The New Anti-Mormons Are Lds

[HappyJackWagon]

 

There's a big difference between those faithful members who have questions but yet continue with a fixed determination to remain on the good ship Zion, all the while "holding on with both hands" (Elder Ballard's words), as compared to those who also have questions but are not holding onto the ship with both hands, while publicly proclaiming their doubt in the skill and wisdom of those who stand at the helm.

 

 

there are basically two kinds of members with questions: 1) Those who have serious questions but in faith still manage to "hold on with both hands," and then 2) the members with serious questions who aren't hanging on with both hands

What about those who were hanging on with both hands but the tempest tossed them out of the boat. They are in the water, treading, looking for safety and peace. There is land to the left or the tempest tossed Good Ship Zion to the right. They have to decide where to go for safety BUT it's important to realize that not everyone who is tossed out of the boat is there because they chose to be or because they weren't holding on with both hands or because they were unfaithful in some way. It's just not true.

[teddyaware]

What about those who were hanging on with both hands but the tempest tossed them out of the boat. They are in the water, treading, looking for safety and peace. There is land to the left or the tempest tossed Good Ship Zion to the right. They have to decide where to go for safety BUT it's important to realize that not everyone who is tossed out of the boat is there because they chose to be or because they weren't holding on with both hands or because they were unfaithful in some way. It's just not true.

Read my post #350, just before this one. I addressed the point you're making before you did.

[HappyJackWagon]

Read my post #350, just before this one. I addressed the point you're making before you did.

My question was more about why are the people in the water if it's not their fault? Does the church bear any responsibility for putting them in the water?

[teddyaware]

My question was more about why are the people in the water if it's not their fault? Does the church bear any responsibility for putting them in the water?

It is the Lord who allowed the present circumstances to exist so that the test of faith can proceed. Things are as they are because our faith and testimonies need to be tested. And if there are tests of faith, it only stands to reason some will pass or fail these tests in varying degrees.

We haven't seen anything yet. The day is soon coming that even the strongest of testimonies are going to be powerfully challenged, with the possibility that even some of the very elect will fall. The only way we're not going to fall to the wiles of the devil and the sophistries of worldly-wise men, who stand mocking and pointing from the windows of the large and spacious building, is to fill our "lamps of faith" to the brim with the knowledge, wisdom and revelatory power of God. The reward of eternal life is great and, therefore, the tests of faith we are called upon to endure to obtain that great reward must needs be great as well.

Edited October 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Things are as they are because our faith and testimonies need to be tested. And if there are tests of faith, it only stands to reason some will pass or fail these tests in varying degrees.

 

I understand this thinking but I question why the church would need to become such a large stumbling block in and of itself

[teddyaware]

I understand this thinking but I question why the church would need to become such a large stumbling block in and of itself

The Church is only perceived as being a stumbling block because of lack of knowledge pertaining to the mysteries of the kingdom of God. For instance, there are members who sincerely believe there just has to be something wrong and unsavory with the whole polygyny/polyandry episode. So they have suspicions that something outside of the will of God took place and that today's Church leaders have to "own up" to wrongness of the whole thing and extend official mea culpas in behalf of the early brethren. Meanwhile, we will learn in the end that in reality nothing wrong was done in the first place and that Joseph and the early brethren were simply obeying higher laws pertaining to the mysteries of the kingdom of God, laws pertaining to a higher order of which the people of today's Church are ignorant. To the uninformed and misinformed, It looks like the early brethren are guilty of wrongdoing but they most assuredly are not.

But innocent or not, some members just can't stand the humiliation of it all. So instead of reserving judgment based on the fact that they already know the Church is true, they allow their emotions to get the best of them and they begin to lose faith, or even go so far as to abandon ship.

The early Christians had to bear with similar humiliations for supposed wrongdoings (wrongdoings that never actually occurred) of some of the leading characters of the early Church -- alleged evils that seemed all too easy and natural to believe.

