RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Community Chat:Religion

10:14, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

LDS: Theology.

Posted by HeathFor group 0
Heath
player, 4 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 04:22
  • msg #1

LDS: Theology


I must speak for the "Mormon" constituents, since you guys have completely misstated its doctrines and facts.

(1)  The term "Mormon" was ascribed as a nickname by the enemies of the Church.  If you use that nickname, you automatically brand yourself as someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.  Generally, LDS Church is used as a moniker.

(2)  The gold plates were not entirely gold.  And they weren't "solid" gold.  They were thins sheafs that had the "appearance of gold" where inscriptions were made.  Hence, because he said they have the "appearance" of gold, people called them the Golden Plates.

"Read Putnam explains that according to the approximate measurements of the plates as given by Joseph Smith-- 6” x 8” x 6”-- the Book of Mormon plates would equal a volume of about 288 cubic inches.

'A solid gold block of totaling 288 cubic inches would weigh a little over 200 pounds.... But the plates would weigh much less than a solid block of the same metal. The unevenness left by the hammering and air spaces between the separate plates would reduce the weight to probably less than 50 percent of the solid block.'"

Joseph Smith was a large man, over 6 feet tall, an excellent wrestler, and a farmer by birth.  He could surely handle about a 100 pounds (or less, considering they weren't gold), especially when they are in a thick rucksack or potato sack.

There were also other witnesses who actually saw and handled the plates.  You do not need to be left to his word alone.  And a rubbing and analysis of his translation were authenticated by an expert.

The gold plates are actually believed to have been copper and gold.  Too much gold would have marred the engravings.  Too little would have made them brittle.  Similar metal objects were found in South America and were reported in Scientific American circa 1984.  It is believed the plates were made out of a tumbaga alloy.  This was a process used in ancient America and was used for easy engraving.

(3) The LDS belief is NOT that the world is 6000 years old.  The belief is that the earth is divided into 7 dispensations, each one approximately a thousand years in length.  These start from the Fall of Adam and the final dispensation will occur at the Second Coming of Christ.

Interestingly enough, LDS theology is one of the few where Creationism and Evolution are not completely at odds.  According to an estimate given by Joseph Smith (and we're talking nearly 2 centuries ago), the universe would be closer to 12 point something billion years old.

It is true that the LDS belief is that the world was "formed," not created out of nothing.  But whether it was created from materials or other worlds, I am not aware of any doctrinal guidance.

(4)  The Flood:  the LDS religion uses the King James version of the Bible.  Therefore, unless you believe in a different Bible, there is probably not any difference in the beliefs (or in the possibility of interpretation) for any other Judeo/Christian religion.

I am happy to answer any questions in a non-confrontational manner if anyone is genuinely curious, although I obviously don't speak for the church.
rogue4jc
GM, 89 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 04:24
  • msg #2

Re: LDS: Theology

Hi Heath. Welcome to the group. I will speak for myself, and take a little step out and speak for others. Refering to mormons, it was not meant as an insulting word. For myself, I had seen the terms used interchangably.

I do have questions that arose from your post:
Heath:
the LDS religion uses the King James version of the Bible.

My understanding is according LDS, the true Gospels are lost from the earth, and that LDS is it's restoration.(From the Articles of Faith) So, if the KJV is not the real gospel, why do you use it?
Heath
player, 5 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 04:44
  • msg #3

Re: LDS: Theology

That's a false understanding.  The LDS religion believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God just as surely as any other Christian religion and especially in the truthfulness of the New Testament.

The belief is that Peter was ordained to lead the Church after Christ's death, and that he had the Priesthood (i.e. the power to act in God's name).  We believe that the Priesthood must be passed from someone with authority, and that it originates in Christ.  For example, you can't pass on an authority you don't have.  After the martyrdom of the Christians, this Priesthood power was lost from the earth until it was restored to Joseph Smith.

Therefore, the primary difference with other Christian religions is what happened to the power to act in the name of God.  The LDS religion believes in a living prophet today through this restoration exactly the same as those prophets who existed in the Old Testament up until Christ.  It is this claim that most often angers those of other religions and has led to much misunderstanding about the church.

Also note that the LDS religion believes in the Bible, but does not believe that the Bible is the last and only word God will ever give.  After all, if he is such an omnipotent and omniscient being, wouldn't he have plenty to tell people?  Wouldn't he want to comment on how to deal with things never seen before (the Internet, etc.)?  The LDS religion has a foundation that continuing revelation is important to guide people in whatever era they live in.
Elfear
player, 31 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 04:55
  • msg #4

Re: LDS: Theology

The KJV or the NKJV, I don't remember which, is actually the closest translation there is to original texts.

Anyone can act in the name of God.  When you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give to the poor, etc. you are acting in the name of God by doing what He commanded.  Whether you verbally state it or not you are acting in His name.

If you mean the power to act as God, no, God never gave that to anyone.  The Apostles were told that if they forgave sins, they were forgiven, if they did not forgive sins, they were not forgiven, that they would be able to heal sicknesses in the name of God, etc.  But they were never told they could tell anyone else that.  They were not given authority to pass their authority on.
Heath
player, 6 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 05:00
  • msg #5

Re: LDS: Theology

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that "Mormon" was insulting.  It is often used interchangeably, and was for a time even adopted by members of the church.  But in the last several decades it was discouraged as a nickname and encouraged instead to focus on the fact that it is the church of Jesus Christ.  (Mormon is just the name of the person who compiled the plates translated by Joseph Smith, so imagine if you were called the "Matthews" because you believe in the Book of Matthew in the New Testament.)  Nowadays, if you use that nickname in "Mormon" circles, it becomes immediately evident that your knowledge of the church is lacking.

