Christians: What in this Book do you Disagree With?

[richardlowellt]

Baptisim, if you were a catholic ad your child died before it was baptised it was sent to limbo. Now the catholic church says this is no longer the case. Can you imagine the pain of those parents who's child died without having the chance to be baptised, and though day after day about the poor child i limbo, the heartache and the guilt must have been horrible.But now the catolic church says its not the case anymore, how cruel is that, what kind of religion does this? I guess the same kind that sent people to hell for eating meat on Fri. but of course thats not a problem anymore either. Imagine that poor sould who missed the cut by one day.

 

[Katzpur]

Baptisim, if you were a catholic ad your child died before it was baptised it was sent to limbo. Now the catholic church says this is no longer the case. Can you imagine the pain of those parents who's child died without having the chance to be baptised, and though day after day about the poor child i limbo, the heartache and the guilt must have been horrible.But now the catolic church says its not the case anymore, how cruel is that, what kind of religion does this? I guess the same kind that sent people to hell for eating meat on Fri. but of course thats not a problem anymore either. Imagine that poor sould who missed the cut by one day.

Welcome to the forum, richard. I was just wondering why you posted this on a thread about Mormonism?

 

[nutshell]

Apologies. But to be fair, I was being egged on.

Anyways, I'll change the topic to something I was confused about earlier. Earlier in the topic (or another topic) it was brought up that the ordination of prophets is a major part of the LDS church, but then when I asked about prophecies since Joseph Smith I was told that there have only been two. I guess I need an explanation as far as the difference between "Prophets" in the congregation and major prophets.

You're changing the topic because you can't write a book like the Book of Mormon.

Gotcha'

 

[tomspug]

We refer to the President of the Church as a "prophet, seer, and revelator". Each of those have a little different connotation. The main idea is that the President is the Presiding High Priest for the entire church. He receives revelation from God to guide the church and the members (or non-members for that matter). His revelations may not be prophesies in the sense of predicting the future. His revelations also may not be doctrinal, such as establishing the nature of the Godhead, etc. Most of the revelations are to guide the church and guide the members through the troubled water and times in which we live. Also, a very important, in my opinion the most important role of those we consider prophets, seers, and revelators is to be special witness of Christ to the world. This means that the resurrected Lord has revealed himself to them and they are equally qualified with the ancient apostles to bear testimony to the world, based on perfect knowledge, more than faith, belief, or hope, or a strong conviction, but a perfect knowledge, as sure as they know anything, that Jesus Christ lives, is resurrected, and stands at the head of His church today.

When you listen to fifteen men (First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles) each of whom are intelligent, sincere, and good men, each bear independent testimony that through experience "too sacred to give utterance" that they have a perfect knowledge of the resurrected Lord, by revelation, it's a powerful testimony. One who pays close attention to what they say can conclude they are telling the truth, they are lying, or they are deceived. If you know them for who they are, you quickly throw out lying. If you consider their intelligence, competence, sincerity, humility, goodness, integrity, the Christian values they possess, and the fact they they each make the claims of revelation independent of one another, you can also determine that being deceived by Satan is a not conceivable. That leaves telling the truth. Think about it. You might be surprised what you would learn, if you would carefully study the words of the living prophets and apostles as they bear apostolic testimony of the risen Lord. Their witnesses, combined with my personal study, reflection, and spiritual answers to prayer give me a rock solid conviction that prophets walk the earth again. Were living in a day. as if we were in the days of and in the midst of Peter, James, John, and the others. It's great to be a part of it. I wish all Christians and all people everywhere could see it.

I see. So it is not very different from the concept of elders, who make leadership decisions for the church body. I understand the idea of a majority of morality outweighing the imposition of deceit. However, I think it is a little idealistic to come to the conclusion that no accountability or scrutiny is necessary for such a body.

For example, in recent years there has been a lot of churches leaving their respective denominations. Why? Because the leaders of those denominations had become influenced by world denominators (such as money and power) as to trivialize doctrine and principles. In other words, the denominations were influenced by secularism and sacrificed principle for progress.

Who is to say that any body, if not a body of church leaders, is safe from corruption? The very apostles of Christ were infiltrated by a quest for power. James and John argued as to who would be on Christ's left and right hand because they thought that Christ would overthrow the government. Judas betrayed Jesus, his teacher, for money and possibly power. Why then, do we put our faith in what is effectively a worldly system of government?

While the truth of Christ may be incontrovertible. It stands to reason that all men are not. All men are corruptible, it is simply a matter of countenance, how far they can go without being tempted.

I would imagine that it is foolish, as a leader, to teach your followers to always trust its leadership. You are in danger of teaching your flock to trust men more than God, are you not? I have found that, as a leader, it is far wiser to accept man's fallen nature and communicate that to others.

