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,
I came across this thread yesterday, and found it so informative that I finished reading the remainder of the 15 pages this morning. Since I will turn 80 in 3 more months, I am semi-retired and had time to do all that reading.
You're almost 80 and semi-retired? Man, it is time to start relaxing! I just turned 62 and am going to be fully-retired in 11 more working days!
Quote:
I admit that I have more respect for Mormons than I do for Protestants who claim that if you once profess to believe in Jesus as the Son of God, you are eternally secure even if you live a life of overt disobedience to the teachings of Christ.
That's good to hear. I've got to admit that I simply cannot understand the opposite position. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
Quote:
You are aware that I completely disagree with Mormon doctrines which say that disbelievers in Christ will have multiple times to change their minds after death, and that eventually almost all humans will go to heaven. Heb. 9:27 says, "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Jesus said, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able" (Matt. 13:24.)
Let's talk about this. I'm sure you would agree that non-believers have multiple chances to change their minds during their lifetime and that if someone fails to embrace Christ's gospel at age 20 but has a change of heart at age 50, God isn't going to say, "Too bad. You had your chance."
You believe, as I do, that God knows each and every one of us. There are many who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ during their lifetimes. They may have lived at a time and place where Christianity did not yet exist. They may have lived where the only thing they ever heard about Christianity was lies. They may have lived where Christianity may have existed but they simply were not exposed to it. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe these individuals deserve at least one chance, one fair shot to hear, really understand and accept the gospel. As you may have learned from other posts in this thread, we believe that the gospel continues to be taught today in the spirit world. Just as people grow in the capacity to understand and accept new concepts throughout their lifetimes, this same capacity exists after they die. Of course, people don't really change all that much. The person who was stubborn, rebellious, and hard-hearted during his lifetime is probably going to have those same qualities after he dies, making him as unlikely as he ever was to recognize the truth when he hears it. On the other hand, the sincere in heart may just deserve another chance. None of us can say why some people just don't seem to be able to accept what is so obvious to us. But God knows each heart. He wants to see as many of us return to Him as possible. I believe that just as He is willing to be patient with us as we learn to overcome our shortcomings and as we repent over and over again for making the same foolish mistakes, I believe that He is willing to give us more than one opportunity to come to have faith in His Son.
Quote:
By the way, I agree with those who say you are a nice person. I truly believe you have been as civil as possible in presenting the Mormon teachings'.
Thank you, Bob. I do try, and believe me, I get a ton of practice!
What do Mormons teach will happen to those who die outside the church when Christ comes back to the earth, and the dead in Christ shall rise, and the living believers are instantly changed from corruptible to incorruptible and caught up to meet the Lord in the air at the beginning of the Millenium?
We probably believe pretty much as you do in terms of what happens to the living. We believe that the righteous (LDS or otherwise) who are alive at the Second Coming will be instantly changed (i.e. will not have to experience death) and will be admitted into Heaven. We believe that the dead who did not hear the gospel during their lifetimes will have all had the opportunity to hear it in the Spirit World by then. Those among them who are righteous will be resurrected and admitted to Heaven at that time. The unrepentant wicked who would not accept Jesus Christ will be made to suffer for the duration of the thousand year Millennium and, having paid the price for their own sins, will then be admitted to heaven. Keep in mind that we do believe in a Heaven comprised of three different degrees of glory, to which people will go, depending upon the way they lived and their obedience to the principles of the gospel.
How do celestial marriage, plural marriage, blood atonement, God once being a man that lived on another planet, and a heavy reliance on feelings, especially when hearing contrary beliefs, have anything to do with Jesus and the original church?
3. Blood atonement: This has never been an official doctrine of the Church, nor has it even really been aluded to in LDS circles in well over a hundred years. Here's some background... Brigham Young and a few other LDS leaders taught, back in the 1850's, that apostasy from the Church could be forgiven only if the person willingly gave up his one life to atone for that sin. In actual practice, there is no evidence that this ever happened to anyone. As far back as 1889 (that's 111 years ago, the First Presidency of the Church issued an official declation to clear up the matter once and for all. It read, in part:
Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course has never been established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now live in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly opposed to the Mormon faith and people. Even those who made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day, without receiving the slightest personal injury.
We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.
I will tackle these in parts also. :-)
It sounds pretty clear to me in the JoD starting page 215 Volume 4 | Journal of Discourses (http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-04/ - broken link)
"All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness, never. He never intended any such thing; his language is left as it is for those to read who have the Spirit to discern between truth and error; it was so left for those who can discern the things of God. Jesus Christ never meant that we should love a wicked man in his wickedness."
" I could refer you to plenty of instances where men, have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them."
It is just hard for me to look past things that are susposed to come from a profit of God.
It sounds pretty clear to me in the JoD starting page 215 Volume 4 | Journal of Discourses (http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-04/ - broken link)
So you're already up to Volume 4, huh? Good going! You're way ahead of me!
Quote:
It is just hard for me to look past things that are susposed to come from a profit of God.
