Questions about the LDS (Mormon) faith

[MamaSheep]

I think that's exactly it. What was generally accepted (in my ward and my family) as "truth" has been refined over the years. :) I'm glad to see it, because some of those things that ended up as "myth" used to exasperate me to no end. LOL.

 

FWIW, these things weren't presented as opinion, of course; they were presented as: "This is how things are, based on such and such scripture." Personal study was encouraged... as was prayer. Most people seemed to pretty much accept the lesson material. (At least that is my assumption based on listening to other people's testimonies.)

Lol...yes I've noticed that people of many persuasions are prone to presenting their opinion, or someone else's that impressed them, as absolute truth. I'm glad I didn't make you feel uncomfortable, that really wasn't my intent. :)

Edited January 5, 2011 by MamaSheep
correcting typo

[Melinda in VT]

If you converted to the LDS faith, why did you choose that particular faith? Or, if you left the faith, why did you leave? Or why do you stay? What aspects of the LDS religion do you struggle with? (These questions may be too personal. If so, just ignore me.)

 

The simplest explanation of why I left is that after further study, I no longer believed in Joseph Smith as a prophet or in the Restoration of the church. This thread isn't really the place for further discussion, but I'm happy to answer questions via PM.

[Xuzi]

I'm LDS because of the Witness I recieved a few years ago, when I prayed to the Father asking if it was His church. I love everything about this faith. The Temple, where I feel SO SO SO close to my Lord. The Sealing of families. The continuing revelation, both in my personal life via the gift of the Holy Ghost, and via a living Prophet, who speaks for the Lord! There are thousands upon thousands of Chrisitan denominations who simply cannot all have it right. What better way to know for SURE what God meant when he said such-and-such in the Bible, than to follow His Prophet? I love the Book of Mormon. It makes so much sense! The stories are fascinating and inspiring and enhance my understanding of the Bible.

 

I love that the LDS faith answers the questions of "Why am I here?" "Where did I come from?" "Why did God create me?" "What is the purpose of trials and heartache?" (I could go on...) It is a living, breathing faith. A tapestry made of beautiful strands that all fit together so perfectly, and the picture they create of a loving Heavenly Father, of a loving Redeemer, of an always-willing-to-help Holy Spirit make me feel SO loved and SO cherished.

 

And I think I'll have to stop there before I start getting gushy. :lol:

[MamaSheep]

I will, thank you!

 

And here's another question, maybe more for converts...

 

If you converted to the LDS faith, why did you choose that particular faith? Or, if you left the faith, why did you leave? Or why do you stay? What aspects of the LDS religion do you struggle with? (These questions may be too personal. If so, just ignore me.)

 

Well, I was raised in the church, so I don't know if you mean me (I could ask dh, he was raised Episcopalian), but I've certainly done my share of looking around at what else is out there. I have not yet found anything that didn't seem rather empty and full of holes when held up next to LDS teachings. I've never felt "trapped". There were some things that used to kind of "struggle with", but I spent some time in my early adulthood really digging down to the roots and getting to understand them, and now they don't bother me anymore. Usually I just found out that what I thought I knew about it didn't exactly line up with the reality of the thing, and once I understood it better I actually agreed. But all the comparing and digging aside, I have had some experiences in my life with God (and nobody else around, in case you wondered) that were just overwhelmingly convincing. And the better I know it, and the more I live it, the closer my relationship with God becomes. The times I've tried doing anything else, that "light" just dims. I know God is real, and I know this is where He wants me.

 

ETA: Plus all the stuff Xuzi and Diane said. They just said it so much better.

Edited January 4, 2011 by MamaSheep

[DianeW88]

I'm LDS because of the Witness I recieved a few years ago, when I prayed to the Father asking if it was His church. I love everything about this faith. The Temple, where I feel SO SO SO close to my Lord. The Sealing of families. The continuing revelation, both in my personal life via the gift of the Holy Ghost, and via a living Prophet, who speaks for the Lord! There are thousands upon thousands of Chrisitan denominations who simply cannot all have it right. What better way to know for SURE what God meant when he said such-and-such in the Bible, than to follow His Prophet? I love the Book of Mormon. It makes so much sense! The stories are fascinating and inspiring and enhance my understanding of the Bible.

 

I love that the LDS faith answers the questions of "Why am I here?" "Where did I come from?" "Why did God create me?" "What is the purpose of trials and heartache?" (I could go on...) It is a living, breathing faith. A tapestry made of beautiful strands that all fit together so perfectly, and the picture they create of a loving Heavenly Father, of a loving Redeemer, of an always-willing-to-help Holy Spirit make me feel SO loved and SO cherished.

 

And I think I'll have to stop there before I start getting gushy. :lol:

 

:iagree: This. Exactly. My questions are answered. I am encouraged to study and pray and learn for myself. In sum, I am happy. I have a personal relationship with God beyond what I even knew was possible. A wonderful marriage with a righteous husband who wants and loves me for eternity and not just for now. I have a knowledge of heaven and what awaits me there. And, here on earth, I have a ward family of the most amazing people who would do anything for each other.....and do. I count among my choicest blessings of life to be a member of the LDS church.

[Sara in AZ]

The founding of the LDS church all sounds hokey. It just does....so while I can see faith within individual members, there is a belief that LDS members are not Christians because your saving faith is not in the same God that other denominations have their faith in.

 

 

Okay, on the subject of pet peeves. This is what makes me very sad. Not that the Joseph Smith story sounds hokey, because it can. You either believe it or you don't. But it hurts me when we are accused of worshipping someone other than who we truly worship. Can't we all just share the same God and choose to believe differently about him?

 

And for those who think it presumptuous for some 14 year old farm boy to claim he was chosen of God and automatically discount his story. Isn't it also presumptuous to believe that one understands and has full knowledge of whom God might or might not choose as his prophet or servant?

 

Personally, I believe there have been many, many righteous men and women throughout history who have been inspired by God, the same God, to fulfill various important missions. I believe, though I cannot back anything up by fact as eloquently as other posters on this thread, that bits of light and truth show up in cultures and religions all over the world and that people from any denomination can and do have very real and personal relationships with their Father in Heaven. I could never understand telling a friend that she didn't believe in the same God as me because her method of worship was different. How presumptuous.

 

I believe that the Muslim God, Allah, is the same being as my Heavenly Father, and, though it seems hokey, that Mohammed probably had a very real experience. I cannot account for what he heard or how it has played out over the last however many (3000?) years. But I don't discount that there must have been something there to spark a religion that has lasted this long and grown so large.

 

Just recently I teared up reading with my children about Martin Luther in SOW because I believe that he was inspired to do the things he did that paved the way for greater religious freedom.

 

So I guess what I am saying is that even if our method of worship differs from your own, can't we just withhold the judgement and accept that each of us is doing our best to worship God as we see fit? (Or for that matter, not worship God at all? Because I won't judge anyone for that either!)

[ElizaG]

Regarding the LDS doctrine of a great apostasy:

 

1) Catholics and Orthodox, among others, believe that the bishops of the Christian churches are the successors to the apostles' authority. There are numerous writings from the early Christian era that can be seen as supporting this concept of the apostolic succession. For example, see the section that starts about halfway down this page, including the quotations from Ignatius (110 AD), Irenaeus (180 AD), and Cyprian (AD 250).

 

If Mormons believe that these men were mistaken, are there some different early Christian writings that they point to to support their own beliefs -- i.e., that the bishops appointed by the apostles didn't have the authority to lead the Church, and that an additional group (literally called "apostles") was necessary?

 

2) If Jesus taught that men literally called "apostles" were needed, why didn't the original apostles just appoint some?

 

3) How do Mormons interpret Matthew 16:18 ("And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it")?

[Xuzi]

Regarding the LDS doctrine of a great apostasy:

 

1) Catholics and Orthodox, among others, believe that the bishops of the Christian churches are the successors to the apostles' authority. There are numerous writings from the early Christian era that can be seen as supporting this concept of the apostolic succession. For example, see the section that starts about halfway down this page, including the quotations from Ignatius (110 AD), Irenaeus (180 AD), and Cyprian (AD 250).

 

If Mormons believe that these men were mistaken, are there some different early Christian writings that they point to to support their own beliefs -- i.e., that the bishops appointed by the apostles didn't have the authority to lead the Church, and that an additional group (literally called "apostles") was necessary?

