LDS Did Joseph Smith succeed in creating an American version of Islam?

[fatboys]

As far as JS being your last and final prophet, no. That is inadvertently false, and I do apologize. I will gladly adjust that statement to reflect the truth. He does remain the final word on everything mormonism, however. To my current knowledge, no other one of your resulting prophets have ever revised anything he ever claimed, like they do with the others.

Wrong again. He ushered in the restoration but we are have and are going to have more truth revealed as needed.

 

[BigDaddy4]

And?

It's a hypocritical statement for 2 reasons:

1. The BoM is held as scripture to the lds, but does not have the same disclaimer attached to it. How can you be sure the BoM is translated correctly? You can't.
2. The JST has a number butcherings of the original language (Hebrew, Greek) to fit the Smith theology. Even though the JST is not the "official" version of the lds Bible, it is used as a study or reference guide and is fully endorsed by the lds church as it is printed by the church and is available on its official websites.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Is you opinion of the Bible such that you would accept a mis-translated version of it? Or is only the most correct acceptable?

There are numerous resources available to determine if the Bible is translated correctly from the original Hebrew or Greek text. If I have a question about, I consult those resources. The "most correct" is the original language in which it was written.

"As far as it is translated correctly" is a problematic statement, mostly because it is hypocritical, as I explained in my previous post. I don't know of any Christian church that uses such terminology to describe the Bible. Why not just say "in it's original languge"? JS gave himself a lot of outs in case he was wrong.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Wrong again. He ushered in the restoration but we are have and are going to have more truth revealed as needed.

He ushered in a strawman restoration, built on the false premise of an apostasy.

 

[tickingclocker]

Wrong again. He ushered in the restoration but we are have and are going to have more truth revealed as needed.

You must be speaking to other Mormons, which I decidedly am not. Because I, along with the rest of the world, don't believe there was something which needed restoration. Everything God wanted us to know... for now... we know. That is what faith is. I'm sorry your faith requires more than Jesus Christ in order to believe it.

 

[dzheremi]

Christ tells us in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit will come, He will lead us into all truth, that He will not speak on His own, and that He is the spirit of the living God.

Where does the LDS system of having a modern, living prophet fit into this? Is he thought of as the Holy Spirit, or some kind of adjunct to the Holy Spirit or something?

Looking at how they talk about their current prophet, I can't help but honestly be a little bit creeped out. "Thomas S. Monson receives God's word for the entire membership of the (LDS) Church, and for the world." Um...nope. No he doesn't. We already receive God's word. No need for a former printer who is younger than my grandfather to tell me anything. I feel like this is something that the rest of the world didn't consent to but are basically being told that this is how it is anyway...that's kinda like Islam, too (with their Shari'a law that governs non-Muslims whether they want it or not; their distinctive prophetology which regulates the Son of God to a rank of prophet below that of Muhammad; their designation of Christians and Jews as 'people of the book' according to Islam's own view of our religious writings, even though that's not anything we ever call ourselves -- note that in Arabic, the Christian self-designation is "Masihi", which is something more like "Messiah follower", rather than "follower of a book"). Sorry, Mormonism/Islam: Your religion's distinctive operating principles have no bearing on the reality of how actually God operates in the world (which is recorded in the Holy Bible, not the BOM or the Qur'an), beyond the fact that you're mistaking what you say for what God actually does.

While I'm sure this board's resident Mormons will have problems with it because of the commentary attached (it's from an ex-Mormon who now makes videos that are against the claims of the LDS), I find this little compilation of various statements made by Mormons about their current prophet and how their religion views prophecy to be very interesting. I find it hard to refute the association made in the video that at least some of this reflects a very cult-ish mindset, though I don't doubt that Mormons themselves would have a gentler interpretation of how these quotes are supposed to be taken.

 

[tickingclocker]

Christ tells us in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit will come, He will lead us into all truth, that He will not speak on His own, and that He is the spirit of the living God.

Where does the LDS system of having a modern, living prophet fit into this? Is he thought of as the Holy Spirit, or some kind of adjunct to the Holy Spirit or something?

