The Mormon "Restored Gosple"

[TasteForTruth]

Yes, and there are other denominations--ones that are always considered to be Christian--which do all of that, too. But I was merely answering your question about whether or not the LDS consider themselves to be Christian.

We do consider ourselves to be Christian. But the "is the LDS church a Christian Church" debate does not appear to be the objective of this thread, as per the OP. So that is all I have to contribute on that point.

I, for one, would like a response from the original poster to my last post, which accurately identified the question in the OP (and therefore the thread itself) as a strawman.

 

[Albion]

I know that LDS consider themselves Christian.

OK. When you wrote this:

Even LDS don't teach that they are a denomination of Christianty

in reply to my putting them on a list of Christian churches, it appeared to me that you did not.

 

[Rescued One]

Very well. When you wrote this: Even LDS don't teach that they are a denomination of Christianty. in reponse to my putting them on a list of Christian churches, it appeared to me that you did not.

It appeared that I didn't know that they consider themselves to be Christian? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Albion]

It appeared that I didn't know that they consider themselves to be Christian? Is that what you're saying?

Yes. We know that you don't consider them to be Christian.

 

[skylark1]

I
When non-LDS are so concerned with being all-inclusive that they teach that false gospels cannot be detected by their doctrine of God, then we don't need to stand for anything at all. We would be no more pleasing to God than atheists.

When non-LDS Christians are so concerned with making those with teachings that they consider to be heretical look bad, at the expense of charity and accuracy, I doubt that it is pleasing to God.

Earlier in this discussion (post #2), a poster wrote:

Did you know Mormon in Chinese means 'Gates of Hell'?​

A pro LDS site explained:

Pronounced Momen Jiao, these three characters are very plain to understand. The first two characters, mo and men were simply chosen to represent the sounds of the English word “Mormon,” and have no actual meaning other than to allow transliteration of this proper noun into Chinese. The last one, jiao (short for jiaohui) simply means (in this context) “church,” and is the suffix found at the end of nearly every Christian denomination, from Catholics (Tianzhu Jiao) to Presbyterians (Zhanglao Jiao), and even such faiths as Judaism (Youtai Jiao), Taoism (Dao Jiao) and Islam (Hui Jiao).

The individual characters themselves do have meanings, and it’s not too difficult to see how the middle character, men, visually suggests a “door” or “gate,” and indeed if it were standing as a word by itself that would in fact be its meaning. However, it is not standing alone, but is merely the second syllable of another word. Hence, it doesn’t mean “gate” in this context any more than the English words “brotherhood” and “neighborhood” refer to varieties of head coverings, whatever the word “hood” may mean in other contexts. In fact, the character men is found in many other Chinese words, including “lightswitch” (dianmen)...

...The fact that they’re both pronounced the same would be immaterial in any language, but that fact is particularly true for Chinese, which has a stunning number of homonyms (with 421 distinct syllables in the language, mapped to thousands of written characters, homonyms are extremely common). What is significant is that they are completely different characters, with totally distinct meanings and connotations.

In fact, in one standard Chinese dictionary,6 there are no less than thirty-four different characters in common usage which are all pronounced mo. Their meanings range widely, including feel, “touch, copy, model, kneel, worship, steamed dumpling, tiny, bubbles, ink stick, and mushroom, among others.



​

 

[TasteForTruth]

When non-LDS Christians are so concerned with making those with teachings that they consider to be heretical look bad, at the expense of charity and accuracy, I doubt that it is pleasing to God.

Earlier in this discussion (post #2), a poster wrote:

Did you know Mormon in Chinese means 'Gates of Hell'?​

A pro LDS site explained:

Pronounced Momen Jiao, these three characters are very plain to understand. The first two characters, mo and men were simply chosen to represent the sounds of the English word “Mormon,” and have no actual meaning other than to allow transliteration of this proper noun into Chinese. The last one, jiao (short for jiaohui) simply means (in this context) “church,” and is the suffix found at the end of nearly every Christian denomination, from Catholics (Tianzhu Jiao) to Presbyterians (Zhanglao Jiao), and even such faiths as Judaism (Youtai Jiao), Taoism (Dao Jiao) and Islam (Hui Jiao).

