveal anything contrary to His creation to a Prophet.

 

[kadzbiz]

Can I ask, if LDS believe that prophets are judged by their fruits, why does it feel that Jehovah's Witnesses are just a cult organisation? Surely their fruits are even more impressive than the LDS church insofar as expansion etc.

 

[nutshell]

Can I ask, if LDS believe that prophets are judged by their fruits, why does it feel that Jehovah's Witnesses are just a cult organisation? Surely their fruits are even more impressive than the LDS church insofar as expansion etc.

Where do you get the idea that LDS believe JW's to be a cult?

Who defined "fruits" as "expansion"?

 

[TrueBlue2]

Can I ask, if LDS believe that prophets are judged by their fruits, why does it feel that Jehovah's Witnesses are just a cult organisation? Surely their fruits are even more impressive than the LDS church insofar as expansion etc.

Following are some of the things that distinguishes the LDS church not only from the JW's but from the rest of the Christian world as well:
1) The claim that we have prophets and apostles at the head of our church.
2) Revelation is once again pouring down from heaven as in times of old.
3) Several hundred pages worth of new scripture.
4) An army of 60,000 missionaries in an attempt to carry the gospel message to all the world.
5) The Gift of the Holy Ghost.
6) We now have well over 100 temples throughout the world.
and others...

I just recently finished a thread with two Jehovah Witnesses. At the end of the day they stand out from the Christian world in the following ways:
1) They believe their interpretation of the Bible is better than anyone elses.
2) They take a very pacifist position on war basing it on Christ's admonition to "love your enemies."
3) They believe the real name of God is Jehovah, and that we can't be saved unless we know that.
4) Only 144,000 souls are going to make it into heaven in the truest sense.
That's it!

Membership for the Witnesses is now at 7 million according to my two friends. Membership in the LDS church is now approaching 13 million and expanding at a much faster rate than theirs. (not that that's the barometer of truth.)

 

[Bishka]

Can I ask, if LDS believe that prophets are judged by their fruits, why does it feel that Jehovah's Witnesses are just a cult organisation? Surely their fruits are even more impressive than the LDS church insofar as expansion etc.

Who said they were a cult?

If they want to be called Christians, they are called Christians.....

Where on earth are you getting that from?

 

[roli]

I would add something that I'm sure Sola'lor will agree with. While he did not explicitely say so in his list of requirements for exaltation, implied in the list is that without the saving grace of Christ, none of this is possible. We must do all we can to repent and be obedient and have the right heart. When we do so, the grace of God is sufficient to make up our deficit and grant us entry into the presence of God.

I guess your version of Christ as being a created being and the brother of lucifer and God having flesh and bone are just not according to biblical teaching.
Mormon Doctrines, strange. CARM
1) Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)

2) A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)

3) The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..." (D&C 130:22).
Could you show me where these doctrines are taught in the bible?

1. "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345 God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)
2. God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.) God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115.) - This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.
3. "Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).

Iguess my problem with these not being accepted by mormons today as mormon doctrine, how can these men be prophets.
I mean if God raised Isaiah the prophet to speak on his behalf to the people and then raised up another prophet that countered his teachings, does that not make either the prophets in error or God contradicting himself


Who do you think Paul is referring to here!!!!
2Cr 11:13For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Out of born again Christians,Mormons, Jehovah Witness and Muslims, would Paul be referring to any of the above groups ??
Keeping in mind each of these groups have radically different views of Jesus Christ and God and only one of us use the bible explicitly.

 

[Katzpur]

Can I ask, if LDS believe that prophets are judged by their fruits, why does it feel that Jehovah's Witnesses are just a cult organisation? Surely their fruits are even more impressive than the LDS church insofar as expansion etc.

I've never heard any Latter-day Saints say that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult, and I can guarantee that the LDS leadership wouldn't say such a thing. I'm not sure what you would consider their "fruits" or ours to be. Regardless, it's kind of subjective, don't you think?

 

[nutshell]

Membership for the Witnesses is now at 7 million according to my two friends. Membership in the LDS church is now approaching 13 million and expanding at a much faster rate than theirs. (not that that's the barometer of truth.)

JW's only count active members whereas the LDS count members of record. The JW world conference had 17 million participants - more than the 13 million LDS.

It's comparing apples to oranges.

 

[kadzbiz]

Where do you get the idea that LDS believe JW's to be a cult? Who defined "fruits" as "expansion"?

....4) Only 144,000 souls are going to make it into heaven in the truest sense.

Who said they were a cult? If they want to be called Christians, they are called Christians.....Where on earth are you getting that from?

I've never heard any Latter-day Saints say that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult, and I can guarantee that the LDS leadership wouldn't say such a thing. I'm not sure what you would consider their "fruits" or ours to be. Regardless, it's kind of subjective, don't you think?

Okay, relax guys. I got that "idea" from watching this two part TV talk back show. I admit, it's probably too dated and it's the non-mormon guy who mentions the word cult. I just wondered what the LDS view was. I admit I don't know much about JW's, but I have heard of the 144,000 figure and thought it was crazy, because I can't see the point of them recruiting anymore.