Looking at how they talk about their current prophet, I can't help but honestly be a little bit creeped out. "Thomas S. Monson receives God's word for the entire membership of the (LDS) Church, and for the world." Um...nope. No he doesn't. We already receive God's word. No need for a former printer who is younger than my grandfather to tell me anything. I feel like this is something that the rest of the world didn't consent to but are basically being told that this is how it is anyway...that's kinda like Islam, too (with their Shari'a law that governs non-Muslims whether they want it or not; their distinctive prophetology which regulates the Son of God to a rank of prophet below that of Muhammad; their designation of Christians and Jews as 'people of the book' according to Islam's own view of our religious writings, even though that's not anything we ever call ourselves -- note that in Arabic, the Christian self-designation is "Masihi", which is something more like "Messiah follower", rather than "follower of a book"). Sorry, Mormonism/Islam: Your religion's distinctive operating principles have no bearing on the reality of how actually God operates in the world (which is recorded in the Holy Bible, not the BOM or the Qur'an), beyond the fact that you're mistaking what you say for what God actually does.

While I'm sure this board's resident Mormons will have problems with it because of the commentary attached (it's from an ex-Mormon who now makes videos that are against the claims of the LDS), I find this little compilation of various statements made by Mormons about their current prophet and how their religion views prophecy to be very interesting. I find it hard to refute the association made in the video that at least some of this reflects a very cult-ish mindset, though I don't doubt that Mormons themselves would have a gentler interpretation of how these quotes are supposed to be taken.

It's like a hyper-SDA member who was recently noted as essentially suggesting that Pope Francis is the world's Pope, and expecting us to believe it. All because they were trying to stir up hatred against Catholicism to support their own agenda. No, he's not "the world's Pope". He can only speak for Catholics, because Catholics allow him to. He does not speak for me because I'm not Catholic. No LDS or Muslim leader will ever be my "prophet", whether he or anyone else thinks he is/should be. I have no need of any other "prophet" besides Jesus Christ, the Last Prophet ever necessary. I have all I need in Him. No man's words, no matter how titillating, can ever take His place. Everything else pales in comparison to the "Longed-for One", the Messiah! How could it not??

This is one of the chief areas which instantly makes the LDS, and all of mormonism, immediately suspect to me. This silly emphasis on "ongoing prophecy". We all know any man can make up stuff to inform the foolish of, through mystical/biblical sounding words, too. (Like its never happened before?) Since when is anything else necessary when Jesus said "it is finished", meaning complete, done, perfected--in HIM? What do they take us for, anyway? Children who need to be "soothed" with stories about what our future holds, or have our questions answered in our time? We trust in a holy, all-powerful, omnipotent, invisible God. If we can do that? Why would we be worrying about our future, or demanding to see through that present dark glass? Do I want to know? Sure I do, but I also realize that patience is a virtue, and complete trust in God is worth much more than my human impatience and curiosity. Because that is what God values. NOTHING has ever been about us. It's always been ALL about God.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see. (Heb 11:1)

So then, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Today has enough trouble of its own. (Matt 6:34)

 

[dzheremi]

It's like a hyper-SDA member who was recently noted as essentially suggesting that Pope Francis is the world's Pope, and expecting us to believe it. All because they were trying to stir up hatred against Catholicism to support their own agenda. No, he's not "the world's Pope". He can only speak for Catholics, because Catholics allow him to. He does not speak for me because I'm not Catholic. No LDS or Muslim leader will ever be my "prophet", whether he or anyone else thinks he is/should be.

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church likes to do this, too. I also must disagree with any idea that Pope Francis is in any way my Pope. He is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and hence his leadership and guidance is only binding upon those of that church. My own Pope is the Coptic Orthodox Pope (who was and is in fact the first Pope; Rome didn't start using that title to refer to its bishops until much later), currently HH Pope Tawadros II, the 118th bishop of the See of St. Mark.

See, they're totally not the same guy! And HH Pope Tawadros II is certainly not the leader of any other church, either. The Greeks, Romanians, Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopians, or whoever else all have their own patriarchs likewise.

But seriously...I'd say that the thing that saddens me about both the LDS and the RC is that their respective ecclesiologies are so ingrained in how they see Christianity 'working' that they can't really imagine the religion existing without it. Get rid of the Pope of Rome, and the church no longer functions. Get rid of the modern prophet, seer, and revelator, and the church is no longer protected. Whereas for us in the Coptic Orthodox Church, we had twelve bishops already before anyone ever addressed any bishop as 'Pope', so we don't even have to say it's theoretically possible to be without a Pope -- it's what has already actually happened for the first ~200 years of the existence of the Church of Egypt. And during all that time, we functioned fine, and were protected fine, and all of this stuff. If we depended on the Pope instead of God, we'd be in big trouble during those times when the church leadership wasn't healthy, which for us has included some very recent times (e.g., the deposing of Pope Yusab II in 1955 after the Synod found him unfit due to his advanced age and weak leadership).

