Redirected Mormon thread

[Master_Xan]

This thread has its roots over here.

 

If you hadn't thrown two years of your life down the drain following the brainwashing successors of a liar and con-man you could be a senior now, Xan.

Regardless of whether my religion is true in any way or a complete sham, I will never consider the two years of my mission as wasted time. If (and that's a big if) I were ever to leave the LDS church, it would not change anything about those I helped with very real, tangible problems during those two years. Nor would it change the fact that I grew more in those two years than I ever thought possible; while some of that growth would surely have occurred elsewhere irregardless of my location or daily activities, a great deal of the maturity and personal skills I gained could not have occurred at college or in situations I'm likely to find myself in again.

 

It actually wasn't a joke. I walked away from the mormon 'church' (lower case M intentional) several years ago. I recently came to the realization that they're founded on a lie. I look at the practices that Joe Smith Jr espoused and can't help but think of him as a charlatan. I look at scholarly sources of history from the 1830s and '40s and they don't come close to matching the official history that I grew up being taught. The way I look at Mormonism the mainstreamers are nothing more than apostates. The fundamentalists are the ones following their founder. If you want to be a real Mormon you need to practice polygamy. By the same token the Bible bans the practice. So one must ask themselves, "Do I follow the Bible, or do I follow a book of "scripture" that was "translated" by looking into a hat?" Seems to me that any thinking human being would avoid the cult formed from staring into the hat.

 

Xan, did you know that Smith "translated" the BOM by staring at a stone in his hat? Did you know that he was marrying 15 year old girls? Are you aware that polygamy was practiced long after the Manifesto? You're a college student. Where are you going to school?

I attend Brigham Young University- Idaho, formerly Ricks College.

 

What you have said sounds a lot like most other anti-Mormon arguments I've heard since I started elementary school. I didn't grow up in Utah, I lived as a minority and have pretty much heard it all. My personal favorite: "Why do you belong to a church which sacrifices virgins by throwing them off the temple into the Great Salt Lake?"

 

My experiences with anti-Mormon people and literature have tended to follow this basic pattern: they say something, I refute it with evidence, they ignore said evidence and, unable to argue against it's validity, bring up some "new" and "startling" way to prove Mormonism wrong. It doesn't matter how many bits of garbage I prove false, the person will continue to bring up more reasons without acknowledging the lack of validity present in their previous points. It's hard to discuss something when one party refuses to accept anything the other says, even if they have no reason not to accept it.

 

That might have sounded very biased, like I'm calling them stubborn without accepting my own stubbornness. I'm certainly stubborn. But I also admit when I don't know something, I'm more than willing to accept that I don't know everything about my own church, and I'm well aware that other religions also contain truth. A lot of truth. Nor am I an "emotionalist"; if you knew me personally, you'd find me rather logical and not prone to emotional outbursts or basing decisions on emotion alone.

 

If you think you can have a civil discussion, where both sides can acknowledge when they are wrong or lack evidence to support a claim, I'd be more than happy to discuss anything about the LDS church. I love talking about religion; never had a religious conversation last more than a few minutes without my learning something new or gaining a new perspective. Just let me know and I'll be happy to dive into what you said (and I quoted above) along with anything else you'd like to discuss.

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

My experiences with anti-Mormon people and literature have tended to follow this basic pattern: they say something, I refute it with evidence, they ignore said evidence and, unable to argue against it's validity, bring up some "new" and "startling" way to prove Mormonism wrong. It doesn't matter how many bits of garbage I prove false, the person will continue to bring up more reasons without acknowledging the lack of validity present in their previous points. It's hard to discuss something when one party refuses to accept anything the other says, even if they have no reason not to accept it.

Funny, that's been my experience with Mormons. I present scholarly data; they in turn don't have an answer. Their response is usually something along the lines of, "That's a great question. Do you know...?" Generally speaking if they're unsure of the answer they change the subject.

 

Xan, I have but one question for you to start off. Why isn't Jesus enough for a Mormon?

[Master_Xan]

First of all, congrats for asking a question nobody has asked me before. Secondly, I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. What is it you see us adding to Jesus, that He wouldn't be enough?

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

As I see it, Mormons pay a lot of 'lip service' to Jesus, especially when talking about faith. When you start looking at the religion He seems to be nothing more than a footnote.

 

Does this make any sense or do I need to try again?

