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.
Hilgi, this one's for you... (I hope you don't mind that I changed your wording slightly.)
What would happen is an LDS prophet chose to drastically change the Church's doctrines?
In order to understand why this is a virtual impossibility, it's necessary to have a basic grasp of how LDS doctrine is defined in the first place. First of all, almost all of our essential doctrines were revealed through Joseph Smith. Brigham Young, Joseph's successor, received a few additional revelations as have a couple of more recent of our prophets. It's not as if this is something that happens frequently. It is a core doctrine of our Church that God will always reveal His will for His people through one individual -- the man who holds the authority to speak on His behalf, the President of the Church (also known to the membership of the Church as the "Prophet, Seer and Revelator"). If God were to want to reveal something new to the Church today, He would do so through President Thomas S. Monson. Having received a revelation, President Monson would meet with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the individuals we believe hold exactly the same roles as did Christ's Apostles anciently and with his two counselors. These men are also collectively believed to be "prophets, seers and revelators." Keep in mind, though, that none of them individually have been given the same authority held by "the Prophet, President Monson." They function as a unified body and cannot individually define Church doctrine.
At any rate, having gathered the Twelve together (probably in a private room of the Salt Lake Temple), President Monson would tell them that God had spoken to him and have given him a new directive for the membership of the Church. In order for that directive to become new doctrine, all twelve of the men in the Quorum would have to agree that it was a revelation that had come from the mouth of God, and not merely from the mind of President Monson. They would all pray to God, asking Him to confirm through the witness of the Holy Ghost that God had, in fact, spoken to President Monson and that what President Monson had said was, indeed, His will. They would likely pray both individually and collectively, and would probably fast in conjunction with their prayers. The decision to announce this new doctrine to the membership of the Church would be made carefully, after thought and prayer. Once all twelve had concurred that God had spoken to President Monson and that the revelation was as he had understood it, it would be announced to the general membership of the Church and be declared doctrine. So, you see, fifteen individuals (the President of the Church, his counselors, and the twelve Apostles) would all have to agree that the doctrine should be changed, in order for it to happen. Even though the initial revelation is always received by the Prophet, he cannot, independently of the Apostles, define doctrine for the Church.
What view does Mormonism have towards the holy bible since there is also a Mormon bible?
The book many non-Mormons refer to as the "Mormon Bible" is really not a Bible at all, but a companion to the Bible known as The Book of Mormon. I discussed The Book of Mormon in post number 7, so I won't repeat myself now. Instead, I'll stick solely to our view of the Holy Bible.
We use the King James Version of the Holy Bible. It has been described in various ways by our leaders, during the 180-year history of the Church. Without the Bible, Joseph Smith would never have been led to pray to God, asking which Church to join. Obviously, for us, if it led to the foundation of what we believe to be the re-establishment of Christ's original Church, it is held in high regard.
One statement, which I have heard repeated many times during my lifetime, is this one: "We accept the Bible "as the foremost of [the Church's] standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as…written guides in faith and doctrine. In the respect and sanctity with which the Latter-day Saints regard the Bible they are of like profession with Christian denominations in general."
It is because we also believe The Book of Mormon to be the word of God that our critics assume we hold the Bible to be less important than is the case. We are occasionally asked which book trumps the other. To us, that's like asking whether Matthew trumps Luke, or whether John trumps Mark. Since we believe both books to come from the same source (i.e. God), neither one trumps the other. The Book of Mormon does teach some things that the Bible does not, but it does not in any way contradict the Bible. There are doctrines on which the Bible is silent. There are others on which the Bible raises more questions than it answers. (ET versus UR, anyone?) The Book of Mormon clarifies many of the doctrines the Bible alludes to but on which it never makes a definitive statement. I have never found myself in a position where I've had to decide which book is right and which is wrong.
Our critics also often find fault with the statement one of our Articles of Faith makes with respect to the Bible. That statement begins, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." As far as it is translated correctly?!? Why the disclaimer, they wonder. What, after all, is the alternative? Should we believe it when it's translated incorrectly? Or when a careless transcriber left out a couple of ultimately important words? We do not believe that the Bible is inerrant. We do believe that the original message, as revealed by God to His servants in ancient times was perfect. But we are not so naive as to assume that, when not one single original biblical document exists today, the original writings have been preserved 100% free from human error.
All members of the LDS Church -- not just children -- attend Sunday School classes each week. Every year we study a different book of scripture. We study the Old Testament one year, followed the next year by the New Testament, the next by The Book of Mormon and the last by The Doctrine and Covenants (which is a book of modern revelation given to us when God spoke to his prophets beginning with Joseph Smith). We then start over. So you see, we spend as much time studying the Bible as we do studying the uniquely LDS scriptures. And when we study the Bible, we study it to learn of God, not to find fault with it, to try to figure out possible translation errors, or to find some way in which it is inferior to The Book of Mormon. We love and revere the Bible. As one of our living Apostles recently said, "[The Bible] is holy because it teaches truth, holy because it warms us with its spirit, holy because it teaches us to know God and understand His dealings with men, and holy because it testifies throughout its pages of the Lord Jesus Christ.
