Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Katzpur, it is interesting how you are actually posting half truths about the Latter Day Saint Church, why not post the correct information? Your spin is quite interesting, but it is a spin. I could play the game, but why bother. You know you are not posting things accurately, that should be shameful enough.
I would like to know how you know that she is not posting things accurately. Thanks!
There is something I wish to share over this supposed meeting of Joseph Smith with God the Father and the Son of God for the first time. It was something I had read in another thread.
There is something I wish to share over this supposed meeting of Joseph Smith with God the Father and the Son of God for the first time. It was something I had read in another thread.
John 1:18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
So then... how could Joseph Smith see God the Father and live? I could see how he could see Jesus, but not the Father at the same time.
When we become perfect, then we shall see the Father.
I'm not sure if the focus of your question is how Joseph Smith could have seen God since John 1:18 says no one has ever done so, or if it is more a question of how Joseph could have seen two beings (the Father and the Son) at the same time. If it is the latter, this could be explained by virtue of the fact that we believe the Father and the Son to be physically distinct from one another and not just part of a single substance.
If it is the former, we know that there are Old Testament accounts of men having seen God. One such account is described in Genesis 48:3...
"And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me."
Another is in Genesis 35:9...
"And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padan-aram, and blessed him."
Interestingly the early Christian father, Irenaeus wrote in 180 A.D. that John 1:18 should read, "For 'no man,' he says, 'hath seen God at any time,' unless 'the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].'" I'm not sure what it was that made him believe this, but He did know that righteous men had seen God in the past. However, it's interesting to note that in Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible, he says essentially the same thing. In other words, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible states:
"No man hath seen God at any time except he hath borne record of the Son..."
So, according to our belief and at least one notable early Christian apologist, there are exceptions to the rule stated in John 1:18.
Do Mormons believe in "a works-based salvation"? Do they think "by obedience to the Law, [one] can work [one's] way into heaven?"
Absolutely not. This is a lie which our critics continue to insist upon perpetuating, regardless of how many times we say that this is not the case. There is not one soul who has ever lived (except for Jesus Christ, of course) who was obedient enough to God's laws and commandments to work his or her way into Heaven. Because we have each inherited Adam's human nature (which nature is a sinful one), it would be impossible that anyone ever could do so. We believe that there is only one way a person can be admitted into Heaven and that is through the atoning sacrifice of our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
I would like to think that part of the problem is a simple misunderstanding (although even that is hard to believe, since this certainly isn't the first time a Mormon on this forum has explained our belief). Those who are familiar with the terms "justification" and "sanctification" know that there is a difference between them. Justification is by grace alone, while sanctification is by a combination of grace and works. (I would be happy to post material by non-LDS theologians further explaining the difference if anyone would like me to.) To Mormons, justification is roughly equivalent to salvation (when the most general meaning of the word, salvation, is being referred to). To us, sanctification is roughly equivalent to exaltation. So, we believe that we are saved (i.e. justified) regardless of our works, but exalted (i.e. sancified) through a combination of grace and works.
So, the bottom line is, we cannot possibly work our way to Heaven. Nobody can be reconciled to God without Jesus Christ. We will, however, be judged according to our works, just as the Savior said we would, and have each (not just Mormons, but everyone) been given the potential to attain exaltation (or sanctification) depending upon our faithfulness and our obedience. Exaltation, too, is a gift from God. We could not attain it without His blessing and desire that it happen, but it does require something of us.
One other thought worth noting: We Latter-day Saints could probably be described as universalists, even though we do believe that there is a possibility that a very few individuals have or will committed the unforgiveable sin. I am quite sure that there has never been an official LDS statement as to what percentage of humanity will ultimately be saved (i.e. saved from Hell, so to speak), but from everything I've read and heard taught, my understanding is that it will be well over 99.99%. How could we possibly believe in a works-based salvation when we believe that most of the wickedest, most depraved people who have ever lived will ultimately be saved? They certainly didn't "work their way into Heaven." They were saved 100% by the grace of Jesus Christ.
I'm not sure if the focus of your question is how Joseph Smith could have seen God since John 1:18 says no one has ever done so, or if it is more a question of how Joseph could have seen two beings (the Father and the Son) at the same time. If it is the latter, this could be explained by virtue of the fact that we believe the Father and the Son to be physically distinct from one another and not just part of a single substance.
Although that is true, it is being able to see the Father while in this corruptible flesh that is the question.