 

We don't have any specific ancient writtings that we point to, we just don't believe those men were correct in their interpretation that Bishops hold the keys of the Apostleship. Yes, we DO believe there literally need to be "Apostles" in Christ's church. Why else would He have ordained 12 of them, and why would they have continued to annoint new ones as the original ones died, with them still serving seperate rolls from Bishops? We believe that somewhere along the line the Apostleship died out (either because the replacements were killed off before they could call new ones, or because they turned away from the church. we're not sure what happened, just that it happened)

 

2) If Jesus taught that men literally called "apostles" were needed, why didn't the original apostles just appoint some?

 

They did for a time. Judas had a replacement (although his name escapes me just now)

 

3) How do Mormons interpret Matthew 16:18 ("And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it")?

 

We believe this refers to revelation. Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ because he had recieved a Witness of it. All Truth comes from the Father, and once you've recieved that Witness, it doesn't matter what barbs the world might try to throw at you to get you to discount it, it will remain the Truth. (you may rebell against it for a while, but it won't make the revelation any less true)

Edited January 5, 2011 by Xuzi

[lighthouseacademy]

I will, thank you!

 

And here's another question, maybe more for converts...

 

If you converted to the LDS faith, why did you choose that particular faith? Or, if you left the faith, why did you leave? Or why do you stay? What aspects of the LDS religion do you struggle with? (These questions may be too personal. If so, just ignore me.)

 

I am a convert because I read the Book of Mormon to find out if it was true. At the time, I believed that a lot of the LDS beliefs were weird and couldn't understand any of them. I decided that I better go to the source since by the fruits we know them... thus, I read the Book of Mormon. I prayed if IT was the word of God. By logical deduction, if it is, then Joseph Smith was a prophet. I know that he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ just as he said he did. I don't have faith in this- I know it to be true. I continued to study and it began to make sense. I might not understand obscure doctrine in its entirety (like some of the questions asked in this thread) but I know that the Lord will not permit his prophets to lead His children astray and I can pray for confirmation that the doctrine is true.

I know that God lives. He is the father of my spirit. Jesus is his son and the only begotten in the flesh. Jesus atoned for my sins and loves me and every other person on this Earth and who has ever lived. I know that all man kind can be saved and that we can be with our families for eternity. I also know that the Lord is just and will not condemn those who did not get baptized due to a lack of opportunity and that is one reason we perform temple work (BTW there is a scripture on baptisms for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15).

[zaichiki]

I don't see why other Christians should use it as an attack. They also believe a donkey spoke, after all. ;) )

 

Christians believe a donkey spoke???

[Xuzi]

Numbers 22:26-20

[snipsnsnailsx5]

I will, thank you!

 

And here's another question, maybe more for converts...

 

If you converted to the LDS faith, why did you choose that particular faith? Or, if you left the faith, why did you leave? Or why do you stay? What aspects of the LDS religion do you struggle with? (These questions may be too personal. If so, just ignore me.)

 

That's me! :)

I was actually basically raised anti-LDS. I was raised in an offshoot of the LDS church (the Reorganized Latter Day Saints), and I remember as a youth always having discussions with friends about how we "hated" to be mistaken as Mormons etc etc. Thinking back, I didn't even understand all of that or even what the LDS church's beliefs were.

I'm glad that as an adult, I got the chance to find out. My DH and I had tried out a couple different churches, but we had a hard time finding a good fit. He didn't feel comfortable in any of the churches. I prayed every night that we'd find a church to belong to, specifically one that HE would be comfortable with and actually enjoy. Finally one day my Dh told me that he had a classmate in a college class he as taking who was LDS and he was asking him some questions about it. He liked the answers and suggested that we check out the LDS church sometime. Well we're pretty big procrastinators and checking out a church is a scary step to take sometimes. We didn't know anyone in the church at all. Then one day, a couple months later, a couple missionaries came to our door. We had lived here for 8 years and never a missionary here (we're in a hidden, hard to find place). I think they were just as surprised as we were that we were actually interested in listening to them. lol

THe rest of the story is really long, but I wrote about it on a blog if anyone wants to hear it.

 

Basically what made us decide is how the answers we were getting all made sense to us. They were all things we had personally wondered about or even believed (such as I've always believed in the trinity being three separate beings before the church, it just makes absolute sense to me). But also, we just felt really GOOD about it.

Attending church we felt so much love around us and the atmosphere was just way different then what we had experienced before.

Also, we really wanted this for our children too. We love how active the LDS church is with activities for the youth and the families. The majority of the youth are all very good kids as well, trustworthy and good examples for our own.

 

What have we struggled with? Well giving up coffee was a little hard at first, but not as hard as we'd thought. I had no issues with giving up alcohol because I hated it in the first place. My Dh drank, but didn't mind giving it up either.

It was a BIG life change for us though. Not just simply choosing a new church...but a way of life. Its been stressful at times for my DH who can be a...stubborn man sometimes. lol It can be a lot of pressure on a new convert family who has no family or friends other then those we've made in the church to support us and help us when we struggle.

BUT the good things in life can't always be easy. We've got to work for it sometimes...lol

[zaichiki]

Numbers 22:26-20

 

Ahh, yes, when God uses the donkey to speak with his prophet, Balaam. :lol:

[Mekanamom]

Or, if you left the faith, why did you leave? Or why do you stay? What aspects of the LDS religion do you struggle with?

 

Eh, I'm having a hard time phrasing it without coming across in a negative way. I'll just say I left the faith because I did not/do not have faith in it.

 

I guess there are two parts to this: social and personal. Personally, I am comfortable identifying as agnostic. That pretty much sums up my stance on all religions. Socially... I've seen the LDS church benefit some people (a very good thing) and I've seen it hurt others (a very sad thing). It matters to me, even if it doesn't affect me personally, kwim?

 

May I say that reading this thread has been a positive experience for me? I've very much enjoyed reading about the current teachings and comparing them to my own experience growing up. :)

[Amira]

May I say that reading this thread has been a positive experience for me? I've very much enjoyed reading about the current teachings and comparing them to my own experience growing up. :)

 

And I've really enjoyed your comments and perspective. I love the diversity on this board.

[sewingmama]

The reason I stay in the LDS church is because it's the church that makes the most sense to me. Honestly, I studied other religions and the more I tried to figure out what they were about the more confused I became. They didn't make sense to me and didn't give me the answers I was looking for. Saying things like "well those are just the mysteries of God" seemed like a cop out to me. I tried to understand the concept of the Trinity - I couldn't. I feel much more at peace believing in a God and a Saviour and a Holy Spirit (Ghost) who were all seperate people.

 

I guess we don't like being referred to as a cult because in my mind it conjours up images of people being forced to do evil things by their leaders - sex slaves, suicide etc. LDS members are never forced to do anything. We are free to leave - we are free to say no to anything we asked to do if we don't want to do it.

 

As far as being saved goes - I thought that all you apparently had to do was accept Christ into your heart and we are saved? Well we certainly do that in the LDS church - our church is named The Church of Jesus Christ - every Sunday when we take the scarament we covenant to take upon us the name of Jesus Christ - everything we do is a reflection of his memory. So if that is not "taking him into our hearts and accepting him" then what is.

 

As Mama Sheep said - I don't mind if other people call me a non-Christian - I only care about what Christ calls me.

[MamaSheep]

There have been a couple of questions about our apostles on this thread. For those who are curious about this topic, you might find this video interesting. It's an interview with one of our apostles, David A. Bednar, in which he discusses the role of an apostle.

 

If you would like to know more about the kinds of things our apostles teach, one resource would be our most recent general conference in which the apostles are the primary speakers. Other speakers are drawn from the general auxilliary leaders and other general (world-wide level) church leaders who serve with the apostles.

[stansclan89]

What is the LDS way of explaining why God permitted all these offshoots of Joseph Smith's group? How are people supposed to know which one to choose? Is it simply a personal decision to be made after study and prayer, or do you believe that there's a straightforward way to tell that your movement is the one that teaches authentic Mormonism, and the others (FLDS, RLDS, etc.) do not?

 

Free agency is a very basic right given through the plan of salvation. It is definitely a personal decision to be made after study and prayer. There are over 13 million people in the world today that have made the choice at some point to join the LDS church. All of them have been asked to make this choice through study and prayer and not to take the word of anyone else.

 

We are all to decide for ourselves, whether we were born into the church or join later in life. Either way we have to obtain a testimony for ourselves at some point.