 

[Bishka]

1) Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)

Again, you haven't been paying attention or choose to act ignorantly. We've said it time and time again, this is NOT DOCTRINE.

2) A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)

NOT DOCTRINE.

3) The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..." (D&C 130:22).

Do you actually want to discuss this?

Could you show me where these doctrines are taught in the bible?

Funny enough, only ONE bit you've posted so far is actually doctrine.

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345 God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105.)

NOT DOCTRINE.

God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.) God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 218, 1857; vol. 8, p. 115.) - This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.

NOT DOCTRINE. Do you honestly think this is what we believe after we have told you time and time again what doctrine is? Just because someone taught it does not make it doctrine.

"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones." (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38)

NOT DOCTRINE.

Iguess my problem with these not being accepted by mormons today as mormon doctrine, how can these men be prophets.

Wow. Just wow. You do not read a single thing that we write. These have NEVER been doctrine and probably NEVER will be. It's simple as that. Doesn't make the Prophets any less of Prophets.

Let's see, you've gotten ONE of our doctrines right our of this whole jumbled message (one that you didn't even right, it was CARM's crap). Would you like to try again?

How about we stick to telling you what we believe and you stick to telling us what you believe.

 

[athanasius]

Well, to begin with, he wouldn't declare any new doctrine unless that same doctrine had subsequently been revealed to his two counselors and to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We as members of the Church wouldn't be bound to believe it was day unless the Holy Ghost also confirmed it to us -- which seems rather unlikely, in light of the fact that we're not stupid enough to mistake night for day. How would it work if the Pope were to declare the same thing in an ex cathedra statement to that effect?

Good question! The pope could not make a valid ex cathedra statement about day or night or for that matter pink t-shirts or blue t-shirts. The pope can only speak with infallible protection on matters of faith and morals and not science or anything else. So it would have to be related to scripture and tradition for the Pope to be able to use that charism. Popes have not used that charism often. This brings up another question for you LDS members though. If you do not have to hold to any Prophecy or new revelation unless God confirms it with you personally then what makes the LDS church different from the protestants who say that they must be confirmed by the Holy Spirit for leading them to interpret the passages of the bible correctly. What good is a ultimate Authority(like a prophet) or a Church if one does not have to abide by the teachings? This seems protestant and kinda defeats the whole purpose of the LDS Hierarchy and prophets does it not?

 

[Ratiocinative]

I've always been curious about the prochronisms in some of the earlier Mormon scriptures. How did words like Bible, Church, Baptism, Apostle, and Christ appear in documents that are claimed to have been written 550-600 BC? These are Greek words, so they wouldn't have been spoken by Hebrews until the 1st century at the earliest, which is why they are not in the Old Testament. Alexander the Great didn't conquer the Mediterranean Coast until ~330 BC, which is roughly 250 years after the books in the Book of Mormon using these words(1 Nephi, Alma) claim to have been written. How did the Nephites learn Greek?

 

[TrueBlue2]

Again, you haven't been paying attention or choose to act ignorantly. We've said it time and time again, this is NOT DOCTRINE...Wow. Just wow. You do not read a single thing that we write. These have NEVER been doctrine and probably NEVER will be...

Bishka, I know that Roli has been very antagonistic but I wonder if we're not taking the whole "this is not doctrine" thing too far. I hesitate to say anything as this has not been my argument, but to an outside observer things are starting to come across as though the Mormons can discount the words of a prophet because it's not in the official canon, whereas the fact is I think most LDS people have high regard for the words of Talmage, McConkie, and any other apostle. And we accept their teachings as being accurate very near 100% of the time. I think we would admit that when the church was in its infancy that things were said by Brigham Young and others that do not align with official church doctrine today, but the fact still remains that we hold in high self esteem the words of the prophets.

Many of the claims in this recent post by Roli are true: there was a premortal council held in which two plans were presented; Joseph Smith did make that statement in his King Follett discourse; and the Father does have a body of flesh and bones. Why not admit that, and discuss it?

 

[TrueBlue2]

JW's only count active members whereas the LDS count members of record. The JW world conference had 17 million participants - more than the 13 million LDS...

That's interesting. I didn't know that.

 

[Bishka]

official canon, whereas the fact is that I think most LDS people have high regard for the words of Talmage, McConkie, and any other apostle.

Did you know the President David O. McKay said there was over 1,500 errors in Mormon Doctrine? This is one reason why I cannot consider it "doctrine".

 

[TrueBlue2]

Did you know the President David O. McKay said there was over 1,500 errors in Mormon Doctrine? This is one reason why I cannot consider it "doctrine".

I know that the first edition had multiple issues, and that it was revised extensively as a result. I also know that McConkie is still considered one of the great scriptorians of the church. But regardless, when Roli makes a statement about the plan of salvation using McConkie as his source, and the response is "Not Doctrine" it makes it sound as though we discount the doctrine ourselves, which is not true. From my perspective it has become personal between you and Roli, and we are not really addressing his questions.