[Master_Xan]

Are you talking about the faith vs. works argument? Or something else?

 

If you are intending faith vs. works, my first comment is to agree with you. In general, members of the LDS church stress works more than we do faith. That isn't the doctrine we teach, but it tends to be how we act. I'll explain how it is doctrinally in a second, but I definitely have seen that many LDS do not appear to grasp the doctrine fully, instead only focusing on parts of it without a greater understanding of the whole. This shouldn't affect any one person's view of the Church, just a failing perhaps of the some member to always grasp the Church's teachings.

 

Doctrinally speaking, it works something like the classic analogy. Seven year old kid wants a bicycle. Dad says he can have one in a month, but he has to buy it himself. Seven year old saves all his allowance, sells lemonade, whatever; at the end of the month, the Dad takes his kid shopping. The kid realizes that the few dollars he has will not even get close to buying a bicycle, and as he realizes this he becomes sad. The father then steps in, takes what money his son has and makes up the difference so the kid can have a bicycle.

 

It isn't a perfect analogy, but it works at most levels. God has commanded us to be perfect (Matt 5:48; see also 3 Nephi 12:48). We only have a short time here in mortality to attain perfection. No matter how talented we are, none of us is even remotely capable of becoming perfect in this mortal life. Yet it still stands as truth: no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God (1 Nephi 15:34, also 1 Cor. 16-17 and Rom. 3:23). As a loving Father, God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for our sins, thus providing a way for us to be perfectly clean, even though we ourselves have not managed to do so alone. But there are conditions set before the atonement can take effect in our lives.

 

The most basic condition is we must want it. We must have faith in Jesus Christ and desire for Him to help us. Some Christians stop there, declaring that to be the only requirement (see Rom. 3:28, though there are better scriptures to illustrate their point). Such a view is short-sighted; throughout the scriptures (Bible and Book of Mormon), it is plainly taught that part of true faith is obeying Christ; depending on your interpretation, it is either impossible to be saved without working, or else it is impossible to have true faith without that faith being manifested by your actions. Rom. 6:14-16:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

(Side note: most of the scriptures referencing "the law" refer to the law of Moses, which by the apostolic period had been fulfilled; in that context, the above quotation may seem inapplicable, hence my other quotations.)

 

And of course James, who thoroughly denounces any idea of faith alone (James 2:19-20):

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt though know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

And John 14:12:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Other references include John 10:27, 14:12-24

 

So, doctrinally, we do the best we can, and Jesus makes up the rest (perfectly summed up in 2 Nephi 25:23). Without Jesus, no amount of work will get you into heaven. But without at least trying to keep His commandments, you aren't going to get there either; we are saved by grace, but grace will not be applied unless we have worked first.

 

Again, I think some members of the LDS church tend to focus too much on what we have to do, without devoting enough time to studies on grace. In fact, if you asked what the requirements to get into heaven are, I imagine a great many members of the Church will start into a list of things like baptism, without first mentioning faith. That does not however change the Church's doctrine, nor does it change the belief of most LDS that it is by faith, not works, that we are saved. It simply shows what they focus on (despite the occasional attempt from the Apostles to remind them to focus on the whole picture, not just a corner of it).

 

If that isn't what your question was really addressing, I apologize. If you restated a third time, perhaps I'd get it right?

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

That was a really nice monologue. It isn't entirely factual, but it reads nicely.

 

I feel the need to go back to the beginning. I will not look at BOM, D&C, or POGP quotes as valid. If we start this discussion on the assumption that any one of those three books are divinely inspired scripture then the only logical conclusion is that Mormon Fundamentalism is the only true religion. I'm not going to start from that standpoint. I want to have this discussion, but if you need to use LDS 'scripture' to defend your side it isn't worth my time. I think we can both agree the Bible to be scripture. We may disagree on translations, but I can live with that. I personally see Christianity as my "religion," and will draw from Catholic philosopher/theologians, as well as secular sources. I will cite my sources. Based on your previous post I expect you will continue to cite yours. If you don't, I'll just disregard the argument until it has been cited.

 

I wasn't asking about faith vs. works. I'll get to that at a later date. I want to know why Mormon's need a tangible, readily visible High Priest. Jesus is my High Priest. There is only supposed to be one at a time. From the time of Moses the Jews had one HP at any given time. Jesus was made HP by God (Hebrews 5:1-10). Chapter four of Hebrews talks about the Resurrected Christ as the current HP. In contrast to Christianity Mormons have many High Priests, thereby replacing Him.

