logo Sign In

Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 22

Author
Time

darth_ender said: We believe that after Christ and his apostles died, there was a Great Apostasy wherein the full truth was lost and needed to be restored.  

OK, now I have question.   What about the parts of the Bible indicating that God's word would never disapear? 

From the NASB:

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

That kind of indicates that there would never be a time when God's word was lost, doesn't it?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

But it didn't get lost, did it? We still have the gospels, which contain Jesus' words. The question is whether or not God would have allowed the truth to be corrupted, and let Christianity go off track for almost two millennia.

Matthew 16:18b provides a stronger case against the Mormon (and some Protestant) positions:

NASB: "[...]upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld [many translations have "hell"] shall not prevail against it."

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

But while this may sound very much like Protestant doctrine, we do differ in this particular: we do believe good works are necessary. Protestants have called us non-Christian for this, but we believe that we accept Christ's grace through faith on our part, and that faith and good works are tied together.

I consider myself a nondenominational Christian, and what I'd have to say is that I believe we are saved by faith alone. Once saved, good works follow because someone who is saved has the spirit, if that makes sense. Look at examples from the Bible. When Paul converted to Christ he had no good works under his belt; all of that came after he was saved from a desire to serve the Lord. Is this kind of what you meant by faith and good works being tied together?

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

moviefreakedmind said:

how do Mormons believe you get to heaven?

 In greater detail, but still briefer than would be just, we believe that all men fall short of the glory of God.  As sinners, we do not deserve to enter the perfection of heaven.  But through Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven of our sins.  We must accept him and his atonement, acknowledging that we cannot make it on our own.  But while this may sound very much like Protestant doctrine, we do differ in this particular: we do believe good works are necessary.  Protestants have called us non-Christian for this, but we believe that we accept Christ's grace through faith on our part, and that faith and good works are tied together.  If someone does not exercise good works, they are not exercising enough faith to truly accept Christ.  Thus, a believer may have accepted Christ and lived a good life, only later to turn against what he knew to be true and live a lifestyle of sin, inconsistent with God's commandments, and lose the salvation he had before already secured.  But it must be remembered at all times, at no point does anyone deserve or earn his or her salvation.  It is the gift of God through our relationship through Christ, and if we are sincere in our desire to maintain that relationship, we must live a good life.

 Thanks for the response. 

The Person in Question

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

gizzy2000 said:

Something I'm curious about, and I hope I don't offend you because this is a genuine question, but how is the history of polygamy in the church (and with Joseph Smith specifically) viewed by mormons today? 

I know that mormons don't practice this now, and I'm not accusing anyone of that, but I'm curious about how it is viewed by the church. Like, does the church say that it's wrong now but it wasn't back then, or do they condemn it altogether, even in the case of Joseph Smith? etc. etc. 

 No offense taken.  We certainly acknowledge it as a practice.  We believe it was divinely inspired for a temporary period of time, but that most of the time it is contrary to the commandments of God.  We now oppose it, and any practitioner today is swiftly excommunicated.

EDIT: Oh, I should add that some have a hard time coming to grips with it.  My wife, for instance, really doesn't like the idea that it was ever practiced.  But historical record is clear: it was.

Also, it is worth noting that for a long time, the Community of Christ, formerly called the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (second largest, though substantially smaller, branch in the LDS movement) spent years denying it was ever practiced.  I am not sure if they still do, but if they have changed their tune, it would only be a recent thing.  But they honestly are pretty prone to gloss over our common movement's history while we are more willing to embrace it, the good and the bad and the ugly.