The individual characters themselves do have meanings, and it’s not too difficult to see how the middle character, men, visually suggests a “door” or “gate,” and indeed if it were standing as a word by itself that would in fact be its meaning. However, it is not standing alone, but is merely the second syllable of another word. Hence, it doesn’t mean “gate” in this context any more than the English words “brotherhood” and “neighborhood” refer to varieties of head coverings, whatever the word “hood” may mean in other contexts. In fact, the character men is found in many other Chinese words, including “lightswitch” (dianmen)...

...The fact that they’re both pronounced the same would be immaterial in any language, but that fact is particularly true for Chinese, which has a stunning number of homonyms (with 421 distinct syllables in the language, mapped to thousands of written characters, homonyms are extremely common). What is significant is that they are completely different characters, with totally distinct meanings and connotations.

In fact, in one standard Chinese dictionary,6 there are no less than thirty-four different characters in common usage which are all pronounced mo. Their meanings range widely, including feel, “touch, copy, model, kneel, worship, steamed dumpling, tiny, bubbles, ink stick, and mushroom, among others.


​

This is a very good point. It would be like me—who at one point in the ancient past spoke fluent Castillian Spanish—pointing out that the word "Pope" in Spanish (papa), actually means either "lie" or "fib" (in addition to being the common word for "potato" in South American countries, "papa" is slang in Mexico for "lie" or "fib"; "Pope" in all Spanish-speaking countries is "papa"; in Spain "potato" is not "papa," but "patata")

Suggesting this usage of the word would, of course, implicate the Pope as being—by virtue of the word used to name or describe him—a liar, or a vegetable.

In the end, and in both cases, those making statements like these likely have little more objective than that of mocking, of misdirecting genuine and sincere interest in a religion, or of nursing a need to feel superior to those with whom they disagree. After all, one doesn't necessarily have to present the best—or even truthful—argument in order to garner support for one's view. The existence and success of so many tabloid magazines should attest to that.

A very good post Skylark, with a pertinent and Christian point.

 

[skylark1]

This is a very good point. It would be like me—who at one point in the ancient past spoke fluent Castillian Spanish—pointing out that the word "Pope" in Spanish (papa), actually means either "lie" or "fib" (in addition to being the common word for "potato" in South American countries, "papa" is slang in Mexico for "lie" or "fib"; "Pope" in all Spanish-speaking countries is "papa"; in Spain "potato" is not "papa," but "patata")

Suggesting this usage of the word would, of course, implicate the Pope as being—by virtue of the word used to name or describe him—a liar, or a vegetable.

In the end, and in both cases, those making statements like these likely have little more objective than that of mocking, of misdirecting genuine and sincere interest in a religion, or of nursing a need to feel superior to those with whom they disagree. After all, one doesn't necessarily have to present the best—or even truthful—argument in order to garner support for one's view. The existence and success of so many tabloid magazines should attest to that.

A very good post Skylark, with a pertinent and Christian point.

Thanks, TasteforTruth.

Those were excellent examples of some of the dangers in transliteration.

 

[Albion]

I've reread post #2 and wonder what part or parts of it are to be thought of as uncharitable or of "discredit(ing) Mormonism at the expense of accuracy?"

 

[skylark1]

Yeh, that was a new one on me, too.


I don't see that as automatically unfair, but if there were some particulars that were incorrect or worded in an ugly way....

Frankly, it looks to me like some of what I read there was judgmental, but other parts actually could be seen as complimentary. For instance, was it an angel of light who appeared to Joseph Smith or was it Satan? I'd say that agreeing to the idea that there was an angel in the first place was a concession.

I don't have the time or desire to discuss with you the article that was linked in post number 2.

I do believe that there are times that in one's zeal to expose heresy they neglect charity and/or accuracy. It is not so dissimilar to yellow journalism.

You are free to disagree.

 

[A New Dawn]

[c]Admin Hat On

I am closing this thread. It will need to be cleaned before it will be reopened.[/c]

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

A thread clean up has occurred to remove several off topic & flaming/goading posts.

