posted
I don't think that Dagonee or dkw have misrepresented anything. One thing you might try considering is that Christians don't all think exactly the same thing. Even within a specific denomination.
I, for example, tend to believe in revelation, but not that revelation is usually centralized in one person or group of people. Other Catholics may or may not agree and that's fine.Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:why all the theological antagnism against Mormonism by the mainstream Christians? Why so much of a rejection of Mormonism as a Christian religion? Why the attack against Mormonisms claims to Revelation, modern prophets, adding to the Bible, Priesthood, and most especially the physicality and humaness of God?
Theological antagonism?
When was the last time some respected Christian religion, with widespread approbation from its leadership or membership published ANYTHING resembling antagonism toward Mormons?
At the very worst these days, we face the Methodist declaration that, unlike other Christian religions, Mormons have to be rebaptized. So what? We say the same thing about Methodists.
That's not antagonism; that's a doctrinal decision that doesn't affect anyone except the ex-Mormon or ex-Methodist.
DKW and Dagonee have both been largely respectful (and sometimes more than we Mormons deserve) of Mormon beliefs. There are few, if virtual behavior is anything to go on, MORE Christian than dkw has displayed herself as being.
So lay off the persecution juice.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why so much of a rejection of Mormonism as a Christian religion?
Because the basic points of agreement between most Christians in the world center on beliefs that Mormon's don't share. Most Christians believe in the Nicene Creed; Mormon's don't. The concept of the Trinity isn't minor to most Christians; it's central to their religion. There are other, basic beliefs not shared between Mormons and most Christians.
quote:Why the attack against Mormonisms claims to Revelation, modern prophets, adding to the Bible, Priesthood, and most especially the physicality and humaness of God?
Because they think those beliefs are wrong. But there are a lot of ways to think those beliefs are wrong without holding the beliefs you attribute to them.
Also, the most vocal attacks I've heard against Mormons come from restorationists, whose beliefs come closer to those you assign to most Christians, not reformationists or Catholics.
quote:But there are a lot of ways to think those beliefs are wrong without holding the beliefs you attribute to them.
The best example of this is the beliefs about what Christ's Church is.
Mormon's believe that the LDS Church is Christ's Church which was not present on earth for almost 2000 years.
Roman Catholics believe that the Church has been present since the Great Commission, and that each Bishop has received authority via apostolic succession in a line traceable to Christ himself. There are disagreements as to the extent of that authority over individual beliefs, but the it's the recognition of the succession that is at the heart of Catholic beliefs about the Church.
(Dana, correct me if I'm wrong here - I'm being general and incomplete on purpose). Reformationists believe that the Church has been present since Christ's time but that it is not bound up with the Roman Catholic structure.
All these beliefs are incompatible. If you believe one is true, then you believe that the other two are not correct, although you might acknowledge some elements of those beliefs as true.
And that's fine. But you can see that Catholics and Protestants will have different reasons for disagreeing with Mormons about the nature of Christ's Church.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional’s post of Apr 26 mentions the idea of errors creeping into the church. Well, I’m not much of a historian so I can’t vouch for the specifics of what has happened anciently. But since I’m a geezer and have been in the Mormon church all my life, I’ve seen numerous cases where unauthorized changes and philosophies tried to creep into the church. This was done by folks who had the best of intentions. In every case I’m thinking of, one of the Quorum of the Twelve or one of their representatives have come to the local area and set the people there straight. That is one of the things regular Stake and Ward Conferences are for - also regular General Priesthood Leadership meetings.
I could give you examples but suffice it to say that I understand how apostasy happens. It is a lot like entropy in physics. It seems to be the natural tendency of human institutions for folks to gradually drift away from the original teaching, practices, and intents of the institution. So I can’t emphasize enough how important the authority and leadership of modern apostles is.
I have tremendous respect for the Catholic church for a lot of reasons. One of which is that they claim an unbroken chain of apostolic authority. In his book A Marvelous Work and a Wonder LeGrand Richards included the following excerpt from a talk by Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve. I don’t mean to denigrate the other churches because I have a lot of respect for most of them too. But I think this expresses our position pretty well.
“Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: ‘You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.’ ” (LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder [Deseret Book Co., 1950], pp. 3–4.)
When I’ve discussed this with some of my Protestants friends they feel that their authority comes from a knowledge of the Bible. There is a lot to be said for this belief. After all, it is very important for anyone who claims to have priesthood authority to also have a good knowledge of the scriptures.
Kmbboots said, “An argument could be made that Jesus "ordained" Paul on the road to Damascus.”
That is an interesting point. And right off hand I can’t point to a scripture and say, “Right here Paul was ordained an Apostle.” I’ll have to go read those parts again.
But I believe that Jesus COULD have baptized and ordained Paul right there and then. Jesus certainly had the authority to do so. But instead Jesus sent Paul to Ananias to be taught true doctrine and baptized and later ordained. In other words he was sent to the proper authority.
I’ll admit I’m looking at this from the Mormon perspective. Like our fifth Article of Faith says, “We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.”
What can I say? We are real big on line for authority and following proper procedures.
"Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism"
I never thought the Trinity was that important a doctrine, but then, it is in the Creed, so someone must have thought so.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry to be so vague. I guess the point I was trying to make was that Jesus ordained 12 apostles, and according to my understanding of the scriptures those apostles went on to become the leaders of Christ's church. When Apostles died/or fell away from the church, new ones were ordained.
One was ordained to replace Judas. Do you have any evidence that other ordainations were done to replace someone who died or fell away? Paul is widely regarded as an apostle, and he was ordained while the other 12 (incl. Judas's replacement) were alive.
You ask "who made the change?" What I'm asking is where was the fact "there are 12" raised up over every other common factor the apostle's shared. All 12 were Jewish. Does that mean apostle's must be Jewish?
The Church grew rapidly, thanks in large part to one of the apostles who was in fact the 13th active apostle at the time. Peter was told to run the Church. I don't see anywhere he was told "and keep exactly 12 apostles."
quote:(Not to sound like a baptist but) The early Catholic church baptised people using immersion, and there is alot of debate that that is exactly how it was performed in the Bible. Who authorized the less symbolic sprinkling?
Technically, Latin-rite Catholics baptize by infusion, not sprinkling. Beyond that, your argument here founders at the same place: on the contention that immersion was somehow enshrined as the only way to baptize, even by the apostles.
3,000 people in Acts were baptized at the same place in Jerusalem, in a place where there was not enough water for immersion. There are instructions on baptism that date back to 70 AD that endorse sprinkling or pouring. And there are many uses of the word for baptism that refer to pouring, not immersion.
quote:To sum up (I apologize for sucking at being concise) the specific changes to docterine and ordinances to me, are side effects of a larger problem.
But the changes as evidence of this "larger problem" comes from views of what was in place that lack evidentiary foundation.
There is no evidence that Paul was ordained as an apostle while all the other original 11 (plus Mathias) were alive. The fates of all the other apostles with the exception of James is very vague. The bible does very quickly mention that Herod had the apostle James (not the Lord's brother) killed by the sword. That would have made room for Paul. That other apostles were similarly matyred or died from the riggors of missionary work/old age is a likely possibility.
The question of only Jewish apostles does not make sense as Christ charged the apostles to bring the gospel to all the world, both jew and gentile. He did not make that charge until He (Christ) had completed his mission. At that point the church was no longer a Jewish one, but one that included people from all races. Peter's revelation on there being no need to observe the law of Moses further supports this idea.
I am not sure what you mean by "infusion" I will try to look it up. You can go to very early cathedrals (such as St John's) in Rome, and there is a baptismal the size of a good sized room. Many eminent scholars agree that only immersion was used initially but that it was unceremoniously changed to sprinkling. As for thousands of Jews being baptized in a place that did not have the water volume to support immersion what Jerusalem do you speak of Dag? There are certainly bodies of water such as where John the baptist baptized, in the area of Jerusalem that support immersion baptism. In fact the NT makes special mention of this John's location "For there was much water there." Mentioning the vast amount of water seems redundant if we are speaking of sprinkling.
