Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
But leaving because an organization talks about its past and “praises the people who played a major role in building it”? That’s like saying you are going to move to another country and renounce your citizenship because the history books focus too much on the leaders and key figures of the country’s history without fully exploring their vices and shortcomings.
I’ve heard this comparison before, and I’m not quite sure I agree with it. We have to clarify the level of “man praise” that is going on in the country/church, and the level that you are comfortable with. An occasional reference in school, a statue outside a government building, a face on a dollar bill – sure, most of us could handle that. But consider examples like Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or Stalin’s Russia. If I lived in a country like that, I would consider renouncing my citizenship and hopping the fence. (The “man worship” in these countries certainly wouldn’t be the only reason for leaving, but you get my point).
Another important differentiation is that in many western countries dissent from leaders is allowed and even patriotic. In other countries, if you criticize a leader you will find yourself in a bad situation. Do we have a taboo against criticism in the church? Sometimes we do.
Is the church “man worship” comparable to Stalin? No. But does it go overboard a bit sometimes? Yes.
I’m not saying everyone would see this as a good reason to leave the church, but suggesting that someone who does so is “taking the easy way out” only belittles a legitimate concern, imo. It’s never easy to leave the institution you were brought up in, country or otherwise.
1topen wrote:
Also I think it was mwallace that discussed the problem of masons having 2 masters, Don’t you think that sometimes TBM’s get a little close to worshipping prophets the way that the Masons worship their grand masters?“Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah… kings shall extoll him and nations revere…”
But I certainly agree with Ray – this isn’t a problem solely in the church. It happens everywhere. I am concerned that the organization provides certain environmental factors which would foster that kind of attitude, however. One example is the song above.
I once attended a testimony meeting in President Hinckley’s ward in Salt Lake… Every single person who bore their testimony gushed about their gratitude for the living prophet. I can only imagine how he felt. Yes, unfortunately man-worship is alive and well in the church.
I wonder if there are some things we can do as a church to reduce this practice?
Good thoughts, Bridget! It’s pretty much 50/50 for me when reading the Scriptures as to whether it will be an ‘Aha!’ moment as I understand something more clearly, or a moment of sheer frustration as I feel like I’m going backwards in my understanding. But as I look at the progress I’ve made in the long run, I think for every five steps back, there have been seven steps forward. Still a long way to go, I’m certain, but progress happens! One part of the process for me is simply familiarity with the scriptures – by reading and re-reading passages so that it stays in your memory – then when you’re reading one passage you can think back to the related passage that you read a week ago and understand where they all fit together in this big puzzle.
I always like the teachers who step outside of the prescribed lesson with their own thoughts and challenges – it’s less cookie-cutter that way.
I can see that Mormonism has “Christianized” (or “Mormonized” for that matter) the Old Testament prophets. But I don’t think it is based on mere imagination. I think it is clear from the Old Testament writings that the people expected a great prophet, a messiah, God in the flesh – in short, the Christ. More importantly, they seemed to expect him right around the time that Jesus appeared on the scene. Let’s start with Moses, since he was mentioned in a few posts above as having no idea about Jesus. Moses says: “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him… The LORD said to me: “What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15, 17-18)
Now let’s move forward to Daniel – this is where it pinpoints Jesus Christ more specifically. “Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself…Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.” (Daniel 9:25-27)
If we go with the idea that a prophetic day is a literal year (some people use Ezekiel 4:6 to support this), then we can determine the literal amount of time that is to pass until Messiah would come, and when he would be “cut off”. 70 weeks (at 7 days a week) means 490 days = 490 years after the edict to rebuild Jerusalem.
Read on in the Old Testament a little further and you’ll find Ezra, who was given the charge by God “to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem.” (Ezra 9:9). This event is dated approximately 457 BC. If you add 490 years that gives us exactly 33 AD, which is the approximate year of Jesus’ crucifixion!
Maybe they didn’t know Jesus Christ by that name (they knew him as “I AM”, “God with us”, etc.), but I think a good case can be made to say that the Old Testament prophets are Christians in the sense that they expected the Christ. And another equally good case can be made to suggest that that Christ would be Jesus.
Very good quote! Unfortunately I also feel that it is not being applied today. Just the opposite seems to be true. Members are afraid of dissent and opposing ideas – many are afraid to look at what critics are saying about the Church and are quick to brush them off as bitter, misinformed, or deceptive.
Why? Maybe it’s because as the Church became more and more mainstream throughout the late 20th Century, the Church made strides to protect its image and solidify its body. So it began to prefer its members to stay away from certain opposing ideas for fear that they would be weakened as an organization.