Please keep in mind the following rules when posting:

● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.

Off Topic posts will be moved or removed.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Rescued One]

So, back to the OP:

I don't understand why the Gospel of Jesus Christ needed to be "restored". Will someone please explain why God Himself, Jesus Christ, was unwilliing or unable to care for,preserve, and maintain His Church, for so many years that She needed to be restored.

Joseph Smith claimed to have restored Christ's Church. Here are some other things that Joseph Smith said:

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.
(History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409).

After convincing his followers that there had been a complete apostasy, Joseph Smith, Jr. cast doubt on the Bible (see the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:24-29).

On October 3, 1918, President Joseph F. Smith declared that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will never fail. The LDS voted to make his statements scripture(see D&C 138).

We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see D&C 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44).

Joseph Smith said, "The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 7).

Doctrine and Covenants 128
An epistle from Joseph Smith the Prophet to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, containing further directions on baptism for the dead, dated at Nauvoo, Illinois, 6 September 1842 (see History of the Church, 5:148–53).

11 Now the great and grand secret of the whole matter, and the summum bonum of the whole subject that is lying before us, consists in obtaining the powers of the Holy Priesthood. For him to whom these keys are given there is no difficulty in obtaining a knowledge of facts in relation to the salvation of the children of men, both as well for the dead as for the living....

15 And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers—that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect.


What did Jesus say?

59And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. 60Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Luke 9

28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
John 6

No, God never told us to seek after our dead!

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Matthew 22

 

[A New Dawn]

The most important objective, of course, would be to be accurate, not, for example, putting the Mormons--who are not considered to be Christian by many theologians and, if they are, certainly not Protestant--together with the Churches of Christ merely because they both were American in origin and use the word "restoration" to describe their perspective with regard to historic Christianity.

I would just like to say to this that when the early Mormon church was in it's infancy (first year or so of being), a very prominent Campbellite minister joined it's ranks and brought his whole congregation with him, and he influenced the theology of the early Mormon church to the point that, aside from it's foundational event(s), the church was very similar to a Disciples of Christ church. Early on there was no "first vision", there was no baptism for the dead, there was no celestial marriage, there was just the Book of Mormon, and the church was Trinitarian. The other more esoteric stuff did not come along till later on in the life of the early Mormon church.

As someone mentioned earlier, there are two main branches of the Mormon Church, the other being the Community of Christ. The Community of Christ is the church that adopted the beliefs of the early early Mormon church, the teachings that were influenced by Campbellite doctrine.

 

[Albion]

I would just like to say to this that when the early Mormon church was in it's infancy (first year or so of being), a very prominent Campbellite minister joined it's ranks and brought his whole congregation with him, and he influenced the theology of the early Mormon church to the point that, aside from it's foundational event(s), the church was very similar to a Disciples of Christ church. Early on there was no "first vision", there was no baptism for the dead, there was no celestial marriage, there was just the Book of Mormon, and the church was Trinitarian. The other more esoteric stuff did not come along till later on in the life of the early Mormon church.

As someone mentioned earlier, there are two main branches of the Mormon Church, the other being the Community of Christ. The Community of Christ is the church that adopted the beliefs of the early early Mormon church, the teachings that were influenced by Campbellite doctrine.

There certainly is a point to be made there, but I don't think it's accurate to characterize the CofC as similar to the Campbellites. It only recently made the effort to try to get closer to ordinary Protestantism and still is fundamentally different because of the many alien doctrines concerning the nature of God, etc. which are retained thanks to the decision to retain the Book of Mormon. It probably would be possible to turn the CofC into something like a Protestant church if the BoM (and D&C etc) were ditched, but not otherwise.

 

[A New Dawn]

There certainly is a point to be made there, but I don't think it's accurate to characterize the CofC as similar to the Campbellites. It only recently made the effort to try to get closer to ordinary Protestantism and still is fundamentally different because of the many alien doctrines concerning the nature of God, etc. which are retained thanks to the decision to retain the Book of Mormon. It probably would be possible to turn the CofC into something like a Protestant church if the BoM (and D&C etc) were ditched, but not otherwise.