You also argue that Peter was not directly charged to keep exactly 12 apostles but he was also not specifically given the liberty to change the way things Jesus had them setup either. Is it more likely that Peter had implied powers that we are not aware of? Or that he used Christ as his model and did things the way Jesus did them? Which seems more effective as a religious administrative model?
I am not arguing that changes CANNOT be made within true Christianity. Indeed if you want to nit pick, Mormons believe John (The Beloved) never tasted death, and today Mormons have 12 apostles plue 3 who comprised the first presidency. So today there are 16 apostles alive today (If John is in fact still alive.) Just as the US constitution is a "Living Constitution" the true Christianity supports a "Living God" that directs the affairs of his church, and makes changes as needed.
I merely contend that I believe there is no proof of devine inspired changes that converted the early christian church to the catholic church of today. I believe the lineage of Popes and their actions do not adequately show a true line all the way to Christ (I could cite individual examples, but I am not here to mud sling) I believe Protestant churches of today are even less adequate at explaining how God can direct them today. If God had more words to impart, individual revelation is just insufficient to the task.
posted
I think that, at least in the Catholic Church, it is as likely that those with some central authority err as it is for those of us with very little power. One the one hand, those with centralized authority have resources, knowledge, scholarship, understanding of tradition and have spent their lives learning and preparing for such authority. On the other hand, they are subject to the influences of power and politics in a way that we are not and have often made doctinal decisions that reflect a desire to protect that power.
It is good to have various seats of authority as we do in the Catholic Church. When the Papacy errs, the people can correct it, when the people err, the Bishops can correct it...and so forth. All guided by the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism
No Trinity: Correct. We believe that The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three physically seperate beings.
No Original Sin: Rather, we believe that Christ's atonement removes original sin, and redeems all those who die ignorant of the laws of God.
Christ did not institute baptism: Not EXACTLY true-- we believe that Christ, in his capacity as Jehovah, instituted baptism WAY back with Adam.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The middle one is the one most directly applicable to baptism, by the way, and, as stated by Scott, indicates a major difference in the conceived purpose of baptism.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that, at least in the Catholic Church, it is as likely that those with some central authority err as it is for those of us with very little power. One the one hand, those with centralized authority have resources, knowledge, scholarship, understanding of tradition and have spent their lives learning and preparing for such authority. On the other hand, they are subject to the influences of power and politics in a way that we are not and have often made doctinal decisions that reflect a desire to protect that power.
It is good to have various seats of authority as we do in the Catholic Church. When the Papacy errs, the people can correct it, when the people err, the Bishops can correct it...and so forth. All guided by the Holy Spirit.
The problem with that is in theory, God would not have a prophet leading the church if he was going to lead it astray. There is no record in The Bible or Book of Mormon (and you can explain this as you choose to) of a prophet who teaches people false docterine, or leads them astray. They make mistakes sure they are still human, but they never turn evil, or even lose their prophetship because of iniquity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because the basic points of agreement between most Christians in the world center on beliefs that Mormon's don't share. Most Christians believe in the Nicene Creed; Mormon's don't. The concept of the Trinity isn't minor to most Christians; it's central to their religion. There are other, basic beliefs not shared between Mormons and most Christians.
My personal attitude toward the Trinity issue is, if there were Christians in the world before the Trinity was dogma, who disagreed with the idea, and yet remained Christians, then it is difficult to call rejection of the Trinity idea an "un-Christian" thing to do. At least, if you consider the word "Christian" to represent a broad category of belief systems, and not a specific church organization.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Maybe they just didn't make it into the book?
Or God knowing the disposition of every man, knows which ones will never fall away, posseses the neccesary qualities, and picks them every time.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...indicates a major difference in the conceived purpose of baptism.
I would have said it indicates a major difference in the conceived purpose of Christ's suffering and death...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee and dkw, you can claim I missrepresent more than anyone. Fine. But, frankly, I think you two missrepresent mainstream Christianity more than anyone I have ever heard who call themselves Christians.
