John Mormon - give me your insight

[Krusader]

Dear John Mormon (or John Powell) - you can reply as either one. I was recently reading an instructional manual of the priesthood quorum (I always pick these things up in thrift stores, since the best way to learn about another religious group is to read their own literature), and was sort of shocked to learn that it taught that all major sins must be personally confessed to a proper priesthood authority. Could you elaborate on that? This seems, to me at least, to be rather "catholic" of the Mormons. Besides, the term "priests" is not used by Protestants, neither do Protestants hold to baptismal regeneration.

So, confession to a priest, baptismal regeneration, the concept of a priesthood apart from the laity, as well as weekly communion, seems to put Mormonsim more in the Roman camp than that of the Reformed. Would you agree? And, considering that they seem to consider Rome the Great Whore of Babylon, I think that's rather remarkable.

The Restoration seems to be about restoring Romanism (with a Protestant happy face).

[John Powell]

Crusader:
Dear John Mormon (or John Powell) - you can reply as either one. I was recently reading an instructional manual of the priesthood quorum (I always pick these things up in thrift stores, since the best way to learn about another religious group is to read their own literature), and was sort of shocked to learn that it taught that all major sins must be personally confessed to a proper priesthood authority. Could you elaborate on that?


JOHN MORMON:
I'm not sure what you want. An example of a major sin would be adultery. An example of a minor sin would be "adultery in the heart." If you commit a major sin then you're supposed to go to the Bishop and confess it. If you commit a minor sin then that's not required, but the Bishop is there to help you if you need him.


CRUSADER:
This seems, to me at least, to be rather "catholic" of the Mormons.


JOHN MORMON:
I suppose so.


CRUSADER:
Besides, the term "priests" is not used by Protestants,


JOHN MORMON:
Mormon apologists like that. The Bible speaks of "priests" and "high priests." Mormons claim to have them. Protestants don't.


CRUSADER:
. . . neither do Protestants hold to baptismal regeneration.


JOHN MORMON:
I'm not sure what specific doctrinal point you're making. Mormons believe that you are as clean of culpability as a newborn baby and God forgives you if you properly repent and are baptized by one having authority. Sins you commit after baptism need to be properly repented of. Confession of major sins is part of proper repentance.


CRUSADER:
So, confession to a priest, baptismal regeneration, the concept of a priesthood apart from the laity, as well as weekly communion, seems to put Mormonsim more in the Roman camp than that of the Reformed. Would you agree?


JOHN MORMON:
Not yet. I'm iffy. It would be helpful if somebody took all the significant religious details of the average Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Mormon to see which group Mormons are most like.


CRUSADER:
And, considering that they seem to consider Rome the Great Whore of Babylon, I think that's rather remarkable.

The Restoration seems to be about restoring Romanism (with a Protestant happy face).


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons have historically not wanted to be associated with Protestantism because the Catholics can claim "You lost authority when you left us and made your own church." The Mormons claim to be a restoration by God.

A notable non Mormon visitor to a Mormon community, I think it was to Nauvoo, (probably the man was Catholic) argued that the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on because they came out of the Catholic church. Protestants don't claim to have priesthood authority. The real debate, he claimed, was between the Catholics and the Mormons.

Mormon apologists are attracted to that kind of thinking.

John Powell

[Krusader]

JOHN MORMON:
I'm not sure what you want. An example of a major sin would be adultery. An example of a minor sin would be "adultery in the heart." If you commit a major sin then you're supposed to go to the Bishop and confess it. If you commit a minor sin then that's not required, but the Bishop is there to help you if you need him.



JOHN MORMON:
I suppose so.



JOHN MORMON:
Mormon apologists like that. The Bible speaks of "priests" and "high priests." Mormons claim to have them. Protestants don't.



JOHN MORMON:
I'm not sure what specific doctrinal point you're making. Mormons believe that you are as clean of culpability as a newborn baby and God forgives you if you properly repent and are baptized by one having authority. Sins you commit after baptism need to be properly repented of. Confession of major sins is part of proper repentance.



JOHN MORMON:
Not yet. I'm iffy. It would be helpful if somebody took all the significant religious details of the average Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Mormon to see which group Mormons are most like.



JOHN MORMON:
Mormons have historically not wanted to be associated with Protestantism because the Catholics can claim "You lost authority when you left us and made your own church." The Mormons claim to be a restoration by God.

A notable non Mormon visitor to a Mormon community, I think it was to Nauvoo, (probably the man was Catholic) argued that the Protestants don't have a leg to stand on because they came out of the Catholic church. Protestants don't claim to have priesthood authority. The real debate, he claimed, was between the Catholics and the Mormons.

Mormon apologists are attracted to that kind of thinking.

John Powell

Well, thank you for your insight. If I was discussing this with a Mormon apologist, I would like to ask him whether or not Christ is our "High Priest," as the Book of Hebrews teaches. In any case, Roman Catholics or any early Christians ( as far as I know) had no "high priesthood" order. The concept of priests found in RC, Orthodox and Anglican Churches is from the word presbyteros, which means elders. I would like to ask our Mormon apologist why we need priests today....of course, priests were needed in the Old Testament era to offer atoning sacrifices. But, since Jesus, Our High Priest, has made the one, perfect and sufficient sacrifice and offered it in the Heavenly Tabernacle - why do Mormons claim to have priests and high priests.

