Free Republic

There are many fine Christian churches, but if you want one specifically, enter into fellowship with a church of the Presbyterian Church in America.
***

This could lead to an interesting discussion. fproy2222 asked if someone could please point out to us as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which church we should join, if you’d like us to leave our current faith and join what you believe to be the true church.

Tell me/us, why should I/we choose Presbyterianism over Methodism, Lutheranism, or Catholicism? Why should I/we become a Presbyterian rather than a Baptist? Why not join the United Church of Christ?

If you believe being Presbyterian is to be preferred over some other version of Protestantism, please explain to me why you believe this. If the answer is that it doesn’t matter, then please explain to me why there are so many different Christian churches. If there differences in doctrine, teachings, and/or practices among the various churches, and if so, which one is right? Are they all right? Do you believe God does not care what we as Christians believe, as long as it isn’t Mormonism?

I’m interested to hear what you and others like-minded individuals have to say.

“And if the accusations are true?”
______________________

What can I say? I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the restoration of the Savior’s Church on earth, you don’t. While I’m not claiming to know everything about our history and certainly am not claiming our leaders are perfect, I do believe they are/were righteous individuals, although flawed as we all are, who are and have been used as instruments in the hands of God to do His work on the earth. I have many good reasons for my belief, including my ongoing study of the Bible (KJV), which I dearly love and have read many times over the past 40 years.

Many things, taken out of context, look odd or even truly bizarre to someone who doesn't know the inside story. BTW, if you’d like an example of just how bizarre something perfectly rational can look taken out of context, read this when you have a minute:

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~thompsoc/Body.html

No more time to respond to posts today. Enjoy what’s left of it.

“The Mormon church is publicly announcing his excommunication. How can you claim there is only on side being presented? Could it be that his allegations about Mormonism are true. If they are false, surely the church could refute them.”

______________________

What is confidential is the excommunication proceeding itself, wherein all the evidence is presented and considered. This happens in front of a council of twelve plus the three members of the presidency of the local unit. Of the twelve, 6 are assigned to present the Church’s case and 6 are assigned to make sure the member is treated fairly and there is no abuse of process. Evidence presented at this proceeding will not be made public by the Church.

Besides, the LDS Church has better things to do than to publicly refute every accusation made against it, whether distorted, based on misunderstanding, malicious or just plain absurd. Things like: bringing souls to Christ, caring for the poor, attending to the needs of our members and neighbors, sending humanitarian aid to areas in need worldwide, providing low cost educational loans to young adults in developing countries, etc. If we spent our time responding to the whole “concatenation of diabolical and nefarious rascality” that appears on a daily basis, we would hardly have time to attend to more important things.

“If you get kicked out of the LDS organization, then you automatically become an ANTI; thereby insuring that ANY thing you say negative about the Organization can then be dismissed by the Truly Faithful - Viola! - damage control is in place and functioning.”

______________________

Keep in mind that in this case, as in the case of any excommunication from the LDS Church, the only side you will hear is that of the excommunicated person. The LDS Church regards excommunication proceedings as confidential and never makes public their side of the issue. That leaves the excommunicant free to say whatever he or she desires, and no response from the Church will ever be forthcoming.

Every issue has two sides, and in this case you will only hear one.

To Lady Lawyer et al. --

Here's a cogent response to Press's distortions.

http://www.theunion.com/article/20070126/NEWS/101260167

Logophile is correct, we don't have a formal creed, in the same sense as the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Nicene Creed. But we do have official doctrine.

Re: Your quote from Dialogue, I have three comments:

1. Sunday School and Institute lessons from approved materials ARE official sources -- not to mention the Scriptures (first and foremost, and yes, we do believe the Bible and accept Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer, who provides for us the only way to return to God, through his Atoning sacrifice), the monthly Ensign magazine, which always contains a First Presidency Message and in May and November a report on the semi-annual General Conference, and Priesthood and Relief Society lessons, to name a few, are additional official sources. We have quite a number of official sources. And no, we don't have to redefine ourselves from generation to generation.

2. Dialogue can hardly be described as an authoritative source, since it is an independent publication with no ties to the LDS Church other than the membership of its contributors. I don't know who wrote the quoted paragraph, but it's wrong. If I were to research the doctrines of the Church, I would and do look to the above-identified official source. I'm not saying everything Dialogue publishes in wrong, of course, just that not everything you read in Dialogue can be considered the final word from the horse's mouth.

3. If you'd really like to know what we think and teach, we'd love to have you attend a meeting or two. Just sit in the back and listen. As a matter of fact, come lots of times and listen to lots of talks and lessons, and you'll see the consistency of what we teach. I've been a member all my life, and the doctrines I learned in Sunday School, Sacrament Meeting, and Seminary when I was 16 years old are the same ones I'm hearing now umpteen years later.