Edited January 5, 2011 by stansclan89

[Jean in Newcastle]

I have a feeling that your answer would be similar to any parent in any religion, but how would you feel if one of your children "failed to get their own testimony" or left the church for another kind of church or for none at all, later in life?

[Amira]

I have a feeling that your answer would be similar to any parent in any religion, but how would you feel if one of your children "failed to get their own testimony" or left the church for another kind of church or for none at all, later in life?

 

I'd be disappointed, of course, but a lot of LDS parents experience this. Like we've said so often, we're strong believers in allowing others to find their way, even though we hope so strongly for eternal families.

 

I would be much less disappointed if my child chose not to be LDS because they found something else that worked better for them (anything really, from another Christian denomination to a completely different religion, or atheism) rather than just wandering away or being angry with the LDS Church.

[MamaSheep]

Regarding the LDS doctrine of a great apostasy:

 

1) Catholics and Orthodox, among others, believe that the bishops of the Christian churches are the successors to the apostles' authority. There are numerous writings from the early Christian era that can be seen as supporting this concept of the apostolic succession. For example, see the section that starts about halfway down this page, including the quotations from Ignatius (110 AD), Irenaeus (180 AD), and Cyprian (AD 250).

 

If Mormons believe that these men were mistaken, are there some different early Christian writings that they point to to support their own beliefs -- i.e., that the bishops appointed by the apostles didn't have the authority to lead the Church, and that an additional group (literally called "apostles") was necessary?

 

I have to admit that I am not as widely read in the literature of the early Christian era as I would like to be. There are so many things I want to learn about, and so little time! Additionally, the reading that I have done in this area was primarily conducted rather a number of years ago, and as I was just following my own rabbit trails for my own information and peace of mind, I didn't keep notes. Maybe I should start doing that. However I do remember reading about a dispute that occurred after Peter died as to who should be in charge now that there were no more apostles, and in trying to trace down the outcome, it became apparent to me that there is no consensus, as some early writers list Clement as Peter's successor, and others list Linus. There was some debate as well, if I recall correctly, as to whether it was important that the Bishop in charge be the bishop of Rome, or whether other considerations, such as seniority, should be given more weight. Many of the early writings I read discussed various groups who claimed to have the 'true' authority, which were later declared by the 'winners' to be heretical and...disposed of. So, as far as I was able to determine, the succession after the death of Peter wasn't particularly clear-cut. After a decision was made, however, I would hardly expect the church leaders who prevailed to go around claiming they had no authority. I don't know if this helps with your question or not. I regret I have no specific references from those kinds of sources to pull up off the top of my head.

 

However, a few passages from the New Testament that I believe to be relevant do come to mind.

 

In John 9, Jesus taught this:

4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

 

I don't think Jesus meant that a time was coming when no man literally could do ANY work, or when nobody would be able to do any good, kind, Christian actions. Rather, it seems to me that He was saying that a time was coming, shortly after He left, when no man would be legitimately authorized by God to do God's work. No man would be able to do the work of the Father while it was "night" because no man would be authorized to act on the Father's behalf, and any work done during the "night" would not be directed or authorized by the Father, and would therefore not be legitimately the Father's work. No man.

 

I think this is also what John was referring to in 1 John 2:18-19

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

Particularly since I looked up "the last time" here in a Greek concordance/lexicon and found that the Greek word here is "hora".

1) a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year

a) of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter

2) the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a day

3) a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun)

4) any definite time, point of time, moment

(Link)

 

John is saying that the season is coming to a close, the sun is setting at the end of the day, and the night is coming. It is the last part of the day. And before and after these verses are other verses that offer comfort to the believers of that time, encouraging them to remember the hope they have in Christ that goes beyond death, and to resist the corruption that has entered the church from within and the persecution it faces from without. And also looking forward to a coming dawn, or spring, after the season is past, and the night is over.

 

At any rate, I hope this helps to some degree in understanding how I view this issue. I have to go teach some school, but I'll come back later and share some thoughts on your other questions.

Edited January 5, 2011 by MamaSheep

[Murmer]

I have considered visiting an LDS Church, but I think I would feel a little uncomfortable. I know that church policy has changed, but being black I wonder if hearts have changed. Official policy and what people actually think and feel are two very different things.

 

Both of my children are black...I am white. I have found that people are people everywhere and of every religion. There are some people who are LDS (just as there are some people who are other religions) who are very prejudice. But I have found that many people don't even notice. I have had to push for things like black baby dolls in the nursery to play with (and 1 was purchased quickly). I will say that I have had the best interactions inside Utah regarding being a transracial family than outside just in general public situations. I love that in Utah there is Genesis which is a black branch and while I was there for Christmas we got to go to dinner and they had Santa come (one of the men from the group). I feel that Genesis is an amazing opportunity for my children because there are men who experienced the priesthood decree that can help my children as they learn about it themselves.

 

I don't think receiving revelation from the Lord via a hat is any less "hokey" than recieving it via a burning bush. ;)

 

And ya, I don't think the LDS church fits the definition of "cult" so much as some have expanded the definition of cult to fit the LDS church.

 

So a theory that is now around (NOT DOCTRINE because there is not doctrine about the process used other than it was inspired) is that the seer stone in a hat was an agreed upon story because that was a common occurrence at that time but that Joseph Smith only used the interpreters to help him translate the plates. Again this is a theory that is currently be researched based on some things I think Oliver Cowdery said after his return to the church (all this is off the top of my head because the book is packed right now).

 

 

 

As for similiarities between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism...

I have joined a group for women at a local Christian church, I LOVE it. While their doctrine at points is different namely the Trinity but there were 2 or 3 other points of difference I have found that the most important things to me are the same.

 

1) These women are striving to know God and love him with all their hearts.

2) They are seeking to be great moms who teach their children to love God.

3) They seek to be kind, to share their joy, and to serve others with all their hearts.

 

These things are what I think are most important and I love to be around women who believe so strongly in such important values that I have. I think this is truly the similiarities that we need to focus on when we are seeking to understand others. Just my 2 cents.

[MamaSheep]

2) If Jesus taught that men literally called "apostles" were needed, why didn't the original apostles just appoint some?

 

Acts 1:15-26 describes a council where the apostles came together and appointed Matthias as a new apostle. Later, we read of Paul and Barnabas being apostles as well (Acts 14:14), though the council(s) in which they were appointed is not specifically described in scripture.

 

So, to me, the question is actually the reverse: If men literally called "apostles" were NOT needed, then why DID the original apostles appoint some?

 

Consider Ephesians 2:19-21

19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

 

Every time I read this I wonder how a building can be "fitly framed together" if the foundation has been ripped out.

 

Why didn't they continue appointing them? My understanding is that the persecution of Christians at the time was too great. The apostles were being imprisoned and martyred, and travel was slow and dangerous. At some point it became impossible for a sufficient number of apostles to meet together in council, in the established pattern (see Acts above) to select new apostles.

 

And as I said in my previous post, they knew the "night" of which Jesus spoke was going to happen. This was not a surprise to them.

 

Must go make lunch. Back later for question #3.

 

Good questions, BTW.

[ElizaG]

So, to me, the question is actually the reverse: If men literally called "apostles" were NOT needed, then why DID the original apostles appoint some?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Catholics do believe that the apostles had special characteristics that were needed during the very beginning of the Church (the apostolic age), but that their role wasn't meant to continue indefinitely.

 

One biblical characteristic of the apostles is their power to perform "signs, wonders, and mighty deeds." Do LDS believe that their current twelve have this ability?

[Forget-Me-Not]

One biblical characteristic of the apostles is their power to perform "signs, wonders, and mighty deeds." Do LDS believe that their current twelve have this ability?

 

Yes. We believe their primary roles are to testify of Christ and to provide leadership to the Church organization, but we also sustain them as "prophets, seers and revelators". In general, LDS believe that miracles can be performed where there is need and adequate faith for such, and that ability is not limited to just Apostles.

[MamaSheep]

3) How do Mormons interpret Matthew 16:18 ("And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it")?

 

Different Mormons might have slightly different understandings of this, but I can tell you what I think. I am not sure if you're mostly asking about the "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" part, or the "and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" part. From your other questions, I'm guessing you're mostly interested in that last bit, but I'll try to address both points just in case.