Although there are references to God appearing in the OT, that appearing can come in different ways: like the burning bush scenario. In any of these OT appearings, no man can actually look upon God Himself lest they be stricken dead in the Presence of the Holy God as a reaction to our sinful flesh.
So when vague references are given about God appearing unto an individual, I am sure it is in increment so as to avoid them of actually looking upon God Himself.
Exodus 3:4And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.6Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
Even God took steps so that HE can "appear" unto men as men knew what would happen if they looked upon the Holy God.
Deuteronomy 5:24And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
There are verses about the fear in looking upon God and they would die as of result but I cannot find it at the moment. I believe it involved a married couple in the OT, but I cannot recall the verses at this time.
The point here is: I can see how Jesus can appear as being formerly among us and serving as Our Mediator, but while we are still in this imperfect flesh, I would say that man is still at risk of perishing for looking upon the Holy God the Father. So that is one reason why I doubt the validity of Joseph Smith's initial encounter.
You already know why I seriously doubt the other encounter with the angel and references to the golden tablet since in Galatians, we were warned of this and yet it looked to me that Joseph Smith did not heed that warning. If nothing different has been added to the Gospel, then what need of this extra writings then? But if there is a difference, then how can Joseph Smith not take heed to the warning given in Galatians?
I think Mormonism is being revised to be less offensive and rewrite history so as to make Joseph Smith appear in a better light than a polygamist. I went to one Mormon site and they actually made it as though Joseph Smith never had plural wives himself even though "he translated" the doctrine from the golden tablets but he and one another had never practised it...which I find that hard to believe.
I thank you for sharing what you believe: however, personally, I seek not to be known by a denomenation nor any of her teachings, since we are all children of God by faith in Jesus Christ. I believe God will burn away all the extras so that no one will glory in men, but give glory where glory is dued.
I am hoping that Jesus will have pruned away everything that offends and bears false witness in me as I trust in Him that the truth shall not depart from my mouth. Since the Gospel is about Jesus Christ, I would rather avoid all labels and be identified by my faith in Christ Jesus to be witness of the Son in seeking His glory and not serving something else in His name in seeking that other glory which seeks to share in the spotlight with the glory that is Christ Jesus alone.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing, but I'd rather stick with the simplicity of the Gospel of which I have heard in the beginning.
Although that is true, it is being able to see the Father while in this corruptible flesh that is the question.
I suppose my answer to that would be that if God had a reason to show Himself to someone, He would make it possible for that person to see Him and live. Obviously, under normal circumstances, it would not be possible.
Quote:
Although there are references to God appearing in the OT, that appearing can come in different ways: like the burning bush scenario. In any of these OT appearings, no man can actually look upon God Himself lest they be stricken dead in the Presence of the Holy God as a reaction to our sinful flesh.
But the scriptures don't say that God appeared to be a burning bush. They say that His voice was heard coming from the bush. At any rate, it does seem to me that this has happened before, as recounted in the following verses:
Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
Exodus 33:22-23 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee withmy hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
Quote:
The point here is: I can see how Jesus can appear as being formerly among us and serving as Our Mediator, but while we are still in this imperfect flesh, I would say that man is still at risk of perishing for looking upon the Holy God the Father. So that is one reason why I doubt the validity of Joseph Smith's initial encounter.
Well, to begin with, I believe the Godhead is comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I don't believe the Father is the same individual as the Holy Ghost. You apparently do.
Quote:
You already know why I seriously doubt the other encounter with the angel and references to the golden tablet since in Galatians, we were warned of this and yet it looked to me that Joseph Smith did not heed that warning.
I think you and I would both agree that the real area of disagreement is simply whether or not Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said the Father and the Son appeared to him. Whether you believe me or not, I honestly do understand how that would be a hard thing to swallow. The bottom line is that what he said happened either did or it didn't. There is no other possibility. For someone who doesn't believe it did, there is no reason to believe any of the events which followed.
Starting when he was just fourteen years of age until he was martyred at the age of thirty-eight, Joseph was persecuted by thousands of people who didn't even know him. But consider these paragraphs from his history:
"It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.
However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, tht I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him untildeath, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.
So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for say saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a cision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation."
Think of it, if you can, from a hypothetical perspective. If you had really seen a vision, if the Father and the Son had appeared to you, had called you by name and had told you what you must do, would you take the warning in Galatians any more seriously than Joseph Smith did?
Quote:
If nothing different has been added to the Gospel, then what need of this extra writings then? But if there is a difference, then how can Joseph Smith not take heed to the warning given in Galatians?