Occasional, that makes as much sense as if I told you you were misrepresenting Mormon beliefs. Dag and I are speaking out of the traditions we are a part of, he accused you of mis-representing a tradition of which you are not a part. If either of us start making statements about what Mormons believe, feel free to call us on it if we're wrong.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee and dkw, you can claim I missrepresent more than anyone. Fine. But, frankly, I think you two missrepresent mainstream Christianity more than anyone I have ever heard who call themselves Christians.
Occasional, that makes as much sense as if I told you you were misrepresenting Mormon beliefs. Dag and I are speaking out of the traditions we are a part of, he accused you of mis-representing a tradition of which you are not a part. If either of us start making statements about what Mormons believe, feel free to call us on it if we're wrong.
I think the point he is making is that there are still many religious groups that have an animosity towards Mormonism. To say that animosity is decreasing to me is an accurate statement. But there are still notable exceptions. The mention of the methodists requiring Mormons to be rebaptized was cited as an example and refuted to a degree. But I remember clearly reading a few years after the Catholic church stated that protestant converts would not require rebaptism that Mormons would not fall under that category and would still require rebaptism. It sounds nit picky but the ramefications of such a statement are that Mormons are not Christian, and their baptisms availeth nothing.
As a missionary I came across numerous ministers who instructed their congregations to not show hospitality to the Mormon missionaries. They often fed mistruths to their laity (whether they realized it or did not is something I do not know.) Mormon's do not pretend to be the only Christian religion that is spoken badly about, but the sheer number of people I know who have false ideas concerning us makes me believe that there are still people who do it. If you want to argue that virtually nobody does it, I just think thats plain wrong.
But again I would like to restate that I think the animosity directed towards Mormons from others even other Christians is decreasing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It sounds nit picky but the ramefications of such a statement are that Mormons are not Christian, and their baptisms availeth nothing.
I've never seen much point in trying to be a part of the religious in-crowd; did God make us a peculiar people for no reason at all?
Not arguing that I care if Catholics recognize the baptism I have had, but you can't say it doesnt have a negative conentation from their end.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It sounds nit picky but the ramefications of such a statement are that Mormons are not Christian, and their baptisms availeth nothing.
That's pretty much your own choice. The LDS church has stated that its baptism is something different than what other Christian denominations do, which is why you require converts to be re-baptized. Is it wrong of the other denominations to take your word for it?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Maybe they just didn't make it into the book?
Or God knowing the disposition of every man, knows which ones will never fall away, posseses the neccesary qualities, and picks them every time.
Like Peter, for example, never got it wrong and never fell away?
I believe that God chooses all of us to further the Kingdom - whatever our flaws. I am grateful that my religion does not depend on the "necessary qualities" or the "never falling away" of any particular human being.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The LDS church has stated that its baptism is something different than what other Christian denominations do, which is why you require converts to be re-baptized. Is it wrong of the other denominations to take your word for it?
No, it's not wrong at all. It's completely RIGHT that they do so.
As for connotations spread by other religions about other religions-- others will know us by the fruits we bear.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It sounds nit picky but the ramefications of such a statement are that Mormons are not Christian, and their baptisms availeth nothing.
That's pretty much your own choice. The LDS church has stated that its baptism is something different than what other Christian denominations do, which is why you require converts to be re-baptized. Is it wrong of the other denominations to take your word for it?
Not arguing that Mormons do not have the same policy, but Mormons believe in a total apostacy from the truth/church, it would completely undermine all our claims to allow other creeds to baptize. From Catholic/Protestant logic, why must the Mormons be rebaptized but not others?
quote: Like Peter, for example, never got it wrong and never fell away?
I believe that God chooses all of us to further the Kingdom - whatever our flaws. I am grateful that my religion does not depend on the "necessary qualities" or the "never falling away" of any particular human being.
You are making the common error that because God knows something is going to happen he therefore is the cause. I was suggesting that when God picked say "Elijah" to be a prophet, God KNEW that Elijah would perform the office faithfully. He did not MAKE Elijah do anything, Elijah did everything right of his own accord just as God knew he would.
