- NEW!
by holdmysuit on April 11th, 2007
by the Otter on October 18th, 2008
Alright, you peaked my curiosity. Mormons tell me that the Bible is the Word of God. They also tell me the importance of the Book of Mormon, but when the teachings of the LDS Church disagrees with the Bible, there is an issue that must be addressed. How can you be married for eternity when Christ says there is no marriage in heaven? When the Sadducees asked Christ about marriage, trying to get Him to fumble on doctrine, Jesus said there is no marriage. His statement shows marriage as temporal to this world. After this life, marriage is unnecessary.
"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Mt. 22:30.
This sort of thing makes me question which book takes precedence, the Bible or something else?
by 2highspeed on October 18th, 2008
This is a question that has been addressed several times here. This verse is not saying that there would not be any married people in heaven. It is saying that new marriages will not be entered into in the resurrection. So, if you have not had the ordinance performed before you are resurrected, then it will then be too late.
by Glenn Blaylock on October 18th, 2008
Great question, 2highspeed. I know I’ve answered this before—probably multiple times—but I can’t seem to find the right threads, at the moment. As such, I’ll content myself with this thread:
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/426357
…which answers it well enough. (I personally prefer Rockie’s answer, but both of the actual answers to the question are good.)
Thanks!
by the Otter on October 18th, 2008
I don't see how these answers address the Sadducees asking who's wife she was. If it is as you say, Christ would have said she belonged to the first, instead, he tells them she isn't married to any of them. It would be out of character for Jesus to not address the question at all and turn it into discussion entirely about the afterlife, when the question was addressing the effect of this life on the next.
It seems to me, he is still answering their question, but he is also showing them the deeper truth, that there IS a resurrection. Christ also mentions that we will be like the angels, angels are genderless beings without the ability to wed. Why would he compare us to them if we remain married?
Also, where is the Biblical references to marriage in heaven? The only recorded marriage is the Marriage of Christ to His Church (the marriage of the lamb in Revelation).
by 2highspeed on October 18th, 2008
Neither of you addressed the last portion of my question, what about the precedence? Which book is more authoritative? The Bible or your other books?
by 2highspeed on October 18th, 2008
Hello again.
First of all, I agree that the answers to the question I cited are good, but they obviously don’t fully respond to your concern. Thus, I have posted my own answer to the question I cited. You may read it at http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/4319528 .
Secondly, why do you think angels are “genderless beings without the ability to wed”?
Third, the very first marriage in the Bible was forever: there was no death in the Garden of Eden. Beyond that, there are a few indicators; I think http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/m/18 is a pretty good (albeit brief) treatment.
And finally, there’s no need to worry about precedence. In matters of polity (e.g. how, exactly, the Church will be organized in our time), continuing revelation meets the needs of our day. I suppose that would be a form of “precedence,” but only inasmuch as God gives revelation to suit the needs of the people receiving it. In terms of doctrine and general principles, though, there never has been—nor will there ever be—a contradiction, so there’s really nothing to worry about.
HTH!
by the Otter on October 19th, 2008
First I will ask this, what do you mean in the quote below? Are you saying the Saducees will become Angels, or believers?:
"Since celestial marriage is required to “obtain” the only degree of glory that includes marriage, the people in question (who, again, were Sadducees and thus didn’t perform nor even believe in celestial marriage) would not have met that criterion. “Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven.”⁹"
by 2highspeed on October 19th, 2008
As to the angels being genderless creatures: There is never a reference in the Bible that shows them anything less because they are spirits. There certainly is no female angels recorded for them to marry. It is clear when studying Angelology, that the Angels are meant for a select few purposes, their power and positions are very limited based on what their "job" is. Now, that being said, there are clearly classes of angels. But, again there is nothing showing them to be anything more than spiritual creatures without gender.
by 2highspeed on October 19th, 2008
Based on your statement about ongoing revelation: How do you continue receiving revelation? Who is the prophet? What Scriptural authority does he have to Prophesy (in the OT sense), when the Cannon of Scripture is closed, and the Bible doesn't allow for additions? What is the reason for needing ongoing revelations and for that matter, why do you need additions to the Bible?
by 2highspeed on October 19th, 2008
I will take on the question in the last comment. First of all, as have been discussed several times here, we don't believe that the Bible says that it is closed (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/14359). As for why there would need to be new prophets, how many different religions are there out there that claim the Bible as their foundational scripture? The number is in the hundreds at least. NONE of these religions agree on everything. All of them disagree on key points. These disagreements all stem from the fact that people can read and interpret the same verses of scripture to mean very different things. This leads to confusion as to what is the right path back to God. Just what are the places of good works and faith in our salvation? Is baptism necessary or only just a symbolic act? We can't even agree on such fundamental question as these. In such a mass of disagreement, would it not be helpful to have prophets receiving revelation directly from God to clear up the...
by Glenn Blaylock on October 19th, 2008
...disagreements?
-
As for the scriptural basis for continued revelation, let me refer you to Ephesians 4:
-
“11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
“12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
“13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
-
Note that here Paul is telling us that God gave us all of these different classes of people to helps come to the knowledge of Christ until “we come in the unity of the faith”. Have we come to the unity of the faith? As I pointed out above we are far from unified. Therefore, prophets are still necessary and they will be until the Savior Himself returns to unify us. The current president of the Church is Thomas S. Monson. We accept him, his two councilors and the members of the Quorum of the...
by Glenn Blaylock on October 19th, 2008
...Twelve Apostles as all being prophets.
by Glenn Blaylock on October 19th, 2008
Glenn, thanks for handling that one. I don’t see any need to add to this, and add my witness to the veracity of your words.
2highspeed, only God can decide what reward any person will merit in the Eternities, and I would never claim to pass judgment on anyone—not even the Sadducees. However, we must remember that Jesus wasn’t responding to the status of an individual; he was responding to a hypothetical scenario. If we are to assume that the hypothetical persons involved therein remained as they were, I would expect the best they could do would be:
“they who died without law…. Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards
received it[;]… they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the
craftiness of men[;]… they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.”
(Doctrine & Covenants 76:72-76, http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/76/72-76#71).
Regardless, remember that even Satan has angels (see Matthew 25:41). Even being an angel doesn’t mean being good.
by the Otter on October 19th, 2008
Re: “As to the angels being genderless creatures: There is never a reference in the Bible that shows them anything less because they are spirits.” You’re certainly right that angels are spirits, but what makes you think that spirits are genderless? I’m honestly not trying to be obstinate, but I would argue that there is nothing showing them to be anything less than individuals with gender, be they spirits or otherwise.
Thanks again!
by the Otter on October 19th, 2008
Thank you both for your time. I enjoy this sort of discourse, even though we disagree. It is interesting to see your thoughts.