 

To put this in context, Jesus has just asked His disciples who men say that He is (v.13). They answer that some think he's John the Baptist or Elijah or Jeremiah, or one of the prophets (v.14). Then Jesus asks the disciples who THEY say that He is (v.15). Peter is the one who answers, and he says that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (v.16). Jesus then says that Peter (Simon, son of Jonah) is very blessed because it was not man who revealed this information to him, but God, the Father. In other words, Simon knows this information--that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God--not through academic study of history, or philosophic debate, or even religious instruction, but rather Peter knows that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God, because the Father revealed it directly to him, personally. Nobody can know for sure that Jesus is the Christ except by revelation from the Father through the Spirit (in fact, I think this is what 1 Cor. 12:3 means when it says that no man can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Ghost.) There is no physical proof now, and there was not then, that Jesus is the Son of God. Revelation, divine communication from God to man, is the only way to truly know.

 

Ok, so then we get to the verse you asked about: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

 

One interesting thing going on here is that there are two words being used to mean rock. He says "You are Peter (petros=a stone) and on this rock (petra=a projecting rock, cliff, ledge, rocky ground) will I build my church.

 

To me, it is significant that Jesus uses two different words, petros and petra, which have similar, but slightly different meanings. To me, he is saying that Peter is a strong man, a stone, and he can bear a strong witness that Jesus is the Christ (whom say ye that I am? Thou art the Christ)--but it's a small "stone" because Peter is only a man. That's okay, though, because Peter is not expected to go out and gather believers (build the church) based on his word only, because God Himself will bear witness to others directly, by revelation just as He has borne witness to Peter. Peter's testimony is a small rock, but God's witness is a projecting crag of stone. Those Peter is sent out to gather into the church (apostle means one who is sent) will have the witness of the petros (Peter), AND of the petra (direct witness of God through the Spirit, just as Peter had received). You are petros, and on this rock, the petra, the direct witness of God, God will build His church. It's God's church, not Peter's. It's built on God's testimony that Jesus is the Christ, not just Peter's. Jesus is saying that men will continue to have many different theories regarding who He is, and what His significance in the world might be, and although it might seem on the surface as if Peter's opinion is just one more human theory, God will give them a greater testimony with His direct witness just as He did with Peter; and people will believe, and have a solid and unshakeable faith, just as Peter did after having that witness from God. And these people will be God's church.

 

So while I do believe that Peter was the leader of the apostles, and was the presiding leader of Christ's church after Jesus ascended into heaven, I understand this verse to be referring to God as the "rock" on which the church is founded, not a man. To me, this is also more consistent with the numerous other Bible passages that refer to God as a rock, and I think Jesus is making this connection intentionally. (ex. Ps 18:31: For who is God save the Lord? or who is a rock save our God?)

 

With this in mind, looking at the verse in question, I read it to mean that this rock (The Father's witness of Christ through the Spirit) is the rock on which the church will be built, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

 

Now let's look at the gates of Hades part. What do gates do? They don't attack anybody, or undermine or corrupt anything, or lead people astray (or anywhere else). Mostly they stand there and keep things in, or keep things out. If a gate "overcomes" something (or "prevails against it", as this reads in some translations), it keeps the thing from going in or out.

 

What is meant by Hades? Hades is translated as "hell" in some translations, for those who are following along here with a slightly different version--but the Greek text does actually say Hades. There's another Greek word, gehenna (or geenna), which is also translated as "hell" in English. This word, gehenna, is usually used to mean firey torment, or the place of firey torment to which the wicked are sent. Hades is generally used to indicate a dwelling place of the dead, in which the spirits of the dead are separated from the paradise of God. (And may I just pause here to say that I find this usage fascinating considering the two different types of 'hell' in LDS doctrine, one of which is a place of unending torment where Satan rules, and the other of which is a place of misery where the spirits of the dead await the resurrection separated from a paradise in which the spirits of the righteous also await resurrection. It's one of those things about the Bible that I just think makes SO much more sense from an LDS point of view than any other I've met. But I digress...)

 

So with the "gates of Hades" here, Jesus is not describing conquering armies from the lake of fire and brimstone not being able to overcome the church in battle (or whatever); rather, He's talking about access to the dwelling place of the dead who are separated from God not being restricted. The gates of Hades--that which keeps the spirits of the dead separated from God--will not overcome the church which is built on the rock (The Father's testimony of the Son revealed through the Spirit). The gates of Hades will not be able to hold in the believers. Why? As it happens, Jesus is just about to explain that in the next verse (Matt 16:19).

 

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

 

When Jesus is crucified, the "gates of Hades" will not be able to hold Him. He will defeat death, and "overcome" the "gates"--that which separates Hades from paradise, and spirits from God. And then He will delegate that power with which He overcame the gates of Hades to Peter. (The idea of "keys" is used symbolically, as keys are used to 'overcome' gates.) Peter will be able to "bind" and "loose" on earth, and that "binding" and "loosing" will still be in effect in heaven because the "gates of Hades" have no power to stop it. "The church", or in other words, those people who have received the divinely revealed witness of Christ, and who are "bound" to Christ through covenant, cannot be restrained from the paradise of God--the "gates of Hades" will not overcome them. Peter will be given the authority to administer covenants which will remain in effect after death, when people encounter "the gates of Hades". Peter will be given the authority to do the work of the church, and the church includes both living people, and those who have died. Those on earth, and those in heaven.

 

So basically, Jesus is saying that although Peter's witness that Jesus is the Christ is solid as a rock (petros), God's witness is the underlying bedrock (petra). God's church will be built on that bedrock, and those who are part of the church will not be able to be restrained from God's presence (overcome by the gates of Hades) because Christ will give Peter the power and authorization to bind these people who have received this witness to Christ in life and in death, and the separation between sinners and God will not be able to overcome them because of the power of Christ.

 

Anyway, this is how I understand it, and I hope this helps to answer your question about how people who believe as I do interpret this passage. :)

 

ETA: Also, in a way, to me, the establishment of the church, followed by a time of apostasy, and finally a period of restoration, parallels the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord. Just as I would not say that Christ was not "overcome" just because He died, I would also say that the church was not "overcome" just because there was a period of apostasy. Just as Christ's spirit continued to live in the place where spirits await resurrection, so did the church continue to live in the form of faithful spirits awaiting resurrection. Just as Christ took up His life again through divine power, so was the church restored again through divine power.

Edited January 6, 2011 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Catholics do believe that the apostles had special characteristics that were needed during the very beginning of the Church (the apostolic age), but that their role wasn't meant to continue indefinitely.

Yes, I've heard that before. Do you happen to know whether the Catholic church has any scripture or tradition that explains how it was to be determined that the role of the apostles was fulfilled and apostles would no longer be needed? The closest thing I can think of would be this:

 

Ephesians 4:

11And 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:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

 

 

But it seems clear to me that there is a decided lack of unity amongst believers, and we are far from being perfect men who measure up to the stature of the fulness of Christ. Even in the days right after the apostles there were many incorrect doctrines that lured believers off into error. And the way the apostles are listed in with those other roles it seems that they all have a similar purpose, and that if the purpose of apostles had been fulfilled to the point where they were no longer needed then prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers would also no longer be needed--and yet those roles are not eliminated in the Catholic church. So it doesn't seem to me that it makes sense to eliminate apostles either.

 

One biblical characteristic of the apostles is their power to perform "signs, wonders, and mighty deeds." Do LDS believe that their current twelve have this ability?

 

Yes. In fact, we believe that all of those who hold the higher priesthood, the priesthood of Melchizedek, in which apostleship is an office, have power delegated to them to do these things. I have witnessed and experienced some things in my life that I definitely consider to fall into these categories, but as you can imagine they are very precious and personal to me and I'm not sure I want to lay them out there where so many people would have the opportunity to mock them. Sorry.

[Xuzi]

Different Mormons might have slightly different understandings of this, but I can tell you what I think. I am not sure if you're mostly asking about the "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" part, or the "and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" part. From your other questions, I'm guessing you're mostly interested in that last bit, but I'll try to address both points just in case.

 

To put this in context, Jesus has just asked His disciples who men say that He is (v.13). They answer that some think he's John the Baptist or Elijah or Jeremiah, or one of the prophets (v.14). Then Jesus asks the disciples who THEY say that He is (v.15). Peter is the one who answers, and he says that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (v.16). Jesus then says that Peter (Simon, son of Jonah) is very blessed because it was not man who revealed this information to him, but God, the Father. In other words, Simon knows this information--that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God--not through academic study of history, or philosophic debate, or even religious instruction, but rather Peter knows that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God, because the Father revealed it directly to him, personally. Nobody can know for sure that Jesus is the Christ except by revelation from the Father through the Spirit (in fact, I think this is what 1 Cor. 12:3 means when it says that no man can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Ghost.) There is no physical proof now, and there was not then, that Jesus is the Son of God. Revelation, divine communication from God to man, is the only way to truly know.