Valoel wrote:One interpretation in particular that is very unique to Mormonism is to “Christianize” all the old prophets. It is commonly taught that the Church has always been the same (like God), unchanging. So by inference, all the old testament prophets were really Christians. We see this in particular in the Book of Mormon. While this is a fascinating way to view it. I am not sure it is really there in the Old Testament. I don’t think the Moses of the Old Testament really seems to know anything about Jesus Christ. Just my $0.02
I don’t think it is at all unique to Mormonism to Christianize the Old Testament prophets. Isn’t that what Christians have been doing since the first century? Jesus is seen to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament Messianic prophecy. All of the early Christians (with the exception of small groups like the Marcionites) taught from the writings of the Old Testament prophets. Paul even makes the connection that the patriarch Abraham was “saved by faith” in passages like Romans 4.
Were the Old Testament prophets really “Christians” in the sense that they would have accepted Jesus’ teachings? Or would the idea of Jesus be completely foreign to Moses and others?
Looking at the Old Testament as a whole, in which God seeks reconciliation with his people through symbolic temple practices, all the while promising a future date in which Messiah would once-and-for-all make intercession for sinners, it is clear that some sort of Christ was expected. If anyone was to fulfill that expectation, it was most likely Jesus Christ. There are many websites which document the Old Testament Messianic prophecy and link them with the New Testament fulfillment in Jesus Christ.
Moses may not have known these details in his day, nor Abraham or Adam, but God had different priorities for them to attend to, and as Paul says, their faith was “credited to them as righteousness” even before Jesus came to earth. Their teachings pointed to the coming Messiah, and never contradicted Jesus’ message. From what I can tell, they seem to be in strong harmony with one another.
spacious maze wrote:
Toscano goes on to argue that Jesus is God. Brigham Young argues that Adam is God. The Old Testament argues for the illusive Father. Eloheim is the name Mormons use for God, but the name refers to a plurality of gods. Isn’t it strange that we have conflicts like this within LDS theology? Shouldn’t the definition of God be the clearest aspect of monotheism?“Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen:
that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he…”-Isaiah 43:10. While we may not have a full grasp of God’s nature, we should have an understanding of who he is. While EVERY other religion has had to struggle with a faraway enigmatic figure of God, our God has come down in the flesh, walked among us, taught us, interacted with us, suffered human sufferings, and died human death. While it may be unclear as to the exact nature of his identity, we can look to Jesus and understand that HE is God.
Zachariah 2:10-11 (OLD TESTAMENT), “Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,” declares the LORD. “Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you.”
When Philip asked Jesus to show him the Father, Jesus had an interesting response…
“Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?” (John 14:7-10)
For all the uncertainty, it is clear that Jesus is the face of God to us. He may have other manifestations, but there is only one God, and he is made manifest in the flesh through Jesus.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I have often reflected that this is one thing that every generation of believers has in common, a belief that their generation is the chosen one.
Heber13 wrote:
And universally, it is clearly taught He will come again to the earth and usher in the millenium, the actual event that has been taught in Peter’s day, prior to Joseph Smith, and since Joseph Smith…generation after generation … keeping people in fear of the Great and Dreadful Day of the Lord.I think it is another tool of religion to keep people “on their toes” about living righteously…generation after generation.
From a believer’s perspective it makes sense for God to intentionally not reveal the time of his coming. It keeps us under “test conditions” so-to-speak. If the 1st century disciples knew that we would still be waiting in the 21st century, they might not behaved with the same level of imperative. So if the date remains veiled, and we all have an expectation that we are the chosen generation, we will all have an equal chance of desiring to prepare ourselves. Who knows – we may still be waiting in the 31st century – but the point is we think it’s soon, so our behaviour is the same whether we’re in the 1st or 21st.
Warning: Possible spoilers ahead… I had read in a Time magazine article (I think) that there was supposed to be a connection to Mormonism and I was very disappointed, upon finishing the book, to find that there was no direct connection at all. However, it was very interesting to see Brown’s incorporation of apotheosis (comparable to Mormon exaltation).
Did anyone else catch that this book was totally a herald for the New Age movement?
Old-Timer wrote:MapleLeaf, do you think overall Buddhist views or “mainstream” Protestant views are closer to the eternal theology of Mormonism?
I think they are both comparable in small ways. Mormonism is based within the framework of Jesus’ teachings rather than the Buddha’s, so I’m inclined to say that the Protestant view would be closer, since it is also based within Jesus’s teachings. Like Protestant Christians, Mormons accept the more linear view of a beginning and end of the world and a final judgement that Jesus taught. And they recognize the figure of Jesus as the source of salvation (despite differences in what that means to each group).