The Greek word for Prophesy in Ephesians 4 can be interpreted as a prophet in the foretelling sense, but it but in context of the reference, I don't see it. Paul is speaking here of positions of preaching the Gospel not adding to it.
προφήτης
prophētēs
prof-ay'-tace
From a compound of G4253 and G5346 ; a foreteller (“prophet”); by analogy an inspired speaker; by extension a poet:—prophet.
by 2highspeed on October 19th, 2008
Back to the angels: I agree Satan has angels and not all angels are good, Demons began as angels and chose to follow Satan. I guess the question I have now is where do you get that angels can procreate? And what would be the need? They are by nature mere messengers for God and warriors, they are eternal creatures, why do they need to procreate? It isn't as though they will die and need someone to carry on their lineage.
by 2highspeed on October 19th, 2008
2highspeed, I too enjoy a respectful comparison of different beliefs. I would just point out one other scripture to you and then I have to go to be. It's a bit too long to quote here, so I will just give a link to it (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/11/1-12#1). Here we have a prophecy of two prophets that would be sent to Jerusalem just prior to the Savior's return. Once again showing that prophets are still part of God's plan for us. If there are to be prophets at that time, then why would God not send others sooner?
by Glenn Blaylock on October 19th, 2008
2highspeed, I think you’ve misunderstood what I was saying. You’re absolutely correct that angels do not procreate; that’s part of what defines them as angels. My last scripture reference in response to the linked question points this out: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132/15-17#12 . However, an inability to procreate does not preclude them from having gender.
(Fwiw, I have actually read a statement wherein an Apostle postulated just such a concept—that resurrected angels in the telestial realm will be relieved of their gender—but he made it perfectly clear that it was his own speculation. It’s been my experience that most Latter-day Saints find the concept laughable, especially in the face of more recent scripture.)
Finally, you’re also right that the word “prophet” does not technically denote a foreteller; a foreteller is a “seer,” which authority is also given to each member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve: they are each sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators.”
Again, HTH!
by the Otter on October 20th, 2008
Glenn: The Prophets of Revelation are necessary because, at this point in time there isn't much else of a testimony out there. Revelation's tribulation period events are unique on the time line of events in that they are after the rapture of the Saints. Leaving the world with little testimony during the final seven years before the Second Coming of Christ. God again resorts to prophets but it is because of a couple of reasons, first the Jews seek signs to guide them to their Messiah. During this point God is reverting back to his old ways of dealing with the Jews. Also, as people are converted, many are killed during this time period. God empowers these men with extraordinary abilities so assist them in not having to worry about death, until the time God allows their death.
What I am getting at here is, that is a different era than our current one, and it has unique requirements.
by 2highspeed on October 20th, 2008
the Otter: I am curious was that a Mormon Apostle? I don't read anything in the Bible of such a thing.
As to the prophets being prophets, seers and revelators. This is contrary to I Cor. 13. Paul in his efforts to correct the Corinthian believers, noticed their wrongful errors in relation to tongues, prophesies etc... He said the following in vs. 8:
"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away."
προφητεία
prophēteia
prof-ay-ti'-ah
From G4396 (“prophecy”); prediction (scriptural or other):—prophecy, prophesying.
καταργέω
katargeō
kat-arg-eh'-o
From G2596 and G691 ; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:—abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void
by 2highspeed on October 20th, 2008
In light of the Greek it is clear there is to be an end to that. As the Scriptures were completed it became no longer necessary to have those sort of Prophets. Prophets of today are merely men who bring the Gospel to others as is seen below. Different word with different meaning.
προφήτης
prophētēs
prof-ay'-tace
From a compound of G4253 and G5346 ; a foreteller (“prophet”); by analogy an inspired speaker; by extension a poet:—prophet.
by 2highspeed on October 20th, 2008
Hey there, 2highspeed. When Christ was on the Earth, He called and ordained twelve of his disciples to the Apostleship¹. One of these twelve, Judas Iscariot, apostatized and died; thus, Matthias was called to fill the vacancy². As time went on, other apostles died (generally martyred) and yet others were called per Simon Peter’s instructions². This is apparently how men such as James the Just, Saul of Tarsus, and Barnabas became numbered among the Twelve. Some also claim that Silas and Timotheus were apostles³, but this is conjectural. (For scripture helps dealing with Apostles and the Apostolic calling, see the links at http://tinyurl.com/sh-apostle .)
The point is that the Lord’s followers began to fall away en masse, just as they had, many times before. Had they remained faithful, the Lord would have continued to call new Apostles to the quorum He had established and maintained for several decades. Unfortunately, their state of increasing apostasy forced Him to cease the practice⁴.
* * *
1. Luke 6:13-16, http://tinyurl.com/luke6-13
2. Acts 1:20-26, http://tinyurl.com/acts1-20
3. cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:1, http://tinyurl.com/1thes1-1, to
1 Thessalonians 2:6, http://tinyurl.com/1thes2-6
4. A more complete (though unofficial) treatment can be found at Wikipedia,
http://tinyurl.com/wiki-apostasy
by the Otter on October 20th, 2008
Re: “was that a Mormon Apostle?”… I’ll assume you meant no harm by the slur, but jsyk, the term “Mormon” (when used in its adjectival sense) is offensive to many members of the Church. Mormon was a Christian prophet that lived from about A.D. 310-385, and I’m sure that even he wouldn’t be happy with the number of people that demote Christ’s Church by calling it by Mormon’s name¹. But I digress….
Yes, the apostle in question was a latter-day apostle—Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., IIRC—and he made it perfectly clear that this was just his own intellectual musing. As I said, I think it’s a crock, and given more recent scriptural proclamation, I’d be surprised if there’s anyone left that feels differently.
* * *
Re: “This is contrary to I Cor. 13”… I believe you’re correct in your understanding of the Greek, but I also think you’re taking the passage out of context. Look at the entire thought, vv.8-10:
“Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be
tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in
part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is
in part shall be done away.”²
With all due respect, I see nothing in that passage to support a lack of prophets. If such were true, we must necessarily discount the very passage you cite (along with the entire Bible), since by your own admission, it’s all prophecy. ;-)
Paul is speaking of those things that are important, but temporal, and comparing them to charity, which is Eternal. We’re not going to be saved by prophecy; we *will* be saved (indirectly, of course) by charity.
* * *
Finally, you have yet to demonstrate any reason to believe that “the Scriptures were completed.” Your statement brings to mind the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr., in his self-described “Answers to Sundry Questions,” which he “published… to save [him]self the trouble of repeating the same a thousand times over and over again”:
“‘Is not the canon of the Scriptures full?’