Take Mary mother of Jesus for instance: Can't you just see the mocking derision and rolling eyes the early Christians had to endure as they taught the people Jesus was miraculously the conceived by a virgin and that God was His Father? I can just hear them: [with great sarcasm] "Sure, of all the men and women who ever lived, your Jesus is the only one in the history of the world that wasn't conceived in the usual, natural way... Give us a break! Let's face it, the mother of your supposed resurrected god/man was an immoral woman who committed fornication with a Roman soldier named Panthera! Hang your heads in shame, you fools, for believing such blasphemous nonsense!" And so the early Christians were put in a very similar predicament -- having to defend the seemingly indefensible. I'll bet there were some of those early saints who just couldn't take the embarrassment any longer and jumped ship. In the meantime, Mary is perfectly innocent as those who deride the Church are "convinced" beyond all doubt they are right. So convinced, in fact, that they'll murder and torture just to prove how convinced they really are.

What will Mary's persecutors say when God stands before her accusers and declares she was innocent

of any wrongdoing and that the seemingly ridiculous story of the birth of her firstborn son turns out to be verily true? And what will the bitter enemies of the Prophet Joseph say when God declares his innocence as well, vindicating his heroic latter-day servant in the eyes and ears of all those who "just knew" he was a fraud?

We are being tested and God Himself set the stage for those tests.

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer (persecution) for well doing, than for evil doing. (1 Peter 3)

Edited October 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[HappyJackWagon]

 

The Church is only perceived as being a stumbling block because of lack of knowledge pertaining to the mysteries of the kingdom of God. For instance, there are members who sincerely believe there just has to be something wrong and unsavory with the whole polygyny/polyandry episode...

 

To the uninformed and misinformed, It looks like the early brethren are guilty of wrongdoing but they most assuredly are not.

 

Aren't we all uninformed on the issues of polyandry and polygamy except for some sloppy apologetics? Why are we uninformed? Because the church does not explain why polyandry was necessary or what the theology is behind it. The church could explain it and then we would informed. In the absence of teachings by the church we are left to figure it out on our own.

[teddyaware]

Aren't we all uninformed on the issues of polyandry and polygamy except for some sloppy apologetics? Why are we uninformed? Because the church does not explain why polyandry was necessary or what the theology is behind it. The church could explain it and then we would informed. In the absence of teachings by the church we are left to figure it out on our own.

You are exactly right. And in major part that is what constitutes the test. Some "figure it out" on their own with the help of the Spirit. These will pass the test and will in all probability remain true to the Church. This goes back to the principle that every member needs to become a prophet or prophetess unto themselves. The men and women who achieve this worthy goal will not be dependent on answers from others in order to have their doubts put to rest. Moroni was dead serious when he promised every member of the human family that by the power of the Holy Ghost each of us may know the truth of all things.

Edited October 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[HappyJackWagon]

You are exactly right. And in major part that is what constitutes the test. Some "figure it out" on their own with the help of the Spirit. These will pass the test and will in all probability remain true to the Church. This goes back to the principle that every member needs to become a prophet or prophetess unto themselves. Those men and women who achieve this worthy goal will not be dependent on answers from others in order to have their doubts put to rest. Moroni was dead serious when he promised every member of the human family that by the power of the Holy Ghost each of us may know the truth of all things.

So when I come to my own conclusions based on study, intellectual examination and spiritual witness, independent of the church, I should accept that answer regardless of what others may teach me?

 

Even though the church doesn't take official positions in many areas, I don't think that model will work in Gospel Doctrine class discussions.

[teddyaware]

So when I come to my own conclusions based on study, intellectual examination and spiritual witness, independent of the church, I should accept that answer regardless of what others may teach me?

 

Even though the church doesn't take official positions in many areas, I don't think that model will work in Gospel Doctrine class discussions.

Gospel Doctrine class is not the proper venue for discussing the mysteries.

As far as your first question is concerned: God is the one who knows for sure if anyone's conclusions are right or wrong. If the conclusions are right, there will be reward: if they are wrong there will be no reward, or worse.

Personal revelation isn't guessing game. Rather, it's a divinely ordained sure and certain way to know the real truth from God's point of view. One may imagine he's receiving revelation from God, but if he actually isn't it doesn't matter how sincere he might be in thinking he has. Even so, God is merciful and knows errors and mistakes will be made as a natural consequence of the fall on the way to becoming a wise, reliable and accurate receptor of spiritual truth. But even though God is merciful, it's always more important and personally beneficial to be sincere and correct than it is to be sincere and in error.