Revelation calls us a kingdom of priests - men and women alike. This is because we partake in Christ's priesthood - having been cleansed by the Blood He has offered to His Father.

[Conductor42]

Dear John Mormon (or John Powell) - you can reply as either one. I was recently reading an instructional manual of the priesthood quorum (I always pick these things up in thrift stores, since the best way to learn about another religious group is to read their own literature), and was sort of shocked to learn that it taught that all major sins must be personally confessed to a proper priesthood authority. Could you elaborate on that? This seems, to me at least, to be rather "catholic" of the Mormons. Besides, the term "priests" is not used by Protestants, neither do Protestants hold to baptismal regeneration.

So, confession to a priest, baptismal regeneration, the concept of a priesthood apart from the laity, as well as weekly communion, seems to put Mormonsim more in the Roman camp than that of the Reformed. Would you agree? And, considering that they seem to consider Rome the Great Whore of Babylon, I think that's rather remarkable.

The Restoration seems to be about restoring Romanism (with a Protestant happy face).

Mormons don't believe that they have to confess *every* sin to one of their authorities, but only what they view as major sins (fornication, adultery, smoking, murder, etc.) or sins where one has lost control of (i.e. basically are addicted to it). Usually, they will confess them to their bishop, unless they happen to be a Bishop. In those cases, they confess to the next highest authority - such as a Stake President.

[John Powell]

Crusader:
Well, thank you for your insight. If I was discussing this with a Mormon apologist, I would like to ask him whether or not Christ is our "High Priest," as the Book of Hebrews teaches.


JOHN MORMON:
The answer is "yes."


Crusader:
In any case, Roman Catholics or any early Christians ( as far as I know) had no "high priesthood" order.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons claim the Apostles had the Melchizedek priesthood.


Crusader:
The concept of priests found in RC, Orthodox and Anglican Churches is from the word presbyteros, which means elders. I would like to ask our Mormon apologist why we need priests today....of course, priests were needed in the Old Testament era to offer atoning sacrifices. But, since Jesus, Our High Priest, has made the one, perfect and sufficient sacrifice and offered it in the Heavenly Tabernacle - why do Mormons claim to have priests and high priests.


JOHN MORMON:
Why? To officiate in God's behalf. To do things like blessings, baptisms, sacraments, sealings, etc.


CRUSADER:
Revelation calls us a kingdom of priests - men and women alike.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons treat that as meaning that the worthy men have the priesthood and the women share in the benefits. It means, not just a small, select group have the priesthood (the male descendants of Levi), but now all worthy males. It's like the difference between a small military class and where all capable men are in the militia.

It's not Mormon doctrine, but the way my mom taught me was that women give birth and raise the children which gives them a distinct advantage from an eternal point of view, so God gave men the priesthood to help balance things out.


CRUSADER:
This is because we partake in Christ's priesthood - having been cleansed by the Blood He has offered to His Father.


JOHN MORMON:
We not only benefit from what Christ did, but He also authorizes men on Earth to be His servants.

John Powell

[Krusader]

John Mormon: Where on earth do they find that the apostles had the Melchizedek priesthood? It certainly isn't in the Bible. Would they have to point to "modern revelation?"

[John Powell]

Crusader:
John Mormon, Where on earth do they find that the apostles had the Melchizedek priesthood? It certainly isn't in the Bible. Would they have to point to "modern revelation?"


JOHN MORMON:
It is in modern revelation, but one can argue from the Bible.

Let's suppose for the moment that the New Testament does not say or clearly imply that the apostles were given the Melchizedek priesthood, but it's claimed by a later prophet, a Mormon prophet, that they were given it.

Now, it's your turn. Where in the Torah, the words of Moses, do Christians find that the serpent he spoke of in Genesis 2 was Satan?

If it's ok to quote a post-Moses prophet to explain Moses then it should be ok to quote a post-Peter prophet to explain Peter. Don't you agree?

John Powell

[Krusader]

JOHN MORMON:
It is in modern revelation, but one can argue from the Bible.

Let's suppose for the moment that the New Testament does not say or clearly imply that the apostles were given the Melchizedek priesthood, but it's claimed by a later prophet, a Mormon prophet, that they were given it.

Now, it's your turn. Where in the Torah, the words of Moses, do Christians find that the serpent he spoke of in Genesis 2 was Satan?

If it's ok to quote a post-Moses prophet to explain Moses then it should be ok to quote a post-Peter prophet to explain Peter. Don't you agree?

John Powell

But, it seems to me that since the Melchizedek priesthood is of such primary importance for the LDS, and the whole authority issue, that these things would be covered in the NT - at least in some of the epistles. However, we have dead silence. Now, Paul does say that the elders are to have only one wife (which we know Smith ignored), and are to be upright men keeping their own families in subjection to the Lord. Other than that, I don't see that the NT says much about authority and elders. Of course, they would still have to deal with Hebrews, which seems to teach that the change in the priesthood was intended for Christ only. The Aaronic priesthood certainly was done away with at Christ's death (not to mention the destruction of the temple).