“If it is, there is a great defect in the book, or else it would have said so.”³
* * *
1. See 1 Corinthians 1:12-13, http://tinyurl.com/1cor1-12; and
3 Nephi 27:7-8, http://tinyurl.com/3nephi27-7
2. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, http://tinyurl.com/1cor13-8
3. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121
by the Otter on October 20th, 2008
First, I would like to apologize for any offense, it was not my intent to slur with the use of the term Mormon. I didn't know it was an offensive term. Other than Latter Day Saints, Mormon is the only other name I have ever heard to describe someone of your faith.
Though I would agree that there has been a number of corrupted churches, especially starting after the founding of the Roman church, there has always remained those who held to proper Scriptural interpretations. Though, no group is ever 100% right, the key teachings of Christ remained. To say that there was no legitimate churches at any point in history is contrary to Christ's teachings.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
by 2highspeed on October 20th, 2008
I Corinthians 13: This passage is in light of the apostasy of the Corinthian church and their desire to have spiritual gifts. Paul here is discouraging the usage of such gifts and instead recommending a focus on love. In context of the Book, Paul's heart for the Corinthians was for them to NOT seek such things. If his heart was that they not do this why would it be encouraged today?
by 2highspeed on October 20th, 2008
On going revelation and the Scriptures: To say that there can be new additions, even today, leaves open some dangerous situations. How does the LDS Church go about screening these men to insure they aren't charlatans? False prophets have been around for centuries. How can you know these men are correct. It seems very dangerous to allow someone to add to the Word of God.
I see the Scriptures as complete, because we have nothing else to add. The law is complete, the prophets were complete with John's revelation of the end times, the Gospels were complete showing Christ from four angles, the history of Scriptures is there from Acts, and how the churches should conduct themselves is completed in the epistles. What else is necessary? I see no reason for God to require ongoing revelations. There is enough information in the Bible to give men everything they need to fulfill God's will for their lives.
by 2highspeed on October 20th, 2008
Oh, and thanks for the info on Mormon, I had never heard that. How did he come to be connected in common thought? Any idea?
by 2highspeed on October 20th, 2008
Hello again. This is actually a really good discussion. Thank you!
First of all, we’re missing some context again: let’s look at Matthew 16:15-18:
“[Jesus] saith unto [the Twelve], But whom say ye that I am?
“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee,
That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.”
Christ doesn’t say that the Church *is* the rock; He says it will be built “upon this rock.” And what is “this rock”? It’s what He was just talking about: divine revelation. Without that, we would have to “make… flesh [our] arm,”¹ which is exactly what the Savior told Peter he was blessed for not doing.
Secondly, I’m not sure where you get the idea that Paul is condemning spiritual gifts; in 1 Corinthians 12—the chapter that (obviously) immediately precedes 1 Corinthians 13—he explicitly states that “the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal”² before proceeding to enumerate some of these profitable gifts² and finally encouraging the Corinthians to “covet [them] earnestly.”³ With all due respect, 2highspeed, that doesn’t sound like “Paul's heart for the Corinthians was for them to NOT seek such things”; in fact, quite the opposite.
The focus of 1 Corinthians 13 is *not* to nullify the “covet[ed]” gifts laid out in the preceding chapter; it is to help the Corinthians understand that the greatest gift of all is charity. Thankfully, receiving the gift of charity does not preclude having other gifts, as well.
Again, HTH! :-)
* * *
1. Jeremiah 17:5, http://scriptures.lds.org/jer/17/5#1
2. 1 Corinthians 12:7-11, http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/12/7-11#1
3. 1 Corinthians 12:31, http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/12/31#28
by the Otter on October 20th, 2008
Mt. 16: I have different interpretation here as well. Here Christ is instructing Peter that he is not the foundation of the church. (As the Catholic church teaches). He is teaching that He is the foundation of His church not Peter. He actually refers to Peter by a different Greek word than what He uses for Himself:
Πέτρος
Petros
pet'-ros
Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037 ); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:—Peter, rock. Compare G2786 .
He then refers to himself as the Petra:
πέτρα
petra
pet'-ra
Feminine of the same as G4074 ; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):—rock.
by 2highspeed on October 20th, 2008
Christ then refers to His church as a local assembly not a universal body:
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see'-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564 ; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):—assembly, church.
Christ is illustrating to Peter, his importance vs. the importance of Himself as the founder of his ekklesia. Christ is the cornerstone, that stone that the builders rejected. Not divine revelation. Christ is the source of Divine revelation, it cannot take precedence over its master and be the foundation. Christ alone holds honor, and will share with nothing and no one His position as cornerstone.
by 2highspeed on October 20th, 2008
Oh, I see you’ve written more. I suppose then I shall do the same, but then I’ve got to get to bed. :-)
Re: ongoing revelation… it has been pointed out that Adam did not receive instructions on how to build the ark, Noah did not receive instructions on how to save the family of Israel, and Israel did not receive instructions on how to lead his descendants out of Egypt. As a general rule, the whole point of a prophet is to teach God’s will concerning the issues with which his own people will find themselves confronted.
Re: “How does the LDS Church go about screening these men to insure they aren't charlatans?” The beauty of revelation is that God doesn’t limit it to one individual; that has never been his intent.¹ Just as “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,”² so God has repeatedly promised to grant wisdom unto all those that honestly seek.³
In other words, while God *has* set a system in place to make sure the right people are placed in positions of authority (and removed, in the extremely rare case of apostasy), absolutely *anyone* can go to Him and learn for him- or herself whether or not anything be true. (In fact, receiving such revelation might as well be a requirement for membership in the Church! After all, baptizing the ignorant wouldn’t help anybody, especially not the ignorant person being baptized!)
Finally, the prophet Mormon is the primary compiler of a book of scripture known as the Book of Mormon. It’s basically a companion to the Bible—a book of scripture, written during roughly the same time period, but on a different continent. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to prove to the world that Jesus is the Christ and that the Bible and its teachings are true. After all, it’s all well and good that a bunch of people in ancient Jerusalem wrote down a bunch of doctrines, but when we discover that a bunch of other people in ancient Mesoamerica were also writing *the exact same doctrines*, that should really cause one to ponder.
If you’d like to know more about the Book of Mormon, a good place to start would be http://tinyurl.com/res-of-tru .
Oh, and by the way… no offense taken with the “Mormon” thing; it’s just that that usage of the term was invented by the same mobs that tarred, feathered, raped, murdered, and drove the Saints from their homes in the 1830s and ’40s. In other words, it’s got a pretty bad history and is still kind of a sore spot for some. I mostly said that to inform you, not to indicate any anger or whatever. :-)
Again, HTH!