Peter did indeed deny Jesus thrice. Moses caused water to come out of the rock but did not give the glory to God. Joseph Smith (Our prophet) did not follow the Lord's directions regarding some of the first translated pages of the Book of Mormon (116 to be exact) But no prophet, when we consider the sum of their entire life, led anything but a very upright and virtous life. No prophet ever said "God says..." when God did not in fact say it. That is the point I am trying to make.
For Mormons the "Mouthpiece of God" must be somebody who attains almost awesome levels of righteousness. If we are to believe scriptural records of prophets, every single one has been that way. There is no record of a prophet being decommissioned for wickedness or eniquity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't follow (the objection to the Catholic doctrine, on these grounds). Doesn't LDS, too, require Catholics converting to Mormonism to be re-baptized? It may be wrong, but at least it's fair!
Let's see what says the end of that document I linked to (which I should point out is theology, not dogma): "It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ... It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect."
Sort of like right here.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I don't follow (the objection to the Catholic doctrine, on these grounds). Doesn't LDS, too, require Catholics converting to Mormonism to be re-baptized? It may be wrong, but at least it's fair!
Let's see what says the end of that document I linked to (which I should point out is theology, not dogma): "It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. ... It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect."
Sort of like right here.
Correct me if I misunderstand the quote. Mormons need rebaptism based on their belief in the Book of Mormon being the word of God and for no other reason?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Catholic/Protestant logic, why must the Mormons be rebaptized but not others?
The link (and the quote I gave) answered that already: Trinity, original sin, baptism as instituted by Christ. Methodists agree with Catholics on this, Mormons don't.
Really, there's no need to have feelings hurt by being excluded by a church because you choose not to join it! If you want to be a Moslem, you have to witness that Allah is one and Mohammed is his prophet. If you want to be Catholic, you need to be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. If you want to be in the Sierra Club, you have to pay dues, or something. It's not an insult; it's just a membership requirement.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is not my reading of that quote. I would have assumed it had more to do with the trinitarian concept.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand. The quote made no mention of the Book of Mormon. Where did that come from?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Catholic/Protestant logic, why must the Mormons be rebaptized but not others?
The link (and the quote I gave) answered that already: Trinity, original sin, baptism as instituted by Christ. Methodists agree with Catholics on this, Mormons don't.
Really, there's no need to have feelings hurt by being excluded by a church because you choose not to join it! If you want to be a Moslem, you have to witness that Allah is one and Mohammed is his prophet. If you want to be Catholic, you need to be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. If you want to be in the Sierra Club, you have to pay dues, or something. It's not an insult; it's just a membership requirement.
I mis read the quote, its funny I can actually identify how I misread it too.
Your logic still does not make sense. Mormons are also baptized in the same names. If our concept of who those 3 entities are is different and therefore thats a problem, that makes sense to me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are the Catholic baptismal vows, just for reference:
V. Do you reject Satan? R. I do. V. And all his works? R. I do. V. And all his empty promises? R. I do. V. Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth? R. I do. V. Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father? R. I do.
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting? R. I do.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Here are the Catholic baptismal vows, just for reference:
V. Do you reject Satan? R. I do. V. And all his works? R. I do. V. And all his empty promises? R. I do. V. Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth? R. I do. V. Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father? R. I do.
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting? R. I do.
Only thing a Mormon could not say yes to would be "Believing in the Holy Catholic Church" if by that you mean the one headed by the Pope.
But then again no Protestant would either.
It must be the concept of the trinity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Catholic" in that example shouldn't be capitalized (I should have checked) and means "universal".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Like Peter, for example, never got it wrong and never fell away?
I believe that God chooses all of us to further the Kingdom - whatever our flaws. I am grateful that my religion does not depend on the "necessary qualities" or the "never falling away" of any particular human being.
You are making the common error that because God knows something is going to happen he therefore is the cause. I was suggesting that when God picked say "Elijah" to be a prophet, God KNEW that Elijah would perform the office faithfully. He did not MAKE Elijah do anything, Elijah did everything right of his own accord just as God knew he would.