So I suppose I am naturally wary of such claims to the extent that they are contradicted by evidence of how the early church actually functioned, which is the case with both the LDS and the RCC. But they will not see it because it's too alien to how they view their religion to be without these things.

 

[tickingclocker]

Yes, the Roman Catholic Church likes to do this, too. I also must disagree with any idea that Pope Francis is in any way my Pope. He is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and hence his leadership and guidance is only binding upon those of that church. My own Pope is the Coptic Orthodox Pope (who was and is in fact the first Pope; Rome didn't start using that title to refer to its bishops until much later), currently HH Pope Tawadros II, the 118th bishop of the See of St. Mark.

See, they're totally not the same guy! And HH Pope Tawadros II is certainly not the leader of any other church, either. The Greeks, Romanians, Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopians, or whoever else all have their own patriarchs likewise.

But seriously...I'd say that the thing that saddens me about both the LDS and the RC is that their respective ecclesiologies are so ingrained in how they see Christianity 'working' that they can't really imagine the religion existing without it. Get rid of the Pope of Rome, and the church no longer functions. Get rid of the modern prophet, seer, and revelator, and the church is no longer protected. Whereas for us in the Coptic Orthodox Church, we had twelve bishops already before anyone ever addressed any bishop as 'Pope', so we don't even have to say it's theoretically possible to be without a Pope -- it's what has already actually happened for the first ~200 years of the existence of the Church of Egypt. And during all that time, we functioned fine, and were protected fine, and all of this stuff. If we depended on the Pope instead of God, we'd be in big trouble during those times when the church leadership wasn't healthy, which for us has included some very recent times (e.g., the deposing of Pope Yusab II in 1955 after the Synod found him unfit due to his advanced age and weak leadership).

So I suppose I am naturally wary of such claims to the extent that they are contradicted by evidence of how the early church actually functioned, which is the case with both the LDS and the RCC. But they will not see it because it's too alien to how they view their religion to be without these things.

Oh, I wouldn't know if I would agree that the Catholic church would cease to exist without a Pope. You never know. The church is comprised of believing people, not robots. I think they'd find a way to exist, because their faith is ultimately in God, not in man. On the other hand, without JS mormonism would cease to exist. If it weren't for him the BoM, which its all based upon, would never have been known to the relative few who accept it. (It's my opinion that its an outright fabrication from start to finish.) Many Mormons (even in this forum) have stated that if JS was found to be the fraud he is, they don't know if they would continue to believe in mormonism, or even in God. Catholics base their faith in Jesus Christ, and therefore in God. Not in a Pope being a Pope. Not even in the "bible" being true. It's one of the many things Mormons consistently fail to grasp about Christians and Christianity. Even if the bible was adulterated (which it cannot be, being the divine Word of God), our faith remains fast in GOD. Not in a person or a book. We are NOT "people of the book". We are people of God. The only person that matters in Christianity as being "truthful" is Jesus Christ, Savior and Lord.

I must say, after reading yours, Armenian John's, and a few other orthodox Christian posters, I have come to have the greatest respect for your respective churches work instilling such a love for deep intelligent faith in their members. Sadly, in an attempt to distance themselves "from 'Romish' influence", Protestant churches have thoughtlessly cast much of Christianity's rich history aside. You guys are a positive, challenging inspiration to us all. Thank you.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh, I wouldn't know if I would agree that the Catholic church would cease to exist without a Pope. You never know. The church is comprised of believing people, not robots. I think they'd find a way to exist, because their faith is ultimately in God, not in man.

I should have been more careful in my wording here, I think. I meant that in terms of organizational principles, the RCC faithful often cannot conceive of the church operating without a Pope (hence their idea of unity with other churches is when everyone submits to the Roman Pope, basically). There have actually been a few times in history when their church has done just that (most notably during the Western Schism, 1375-1417, when there were three claimants to the Papacy, and hence no one man was 'the' Pope), but the lessons that they take from that are not what you might hope: the Western Schism was solved/ended by a council (the council of Constance), and yet down the road a few centuries later at Vatican I in 1870, the RCC promulgated the dogmatic constitution of the council, Pastor Aeternus, which declares the following: "The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff." So their own history testifies to the need for conciliar oversight of the Papacy, but their ecclesiology won't allow it. It doesn't really have to do with their faith in God (for sure there are many, many Roman Catholics who have great faith in God), but instead with an ecclesiology which essentially places absolute power in the hands of their Pope, who they believe to be infallible in matters of faith and morals, and who (unlike the patriarchs of the Orthodox Church) is not actually forcibly removable should things go awry. That's what I meant: it's an ecclesiological problem for Rome that is similar to that of the LDS, not because they don't have faith in God, but because they've set up a system by which they need a Pope in order to function as a communion (not in order to have faith in God, which you are right, is absolutely not dependent on the Pope). As an Orthodox person, when I talk with my RC friends they really do often assume that my church is nothing but chaos and disunity, since we "don't have the Pope", because in their minds the Pope is the guarantor of unity. It's very strange. But anyway...sorry...a bit off-topic!