Perhaps, most importantly, ... is there any witness in the Old or New Testament scriptures (i.e. those which the entire church have accepted as inspired) ... where God confirmed His direction with a feeling?

------

I would recommend that you, as well as all believers in Christ, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Assuming you believe in the reality and necessity of having a personal relationship with Jesus, do you believe God knows you as an individual and will speak to you personally?

2. Assuming the answer to the previous question is yes, how does He speak to you? Do you hear an audible voice? Do words come into your head? Do you get an idea, perhaps that you should call a friend in need or do something to help someone? Do you feel you have received an answer to your question? Do you just begin to understand something that you had previously not understood? etc.

3. Has He ever spoken to you in any of these or in other ways?

4. If the answer to that question is yes, think back and reflect on the experience. Did you feel anything at the time, and if so, what/how was it that you felt?

If your answer to question #1 is no (which I seriously doubt) then we have no common ground for understanding. If you have had experiences of this nature in communication with God, the perhaps you can get an inkling of what we're talking about when we refer to feelings and the confirmation of the Holy Ghost. We're not just talking about getting the Warm Fuzzies. And we don't believe we have a monopoly on communication with God, since we believe all of us are His children and as such are loved by Him.

We obviously have different views about whether or not there was an apostasy and thus a necessity for a restoration, about which we can agree to disagree. But think about the communication issue.

Our doctrine has not changed -- we believe we can be perfect only in and through Christ. We can never perfect ourselves, but the commandment to be perfect hasn't been rescinded. That's the glory of the Atonement of Christ -- He does for us what we can't do for ourselves. He cleanses us from our sin, but only if we repent.

He can and will save us FROM our sins, but not if we remain in our sins.

I suspect, however, that I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

I am not, and can never be [perfect], but through the Grace of God.



We agree on that point.

---

Meaning that I include myself among those who cannot ever be perfect except through the Grace of God.

But the knowledge that we can't ever be perfect unless God makes us that way shouldn't stop us from trying to be the best we can, in our own limited way.

I am not, and can never be [perfect], but through the Grace of God.



We agree on that point.

It's too bad also that you will recieve exaltation from your own works (temple attendance, tithing, word of wisdom, meeting attendance, ward teaching, babtism, fast offerings, family home evening etc. etc. - which the Bible calls filthy rags.

Please read this for clarification.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/filtyrags.htm

Only the Atonement of Christ can save us, and we know that and acknowledge our total indebtedness to Him. What you call our "filthy rags" is just us doing the best we can to follow Him to the best of our ability.

The Book of Mormon tells us that "we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23) That doesn't mean we can make it 99% of the way on our own -- on the contrary, it means that "if [we] should serve him who has created [us] from the beginning, and is preserving [us] from day to day, by lending [us] breath, that [we] may live and move and do according to [our] own will, and even supporting [us] from one moment to another—I say, if [[we] should serve him with all [our] whole souls yet [we] would be unprofitable servants." (Mosiah 2:21) The bracketed words, BTW, are just changing the third person, as in the original of King Benjamin’s sermon, to the first person. The Savious gives us everything we need, and all he asks in return is that we accept Him, love Him, and keep His commandments. See John 14:15 for His statement on that subject.

Our works do not save us -- they demonstrate our love for Christ and bring us closer to Him, who is the Only One who can cleanse us from our sins and make it possible for us to return to the presence of God, if that is our desire.

That doesn't deserve a reply.

In Genesis, the fallen angles described by Moses when he speaks about the earth being cleansed by flood, are called Nephilim (hebrew). Nephilim is plural for the singular Nephi.

It may interest you to know that the name Nephi is NOT a Hebrew name -- it is Egyptian, as is the name of Nephi's younger brother, Sam. I always thought it was odd that a name like Sam would appear in the Book of Mormon until I learned that Sam is the Egyptian form of Shem. Also of note is the fact that Laman and Lemuel, Nephi's older brothers, have Arabic names, and the two younger brothers who were conceived during the days of their wandering in the wilderness, were named Jacob and Joseph, which ARE Hebrew names.

It is a well known fact that in Old Testament times names given were very significant and had a meaning associated with the circumstances of their birth or family circumstances -- read the OT account of the births of the 12 sons of Jacob, and you'll see that very clearly. Also note that when Jacob wrestled with God until he had received a blessing, he called the name of the place Peniel, which means "The Face of God."

Now, isn't it interesting that we find three different origins for the names of Lehi's children. The naming of the youngest two, Jacob and Joseph, clearly indicates a connection with the 400 years the Israelites spent wandering in the wilderness. The family of Lehi only spent 8 years, but it must have been equally challenging for them, nonetheless, during that time. Is it possible that the names of Lehi's other children similarly reflect the circumstances in which Lehi found himself at the time of their birth?

And how likely do you think it is that a young man such as Joseph Smith, with very little education, could have hit that nail right on the head if he was just making it up?