Here is an official web site meant to describe basic beliefs to the curious:  http://www.mormon.org/

And the official church website is: http://www.lds.org/

I am happy to answer additional questions to the best of my abilities.
Heath
player, 7 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 05:07
  • msg #6

Re: LDS: Theology

Elfear, anyone can act "like" God, that is true, and your point is well taken.

The Priesthood power gives a person special authority to act in the name of God, such as healing, etc.  No one can forgive except God.  No one acts "as" God.

The idea of a Priesthood is common throughout the Old and New Testament.  Surely, that term has some meaning beyond just doing good deeds.

My understanding is that the KJV is the closest "English" translation, but that the German translation is even closer to the actual texts.
rogue4jc
GM, 90 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 05:07
  • msg #7

Re: LDS: Theology

I think I may be confused then, I thought Articles of Faith by James Talmage was considered important literature, and I have seen it described "the next best thing to LDS creed" . As well, when I did some searching to be more sure, I looked up some more about Jame Talmage. He also wrote a seven volume set "the History of the Church".In one of the volumes, it speaks of the Book of Mormons being more correct than the bible.
(As a side note, I thought you said mormon is a slang word, but I did a double take as I started reading further. It is called  book of the mormon. This is confusing me further, as I'm writing this and digging up more from LDS sites that use mormon clearly. http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1090-1,00.html )
Now back to original question Since James Talmage was a pretty important guy, president of LDS College in Salt Lake City, and was one of the "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" (Honestly, I don't know what that is yet, but it sounds pretty big. So if he has said that the true Gospel is lost, and that the Book Of Mormon is more correct than bible, plus the addition that the Book of Mormon does have some things different than bible, could you be a bit more clear on the KJV thing and how they believe it's the Word of God? I mean what is the true Gospel, that's lost, when we only had the Bible in the first place?

Edited to add, got that use of mormon part now.
This message was last edited by the GM at 05:09, Wed 23 June 2004.
Heath
player, 8 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 05:15
  • msg #8

Re: LDS: Theology

I think my post above answers your first question.

The "Articles of Faith" compiles many doctrinal items into one book and is often used as a missionary tool, but it is not in itself considered "scripture."

When you say that the Book of Mormon has some things different from the Bible, I'm going to have to ask you to be more specific in order for me to answer.

What was lost is again referring to the Priesthood authority.  The ability for God to directly communicate to His prophets and give continuing revelation for the benefit of mankind.

What is meant by the Book of Mormon being more correct is that the Bible has undergone significant changes throughout 2000 years of translations and transcriptions, so it is probably the difference of saying the Bible is 95% accurate and the Book of Mormon is 99% accurate (since it too is a translation, but a pure translation from original text).  Also, I believe that refers to the belief that the Book of Mormon contains more of a fullness than the Bible alone.
This message was last edited by the player at 08:53, Wed 23 June 2004.
Heath
player, 9 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 05:18
  • msg #9

Re: LDS: Theology

Also, to address Elfear a touch more, Priesthood is divided into levels of authority.  I believe these are originally discussed concerning Aaron and Melchezidek in the Old Testament.  It gives the authority to perform certain ordinances (baptism, etc.) depending on the priesthood and ordained position which cannot be performed (or passed on) except by one with proper authority.  It definitely is not the power to act as the Almighty himself.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:26, Wed 23 June 2004.
Heath
player, 10 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 05:22
  • msg #10

Re: LDS: Theology

This is an official basic statement about our belief in priesthood:

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1083-1,00.html
rogue4jc
GM, 92 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 05:39
  • msg #11

Re: LDS: Theology

Well the bible teaches that Jesus is part of the trinity
LDs teaches Jesus is one of three gods, the trinity is three seperate gods
The bible teaches that Jesus is born of a virgin
LDS teach a physical union between God and Mary
The bible says Jesus was born in Bethlehem
The LDs says Jesus was born in Jeruselem

These are a few I found. There are more. But you probably know that. (I assume)
Heath
player, 12 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 05:54
  • msg #12

Re: LDS: Theology

Trinity:  LDS theology believes that the Trinity consists of God (a Heavenly Father), his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  Of these, the Holy Ghost is not considered a "God."  Do you have a Biblical references about how these are inconsistent with the Bible?  It's hard for me to respond to generalized statements.  I believe your concept of Trinity is an "interpretation" of the Bible (as would ours).

Mary was a virgin.  The "physical union" you mention is highly oversimplified in your comment.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  If I remember correctly, his family was from Jerusalem.  So this is entirely consistent.

I am not aware of any Biblical inconsistencies, but I'm sure our interpretations have points of divergence.
This message was last edited by the player at 08:33, Wed 23 June 2004.
rogue4jc
GM, 93 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 10:20
  • msg #13

Re: LDS: Theology

Alright then, a little more specific, the trinity is 3 seperate gods, among all the other gods, according to LDS
Tell me more of the union of God and Mary then. As it seems to be true, but nopt specified.
If Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and the book of the Mormon says he was born in Jerusalum(not once, but more than once.), then that is an inconsistancy.
Heath
player, 18 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 10:29
  • msg #14

Re: LDS: Theology

I guess I should point out that the "virgin" issue is really mooted by the fact that the only reference to Mary as a virgin was "before" the angel visited her.  I am not aware of any references to her as a virgin after the angel visited her and before Jesus' birth.
Heath
player, 19 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 10:31
  • msg #15

Re: LDS: Theology

I haven't checked my references, but I believe the Book of Mormon says he was from Jerusalem, not that he was born there.
rogue4jc
GM, 97 posts
Wed 23 Jun 2004
at 10:33
  • msg #16

Re: LDS: Theology

If you need the verses, let me know, I can look them up

The bible says the exact length of time Mary remained a virgin. and it was long after the angel visited her.....
Sign In