On the other hand, without JS mormonism would cease to exist. If it weren't for him the BoM, which its all based upon, would never have been known to the relative few who accept it. (It's my opinion that its an outright fabrication from start to finish.) Many Mormons (even in this forum) have stated that if JS was found to be the fraud he is, they don't know if they would continue to believe in mormonism, or even in God.

Well, it is a little strange that their concept of bearing 'testimony' to their faith goes from very non-specific theological claims (that Heavenly Father loves us) to very specific ecclesiological claims (that the LDS church is the Savior's true church restored on the earth today), while the Nicene Creed that is traditionally professed by Christians is the exact opposite: specific theological claims ('We believe in one God, God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth, and all things seen and unseen...", etc.), ending with very a general ecclesiological claim ("...and in one holy catholic and apostolic church"). Granted, the Creed was meant to specify the specific theology that would divide the 'one holy catholic and apostolic church' from those pretending to be it, so it makes sense that it would be that way, but to an outsider looking in the lack of specificity in Mormon theology is troubling, because of course we know that Mormonism does have its own very unique theology that does not fit with Christianity once you get past the use of Christian terminology, all of which is redefined to suit their needs. It does make it seem that theology is somewhat secondary to ecclesiology, though no doubt Mormons would have their own take on this.

Catholics base their faith in Jesus Christ, and therefore in God. Not in a Pope being a Pope. Not even in the "bible" being true. It's one of the many things Mormons consistently fail to grasp about Christians and Christianity. Even if the bible was adulterated (which it cannot be, being the divine Word of God), our faith remains fast in GOD. Not in a person or a book. We are NOT "people of the book". We are people of God. The only person that matters in Christianity as being "truthful" is Jesus Christ, Savior and Lord.

Amen! Yes, I often rhetorically ask people who do not understand this (and to be fair, in my experience this particular misunderstanding is prevalent among other Christians, too, not just Mormons) just what version of the Bible they think St. Mark used to evangelize the Egyptians when he came to Egypt c. 42 AD. This is a confusing question (purposely so!), since obviously Mark did not arrive in Alexandria with the standard 27-book NT in hand, since at that time the books had yet to be written and codified. It was instead his experience with the risen Christ and his disciples which he brought with him, and so it has always been with regard to our faith: to paraphrase a Roman Catholic Pope who I admire (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), Christianity is the lived experience of man with God. Or, as the Eastern Orthodox most succinctly put it (and we in the Oriental Orthodox Church agree), Christ is in our midst.

I must say, after reading yours, Armenian John's, and a few other orthodox Christian posters, I have come to have the greatest respect for your respective churches work instilling such a love for deep intelligent faith in their members. Sadly, in an attempt to distance themselves "from 'Romish' influence", Protestant churches have thoughtlessly cast much of Christianity's rich history aside. You guys are a positive, challenging inspiration to us all. Thank you.

Thanks. It's interesting to me that we should talk about this particular combination of faiths, because I was Roman Catholic before converting to Orthodoxy, and John's own Armenian Apostolic Church is well known for some particularly 'Roman-looking' externals and a long period of interaction with the Roman Catholic Church at a time when such a thing was not possible for the other OO churches, since we were mostly cut off from the wider world by Islam. I still have a lot of love for the RCC myself, and am pleased to give a lot of credit to certain RC people for my eventual reception into Orthodoxy (though I'm not sure he'd want it, my old father of confession when I was RC was a Dominican priest who first introduced me to several key Eastern saints like St. Ephrem the Syrian). I still think they are wrong on many fronts, but I would never want to overemphasize that so as to trash them or otherwise make it seem like we don't share a lot of history and the more basic theology that was in place already before Chalcedon sadly resulted in the schism between the Greco-Roman churches and my own. If you look through the Coptic Orthodox synaxarium, which is read aloud as part of every liturgy, you will find several entries dedicated to the Orthodox bishops/popes of Rome, like Pope Celestine or Pope Felix. The only difference between us and the Greco-Roman churches on this matter is that we don't agree on when Rome stopped being orthodox in its faith. But not being Orthodox doesn't mean that they aren't Christians. My own (Coptic Orthodox) priest always told people when such questions came up (as they sometimes did, since this was in New Mexico, a historically very Roman Catholic state) that the line between being an Orthodox Christian or not is different than the line between being a Christian or a non-Christian, and that is so obviously true that I don't really see how anyone can argue against it (not that anyone ever did, as far as I saw; it just so happens that in Egypt well over 90% of all Christians are Coptic Orthodox, so this question is more popular among Copts than it would be among other people, since they often have very little or no knowledge of other Christian churches).

