What do Mormons really believe? Let's discuss Mormonism!!! (praying, organization, witnesses)
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.
You are smart and have asked some insightful questions. I welcome other LDS in this forum to weigh in on this too.
Thank you for the compliment and for shedding more light on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimbabwe
It is important to remember that the Lord's mission is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man(kind). A wise man once noticed that among the ancient ruins which still stood most did so because they supported a weight. Likewise, good pastors know that involving the lay membership in positions of responsibility is good for the members and increases their faith and confidence in spiritual matters. That is what it is all about isn't it?
Yes, that is what it is all about. The Great Commission would have us make disciples of all men. This is one of the things that I really like about the church that I attend, they really strive to get everyone involved. No matter what your strengths are, there is some place within the church where you can use those gifts the Lord has given you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimbabwe
The Lord in a revelation to Joseph Smith explained why He called a prophet in these latter days. Among other reasons, He explained that He spake unto Joseph Smith and gave unto him commandments "that every man might speak in the name of God, the Lord, even the Savior of the world; That faith might also increase in the earth;" (D & C 1:20)
Except for the general authorities (a very small number) who of neccessity recieve a small living stipend, the LDS church has a lay ministry. Bishops in the church are men of God who work for their own living and give service in the Church without monetary compensation. There are many positions of responsibility in the church, all of which are filled by the members themselves without monetary compensation On Sunday the sermons are given by the members themselves--including our youth who are given opportunities to speak in church. Some people have made fun of the church for this practice, implying that we have a "bush league" ministry, but many also recognize that it brings us unto Christ in a greater degree than passive membership.
Our clergy are paid, as well as office staff and janitorial workers. Other than that, we too have a wide variety of volunteers that really make everything work. If all of the lay people quit, our church would cease to function. I know that sometimes I feel I spend more time at church than I do at home.
As for the members giving the actual sermons, this is intriguing. Do they get to choose what topic they are going to speak about, or are they assigned a topic? Also, do they have to have their talk approved by the Bishop to make sure that it is doctrinally sound?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimbabwe
Having said this, there are many opportunities for sevice in the Church. Some of these acts of service require the authority of the priesthood to act in the name of God. The preparation, blessing, and passing of the sacrament (holy communion) to the congregation each week is an example of such service. It requires priesthood authority, exersized under the direction of local authorities.
This is also interesting. We usually have our deacons/elders serve communion. Does your belief that communion service requires priesthood authority have a Biblical basis, or is it in the other scriptures? I just don't recall anything like that in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimbabwe
Our young men are trained from their youth to prepare themselves for a life of service which includes the priesthood. True, if not guarded against, it can devolve into a "rite of passage", which is not pleasing in the sight of God or in keeping with the principles of the Gospel. Each young man must be interviewed by the Bishop to determine his worthiness before recieving the priesthood of God. The young man cannot take this priesthood upon himself of his own volition.
I don't think I expressed that thought clearly when I said that it seemed that the LDS men would be "taking the priesthood upon themselves." Let me give it a stab one more time. In my church, not all men are called to be pastors. Not all little boys are brought up with the expectation that one day they will have the same call on their life as all of the other boys. When I hear of someone being called into the ministry, I think of an individual who has dedicated their life to the Lord, and the Lord wants to take them farther and has a purpose for them to lead others. Upon reading your explanation, though, I now understand that LDS priesthood and protestant pastors are not equivilant, so the point no longer needs to be made....I just wanted to clarify my comment earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimbabwe
The Priesthood he receives is called the Aaronic Priesthood or the lesser priesthood. The priesthood is for blessing the lives of others.
I know this is opening up a whole other can of worms, but if the Aaronic Priesthood is the lesser priesthood, is the Melchizedek Priesthood the greater? If so, what is it's purpose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimbabwe
Aaron was called of God to recieve the priesthood and officiate in the tabernacle of God. There are many offices or positions of authority in the Church which require the priesthood but a man must be called of God and set apart before he acts in that capacity. The Bishop is an example of such. The calling of an apostle is another example. Matthias did not make himself an apostle nor did he campaign to be made an apostle, but the remaining 11 apostles gathered together and prayerfully considered who the Lord would have them call to replace Judas. They chose Matthias and called him and set him apart. As Paul said, "No man taketh this honor on himself, but he that is called of God.."
Regarding your example of Matthias: You say that he did not make himself an apostle nor did he campaign to be made one. I have heard LDS people say that this is what Protestant pastors do, since they go to Bible College and make a decision to go into the ministry. We believe that the call of God is personal and that he has spoken to that individual, not that the individual is "taking the honor on himself".
Here’s an example of why we believe many in the Church should have the priesthood. It is the authority to act as God’s representative. One of those include giving blessings of comfort or healing to those in need. On many occasions, I have had the opportunity to spontaneously use this priesthood to give blessings when it would have been difficult or impossible to get a Church leader. This includes when my wife or kids have been sick, or when a neighbor has been sick. One time I was in JFK airport in NYC as a missionary. An elderly LDS German lady approached us and said her traveling companion was sick. We were able to give her a blessing and comfort her until medical help arrived.