* * *
1. e.g. Deuteronomy 4:33-36, http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/4/35-36#30
2. Revelation 19:10, http://scriptures.lds.org/rev/19/10#9
3. James 1:5-6, http://scriptures.lds.org/james/1/5-6#1
by the Otter on October 20th, 2008
Hey there. Just a quick response to your last posts, then *really* going to bed, this time. ;-)
I actually knew about the Petros vs. Petra thing, and your interpretation of the relative sizes is a very good one. I’d actually never considered the insignificance of Petros with respect to Petra, so thank you for enhancing my understanding of that! :-)
However, I still don’t see where Christ is referring to Himself as the “Petra.” You’re certainly correct that the revelation comes from Him, but I’m still not seeing how “this rock” could be referring to Christ when He hadn’t been talking about Himself:
“[F]lesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. … and upon
this rock I will build my church” (vv.17-18).
I could *possibly* see someone interpreting “my Father which is in heaven” as being the rock, but I think the context of the entire conversation makes the actual meaning clear.
G’night for now! ;-)
by the Otter on October 20th, 2008
Tarring and feathering, etc... is not unique to the LDS Churches. Baptists faced it for centuries for their belief on re-baptizing. It earned them the name Ana-Baptists, it usually came with the penalty of death by drowning.
by 2highspeed on October 21st, 2008
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."
by 2highspeed on October 21st, 2008
Christ here is asking "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" Peter's response shows God's wisdom that Jesus is the Christ. The revelation here wasn't really about churches it was about the person of Christ, His deity.
Who Christ was and the revelation of God to Peter that Jesus was the Christ had nothing to do with the Rock. The rock is a separate issue in the conversation. Note the words "And I say ALSO unto the" (my emphasis) Christ is showing Himself as deity, and to be the Rock, not divine revelation.
by 2highspeed on October 21st, 2008
Hey there. Good response. I really do appreciate it. I do realize, btw, that the Latter-day Saints aren’t the only ones to be tarred and feathered, nor even the only ones to be murdered for their beliefs, but that whole line of conversation is an aside, anyway, so….
Re: Matthew 16…. Okay. That explanation does make sense to me; I can now totally understand why you would think Christ is the rock. I suppose, then, that it comes down to interpretation. I guess the best I can, then, is that I know that God continues to call prophets today, which knowledge I have received through that same revelation we agree is being discussed herein; and furthermore, I have the teachings of modern prophets to instruct me in the correct interpretation. So I guess we’ll probably have to agree to disagree here. Thank you for helping me understand your position, though. Again, I truly do appreciate your time and effort! :-)
Peace!
by the Otter on October 21st, 2008
It has been a pleasure for me as well. It isn't often one can carry on discourse of this sort without it turning into an unpleasant debate, or with frustrations. Agree or disagree, I enjoy the discussion, I have always wanted to know more about the LDS but, often the only conversation is one over conversion, not a question and answer over interpretation and such, as we have had. You do seem more educated than most of the LDS church members I have spoken to in times past. Do you hold position of some sort? Or are you a well educated laymen? One other question, I have been wondering, what is the structure of the LDS? How are the churches organized, trustees, deacons etc...? And is each congregation autonomous or are they instructed from Salt Lake City how to govern and what to preach etc...?
by 2highspeed on October 21st, 2008
I’ve enjoyed it as well. I too really appreciate when individuals (including myself) can remain civil in a conversation such as this, so thank you! :-)
Your two questions (structure and my position) are actually somewhat intertwined. Let’s start with the structure: the most basic unit in the Church is the nuclear family. The family is presided over by the parents, with father as head of household and mother as equal partner. Parents are instructed to educate their children in the Gospel, both explicitly and by example; and all other positions within the Church exist to support this Eternal unit.
In terms of the Church itself, the specific organization is outlined at http://tinyurl.com/lds-structure , but the reason I say your questions are intertwined is because virtually every adult member (and even some youth) has a calling. I, like most adult males in the Church, hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, and am specifically ordained to the office of elder. I also currently serve as a home teacher (an assignment inherent in most Priesthood offices) and as the secretary to the elders quorum presidency, but in the past I have served as counselor in the Young Men’s presidency, secretary to the Young Men’s presidency, ward clerk, Sunday School instructor, Sunday School President, Priesthood pianist, Sacrament pianist, stake missionary, full-time missionary, and probably many other callings along the way.
One thing that is important to understand about the Church of Jesus Christ is that we have no paid leadership. Even most of our General Authorities, who serve full time and often for life, do not receive a salary (although a needs-based living stipend is available; about 20% of GAs—roughly 40 people worldwide—actually receive this).
by the Otter on October 22nd, 2008
So back to the structure…. Throughout the Church, callings are rotated among the members as revealed by the Lord, to meet the needs of the Church. For example, the bishopric that presides over my congregation could receive revelation that I need to be released as elders quorum secretary and called as an instructor for the five-year-old Primary class. The bishop would then ask me to meet with him (or one of his counselors) and extend said calling to me—a calling that I am welcome to accept or reject, but as we believe callings to be inspired, rejections are generally rare.
Assuming I accept the calling, the bishop would present my name to the congregation, and ask the members to sustain me in said position, (indicated by a raised hand). He will then ask if anyone in the congregation be opposed (indicated in the same manner), and if there be anyone, he will meet with that person to determine the reason for said opposition. (Perhaps that person knows that I’m a child molester, or something—not that I am, of course.) ;-)
In the same way, the stake president (a stake is similar to a Catholic diocese) could also receive revelation that the bishop’s time in that calling has come to an end, that he needs to be released and another called in his place. After his release, said bishop would likely be called to some other position—perhaps on the stake level, perhaps on the ward level, perhaps even on the Church level; it’s all according to what the Lord wants and needs, at the time. The bottom line is summed up in an oft-quoted statement made by President J. Reuben Clark Jr., who at the time had just been released as First Counselor in the First Presidency and called as Second Counselor in the First Presidency—an apparent demotion, in the eyes of the world:
“In the service of the Lord, it is not where you serve but how. In the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, one takes the place to which one is duly called, which place one neither seeks
nor declines.” (Conference Report, Apr. 1951, 154).
So I guess that’s your (rather longwinded) answer: no, I am not currently a leader in the Church, but I do “hold position of some sort,” as does virtually every active member of the Church. I thus suppose that “well-educated layman” is as good a description as any, and I’ll take that as a compliment and thank you for it. :-D
by the Otter on October 22nd, 2008
Interesting. What if the individual feels like they should be doing something and it isn't what the others are asking him to do. Or say for instance the individual feels like they should go to or stay in a position and there is no "calling" seen by the others around them for him at all?
by 2highspeed on October 22nd, 2008
All callings come through the individual that has been called to extend said callings. The bishop or branch president, for example, has the authority to extend callings to those in his ward or branch. Personally, I’ve never heard of an individual feeling that he or she should be serving in a position s/he wasn’t called to, but I suppose if it were to happen, s/he would discuss this feeling with the appropriate Priesthood leader (e.g. bishop) and see where it goes. I *have* been aware of individuals making a desire known, e.g. “I’ve been in Primary for six years. If the Lord wants me to stay there, I will, but I’d really like to do something else for a while,” but that’s a little bit different than feeling that s/he *should* be in some other position.