Peter did indeed deny Jesus thrice. Moses caused water to come out of the rock but did not give the glory to God. Joseph Smith (Our prophet) did not follow the Lord's directions regarding some of the first translated pages of the Book of Mormon (116 to be exact) But no prophet, when we consider the sum of their entire life, led anything but a very upright and virtous life. No prophet ever said "God says..." when God did not in fact say it. That is the point I am trying to make.
For Mormons the "Mouthpiece of God" must be somebody who attains almost awesome levels of righteousness. If we are to believe scriptural records of prophets, every single one has been that way. There is no record of a prophet being decommissioned for wickedness or eniquity. [/QB]
Well, there is, actually. We just call them "false prophets." We are warned of them in the New Testament and they are referred to in the Hebrew Scripture.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For Mormons the "Mouthpiece of God" must be somebody who attains almost awesome levels of righteousness.
Hmm. I disagree. I think there are any number of examples of people who are clearly wicked being called by God. It is the working of God that is great, not the person. Furthermore, there are also innumerable examples of those called of God screwing up and exhibiting character flaws. I think Christians need to be careful not to idealize our history; that's only going to lead to disappointment. What if you run into a member of the Quorum of the 12 and they are rude to you?
Prophets and apostles exhibit any number of admirable qualities; I think, however, that we have to be careful about idealizing them, They're men, just like us, and they'd be the first to tell you so. Nephi certainly does.
quote:No prophet ever said "God says..." when God did not in fact say it.
Hm. I can provide examples from the Mormon tradition of innumerable false doctrines being taught by prophets and apostles. True, there are far fewer examples of this when the qualifier "Thus saith the Lord" is required, but if that is required for true doctrine to be taught, there's been remarkably little of it taught recently, it would seem.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there was whoever convinced the Isrealites to worship the golden calf. Isaiah speaks of "prophets who teach lies", Jeremiah speaks of prophets who "are nothing but wind"and also, "YOu must therefore not listen to your prophets...for they are prophesying a lie to you...". Lamentations has whole sections about false prophets. We are warned against false prophets in Matthew. So I'm thinking they must exist.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody I think is arguing that false prophets do not exist. But if genuine prophets are teaching false docterines (something I have not seen proven) it completely defeats the purpose of those prophets.
MattB: Please provide examples of wicked people being called by God to act as prophets or leaders. You might profit by reading the previous posts too before posting as I provided examples of prophets "screwing up".
I also cannot think of a single time where a prophet said "Thus saith the Lord" and then taught something later shown to be wrong.
---
Aaron built the golden calf but he was not the PROPHET, Moses was.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, do you see how circular this is? If a prophet teaches true doctrine we call him a true prophet; if a prophet teaches false doctrine, we call him a false prophet. The way we judge the truth or falsness of a prophet is by what he teaches. We can't also judge the truth or falsness of what he says by whether he is a true of false prophet. It is what not who.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My personal attitude toward the Trinity issue is, if there were Christians in the world before the Trinity was dogma, who disagreed with the idea, and yet remained Christians, then it is difficult to call rejection of the Trinity idea an "un-Christian" thing to do. At least, if you consider the word "Christian" to represent a broad category of belief systems, and not a specific church organization.
I haven't said anything at all to the effect that Mormons aren't Christian. That doesn't mean that we don't find the doctrine of the Trinity to be terribly important.
quote:I would have said it indicates a major difference in the conceived purpose of Christ's suffering and death...
Of course it does. It's plenty important enough to do both. But, of the three, it's the one that most directly affects the conception of baptism.
quote:Not arguing that Mormons do not have the same policy, but Mormons believe in a total apostacy from the truth/church, it would completely undermine all our claims to allow other creeds to baptize. From Catholic/Protestant logic, why must the Mormons be rebaptized but not others?
I think it's been covered, but essentially because there are serious differences about the purpose of baptism and the basic beliefs which baptism signals the acceptance of.