As to the Aaronic priesthood - how do they get around that this priesthood is for the descendents of Aaron?

PS: Do you think the whole "authority" hang-up was inspired by Sidney Rigdon's thinking - restoring the authority of early Christianity, etc.?

[John Powell]

CRUSADER::
But, it seems to me that since the Melchizedek priesthood is of such primary importance for the LDS, and the whole authority issue, that these things would be covered in the NT - at least in some of the epistles. However, we have dead silence.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, maybe some evil scribe removed the references. :idea:

What priestly authority did David have if he didn't have the Aaronic priesthood? Mormons say his authority was the Melchizedek priesthood.


CRUSADER:
Now, Paul does say that the elders are to have only one wife (which we know Smith ignored), and are to be upright men keeping their own families in subjection to the Lord. Other than that, I don't see that the NT says much about authority and elders.


JOHN MORMON:
It's a good thing we have modern prophets to fill in the gaps.


CRUSADER:
Of course, they would still have to deal with Hebrews, which seems to teach that the change in the priesthood was intended for Christ only. The Aaronic priesthood certainly was done away with at Christ's death (not to mention the destruction of the temple).


JOHN MORMON:
Animal sacrifices were done away with, but there was still a need for men to be authorized by God to do things like blessings, baptisms, sacraments, sealings, etc.


CRUSADER:
As to the Aaronic priesthood - how do they get around that this priesthood is for the descendents of Aaron?


JOHN MORMON:
New plan. God tells His authorized servants. They tell the members.

How do Christians get around the fact that the Torah directs the people to do animal sacrifices? New plan. God tells His authorized servants. They tell the members.


CRUSADER:
PS: Do you think the whole "authority" hang-up was inspired by Sidney Rigdon's thinking - restoring the authority of early Christianity, etc.?


POWELL:
Could be. I'm not that familiar with each early Mormon leader's background.

JOHN MORMON:
Let's assume for argument's sake that you're right that Sidney Rigdon had a hang-up about the issue. Even assuming that, rather than concluding the Mormon scriptures about it were made up, an alternative explanation is that God picked Sidney Rigdon to help restore the Gospel partly because he was in tune to that problem. To answer a question, the question should be asked.

Skeptics can make similar arguments that the writers of the Bible made stuff up because of their peculiar hang-ups. They were looking for a Messiah who would fulfill OT prophecies so they made one up.

John Powell

[RussianWolfe]

But, it seems to me that since the Melchizedek priesthood is of such primary importance for the LDS, and the whole authority issue, that these things would be covered in the NT - at least in some of the epistles. However, we have dead silence.

First, let me say that the NT is not a complete thesis on Christian doctrine and practices. If something is missing, then it would be incorrect to conclude that it was not doctrine. The four Gospels are missionary tracts directed at specific peoples to show them Christ. Matthew was meant for the Jews, Mark was intended for the Romans, but I don't remember who Luke was directed to. John might have been written to correct some erroneous doctrines that were creeping into the church at that time. None of the Gospels claims or even attempts to give a definitive story of the life of Christ. Read what John had to say about this at the end of his book. The Letters of Paul were intended to correct false teachings that were being introduced into the church. But none of them are intended to be a definitive work on Christian doctrines or teachings.

As for the MP being of such primary importance to the LDS, don't forget that as in the case of the 1st century church, when a question arises, revelation will fill in the gap. Peter did not depend on the scriptures to decide to begin preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. It was a vision of unclean animals that began the process that resulted in Cornelius being baptised. It was not the scriptures that called Paul to the apostleship. These and other matters were decided by revelation and not by an appeal to the scriptures. Appealing to the scriptures is only good if God has already made a statement on the matter. If not then revelation is needed.



Now, Paul does say that the elders are to have only one wife (which we know Smith ignored), and are to be upright men keeping their own families in subjection to the Lord. Other than that, I don't see that the NT says much about authority and elders. Of course, they would still have to deal with Hebrews, which seems to teach that the change in the priesthood was intended for Christ only. The Aaronic priesthood certainly was done away with at Christ's death (not to mention the destruction of the temple).

Joseph Smith did not ignore that command to have one wife. He received revelation from God that superceded that command. As it says in the Book of Mormon, When God wills it [and I will add only when God wills it] man may have more than one wife. But only then. For that to happen, you must have continuous revelation and cannot rely on the scriptures.

I fail to see any teaching in the Bible that says that the priesthood was for Christ only. Christ didn't need to have the priesthood, he was the power and the priesthood. He is indeed the high priest and authorizes men to act in his name. This authorization to act in his name is the priesthood. This is what Chrsit does to keep his house a house of order. If Christ can authorize a man to act in his name, he can withdraw that authorization.

When Peter healed the man at the door to the temple, he did it in the name of Christ, which is to say he did it by the power of the Priesthood which is Christ's priesthood. Without the priesthood, man cannot act in Christ's name. This is the order of the House of God.