As for the second part of your question, I’m not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking what happens if there’s no callings left for an individual? If so, that’s not a problem I’ve ever seen; the ward would normally get divided long before it ever got to that point.
Make sense?
by the Otter on October 22nd, 2008
I understand. I guess I am used to it working differently. I believe that the individual should feel "called" by a movement of the Holy Spirit in their heart. For example, a friend of mine (Jim) is a missionary to Mexico. He was a cowboy by trade, after he accepted Christ as his Savior, he was faithful in his church. One night a missionary came to his church and was raising support to go to Mexico. Jim was watching the slide show the missionary brought and saw a cowboy's shadow standing in a darkened doorway. Jim felt the Lord wanted him to go to the cowboys in Mexico. He quit his job and went. He has been working with the Mexican cowboys ever since. I believe that a calling should come from God not based on what others call you to do. Take the example of Paul, he received his call to the gentiles without any human intervention, it was what God wanted him to do so he did it.
by 2highspeed on October 22nd, 2008
Yes, I know of churches that believe that way, and that’s cool. Full-time missionary service generally works a bit like that in our Church, too: most prospective full-time missionaries will begin the process by expressing their willingness to their Priesthood leader. However, the mission call itself still comes through the Lord’s prophets, and is personally approved by the President of the Church.
Out of curiosity, you mention that a missionary was “raising support to go to Mexico.” Is missionary work not a paid position, in your church? It isn’t in ours, but most other missionaries I’ve known have essentially been employed by the church. That’s very cool, if that’s the way it goes.
Finally, I would point out that while Saul (later Paul) did have a rather unique experience—the kind that actually makes it into the scriptures—in that the Lord taught him directly, there is no record of the Lord calling him to any position. He was welcome to share the Gospel with others—every member of Christ’s Church should want to do that—but even he didn’t receive an actual calling until Acts 13:2-3, through “certain prophets and teachers” at Antioch.
Still, I see where you’re coming from. Thanks!
by the Otter on October 22nd, 2008
Note Paul was already doing the work by ACTS 12:3, as soon as Paul regained his sight he began preaching in the synagogues. "And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God." He had already been set apart for God's purpose as God told Ananias. Later, when Paul is told by God to go to Macedonia, there is no one else to tell him he is called there, Paul knew and he went.
"And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. 10And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them." ACTS 16:9&10
by 2highspeed on October 23rd, 2008
As to the missionary: I believe missionaries are to be supported by local churches directly. Paul raised his support for the churches he started with support from previously established churches. Jim is supported by traveling around to churches across the country to raise money for his work. A portion of the money supports him and his wife, while a portion goes to church materials, tracts, Bibles etc... Eventually, he will be using the money to help fund the church building they will meet in and as time goes on a national pastor will assume his duties and he will move on to another town to start a new church. So yes, he is raising support for himself to live on while he starts his work, he is also raising support for his work.
by 2highspeed on October 23rd, 2008
Re: Paul… I think you may have mistyped your citation. The verse you mention (Acts 12:3) deals with Herod imprisoning Simon Peter. Or perhaps I’ve misunderstood your point? If so, I apologize.
Re: Ananias… I just re-read Acts 9, and I can’t find anyplace that Ananias sets Paul apart to anything. Ananias gives Paul a Priesthood blessing to heal him (v.17), also promising that Paul will “be filled with the Holy Ghost.” Then in v.18, Paul is baptized—perhaps also by Ananias, though the record doesn’t say this.
In v.19, Paul spends “certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.” No mention is made of what transpired during those days. Perhaps Paul received the Priesthood, perhaps not; but regardless of exactly what transpired, he then “preache[s] Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God” (v.20)—a completely logical thing for one with his credentials to do. (Remember: Paul was a Pharisee. He was schooled at the feet of Gamaliel—Gamaliel being the grandson of renowned rabbi Hillel—and was by this point a rabbi in his own right. That he should “straightaway” share his newfound knowledge in the synagogue is only natural.)
Finally, regarding the passage in Acts 16:9-10: Paul had already been called on his mission: he was called to the Apostleship (again, Acts 13:2-3), which calling includes the charge to go “into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Thus, the vision to “go into Macedonia” was a part of the calling he had already received, not a new calling altogether.
(As an aside, in 1840, Elder Wilford Woodruff—also an Apostle—received a similar instruction to travel from northern England to the southern county of Herefordshire. He wound up staying there for eight months and baptized over 2,000 people unto the Lord. So yes, we definitely know that it happens.)
by the Otter on October 23rd, 2008
Re: the missionary…. That’s very admirable that he’s willing and able to do that. In our Church, prospective missionaries generally save up the money for their mission, before they leave. The Church does have missionary funds in case of missionaries with financial difficulties, but the general rule is to save up before you go, so you can devote 100% of your time to preaching the Gospel and 0% to trying to drum up support. Of course, I also understand that your friend Jim’s full-time mission is a permanent position (whereas our missionaries are called for a fairly specific length of time), so I can see where such efforts would be necessary.
Thanks again for the explanation! :-)
by the Otter on October 23rd, 2008
Sorry, about the reference. I transposed the numbers. 13:2 :)
Ananias: God set Paul apart not Ananias. Ananias was only informed that Paul was going to be used by God.
Paul's synagogue preaching was certainly natural for him as a Pharisee. He was clearly a man of power in Jewish circles, or he would not have been the one "consenting" unto the death of Stephen. And you are correct, Paul was well studied under Gamaliel, he also spent some time in Arabia under the teaching of the Holy Spirit. (Gal. 1).
by 2highspeed on October 23rd, 2008
With the Macedonian vision, it is referred to as a call. "...the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them." That is a specific calling,. As to going into all the world and preaching the Gospel, we are all given that calling. That is a general missions calling, for everyone to put their hand to the plow and participate in global evangelism in some way or another.
Jim: Yes, he will remain in Mexico until he dies, unless the Lord leads him somewhere else.
When you say "save up" do the churches not fund the LDS missionaries at all? How can the local churches participate in global evangelism if they are not at least funding a missionary? Obviously, not everyone goes to be a missionary, if they don't financially support and they don't go themselves, how are they going into all the world?
by 2highspeed on October 23rd, 2008
I think we’re saying the same thing about Paul, just using different terminology. You see the statement in 16:10 to refer to a new calling; I see it as an extension of his current calling. Regardless, we both know that Paul did it and I think that’s what’s important, right?
Re: missionary work: every member of the Church of Jesus Christ is instructed to be a missionary in his or her own sphere, e.g. Doctrine & Covenants 88:81: “[I]t becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor” (http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/88/81#78). While some are called on full-time missions and thus leave home for a time, all of us are commanded to share the Gospel in our daily lives. Thus, much of this “global evangelism” is accomplished on a local level.