Mormonism, of course, is completely outside of either line.

 

[Rescued One]

Islam is monotheistic; Mormons are polytheistic.

 

[tickingclocker]

I should have been more careful in my wording here, I think. I meant that in terms of organizational principles, the RCC faithful often cannot conceive of the church operating without a Pope (hence their idea of unity with other churches is when everyone submits to the Roman Pope, basically). There have actually been a few times in history when their church has done just that (most notably during the Western Schism, 1375-1417, when there were three claimants to the Papacy, and hence no one man was 'the' Pope), but the lessons that they take from that are not what you might hope: the Western Schism was solved/ended by a council (the council of Constance), and yet down the road a few centuries later at Vatican I in 1870, the RCC promulgated the dogmatic constitution of the council, Pastor Aeternus, which declares the following: "The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff." So their own history testifies to the need for conciliar oversight of the Papacy, but their ecclesiology won't allow it. It doesn't really have to do with their faith in God (for sure there are many, many Roman Catholics who have great faith in God), but instead with an ecclesiology which essentially places absolute power in the hands of their Pope, who they believe to be infallible in matters of faith and morals, and who (unlike the patriarchs of the Orthodox Church) is not actually forcibly removable should things go awry. That's what I meant: it's an ecclesiological problem for Rome that is similar to that of the LDS, not because they don't have faith in God, but because they've set up a system by which they need a Pope in order to function as a communion (not in order to have faith in God, which you are right, is absolutely not dependent on the Pope). As an Orthodox person, when I talk with my RC friends they really do often assume that my church is nothing but chaos and disunity, since we "don't have the Pope", because in their minds the Pope is the guarantor of unity. It's very strange. But anyway...sorry...a bit off-topic!



Well, it is a little strange that their concept of bearing 'testimony' to their faith goes from very non-specific theological claims (that Heavenly Father loves us) to very specific ecclesiological claims (that the LDS church is the Savior's true church restored on the earth today), while the Nicene Creed that is traditionally professed by Christians is the exact opposite: specific theological claims ('We believe in one God, God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth, and all things seen and unseen...", etc.), ending with very a general ecclesiological claim ("...and in one holy catholic and apostolic church"). Granted, the Creed was meant to specify the specific theology that would divide the 'one holy catholic and apostolic church' from those pretending to be it, so it makes sense that it would be that way, but to an outsider looking in the lack of specificity in Mormon theology is troubling, because of course we know that Mormonism does have its own very unique theology that does not fit with Christianity once you get past the use of Christian terminology, all of which is redefined to suit their needs. It does make it seem that theology is somewhat secondary to ecclesiology, though no doubt Mormons would have their own take on this.



Amen! Yes, I often rhetorically ask people who do not understand this (and to be fair, in my experience this particular misunderstanding is prevalent among other Christians, too, not just Mormons) just what version of the Bible they think St. Mark used to evangelize the Egyptians when he came to Egypt c. 42 AD. This is a confusing question (purposely so!), since obviously Mark did not arrive in Alexandria with the standard 27-book NT in hand, since at that time the books had yet to be written and codified. It was instead his experience with the risen Christ and his disciples which he brought with him, and so it has always been with regard to our faith: to paraphrase a Roman Catholic Pope who I admire (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), Christianity is the lived experience of man with God. Or, as the Eastern Orthodox most succinctly put it (and we in the Oriental Orthodox Church agree), Christ is in our midst.