 

Ok, so then we get to the verse you asked about: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

 

One interesting thing going on here is that there are two words being used to mean rock. He says "You are Peter (petros=a stone) and on this rock (petra=a projecting rock, cliff, ledge, rocky ground) will I build my church.

 

To me, it is significant that Jesus uses two different words, petros and petra, which have similar, but slightly different meanings. To me, he is saying that Peter is a strong man, a stone, and he can bear a strong witness that Jesus is the Christ (whom say ye that I am? Thou art the Christ)--but it's a small "stone" because Peter is only a man. That's okay, though, because Peter is not expected to go out and gather believers (build the church) based on his word only, because God Himself will bear witness to others directly, by revelation just as He has borne witness to Peter. Peter's testimony is a small rock, but God's witness is a projecting crag of stone. Those Peter is sent out to gather into the church (apostle means one who is sent) will have the witness of the petros (Peter), AND of the petra (direct witness of God through the Spirit, just as Peter had received). You are petros, and on this rock, the petra, the direct witness of God, God will build His church. It's God's church, not Peter's. It's built on God's testimony that Jesus is the Christ, not just Peter's. Jesus is saying that men will continue to have many different theories regarding who He is, and what His significance in the world might be, and although it might seem on the surface as if Peter's opinion is just one more human theory, God will give them a greater testimony with His direct witness just as He did with Peter; and people will believe, and have a solid and unshakeable faith, just as Peter did after having that witness from God. And these people will be God's church.

 

So while I do believe that Peter was the leader of the apostles, and was the presiding leader of Christ's church after Jesus ascended into heaven, I understand this verse to be referring to God as the "rock" on which the church is founded, not a man. To me, this is also more consistent with the numerous other Bible passages that refer to God as a rock, and I think Jesus is making this connection intentionally. (ex. Ps 18:31: For who is God save the Lord? or who is a rock save our God?)

 

With this in mind, looking at the verse in question, I read it to mean that this rock (The Father's witness of Christ through the Spirit) is the rock on which the church will be built, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

 

Now let's look at the gates of Hades part. What do gates do? They don't attack anybody, or undermine or corrupt anything, or lead people astray (or anywhere else). Mostly they stand there and keep things in, or keep things out. If a gate "overcomes" something (or "prevails against it", as this reads in some translations), it keeps the thing from going in or out.

 

What is meant by Hades? Hades is translated as "hell" in some translations, for those who are following along here with a slightly different version--but the Greek text does actually say Hades. There's another Greek word, gehenna (or geenna), which is also translated as "hell" in English. This word, gehenna, is usually used to mean firey torment, or the place of firey torment to which the wicked are sent. Hades is generally used to indicate a dwelling place of the dead, in which the spirits of the dead are separated from the paradise of God. (And may I just pause here to say that I find this usage fascinating considering the two different types of 'hell' in LDS doctrine, one of which is a place of unending torment where Satan rules, and the other of which is a place of misery where the spirits of the dead await the resurrection separated from a paradise in which the spirits of the righteous also await resurrection. It's one of those things about the Bible that I just think makes SO much more sense from an LDS point of view than any other I've met. But I digress...)

 

So with the "gates of Hades" here, Jesus is not describing conquering armies from the lake of fire and brimstone not being able to overcome the church in battle (or whatever); rather, He's talking about access to the dwelling place of the dead who are separated from God not being restricted. The gates of Hades--that which keeps the spirits of the dead separated from God--will not overcome the church which is built on the rock (The Father's testimony of the Son revealed through the Spirit). The gates of Hades will not be able to hold in the believers. Why? As it happens, Jesus is just about to explain that in the next verse (Matt 16:19).

 

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

 

When Jesus is crucified, the "gates of Hades" will not be able to hold Him. He will defeat death, and "overcome" the "gates"--that which separates Hades from paradise, and spirits from God. And then He will delegate that power with which He overcame the gates of Hades to Peter. (The idea of "keys" is used symbolically, as keys are used to 'overcome' gates.) Peter will be able to "bind" and "loose" on earth, and that "binding" and "loosing" will still be in effect in heaven because the "gates of Hades" have no power to stop it. "The church", or in other words, those people who have received the divinely revealed witness of Christ, and who are "bound" to Christ through covenant, cannot be restrained from the paradise of God--the "gates of Hades" will not overcome them. Peter will be given the authority to administer covenants which will remain in effect after death, when people encounter "the gates of Hades". Peter will be given the authority to do the work of the church, and the church includes both living people, and those who have died. Those on earth, and those in heaven.

 

So basically, Jesus is saying that although Peter's witness that Jesus is the Christ is solid as a rock (petros), God's witness is the underlying bedrock (petra). God's church will be built on that bedrock, and those who are part of the church will not be able to be restrained from God's presence (overcome by the gates of Hades) because Christ will give Peter the power and authorization to bind these people who have received this witness to Christ in life and in death, and the separation between sinners and God will not be able to overcome them because of the power of Christ.

 

Anyway, this is how I understand it, and I hope this helps to answer your question about how people who believe as I do interpret this passage. :)

 

ETA: Also, in a way, to me, the establishment of the church, followed by a time of apostasy, and finally a period of restoration, parallels the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord. Just as I would not say that Christ was not "overcome" just because He died, I would also say that the church was not "overcome" just because there was a period of apostasy. Just as Christ's spirit continued to live in the place where spirits await resurrection, so did the church continue to live in the form of faithful spirits awaiting resurrection. Just as Christ took up His life again through divine power, so was the church restored again through divine power.

I think I'm going to copy this onto my computer for a future Family Home Evening lesson. ;)

[dangermom]

Wow, MamaSheep, that's about the clearest explanation of the rock/Hades verse I've ever seen on an MB. Well done.

[Caitilin]

Wow, MamaSheep, that's about the clearest explanation of the rock/Hades verse I've ever seen on an MB. Well done.

:iagree:

A very impressive exegesis! It really makes sense as you put it--thanks. :001_smile:

[dangermom]

I should add, btw, that MamaSheep's explanation is orthodox LDS opinion, AFAIK; we do generally consider the 'rock' to be revelation, and here's an article about the gates of hell from the LDS magazine for adults.

[Forget-Me-Not]

Thank you for that explanation MamaSheep. I just read it out loud to my DH (who is rocking our 2 yo to sleep). Fascinating stuff.

[ElizaG]

MamaSheep, thanks for your reply about Matthew 16:18. You're right, I was asking more about the "gates of Hades" part, but I appreciate all the work you've put into explaining how you interpret this passage.

 

Do you happen to know whether the Catholic church has any scripture or tradition that explains how it was to be determined that the role of the apostles was fulfilled and apostles would no longer be needed?

We have a different perspective, since we believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding and protecting the early Church. If the Church had needed more apostles, we believe that the Holy Spirit would have let them know, as happened with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13).

 

On a related note, we also leave open the possibility that some of the men referred to as "apostles" in the NT might not have had the same authority and spiritual power as the original twelve apostles. We think it's possible that the word could sometimes be used in a more general sense, as it literally means "messenger" or "one who's sent forth." This article explains these distinctions more precisely. (In our own day, we often use the term "apostolate" to describe any sort of organized effort to bring the faith to the world -- pretty much the way many Protestants use the term "ministry." For instance, there's a classic spiritual book called The Soul of the Apostolate, which was written to remind us that any effort to serve the Church has to be based on a foundation of prayer.)

 

Now this discussion has me wondering something else. Do LDS believe that there were only ever twelve apostles at a time? Or do they, like Catholics, distinguish between "the twelve" and various others who might have been called apostles?

[Amira]

Now this discussion has me wondering something else. Do LDS believe that there were only ever twelve apostles at a time? Or do they, like Catholics, distinguish between "the twelve" and various others who might have been called apostles?

 

I don't know that I've ever talked to another LDS about this, so I don't know if there is a generally accepted LDS belief on this. My personal belief is similar to what Catholics believe, that there was "the twelve," but that others were also known as apostles. To me, that's pretty clear from the New Testament. I don't think all of the people called apostles in the NT were part of the twelve.

[gaillardia]

I really want to participate in this thread, but my connection to the net drops when I make long posts!