Here’s an example of why we believe many in the Church should have the priesthood. It is the authority to act as God’s representative. One of those include giving blessings of comfort or healing to those in need. On many occasions, I have had the opportunity to spontaneously use this priesthood to give blessings when it would have been difficult or impossible to get a Church leader. This includes when my wife or kids have been sick, or when a neighbor has been sick. One time I was in JFK airport in NYC as a missionary. An elderly LDS German lady approached us and said her traveling companion was sick. We were able to give her a blessing and comfort her until medical help arrived.
I hope I don't come of sounding ignorant with this question, but here goes....
Is a blessing the same as a prayer? If my kids get sick, I don't hesitate to lay hands on them and pray for healing.
I hope I don't come of sounding ignorant with this question, but here goes....
Is a blessing the same as a prayer? If my kids get sick, I don't hesitate to lay hands on them and pray for healing.
Yes same thing – laying on of hands with a prayer. In both cases, I’m sure God hears both our prayers. His will and the faith of the person giving and receiving the prayer are key factors I’m sure. In our Church we believe the laying on of hands should to be done by someone with the Priesthood. So my wife wouldn’t lay her hands on our children, be she surely could pray for God’s help if they were sick. But if the person is sincere, He’s not going to ignore their plea for help even if the nuances are different. That is not to denigrate the importance of the Priesthood. We believe the Priesthood provides authority to perform key ordinances and order to the Church, so people aren’t confused and tossed about by every wind of doctrine.
Yes same thing – laying on of hands with a prayer. In both cases, I’m sure God hears both our prayers. His will and the faith of the person giving and receiving the prayer are key factors I’m sure. In our Church we believe the laying on of hands should to be done by someone with the Priesthood. So my wife wouldn’t lay her hands on our children, be she surely could pray for God’s help if they were sick. But if the person is sincere, He’s not going to ignore their plea for help even if the nuances are different. That is not to denigrate the importance of the Priesthood. We believe the Priesthood provides authority to perform key ordinances and order to the Church, so people aren’t confused and tossed about by every wind of doctrine.
Here’s an example of why we believe many in the Church should have the priesthood. It is the authority to act as God’s representative. One of those include giving blessings of comfort or healing to those in need. On many occasions, I have had the opportunity to spontaneously use this priesthood to give blessings when it would have been difficult or impossible to get a Church leader. This includes when my wife or kids have been sick, or when a neighbor has been sick. One time I was in JFK airport in NYC as a missionary. An elderly LDS German lady approached us and said her traveling companion was sick. We were able to give her a blessing and comfort her until medical help arrived.
As a former church priesthood holder, I can honestly say that I don't feel any different. If anything, I believe I have more power through Christ to do His will than ever before. I have witnessed a good number of truly miraculous wonders among the members of our church and in our own family. I myself was healed of a hearing disorder that I have had for a number of years. I have also been blessed to work His marvelous healing power through to my wife when she was sick.
However, we all know that it is not us that is doing the miracles; it is the Holy Power of God that works through us to bless others and He gets the honor, glory and praise for His mighty works. What I am saying is that whether or not one believes they hold a priesthood is irrelevant, from my standpoint. This is not to say that healings and so forth don't happen throughout the LDS church because I have seen them happen there too. I'm just saying that God can heal, He can work miracles, He can save lives and He can do His will at any time, through anyone who believes on Him. After all, Jesus said that if we have faith as small as a mustard seed, we can move mountains.
As for the members giving the actual sermons, this is intriguing. Do they get to choose what topic they are going to speak about, or are they assigned a topic? Also, do they have to have their talk approved by the Bishop to make sure that it is doctrinally sound?
I think every congregation may handle talks in Sacrament service a little different but in general people are given topics to discuss. I have not noticed people straying from the doctrine in their talks, but if they do it is the Bishop's reponsibility to make a public correction.
Quote:
This is also interesting. We usually have our deacons/elders serve communion. Does your belief that communion service requires priesthood authority have a Biblical basis, or is it in the other scriptures? I just don't recall anything like that in the Bible.
Doji, I have never been asked that question. I know of no clear-cut directive in the Bible that the Sacrament must be administered by those with authority from God. I always held that to be self-evident. Perhaps someone else smarter than me can give you a better answer. I have an associate at work who proudly announced to me that her daughter had been baptized last week. She proudly told me that she did it herself (she not an ordained minister) Hearing that is like fingernails on the chalkboard to me and probably to many LDS. At least you know where we are coming from. God's house is a house of order and that seems awfully chaotic and loose to me.
Quote:
I know this is opening up a whole other can of worms, but if the Aaronic Priesthood is the lesser priesthood, is the Melchizedek Priesthood the greater? If so, what is it's purpose?