After all, what is the harm in scrutinizing leadership? Is it a sin to question authority? If there is truth, it will be found out! If there is wisdom, it will be understood. I understand that the LDS leadership is almost as old as the United States government, but I do believe that the concept of checks and balances is a godly principle. You would not say that checks and balances are a product of distrust or lack of faith. On the contrary, I think that accountability is one of the best ways to be love a friend (speaking from a personal level), so I imagine that this applies as well to bureaucracy.

 

[dawny0826]

So dawny's post got totally ignored...

You know what I think is interesting. The Bible's timeline spans thousands of years, and there are only a handful of prophets within it. Yet in the LDS Church's lifetime (less than 200 years) there have been HOW MANY divine revelations?

Not only that, but most of the 'history' of the Bible is made up of historical documents produced by the nation of Israel. Whereas the Nephites and the Lamaanites left not a SINGLE TRACE of history on the Americas. They were either inconsiderate of preserving their history (which is odd considering how much humans LOVE to talk about themselves) or built everything out of biodegradable material.

Is there even ONE piece of evidence for the existence of the Nephites and Lamaanites? I mean, if they can find archaeological evidence of King David and the Egyptians, why not civilizations supposedly later than that?

I'm used to being ignored.

 

[Scott C.]

I see. So it is not very different from the concept of elders, who make leadership decisions for the church body. I understand the idea of a majority of morality outweighing the imposition of deceit. However, I think it is a little idealistic to come to the conclusion that no accountability or scrutiny is necessary for such a body.

For example, in recent years there has been a lot of churches leaving their respective denominations. Why? Because the leaders of those denominations had become influenced by world denominators (such as money and power) as to trivialize doctrine and principles. In other words, the denominations were influenced by secularism and sacrificed principle for progress.

Who is to say that any body, if not a body of church leaders, is safe from corruption? The very apostles of Christ were infiltrated by a quest for power. James and John argued as to who would be on Christ's left and right hand because they thought that Christ would overthrow the government. Judas betrayed Jesus, his teacher, for money and possibly power. Why then, do we put our faith in what is effectively a worldly system of government?

While the truth of Christ may be incontrovertible. It stands to reason that all men are not. All men are corruptible, it is simply a matter of countenance, how far they can go without being tempted.

I would imagine that it is foolish, as a leader, to teach your followers to always trust its leadership. You are in danger of teaching your flock to trust men more than God, are you not? I have found that, as a leader, it is far wiser to accept man's fallen nature and communicate that to others.

After all, what is the harm in scrutinizing leadership? Is it a sin to question authority? If there is truth, it will be found out! If there is wisdom, it will be understood. I understand that the LDS leadership is almost as old as the United States government, but I do believe that the concept of checks and balances is a godly principle. You would not say that checks and balances are a product of distrust or lack of faith. On the contrary, I think that accountability is one of the best ways to be love a friend (speaking from a personal level), so I imagine that this applies as well to bureaucracy.

There is tremendous corruption in the world. We find it among church and political leaders. It's not hard for me to understand why people are sceptical of church leaders from any denomination. There have been enough bad examples to make people skeptical. I recognize that my leaders can make mistakes. I don't see them as perfect men or as men who are not capable of corruption. However, ii is a fact, that perhaps you will find hard to believe, but I know it to be a fact that the General Authorities of my church are not corrupt. They are honest and tell it like they see it. There may be an exception here or there, but the strength of character of that body of leaders is as strong or stronger than you can find in any body of people anywhere.

I can't speak for other churches, but I believe the First Presdency and Quorum of the Twelve in my church are different from the Elders of other churches in a significant way. I don't think the Elders of other churches claim to receive revelation from God which qualifies them in a unique way to bear testimony to the world of the risen Lord. I want to repeat what I said before that the Prophets and Apostles declare themselves to have the same witness of Christ as did the ancients. Their witness comes from more than reason and more than evidence of ancient scripture. It comes from revelation of the type that makes one as certain of God as Moses who spoke with God on Mount Sinai. It is a remarkable claim that is worthy of being looked at. If you were to look into the lives and hearts of these men who claim to receive such revelation today, you would see that they are telling the truth. You may say, ok, I accept they are honest, but Satan has deceived them. It is no more likely that Satan has decieved them that it is that Satan deceived Moses on Mount Sinai and it was really not God after all. It is no more likely that Satan made himself to appear as the resurrected Christ and deceived the New testament apostles and others into believing in the resurrection. So with such remarkable claims from such remarkable men, a close look at the situation should cause one to pause and ask himself, could it be true?

 

[Francine]

I'm used to being ignored.

"Did I hear a fly in the room?" Francine inquired, looking around briefly before her attention returned to the ongoing conversations.

