Differences-2

[Merlin]

The "reincarnation" type belief actually comes from the Bible - but it is called Resurection. It is different because we believe we are the same person after we are resurrected with the same thoughts and experiences.

I didn't see your questions as critisism - I'm just trying to be as clear as possible because I feel like I've answered some of the same questions over and over again.

In another thread we were talking about ordinances, authority, and the purpose of the temple. My understanding is that ordinances such as baptism cannot be performed without a being having a body. For example, members of the church are baptised in proxy for those who have already passed on (usually ancestors). In this way the ordiances will be done for everyone who needs them. In the Spirit world, those who are in "hell" (we refer to it as Spirit Prison) are taught the gospel. They have the opportunity of accepting or rejecting the gospel. It they accept it, they accept the ordinance that was done for them. If they reject it they reject the ordinance that was done for them. Free agency is one of the greatest gifts of God and we will continue to have this agency in the next life.

These requirements are not necessarily "Mormon" ordinances. They are ordiances done with God's authority. Mormons believe that there have been times in history where the this authority was on the earth and that our church is the restoration of this authority (that's why we're in the "restorationist" category. When Christ was on the earth this authority was in place. Prophets in the Bible had this authority. Ordinances done with the property authority would be perfectly acceptable to God.

Let me add to this the three missions of the LDS church: Preach the gospel, Perfect the Saints, and Redeem the dead. Everything done in the church falls under one of those missions.

Thank you, it was a very comprehensive answer.

Would you be prepared to tell me how God showed you he had restored authority through you?

 

[jonny]

Would you be prepared to tell me how God showed you he had restored authority through you?

That's an easy one. We believe that the authority was restored to Joseph Smith. The Aaronic Priesthod was restored to him by John the Baptist and the Melchezidek Preisthood was restored through Peter, James, and John.

Here are some verses from Joseph Smith History that explain how they received the Aaronic Priesthood:

68 We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:
69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
70 He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.
71 Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me÷after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood÷for so we were commanded.*
72 The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first Elder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized.

Here's a link to the scriptures where they are contained: http://www.sacred-texts.com/mor/pgp/jsh1.htm

Every priesthood holder in the LDS church has a "Line of Authority" which traces the priesthood he holds back to Joseph Smith and from Joseph Smith to Jesus Christ.

 

[Merlin]

That's an easy one. We believe that the authority was restored to Joseph Smith. The Aaronic Priesthod was restored to him by John the Baptist and the Melchezidek Preisthood was restored through Peter, James, and John.

Here are some verses from Joseph Smith History that explain how they received the Aaronic Priesthood:

68 We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:
69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
70 He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.
71 Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me÷after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood÷for so we were commanded.*
72 The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first Elder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized.

Here's a link to the scriptures where they are contained: http://www.sacred-texts.com/mor/pgp/jsh1.htm

Every priesthood holder in the LDS church has a "Line of Authority" which traces the priesthood he holds back to Joseph Smith and from Joseph Smith to Jesus Christ.

Thank you. Are these plates preserved so that we can see them, or are they kept locked away?

 

[Merlin]

Sorry. Perhaps the tone of my post was a bit sharp, it's just that you appeared to be drawing conclusions from my position that those outside the Church may be saved that are unwarranted and it was a little annoying. I don't just think the Orthodox Church is the One True Church, I'm absolutely convinced She is and you semed to be questioning whether I held that belief at all. Believe me, I wouldn't be Orthodox if I didn't - I converted to Orthodoxy after all.

I don't know how much detail you want on why the Orthodox Church is the Church founded by Christ, or what sort of evidence. I can come up with a lot of things that convince me but I'm sure would have little weight with others. My main three points would be these, however:

1.) Christ founded one real, visible Church which He promised would never be destroyed - so whichever Church it is, there can only be one and it must still exist. There are only three churches that can show a continuous existence from Apostolic times to now so it must be one of them: Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

2.)Christ ordained Apostles who ordained deacons, priests and bishops. In other words there was a definite structure of authority in the Church and the True Church must be able to demonstrate Apostolic succession - this leaves the same three churches plus, perhaps, the Anglicans.

3.) The Catholic faith. By this I mean the faith according to the whole (the actual meaning of catholic) described by St. Vincent of Lerins. This that we must believe that which has been believed by all, everywhere from the beginning. This means that doctrinal developments that contradict ancient beliefs are not catholic (as an example, the filioque, which contradicts scripture and the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed). Without the Catholic faith there can be no Apostolic succession which discounts, to my mind, the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans, leving only the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.

On top of these three major points, it should be noted that schisms result in a group cutting themselves off from the Church as She can only ever be one. The schism that caused the rift between the Oriental Orthodox and the rest of the Church seems, to my mind, undoubtedly the fault of the OOs as they were unwilling to submit to the ruling of a council of the entire Church. They, then, cannot be the Church. Having said that, I believe that their beliefs are not heretical, just very badly worded, and so I view this as a schism only. Does that help?

I'm sure that Roman Catholics and Oriental Orthodox would use some similar arguments (though clearly with different conclusions also). I'm unclear how the LDS would justify their belief - clearly not by reference to the points I raised, though.

James

I am ashamed to say I did not know there was such a thing as an orthodox catholic. Without writing a huge amount, can you outline simply the difference between your beliefs and a normal Roman Catholic?

 

[Merlin]

My religion is the true one. Is that all you wanted me to say? How about this - I KNOW my religion is the true one. I thought that this was a given. I wouldn't practice a religion I didn't believe was true.