Thanks for the answer. I believe that for a time polygamy/bigamy was permitted, specifically during the times of the Old Testament, but I think that once the Christian Church was established marriage was restored to being between one man and one woman, and I'd be happy to go into more detail on that if anyone is interested. One thing I asked though was what the view of Joseph Smith specifically is. In 1 Timothy 3:2 it says that a Church leader (or "overseer") should be the husband of one wife, amongst other requirements. Joseph Smith had several wives, which is why I'm skeptical of his teachings about the Church. By the way, I'm sorry to keep bombarding you with a bunch of my own thoughts and beliefs, but I'm genuinely interested in theological subjects, and enjoy these discussions because I think we can learn a lot by hearing about each others beliefs. As I said before I have no intent to be rude, and want this to just be friendly discussion :) 

Author
Time

gizzy2000 said:

darth_ender said:

But while this may sound very much like Protestant doctrine, we do differ in this particular: we do believe good works are necessary. Protestants have called us non-Christian for this, but we believe that we accept Christ's grace through faith on our part, and that faith and good works are tied together.

I consider myself a nondenominational Christian, and what I'd have to say is that I believe we are saved by faith alone. Once saved, good works follow because someone who is saved has the spirit, if that makes sense. Look at examples from the Bible. When Paul converted to Christ he had no good works under his belt; all of that came after he was saved from a desire to serve the Lord. Is this kind of what you meant by faith and good works being tied together?

 So...I'm not capable of good works?

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

But it didn't get lost, did it?

According to Darth Ender, the Mormons believe it was lost for a time.

darth_ender said: there was a Great Apostasy wherein the full truth was lost and needed to be restored.  

 

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

Give God a break, Warb, he's not omniscient.

 *pokes Frink in the eyes"  knucklehead.

Author
Time

timdiggerm said:

darth_ender said:

If someone does not exercise good works, they are not exercising enough faith to truly accept Christ.

I think this is specifically where we differ - the idea that there's an "enough faith" threshold necessary. Protestants believe that good works and faith go hand in hand, though, because good works are the result of faith.

 

 It usually is where I differ with most of my Protestant friends.  Allow me to share an analogy I've probably shared before, but retyping might be easier than finding and linking to it.  I came up with it myself, so hopefully it is adequate.

One night, Jesus was walking on the stormy waters of the Sea of Galilee.  His frightened apostles saw him and were at first frightened, but after he assured them of who he was, Peter asked the Lord to bid him to walk on the water as well.  When Jesus did, Peter stepped onto the waters, to his surprise he was successful at first, but after a very few steps, he was overcome by doubt and fear and began to sink.  At that he cried out to the Lord, who then took hold of him and pulled him to safety.

Here is the analogy.  The stormy sea is much like this life of sin.  As in this story, Jesus has always been able to remain above water, never succumbing to even the slightest of sin.  But while he bids us to keep his commandments, we will always fall short and sink.  But if we call out to him for salvation, with the faith that he can save us, he indeed will reach out and pull us to safety.  However, all the calling in the world won't do any good if we refuse to do our part.  Imagine if Peter refused to hold out his hand, or if once Jesus grabbed him, he then said, "Okay Lord, I've got it, I've got it," and pulled away.  He would once again sink.  As long as he was doing his part to keep hold on his Master, both physically and in faith, Jesus could bring him safely back to the boat.

"Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

-Jesus

Matthew 7:21

But I definitely agree, there is no threshold (except admittedly we Mormons believe in a few essential ordinances).  Christ is the judge if our actions were pure and motivated by faith.  He doesn't have a set scale for everyone.  He judges us individually.

I also agree that if one is truly converted and has face in Christ, the good works will follow on their own, and any true disciple shouldn't even have to worry about how much good they are doing.  A true convert simply does good for the sake of love and discipleship.

Author
Time

gizzy2000 said:

darth_ender said:

But while this may sound very much like Protestant doctrine, we do differ in this particular: we do believe good works are necessary. Protestants have called us non-Christian for this, but we believe that we accept Christ's grace through faith on our part, and that faith and good works are tied together.

I consider myself a nondenominational Christian, and what I'd have to say is that I believe we are saved by faith alone. Once saved, good works follow because someone who is saved has the spirit, if that makes sense. Look at examples from the Bible. When Paul converted to Christ he had no good works under his belt; all of that came after he was saved from a desire to serve the Lord. Is this kind of what you meant by faith and good works being tied together?