That said, I guess you could say that Buddhist views would be closer to Mormonism when it comes to the idea of eternal progression – Buddhists seek higher levels (including godhood, though that is not the actual goal) through obedience to the principles of dharma, and Mormons seek higher levels (the ultimate goal being godhood) through obedience to the principles and ordinances of the gospel. Buddhists believe in being subject to a teacher above them that will help them attain higher levels of understanding, and I suppose Mormons believe in being subject to the God above them in their own spiritual evolution (and so on up the chain, with God possibly even being subject to his own god).
Mormonism does present an interesting mix between the two philosophies. However, I think if Mormonism is to remain true to the framework of Jesus’ teachings, it cannot claim too close a kinship to Buddhism, because much of Buddhism is really at odds with Jesus’ message and mission. Buddhism places great precendent upon self-propulsion up the ladder (no god necessary), whereas Jesus’ main goal was to get people to rely on him and go to him as God and the exclusive source of salvation.
Is that what you meant by ‘eternal theology’?
I have been studying Buddhism in an academic capacity for the past year, and my opinion (for what it’s worth) is that Jesus was definitely nota Buddhist. While there are some similarities between some of the concepts taught, the overall messages of these two influential figures are completely different. The goal of Buddhism is to become awakened from the “illusion” that we live in, and to break the cycle of rebirths known as “samsara”. It is based on the premise that the soul eternally reincarnates into various bodies throughout various realms, and the only hope to get out of that is to reach higher meditative states until you attain “nirvana” (literally: “snuffing out” of illusion).
In comparison, the goal of Christianity, as Jesus taught, is to be cleansed of sin and to enter the “Kingdom of God”. While advocating certain moral actions and principles, he repeatedly taught that HE was the source of salvation, and that he was exclusively the only begotten Son of God. Jesus taught a world-view that was linear (the earth had a beginning and will come to an eventual end), whereas the Buddha taught a circular view of birth, death, and rebirth. Jesus taught that humans will be judged at the end of time (and that he himself would do the judging), whereas Buddha had no such concept of judgement or the end of time.
I can see how some can conclude, at face value, that there are enough similarites to put them in the same camp, but their overall message and worldviews are completely different.
Old-Timer wrote:MapleLeaf, fwiw, I don’t see how those verses sanction praying to Jesus in our day in our regular lives. I absolutely agree that they justify seeing him as God, and, therefore, justify situations where it’s fine to pray to him.
Old-Timer wrote:Generally, most of us aren’t going to be in the first type of situation often (if ever), so the standard, default is to pray to the Father in the name of the Son.
Scripturally, that does not seem to be the default. The D&C (and BofM) records Jesus dealing directly with his people, the Old Testament records Jesus (Yahweh/Jehovah) dealing directly with his people, and there is indication in the New Testament that not only was Jesus dealing directly with his people in bodily form, but he was also prayed to and regarded as God. In light of these examples, I would suggest that dealing directly with Jesus is the default. If we based our praying solely on the scriptures, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to make this our default practice. However, it is true that in order to remain in-step with modern LDS teaching the concept of praying must be approached in a different way.
I’m impressed to see that there are a few libertarians on here! I am one too! Funny how that works. People raised in the Church tend to be fairly conservative, but there are definitely some good cases to be made for libertarian politics using Church doctrine. For example, “Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial” (1 Corinthians 6:12) seems to make a good case for social liberalism.
Very interesting topic! In addition to your BofM and D&C verses, here are some Biblical verses which also seem to indicate that Jesus is to be the one we pray to. Some are instances of people praying to Jesus, and others are instances of Jesus equating himself with the God whom people pray to.
>Acts 7:59, Stephen prays to Jesus…59And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
>John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus as his God…27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
>John 10:30-33, Jesus begins by saying…30 I and my Father are one.
31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
>John 8:5858Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
(COMPARE WITH)
>Exodus 3:1414And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
It is clear from these verses that Jesus was worshipped and referred to as God, and that he claimed to be God. (At least the God of the Old Testament). So, based on these verses (and the BofM and D&C verses mentioned above) it should be perfectly appropriate to pray to Jesus, worship Jesus, and refer to him as God.
We should clarify that although some sources seem to indicate that ‘Adam’ is a title, it is clear from most of Young’s writings that the specific personage of Michael the Archangel (clearly synonymous with Adam according to Young) was the father of our spirits. A good LDS-friendly secondary source to support this is on the FAIR wiki webpage, in their article on the “Lecture at the Veil”. http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God_and_the_%22Lecture_at_the_Veil%22 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God_and_the_%22Lecture_at_the_Veil%22 I personally do not see any support for the idea that Elohim or Jehovah are titles. Does anyone have any scripture or General Authority quotes to back that up?