[Bruja]

That was a really nice monologue. ...

 

Oh my love ... you are rude.

 

Point being:

 

1. The question wasn't about faith and works, it was about the fact that faith in Jesus isn't enough. (Going off the temple recommend quesions) you have to believe JS was a true prophet, that Monson is a true prophet, and everyone in between (as well as ALL the general authorities). You have to believe the lds church is the only true and living church, that the standard works are the word of God, believe in the restoration of the gospel, you must renounce all groups that disagree with church teachings, etc. If you reject any of these requirements you are denied entrance to the temple, which brings me to point 2 ...

 

2. As far as faith and works goes, you need to do works to get into the temple (tithing, word of wisdom, law of chastity, wear your garments, etc), and you have to be endowed & sealed in the temple to live with God and progress to godhood yourself. Ergo, faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation.

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

Xan, meet Bruja. Bruja, meet Xan. Xan, this is my fiancee.

[Lord_La_forge]

Go on guys, I'm interested in the 'result'

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

At this point Bruja and I are just waiting for a rebuttal.

[Master_Xan]

Hi Bruja!

That was a really nice monologue. It isn't entirely factual, but it reads nicely.

Sorry, as you may have noticed from other posts on the forums I'm not particularly good at being concise. Always afraid of being misunderstood. I'll try to keep it shorter.

 

I'd rather not "defend" anything. I'm not here to convert anyone, or prove anything to anyone. I enjoy religious discussions and am happy to answer questions or explain things, as I also enjoy asking questions of others. If this comes down to attack/defend, I will excuse myself. As such, I will use LDS scripture, as you can't discuss LDS doctrine without referring to what LDS prophets have said. I will continue to use Biblical verses (as I did above); if you feel you cannot even look at a Book of Mormon verse to see what point I'm trying to make, that is your prerogative. But because I'm not trying to prove my religion is right, I don't see anything wrong with using LDS scripture to explain LDS doctrine.

Go on guys, I'm interested in the 'result'

I hope you will take away what you will, independent of any of us. Feel free to participate too!

1. (Going off the temple recommend quesions)

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

We believe the things taught in the temple include some of the most sacred doctrines God has ever imparted to man. We limit those who can enter the temple to those who are prepared spiritually and have the experience necessary to understand what goes on in the temple. The recommend questions reflect our desire to keep sacred principles with those willing and able to keep them sacred. For those who don't believe those principles to be truth, it shouldn't matter what requirements we place upon entry. As stated above, if you have true faith in Christ, you will follow His teachings and commandments; likewise, if you believe Jesus has called prophets in latter days, you will have no problem following said prophets. From our perspective, if you can't enter the temple because of the recommend questions, then you aren't ready for what is taught within. As faith develops further and a testimony of God's prophets is obtained, the recommend questions become the basic expectations of acting upon said faith.

...you need to do works to get into the temple... and you have to be endowed & sealed in the temple to live with God and progress to godhood yourself.

Again, those with true faith will find themselves doing these things, regardless of temple requirements. Think dominoes: when the "faith" domino falls, the others fall in succession. Also remember that salvation is different in our eyes than other Christian groups;

In my Father's house are many mansions:...

(see also 1 Cor 15:41; 2 Cor 12:2; D&C 76) Just because a person does not enter the temple does not mean they are condemned to Hell for eternity. Even those who never hear the name Jesus Christ may yet be saved by His mercy (1 Peter 4:6). The idea of certain ordinances being necessary should come as no surprise; Jesus Himself said

...Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit' date=' he cannot enter into the kingdom of God[/quote'] As faith develops, a person naturally wants to participate in such ordinances.

I want to know why Mormon's need a tangible, readily visible High Priest. Jesus is my High Priest. There is only supposed to be one at a time.

Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec

Tell me, what is the order of Melchisedec? (or Melchizedek) You said there was one high priest from Moses on... when did this Melchizedek live? Who was he, that he should have an "order" named after him, an order Jesus Himself belongs to, and what is/was this order? What makes you think there should only be one high priest at any given time?

[Mitth_raw_nuruodo]

This is likely to be my only free two minutes all week. As such I will formulate a proper response when I have the time.

[Master_Xan]

Life comes first my friend. Take all the time you need/want.