 I'd say it's ultimately more of a difference of emphasis than an actual major difference of doctrine.  I've studied this topic extensively.  Remember, "faith without works is dead."  James 2:17.  Also, for men like Paul (who was actually a very righteous Pharisee, following the Law of Moses with exactness as their doctrine expected), his works made no difference until he accepted Christ.  I love the oft-misunderstood Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard in Matthew 20.  Some are born with the gospel in their lives.  Some are introduced late in life.  But whether they labored for one hour or twelve, the Lord blessed them the same for their faithfulness.  It truly is amazing grace!

Author
Time

Warbler said:

darth_ender said: We believe that after Christ and his apostles died, there was a Great Apostasy wherein the full truth was lost and needed to be restored.  

OK, now I have question.   What about the parts of the Bible indicating that God's word would never disapear? 

From the NASB:

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Luke 21:33 A)">Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

That kind of indicates that there would never be a time when God's word was lost, doesn't it?

 God's word has always been present, and men have always been inspired.  The Bible was never lost, and his words yet rang true, even during the darkness of apostasy.  I don't interpret such scripture to mean there will never be apostasy.

Author
Time

Then I am confused, just what are you saying was lost in this great apostasy?

Author
Time

Priesthood, revelation, the fullness of truth known to man.  Truth remained.  Man didn't know it.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

gizzy2000 said:

darth_ender said:

But while this may sound very much like Protestant doctrine, we do differ in this particular: we do believe good works are necessary. Protestants have called us non-Christian for this, but we believe that we accept Christ's grace through faith on our part, and that faith and good works are tied together.

I consider myself a nondenominational Christian, and what I'd have to say is that I believe we are saved by faith alone. Once saved, good works follow because someone who is saved has the spirit, if that makes sense. Look at examples from the Bible. When Paul converted to Christ he had no good works under his belt; all of that came after he was saved from a desire to serve the Lord. Is this kind of what you meant by faith and good works being tied together?

 So...I'm not capable of good works?

 You're only capable of atheist works...weak atheist works, you wimp!

Author
Time

gizzy2000 said:

darth_ender said:

gizzy2000 said:

Something I'm curious about, and I hope I don't offend you because this is a genuine question, but how is the history of polygamy in the church (and with Joseph Smith specifically) viewed by mormons today? 

I know that mormons don't practice this now, and I'm not accusing anyone of that, but I'm curious about how it is viewed by the church. Like, does the church say that it's wrong now but it wasn't back then, or do they condemn it altogether, even in the case of Joseph Smith? etc. etc. 

 No offense taken.  We certainly acknowledge it as a practice.  We believe it was divinely inspired for a temporary period of time, but that most of the time it is contrary to the commandments of God.  We now oppose it, and any practitioner today is swiftly excommunicated.

EDIT: Oh, I should add that some have a hard time coming to grips with it.  My wife, for instance, really doesn't like the idea that it was ever practiced.  But historical record is clear: it was.

Also, it is worth noting that for a long time, the Community of Christ, formerly called the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (second largest, though substantially smaller, branch in the LDS movement) spent years denying it was ever practiced.  I am not sure if they still do, but if they have changed their tune, it would only be a recent thing.  But they honestly are pretty prone to gloss over our common movement's history while we are more willing to embrace it, the good and the bad and the ugly.

Thanks for the answer. I believe that for a time polygamy/bigamy was permitted, specifically during the times of the Old Testament, but I think that once the Christian Church was established marriage was restored to being between one man and one woman, and I'd be happy to go into more detail on that if anyone is interested. One thing I asked though was what the view of Joseph Smith specifically is. In 1 Timothy 3:2 it says that a Church leader (or "overseer") should be the husband of one wife, amongst other requirements. Joseph Smith had several wives, which is why I'm skeptical of his teachings about the Church. By the way, I'm sorry to keep bombarding you with a bunch of my own thoughts and beliefs, but I'm genuinely interested in theological subjects, and enjoy these discussions because I think we can learn a lot by hearing about each others beliefs. As I said before I have no intent to be rude, and want this to just be friendly discussion :) 

 I appreciate your sincerity and your interest, and your efforts not to offend.  Understand, I created this thread with the awareness that people might be blunt, so I try not to get offended easily.  It's happened a few times, and believe me, you haven't even come close to offending me.