I wish I could share about my conversion. I learned many things as a non-member and as the adult child of members.

Having read the Book of Mormon off and on for years I knew it had to do with the people of the Ancient Americas. We had a church member friend who shared with us slides and archaelogical reports about the temples and "lost" civilizations of Central and South America. Since then I've also learned about the uncovering of evidence in New York and Pennsylvania indicating the mass graves that had been covered. These things were not evident to Joseph Smith in his time, yet he translated the BoM and included details of wars and battles amongst the peoples of these lands in the western hemisphere.

I'm a plain and common woman when it comes to expressing myself. I feel inadequate. You sisters have profound insight and great ability to express yourselves.

[Julie in Austin]

I will, thank you!

 

And here's another question, maybe more for converts...

 

If you converted to the LDS faith, why did you choose that particular faith? Or, if you left the faith, why did you leave? Or why do you stay? What aspects of the LDS religion do you struggle with? (These questions may be too personal. If so, just ignore me.)

 

I converted in high school. And, honestly, I don't entirely feel that I "chose" it. I had a strong spiritual witness that I was supposed to be baptized. It isn't something I would ever have chosen on my own--I came from a very happy non-religious family, wasn't particularly enthused about a number of commandments (chastity not being something any teen wants to sign up for . . .), wasn't looking for anything, and have never been a good fit culturally as a Mormon (I'm as liberal and progressive as they come, not to mention not being domestically oriented). But I knew it was true, so what else could I do?

 

As far as struggling: after joining the church, I went to the GTU, an ecumenical school n Berkeley of all places, and did an MA in Biblical Studies. I love, love, love the academic kind of scripture study I learned there. So I struggle with sitting through LDS classes and meetings with people who don't seem interested in really studying the scriptures.

 

ETA: I guess saying "really" studying is pejorative; I mean that they don't seem interested in the kind of academic study that interests me. My apologies.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Julie in Austin

[Julie in Austin]

If his translation was directly from the Lord, then there should have been no need for a change.

 

I don't think this concept has been addressed yet . . . you should understand that your "if" statement does not comport with the LDS view of inspiration of scriptures. We do not believe in inerrant scriptures, so we would not have expected that a translation "direct from the Lord" would be perfect. A translation "direct from the Lord" would have been mediated by a very human prophet, who may have revised his work later as he tried to better express in imperfect human language the ideas that the Lord had conveyed to him.

 

One of my favorite Joseph Smith quotations is this prayer: "Oh, Lord, deliver us in due time from the little, narrow prison, almost as it were, total darkness of paper, pen and ink;—and a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language."

[Xuzi]

As far as struggling: after joining the church, I went to the GTU, an ecumenical school n Berkeley of all places, and did an MA in Biblical Studies. I love, love, love the academic kind of scripture study I learned there. So I struggle with sitting through LDS classes and meetings with people who don't seem interested in really studying the scriptures.

 

ETA: I guess saying "really" studying is pejorative; I mean that they don't seem interested in the kind of academic study that interests me. My apologies.

Will you be my Sunday School teacher? :lol: I personally LOVE that kind of Scripture study... but only when I have a fascilitator (did I spell that right?). I wouldn't have a clue where to start learning about all the different Greek and Hebrew words and such that are used in the Scriptures. My Seminary teacher was hugely into Hebrew, so studying the Old Testament with her was fun, but I haven't been able to replicate that kind of experience yet in my own personal study. Do you have any book/study guide recommendations that might help?

[Julie in Austin]

Do you have any book/study guide recommendations that might help?

 

Well, I'm somewhat partial to the one I wrote ;).

 

But another really good one (and it is even free!) is available here.

 

And basic study Bible (Harpercollins or Oxford) is enormously helpful. (When I teach scripture study classes for HFPE or whatever, I have a long thing I go through on why it is not apostate to use something other than the KJV, which I can repeat if you need reassurance.)

 

And learning just enough Greek to be dangerous isn't that hard; I use Open Texture with my kids (and then Mounce).

[Amira]

Well, I'm somewhat partial to the one I wrote.

 

I love Julie's book. And since it covers the Gospels, this would be a great time to read it.

[Melinda in VT]

(When I teach scripture study classes for HFPE or whatever, I have a long thing I go through on why it is not apostate to use something other than the KJV, which I can repeat if you need reassurance.)

 

 

I wish you were in my mom's ward. Obviously, I am an apostate, but it would be nice if she had one fewer thing to worry about.

[Amira]

I wish you were in my mom's ward. Obviously, I am an apostate, but it would be nice if she had one fewer thing to worry about.

 

I'm lucky to be in a ward that uses other translations fairly often. No one has been struck by lightening yet. My kids use the NIT when they give talks in Primary too. Nice for them to know what they're saying.

[dangermom]

 

Will you be my Sunday School teacher? :lol:

I DID have her as my Sunday School teacher when she was at the GTU and she was the best SS teacher ever, pretty much. :D

[MamaSheep]

Some of you said such nice things about my post that I had to go back and re-read it. Funny, but what I notice most is that I misspelled fiery at least twice, and I said "access to" Hades, when I really meant movement in the other direction. And a few other things like that. And it all sounds rather rushed and jumbled to me. But I am glad several of you found it useful, and I thank you for the kind sentiments. I do hope that interested parties will go do their own digging on this, and not just stop with my ramblings on the subject here. That particular passage can provide rather a lot of food for thought; it seems like I find a new nuance every time I sit down and spend time with it. Most of what I wrote was pretty off the cuff stuff I remember from previous study, with just quick checks a couple of places to make sure I was remembering more or less right. So really, please dig into this on your own.

Edited January 6, 2011 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

MamaSheep, thanks for your reply about Matthew 16:18. You're right, I was asking more about the "gates of Hades" part, but I appreciate all the work you've put into explaining how you interpret this passage.

 

No problem. Really. Most of the "work" that went into this response was done years ago for my own benefit, and what I posted here was jotted out pretty quickly. In fact re-reading it there were some bits that seemed only moderately coherent...lol.

 

We have a different perspective, since we believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding and protecting the early Church. If the Church had needed more apostles, we believe that the Holy Spirit would have let them know, as happened with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13).

 

Hmm....y'know, that's not such a very different perspective since we also believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding and protecting the early Church. I think where we disagree is on what exactly that entailed.

 

We would say that EVERY time God has called a prophet, revealed truth, and established a "people"--whether that be Noah, or Abraham, or Moses, or whoever, all through history--the Holy Spirit guided and protected those people so long as they were willing to listen and cooperate. But also every time, when the people stopped listening to the guidance, the protection was withdrawn and God allowed the people to go their own way as they chose, because God doesn't override man's free will (but does hold us accountable for how we use it). So to us, God's allowing a 'falling away' in the early church is highly consistent with how God has always worked. And so is a restoration.

 

In my own opinion, this is what is being shown in the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21, starting in verse 33. The Lord of the vineyard plants a vineyard and hires farmers to tend it and bring forth a harvest, and then he goes to a far country. Then he sends his servants periodically to oversee the work and collect the harvest, but the farmers beat, and kill, and stone the servants--they break their agreement with the owner of the vineyard. Then the owner sends his own son to the vineyard, because surely the farmers will respect the owners son; but the farmers kill the son too. Then Jesus asks what will be done with those farmers when the Lord of the vineyard comes again; the answer is that the owner will punish the farmers, and will throw them out of the vineyard and hire new farmers to work the land who will keep their agreement with the owner.

 

The vineyard is the kingdom of God, and the hired farmers are people who have made a covenant, or agreement, with God to be in God's kingdom and do God's work. God came directly to Moses and established this covenant between God and the people. Over the years God sent prophets ("servants") to the people, but the people were rebellious and wanted to do things their own way, and the "servants" were beaten, killed, and stoned. Then God sent His own Son to His earthly kingdom, and he too was killed by the covenant people.