[Bruja]

Again, those with true faith will find themselves doing these things, regardless of temple requirements.

 

I find it ridiculous to imply that a person with true faith in Jesus Christ will automatically desire to give up coffee, tea, pop, beer, tobacco, etc. True faith in Jesus has nothing to do with any of these things, and Jesus himself told us that dietary laws are no longer relevant to God's people, saying, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." (Mt 15:11)

 

Tell me, what is the order of Melchisedec? (or Melchizedek) You said there was one high priest from Moses on... when did this Melchizedek live? Who was he, that he should have an "order" named after him, an order Jesus Himself belongs to, and what is/was this order? What makes you think there should only be one high priest at any given time?

 

You took that quote completely out of context. The author was is using the old priesthood to demonstrate the humanity of Jesus, that he, like the high priests of old, were taken from among the people. All we know about Melchizedek is that he offered bread and wine, as Jesus did at the Last Supper, and blessed Abraham. That is the priesthood of Melchizedek, as the author of Hebrews saw Melchizedek as a kind of premonition of Christ.

[Master_Xan]

I find it ridiculous to imply that a person with true faith in Jesus Christ will automatically desire to give up coffee, tea, pop, beer, tobacco, etc. True faith in Jesus has nothing to do with any of these things...

First, what's wrong with pop? Anybody who says the Word of Wisdom includes pop (or caffeine) is badly mistaken. Second, when you have faith in Jesus, you follow His commandments. This leads you to follow the teachings of His prophets. If you believe in modern prophets, you will naturally follow what they say in the name of the Lord just as you would prophets in the Bible. If you don't believe in such modern prophets, of course you won't feel any desire to follow their teachings.

You took that quote completely out of context.

My point was just how important Melchizedek was. He was a high priest. He was greater than Abraham, who was blessed by and took his offerings to Melchizedek. There certainly were high priests before Moses. Obviously no one held the same position as Jesus, as He is THE High Priest. In any dispensation with the Gospel of Christ, there have been high priests, all under the authority of the High Priest (Christ). We find it ridiculous that God would so drastically change the pattern which He has used from the beginning of biblical history (namely, the calling of prophets and others to be His direct representatives on earth). If prophets, then why would God not also fill the other positions just as was done in ancient times?

 

Jesus prophesied, but prophets cannot replace Jesus. Just the same, high priests cannot and do not replace THE High Priest. The question, at its root, has little to do with high priests and more to do with whether or not God still calls prophets and other servants (and bestows upon them a portion of His power). Although I could quote scriptures and use logic to say prophets are called, the only reason I know its true comes directly from my answers to prayers on the subject.

 

I'm still curious, what leads you to believe there was/is only one high priest at a time?

[Bruja]

We find it ridiculous that God would so drastically change the pattern which He has used from the beginning of biblical history (namely, the calling of prophets and others to be His direct representatives on earth).

 

Jesus prophesied, but prophets cannot replace Jesus. Just the same, high priests cannot and do not replace THE High Priest. The question, at its root, has little to do with high priests and more to do with whether or not God still calls prophets and other servants (and bestows upon them a portion of His power). Although I could quote scriptures and use logic to say prophets are called, the only reason I know its true comes directly from my answers to prayers on the subject.

 

I'm still curious, what leads you to believe there was/is only one high priest at a time?

 

1. Hebrews 1:1-2 says explicitly that the time of prophets is over, that now God has revealed himself finally in the person of Jesus Christ

 

2. The purpose of prophets in the OT was to foretell of Jesus. That was their whole point of speaking to the people, to reveal God to the people. Jesus is the fullness of God's self-revelation to his people. Prophets, the kind seen in the OT that you're talking about, are no longer necessary.

 

3. If it were true that this was an unchangeable pattern: Where were the prophets between Jesus and Joseph Smith? Where is "the prophet" in the early church? There is no primary leader of the early church who is called a prophet, in fact, in the Bible, the office of prophet is lower than that of apostle. Peter is never called a prophet, ever, in the NT. Not only that, but the way the lds 'prophet' is chosen is not how OT prophets are chosen. If your argument is that this is the way it's always been, there's not much evidence to support that at all.