And I fail to see any clear teaching in the Bible, that the Aaronic Priesthood was done away with. Christ taught that he came not to destroy but to fulfill the Law. And then he demonstrated what he meant. He said that it was said of old, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you that a man who looks upona woman to lust after he has already committed adultery in his heart. Clearly the commandment not to commit adultery was not done away with but was expanded to include our thoughts as well as our actions.

When Christ came to the Nephites, he said that blood sacrifices were done away with in him and were no longer required. What was required? A broken heart and a contrite spirit. Christ did not destroy anything but fullfilled and expanded the Law. The same with the Priesthood. While under the Law of Moses the Priesthood was limited to just the tribe of Levi, after Christ's resurrection, the full priesthood was given and it was for all men and not just those of a particular tribe.




As to the Aaronic priesthood - how do they get around that this priesthood is for the descendents of Aaron?

Joseph Smith taught that all Priesthood is Mechizedek. What Priesthood did Abraham hold? What Priesthood did Adam hold? Or Isaac? Or Jacob? Or Melchezidek? They all held the Priesthood of God or Christ if you will. When the people refused the fullness of the Gospel and sought that Moses would be their representative, they rejected the full Priesthood and so God gave them the lesser Priesthood. It was named the Aaronic Priesthood because Aaron was the first. But nevertheless it was a part of the Melchesidek Priesthood.

We are told in D&C that the proper name of the Priesthood is the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God, but in reverence to the name of Deity they called it the Mechelisidek in order to avoid the too often repitition of the name of Deity and because Melchesidek was a righteous man.


PS: Do you think the whole "authority" hang-up was inspired by Sidney Rigdon's thinking - restoring the authority of early Christianity, etc.?[/QUOTE]

No.

Marvin

[Krusader]

First, let me say that the NT is not a complete thesis on Christian doctrine and practices. If something is missing, then it would be incorrect to conclude that it was not doctrine. The four Gospels are missionary tracts directed at specific peoples to show them Christ. Matthew was meant for the Jews, Mark was intended for the Romans, but I don't remember who Luke was directed to. John might have been written to correct some erroneous doctrines that were creeping into the church at that time. None of the Gospels claims or even attempts to give a definitive story of the life of Christ. Read what John had to say about this at the end of his book. The Letters of Paul were intended to correct false teachings that were being introduced into the church. But none of them are intended to be a definitive work on Christian doctrines or teachings.

As for the MP being of such primary importance to the LDS, don't forget that as in the case of the 1st century church, when a question arises, revelation will fill in the gap. Peter did not depend on the scriptures to decide to begin preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. It was a vision of unclean animals that began the process that resulted in Cornelius being baptised. It was not the scriptures that called Paul to the apostleship. These and other matters were decided by revelation and not by an appeal to the scriptures. Appealing to the scriptures is only good if God has already made a statement on the matter. If not then revelation is needed.




Joseph Smith did not ignore that command to have one wife. He received revelation from God that superceded that command. As it says in the Book of Mormon, When God wills it [and I will add only when God wills it] man may have more than one wife. But only then. For that to happen, you must have continuous revelation and cannot rely on the scriptures.

I fail to see any teaching in the Bible that says that the priesthood was for Christ only. Christ didn't need to have the priesthood, he was the power and the priesthood. He is indeed the high priest and authorizes men to act in his name. This authorization to act in his name is the priesthood. This is what Chrsit does to keep his house a house of order. If Christ can authorize a man to act in his name, he can withdraw that authorization.

When Peter healed the man at the door to the temple, he did it in the name of Christ, which is to say he did it by the power of the Priesthood which is Christ's priesthood. Without the priesthood, man cannot act in Christ's name. This is the order of the House of God.


And I fail to see any clear teaching in the Bible, that the Aaronic Priesthood was done away with. Christ taught that he came not to destroy but to fulfill the Law. And then he demonstrated what he meant. He said that it was said of old, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you that a man who looks upona woman to lust after he has already committed adultery in his heart. Clearly the commandment not to commit adultery was not done away with but was expanded to include our thoughts as well as our actions.

When Christ came to the Nephites, he said that blood sacrifices were done away with in him and were no longer required. What was required? A broken heart and a contrite spirit. Christ did not destroy anything but fullfilled and expanded the Law. The same with the Priesthood. While under the Law of Moses the Priesthood was limited to just the tribe of Levi, after Christ's resurrection, the full priesthood was given and it was for all men and not just those of a particular tribe.



Joseph Smith taught that all Priesthood is Mechizedek. What Priesthood did Abraham hold? What Priesthood did Adam hold? Or Isaac? Or Jacob? Or Melchezidek? They all held the Priesthood of God or Christ if you will. When the people refused the fullness of the Gospel and sought that Moses would be their representative, they rejected the full Priesthood and so God gave them the lesser Priesthood. It was named the Aaronic Priesthood because Aaron was the first. But nevertheless it was a part of the Melchesidek Priesthood.

We are told in D&C that the proper name of the Priesthood is the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God, but in reverence to the name of Deity they called it the Mechelisidek in order to avoid the too often repitition of the name of Deity and because Melchesidek was a righteous man.


PS: Do you think the whole "authority" hang-up was inspired by Sidney Rigdon's thinking - restoring the authority of early Christianity, etc.?