 

I suspect that this far we would probably agree on this interpretation, but would guess that the last bit is where we would part company. The thing is, I think that the idea of mistreating and killing the servants in this parable is not limited to rejection of the actual individual prophets, but also includes the idea of rejecting their messages, their authority, and pretty much everything about them. When a "servant" came to the vineyard, the farmers didn't kill him, and then do what he said the owner wanted them to do in his vineyard. They killed him, and then did whatever they wanted. They didn't just reject the person, they broke their agreement and rejected the guidance and protection the owner offered in the form of the servant. So when Jesus says that the farmers (covenant people) rejected and killed the owner's son, I think that He also means that not only was the Son rejected, but so was the guidance and protection that he offered. And when the son was gone, the vineyard had no authorized servant to convey to the farmers the guidance and protection of the Lord of the Vineyard. There were still farmers in the vineyard, but they had broken the covenant offered by the Son, and were cut off from the owner of the vineyard. My opinion is that he is talking here about not just the rejection of Christ by the Jews, but also the loss of authority in the early church shortly after the Son was no longer present. And then Jesus speaks of a time in the future when the actual Lord of the vineyard would come again to the vineyard. At that time, the vineyard would be taken away from those who were already there, and a whole new batch of people who were unconnected with the earlier events would be hired, and would work the vineyard until the time of the harvest. The original apostles and early Christians were the companions of the Son and would have been, in my opinion, included in the rejection of the son of the vineyard in the parable. Additionally, the early church was established among the Jews, among the original covenant people--the original "farmers", by the Son. It is true that it quickly spread to people of other nationalities, but those people were received into the church that was established among the original "farmers" in the "vineyard". And in the parable, there is no faithful group of those farmers who accept the son's leadership and live according to the son's instructions until the owner comes and rejoices with them. Rather, the owner in the parable comes to the vineyard at a future date and finds that ALL of the "farmers" need to be replaced. So the owner rejects THEM, and then he, himself re-establishes the same contract, in the same "vineyard" (kingdom, church) with different farmers. To me, this represents God personally restoring the covenant at a point in time separate from the time when Jesus was on the Earth, and among the "gentiles" rather than the Jews. (Though we read elsewhere in the Bible that just as the covenant established among the Jews went forth to the gentiles, so will the covenant established among the gentiles go forth to the Jews. And the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and all that jazz. But this is getting too long already.)

 

Anyway, my point being that I believe the Spirit guides and protects the Lord's people when they are willing to obey, but withdraws when they are not. I see this as a pattern throughout the history presented in the Bible, and I see Jesus discussing it as a past, present, and future pattern in this parable (among other places). And I believe the same applies in the LDS church today. We believe Christ literally leads the church by revelation through the Holy Spirit.

 

On a related note, we also leave open the possibility that some of the men referred to as "apostles" in the NT might not have had the same authority and spiritual power as the original twelve apostles. We think it's possible that the word could sometimes be used in a more general sense, as it literally means "messenger" or "one who's sent forth." This article explains these distinctions more precisely. (In our own day, we often use the term "apostolate" to describe any sort of organized effort to bring the faith to the world -- pretty much the way many Protestants use the term "ministry." For instance, there's a classic spiritual book called The Soul of the Apostolate, which was written to remind us that any effort to serve the Church has to be based on a foundation of prayer.)

 

Now this discussion has me wondering something else. Do LDS believe that there were only ever twelve apostles at a time? Or do they, like Catholics, distinguish between "the twelve" and various others who might have been called apostles?

 

Hmmm...good question. For starters, we believe that the Council (or Quroum) of Twelve is limited to twelve members, and they must be apostles. BUT, since the three members of the First Presidency are also apostles (president and counsellor are callings, not different priesthood offices), there are generally at least 15 apostles in our church.

 

In terms of usage in the New Testament, yes I think the term 'apostle' is sometimes used to just mean someone who was 'sent forth', in accordance with the literal meaning of the word, and not necessarily to indicate a person with the special authority and power associated with the priesthood office of "apostle". Similarly, I think the word that we translate as "deacon", which originally meant something about someone serving, especially serving food at table, would probably have been used to indicate someone literally serving food, in addition to the more specialized "church" usage. And I would think that "bishop" would likely have been used for people who were literally "overseers" in non-church contexts. A lot of the terms that have come to have more specialized church usage in modern terminology definitely originated from more common terms, and would probably have been used both ways.

 

At least, this is how I see it. Currently....lol. Always willing to learn. :)

Edited January 6, 2011 by MamaSheep

[MamaSheep]

I really want to participate in this thread, but my connection to the net drops when I make long posts!

I wish I could share about my conversion. I learned many things as a non-member and as the adult child of members.

Having read the Book of Mormon off and on for years I knew it had to do with the people of the Ancient Americas. We had a church member friend who shared with us slides and archaelogical reports about the temples and "lost" civilizations of Central and South America. Since then I've also learned about the uncovering of evidence in New York and Pennsylvania indicating the mass graves that had been covered. These things were not evident to Joseph Smith in his time, yet he translated the BoM and included details of wars and battles amongst the peoples of these lands in the western hemisphere.

I'm a plain and common woman when it comes to expressing myself. I feel inadequate. You sisters have profound insight and great ability to express yourselves.

 

If you haven't already, you might find this page interesting to look through. I don't think any of these historical evidences represent irrefutable proof, and some can be a bit of a stretch, but they are interesting nonetheless.

[MyFourSons]

How do you personally deal with the "revelation" Brigham Young had that African Americans could not be in the priesthood because of the "curse of Cain," saying that "The Lord has cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the priesthood."

 

Now, if revelations from prophets (and that is what this was) are infallible because they come from God, unlike doctrine which men reason through, then how can you explain the Church's reversal of this in the 1970's due to another "revelation?" In other words, how can African Americans be cursed, and then once racism becomes unseemly in American culture they are embraced?

 

From an outside perspective, it seems as though it would be hard to put faith in any of the "revelations" the prophets recieve, as in 10 or 20 years a different prophet will have a different revelation and it will all change.

 

My point is, it seems as though it has been implied that the LDS church has the truth, while the rest of Christianity including the Christians who were ordained by the Apostles are an apostasy, because the LDS church has prophets, and so they have a direct line to the word of God. But, when I read Young's writing, and other writings by church leaders, i can't help that they get it wrong quite a bit (the "curse of Cain" being an example).

 

Now, other churches get it wrong too, don't get me wrong. Other churches are guilty of far worse behavior. I don't want the answer I recieve to be a diatribe against all the evil and horrendous behavior Christians and their churches have displayed throughout history, that is changing the subject and is POOR LOGIC. We are speaking about the LDS church, and I want a straight answer not fuzzy warm feel good answers that don't face the facts head on. I am not trying to call the LDS church racist, I know that it is not. I am not trying to say that the LDS church is corrupt, I know that all churches have these types of black spots on their history, any institution where men are inovled do. I am just curious as to how an institution that claims to be guided directly by God deals with issues like this.

 

What I'm also asking is, how do you know if a revelation is false or not? Do you think Brigham Young's revelation was true at the time he recieved it, but later on God changed it? Can you question it? How do you know, if you believe that God speaks directly through your prophet? When a new revelation discounts an old revelation, does that mean the original revelation was wrong, or that God has decided to change things because of the times? I am very curious, because Mormon doctrine has changed substantially over the years because of the various revelations, and it seems like it would be hard to define what an LDS member is meant to believe, when half of the "revelations" are no longer considered politically correct and are either changed or simply ignored. I have a lot of experience with LDS members and LDS churches, and it seems like you can speak to one member about something like "Kolob" in a very up front matter of fact way, and when you mention it to another member they act like you are insane and don't know what you are talking about. It makes it very hard to know exactly what LDS teaching is, especially when it could all change tomorrow thanks to a new revelation.

 

I'm not trying to make the LDS church look bad, or slander LDS members. I am trying to be respectful, but I would appreciate an honest intellectual debate about this very important issue. It is something that perplexes me, and I would like to understand what the LDS perspective on it is, as I know it appears much different on the inside than the outside. I guess I would just like to know what it does look like from the inside.

 

Thank you!

[MamaSheep]

How do you personally deal with the "revelation" Brigham Young had that African Americans could not be in the priesthood because of the "curse of Cain," saying that "The Lord has cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the priesthood."

 

Now, if revelations from prophets (and that is what this was) are infallible because they come from God, unlike doctrine which men reason through, then how can you explain the Church's reversal of this in the 1970's due to another "revelation?" In other words, how can African Americans be cursed, and then once racism becomes unseemly in American culture they are embraced?

 

From an outside perspective, it seems as though it would be hard to put faith in any of the "revelations" the prophets recieve, as in 10 or 20 years a different prophet will have a different revelation and it will all change.

 

My point is, it seems as though it has been implied that the LDS church has the truth, while the rest of Christianity including the Christians who were ordained by the Apostles are an apostasy, because the LDS church has prophets, and so they have a direct line to the word of God. But, when I read Young's writing, and other writings by church leaders, i can't help that they get it wrong quite a bit (the "curse of Cain" being an example).