Thanks. It's interesting to me that we should talk about this particular combination of faiths, because I was Roman Catholic before converting to Orthodoxy, and John's own Armenian Apostolic Church is well known for some particularly 'Roman-looking' externals and a long period of interaction with the Roman Catholic Church at a time when such a thing was not possible for the other OO churches, since we were mostly cut off from the wider world by Islam. I still have a lot of love for the RCC myself, and am pleased to give a lot of credit to certain RC people for my eventual reception into Orthodoxy (though I'm not sure he'd want it, my old father of confession when I was RC was a Dominican priest who first introduced me to several key Eastern saints like St. Ephrem the Syrian). I still think they are wrong on many fronts, but I would never want to overemphasize that so as to trash them or otherwise make it seem like we don't share a lot of history and the more basic theology that was in place already before Chalcedon sadly resulted in the schism between the Greco-Roman churches and my own. If you look through the Coptic Orthodox synaxarium, which is read aloud as part of every liturgy, you will find several entries dedicated to the Orthodox bishops/popes of Rome, like Pope Celestine or Pope Felix. The only difference between us and the Greco-Roman churches on this matter is that we don't agree on when Rome stopped being orthodox in its faith. But not being Orthodox doesn't mean that they aren't Christians. My own (Coptic Orthodox) priest always told people when such questions came up (as they sometimes did, since this was in New Mexico, a historically very Roman Catholic state) that the line between being an Orthodox Christian or not is different than the line between being a Christian or a non-Christian, and that is so obviously true that I don't really see how anyone can argue against it (not that anyone ever did, as far as I saw; it just so happens that in Egypt well over 90% of all Christians are Coptic Orthodox, so this question is more popular among Copts than it would be among other people, since they often have very little or no knowledge of other Christian churches).

Mormonism, of course, is completely outside of either line.

The Lord has always given me a unique perspective of Christian churches. I love seeing the beauty in each and every one of them. I actually enjoy the differences we all hold, just like I enjoy each and every one of my family members unique qualities they bring to family life, enriching it along the way. Would we expect our families to be uniform? So why should I expect Christians to be? Maybe that's why I've embraced the differences in churches instead of contending over them like some insist on. I saw so much strict uniformity within mormonism growing up. Everyone had to believe the exact same errors or they were subtlety "distanced" from others until they submitted to the "official" standard. Nobody dared ask hard questions in the Mormon church. They knew they would be taken aside and reprimanded if they persisted. Within Christianity its so "normal" to have the freedom to openly delve into the differences, yet even if it leads to arguments we understand we still have the same Jesus Christ as our center.

Do you or Armenian John have blogs? If you guys don't, you really should!

 

[dzheremi]

I don't know about Armenian John, but I don't have a blog.

 

[Ironhold]

The Lord has always given me a unique perspective of Christian churches. I love seeing the beauty in each and every one of them. I actually enjoy the differences we all hold, just like I enjoy each and every one of my family members unique qualities they bring to family life, enriching it along the way. Would we expect our families to be uniform? So why should I expect Christians to be? Maybe that's why I've embraced the differences in churches instead of contending over them like some insist on. I saw so much strict uniformity within mormonism growing up. Everyone had to believe the exact same errors or they were subtlety "distanced" from others until they submitted to the "official" standard. Nobody dared ask hard questions in the Mormon church. They knew they would be taken aside and reprimanded if they persisted. Within Christianity its so "normal" to have the freedom to openly delve into the differences, yet even if it leads to arguments we understand we still have the same Jesus Christ as our center.

Do you or Armenian John have blogs? If you guys don't, you really should!

It's been my personal experience that LDS congregations tend to be more open to questions while mainline congregations are faster to bounce people for having questions in the first place.

 

[fatboys]

It's a hypocritical statement for 2 reasons:

1. The BoM is held as scripture to the lds, but does not have the same disclaimer attached to it. How can you be sure the BoM is translated correctly? You can't.
2. The JST has a number butcherings of the original language (Hebrew, Greek) to fit the Smith theology. Even though the JST is not the "official" version of the lds Bible, it is used as a study or reference guide and is fully endorsed by the lds church as it is printed by the church and is available on its official websites.

It's not perfect nut Moroni stated to Joseph Smith that it was correct. Not perfect but close enough for man to be able to glean the truths contained in it. And as far as the JST Joseph was trying to bring the bible to a more pure intent of the authors who had wrtten these things from oral traditions.

 

[tickingclocker]

It's been my personal experience that LDS congregations tend to be more open to questions while mainline congregations are faster to bounce people for having questions in the first place.

I didn't know you attended mainline Christians churches with any great consistency to actually see that for yourself instead of being told second-hand "that's what we do"! Not many Mormons dare to visit Christian churches. They'd rather believe second hand stories that agree with what THEY must believe. Regardless, good for you in trying to be brave! So, welcome. Hope you can join us tomorrow, Iron! Its Communion Sunday, btw. Bring your conscience.

 

[BigDaddy4]

It's not perfect nut Moroni stated to Joseph Smith that it was correct. Not perfect but close enough for man to be able to glean the truths contained in it. And as far as the JST Joseph was trying to bring the bible to a more pure intent of the authors who had wrtten these things from oral traditions.