 

4. There was only ever one high priest in Judaism. There can be only one, and that is Jesus. Read Hebrews.

 

5. Your reasoning is exactly how I know that mormonism is false. You can't argue against someone saying, "well I prayed about it and God said it was true." Do you know how many religions use that exact same method of "proof" to show their religion is "true"? The Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing. It's completely invalid. It's a cop-out.

[Master_Xan]

I apologize for not having responded sooner. My apartment's internet has been off and on all week (all semester really, but this week has been especially bad). I think I'll get time tomorrow to respond on campus (where the 'net works all the time).

[Master_Xan]

1. Hebrews 1:1-2 says explicitly that God spoke to their ancestors via prophets, and in their day did so through Jesus Christ. It does not say God is done calling servants by which to operate in the world. Such is, I suppose, and interpretation of the verse, but we view it as an incorrect interpretation.

 

2. The purpose of prophets in the OT was not just to foretell of Jesus. It was to reveal God to the people. Revealing God means revealing His purposes and His will, as well as foretelling the Savior's coming. Isn't the Savior coming again? Do you suppose the world has no further need of understanding and direction from God?

 

Taken from Hugh B Brown's talk, some reasons for which God would stop talking to man are:

A) God has lost the power

B) God doesn't love us anymore

C) We don't need Him anymore

 

Of course, A is blasphemous, as B is to a degree. God is no respecter of persons, and certainly loves us even as He loved those of old. Do you mean to say we don't need God's voice anymore? I would argue otherwise, that in this world of conflict and confusion, we need His direction just as much as anyone previously ever did.

 

3. The pattern found in Biblical times was not that of prophets at all times. A prophet would be called, and as time went on the people would stop listening to him. In the church we call it apostasy. During times of apostasy, there was no prophet, while God waited for a time when the people would again listen to His servants. Frequently, God would humble the people Himself to accomplish this. The people of Jesus' time rejected Him, crucified Him, and hunted down and killed the Apostles He had called to carry on in His stead. Over the course of time, the church which Jesus set up was changed; parts were modified, removed, or added. God prepared a place and time when again He could speak and people would listen. Enter Joseph Smith, in the religious freedom of America (the only place at the time with this freedom).

 

Joseph certainly was called as past prophets were; by God directly. Compare Moses and Adam, who also spoke with God in such a way. If you don't believe Joseph was a prophet, there is no point in comparing the calling of past prophets after him. The truth of this church compared to other Christian groups is either found in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, or the religion is false and all that has come after it is inconsequential.

 

4. I feel we must agree to disagree on this point. Judaism may have only had one high priest, but this was a different office than that which we call a high priest in our church. The position of high priest in Judaism was done away with when the Mosaic code was done away with. If you insist on comparing two different offices of the same name, then there is nothing I can say to dissuade you from such a comparison.

 

5. *sigh* As I said, I'm NOT trying to convince you that my position is the right one. No man can, nor should any undertake to prove by reason and logic alone ANYTHING that is of God. When a person tries to prove by empirical reasoning and evidence the things of God, that person has become a hypocrite. You cannot prove the existence of God with science, why would you argue His word by science? Everything certainly does make sense, but we lack some of the information necessary to reach the same conclusions God has. His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are higher than our ways.

 

Just as we do not understand the details of Jesus Christ's sacrifice and Atonement, there are other parts of the gospel which only God can explain to us. If you are unwilling to ask God questions, then you are missing out on a vast store of knowledge and direction. You may argue whether or not I did receive the answers from God I claim to have received, but to disapprove or disbelieve my process is to disagree with God when He said "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God" (James 1:5).

 

I did not say it was impossible to prove by the Bible that God still calls prophets. I meant that I would not attempt such. Such discussions go no-where quickly, as the interpretations of the scriptures in question vary drastically from group to group. I have prayed, and that is why I agree with the interpretations given by LDS prophets. "I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true..." Moroni 10:4. If you do not wish to ask, that is perfectly fine. But I am saying I believe what I believe because I asked, and received an answer. Again, I am not trying to convert you, and see no reason to attempt to prove by reason or scripture that which I believe impossible to prove. Others say the same, that they believe what they believe because of answers to prayer. The only way to know what they know is to ask God yourself, and I invite you to do just that whenever anyone says such a thing. Those truly seeking truth seek it from the source, not from books and scholars down-river.

 

"Inquiry is the birthplace of testimony." -Dieter F. Uchtdorf

 

I feel we have probably reached the end of this line of questioning. To stick with this topic is to induce argument, not explanation. Feel free to respond to what I've said, but know I probably won't respond again in depth on this topic.