No.

Marvin[/QUOTE]

Marvin, what if I told you that I had a revelation that polygamy was once again to be practiced by the Mormons, and that anybody who failed to enter into this "everlasting" covenant would never be exalted. What if I told you that I also had a revelation that women were to be ordained to the Melch. and Aaronic priesthoods, and that a female co-President was to be appointed for the LDS Church. What if I also claimed that I have found a new set of golden plates, which I dug up from under a mesquite bush and translated by the gift and power of God. That three witnesses have also been blessed to see these plates, which have now ascended to heaven with an angelic being. These plates state that Mormons must gather in Mexico, the place of Zion, and turn over all their properties to me.

Well, how would you know if these prophecies were true or false? What is your plumb line? How do you determine whether or not my prophecies and plates and revelations are true?

PS. You're wrong on Rigdon (he's the real author of Mormonism).

[RussianWolfe]

It is the SOP that you reply to a posting and never address the original posting?

And what makes you think that what you have posed here is so out of the norm? What you have claimed is just what many other groups are claiming now and have been claiming even during the life of Joseph Smith. Your just a little late and a whole dollar short.

As for answering your red herring, from the first sentence I would know that your 'revelation' was not true. I have a witness from God himself, that Gordon B. Hinckley is the one God has chosen to lead us now. Your claiming a 'revelation' that contradicts that knowledge is a sure sign that your 'revelation' is false. But keep claiming it and go around to the various wards, stakes and branches of the church and you will be able to gather a following of men and women. Some will even say that they have received a revelation that you are the true prophet. It has happened before, is happening now, and will continue to happen as long as men are alive. It would be a great way to get a few women as wives, lots of money, and the glory of the world. Of course some day you will have to appear before the Judgement Bar of God and answer for your lies and deceit. But don't let that bother you. You only live once, so why not live it up. It can't be so bad in the telestial kingdom.

By the way, are you going to address what I posted or are you just going to ignore my answer and questions? Just wondering.

And Sidney is not the author of Mormonism. Many doctrines were already defined before Sidney joined the church. And in the end he didn't really see what the church was all about. After Joseph's death, he came to the church and said that there would never be a man like Joseph Smith and that he should lead the church and build it up to Joseph Smith. Of course the Lord chose the right man in Brigham Young who lead the church forward and built the church up to Jesus Christ.


Marvin



No.

Marvin

Marvin, what if I told you that I had a revelation that polygamy was once again to be practiced by the Mormons, and that anybody who failed to enter into this "everlasting" covenant would never be exalted. What if I told you that I also had a revelation that women were to be ordained to the Melch. and Aaronic priesthoods, and that a female co-President was to be appointed for the LDS Church. What if I also claimed that I have found a new set of golden plates, which I dug up from under a mesquite bush and translated by the gift and power of God. That three witnesses have also been blessed to see these plates, which have now ascended to heaven with an angelic being. These plates state that Mormons must gather in Mexico, the place of Zion, and turn over all their properties to me.

Well, how would you know if these prophecies were true or false? What is your plumb line? How do you determine whether or not my prophecies and plates and revelations are true?

PS. You're wrong on Rigdon (he's the real author of Mormonism).[/QUOTE]

[Krusader]

It is the SOP that you reply to a posting and never address the original posting?

And what makes you think that what you have posed here is so out of the norm? What you have claimed is just what many other groups are claiming now and have been claiming even during the life of Joseph Smith. Your just a little late and a whole dollar short.

As for answering your red herring, from the first sentence I would know that your 'revelation' was not true. I have a witness from God himself, that Gordon B. Hinckley is the one God has chosen to lead us now. Your claiming a 'revelation' that contradicts that knowledge is a sure sign that your 'revelation' is false. But keep claiming it and go around to the various wards, stakes and branches of the church and you will be able to gather a following of men and women. Some will even say that they have received a revelation that you are the true prophet. It has happened before, is happening now, and will continue to happen as long as men are alive. It would be a great way to get a few women as wives, lots of money, and the glory of the world. Of course some day you will have to appear before the Judgement Bar of God and answer for your lies and deceit. But don't let that bother you. You only live once, so why not live it up. It can't be so bad in the telestial kingdom.

By the way, are you going to address what I posted or are you just going to ignore my answer and questions? Just wondering.

And Sidney is not the author of Mormonism. Many doctrines were already defined before Sidney joined the church. And in the end he didn't really see what the church was all about. After Joseph's death, he came to the church and said that there would never be a man like Joseph Smith and that he should lead the church and build it up to Joseph Smith. Of course the Lord chose the right man in Brigham Young who lead the church forward and built the church up to Jesus Christ.


Marvin




Marvin, what if I told you that I had a revelation that polygamy was once again to be practiced by the Mormons, and that anybody who failed to enter into this "everlasting" covenant would never be exalted. What if I told you that I also had a revelation that women were to be ordained to the Melch. and Aaronic priesthoods, and that a female co-President was to be appointed for the LDS Church. What if I also claimed that I have found a new set of golden plates, which I dug up from under a mesquite bush and translated by the gift and power of God. That three witnesses have also been blessed to see these plates, which have now ascended to heaven with an angelic being. These plates state that Mormons must gather in Mexico, the place of Zion, and turn over all their properties to me.