The Book of Mormon also speaks against polygamy, more forcefully than the Bible.  The Book of Mormon predates any actual polygamy on the part of Joseph Smith anyhow.  Start with verse 23.  But you'll notice in verse 30 that there is an exception.  I'll let you read it yourself.  It was for a limited time, served its purpose, and is now ended.

Again, thanks for your thoughtfulness :)

Author
Time

AntcuFaalb said:

What's your opinion on this, d_e? http://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf

I came across it on Reddit recently.

 Ender, could you elaborate on your thoughts about the following specific points outlined in the letter (or whatever it is) that AntcuFaalb linked to?:

  • Why were there multiple, contradictory accounts of Joseph's first vision? That doesn't seem like the kind of thing one would forget enough to contradict oneself on (p. 23 in the PDF);
  • There is, of course, the issue of Joseph translating Egyptian artifacts which were later translated yielding a completely different result. I believe you've explained this before in this thread, but if I recall correctly, you simply (I don't mean to imply that you're a simpleton here, just that you don't have complicated beliefs on the subject :)) believe that the Egyptian texts have a dual meaning, and I'm curious why you believe that (pp. 25-30);
  • Joseph Smith was shown to be unreliable with his denial of his polygamy, so it seems quite possible, if not likely, that he was unreliable in general. If he got thirty-one witnesses to sign in testimony against Joseph's polygamical practices, should one consider the testimony of the witnesses to the golden plates any more reliable? If Joseph Smith was known to lie, and used his leadership to pressure numerous women and girls to marry him, while forbidding polygamy to all other Mormons, how can anything else he said and claimed be trusted ? (p. 34);
  • Some of the witnesses were apparently unreliable (I forget what you wrote previously about the witnesses, so perhaps the others make up for the following): 

 

Martin Harris had mortgaged his farm to finance the Book of Mormon, and thus would not be an unbiased witness (and not to the golden plates themselves, but a cloth-covered object supposed to be the plates), not to mention that he had belonged to five other denominations previously, testifying to the truth of all of them at various times, and Mormonism wasn't the last (pp. 52-53);

David Whitmer later testified that he had been instructed by God to split off from the main LDS Church, so one must either pick and choose among his testimonies or join his sect (p. 54);

Oliver Cowdery has a stronger case, but he was still a scribe and co-founder of Mormonism, so he could have easily been in cahoots with Joseph Smith in fabricating the Book of Mormon (p. 55);

  • James Strang split from the LDS Church, and though I don't know much about the history of that, it seems that most of the witnesses followed him. If they were duped by James, why not by Joseph (pp. 57-60)?;
  • There exists no extant copy of the testimony of witnesses of the golden plates (in the oldest copy of it, the "signatures" are all written by the same hand), so there seems to be no conclusive evidence that the testimony was actually signed and agreed upon (p. 60);
  • The Testimony of Three Witnesses, which included Martin Harris, stated that they had beheld the plates and the engravings thereon, yet Martin Harris stated multiple other times that he had only seen them when covered with a cloth, and also that he had seen them with a spiritual eye. All three of those are very different things, and he seems not to have remembered what he saw. It appears he was making things up, and though he never retracted his statements, as far as I am aware (and from what I understand, left Joseph's church for James'), so it seems quite plausible that all the eyewitnesses were making it up (pp. 60-61);
  • On the witnesses never retracting their eyewitness statements, see page 60 (although I take issue with the fact that he says none of the Marian apparitions were true ;));
  • The summary in the conclusion about the eyewitnesses is also something I'd like you to address, if you don't cover it in your answer to the above.