The CoC is a different church now from it's first 100 years. It leans very liberal, and seems to more closely parallel the UCC. The RLDS, as the church was known as prior to it's name change, was very different from the CoC. It held many of the beliefs that the Campbellite churches held. There is no plurality of Gods in the BoM, and the CoC rejects most "revelations" that happened after the Kirtland period, which include all the esoteric godhood doctrines and the temple ritual stuff.

Perhaps you should read up on what the BoM contains, and the D&C that the CoC uses prior to jumping into this discussion. (Just a suggestion.)

 

[Albion]

The CoC is a different church now from it's first 100 years. It leans very liberal, and seems to more closely parallel the UCC. The RLDS, as the church was known as prior to it's name change, was very different from the CoC. It held many of the beliefs that the Campbellite churches held. There is no plurality of Gods in the BoM, and the CoC rejects most "revelations" that happened after the Kirtland period, which include all the esoteric godhood doctrines and the temple ritual stuff.

Perhaps you should read up on what the BoM contains, and the D&C that the CoC uses prior to jumping into this discussion. (Just a suggestion.)

I know that the truth hurts sometimes, but all that I was doing was answering the question. There is no way that any of the LDS groups will be accepted as a normal Christian church while holding to a belief in a different god or gods and books that are considered to be additions to scripture. All the external touch-ups made by the CofC during its recent drive for acceptance cannot change this for the CofC, as she has discovered. It would be necessary for her to do what the Worldwide Church of God did and almost completely ditch her unorthodox doctrines, not just a few secondary practices.

 

[A New Dawn]

I know that the truth hurts sometimes, but all that I was doing was answering the question. There is no way that any of the LDS groups will be accepted as a normal Christian church while holding to a belief in a different god or gods and books that are considered to be additions to scripture. All the external touch-ups made by the CofC during its recent drive for acceptance cannot change this for the CofC, as she has discovered. It would be necessary for her to do what the Worldwide Church of God did and almost completely ditch her unorthodox doctrines, not just a few secondary practices.

Again, I suggest you get familiar with what the traditional RLDS and the more contemporary CoC believe. You jumping in with false information only reveals that you are unfamiliar with the teachings of the church and are reacting only to the R[LDS] name.

I also think you should learn the difference between a primary and a secondary practice/teaching. Belief in the Trinity is a primary teaching, not a secondary teaching. I do agree that because the CoC still holds onto some unorthodox secondary teachings, like modern revelation, it can't be considered anything more than heterodox, but, dude, you really need to do some research before answering questions.

 

[Albion]

Again, I suggest you get familiar with what the traditional RLDS and the more contemporary CoC believe. You jumping in with false information only reveals that you are unfamiliar with the teachings of the church and are reacting only to the R[LDS] name.

Swinging wildly in every direction there, aren't we?

I notice that I wasn't wrong in any of the doctrinal problem areas I pointed to.

I also think you should learn the difference between a primary and a secondary practice/teaching. Belief in the Trinity is a primary teaching, not a secondary teaching.

I never said otherwise. I guess if anyone needs to read first and answer second, it isn't me, huh?

 

[A New Dawn]

Swinging wildly in every direction there, aren't we?

I notice that I wasn't wrong in any of the doctrinal problem areas I pointed to.

You were wrong about doctrinal issues, so just acknowledge you don't know anything about the RLDS and we will be good to go.

I never said otherwise. I guess if anyone needs to read first and answer second, it isn't me, huh?

You did say otherwise as you stated that the RLDS believed in "alien doctrines concerning the nature of God".

 

[Albion]

You were wrong about doctrinal issues, so just acknowledge you don't know anything about the RLDS and we will be good to go.

"Don't know anything about the RLDS." Am I supposed to feel wounded by reading such a lame retort as that? Good grief.

My purpose was to answer the inquiry, not engage with some partisans trying to pretend that some LDS are just like Protestants or ever were. That's to rewrite history. So address the issue I did, correctly, and in a very neutral fashion, as I felt it deserved. That's all.