I don't know how much of this long, long thread you have actually read, but I did say something to one poster that I will repeat now. One of the core beliefs of Mormonism is that Jesus Christ established a Church, that men changed it and that He has re-established it today. Doctrines definitely have been added to the gospel traditional Christianity has today, but we do not believe the traditional Christian gospel contains all of the doctrines that were part of it in Paul's day. So it is our belief that Joseph Smith neither added to nor changed the gospel as it existed in 34 A.D. That is why we don't believe the warning in Galatians applies to him. We believe He added what had been lost over the years and what Jesus Christ revealed to Him should have been part of the gospel for nearly 1800 years but wasn't.
Quote:
I think Mormonism is being revised to be less offensive and rewrite history so as to make Joseph Smith appear in a better light than a polygamist. I went to one Mormon site and they actually made it as though Joseph Smith never had plural wives himself even though "he translated" the doctrine from the golden tablets but he and one another had never practised it...which I find that hard to believe.
I personally don't see Mormonism as "offensive." I see it as positively beautiful! We haven't "revised" anything and we haven't re-written history. If you would ever like to read an excellent biography on Joseph Smith, I have a recommendation for you. The book is written by Richard L. Bushman, professor emeritus of history at Columbia University. I can tell you unequivocably that he doesn't whitewash anything. You say we want to make Joseph appear in a better light than a polygamist. Very possibly, you feel as if there is nothing much worse than a polygamist. Do you feel the same way about Father Abraham? With regards to the Mormon site you visited. Keep in mind that not every Mormon site is going to be as reliable as the next. I could start a website and, as a Mormon, say pretty much anything I wanted you to hear, omitting anything I would prefer that you not know. If you would like to know the "official" position of the church, I would suggest either www.lds.org (which is primarily for members of the Church) or www.mormon.org (which is primarily for non-members). Trust me, if someone were to tell me that Joseph Smith really wasn't a polygamist, I wouldn't believe it either. It's ridiculous for anyone to say that.
Quote:
I thank you for sharing what you believe: however, personally, I seek not to be known by a denomenation nor any of her teachings, since we are all children of God by faith in Jesus Christ. I believe God will burn away all the extras so that no one will glory in men, but give glory where glory is dued.
I am hoping that Jesus will have pruned away everything that offends and bears false witness in me as I trust in Him that the truth shall not depart from my mouth. Since the Gospel is about Jesus Christ, I would rather avoid all labels and be identified by my faith in Christ Jesus to be witness of the Son in seeking His glory and not serving something else in His name in seeking that other glory which seeks to share in the spotlight with the glory that is Christ Jesus alone.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing, but I'd rather stick with the simplicity of the Gospel of which I have heard in the beginning.
And thank you for remaining civil and courteous in expressing your opinion. I appreciate it.
I suppose my answer to that would be that if God had a reason to show Himself to someone, He would make it possible for that person to see Him and live. Obviously, under normal circumstances, it would not be possible.
But the scriptures don't say that God appeared to be a burning bush. They say that His voice was heard coming from the bush. At any rate, it does seem to me that this has happened before, as recounted in the following verses:
Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
Exodus 33:22-23 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee withmy hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
Jacobs' admission was proof that God had to support him in order for him to see God face to face.
Well, I have learned something last night while reading the Book of Acts. It involved the martyrdom of Stephen:
Acts 7: 55But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
So with your verses above, I stand corrected that it is possible for someone down here to see God face to face...by His support.
Quote:
Well, to begin with, I believe the Godhead is comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I don't believe the Father is the same individual as the Holy Ghost. You apparently do.
No. I do not believe the Father is the same individual as the Holy Ghost. They are One but seperate.
Quote:
I think you and I would both agree that the real area of disagreement is simply whether or not Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said the Father and the Son appeared to him. Whether you believe me or not, I honestly do understand how that would be a hard thing to swallow. The bottom line is that what he said happened either did or it didn't. There is no other possibility. For someone who doesn't believe it did, there is no reason to believe any of the events which followed.
Starting when he was just fourteen years of age until he was martyred at the age of thirty-eight, Joseph was persecuted by thousands of people who didn't even know him. But consider these paragraphs from his history:
"It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.
However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, tht I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him untildeath, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.
So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for say saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a cision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation."
Think of it, if you can, from a hypothetical perspective. If you had really seen a vision, if the Father and the Son had appeared to you, had called you by name and had told you what you must do, would you take the warning in Galatians any more seriously than Joseph Smith did?