 

Take your time answering me, and don't feel like you have to answer me all at once. I expect that some things you have a ready answer or set of links for, but I can wait for anything you want to spend a bit more time explaining. If you already explained something earlier in the thread, and I've forgotten about it, then link me to your post to save you some time.

I look forward to your responses.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

dclarkg said:

darth_ender said:

 Let me ask you a couple of questions and we will go from there.  Are you religious?  If so, what are you?

 I don't see how that's relevant for my original question (or the answer itself) but ok. I'm not religious, I was raised on a mild-devoted Catholic home but it never got into me.

 Well, many churches consider themselves to have the fullest truth.  How would my church's claim differ from others in acceptability?

But I will say, we claim that we have genuine priesthood and prophetic leadership, modern day revelation, and approval from God justifying our position.  Of course many dispute this, but that is our claim, and what I believe.  We believe that after Christ and his apostles died, there was a Great Apostasy wherein the full truth was lost and needed to be restored.  We believe it has been.

I understand that your religion has claims that their own members indeed believe but I'm referring about the arguments to sustain a set of claims as true, I suppose that there must be some arguments that justifies those claims against other theist claims.

<span>The statement below is true
The statement above is false</span>

Author
Time

it's bad timing but im having computer troubles at present but i hope to resume the conversation as soon as possible.

Author
Time

        Do Mormons believe it is possible to refuse to become Mormon and yet be saved?

        Can a "good Protestant" reject LDS and still achieve eternal life?

Author
Time

But I definitely agree, there is no threshold

Great!

(except admittedly we Mormons believe in a few essential ordinances).

Oh uh.... but you said.... that's a contradiction?

 Christ is the judge if our actions were pure and motivated by faith.  He doesn't have a set scale for everyone.  He judges us individually. I also agree that if one is truly converted and has face in Christ, the good works will follow on their own, and any true disciple shouldn't even have to worry about how much good they are doing.  A true convert simply does good for the sake of love and discipleship.

It is helpful, in terms of motivation, to not have works and salvation so tied together.

ROTJ Storyboard Reconstruction Project

Author
Time

I apologize for not commenting lately. My laptop got busted and I have had limited access otherwise. After months in the closet, I finally hooked up my desktop, so we'll see about participating in this discussion again. Right mow I'm at a meeting on my Kindle, which is a challenge to use for serious posting, but I'll try to sneak in a reply or two.

Author
Time

timdiggerm said:

But I definitely agree, there is no threshold

Great!

(except admittedly we Mormons believe in a few essential ordinances).

Oh uh.... but you said.... that's a contradiction?

Which is why I used the word "except".  I am going by the words of Jesus, who said "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and "Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."  Baptism: an essential ordinance, spoken by Jesus, who I think never contradicted Paul, but even if he did, I would trust him over Paul.

 Christ is the judge if our actions were pure and motivated by faith.  He doesn't have a set scale for everyone.  He judges us individually. I also agree that if one is truly converted and has faith in Christ, the good works will follow on their own, and any true disciple shouldn't even have to worry about how much good they are doing.  A true convert simply does good for the sake of love and discipleship.

It is helpful, in terms of motivation, to not have works and salvation so tied together.

 I don't disagree with you.  Whenever I have the opportunity, I try to emphasize grace above works.  I think the hangup in the minds of many members of my church is ultimately an overreaction to the extreme rejection of works altogether, as if they didn't matter.  They do.  I don't believe a simple prayer is enough to truly accept Christ into my heart, nor keep him there.  But the truth is I think the Protestant definition is actually closer to the truth than the popular but incorrect mormon view.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

After months in the closet

 I see what you did there.

Author
Time

Yes, such issues make it difficult to plug male plugs into my computer's female ports I'm afraid.

Wow, I hope that joke isn't too offensive.