 

Now, other churches get it wrong too, don't get me wrong. Other churches are guilty of far worse behavior. I don't want the answer I recieve to be a diatribe against all the evil and horrendous behavior Christians and their churches have displayed throughout history, that is changing the subject and is POOR LOGIC. We are speaking about the LDS church, and I want a straight answer not fuzzy warm feel good answers that don't face the facts head on. I am not trying to call the LDS church racist, I know that it is not. I am not trying to say that the LDS church is corrupt, I know that all churches have these types of black spots on their history, any institution where men are inovled do. I am just curious as to how an institution that claims to be guided directly by God deals with issues like this.

 

What I'm also asking is, how do you know if a revelation is false or not? Do you think Brigham Young's revelation was true at the time he recieved it, but later on God changed it? Can you question it? How do you know, if you believe that God speaks directly through your prophet? When a new revelation discounts an old revelation, does that mean the original revelation was wrong, or that God has decided to change things because of the times? I am very curious, because Mormon doctrine has changed substantially over the years because of the various revelations, and it seems like it would be hard to define what an LDS member is meant to believe, when half of the "revelations" are no longer considered politically correct and are either changed or simply ignored. I have a lot of experience with LDS members and LDS churches, and it seems like you can speak to one member about something like "Kolob" in a very up front matter of fact way, and when you mention it to another member they act like you are insane and don't know what you are talking about. It makes it very hard to know exactly what LDS teaching is, especially when it could all change tomorrow thanks to a new revelation.

 

I'm not trying to make the LDS church look bad, or slander LDS members. I am trying to be respectful, but I would appreciate an honest intellectual debate about this very important issue. It is something that perplexes me, and I would like to understand what the LDS perspective on it is, as I know it appears much different on the inside than the outside. I guess I would just like to know what it does look like from the inside.

 

Thank you!

 

Hi. :)

 

I want to try to give you a response, as I can tell this is something--or things--that you honestly find perplexing about us, and you're not trying to be disrespectful. Please forgive me, though, but are rather a lot of things going on in your post and I am finding it difficult to get my mind around how to make a response without chasing down all the different rabbit trails that are there in your question(s). You touch on a number of things, including race, priesthood, revelation, apostasy, Kolob, and the level of ecclesiastical education of the average LDS member.

 

As far as Kolob goes, just for example, that's a fairly obscure place-name from our scriptures, and not at all central to our doctrine, and it doesn't surprise me that there are LDS people who wouldn't know what you meant. I rather suspect that there are a great many places, and even practices, in the Bible that one could mention to the average Christian of any faith that they wouldn't have a clue about.

 

However, I really don't think that's what you want to know about here. From re-reading a couple of times I get the impression that what you are really asking about is how we view ongoing revelation. Is that an accurate perception? But what I am not sure about is whether you would like to know about how we think about continuing revelation in general or how I, personally, or other LDS people who might respond, view the specific change in policy regarding African Americans (and indeed black people all around the world) and the priesthood.

 

If you would be willing to give me a place to focus a little better, I would be happy to try to answer your question. If there's more than one question here, I would very much appreciate your narrowing it down to one at a time, just for the sake of having more clarity in the discussion. Thanks! :)

[TKDmom]

How do you personally deal with the "revelation" Brigham Young had that African Americans could not be in the priesthood because of the "curse of Cain," saying that "The Lord has cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the priesthood."

 

Now, if revelations from prophets (and that is what this was) are infallible because they come from God, unlike doctrine which men reason through, then how can you explain the Church's reversal of this in the 1970's due to another "revelation?" In other words, how can African Americans be cursed, and then once racism becomes unseemly in American culture they are embraced?

 

That's a tough question. You could argue that the "curse of Cain" had been lifted by the 1970's. Or you could say that the Lord heard the prayers of the many people who were praying for the blacks to be able to receive the priesthood. Or maybe that if blacks were allowed the same standing as whites, the Church would have been torn apart during a time when racism was rampant in our country. Or some combination of all of the above. I don't know. These are just ideas I've come up with myself. Maybe someone else has better insights.

 

As far as your questions on revelation, times do change. Societal norms change, and that is why we believe that continuing revelation is essential. I don't have it in front of me, but didn't Paul say somewhere that any woman without long hair was a harlot? I'm sure that was the case in his day. It's not true anymore, and we're not expected to adhere to societal norms from 2,000 years ago.

 

There are some things that never change. Things that are essential to our salvation. If the prophet came out and said that faith in Jesus Christ was no longer necessary, I'd have major problems with that. But I'm confident that won't happen. I have seen procedural changes during my lifetime, but those don't bother me. Usually, I'm happy to see some of those procedural changes. Sometimes, I start thinking, "wouldn't it be nice if ... was changed?" And then a few months later, we get word that the change is being made.

 

Now, I'm not saying that prohibiting black men from holding the priesthood was a minor issue. It wasn't at all. But I'm not sure how many men it truly affected. Up until the mid-twentieth century (I believe), the LDS church was primarily made up of members in the western U.S., where the black population is relatively low. About that time, the church started to expand. There were also a lot of people in Africa who somehow got a hold of some Church literature, and started writing to Church headquarters asking to be baptized. There were no missionaries in Africa at that time, and none were sent until the priesthood ban was lifted 20 years later. I'm sure it was difficult for everyone involved, but they had faith that the Lord would answer their prayers in His own timing

 

For members of the LDS church, it boils down to the fact that we are never told to take someone else's word for things. We are encouraged to go to God in prayer and receive a confirmation of the truth for ourselves.

[MyFourSons]

Hi. :)

 

I want to try to give you a response, as I can tell this is something--or things--that you honestly find perplexing about us, and you're not trying to be disrespectful. Please forgive me, though, but are rather a lot of things going on in your post and I am finding it difficult to get my mind around how to make a response without chasing down all the different rabbit trails that are there in your question(s). You touch on a number of things, including race, priesthood, revelation, apostasy, Kolob, and the level of ecclesiastical education of the average LDS member.

 

However, I really don't think that's what you want to know about here. From re-reading a couple of times I get the impression that what you are really asking about is how we view ongoing revelation. Is that an accurate perception? But what I am not sure about is whether you would like to know about how we think about continuing revelation in general or how I, personally, or other LDS people who might respond, view the specific change in policy regarding African Americans (and indeed black people all around the world) and the priesthood.

 

If you would be willing to give me a place to focus a little better, I would be happy to try to answer your question. If there's more than one question here, I would very much appreciate your narrowing it down to one at a time, just for the sake of having more clarity in the discussion. Thanks! :)

 

Thank you for the response, I can see how my post got off track and was a little hard to understand. You are a truly patient person!

 

I should not have mentioned Kolob, the example didn't illustrate what I was trying to say as I thought it would. I was trying to make the point that I am often confused about official LDS doctrine because different LDS members have different answers for me. I realize that this will happen in any church, I was just trying to explain that I was looking for clear answers.

 

I suppose if I force my scattered brain to focus, I am wondering how revelation works. From the outside looking in, it seems as though revelations sometimes occur just as outside pressure is being put on the church over it's policies or doctrine. Do you view this as God sending revelation to change past revelations based on current events within the church, and what the needs of the church are at that time??? I am just wondering how LDS members view this, and how the church deals with the contradictions between revelations. Do current revelations make older revelations invalid if they contradict each other, and what is the teaching as to why this sometimes occurs?

 

For example the revelation that ended polygamy occured when Utah was trying to obtain statehood, and their practice of polygamy led to opposition within the Federal Govt. The revelation allowing African Americans to become priesthood holders came at a time when the church was under fire from many different organizations for their percieved racism, and the state of Utah was being boycotted by certain sports teams because of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

 

 

 

I guess, I want to know how LDS members deal with the inconsitency of revelation, how do LDS members view this? Do you believe God sends these revelations to change previous revelations when they are needed? Is a revelation not as permanent as I assume it is? Is it possible for a past revelation to be seen in hind sight as false, or is it always valid at the time it is made, even if later it is changed?

 

And, as I said before, I am not trying to single out the LDS church, there have been shameful events and practices in every church's history. I don't think the LDS church is racist. I am just curious how the history of these revelations is seen and explained from a Mormon perspective in terms of how and why revelations can change.

 

I hope I didn't confuse you even more, and I hope I am coming across as respectful. Thanks again for your kindness and patience, I appreciate it!