In terms of funding missionaries, our offerings slips have two lines for missionary work: “Ward Missionary Fund” and “Church Missionary Fund.” Members can donate to each, if they so choose.
Finally, you are correct: except in cases of financial need, the Church does not fund the missionaries at all. The cost of living in each of the various missions around the world is averaged appropriately, and each missionary is expected to pay his or her share thereof (barring any arrangement to the contrary). It’s basically the law of consecration in action: whether a missionary needs $3,000/month to live in Tokyo or $50/month to live in Guatemala, s/he still pays the same amount and the money is distributed as needed.
When I was a full-time missionary, for example, I did not have the funds necessary to serve. Had I been able to support myself, I would have been expected to do so, but as a young member of the Church whose parents (who aren’t members thereof) were ostensibly unwilling to help, this wasn’t the case. As such, my bishop discussed the situation with various members of the ward and got them each to agree to a set amount, each month, to help with my support. I still don’t know who these angels in disguise were, but as far as I know, the money was donated every month and my mission went off sans financial impediment—and I trust that each of them was blessed for his or her generosity.
by the Otter on October 23rd, 2008
What is the difference then between a church and a ward missionary? And with your missionaries, what is their goal? Are they there simply to soul win and that is it? Or to church plant? Are there missionaries of other sorts as well, like those who start a radio ministry or something of that sort?
We support missionaries of all sorts at my church. Some are strictly church planting missionaries who's goal is to win the lost, start a church, train a national pastor, then move somewhere else and start over. We also have missionaries who target unique people groups like a missionary to the deaf in Peru. And there are some who start a work like a Bible college on the foreign field or an orphanage.
by 2highspeed on October 23rd, 2008
As to the comments about Paul's calling to Macedonia, you are right, Paul did it which is key. His faithfulness is a testimony to all.
by 2highspeed on October 23rd, 2008
Oops. I guess I didn’t make myself quite clear. This should be interesting…. ;-)
A ward or branch missionary is someone that has been called to serve a part-time proselytizing mission within his or her own ward or branch of the Church, meaning within the geographic boundaries of his or her own congregation. These missionaries continue to live their everyday lives, but are expected to spend a set amount of time, each week, working to teach the Gospel.
The Church also has full-time missionaries—people that have set aside all other pursuits, for a set period of time, while concentrating solely on mission work. These missionaries generally forego television, radio, newspaper, dating, reading (besides the scriptures and a very few other religious books), etc.. These are the missionaries I spoke of, in my last post.
There are several kinds of full-time missionaries, probably more than I even know; however, most are proselytizing missionaries whose calling is to teach the Gospel to the people in the area to which they are assigned. There are also humanitarian missionaries, family history missionaries, education missionaries, etc.; but these are not nearly so numerous as the proselytizing missionaries. (All told, we currently have about 53,000 full-time missionaries, worldwide.)
So to answer your implied question, yes, these proselytizing missionaries will sometimes be called upon to found and/or preside over new or struggling congregations, and such an assignment would obviously include the training of new members to lead therein. However, we don’t have missionaries that are specifically called to do that and only that; it’s just an assignment given to whichever proselytizing missionary the Lord chooses, at that time.
—However—
These terms have nothing to do with the “Ward Mission Fund” and “General Mission Fund.” (It’s late, and I don’t know what I was thinking; ignore the slightly erroneous terms I used in my last comment. These are the correct terms.) Donations to the Ward (or Branch) Mission Fund remain in the local congregation, for use by members thereof that are currently serving full-time missions. (This is also the method by which individual missionaries pay for their own missions.)
Conversely, donations to the General Mission Fund are sent to Church headquarters and are distributed as needed to missionaries that can’t get enough financial support from their respective local congregations. (I would imagine this happens more often, in impoverished parts of the world, but please don’t quote me on that.)
We have other donation types, too, but that’s obviously outside the purvey of this discussion. :-)
by the Otter on October 23rd, 2008
Man it’s *really* late!
* “…the *purview* of this discussion.” :-B
by the Otter on October 23rd, 2008
Why can't the missionaries listen to the radio, read the news, etc... I could understand NO TV (because of the wicked images often shown). But what is wrong with knowing the events of the world around you? I would think you would want to know that, many sermons are preached using the issues of the day to spark the interest of the hearer.
Which brings me to this question: How are your services conducted, you mentioned you have Sunday School classes (teaching) but what about preaching? Do you preach in the traditional fashion in your churches? And who does it?
by 2highspeed on October 24th, 2008
Hey 2highspeed. The reason missionaries don’t listen to radio, read the news, etc., is to keep them completely focused on their missions. What’s more, they frankly don’t have time to. The mission schedule is fairly strict—though it can vary somewhat, should the area so require—and generally fills the missionaries’ entire day from 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.. While tying the Gospel into the news of the day certainly isn’t a bad thing, there’s plenty of Gospel to teach, even without resorting to doing so.
Re: Church services…. Our Sunday services consist of three hours of meetings. The most important of these meetings is Sacrament Meeting, which can either be the first or last meeting, depending on local needs. In this 70-minute meeting, the entire family generally sits together in the chapel while two or three local members successively address the congregation. These speakers are assigned by the bishopric, and are of course given plenty of notice; it might be a bit difficult for most of us to prepare a decent talk, on the spot. ;-)
On one Sunday per month—generally the first Sunday—the normal Sacrament Meeting is replaced with a testimony meeting, wherein anyone that desires to share his or her testimony of the Gospel with the congregation is invited to do so. Obviously on these Sundays, there are quite a few more than three speakers. I’ve never stopped to count, but it’s probably between 10-15.
The second meeting is Sunday School, which is pretty much like any other church’s Sunday School. There are classes for adults, different age groups of youth and children, a Gospel Principles class for investigators and new members, and occasionally even some special classes authorized by the bishopric (e.g. marriage, family history, etc.).
During the third (or first, if Sacrament Meeting be third) hour, the men and women divide up into separate groups. Men and young men ages 12 and up attend their assigned Priesthood Quorum meeting, while women attend either a Young Women’s meeting or Relief Society, which is the Church’s organization for adult women. Younger children remain with the same groups as in the second hour, in either Nursery (which includes all classes for ages 18 months–3 years) or Primary (which includes all classes for ages 3-12).
Finally, the Church also holds regular conferences, on the local, stake, and general level. This weekend, for example, my stake (which includes 12 congregations in the Lafayette, Indiana area) will be holding its semiannual stake conference, so we’ll have well over 1,000 people attending the Sunday morning meeting. (Thank goodness for folding chairs!)
As for the Church’s General Conference, it is held on weekends that include the first Sunday of April or October, and is broadcast live, usually from the Conference Center on Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Utah. (You can even watch that on the ’net or on BYU-TV, if your television service carries that channel, so most Americans participate from their own homes.)
