What do Mormons believe?

none ^ | 05-27-08 | myself

[ChurtleDawg]

Reading all of these threads about Mormonism, I am utterly confused about what Mormonism is, exactly. What is all of this stuff about Jews coming to America in 600 BC? What is the Book of Abraham and why is Abraham writing in Egyptian Hieroglyphs? What does the book of Mormon? What is the storyline of it?

I am confused as to what all of the Mormon writings are about, and how it is all put together theologically.

Please explain.

[whatisthetruth]

we believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

Well hell Mountain man, if that is the crux of your Mormonism, why do you think the anti-Mormon sentiment is as rabid as you say?

[TheDon]

I’m glad to read you do believe in modern day revelation.

[Gamecock]

What about the underwear?

[TheDon]

Here's a few links you might find interesting:

Newly Found Altars from Nahom

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon

Hebraisms and Other Ancient Peculiarities in the Book of Mormon

Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters

Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon

[Tennessee Nana]

I believe what the Holy Spirit tells me about the things Jesus told Him to tell me 2,000 years ago...

I would not call that modern...

And when the Holy Spirit informed me that the false prophet Joseph Smith was an unGodly liar, and a thief and a murderer, and conman, and that I must not believe the words of the book of mormon or any of the other blasphemeous books he wrote, I believed Him...

For Jesus told me that ...

Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, [that] shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come. John 16:13

And I know you are glad to read that...

[TheDon]

I believe what the Holy Spirit tells me about the things Jesus told Him to tell me 2,000 years ago...

I would not call that modern...

Surely you're not 2,000 years old! :-)

[Utah Girl]

Actually, there are nine different accounts. I think Jeff Lindsay explains it quite well.

The way we interpret major experiences in our lives changes with time, and the details that we emphasize in a story vary according to our audience and our purpose in relating the event. Joseph's First Vision experience was a rich and overwhelming event in which many truths were learned and extensive information was provided. The full significance of that sacred experience might not have even been clear to Joseph for many years. At different times and for different audiences with different needs, Joseph may have interpreted and emphasized details of that event in different ways, focusing on the forgiveness of his sins or the realization that he should join no church or the plain truth that God and Christ were distinct individuals that he saw. Leaving out some details while emphasizing others at different times does not make him a liar.

Here is the link The First Vision, read the whole page. The essence of the First Vision is that it is still true. Lindsay gives an excellent example of the three different versions of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. From the same source

If we reject Joseph Smith for offering various accounts that emphasize or exclude different details of the same experience, then by that standard we would also have to reject the Bible. For example, Luke 24:4 says that two angels appeared at the empty tomb to several women, while Matthew 28:2 mentions just one angel. Anti-Mormon writers would have riotous fun with this "contradiction" if it occurred in the Book of Mormon. However, we can give the Bible the benefit of a doubt by suggesting that both Matthew and Luke were describing the same event, but that Matthew overlooked the second angel in his account.

If we reject Joseph Smith for giving different details of a divine vision, then we must also reject Paul for his differing accounts of his vision on the road to Damascus. Paul relates this story three times in the Bible (Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26), and each time there appear to be differences, even contradictions. There are many details that differ between the three accounts. A well-known problem concerns the other witnesses who were with Paul. Look at the three accounts:

-- Acts 9:7 --
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

-- Acts 22:9 --
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

--Acts 26:14 --
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me. . .

Did the others hear the voice or not? Did they fall or remain standing? Does it really matter? Anti-Mormon critics would revel in an apparent contradiction of this magnitude in the Book of Mormon or in the history of Joseph Smith, but they are quick to gloss over such problems in the Bible. I think we need to be generous with Paul and recognize that the peripheral details are not essential for his message. Perhaps the apparent contradictions just relate different aspects of a single story, with others who may have heard the voice and may have been standing initially, but then later fell and did not hear part of the message. Frankly, it looks like a minor contradiction, perhaps resulting from a lapse in memory concerning details of the event, but it does not bother me because I do not require the Bible to be infallible in minor details to still be scripture from God.

For your information, there are several more differences in the three accounts of Paul's vision worth noting. Some of the differences seem minor and easily compatible. For example, Acts 9 and 22 simply say the light that Paul saw appeared around him, while Acts 26 say the light was around him and those that were with him. All three agree that the Lord said, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" and that Paul said, "Who art thou, Lord?". However, in Acts 9, the Lord says "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" before Paul responds, while Acts 26 has the Lord say that after Paul responds, and Acts 22 makes no mention of that statement from the Lord.