Edited October 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Gospel Doctrine class is not the proper venue for discussing the mysteries.

 

Perhaps. But are these really the mysteries? I don't think so. The mysteries would relate more to issues of creationism and perhaps the eternal progression of knowledge and family, not "why did JS marry other peoples wives?" or "Is the Book of Abraham really scripture?"

 

In any case, I'm pleased that you recognize that there is room for people to seek and receive personal revelation independent of the church, even if it doesn't fit within the cultural norms of the church's teachings.

[rodheadlee]

My question was more about why are the people in the water if it's not their fault? Does the church bear any responsibility for putting them in the water?

People are in the water because they didn't put their harness and tether on.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

People are in the water because they didn't put their harness and tether on.

So now holding on with 2 hands isn't enough. We also need to put on a harness and tether. The goal posts just keep on moving. How does putting on a harness and tether look in a gospel perspective. Maybe instead of holding on with 2 hands or putting on a harness and tether we should ask ourselves being on the boat is the right place to begin with and whether or not we should try to climb back on. 

[california boy]

I think that you are wrong on this one.  Even at the time of Paul, the saints were receiving letters from him. Paul was guiding the saints, helping them to remain faithful. The early church had their eyes on the leaders of the church. And yes, also on christ. And when the saints were straying, paul was writing letters redirecting them to be christlike. I don't remember the early saints saying: okay paul....but we prayed about it and decided that you are wrong. Now of course some did and left the fold. But the faithful saints carried on.

 

So, maybe you are being silly.

Actually, I don't think he is being silly at all.  Paul did write letters to the early church.  Much of what he wrote was just his opinion.  Some saw it as such, but others began to think that everything Paul wrote was doctrine, when it wasn't.  Those that relied on Paul's letters thinking they were doctrine were led astray and away from the truth that Christ taught.

[why me]

Actually, I don't think he is being silly at all.  Paul did write letters to the early church.  Much of what he wrote was just his opinion.  Some saw it as such, but others began to think that everything Paul wrote was doctrine, when it wasn't.  Those that relied on Paul's letters thinking they were doctrine were led astray and away from the truth that Christ taught.

You are right. I think that there were some who did not want to follow paul but many did. Paul considered himself an apostle who was leading the church. And his followers thought so too. Where did his opinions come from? All the apostles who went about evangelizing thought that they were doing the work of Christ.

 

Today, we live in an age of anything goes as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. It is the 'I' who is important.

Edited October 11, 2014 by why me

[mormonnewb]

You are right. I think that there were some who did not want to follow paul but many did. Paul considered himself an apostle who was leading the church. And his followers thought so too. Where did his opinions come from? All the apostles who went about evangelizing thought that they were doing the work of Christ.

Today, we live in an age of anything goes as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. It is the 'I' who is important.

I find it ironic that the biggest LDS boosters are quoting Paul, who would be considered an "apostate" in our current church. Just so we recall, Paul wasn't born of "goodly parents" and into the covenant, so to speak. Paul was a virulent anti-Christian who had a conversion experience and ASSUMED the mantle of apostle.

To my knowledge, Paul didn't rise through the ranks as bishop, SP, MP, MIB, ASPCA, etc. There is certainly no record that he was ever called or set apart by the other apostles. He simply went out and started preaching the Gospel and establishing churches.

And, by no means, did Paul assume that church leaders could not lead the Church astray. Half of his letters were basically saying, "They're doing it wrong. Let ME show you how it's done."

In short, in making your arguments from Team Infallibility, you might want to stay out of the 2/3 of the NT written by MY man, Paulie-Paul.

[thesometimesaint]

Not quite.

SEE http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Acts-Chapter-9/

[Guest]

Actually, I don't think he is being silly at all.  Paul did write letters to the early church.  Much of what he wrote was just his opinion.  Some saw it as such, but others began to think that everything Paul wrote was doctrine, when it wasn't.  Those that relied on Paul's letters thinking they were doctrine were led astray and away from the truth that Christ taught.

Actually it was Paul himself that said things that he said was opinion...so we do not to infer that on his behalf. His rather negative teaching on marriage (maybe negative is not the right word, maybe cautionary) we given "by way of permission and not by commandment".