[Bruja]

1. says explicitly that God spoke to their ancestors via prophets, and in their day did so through Jesus Christ. It does not say God is done calling servants by which to operate in the world. Such is, I suppose, and interpretation of the verse, but we view it as an incorrect interpretation.

 

2. The purpose of prophets in the OT was not just to foretell of Jesus. It was to reveal God to the people. Revealing God means revealing His purposes and His will, as well as foretelling the Savior's coming. Isn't the Savior coming again? Do you suppose the world has no further need of understanding and direction from God?

 

3. Joseph certainly was called as past prophets were; by God directly. Compare Moses and Adam, who also spoke with God in such a way. If you don't believe Joseph was a prophet, there is no point in comparing the calling of past prophets after him. The truth of this church compared to other Christian groups is either found in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, or the religion is false and all that has come after it is inconsequential.

 

4. I feel we must agree to disagree on this point. Judaism may have only had one high priest, but this was a different office than that which we call a high priest in our church. The position of high priest in Judaism was done away with when the Mosaic code was done away with. If you insist on comparing two different offices of the same name, then there is nothing I can say to dissuade you from such a comparison.

 

1. there's no way you don't get that the time of the prophets is over from that verse.

 

2. the purpose of the OT prophets was to reveal God, as both you and I said. Jesus is the FULL and COMPLETE revelation of God, therefore the prophets were foretelling Jesus. There is no more need to reveal God, Jesus did it completely. You commit a logical fallacy when you presume when I say that it means we don't need God any more. It's obviously not what I'm saying; we always need God. I won't refute this since it is a completely false inference from my comment. I never said we don't need God. ... Since this is clearly of the utmost importance, where are these saving revelations that are absolutely necessary for the church? What did Hinckley or Monson reveal from God lately that's so important? Ear piercings?? Are you kidding me? And if their revelation is just the daily management of the church, how is that any different than what a Christian pastor does in the running of their congregation?

 

3. Perhaps Joseph's story matches up to the OT criteria, but NONE of the subsequent prophets were - they are simply the longest serving member of the quorum of the 12 apostles. Speaking of which, how can you POSSIBLY claim the exact same organization of the early church when there were quite clearly 12 apostles, led by one of their own, Peter, and you have 12 apostles separate and distinct from 3 extra apostles and the leader, who is NOT one of the 12??

 

4. You claim that the setup of your church is the same as the early church. You cannot prove this, as all your offices and titles are related in name ONLY to ANY Biblical priesthood or office, from the Old or the New Testament, and that includes that of high priest. You use the title without any respect for the original meaning of the word, as if Christianity wasn't the natural evolution from Judaism! Of course there should be a relationship with any title or rite that carries over from the Mosaic traditions, just as Christ's paschal sacrifice on the cross has a direct relationship to the sacrifice of the lamb at Passover!

 

Deacons in the NT were chosen to run the charitable distribution and temporal affairs of the church - only 7 men were chosen for the church in Jerusalem, having over 1000 people. The criteria listed for deacons makes it obvious it was a role intended for adult men. It was clearly never meant for every 12 year old boy to have!

 

Ephesians 4 v.11 says that SOME are teachers, etc - NOT all. But the lds church makes every 14 year old boy a teacher.

 

There is no such thing as a Melchizedek priesthood in the Bible. The Hebrew word, dibra, translated as order, actually means "style" or "manner," not a class or order of priests. Jesus is a priest after the manner of Melchizedek in two ways: 1. offering bread and wine, as I already said and 2. he's a priest of God who is NOT of the line of Aaron, the tribe of Levi - Jesus is of the tribe of Judah. The letter to the Hebrews makes reference of Melchizedek ONLY when addressing the fact that the Jews are asking how Jesus can be a priest when he's not of the tribe of Levi. They're not asking what their priesthood should be called. There is no relationship between the lds Melchizedek priesthood and the Bible's references to Melchizedek.

 

The titles Bishop and Elder are also completely misused in the same context. Read the NT thoroughly, front to back, and you'll find no substantive relationship between the early church and the lds church in organization, practice, or belief.

[Master_Xan]

And thus the discussion degenerates into argumentative dogma. I have tried my best to put forward my point of view without overly criticizing others, and certainly without trying to insult you. I apologize if anything I've said has caused offense.