That is providing that Joseph Smith was telling the truth.
Quote:
I don't know how much of this long, long thread you have actually read, but I did say something to one poster that I will repeat now. One of the core beliefs of Mormonism is that Jesus Christ established a Church, that men changed it and that He has re-established it today. Doctrines definitely have been added to the gospel traditional Christianity has today, but we do not believe the traditional Christian gospel contains all of the doctrines that were part of it in Paul's day. So it is our belief that Joseph Smith neither added to nor changed the gospel as it existed in 34 A.D. That is why we don't believe the warning in Galatians applies to him. We believe He added what had been lost over the years and what Jesus Christ revealed to Him should have been part of the gospel for nearly 1800 years but wasn't.
I personally don't see Mormonism as "offensive." I see it as positively beautiful! We haven't "revised" anything and we haven't re-written history. If you would ever like to read an excellent biography on Joseph Smith, I have a recommendation for you. The book is written by Richard L. Bushman, professor emeritus of history at Columbia University. I can tell you unequivocably that he doesn't whitewash anything. You say we want to make Joseph appear in a better light than a polygamist. Very possibly, you feel as if there is nothing much worse than a polygamist. Do you feel the same way about Father Abraham? With regards to the Mormon site you visited. Keep in mind that not every Mormon site is going to be as reliable as the next. I could start a website and, as a Mormon, say pretty much anything I wanted you to hear, omitting anything I would prefer that you not know. If you would like to know the "official" position of the church, I would suggest either www.lds.org (which is primarily for members of the Church) or www.mormon.org (which is primarily for non-members). Trust me, if someone were to tell me that Joseph Smith really wasn't a polygamist, I wouldn't believe it either. It's ridiculous for anyone to say that.
And thank you for remaining civil and courteous in expressing your opinion. I appreciate it.
I believe the offensive part is the reason for the polygamy and that was on a works based salvation teaching. The idea that there will be marriages in Heaven also is a counter to what the original gospel is. This is what I believe mormonism was in the beginning, and has since that time, been revised. You may see nothing wrong with Joseph Smith in being a polygamist, but this is deviating from what Jesus taught and what Paul taught in regards to marriage. For Joseph Smith to "reinstate" what is contrary to what Jesus and Paul taught is definitive error at best. It does not matter if the works base reason for polygamy was dropped: the fact that it was translated from the golden tablet also proves it is not of God.
Any Christian should try to understand and believe true doctrine, while rejecting all that disagrees with the Word of God. Christians should evaluate the beliefs and practises of a church carefully by the standard of God's words. Then they should associate with and support the one that meets the New Testament standards, and yet always evaluating the things that are being taught in the church by the standard of the Word of God to keep apostasy out. If a church never has a history of keeping out apostasy, then something has to be wrong because the devil is always trying to get his foot in the door. If a church does not correct error or point out the error of a movement in these latter days, then I hardly call that a church as equipping the saints for the war against principality.
Ephesians 6:11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Ephesians 4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till 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: 14That 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;
So this is what I mean about an active church keeping out apostasy by equipping the saints with the information and scriptures they need to keep them from following after errors.
The whole polygamy teaching should be circumspectual to you enough to cause doubts about Mormonism as a whole, but since you do not believe in a works base salvation, and that you have accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour with salvation being a free gift without works: then there is hope for you that you are ready to go when the Bridegroom comes for the bride. I am sure God is able to call some out of denomenational teachings to rest in the simplicity of the Gospel in spite of the questionable errors of any church, but I would think that the believer would rather be associated more with Jesus and His teachings to be identified by faith in Him rather than be identified by a denomenation.
But thank you for your time and service in explaining Mormonism as you see it now.
Does Mormonism claim that Jesus didn't know it all or teach it all, so here's what Jesus and His Church didn't teach you?
Absolutely not! One of the basic tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is this:
(1) Jesus Christ actually established His Church as part of His ministry here on earth. (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians will agree with us on this point, as will some Protestants.)
(2) Over the years, men changed its doctrines and organization. (Virtually all Protestants will agree with us on this point; otherwise, they would probably be Roman Catholics.)
(3) Jesus Christ has re-established His Church today. He did so through a prophet He personally chose.