What view does Mormonism have towards the holy bible since there is also a Mormon bible?
The book many non-Mormons refer to as the "Mormon Bible" is really not a Bible at all, but a companion to the Bible known as The Book of Mormon. I discussed The Book of Mormon in post number 7, so I won't repeat myself now. Instead, I'll stick solely to our view of the Holy Bible.
We use the King James Version of the Holy Bible. It has been described in various ways by our leaders, during the 180-year history of the Church. Without the Bible, Joseph Smith would never have been led to pray to God, asking which Church to join. Obviously, for us, if it led to the foundation of what we believe to be the re-establishment of Christ's original Church, it is held in high regard.
One statement, which I have heard repeated many times during my lifetime, is this one: "We accept the Bible "as the foremost of [the Church's] standard works, first among the books which have been proclaimed as…written guides in faith and doctrine. In the respect and sanctity with which the Latter-day Saints regard the Bible they are of like profession with Christian denominations in general."
It is because we also believe The Book of Mormon to be the word of God that our critics assume we hold the Bible to be less important than is the case. We are occasionally asked which book trumps the other. To us, that's like asking whether Matthew trumps Luke, or whether John trumps Mark. Since we believe both books to come from the same source (i.e. God), neither one trumps the other. The Book of Mormon does teach some things that the Bible does not, but it does not in any way contradict the Bible. There are doctrines on which the Bible is silent. There are others on which the Bible raises more questions than it answers. (ET versus UR, anyone?) The Book of Mormon clarifies many of the doctrines the Bible alludes to but on which it never makes a definitive statement. I have never found myself in a position where I've had to decide which book is right and which is wrong.
Our critics also often find fault with the statement one of our Articles of Faith makes with respect to the Bible. That statement begins, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." As far as it is translated correctly?!? Why the disclaimer, they wonder. What, after all, is the alternative? Should we believe it when it's translated incorrectly? Or when a careless transcriber left out a couple of ultimately important words? We do not believe that the Bible is inerrant. We do believe that the original message, as revealed by God to His servants in ancient times was perfect. But we are not so naive as to assume that, when not one single original biblical document exists today, the original writings have been preserved 100% free from human error.
All members of the LDS Church -- not just children -- attend Sunday School classes each week. Every year we study a different book of scripture. We study the Old Testament one year, followed the next year by the New Testament, the next by The Book of Mormon and the last by The Doctrine and Covenants (which is a book of modern revelation given to us when God spoke to his prophets beginning with Joseph Smith). We then start over. So you see, we spend as much time studying the Bible as we do studying the uniquely LDS scriptures. And when we study the Bible, we study it to learn of God, not to find fault with it, to try to figure out possible translation errors, or to find some way in which it is inferior to The Book of Mormon. We love and revere the Bible. As one of our living Apostles recently said, "[The Bible] is holy because it teaches truth, holy because it warms us with its spirit, holy because it teaches us to know God and understand His dealings with men, and holy because it testifies throughout its pages of the Lord Jesus Christ.
LDS.org says the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth.
What about the scripture in Revelation that says not to add to or take away from the Bible?
Revelation 22:18-19
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Several individuals have responded to the question already. It appears that, in this case, Mormons and non-Mormons agree that "this book" as described in Revelation is referring to the book of Revelation as opposed to the Bible as a whole, since the Bible did not exist at the time John received Revelation.
Just to play the devil's advocate, though... Suppose God had had the entire Bible in mind when He warned that "if anyone adds anything to... this book." God was speaking to human beings, men who might, had it suited their purposes, chose to add uninspired writings to the Bible. God was not referring to Himself. That much should be clear to anyone. He was certainly not saying, "I warn everyone that if I should, at some future date, choose to speak to you again, you are not to listen to me." God has never said He was through talking to His prophets. We need Him now more than ever in human history.
I read an analogy once that I thought was very appropos in explaining our belief in the need for continued revelation from God. Suppose you found yourself preparing for battle with a very formidable enemy. Given the choice between (1) access to an enormous library of books on military strategy or (2) this library plus the personal help of a brilliant General, who knows and understands the enemy's tactics and whose insights can be an invaluable aid in helping you conquer him -- which would you choose? Well, we are in such a battle. The enemy is formidable and very, very real. We have a book on how to fight him. But, we also have, if we choose to listen to him, a leader who can help us interpret the book correctly and add counsel to that which the book tells us.