Well, how would you know if these prophecies were true or false? What is your plumb line? How do you determine whether or not my prophecies and plates and revelations are true?

PS. You're wrong on Rigdon (he's the real author of Mormonism).[/QUOTE]

So, in the end it's all your own subjective feeling? And that "feeling" is due to the fact that you believe Gordon Hinkley is the only one who can lead you now. Also, my new revelations don't conform to your old revelations.

Now, putting yourself back to the 19th century, why should Christian leaders have accepted Smith? His revelations taught polytheism and not monotheism. His revelations taught polygamy and not monogamy. His revelations said that the gates of Hell had prevailed against the Christian Church. His revelations were contrary to those revelations already received by the Church and accepted by them unanimously.


All of Smith's revelations were only supported by his own say-so. His revelations contradicted Scripture and the received tradition of the Church. His revelations, judged by the same criteria that you would use to judge mine, must be determined to be bogus. Smith was an imposter.

[RussianWolfe]

So, in the end it's all your own subjective feeling? And that "feeling" is due to the fact that you believe Gordon Hinkley is the only one who can lead you now. Also, my new revelations don't conform to your old revelations.

I said nothing about feelings. And if you think that a witness from the Spirit of God is 'just feelings' you haven't had much experience with such things.

My witness is not 'due to the fact that [I] believe' at all. It is a witness from God that God will only reveal his will for his people through the prophet of the church and no others. And I know from this witness that at the present time Gordon B. Hinckley is that prophet.

And your 'revelations' contradict what the leader of the church has revealed (the leader being Jesus Christ). It is the responsibility and the duty of every LDS member to gain their own witness. 'Borrowed light' is only good for a time and it still makes us responsible for seeking Christ for our own witness. Without our own personal witness, we have no faith just belief.





Now, putting yourself back to the 19th century, why should Christian leaders have accepted Smith? His revelations taught polytheism and not monotheism. His revelations taught polygamy and not monogamy. His revelations said that the gates of Hell had prevailed against the Christian Church. His revelations were contrary to those revelations already received by the Church and accepted by them unanimously.

Why should the Jews of Christ's time accept him. He taught that they should love their neighbors; he taught he was the light and the life of the world. Which was a complete contradiction of the leaders of their day! So why should the Jews of the first century follow Jesus?

As for the rest of this paragraph, I challenge you to show me the revelations that the 'Church' has received and accept 'unanimously.' From what I can see of the Christian world today, there is no consensus on any subject. As I read some place, If you as any 3 Baptists a single questions, you will get 5 different opinions.






All of Smith's revelations were only supported by his own say-so.

All of Smith's revelations were witnessed by many people and any one can today receive a witness from God as to their truthfulness.






His revelations contradicted Scripture and the received tradition of the Church. His revelations, judged by the same criteria that you would use to judge mine, must be determined to be bogus. Smith was an imposter.

As has been said before, the revelations received by Joseph Smith, contracdicted the status quo just as Christ's teachings did in his day. If there is a conflict, it is only in the understanding of the scriptures not in the plain statement of the scriptures. I have many times read with amazement the way that Christians discount the plain statements of the Savior to justify their beliefs. In an email conversation with a minister (by his claim), I learned that when Christ said that a man must be born of water and the Spirit, it was not talking about baptism of water and of the Spirit. This I found astonishing. I consider this to be one of the more simple and plain statements of Christ and yet this man attempt to persuade me to believe the Christ was not talking about Baptism.

One more thing. Is there any possibility that you might consider answering the original posting or will you continue to ignore what I said in response to what you said? Just hoping that this kind of red herring isn't SOP here.

Marvin

[Trout]

RussianWolfe:
And if you think that a witness from the Spirit of God is 'just feelings' you haven't had much experience with such things.

Can you explain what it is?

[Krusader]

Can you explain what it is?

Hi Trout. I suppose I should have said "burning in the bosom" instead!!!!!!:teeth:

[Krusader]

I said nothing about feelings. And if you think that a witness from the Spirit of God is 'just feelings' you haven't had much experience with such things.

My witness is not 'due to the fact that [I] believe' at all. It is a witness from God that God will only reveal his will for his people through the prophet of the church and no others. And I know from this witness that at the present time Gordon B. Hinckley is that prophet.

And your 'revelations' contradict what the leader of the church has revealed (the leader being Jesus Christ). It is the responsibility and the duty of every LDS member to gain their own witness. 'Borrowed light' is only good for a time and it still makes us responsible for seeking Christ for our own witness. Without our own personal witness, we have no faith just belief.




Why should the Jews of Christ's time accept him. He taught that they should love their neighbors; he taught he was the light and the life of the world. Which was a complete contradiction of the leaders of their day! So why should the Jews of the first century follow Jesus?

As for the rest of this paragraph, I challenge you to show me the revelations that the 'Church' has received and accept 'unanimously.' From what I can see of the Christian world today, there is no consensus on any subject. As I read some place, If you as any 3 Baptists a single questions, you will get 5 different opinions.