[Guest]

I find it ironic that the biggest LDS boosters are quoting Paul, who would be considered an "apostate" in our current church. Just so we recall, Paul wasn't born of "goodly parents" and into the covenant, so to speak. Paul was a virulent anti-Christian who had a conversion experience and ASSUMED the mantle of apostle.

To my knowledge, Paul didn't rise through the ranks as bishop, SP, MP, MIB, ASPCA, etc. There is certainly no record that he was ever called or set apart by the other apostles. He simply went out and started preaching the Gospel and establishing churches.

And, by no means, did Paul assume that church leaders could not lead the Church astray. Half of his letters were basically saying, "They're doing it wrong. Let ME show you how it's done."

In short, in making your arguments from Team Infallibility, you might want to stay out of the 2/3 of the NT written by MY man, Paulie-Paul.

The "LDS boosters" (as you wrote) should be it's members. Also you mentioned "coming up through the ranks", this is not the military. One does not even have to be an Apostle in times past and even now (albeit it would be odd in these days) to serve as a counselor in the First Presidency. Paul rose to his position because of his being taught by the Savior is "blinding terms".

[why me]

And, by no means, did Paul assume that church leaders could not lead the Church astray. Half of his letters were basically saying, "They're doing it wrong. Let ME show you how it's done."

In short, in making your arguments from Team Infallibility, you might want to stay out of the 2/3 of the NT written by MY man, Paulie-Paul.

I think that you are missing a point. Paul was attempting to correct the mistakes that the churches were making. He felt that it was his duty to lead the churches correctly in teaching them correct principles because he was an apostle of christ. In fact, to my understanding, he dictated some of his letters in an angry mood. He did not want the churches to lead their flock in the way that they thought they should lead. It was Paul who gave direction and not the bishops. And he warned the churches not to be devisive but conduct their affairs with one mind. I am afraid that you may have misunderstood Paul.

Edited October 11, 2014 by why me

[Pahoran]

I find it ironic that the biggest LDS boosters are quoting Paul, who would be considered an "apostate" in our current church.

 

Really?

 

Call for references, please.

 

Numerous apostles and prophets, from Joseph Smith on down, have cited, quoted and otherwise referenced and discussed Paul.  Which of them considered him an apostate?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Guest]

Really?

 

Call for references, please.

 

Numerous apostles and prophets, from Joseph Smith on down, have cited, quoted and otherwise referenced and discussed Paul.  Which of them considered him an apostate?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

None, nor anyone here...ever!

[3DOP]

Really?

 

Call for references, please.

 

Numerous apostles and prophets, from Joseph Smith on down, have cited, quoted and otherwise referenced and discussed Paul.  Which of them considered him an apostate?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Many Mormons love Bart Ehrman, LDS spokesman. I may be wrong, but I was thinking he despises St. Paul (and all religion). I forget, is he a seventy? or an apostle?

Edited October 13, 2014 by 3DOP

[Calm]

Many Mormons love Bart Ehrman, LDS spokesman. I may be wrong, but I was thinking he despises St. Paul (and all religion). I forget, is he a seventy? or an apostle?

Those who I trust recommend Ehrman's earlier stuff and see his later stuff as not so well done, quality of his work has gone down. I can't remember exactly where the split occurs though, if you want me to check I can

[halconero]

I find it ironic that the biggest LDS boosters are quoting Paul, who would be considered an "apostate" in our current church. Just so we recall, Paul wasn't born of "goodly parents" and into the covenant, so to speak. Paul was a virulent anti-Christian who had a conversion experience and ASSUMED the mantle of apostle.

To my knowledge, Paul didn't rise through the ranks as bishop, SP, MP, MIB, ASPCA, etc. There is certainly no record that he was ever called or set apart by the other apostles. He simply went out and started preaching the Gospel and establishing churches.

And, by no means, did Paul assume that church leaders could not lead the Church astray. Half of his letters were basically saying, "They're doing it wrong. Let ME show you how it's done."

In short, in making your arguments from Team Infallibility, you might want to stay out of the 2/3 of the NT written by MY man, Paulie-Paul.

 

No he wouldn't. If you take Paul's own word for it in Galatians 2:9 the chief apostle received Paul into fellowship and confirmed his mission. If we combine that with the account in Acts, not only was he given the go ahead, but was ordained to the ministry by the laying on of hands.