The "truth is relative and man must glean it" approach is building your faith on sand, not the rock of Jesus Christ. If you can't believe that he kept his word, then you aren't putting your faith in the Truth!

 

[dzheremi]

I never know what Mormons here mean when they talk about 'mainline' churches...I guess just non-LDS churches, but to my mind that term has a very definite meaning that includes only some of the churches that LDS are referring to.

Anyway, assuming that they mean 'mainstream' (i.e., Trinitarian, adhering to some kind of standard in Biblical interpretation, at least implicitly if unconsciously following the decisions of the early councils, etc.), I don't really know where this idea that these Christian churches are not open to questioning comes from. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, is famous in its propagation of many, many thousands of documents concerning just about every question under the sun, and provides its believers with a standardized catechism to which they may refer if they have any question on the basic outline of their faith (which is available online, together with tons of other stuff, on the Vatican website). From the Eastern Orthodox, the Orthodox Church in America has a nice Q&A section on their website, too, where you can find answers or send questions. In my own Oriental Orthodox communion, the Southern United States Diocese maintains a similar Q&A section with questions answered by its bishop, HG Bishop Youssef, a man who I have met several times (I was in the SUS diocese for 4 years while I lived in NM, so he was my bishop and visited us several times during my time there), and I have never seen shy away from any question. At least since the time of HH Pope Shenouda III (beginning in 1971), it has also been standard practice that the Coptic Orthodox Pope have weekly Q&A sessions at the papal residence in Cairo, which in our time have been broadcast regularly on the Coptic TV channels which didn't exist at the beginning of HH's papacy (as I understand it, the main media organs of the C.O.C. at the time were various newspapers and newsletters; the explosion of Coptic TV channels is relatively recent, and followed the popularity and mass importation of satellite technology into Egypt and the wider Middle East/North Africa region). These also carry sermons, lectures, hymns classes, etc. We are blessed in our day to have more access to information (and to be able to access that information more readily) than ever before, so I just don't see how this idea that churches could 'bounce' a person for asking questions would work (which is not to say that it doesn't still happen, depending on the social environment of the particular congregation; I myself was thrown out of a Baptist church as a lad; no offense to the Baptists, but this probably turned out to be the best possible thing that could have happened to me in the long run...but that's another story!). In an era when very little can be hushed up that can't just be found later by anyone with Google and fingers, churches would be foolish to try to evade questions. And besides there's really no reason to anyway. What can questions do if you are secure in your faith in Christ?

All of these online repositories are all in addition to the best resource, of course: Going to the church that you are curious about and asking them. It is standard practice that someone there (well, ideally everyone, but in practice not everyone is well-suited to explaining things) should have answers to questions, and not to avoid them, as the scriptures tell us that we must always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15).

 

[Ironhold]

Anyway, assuming that they mean 'mainstream' (i.e., Trinitarian, adhering to some kind of standard in Biblical interpretation, at least implicitly if unconsciously following the decisions of the early councils, etc.), I don't really know where this idea that these Christian churches are not open to questioning comes from.

1. I live in the Bible Belt.

2. I've been online 16+ years at this point, with much of my time spent on forums that discuss religion.

Want to ask a Mormon a question? Nobody cares so long as you're doing so with honest intentions.

Want to ask a mainline Christian a question? You're rolling the dice as to whether or not you'll get an answer or get cussed out. For the latter, that you question means you're ignorant at best and a tool of Satan at worst.

I have literally heard such cop-out answers as "It's a divine mystery; that's all there is to it" in response to questions.

I've also seen and heard of some pretty astounding levels of closed-mindedness. I myself have seen mainline Christians - including ministers - whose entire attitude is "I haven't read any Mormon materials or studied the LDS faith out for myself, but it disagrees with me and so it must be wrong"; this includes one minister who by his own admission hadn't studied the church since 1987 and by his own admission was unaware of many, many changes that had taken place since the 1970s but still "knew" that we were wrong anyway. Meanwhile, a friend of mine had his minister literally tell him "You throw that away or I will!" when the minister caught him examining a Book of Mormon.

If you want an example of how full-blown "God cries whenever you open your mouth" mainline closed-mindedness, give this a read. A non-denominational church decided to reach across the aisle and show kindness to the LDS membership in a given area, and in response the author of that piece literally accused them of leading countless people to Hell; according to the author, anyone whose response to the LDS church isn't "pitchforks and torches" has failed as a Christian.