 

Perhaps YOU can't help but infer the end of the prophets from Heb 1:1-2. I can. Perfect example of how arguing with the scriptures is a waste of time; hence I AM NOT trying to convince you. What I've said is my beliefs, but rather than understand my beliefs you attempt to prove them wrong. That's not a discussion.

 

Modern revelation reveals that the church in our day is organized in the same way it was during the Apostolic age, with only a few exceptions called for because of different circumstances (such as vastly larger distances and populations). These exceptions also come from modern revelation. Again, if you don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, this is irrelevant. Take things in order, rather than swallowing an entire truck load at once.

 

Without prophets after Smith, we'd still be practicing polygamy, men of color wouldn't have the priesthood, we wouldn't understand the Atonement or judgment or temple ordinances nearly as well as we do; we wouldn't be able to send missionaries to exactly where they are meant to go, nor would we have keys to perform temple work and eternal family sealings. Do not mock what you do not understand, and if you believe earrings to be the only thing addressed in recent years, then you truly do not understand.

 

Everything you infer about the offices in the NT are just that- inferences. The NT books were written to people who already understood these offices and NEVER give a definition. They hint, they sometimes mention duties and responsibilities, but never is any office fully explained. Hence the need, again, for modern revelation.

 

Look around; you won't find any church that agrees in doctrine and practices with others. Is God the author of confusion? If the Bible was meant to end it all, it would be clear enough to allow at least SOME consensus. Even major doctrines, such as the doctrine of grace and practice of baptism, are subjects of contention between denominations.

 

I have read the NT. Thoroughly, start to finish. I don't know everything, but I am not another man's parrot.

Read the NT thoroughly, front to back, and you'll find no substantive relationship between the early church and the lds church in organization, practice, or belief.

I'm sorry that this discussion has to end this way. When I see statements like this, it's time to end the conversation. Only contention will come after such statements.

[Bruja]

You say you haven't insulted me (and I really don't think I've insulted you or anyone else). You don't think you insult me by inferring the 'contention is of the devil' doctrine? You're essentially calling me evil. You are dismissing an intellectual argument by calling me petty. I'm not worth your time, as you make ridiculous insinuations that my claims just silly and mean.

 

You say my argument against your church's doctrines isn't discussion. Argument IS discussion. I don't know what you expected from me based on my initial comments, but argument is what I live for. Honestly, what do you think I'm talking here for if not argument? You appear to have a lot of contempt for my honest questions (and I mean a lot). I really think religious training in evangelizing should make a person less afraid of such honest inquiry, and if it doesn't happen, I question the quality of what's being presented to potential converts.

 

Since you bring up how very different all the Christian denominations are, what can you say about the over 100 mormon sects, all differing in doctrines and organization, and most claiming authority from Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, PoGP, and D&C? How is that any different?

[Master_Xan]

I can no longer read your posts without feeling a degree of frustration or anger. Regardless of your intentions, when I feel such it comes out in my writing (as it would in speech). I promised myself long ago to not speak of God under such conditions. It just seems... wrong, somehow. Even if it didn't, a frustrated mind is a closed mind, not open to new perspectives or insights.

 

I certainly did not call you evil. You take offense where none was intended. If anyone who has ever been involved with or caused contention was evil, then who among us would not be? We both participated, and the contention came from us both. Though I do resent your attempts to draw me back into the discussion. You speak as though to get me to defend my earlier statements, refute yours, and continue. You claim honest inquiry, but statements such as "Read the NT thoroughly, front to back, and you'll find no substantive relationship between the early church and the lds church in organization, practice, or belief." do not show honest inquiry, but rather a pre-made decision and unwillingness to accept my responses, as though I was trying to convert you when I had no such intention. Perhaps your intention was not to draw me back in, but it feels as such to me. And to prime me for response you ask a question which I would normally not hesitate to answer.

 

You certainly have a way with words, an eloquence. I suspect I lack such skill. Eloquence is wasted, however, if used (even accidentally) to anger or frustrate others. Perhaps you may find another to argue with, but my disposition is such that I cannot and will not do so. It may be a weakness, I can't tell. Irregardless, I must excuse myself. God bless.

[Evaders99]

I generally don't like religion topics on forums.

Given the way this thread has turned out, this is why. (Not to say any one is at fault)

 

I am closing this as further discussion would not help anyone.