 

[Francine]

I'd just like to know why you believe God bothered placing a tree in Eden that He specifically didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from, or why He permitted Satan to tempt them. If He really wanted them to stay in Eden forever, He could certainly have made it a lot easier for them to succeed in staying out of trouble. Certainly He had enough foresight to know what was going to happen.

If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

 

[Scott C.]

After all, what is the harm in scrutinizing leadership? Is it a sin to question authority? If there is truth, it will be found out! If there is wisdom, it will be understood. I understand that the LDS leadership is almost as old as the United States government, but I do believe that the concept of checks and balances is a godly principle. You would not say that checks and balances are a product of distrust or lack of faith. On the contrary, I think that accountability is one of the best ways to be love a friend (speaking from a personal level), so I imagine that this applies as well to bureaucracy.

Also, there are checks and balances in the leadership of the LDS Church. The Quorum of the Twelve forms a body equal in authority to the First Presidency. If any member of one of these bodies is determined to be corrupt, the others have authority to remove the person from office. Even the President of the church could be removed by the others if he were found to be corrupt.

 

[Scott C.]

"Did I hear a fly in the room?" Francine inquired, looking around briefly before her attention returned to the ongoing conversations.

I can't figure you out - but I will say that you are quite clever and have great one liners.

 

[Katzpur]

If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

That's very good, but it's not what you believe. I already know what I believe, so maybe you could just bring me up to speed on what you believe by answering the question.

 

[tomspug]

There is tremendous corruption in the world. We find it among church and political leaders. It's not hard for me to understand why people are sceptical of church leaders from any denomination. There have been enough bad examples to make people skeptical. I recognize that my leaders can make mistakes. I don't see them as perfect men or as men who are not capable of corruption. However, ii is a fact, that perhaps you will find hard to believe, but I know it to be a fact that the General Authorities of my church are not corrupt. They are honest and tell it like they see it. There may be an exception here or there, but the strength of character of that body of leaders is as strong or stronger than you can find in any body of people anywhere.

I can't speak for other churches, but I believe the First Presdency and Quorum of the Twelve in my church are different from the Elders of other churches in a significant way. I don't think the Elders of other churches claim to receive revelation from God which qualifies them in a unique way to bear testimony to the world of the risen Lord. I want to repeat what I said before that the Prophets and Apostles declare themselves to have the same witness of Christ as did the ancients. Their witness comes from more than reason and more than evidence of ancient scripture. It comes from revelation of the type that makes one as certain of God as Moses who spoke with God on Mount Sinai. It is a remarkable claim that is worthy of being looked at. If you were to look into the lives and hearts of these men who claim to receive such revelation today, you would see that they are telling the truth. You may say, ok, I accept they are honest, but Satan has deceived them. It is no more likely that Satan has decieved them that it is that Satan deceived Moses on Mount Sinai and it was really not God after all. It is no more likely that Satan made himself to appear as the resurrected Christ and deceived the New testament apostles and others into believing in the resurrection. So with such remarkable claims from such remarkable men, a close look at the situation should cause one to pause and ask himself, could it be true?

This is another thing I don't understand. Why is it that everyone in this Quorum has a unique revelatory relationship with God? In the Bible, God chose who and who not to bless with his spirit and revelation. It doesn't make sense to me that ALL LDS leaders have this unique gift from God.

I mean, take the nation of Israel. They were chosen by God, just as the LDS church claims to be, but Israel's leaders were not automatically blessed with a good relationship with God. In fact, most of Israel's leaders lost sight of what God actually intended for his people. This is why I think it is odd that the will of a particular body should never be questioned.

Let's imagine hypothetically. If the LDS leadership was, say, taken over by force and controlled by the government, what would the LDS church do? The church dogma would force the church to accept the will of the puppet leadership, whether they were aware of it or not.

Obviously, this is an extreme example, but taken to a lesser degree, the implications remain very serious.

 

[tomspug]

Uh-oh, are we bringing up the transgression of Adam again? My stance on it is that man can either choose to believe the serpent or disbelieve him.

Most people, even people that don't believe in God, want to become god-like. It is the people who are humble and deny themselves that are unique. In other words, most people accept their fallen nature and try to make good of it. But those who have the truth know that we must fall on God and admit our mistake.

 

[Francine]

Uh-oh, are we bringing up the transgression of Adam again? My stance on it is that man can either choose to believe the serpent or disbelieve him.

When the Mormon missionaries came to my place I told them I found the theology of the Book of Mormon concerning the reason for the fall of Adam sound. But now I'm being told that I don't believe that.

 

[Scott C.]

I mean, take the nation of Israel. They were chosen by God, just as the LDS church claims to be, but Israel's leaders were not automatically blessed with a good relationship with God. In fact, most of Israel's leaders lost sight of what God actually intended for his people. This is why I think it is odd that the will of a particular body should never be questioned.