Let me add, that while I believe my religion is true, one of the reasons I believe it to be true is because the Plan of Salvation which I believe in allows for ANYONE to end up at the top. I don't think that there is such a thing as "churches" in the next life. There is only truth. God doesn't care about what church you belonged to, as long as you accept the truth you have just as much opportunity to be saved as I do.

This may be hard for you to understand because LDS members don't believe that this life is the only chance. We believe in eternal progression. That means that this life is only a small portion of the big picture - a thread on a eternal rope. People will continue to progress in the next life. Are there certain ordinances that are required? Yes, and as I have already explained, EVERYONE, EVERYONE, EVERYONE will receive those ordinances before they are judged. I don't know how I can make it any more clear. Yes, we believe that we have truth. No, we do not believe that only members from our church will end up on top.

Perhaps this is difficult to grasp since you are used to Christian churches that damn everyone who doesn't accept Christ in this life to Hell. Mormon Hell is temporary and it isn't really Hell - it's another opportunity to learn about Christ and accept him. After the final judgement there IS NO HELL except for a VERY VERY VERY small number of people who had a perfect knowledge of Christ in this life and then rejected him. I don't think this group includes more than a half dozen people.

I really hope that answers your question.

So you are saying even a devout Moslem can be 'saved' if they accept Jesus Christ after they are dead?

 

[Aqualung]

Thank you. Are these plates preserved so that we can see them, or are they kept locked away?

Doctrine and Covenants 5:7 sheds a little light on this: "Behold, if they will not beleive my words, they would not beleive you, my servant Joseph, if it were possible that you should show them all these things which I have committed unto you." So basically that's saying that there is enough information that if someone actually looked at all the evidence, and actually prayed about it, they would know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. The plates, therefore, aren't necessary for faith. One of the things that the Book of Mormon prophesies about is that people will try to discredit Joseph Smith by making false translations of anything they can get their hands on. Another thing that might happen if we still had the plates is a lot more contention within the church than their is now, because people are trying to live by sight and not by faith. So God, in his wisdom, took the plates away.

 

[Scott1]

I am ashamed to say I did not know there was such a thing as an orthodox catholic. Without writing a huge amount, can you outline simply the difference between your beliefs and a normal Roman Catholic?

We are much better looking.

 

[Merlin]

Doctrine and Covenants 5:7 sheds a little light on this: "Behold, if they will not beleive my words, they would not beleive you, my servant Joseph, if it were possible that you should show them all these things which I have committed unto you." So basically that's saying that there is enough information that if someone actually looked at all the evidence, and actually prayed about it, they would know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. The plates, therefore, aren't necessary for faith. One of the things that the Book of Mormon prophesies about is that people will try to discredit Joseph Smith by making false translations of anything they can get their hands on. Another thing that might happen if we still had the plates is a lot more contention within the church than their is now, because people are trying to live by sight and not by faith. So God, in his wisdom, took the plates away.

Thank you. How long did Joseph Smith have them?

 

[Merlin]

We are much better looking.

I had better convert then

 

[Aqualung]

Thank you. How long did Joseph Smith have them?

I'm not sure. I think just long enough to tranlsate them, and he showed them to some people, too. Perhaps some one else knows more exactly?

 

[Aqualung]

I had better convert then

No, because LDS are the best looking!

 

[jonny]

Thank you. How long did Joseph Smith have them?

Joseph Smith obtained the plates in September 1827. The translation was completed in about 1829.

Here is an article about the translation: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bom/translation_eom.htm

The plates were shown to a few people. Here is another article about the "Witnesses" to the Book of Mormon: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bom/witnesses_eom.htm

The three witnesses were shown the plates by an Angel. The eight witnesses were shown the plates by Joseph Smith.

I believe Emma Smith, Joseph's wife, also saw the plates.

 

[Scott1]

No, because LDS are the best looking!

Good one!:biglaugh:

 

[jonny]

So you are saying even a devout Moslem can be 'saved' if they accept Jesus Christ after they are dead?

Yes. (this is where I add unimportant comments so that the answer to a yes or no question can be posted )

 

[Merlin]

I'm not sure. I think just long enough to tranlsate them, and he showed them to some people, too. Perhaps some one else knows more exactly?

What language were they written in please?

 

[Aqualung]

What language were they written in please?

reformed egyptian.

 

[Merlin]

Yes. (this is where I add unimportant comments so that the answer to a yes or no question can be posted )

but not if they don't

k

 

[Katzpur]

What language were they written in please?

Aqualung already answered this, but I'm just going to go ahead and respond to your next question before you ask it, if that's okay.

Merlin: Reformed Eqyptian? What the ___ is that?

Kathryn: The Book of Mormon itself provides the answer to that question. Mormon 9:32-34 states, "And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record. But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof."

So, in essence, the oral language was Hebrew, but the written language was a modified form of the Egyptian language. It was used primarily to conserve space, as time frame covered was roughly 1000 years.

 

[Katzpur]

Joseph Smith obtained the plates in September 1827. The translation was completed in about 1829.

Merlin, FYI... Joseph was actually working on the translation for just under 90 days.

 

[Merlin]

Aqualung already answered this, but I'm just going to go ahead and respond to your next question before you ask it, if that's okay.

Merlin: Reformed Eqyptian? What the ___ is that?

Kathryn: The Book of Mormon itself provides the answer to that question. Mormon 9:32-34 states, "And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record. But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof."

So, in essence, the oral language was Hebrew, but the written language was a modified form of the Egyptian language. It was used primarily to conserve space, as time frame covered was roughly 1000 years.

"Merlin: Reformed Eqyptian? What the ___ is that? " I am really sad that you think I would use such language. Although I do make occasional accidental mistakes, I try to respect everybody's beliefs