God has no profits, only prophets.
The Journal of Discourses is a collection of sermons given primarily by Brigham Young during his nearly 30 years as Church President. I know it's awfully tempting to consider everything he ever said to be LDS doctrine, especially the things that seem to reflect badly on the Church, and particularly since he was the Prophet, but he actually did teach some things that were not correct. It's unfortunate that people who want to learn about LDS doctrine spend so much time reading excerpts from the Journal of Discourses. I'm not saying that the Journal of Discourses is not worthwhile reading material, but I am saying that when reading it, you need to be aware that Brigham Young was a fallible human being who had opinions of his own on a great many matters, as have all of our Church presidents. I'm sure that if you could read every sermon ever taught by Martin Luther, John Calvin or John Wycliffe, you'd probably find a number of "doctrines" that are not taught in Protestant Churches today. For some reason, Mormon prophets seem to be held to an entirely different standard, though. Maybe that's because they are considered to be "prophets" who are supposed to be speaking for God.
You may have missed this earlier post, in which I explained how LDS doctrine is defined. I'll post it again, rather than directing you to that post.
Virtually every religion has a means of distinguishing the individual beliefs of its members from the official doctrines of the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no exception. In attempting to understand LDS beliefs, it is important to keep this in mind.
The LDS canon is comprised of four books which we consider to be scripture: The Holy Bible (KJV), The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. If you can find a teaching in one of these four books, it's a safe bet you're talking doctrine. We refer to these four volumes of scripture as "the Standard Works" for the simple reason that they are the "standard" by which all other teachings must be measured.
There is one exception to this rule of thumb. We believe that Christ's Church is led today by living prophets, through whom God speaks to His children. Prophets receive revelation directly from God. Whenever a revelation is doctrinal in nature, it is always presented to the general Church membership for a sustaining vote. It is given either through the First Presidency of the Church (the President and his two counselors) or through the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a single, united entity. Once the doctrine has been accepted by the members of the Church it becomes doctrine. At some point in time it will more than likely be added to The Doctrine and Covenants. This was the case, for instance, with the 1978 revelation granting the Priesthood to all male members of the Church.
In other words, any LDS General Authority (i.e. the governing body of the Church or the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve and the Seventy) speaking on his own and not on behalf of the entire body, may be thought of as presenting his own opinion or interpretation of doctrine. While we believe them to be inspired, they are human beings with opinions of their own. The Prophet Joseph Smith probably said it best when he stated, "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such." Nevertheless, we believe that these men have been called by God and are directed by the Spirit to teach what is good and true. For the most part, their advice to us is likely to benefit our lives.
In terms of how this all relates to Brigham Young's personal beliefs on blood atonement, you will not find anything in any of our Standard Works that teaches this "doctrine." Since that is the case, you can assume, as do we Mormons, that Brigham Young was wrong in what he thought about this particular subject.
There are a lot better ways to find out what Mormons believe than by reading the Journal of Discourses (which, of course, I know you aren't doing after all. )
So you're already up to Volume 4, huh? Good going! You're way ahead of me!
God has no profits, only prophets.
The Journal of Discourses is a collection of sermons given primarily by Brigham Young during his nearly 30 years as Church President. I know it's awfully tempting to consider everything he ever said to be LDS doctrine, especially the things that seem to reflect badly on the Church, and particularly since he was the Prophet, but he actually did teach some things that were not correct. It's unfortunate that people who want to learn about LDS doctrine spend so much time reading excerpts from the Journal of Discourses. I'm not saying that the Journal of Discourses is not worthwhile reading material, but I am saying that when reading it, you need to be aware that Brigham Young was a fallible human being who had opinions of his own on a great many matters, as have all of our Church presidents. I'm sure that if you could read every sermon ever taught by Martin Luther, John Calvin or John Wycliffe, you'd probably find a number of "doctrines" that are not taught in Protestant Churches today. For some reason, Mormon prophets seem to be held to an entirely different standard, though. Maybe that's because they are considered to be "prophets" who are supposed to be speaking for God.
You may have missed this earlier post, in which I explained how LDS doctrine is defined. I'll post it again, rather than directing you to that post.
Virtually every religion has a means of distinguishing the individual beliefs of its members from the official doctrines of the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no exception. In attempting to understand LDS beliefs, it is important to keep this in mind.
The LDS canon is comprised of four books which we consider to be scripture: The Holy Bible (KJV), The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. If you can find a teaching in one of these four books, it's a safe bet you're talking doctrine. We refer to these four volumes of scripture as "the Standard Works" for the simple reason that they are the "standard" by which all other teachings must be measured.
There is one exception to this rule of thumb. We believe that Christ's Church is led today by living prophets, through whom God speaks to His children. Prophets receive revelation directly from God. Whenever a revelation is doctrinal in nature, it is always presented to the general Church membership for a sustaining vote. It is given either through the First Presidency of the Church (the President and his two counselors) or through the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a single, united entity. Once the doctrine has been accepted by the members of the Church it becomes doctrine. At some point in time it will more than likely be added to The Doctrine and Covenants. This was the case, for instance, with the 1978 revelation granting the Priesthood to all male members of the Church.