Honestly, it's a label. I am quite sure that as a word devised by men, it means nothing at all to God. People can say we're polythestic. That wouldn't particularly bother me except that their motive in doing so is generally to scare prospective converts away. (I guess all's fair in love and war, huh?) The people love so much to apply the label of "polytheistic" to Mormonism is that it clearly demeans our doctrine. If you can convince people that we worship three different deities in the same way the ancient Greeks worshipped Zeus, Poseidon, Hermes, Apollo and others, I guess that in your own mind, you've scored a few points, even if is is by misrepresenation. Polytheism, to most people, invokes images of competing gods who are constantly striving for one-upmanship. One is temporarily allied with another against a third to accomplish something he could not do on his own. But then there is a disagreement and allegiances change. They trick each other, lie to one another, try to usurp one another's power. There is no real unity between them. And mankind finds itself in the middle of the mess, trying to please one god without offending another.
This is not in any way, shape or form characteristic of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. So, there are three. If that makes us polytheistic in the eyes of the world, so be it. It does not make us polytheistic in God's eyes. As a matter of fact, ask any Muslim whether Trinitarians are polytheistic and he'll answer without hesitation: "Absolutely!"
With respect to other "gods," the word is mentioned nearly 300 times in the Bible. Odd, I'd say, if there aren't some kind of beings existing somewhere to whom that title is applied.
The Apostle Paul mentioned these other gods when he explained the Christian belief in one God and one Lord. As he said, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
That is exactly what we believe. Exactly. And various passages of scripture back us up.
"Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." (Exodus 8:11)
"For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward…" (Deuteronomy 10:17)
"O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever." (Psalms 136:2)
God is a great God. The use of the word "a" indicates the existance of gods to whom our God can be compared. Wait! Don't tell me! These other "gods" are "false gods," right? So God is the "God of false gods"? Mormons certainly don't believe so. Of course we "acknowledge the existance of other gods." So does the Bible. We don't worship them, though, pray to them, or consider them to have any influence in our lives whatsoever. As a matter of fact, we have no idea who they may be. We simply believe that they exist because the Bible tells us they do. That leaves us in a strong position scripturally.
Okay, new question: Are there sins for which the blood of Christ cannot atone?
The only sin for which the blood of Christ cannot (perhaps a better word word be "will not") atone is the unforgiveable sin, which is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. The LDS understanding of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" is "willfully denying Christ after having received a perfect knowledge of Him from the Holy Ghost." The key word here is "perfect." Very few human beings have ever lived who have had a perfect knowledge of Christ. My own feeling is that the Apostle Peter may have had such knowledge. Had he denied Christ after having received this perfect knowledge, he would have been guilty of this sin. Of course, he didn't.
Do Mormons believe that God the Father is either the Archangel Michael or Adam?
No, we do not. We do, however, believe that the man, Adam, was the same individual who was known during his pre-mortal existance as Michael, the archangel who fought against Lucifer and his angels.
Don't Mormons believe that Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs?
Former LDS prophet, Spencer W. Kimball said, "The story of the rib, of course, is figurative." One of our Apostles, M. Russell Ballard clarified that "...the rib, coming as it does from the side, seems to denote partnership. The rib signifies neither dominion nor subservience, but a lateral relationship as partners, to work and to live, side by side. presume another bone could have been used, but the rib, coming as it does from the side, seems to denote partnership. The rib signifies neither dominion nor subservience, but a lateral relationship as partners, to work and to live, side by side."
Don't Mormons believe that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost?
No, we don't. We believe that He was begotten by the Father. God the Father refers to Jesus Christ as His Only Begotten Son. The Holy Ghost does not refer to the Savior as His Only Begotten. In Luke 1:35, we read the Angel Gabriel's answer to Mary when she asks how she can possibly be the mother of the Lord when she has never been intimate with a man. He says, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." This scripture makes it clear that the Holy Ghost would have a role in Christ's conception, but the individual known as "the Highest" is God the Father. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, not the Son of the Holy Ghost.
Are Mormons aware that Joseph Smith was a con-man who a few years before he founded the Mormon Church was tried and convicted regarding a gold-digging scheme?
A gold digging scheme? Well, we are aware that money digging was a popular pastime in Joseph Smith's day, and that it was certainly not illegal. As a matter of fact, the Palmyra Herald (the newspaper in the town where Joseph lived) said, "Digging for money hid in the earth is a very common thing and in this state it is even considered as honorable and profitable employment. One gentleman...digging...ten to twelve years, found a sufficient quantity of money to build him a commodious house. Another...dug up...fifty thousand dollars!"
In a biography of Joseph Smith, Richard Bushman, Columbia University Professor of History, explained, "Given the financial difficulties under which the Smith family labored, it would hardly be surprising that they might hope for such a reversal in their fortunes! Richard Bushman has compared the Smith's attitude toward treasure digging with a modern attitudes toward gambling, or buying a lottery ticket. Bushman points out that looking for treasure had little stigma attached to it among all classes in the 17th century, and continued to be respectable among the lower classes into the 18th and 19th."
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.
God has never said He was through talking to His prophets. We need Him now more than ever in human history. 