All of Smith's revelations were witnessed by many people and any one can today receive a witness from God as to their truthfulness.




As has been said before, the revelations received by Joseph Smith, contracdicted the status quo just as Christ's teachings did in his day. If there is a conflict, it is only in the understanding of the scriptures not in the plain statement of the scriptures. I have many times read with amazement the way that Christians discount the plain statements of the Savior to justify their beliefs. In an email conversation with a minister (by his claim), I learned that when Christ said that a man must be born of water and the Spirit, it was not talking about baptism of water and of the Spirit. This I found astonishing. I consider this to be one of the more simple and plain statements of Christ and yet this man attempt to persuade me to believe the Christ was not talking about Baptism.

One more thing. Is there any possibility that you might consider answering the original posting or will you continue to ignore what I said in response to what you said? Just hoping that this kind of red herring isn't SOP here.

Marvin

Hold on a minute Mr. Wolf in sheep's - oh, I mean Russian Wolf. How can you possibly fault my revelations as contradicting Jesus, when Smith was the biggest contradicter of all? He even claimed to have done a greater work than Jesus, and Brigham said that nobody but nobody gets into the highest heaven for ultimate evolution to godhood without Smith's okay (thus making Smith greater than Jesus).:bravo:

[John Powell]

Crusader:
Hi Trout. I suppose I should have said "burning in the bosom" instead!!!!!!:teeth:


JOHN MORMON:
Or a burning in the heart.

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

JOHN MORMON:
Or a "still small voice."

1 Kgs. 19: 12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

JOHN MORMON:
Or other things.

Be nice to the Mormons who visit here. Don't you want to debate Mormonism with true believers?

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.

[RussianWolfe]

Hold on a minute Mr. Wolf in sheep's - oh, I mean Russian Wolf. How can you possibly fault my revelations as contradicting Jesus, when Smith was the biggest contradicter of all? He even claimed to have done a greater work than Jesus, and Brigham said that nobody but nobody gets into the highest heaven for ultimate evolution to godhood without Smith's okay (thus making Smith greater than Jesus).:bravo:

I gave all my reasons for faulting your 'revelation'. When Joseph Smith received his revelations, there was not constituted organized church authority. Now there is.

First, Joseph only claimed to keep a church together, which was not the greatest work of Jesus Christ. What Brigham Young said was nothing more than what Christ said when he said that the apostle would just the tribes of Israel. This does not make him greater than Christ, unless you think that Christ's statement made the apostles greater than him.

And now you have had 3 post but have failed in any of them to address the points that I made. Am I being unreasonable to expect an answer to my points. Or is this just your forum to discuss your points and all others are ignored.

I'm just waiting for an answer to my points. After I answered your points but you have failed to answer any points but your own.


Marvin

[Krusader]

I gave all my reasons for faulting your 'revelation'. When Joseph Smith received his revelations, there was not constituted organized church authority. Now there is.

First, Joseph only claimed to keep a church together, which was not the greatest work of Jesus Christ. What Brigham Young said was nothing more than what Christ said when he said that the apostle would just the tribes of Israel. This does not make him greater than Christ, unless you think that Christ's statement made the apostles greater than him.

And now you have had 3 post but have failed in any of them to address the points that I made. Am I being unreasonable to expect an answer to my points. Or is this just your forum to discuss your points and all others are ignored.

I'm just waiting for an answer to my points. After I answered your points but you have failed to answer any points but your own.


Marvin

Baloney. Smith clearly stated that he did a greater work than any other man had ever done -= including Jesus. Young stated that you could not get exalted to godhood without Smith's okay. And, the supposed "priesthood authority" that validates Smith's revelations was established by his revelations. It's insane to say that a revelation from Smith on priesthood authority thereby validates all Smith's revelations. That's like saying that my revelations could be also validated by some bogus authority structure that I set up via revelation.

Sorry, strike three and you are out.

PS: Shortly after making his "I'm greater than Jesus" statement - Smith met His maker? The Lord will not be mocked. Ask John Lennon.

[RussianWolfe]

Baloney. Smith clearly stated that he did a greater work than any other man had ever done -= including Jesus. Young stated that you could not get exalted to godhood without Smith's okay. And, the supposed "priesthood authority" that validates Smith's revelations was established by his revelations. It's insane to say that a revelation from Smith on priesthood authority thereby validates all Smith's revelations. That's like saying that my revelations could be also validated by some bogus authority structure that I set up via revelation.

Sorry, strike three and you are out.

PS: Shortly after making his "I'm greater than Jesus" statement - Smith met His maker? The Lord will not be mocked. Ask John Lennon.


And you still have not answer a single point I made in my original post.

Marvin

[karen22]

Dear John Mormon (or John Powell) - you can reply as either one. I was recently reading an instructional manual of the priesthood quorum (I always pick these things up in thrift stores, since the best way to learn about another religious group is to read their own literature), and was sort of shocked to learn that it taught that all major sins must be personally confessed to a proper priesthood authority. Could you elaborate on that? This seems, to me at least, to be rather "catholic" of the Mormons. Besides, the term "priests" is not used by Protestants, neither do Protestants hold to baptismal regeneration.