So yeah… a bit more complex that you may have expected. In the likely event that you’ve got questions about any of this, you know where to find me! :-D
by the Otter on October 24th, 2008
So your speakers aren't allowed to speak their own message? When I teach a class or Preach a sermon, I do whatever I feel like God would have me to speak on, based on my praying and asking God to lay a message on my heart. It requires no approval or direction from anyone in the church. You don't allow for that?
by 2highspeed on October 24th, 2008
The speakers always write and deliver their own message, but the bishop is sometimes prompted to give them a topic. If such a prompting comes, the speakers are obviously expected to fulfill the assignment; if not, they can speak on whatever they like.
Teaching a class is much the same way: we do have class manuals and/or scriptures to use as a basis, but it’s up to the instructor to create and present his or her own lesson.
Make sense?
by the Otter on October 24th, 2008
Okay. I have no problem with that.
Sorry if I have a lot of questions, again it isn't often I can just ask questions for understanding purposes. I have always been fascinated with other peoples faiths, even if they don't always agree with my own. If you get tired of my million questions just let me know, I will find someone else to harass a while. :)
I am curious though, what is the logic behind LDS research into family genealogies? I know you have one of the best sources to go to in your databases, but why? Obviously, the people seeking the information are gaining from it, but why do you preform the service? What is the benefit for the LDS churches?
by 2highspeed on October 24th, 2008
Oh, no problem. I love to learn, too, so I totally understand that. What’s more, I love to share my knowledge, so this isn’t a problem. ;-)
Anyway, one of the most basic tenets of our faith is that families can be Eternal, through the sealing ordinances of the temple. These ordinances are performed not only for the living but also by proxy, for those that died without the opportunity to receive them. However, Gospel ordinances are a very personal thing, and it’s impossible to perform an ordinance on someone’s behalf unless we know who that someone was. That’s where’s family history enters in.
Members of the Church are encouraged to seek out their ancestors so these so-called “saving” ordinances can be performed on their behalf. As for why we share this opportunity with others, I never really thought about it before—after all, why wouldn’t we share with others?—but I guess we do actually benefit from their research inasmuch as we can utilize their information, as well.
I still think the main reason is even simpler, though: we’re not jerks. We’re a service-oriented organization with this huge amount of information just sitting there, waiting to be used; why wouldn’t we use it to serve others? :-)
by the Otter on October 25th, 2008
I always thought that the geneology was a nice service to offer. I did wonder why you do it in the first place though. No other religion (that I know of) offers such a service.
What exactly happens in these proxy ceremonies anyway? You say that it offers you opportunity to perform these ordinances for the dead. Why? Once an individual is dead, how can they be saved? Heb. 9:27 says: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" Another example of this is when Christ was speaking of the Rich man, when he was offered no aid for his suffering, he begged to have his family warned. In spite of all this there was no hope in the story of a change in his status. Once we die our fate is sealed.
Also, I must ask, how is one saved, if they are dead? How can that person make a decision to accept Christ if they are dead? I can't have a change of heart for them and neither can anyone else, so how can they be saved?
by 2highspeed on October 25th, 2008
Hey, 2high. Sorry to be so long in responding; I’ve had a lot on my plate and wanted to make sure I gave your question the attention it deserves. :-)
I’m sure as a Christian, you’re familiar with John 3:5. To refresh, a Pharisee named Nicodemus comes by night and asks the Savior about being born again. Christ’s response is simple and yet profound: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This, among many other scriptures, make it perfectly clear that baptism is required for salvation.
However, we’ve got a problem here: how many people have lived, throughout the ages, that never even heard of Jesus Christ, much less had the opportunity to enter into the waters of baptism? What’s more, even among those that *were* baptized are many that were baptized either insufficiently or without divine authority (e.g. Acts 19:1-6, where even those already baptized by John were re-baptized unto the Savior). So what happens to these?
The answer is simple: those that didn’t have the opportunity to accept the Gospel in mortality are given said opportunity thereafter. This is why He “went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient… in the days of Noah” (1 Peter 3:19-20, http://tinyurl.com/1pet3-18). This discussion continues into the next chapter, roughly concluding with Peter’s assurance that “the gospel [is] preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit” (1 Peter 4:6, http://tinyurl.com/1pet4-6).
Now, don’t get me wrong; this is not the controversial “second chance theory”; we’re not talking about those that willfully rejected God’s word, in mortality. Thus, the rich man in Christ’s parable was unable to be comforted: Abraham’s words in Luke 16:29-31 emphasize that this man’s brothers “hear not Moses and the prophets.” He doesn’t have to explain who “Moses and the prophets” are, so obviously this man—and his family—are already aware; they’ve just chosen not to listen.
Thankfully, it’s not our responsibility to decide who did and didn’t have sufficient opportunity to accept the Savior; we just perform the ordinances on their behalf and let God make that judgment, as outlined in Hebrews 9:27. If they accept Him, wonderful; we will one day get to rejoice with them. If they reject Him (or have already done so), that’s obviously lamentable (to say the least), but at least we tried.
Make sense?
by the Otter on October 26th, 2008
Alright, this gives me new questions. First, Peter states in I Peter 3:21
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" When you read this, Peter is clear, baptism is symbolic not salvation.
As to I Peter 4 talking about winning the ones who are dead, the Greek word implies in the text the figurative not the literal interpretation of the word dead.
νεκρός
nekros
nek-ros'
From an apparently primary word νέκυς nekus (a corpse); dead (literally or figuratively; also as noun):—dead.
Much like Paul said in Colossians 2:13:
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;"
Again the same Greek word is used νεκρός. In light of the text Paul is clearly not talking of dead people, he is referring to the spiritually dead (lost people).
by 2highspeed on October 26th, 2008
I also must ask, doesn't that offer false hope for the families? For example, John Doe rejects Christ 100 years ago, becomes an Atheist, now he is baptized and the family thinks he is good. But John rejected Christ, so he CANNOT go to heaven. So the family is left with false hope.
by 2highspeed on October 26th, 2008
Hey, 2high. I’ll deal with the second part of your question first: you’re right; the family may very will be left with false hope. However, I would think it better to have true hope for 999,999 people and false hope for one, than to have no hope at all for the entire million, y’know?
More importantly, though, temple work isn’t about the family on this side of the veil. Yes, we gain knowledge and blessings from doing it, but ultimately we’re just the instruments. The ordinance itself is about the people on the *other* side of the veil. Much like the missionary that teaches 1,000 people but only sees one accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, so our joy with the one that accepts temple ordinances on his or her behalf will be immeasurable. (And I expect it will be a *lot* more than one.)