In fact, that's about how it goes: for every mainline Christian who tries to reach across the aisle, there's another mainliner who means to smack them in the back of the head for doing so.

The Roman Catholic Church, for instance,

www.mormon.org
www.lds.org

Maintaining websites is nothing new, contrary to how few critics of the church even realize that these two websites exist.

In an era when very little can be hushed up that can't just be found later by anyone with Google and fingers, churches would be foolish to try to evade questions. And besides there's really no reason to anyway. What can questions do if you are secure in your faith in Christ?

You'd be surprised just how many mainline Christians are ignorant about the faith they believe in. I've met people who, for example, couldn't even explain such basics as "how the Bible was compiled and preserved" despite their staunch belief in it and didn't know what the Athanasian Creed was despite declaring that the Creeds are the foundation of Christianity. Whether through legitimate ignorance or outright laziness, these people know nothing beyond what some minister or other figure tells them.

"But the canon is closed! Revelation comes last, and ends with...!"

"Revelation wasn't the last book of the Bible to be written."

"Of course it is! It's the last book in the Bible, right?"

"Here we go again..."

That's how far too many conversations go.

All of these online repositories are all in addition to the best resource, of course: Going to the church that you are curious about and asking them. It is standard practice that someone there (well, ideally everyone, but in practice not everyone is well-suited to explaining things) should have answers to questions, and not to avoid them, as the scriptures tell us that we must always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15).

There are churches that love nothing more than to have a Mormon enter so that they can bar the doors behind them and screen "The Godmakers" or run whatever other ambush tactic they've planned. One of my brothers was actually subjected to this when he went to his non-LDS girlfriend's church one Sunday; they knew he was coming, and so he got bushwhacked. That Sunday's sermon was aimed square at him, and the rest of the congregation was essentially invited to join in the public pillorying. I think you can guess how long that relationship lasted afterwords.

 

[drstevej]

I would say he did... And I believe it was clearly his intention.

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith said, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us -- ‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”

I think he had a fascination and admiration for Islam and Mohammed and that this is why there are so many parallels between Mormonism and Islam. Here are at least some of the similarities (please provide others if you know of them):
1. Both religions are founded on post-Biblical "prophets" - Mohammed and Joseph Smith.
2. Both religions' prophets wrote new "scriptures"; also, both prophets were considered to be uneducated and this is used to bolster the "miraculous" nature of their having written long books of scripture.
3. They both have strange dietary laws that their religious people are careful to keep to this day. Muslims keep "halal" and Mormons keep the "Word of Wisdom".
4. Both religions have religious buildings that are off limits to outsiders. Mosques are not open to just anyone (the few that are somewhat open still limit where a non-muslim can go) and Mormon Temples are very closed and secretive.
5. Both religions appeal to fleshly desires as "rewards", especially sexual pleasure. Muslims are promised virgins in heaven, Mormons are promised multiple wives with whom they can have eternal sex to populate their planets in the Celestial Kingdom.
6. Religious wars are a common element to both religions. Muslims have jihad and Mormons have their Danite Armies and their wars against Christian and secular Americans such as the state of Missouri or the declaration of war Brigham Young made against the USA.
7. Both religions have advocated for brutal corporal punishment of apostates/infidels. Muslims will cut off people's limbs or kill them in the name of their religion while Mormons have a doctrine of "Blood Atonement" which calls for the killing of certain apostates and sinners, as taught by their prophets.
8. Both religions claim to respect Jesus Christ but neither one accepts Jesus Christ as the same Jesus in Christianity. Muslims believe He was just another prophet, Mormons believe He was a prophet and also a god, but not the One True God. Neither one lines up with the Christian doctrine of who He is.
9. Both religions believe the Bible is fallible and not perfect. This contrasts against Christians who believe it is "Scripture" that is perfect and preserved.
10. A big one - POLYGAMY. Both religions are polygamist (despite modern-day de-emphasis on polygamy by both religions). Both religions' prophets were polygamists and both practiced polygamy with young girls considered "underage" in their cultures. Both have polygamy intertwined with their religions and their histories.

Based on the evidence I think it's very clear that Mormonism is much closer to Islam than it is to Christianity. Muslims believe that a good Muslim is ALSO a "good Christian" because they believe that Islam is a perfected version of Christianity. This is exactly what Mormonism teaches about themselves, as well. Both pay lip service to Jesus but both deny His nature as the One True God.

So, I think Joseph Smith intended to fulfill his quote about being a "second Mohammed" and i think he did fulfill it.

Back to the original topic. Please?