So, confession to a priest, baptismal regeneration, the concept of a priesthood apart from the laity, as well as weekly communion, seems to put Mormonsim more in the Roman camp than that of the Reformed. Would you agree? And, considering that they seem to consider Rome the Great Whore of Babylon, I think that's rather remarkable.

The Restoration seems to be about restoring Romanism (with a Protestant happy face).

Major sins that must be confessed the bishop would include, (as far as I know) pornography usage , fornication, adultery, and murder. (There may be others, but I am not familiar with them...I suppose a real sinner would be.) Plus you can go to the bishop with anything you feel like you are struggling with and need some counseling or guidance.

As far as lining ourselves with Catholism. That is an interesting point. I once read that if a church feels they have authority from God to act, then ordinances are traditionally part of their religion and those religions who do not feel they have authority given to them, go away from ordinances or tend to not see them as necessary for salvation. (I think this may have been N.T. Wright who wrote this, but I honestly can't remember, so don't quote me.) So, I guess we align ourselves with the Catholic church in that we feel God has given us authority to act in his behalf or the priesthood. Hence, one can baptize with authority and one can excommunicate with authority.

As far as seeing the Catholic church or "Rome the Great Whore of Babylon", I don't agree. As someone who is LDS and has been raised in the church, "the great whore of Babylon" is Satan's church and is any teaching that goes away from the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I hope that is a clear answer for you.

[karen22]

JOHN MORMON:
Or a burning in the heart.

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

JOHN MORMON:
Or a "still small voice."

1 Kgs. 19: 12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

JOHN MORMON:
Or other things.

Be nice to the Mormons who visit here. Don't you want to debate Mormonism with true believers?

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.

Oh, there really is a John Powell....I was assuming he was talking to all LDS, I will let the two of you get back to your discussion.

[nrajeff]

Who witnessed Peter's dream (about being told to eat the unclean animals), to make sure that skeptics wouldn't dismiss it as just some "feelings" that he had? Some bad hummus before bedtime, perhaps? Upon what did the people accept this new revelation as being legit?

[Krusader]

Who witnessed Peter's dream (about being told to eat the unclean animals), to make sure that skeptics wouldn't dismiss it as just some "feelings" that he had? Some bad hummus before bedtime, perhaps? Upon what did the people accept this new revelation as being legit?


Jeff, Peter's dream was confirmed by the Body of Christ at the first Council of the Church in Jerusalem.

[nrajeff]

Jeff, Peter's dream was confirmed by the Body of Christ at the first Council of the Church in Jerusalem.

---Was it confirmed by something that skeptics would, centuries later, likely mock as "feeeelings" ??

[karen22]

---Was it confirmed by something that skeptics would, centuries later, likely mock as "feeeelings" ??

:lol:

I wonder what it means to be confirmed by the "body of Christ"?

[Krusader]

---Was it confirmed by something that skeptics would, centuries later, likely mock as "feeeelings" ??


Jeff, Chrisitians believe that the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth is taken literally. In Councils, the leaders of the Church have come to a collective agreement on the meaning of Scriptures, according to God's Spirit. It's not individual "leadings," but the collective agreement of the Church's leaders.

[Krusader]

:lol:

I wonder what it means to be confirmed by the "body of Christ"?


It is the collective agreement of the leaders of the Church as led by the Holy Spirit and as in agreement with the Scriptures.

[nrajeff]

Jeff, Chrisitians believe that the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth is taken literally. In Councils, the leaders of the Church have come to a collective agreement on the meaning of Scriptures, according to God's Spirit. It's not individual "leadings," but the collective agreement of the Church's leaders.

---Not sure that answered my question, which was about whether or not confirmations that come from the Holy Spirit should be mocked by skeptics as just a bunch of unreliable feelings.

[OtherCheek]

Jeff, Chrisitians believe that the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth is taken literally. In Councils, the leaders of the Church have come to a collective agreement on the meaning of Scriptures, according to God's Spirit. It's not individual "leadings," but the collective agreement of the Church's leaders.

And since they haven't all collectively agreed on the meaning of Scriptures, they have broken up and excommunicated each other, right?

[Krusader]

And since they haven't all collectively agreed on the meaning of Scriptures, they have broken up and excommunicated each other, right?

The whole Christian Church agrees on the essential core doctrines of Christianity. Those groups claiming to be "Christian" but which do not agree on those core doctrines are outside the church.

For instance, the FLDS church does not agree with the core teachings of the LDS-Utah church, and therefore is outside the Utah church.

[Krusader]

---Not sure that answered my question, which was about whether or not confirmations that come from the Holy Spirit should be mocked by skeptics as just a bunch of unreliable feelings.


Not if those "confirmations" were fully in accord with the Scriptures.

[nrajeff]

Not if those "confirmations" were fully in accord with the Scriptures.

---What scriptures were Peter's new, improved feelings about the gentiles in full accord with?

[OtherCheek]

---What scriptures were Peter's new, improved feelings about the gentiles in full accord with?

Jeff, I think the logic goes something like this:

If there is anything new, that upsets historical tradition, knowledge, or understanding, it must be rejected outright, because God never changes. And that fact is to be taken hyper-literally.