We believe that Jesus Christ was omnipotent. In other words, there was nothing He didn't know. He taught His disciples everything they needed to know in order to return to the presence of our Father in Heaven someday. Unfortunately, after the deaths of the Apostles, there was no one left who held the authority He had given them. Revelation from Heaven ceased and men were left to their own devices. As Paul declared (in Ephesians 4) would happen without the original organization in place, Christ's followers would be "tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine." There was no one to correctly interpret the words of the past prophets and apostles. Gradually, the purity and simplicity of the gospel Christ taught was lost. Errors crept in to His teachings, and some of what He'd taught was lost altogether. In the Bibles Christians use today, various writings are mentioned by name but cannot be found anywhere within its pages. Quite a number of books and epistles are missing. Since the writers of the scriptures refer to them, it is clear that they were, at the time of their writing, considered authoritative.
If the Apostles and Prophets Jesus chose and ordained to direct the affairs of the institutional Church in His absense (i.e. after He had ascended into Heaven) had not been martyred, if men had not changed the doctrines he taught, and if all of what He'd taught had been recorded, correctly transcribed and translated, the apostasy predicted by Paul would have never taken place. There would have been no need for the re-establishment of Christ's Church. Clearly, none of this was Christ's fault. He cannot be blamed for "not knowing it all or not teaching it all."
Does Mormonism claim that Jesus didn't know it all or teach it all, so here's what Jesus and His Church didn't teach you?
Absolutely not! One of the basic tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is this:
(1) Jesus Christ actually established His Church as part of His ministry here on earth. (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians will agree with us on this point, as will some Protestants.)
(2) Over the years, men changed its doctrines and organization. (Virtually all Protestants will agree with us on this point; otherwise, they would probably be Roman Catholics.)
(3) Jesus Christ has re-established His Church today. He did so through a prophet He personally chose.
We believe that Jesus Christ was omnipotent. In other words, there was nothing He didn't know. He taught His disciples everything they needed to know in order to return to the presence of our Father in Heaven someday. Unfortunately, after the deaths of the Apostles, there was no one left who held the authority He had given them. Revelation from Heaven ceased and men were left to their own devices. As Paul declared (in Ephesians 4) would happen without the original organization in place, Christ's followers would be "tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine." There was no one to correctly interpret the words of the past prophets and apostles. Gradually, the purity and simplicity of the gospel Christ taught was lost. Errors crept in to His teachings, and some of what He'd taught was lost altogether. In the Bibles Christians use today, various writings are mentioned by name but cannot be found anywhere within its pages. Quite a number of books and epistles are missing. Since the writers of the scriptures refer to them, it is clear that they were, at the time of their writing, considered authoritative.
If the Apostles and Prophets Jesus chose and ordained to direct the affairs of the institutional Church in His absense (i.e. after He had ascended into Heaven) had not been martyred, if men had not changed the doctrines he taught, and if all of what He'd taught had been recorded, correctly transcribed and translated, the apostasy predicted by Paul would have never taken place. There would have been no need for the re-establishment of Christ's Church. Clearly, none of this was Christ's fault. He cannot be blamed for "not knowing it all or not teaching it all."
Well, if the Mormons didn't add on to what Jesus taught, what's preexistence, or folks dying and becoming gods on other planets, or doctrinal racism for that matter? You can say Mormonism is the reestablishment of the Church but that would leave God and Jesus impotent. Jesus starts a Church and then it fades quickly only to be reestablished by a man over 1800 years later? I don't think so. Since I agree that God and Jesus is omnipotent, Mormonism which ACTUALLY began in the 1800's can only false.
Was Mormonism founded for the benefit of white men who wanted to become gods themselves and lay with every woman they desired legally by marrying them?
Of course it wasn't. There was never a time in the Church's history when people of African descent were not welcome as members. There was never a time in the Church's history when we had segregated congregations. As a matter of fact, Mormons were driven from their homes and out of what was then the United States for a large part because they tended to vote as a block and strongly opposed slavery. Yes, there was a fairly lengthy period of time when Black men were unable to hold the Priesthood. But Joseph Smith personally ordained Black men to the Priesthood. One Black man was even a Seventy (a leadership position within the Church). The ban did not begin until Brigham Young was the President of the Church, meaning that it could not conceivably have been founded with racial discrimination in mind.
With respect to men (white or otherwise) wanting to become gods is concerned, the doctrine of Eternal Progression did not originate with the Mormon Church. I discussed this extensively in post #9 of this thread.
With respect to men wanting to lay with every woman they legally desired, I have covered the topic of plural marriage extensively in posts #6 and #14 of this thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