In other words, any LDS General Authority (i.e. the governing body of the Church or the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve and the Seventy) speaking on his own and not on behalf of the entire body, may be thought of as presenting his own opinion or interpretation of doctrine. While we believe them to be inspired, they are human beings with opinions of their own. The Prophet Joseph Smith probably said it best when he stated, "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such." Nevertheless, we believe that these men have been called by God and are directed by the Spirit to teach what is good and true. For the most part, their advice to us is likely to benefit our lives.
In terms of how this all relates to Brigham Young's personal beliefs on blood atonement, you will not find anything in any of our Standard Works that teaches this "doctrine." Since that is the case, you can assume, as do we Mormons, that Brigham Young was wrong in what he thought about this particular subject.
There are a lot better ways to find out what Mormons believe than by reading the Journal of Discourses (which, of course, I know you aren't doing after all. )
I work with money, I got profit (or lack of) on the brain. :-)
The reason I think that the JoD and the sermons of the Prophets are important is because I also feel the preached word has always been important, especially in the early church. If a prophet of God starts preaching things that are so obviously opposite of what Jesus talked about, I just have problems seeing that person as a prophet.
This in turn makes me question all of the other differences in the faith.
How do celestial marriage, plural marriage, blood atonement, God once being a man that lived on another planet, and a heavy reliance on feelings, especially when hearing contrary beliefs, have anything to do with Jesus and the original church?
That's a lot to cover in a single post. I'm going to try to do so very briefly.
1. Celestial marriage - From the very beginning, it appears as if the relationship between a man and a woman was considered extremely important to God. Within the first few pages of Genesis, we read that He said, "It is not good that the man should be alone." Consequently, He gave Adam a partner. Marriage continued to be important throughout the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, we are reminded that "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." There is no specific mention in the Bible of celestial marriage (by which I'm assuming you mean "marriage for time and all eternity"), but we do believe it has always been God's intention that this bond be everlasting. Personally, it's one of my favorite LDS doctrines. I realize many people believe that they'll be with their spouses in the life to come, but they believe this in spite of what their church's teach. I believe it because of what my Church teaches and what we believe to have been revealed to Joseph Smith.
2. Plural marriage: I think I'm already said pretty much everything I can think of to say on this topic. I know the idea offends people greatly. Perhaps if they'd lived in a different time and place this wouldn't be the case. There is certainly nothing inately wrong with the practice, as long as it's done with God's permission.
I have no problem believing that we will be with our family in heaven but isn't it just a stepping stone to being a god or god-like?
I also have no problem with plural marriage, unless it involves force, coercion or children.
[SIZE=2]
[/SIZE]
The reason I think that the JoD and the sermons of the Prophets are important is because I also feel the preached word has always been important, especially in the early church. If a prophet of God starts preaching things that are so obviously opposite of what Jesus talked about, I just have problems seeing that person as a prophet.
Actually, unless Jesus actually had something to say on a particular topic, there would be no contradiction. But I am curious as to what, specifically, Brigham Young taught that was "so obviously opposite of what Jesus talked about." Any, you and I both know that you're not reading the Journal of Discourses, so why pretend you are?
I have no problem believing that we will be with our family in heaven but isn't it just a stepping stone to being a god or god-like?
And why is this a problem? Can you think of a better role model? After all, Jesus Christ did command us to be perfect, "even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect." Why would He have given us a commandment He wouldn't have wanted us to obey? And why wouldn't God want us to reach our full potential? At any rate, nobody could ever become like God unless God wanted it to be possible, so I guess I really don't understand why it's such a big deal.
Quote:
I also have no problem with plural marriage, unless it involves force, coercion or children.
Well, I'm with you on that. I don't think there are many rational people in this day and age who would approve of marriage (polygamous or monogamous) that involves force, coersion or children.
Actually, unless Jesus actually had something to say on a particular topic, there would be no contradiction. But I am curious as to what, specifically, Brigham Young taught that was "so obviously opposite of what Jesus talked about." Any, you and I both know that you're not reading the Journal of Discourses, so why pretend you are?
I just don't think spilling blood or killing is the fruit of the spirit (love).
I am not reading it no, never claimed to but I do read about things I am interested in. I read stuff from both sides, often I hear things that I don't believe are true so I look it up. Blood atonement was one such topic, in my reading about how and when polygamy ended (thanks Sister Wives TLC) I read about it and had to look it up.
I also read about the Reformation that came about during that same era, I am sure a lot of it was exaggerated but being such a closed society at that time I could see some of the very hard-core believers really do some damaging things.
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.
I'm sorry, but I really don't know the answer to this one, Phazelwood.
Man, it is time to start relaxing! I just turned 62 and am going to be fully-retired 
)