;-)
by the Otter on October 27th, 2008
Returning to the first part, I’m sorry that you misunderstood me. I never meant to imply that baptism is Salvation; quite the contrary! Baptism is simply—to use a phrase from the Savior—“the strait gate” by which we must “[e]nter… in” (Matthew 7:13). It sets us on the path to Eternal Salvation, but it is not said Salvation itself. Salvation comes only in and through the Lord’s atoning sacrifice and grace, not through anything we can do for ourselves.
Re: the interpretation of “dead”… I understand your interpretation, and you’re right: the Bible does speak of both physical and spiritual death, and the same word is often used for each. However, the “dead” referred to in 1 Peter 3:18-20 were obviously dead in both ways.
To be frank, 2high, this is exactly the reason we have *living* prophets: to help us understand those things that God would have us know. In this particular case, the passage in question is greatly expounded upon by a vision given to the Prophet Joseph F. Smith Sr. in 1918. (As it happens, the text of this vision would be one of President Smith’s last address to the Church; he passed away, about six weeks later.)
As always, HTH!
by the Otter on October 27th, 2008
So then if baptism is not your method of salvation what is? How does one go about accepting Christ's blood atonement?
As to the interpretation, I still don't get how you can justify prophets to interpret Scripture. If one cannot discern the meaning of a text by reading the Scriptures, why does God even bother with written text, if the prophets are going to inform the people what it says any way? And isn't interpretation the work of the Holy Spirit? For that matter, I can't remember a single Old Testament prophet who interpreted Scriptures for the people. They gave new revelations as condemnations and such, but I don't remember any who were used to interpret. If a prophet is the interpreter of the Scriptures, who is to question them? There is no Biblical authority to hold them accountable to, only other prophets. That sounds scarily like the Catholic church's history of only our Priests and Popes can interpret the Bible, leaving the people powerless, and them unaccountable.
by 2highspeed on October 27th, 2008
Salvation comes through the grace of Christ. He does ask us to do everything we can, but at the end of the day, He knows we’ll fail. Thus, our salvation can only come through His grace and Atoning sacrifice.
Re: “If one cannot discern the meaning of a text by reading the Scriptures, why does God even bother with written text, if the prophets are going to inform the people what it says any way?”… That’s a great question, actually. The problem we’re running into is that while we do have the scriptures, this discussion is proof that the words of the dead prophets alone cannot be relied upon. You understood this passage one way while I understood it another way. Which is correct?
This actually brings us to your next statement: “[I]sn’t interpretation the work of the Holy Spirit?” Of course it is. And what do you call someone that receives revelation through the Holy Spirit? You got it: a prophet. If you have received knowledge from the Holy Spirit, you too are, by definition, a prophet. That’s always been God’s plan: to create an entire nation—even world—of prophets, that we each may receive revelation from Him. The scriptures are designed to speak to each of us, and through the Holy Ghost, we can receive revelatory promptings that liken them unto each of us (see 1 Nephi 19:23-24, http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/19/23-24#23). When a prophet interprets scripture, it’s not to take away that individual application; it’s to expound upon the original intent so that we don’t go down the wrong road, assuming it means something completely inaccurate.
by the Otter on October 28th, 2008
On a related note, this is where callings come in: God calls individuals to hold specific responsibilities. The person we refer to as “*the* prophet” is the one He has called to receive revelation pertaining to the entire Earth. However, my sister-in-law, for example, is the Primary President in the Lafayette [Indiana] Second Ward and thus is the prophet called to receive revelation for that organization. I, on the other hand, am a father and husband in my home and thus the prophet called to receive revelation for my own nuclear family. And again, my brother-in-law was recently released as the President of the Lafayette Fourth Branch, as which he was the prophet called to receive revelation for that congregation. There are prophets all over the universe, each with different areas of authority and stewardship.
That’s the difference 2high: every one of us is of course entitled to receive revelation from God; this is what God tried to do when He spoke to the entire nation of Israel in the Book of Exodus (see also Deuteronomy 4:33-36), but they rejected Him and asked Him to speak only to Moses, instead (see Deuteronomy 18:15-20). Thus the Law of Moses came about: the nation of prophets the Lord desired to build was only ready for the lesser law, and this lesser law stayed with Israel for well over a millennium.
Finally, you ask about accountability. Since every member of the Church—and every person on Earth—can and should be a prophet, we have just as much right to receive revelation that the prophet’s interpretation is correct as he has to give the interpretation in the first place.
Make sense?
by the Otter on October 28th, 2008
Sorry for the delay in responding. I am in the middle of a hunt for land to try to put a home on.
Interpretation of Scriptures: It is not a matter of what I understand to be correct or what you understand to be correct. It is a matter of hermeneutic principles applied to the text to get the correct answer. Our thoughts are irrelevant, only what the text's original intent is. To get that requires applying Scriptural study. I Tim 2:15. Personal interpretation leads to dangerous false interpretations.
As to the prophet's accountability, what happens if he is found wrong? Is he removed from the position? Has that ever happened?
Also, I would like to ask, what is the Prophet's interpretation of modern events in light of the imminent return of Christ (rapture, no rapture?) and the upcoming tribulation period spoken of in Revelation? I am often asked to explain prophetical events dealing with the end times. I am curious of the LDS stance.
by 2highspeed on October 30th, 2008
Hey, 2highspeed. I think I’ve responded to this three times now, and it obviously hasn’t posted. Hopefully this will make it, and I’ll try again when I have more time.
Thanks!
by the Otter on November 4th, 2008
Ok. I look forward to your response!
by 2highspeed on November 4th, 2008
by Moosemose on October 18th, 2008
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has NEVER had sexual consummation of a marriage within the temple walls. It is The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) which were recently in the news. FLDS couples allegedly consummate their marriages in the temple.
by laie_techie on October 18th, 2008
Sex in the temple, yea right. That's up there with the moon made of green cheese and tinfoil hats protecting you from little green men. Don't believe everything you hear, especially if it's said by people with an axe to grind against someone else's faith.
by Anonymous on October 18th, 2008
Why are the Mormon & Church of the Nazerene "We Believe" statements so similar?
by AndyP on November 23rd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach that Jesus Christ is the First Born Spirit Child of Heavenly Father?
by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on July 11th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Has any one ever had a dream where a spirit came into your room while you were sleeping and informed you of an event before it happened?
by Doc on November 19th, 2011
| 2 people like this
What could a person do if they felt like their Patriarchal blessing was not inspired? Could they get another one from a differant Patriarch?
by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on July 26th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Can I prevent Mormons from baptizing me or my dead family?
by Mister_Bromyde on August 6th, 2011
| 3 people like this
You're reading As a non mormon married to a mormon, that has never entered the temple, what really goes on in there, and how is a temple marriage performed, and why is it so secret?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
good answer.
by science_geek on October 18th, 2008
nice site too.
by science_geek on October 18th, 2008