Think of a set called "things required for and achieved by baptism." Methodists and Catholics are in agreement about what belongs in that set. Mormons and Methodists/Catholics are not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:MattB: Please provide examples of wicked people being called by God to act as prophets or leaders. You might profit by reading the previous posts too before posting as I provided examples of prophets "screwing up".
Saul/Paul. Alma the Younger. Judas Iscariot.
I would also point you to innumerable written sources in which LDS prophets and apostles teach doctrine explicitly rejected by President Hinckley in the last priesthood session of General Conference, that being that it was the will of God that men be denied the priesthood due to the color of their skin.
Abinadi in the Book of Mormon teaches trinitarian doctrines explicitly overturned later by the Doctrine and Covenants.
Paul tells us that women shouldn't speak in church.
The point being not that prophets are all bad or fallen, but that they're men, and thus sometimes limited by their own ignorance and capacity to make mistakes.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
There is no circularness (circularity?) to my logic. If a prophet is called by God its done within certain parameters, and he exhibits a character germane to the role. "By their fruits, ye shall know them."
I don't really have time to outline the "fruits" the scriptures lay out, suffice to say they are there.
The other thing that Mormons hold true is the role of the Holy Ghost in helping us discern truth from error.
Peter speaks of prophets "moved upon by the holy ghost" to say certain things, and those words are to use his words "scripture." To me all scripture is uttered by prophets, but not all the prophets utter is scripture. (By that I mean, prophets can have opinions that are not the word of God, but when they say they speak for God its true)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we have to decide whether or not a prophet is called by God to say whatever he says, based on what he says. Yes?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:MattB: Please provide examples of wicked people being called by God to act as prophets or leaders. You might profit by reading the previous posts too before posting as I provided examples of prophets "screwing up".
Saul/Paul. Alma the Younger. Judas Iscariot.
I would also point you to innumerable written sources in which LDS prophets and apostles teach doctrine explicitly rejected by President Hinckley in the last priesthood session of General Conference, that being that it was the will of God that men be denied the priesthood due to the color of their skin.
Abinadi in the Book of Mormon teaches trinitarian doctrines explicitly overturned later by the Doctrine and Covenants.
Paul tells us that women shouldn't speak in church.
The point being not that prophets are all bad or fallen, but that they're men, and thus sometimes limited by their own ignorance and capacity to make mistakes.
Saul and Alma the Younger both repented before being called by God. Judas became wicked after becoming an apostle. Neither Judas or Saul/Paul were the "Mouthpiece of God" they were apostles. The term Prophet can be confusing but when I say prophet I usually mean "The man chosen by God to say his words" Paul has said things that people hold to be true, but he often says "This is my opinion" and in that context he can say as he pleases.
As for teachings said by prophets/apostles that President Hinckley has refuted. Not one of those utterences (as far as I have seen) was uttered as the word of God. I still need a very specific example of a prophet standing before a congregation and saying "God is/says/thinks....." and it being denied by a later prophet. I am SURE you can find examples of prophets and apostles teaching lessons or saying things in writing that are not accepted by the church, but as Joseph Smith himself said, he, (Joseph) was "Only a prophet when speaking as such."
Abinadi did not teach anything regarding the trinity that is false in my opinion. His teachings all fight perfectly with the description of the trinity in the D/C. I admit I used to not understand how Abinadi's words could be true/accurate. But with guidance and careful study I understand how they are the truth without stretching any definitions or special diction.
To quote Wilford Woodruff one of our own prophets "I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."
I personally believe that is a prophetic utternace that will always be true. Interestingly enough that same man said this,
"The Church of God could not live twenty four hours without revelation."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, are you only speaking of your own LDS prophets at this point? Because I mentioned some Biblical false prophets a few posts back.
And (not at all saying that Mr. Woodruff was incorrect) but anyone can say that he will always tell the truth. To use the fact that he said that he would always tell the truth to prove that he would always tell the truth is, once again, circular.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saul and Alma the Younger both repented before being called by God.
