DiscussMormonism.com

From Loran's post on another thread:

In an official 1980 statement, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said:

"We solemnly affirm that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in fact a restoration of the Church established by the Son of God...".

Some questions and comments:

1. So... does that mean that Jesus is no longer a Jew? That he's a Mormon now?

2. How can anyone who has never spoken with Jesus face to face "solemnly affirm" anything?

3. How can anyone say "in fact" when in fact they are not talking about facts, but instead are talking about emotions/conjecture/smoke and mirrors?

4. If the LDS church is a restoration of the church established by the Son of God, why doesn't it look like the same church? Did the ancient church have women speaking in SM? Did the ancient church even have SM? Did th ancient church have auxilliaries? Did the ancient church have home teaching, temple endowment ceremonies, garments, cookie cutter church buildings? Did the ancient church buy shopping malls? Did the ancient church require tithing or the family members couldn't watch the wedding?

harmony wrote:From Loran's post on another thread:

In an official 1980 statement, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said:

"We solemnly affirm that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in fact a restoration of the Church established by the Son of God...".

Some questions and comments:

1. So... does that mean that Jesus is no longer a Jew? That he's a Mormon now?

2. How can anyone who has never spoken with Jesus face to face "solemnly affirm" anything?

3. How can anyone say "in fact" when in fact they are not talking about facts, but instead are talking about emotions/conjecture/smoke and mirrors?

4. If the LDS church is a restoration of the church established by the Son of God, why doesn't it look like the same church? Did the ancient church have women speaking in SM? Did the ancient church even have SM? Did th ancient church have auxilliaries? Did the ancient church have home teaching, temple endowment ceremonies, garments, cookie cutter church buildings? Did the ancient church buy shopping malls? Did the ancient church require tithing or the family members couldn't watch the wedding?

Since you have solemnly affirmed that you are a temple recommend holder, perhaps you can give us your thoughts on answers to these questions.

From Loran's post on another thread:

Quote:
In an official 1980 statement, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said:

"We solemnly affirm that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in fact a restoration of the Church established by the Son of God...".

Some questions and comments:

1. So... does that mean that Jesus is no longer a Jew? That he's a Mormon now?

2. How can anyone who has never spoken with Jesus face to face "solemnly affirm" anything?

3. How can anyone say "in fact" when in fact they are not talking about facts, but instead are talking about emotions/conjecture/smoke and mirrors?

4. If the LDS church is a restoration of the church established by the Son of God, why doesn't it look like the same church? Did the ancient church have women speaking in SM? Did the ancient church even have SM? Did th ancient church have auxilliaries? Did the ancient church have home teaching, temple endowment ceremonies, garments, cookie cutter church buildings? Did the ancient church buy shopping malls? Did the ancient church require tithing or the family members couldn't watch the wedding?

1. Well, as I read the above quotation, it states nothing more then that he's the Son of God and the church represents him.

2. How did the Apostle John know that Jesus was the Christ (and you're statement that x number of modern Apostles haven't seen him face to face is an assumption).

3. You're third statement is a series of assumptions/predjedices about the phenomena of revelation. No argument is being made there.

As to the fourth series of question, only some of which are serious, a substantive study of early church docruments, including canonical, non-canonical, and the writings of the early Fathers, as well as of early Christian symbolism and art, indicates that indeed, the latter day church, with all its cultural differences taken into account, does look startlingly like the New Testament church (and somewhat after). Expecially curious is a study of what all the various "orthodox" Christian sects, including the gnosticized groups, were doin throughout the Second Century. The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain very interesting insights into what certain very non-conventional Jewish sects thought and practiced that is very relavent to some church claims..

For a textual start, try The Ascension of Isaiah.

As to some of your specific questions, the New Testament record is so fragmentary and unsystematic I have no idea how the church was sturctured per se in detail, and there were no shopping malls in First Century Palestine.


Loran

Has anyone done Jesus's temple work yet?

Coggins7 wrote:
2. How did the Apostle John know that Jesus was the Christ (and you're statement that x number of modern Apostles haven't seen him face to face is an assumption).

Loran

You're saying the modern apostles (which I am assuming you mean LDS) have actually seen Jesus?

Are you refering to anyone else besides Joseph Smith?

Some questions and comments:

1. So... does that mean that Jesus is no longer a Jew? That he's a Mormon now?

Uhhhhh....NO. One can be a Jew and a Mormon. But that is not the point. I think you know this.

2. How can anyone who has never spoken with Jesus face to face "solemnly affirm" anything?

I do not know.

3. How can anyone say "in fact" when in fact they are not talking about facts, but instead are talking about emotions/conjecture/smoke and mirrors?

Your comments are not really about what was said but the boldness of how it was said.

4. If the LDS church is a restoration of the church established by the Son of God, why doesn't it look like the same church?

I think you asked this in another thread. In some ways it does, and some it does not. But who really knows WHAT the early Church looked like?

Did the ancient church have women speaking in SM?

This is just damn silly. No, Paul said women should not speak in church. Are you angry that the LDS Church has made progress in this area.

Did the ancient church even have SM?

Yes it did.

Did the ancient church have auxilliaries?

Who cares. If it did not can it not today?

Did the ancient church have home teaching, temple endowment ceremonies, garments, cookie cutter church buildings? Did the ancient church buy shopping malls? Did the ancient church require tithing or the family members couldn't watch the wedding?

Are you having a bad day? This is one of the more silly threads I have seen from you.

Jason, just because someone asks questions you're afraid to doesn't mean a person is having a bad day.

I sometimes wonder how deeply some LDS read the Bible. There were women prophets and spiritual leaders, before and after Paul's tirade. Beware of leagalism, Jason. Legalism takes Paul 100% seriously...dangerous. And Harmony is right, the early church looked nothing like the LDS hierarchy. All the LDS church did was take a very crude reading of the Bible, take the bits that looked like they fit the LDS position, and left the rest in the "so long as it's correctly translated" category. Pastors, deacons, teachers, etc.

I find that offensive that whoever is saying that Jesus is was or whatever a Mormon

I thought Jesus was Jewish and I am not Jewish or a Mormon...so I guess Jesus can be what ever anyone says but......

for some reason I find my self offended by that assumption......I am not sure why though

Misery, it wasn't an assumption, it was a rhetorical question. Harmony wanted those who listen to the men who made these statements to think deeply about what it is that they implied.

I think the whole question of the current LDS church being a restoration of the ancient church becomes a question of how much we view culture playing a vital role in how things are organized.

I'm sure that if those who lived in New Testament times saw how the Church was organized today, they would probably scratch their heads and wonder why it needs to be so complex.

But...the LDS Church is a phenomenon of AMERICAN culture. It was established in the USA, and evolved essentially here in the USA. Therefore, the organization looks like the organization of a typical successful US business organization.

Does this necessarily undermine the message of the original gospel? Not necessarily. But I think it's worth recognizing that it CAN. Look at the Old Testament and the Laws of Moses. The people became very caught up in rules, numbers, etc. The same thing happens today.

I don't think that the organization of the Church today is necessarily WRONG...but I do think that it is definitely worth noting that it IS based on aspects of our current culture.