More analogous to the Joseph Smith First Vision accounts, the accounts in Acts 9 and 22 conclude by telling of how Paul regained his sight and make no mention of statements from the Lord about Paul's future mission. Later, though, in Acts 26, Paul does not even mention his blindness and his miraculous recovery, but says instead that the Lord prophesied to him of his future mission among the Gentiles. If Paul were Joseph Smith, critics would accuse him of fabricating new twists to his story and contradicting himself, but I feel it's more fair to believe that both Paul and Joseph were relating different parts of their visionary experiences. Initially, Paul may have been most concerned about the healing of his eyes (as Joseph seems to have been most concerned about the forgiveness of his sins), while later his recollection of the Lord's words about his mission to the Gentiles became a more important part of the vision (as did the explanation of Joseph's future mission).

Also worth noting is the fact that Paul, like Joseph, seems to have waited several years before recording his vision. It may have been 24 years from the time of that vision until the time it was written as we have it in the Bible (Richard L. Anderson, as quoted by Milton V. Backman, "Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision," Ensign, Jan. 1985, pp. 8-17). We should not criticize Joseph for waiting to make a full record, not only because of Paul's precedent, but because young Joseph was in difficult circumstances, lacked academic training, and had been strongly rejected already for sharing it with others. But once he understood that he needed to make a history, he did so quickly.

[BlueMoose]

ok, so they left you a Book of Mormon. That is a long shot from recruiting you into their harems.

[dangus]

>>>>I know Mormons are followers of Joseph Smith who believe they have “restored” the Christianity of the New Testament,<<<<

>>That would describe just about every Protestant sect. <<

Not really. There is a big difference between reformation and restoration, in theory. Reformers believe that the Church which Christ founded slowly became more and more deformed, until it had several severe errors. They certainly don’t necessarily believe that all Catholics go to hell, particularly where the absence of reformed churches have left them with no alternative but to worship as Catholics. The Catholic church may offer all sorts of teachings which they regard as false and tempt Catholics towards idolatry, but they suppose many Catholics might resist the temptation. Thus, “an invisible church” of believers of sincere, but misguided Christians is presumed to have existed throughout the years when the Catholic Church dominated Christianity.

Restorationists, like Mormons, believe that Satan defeated Christ so thoroughly (although they would never use such words) that no vestige of Christianity survived, until some heroic figure was able to accomplish what Christ could not: establish a Christian church.

In practice, there may be less of a distinction. From the comments on FR, apparently many Mormons no longer believe Joseph Smith’s assertions that all Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics, and all other Christians, throughout history have gone straight to Hell.

Conversely, the anti-Catholic rhetoric and polemics of many reformists (dating back to Calvin and Luther) gets so over-heated, one would certainly leap to the conclusion that the Reformation was more a Restoration; Jack Chick is perhaps the most extreme and well-known of such a polemicist in modern times. Frequently, such “reformers” (hyper-reformers, if I may?) avoid the plainly counter-scriptural heresy of restorationism only by the most narrow and deliberate assertions: for instance, using the existence of non-Catholic Christian movements to assert that there were sects of “true Christians” who managed to survive Catholic oppression. Usually however, the known sects bear little resemblance to modern Protestantism. The oft-cited Albingensians were so devoted to salvation by works of spiritual purification that the true believers (c) would frequently starve themselves to death, rather than be contaminated with materialist lusts for nourishment; about the only thing such heretical groups had in common with modern Protestants was often their rejection of the Pope.

Restorationist groups include Christian Conventions, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Latter Day Saint movement, and Seventh-day Adventists. Some charismatic groups tend towards a “soft restorationism,” wherein older denominations weren’t necessary in apostasy (complete disassociation from Christ), but through God’s will, lacked the assistance of Holy Spirit.

[Twinkie]

I read the book the Mormon missionaries left and skimmed the BOM. When they returned to pick up the one book that belonged to them (they left the BOM - as a gift - as far as I can remember), I asked them this question: “Let me see if I understood the book correctly, boys. What I got from your book was the understanding that all the women who are proselytized by Mormons WHOSE HUSBANDS DO NOT SEE THE LIGHT, will IN ETERNITY, belong to the faithful Mormon men, who will then be gods, and be their wives IN ETERNITY, having children in eternity?” . . and they answered me “YES!” - I said to them, “I just cannot buy that because Christ said that there would be NO MARRYING or GIVING IN MARRIAGE in the next life!” - besides it didn’t sound all that exciting or scriptural to me.

[greyfoxx39]

LOL, this one statement in your post is mormonism in a nutshell.

"Leaving out some details while emphasizing others at different times does not make him a liar."

Brother Millet must have written that!

[Terriergal]

Unless of course that one believes that the heavens are not closed, and that God indeed does speak to man, like in times of old, and that all holy scripture is just that, the words given by God to His prophets.

Yes then you believe in a God who changes.