I can address this in a separate post but it is a great question.
Quote:
Regarding your example of Matthias: You say that he did not make himself an apostle nor did he campaign to be made one. I have heard LDS people say that this is what Protestant pastors do, since they go to Bible College and make a decision to go into the ministry. We believe that the call of God is personal and that he has spoken to that individual, not that the individual is "taking the honor on himself".
It's all in the interpretation of the Scripture. The LDS read it as if Paul is stating that the baptism for the dead ordinance was performed by the christians of the time and so it is an ordinance that was reaffirmed in the church. On the other hand, perhaps it may be that some of the Corinthians had been baptized for others who had died without it. Although Paul is neither approving or condemning it, he does use "they" rather than "we" when referring to it. The puzzling aspect is that the Corinthians denied the ressurection, so why would they baptize for such? I guess it's one of those verses that is really hard to nail down.
If I may, I would like to quote parts of an appendix from the New Evangelical Translation Bible concerning 1 Corthinians 15:29
"The phrase [1 Corinthians 15:29] 'they......who are baptised for the dead' has baffled interpreters for centuries. Paul simply mentions this practice without explaining it in detail or indicating whether he endorses it or not, whether it was a proper or improper Christian practice. Since so little is known about it, Christians cannot be dogmatic concerning one view or another. The whole conclusion hinges on how one understands the preposition hyper and its accompaning genitive in the text. (Please, note this point carefully)
Four major views have been put forth:
VIEW 1. "They.....who are baptized for the dead" were new converts who were being baptized in the place of (hyper) Christians who had died.....meaning that newly baptized Christians replaced those who had died and thereby continued to carry on the Christian church.
As stated above, we are unsure if this interpretation catches the meaning of Paul's statement. If so, such a practice would not have been contrary to any truth of Scripture.
VIEW 2. "They...... who are baptized for the dead" were Christians who were being baptized a second time, this time for (hyper: "in behalf of/for the sake of") Christians who had died before being able to be baptized. This would have been for the purpose of permitting departed, unbaptized Christians to share in Christ's baptism, along with other baptized Christians.
(Present-day Mormonism teaches this view in expanded form. They endorse "baptism by proxy," the redeeming of the unbaptized dead.)
We do not know if anyone was practicing this form of baptism in Paul's day or not. If so, it could hardly be endorsed by Paul or the Christian church in view of Acts 2:38, which speaks of people being individually baptized for themselves, not for or in behalf of (hyper) others.
VIEW 3. "They........ect." were converts who were being baptized over (hyper) the graves of other Christians who had died, connecting the faith of believers in the past with the faith of believers present.
We have no historical record of such a practice. Besides, New Testament Greek never uses the preposition hyper with a genitive to indicate "over" in a local sense.
VIEW 4. "They......... ect." were converts who, knowing the reality of their own eventual deaths, were baptized for (hyper: for the benifit of") themselves, they themselves who would be the "dead" of the future. In this way they affirmed their belief that since Christ rose, they also would rise (1 Cor 15:22,23; John 14:19), for baptism permits Christians to be united in Christ's ressurrection, spiritually and physically, and thereby to be assured of their own ressurection (Rom 6:3-11; Mark 16:16). "Otherwise," why be baptized? Recall the wording of 1 Corinthians 15:29: "Otherwise, what will they (the converts to Christianity) do who are baptized for [the benifit of] the dead? Why are they baptized for them if the dead are not raised at all?"
The reference to "them," according to this view, is inclusive,referring both to those who were previously baptized and were now dead as well as to those converts who were now being baptized.
It is late, and I probably won't have time to post tomorrow. There are two priesthoods, the Aaronic and the Melchizedek Priesthood. The Melchizedek priesthood used to be called the Priesthood after the order fo the Son of God, but to avoid too frequent use of the Lord's name it was called after the great high priest Melchizedek, to whom Abraham paid tithes. This greater priesthood was the priesthood of the patriarchs and was held by Moses. It was God's intent to have this priesthood general among the children of Israel, but they hardened their hearts and the Lord took this priesthood out of the midst of them and left the lesser priesthood to administer the outward ordinances. All the prophets, however held this greater priesthood even though it was not general among the people. The Melchizedek priesthood presides in the church and administers in all spiritual matters. The one who holds the keys to this priesthood is the President of the Church.
"The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments." (D & C 107: 20) The Aaronic priesthood is considered an appendage to the Melchizedek priesthood. The Bishop holds the keys to this priesthood in the local branches and wards of the church.
One other example of "the laying on of hands by those who are in authority" is found in Acts. Remember when the Apostles decided that administering to the temporal needs of the saints would take them too much time away from the preaching of the gospel? They called seven brethren to be their assistants, one of whom was Stephen. I am sure they carefully and prayfully considered their choice of brethren. They then set them apart by the laying on of hands. From the 6th chapter of Acts:
5 ¶ And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
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.