I see what you're saying. I don't believe the revelatory relationship the Apostles have with God is automatic. It is something developed over time based on their faithfulness to the Gospel. I believe the Lord only calls Apostles who have that relationship. I would also add that my church teaches that any relationship the Apostles have with God, is not reserved for the Apostles. In other words, anyone may enjoy the same closeness, if they exercise the same faith and obedience to God. While the close and revelatory relationship is not reserved for Apostles, I believe that one may only receive revelation from God to help in his/her own stewardship. I don't have a sterwardship to reveal Gods will to the entire world. The Apostles and Prophets do, so they receive revelation according to that stewardship. I do have a stewardship concerning my family and concerning the responsibilities I've been given in my local ward. I can (and should) receive guidance from God in those responsibilities.

 

[tomspug]

Fair enough. Then the guidance we receive from God is dependent on the faithfulness of that person. I see how this applies to the Apostles. That answers my question.

 

[Scott C.]

Let's imagine hypothetically. If the LDS leadership was, say, taken over by force and controlled by the government, what would the LDS church do? The church dogma would force the church to accept the will of the puppet leadership, whether they were aware of it or not.

If, hypothetically speaking, all of the General Authorities (First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, Quorums of the Seventy, and Presiding Bishopric) all apostasized at the same time and made a pact to keep it a secret and to start leading the members astray, they would fail. The Spirit of God would no longer be with them to lift them up, to inspire their words and decisions, and to inspire the church membership to listen. Our church would not survive very long at all without leaders who have the Spirit of God as their companion. I believe the reason my church has survived and prospered over the years is because the Spirit of God is in the work. That is an absolute critical element. Our church is all about revelation, inspiration, the companionship of the Holy Ghost and divine guidance. If these withdrew, the church would die. Without these, the church and its members never would have survived what they had to go through, since the early days of our history. I believe that.

 

[tomspug]

But a physical body is not held together by merely "the spirit". The spirit works through real things to impact the world. Any religion is held together not merely by the spirit but by the units that it works through. For example, the spirit can move through the Apostles, but it also moves through the financial construct that funds the LDS religion. I don't think you could say that the LDS religion is held up ENTIRELY by the spirit, but it would be acceptable to say that because of the spirit the church has become what it is today and continues to be.

That being said, I do not agree that in my scenario the church would fall apart. What would most likely happen would be that other members would recognize intellectually or be moved by the spirit to reject that false leadership, resulting in either an overthrow or a massive pullout from the established religion into a 'reformed' church.

This is the point I was making. While this extreme situation would never happen, by teaching the church to ALWAYS accept EVERYTHING that the leadership says is dangerous, even to the smallest degree, because it makes corruption POSSIBLE.

And to say that, by the character of these men alone, corruption is IMPOSSIBLE is to put faith in men and not in God. That is the point I am trying to make. Is that not what is meant by putting "faith in men" to believe men as pure and unchanging as God himself?

 

[Scott C.]

But a physical body is not held together by merely "the spirit". The spirit works through real things to impact the world. Any religion is held together not merely by the spirit but by the units that it works through. For example, the spirit can move through the Apostles, but it also moves through the financial construct that funds the LDS religion. I don't think you could say that the LDS religion is held up ENTIRELY by the spirit, but it would be acceptable to say that because of the spirit the church has become what it is today and continues to be.

That being said, I do not agree that in my scenario the church would fall apart. What would most likely happen would be that other members would recognize intellectually or be moved by the spirit to reject that false leadership, resulting in either an overthrow or a massive pullout from the established religion into a 'reformed' church.

This is the point I was making. While this extreme situation would never happen, by teaching the church to ALWAYS accept EVERYTHING that the leadership says is dangerous, even to the smallest degree, because it makes corruption POSSIBLE.

And to say that, by the character of these men alone, corruption is IMPOSSIBLE is to put faith in men and not in God. That is the point I am trying to make. Is that not what is meant by putting "faith in men" to believe men as pure and unchanging as God himself?

Well, I'd say the church as I know and love it today would crumble without the Spirit of God. Perhaps an organizatioin with the same name would still exist. Certainly the church needs money and it has what it needs. The reason I pay tithing is because of my testimony of the church, which comes from the Spirit. So, if there is no Spirit, there is no testimony, and no tithing, and the church goes broke. I think I'm agreeing with much of what you said in this last post, however. We must not blindly accept everything that every leader says, just because the dogma says to do so. I agree this is dangerous.

 

[Katzpur]

When the Mormon missionaries came to my place I told them I found the theology of the Book of Mormon concerning the reason for the fall of Adam sound. But now I'm being told that I don't believe that.

Well, I could apologize, but since you've already pointed out that being forgiving is not one of your strong points, it would probably be a waste of my time. Anyway, I'm glad to hear that someone outside my faith can appreciate the LDS perspective on the Fall of Adam and, for what it's worth, I do apologize for putting words into your mouth.