[Terriergal]

btw I shouldn’t have used ‘you’ because it was meant in a general sense not specifically you.

[Old Mountain man]

Perhaps you should ask them.

[Wallace T.]

Many of the early leaders of the Mormon church, such as Sidney Rigdon, were formerly associated with various Campbellite groups, from which the modern day Disciples of Christ and Churches of Christ derive. Campbellism grew out of largely Baptist and Presbyterian origins, but with the defectors to the movement rejecting Calvinist doctrines of total depravity, limited atonement, and irresistible grace and believing that the movement was a restoration of the primitive church rather than a correction of the errors of medieval Catholicism. The Campbellite churches remained in the pale of orthodoxy insofar as they are trinitarian, recognize the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ as the only acceptable payment for sins, see faith in Christ as Savior as the only means of salvation, and believe in the general resurrection at the end of this age. They are Protestant (though many Campbellites would deny this) because they adhere to the "solas" of the Reformation (except for the belief, most prevalent in the Churches of Christ, that water baptism by a Campbellite minister is necessary for salvation).

As noted previously, the LDS church drew many of its early leaders and some of its adherents from the Campbellite movement. However, by accepting the Book of Mormon, as well as the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price as authoritative, along with the Bible, Mormonism abandoned the sola Scriptura doctrine of the Reformation. In incorporating these additional Scriptures, Mormonism, unlike Campbellism, departed from the pale of Christian orthodoxy by rejecting the Trinity, as defined in the early Church, deny the crucial need for faith in Christ as the only means of escaping damnation, and believe that the Substitutionary Atonement is not in itself sufficient payment for the sins of an individual. Mormonism departs from Protestantism, again unlike Campbellism, insofar as it rejects sola gratia, sola Scriptura, and sola fide.

Seventh Day Adventism and the Jehovah's Witnesses, which are an offshoot of the Adventists, have their roots in the Millerite movement. There are some similarities with Mormonism, insofar as both movements originated in upstate New York and both believed in an incomplete atonement and character perfectionism. Additionally, Adventism had its own variety of authoritative writings apart from the Bible: the visions of Ellen White. In this respect, this movement has a common ground with the Christian Science movement, which regards the works of Mary Baker Eddy as authoritative. Nonetheless, I don't believe the Adventists hold Ellen White's writings as on a par with Scripture, but believe them to be authoritative, not unlike Summa Theological is for Catholics.

However, the Millerite movement was largely a spinoff from the Baptist churches with a focus on the anticipated Second Coming of Christ in 1844 and had no particular association with Campbellism. Additionally, the mainstream of Adventism has gradually come closer to Christian orthodoxy and the Protestant "solas" in the last century. Mormonism has retained its distinctives.

[Old Mountain man]

Prove it.

[Old Mountain man]

And of course you can prove ever word of your little rant on the Book of Mormon?

[dangus]

If you mean Aquinas’ work, Summa Theologica is not authoritative; I would have used as examples of authoritativeness the ecumenical councils and infallible proclamations.

What Aquinas did was set to answer the major theological questions which might challenge the Christian (Catholic) church; in some cases his answers, such as the location of Eden, are speculative.

In fairness to Aquinas, his statements are often less speculative or inane as they are often said to be by Protestant satirists. For instance, such satirists often accuse Aquinas as debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Actually, there is no such issue in Summa Theologica. The issue was actually whether angels have a physical form, that is, do they take up even the smallest amount of space; If it had been expressed in such an absured way, the actual “space” in question wasn’t the head of a pin, but the point of a needle. The actual issue is quite a source of significant contest to this day even among Protestant sects which ridicule the question. (I’ve seen the Mormon doctrine of the corporeality of spiritual beings a major source of scorn on FR, even.)

[Wallace T.]

I used Summa Theologica because it is the work of one person, as were the writings of Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy. The problem with citing the decisions of church councils or the statements of the Popes speaking ex cathedra, even though held as infallible in Catholicism, is that these writings were composed over many centuries by many people, not unlike the Bible itself. Aquinas never claimed direct inspiration, but based his conclusions on Scripture, natural law, and centuries of Catholic tradition, rather than the supposed direct revelation of God to a 19th Century American woman. The intellectual merit of Aquinas' writings has been acknowledged by many non-Catholics, including Ayn Rand and James Joyce (former Catholic who became an agnostic). However, the Catholic Church has long held Aquinas' writings in the highest esteem, although never elevating it to the position of infallibility. Its place of honor was evidenced by the Council of Trent, the catechism of which was derived from Summa Theologica, and the writings of such Popes as Leo XIII and Pius X. In that sense, Summa Theologica may be seen as having parallels with the works of Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy in terms of its influence.

[BlueMoose]

Well ok.