No they didn't. They repented as a result of the call.
quote:The term Prophet can be confusing but when I say prophet I usually mean "The man chosen by God to say his words"
Hmm. If you are arguing that only one person can hold that role, why is Paul in the Bible? Furthermore, why do we sustain the Twelve as prophets?
quote:Paul has said things that people hold to be true, but he often says "This is my opinion" and in that context he can say as he pleases.
quote:"A prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such."
Excellent, we agree. And this does account for all the uninspired stuff that past prophets have taught as doctrine. However, it also implies that a prophet is not speaking under inspiration, or the specific will of God, unless he explicitly claims to be. Do you agree with that?
This, of course, is why we have the doctrine of personal inspiration.
quote:Abinadi did not teach anything regarding the trinity that is false in my opinion. His teachings all fight perfectly with the description of the trinity in the D/C. I admit I used to not understand how Abinadi's words could be true/accurate. But with guidance and careful study I understand how they are the truth without stretching any definitions or special diction.
I disagree. Abinadi is clearly a Nicean trinitarian; even a Modalist. And that's fine. I don't think it's necessary to try to read modern Mormon understandings into the past, or to assume that those God has called have equal understandings. In fact, the very concept of continuing revelation implies that nobody _has_ had perfect understanding of God.
quote:Mosiah chapter 15: 1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God• himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth• in flesh he shall be called the Son• of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father•, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because• he was conceived• by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one• God, yea, the very Eternal• Father• of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth• temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged•, and cast out, and disowned by his people•.
The D&C, on the other hand, teaches that God and Christ are two distinct beings, each with a physical body.
The reconciliation I think you are referring to is the concept of divine investiture, in which the Father allows the Son to speak on his behalf and use the title of Father, given their unity of purpose and that Christ is our father in the sense that it is through him that we are born to salvation. However, I don't think that applies to the terms as Abinadi is using them. He's pretty clear that he's talking about one being, two roles.
quote:"The Church of God could not live twenty four hours without revelation."
quote:The other thing that Mormons hold true is the role of the Holy Ghost in helping us discern truth from error.
I would be surprised if there's a Christian on the board who would have a theological problem with either of those things.
Kate, I read the biblical citations you reference as referring to those who claim to be prophets, but are not. As to your post of 5:54, Mormons are taught that we are to seek a confirmation from the Holy Spirit as to who God wishes us to give heed to, and again as we receive direction from him. Thus, we are presumably protected from false teachings. The problem, as you say, comes when we invest more in following the person rather than the teachings.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Kate, I read the biblical citations you reference as referring to those who claim to be prophets, but are not. As to your post of 5:54, Mormons are taught that we are to seek a confirmation from the Holy Spirit as to who God wishes us to give heed to, and again as we receive direction from him. Thus, we are presumably protected from false teachings. The problem, as you say, comes when we invest more in following the person rather than the teachings.
Yup. The Bible teaches us that people will fool us - or be wrong, it need not be a deliberate lie, that we have been fooled, and that we can be fooled. Our leaders may be wise, but they are still men and capable of error. So we rely on the Holy Spirit, both as individuals, and as the whole Body of Christ.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattB - I don't think that Abinadi was a modulist or Trinitarian either. It sounds like it to be sure, but there are too many other parts of his teachings that go against that interpretation. His whole point was to show those he taught that it was not sacriligious to see the Messiah as a God figure.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It sounds like it to be sure, but there are too many other parts of his teachings that go against that interpretation. His whole point was to show those he taught that it was not sacriligious to see the Messiah as a God figure.
Hm. I think I have to disagree. I just went back and read the relevant chapters, and he gives a modalist (or at least trinitarian) interpretation of the Trinity repeatedly; indeed, every time he might offer a non-trinitarian version, he emphasizes that the Father and the Son are the same being. There's at least one example in every Abinadi chapter. I guess I'm not sure what teachings of his "go against" it. There's a lot of stuff about Christ, but of course none of that is incompatible with either trinitarianism or modalism.
I think I'm going to be reluctant about going into this further or copying any verses because I'm afraid that it's getting a bit too esoterically Mormon.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
