Mormon Teachings

[Brutus1964]

Let's call this the 'doctrine of the keys'. Please tell us where you get it from and how you substantiate it.

Jenyar

Besides the obvious references in the Doctrine and Covenant's there are Biblical references to the Keys of the priesthood.

Before Christ ascended into heaven he gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom in heaven and earth.

Math. 16:19 KJV "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

This gave Peter the authority to lead the church in Christ's stead. Keys can only be given by those who are in authority by Jesus Christ himself.

 

[Jenyar]

But Brutus, that would mean Joseph Smith was given Peter's keys. Peter didn't found the Mormon church. In fact, it is this passage that was quoted by the Catholic church to support their doctrine that salvation was not possible outside it, and therefore also for the papal authority. In verse 18, Jesus says:

Matt.16:18-19
"And I tell you that you are Peter [which means rock], and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
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."​

Yet this was not such absolute authority as it seems at first, for Jesus goes on to say it will be decided by consensus (which the Mormon church also realizes, if you are right); in other words, that the keys in effect belong to the church:

Matthew 18:18-20
[Jesus speaking to his disciples] I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.
For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.

[an article on the meaning an implementation of 'binding and loosing']​

If you really acknowledge Jesus' authority as you say, it would mean that even if Jesus' gospel seemed to have been "perverted" by the church (according to the Joseph Smith et al), the keys would still belong to Peter (and the church built "on him"). Since Jesus gave Peter this authority, nothing Peter did would make Jesus revoke his authority. On top of it all, Jesus made it clear that "the gates of Hades will not overcome it". Jesus trusted him; Joseph Smith should have trusted Jesus. But according to Joseph Smith, the "gates of hell" had so completely overcome and defeated the gospel entrusted to the Christian church that it had to be rewritten, and a new church established!

 

[Brutus1964]

Jenyar

We claim to be the church that Christ established on Earth and that Peter received the keys to lead the church from Jesus Christ himself. Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith as resurrected beings and gave him the Keys of the priesthood to which he in turn gave to his apostles that still exist to this day and which Gordon B. Hinckley now holds. Every priesthood holder including myself can trace his line of priesthood directly to Jesus Christ himself. It is an unbroken chain. The gates of Hell referred to the fact that the Keys of the priesthood could never be broken. Not even the Catholic Church itself can trace its line directly to Peter. I think that most every Christian denomination acknowledges that there was at one time a falling away from the original teachings of Christ otherwise there never would have been a reformation. People like Luther, and Calvin could sense there was something not right in the Christian church. They did not know at the time that the true church of Christ would be restored back to the Earth later on.

 

[Jenyar]

I think I see another possible error here. You mention the keys of the "priesthood". Jesus didn't mention any priesthood along with the keys. Obviously you have brought in another doctrine from the side here.

Jesus said:
"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.

You said:
"The gates of Hell referred to the fact that the Keys of the priesthood could never be broken."​

Instead of trying to look it up, I will just ask you. How do you bring the two together? For your statement to be true, you have to relate Smith to Peter by succession, not by intervention. Anybody can just claim intervention. But intervention and succession do not go together.

 

[Jenyar]

I think that most every Christian denomination acknowledges that there was at one time a falling away from the original teachings of Christ otherwise there never would have been a reformation.

Yes, a falling away from scripture. The church needed to conform to the gospel, not the other way around. And it is the authority of that scripture that the Mormon church implicitly and explicitly challenge. It is only because of the authority given by Christ that the reformation could happen, that there was something to reform to.

 

[Brutus1964]

Jenyar

I suppose we must rely on modern day revelation to bring the two together however when the scripture talks about binding and loosening in heaven and Earth it implies a power and authority. The power and authority that God gives us is the priesthood so I do not think it is a stretch at all to bring the two together.

 

[okinrus]

Every priesthood holder including myself can trace his line of priesthood directly to Jesus Christ himself. It is an unbroken chain.
[/quote
Ok, where is the chain between Joseph Smith and Peter? When Peter give Joseph Smith the keys, and what did Joseph Smith do? How are the keys passed on?

But Brutus, that would mean Joseph Smith was given Peter's keys. Peter didn't found the Mormon church. In fact, it is this passage that was quoted by the Catholic church to support their doctrine that salvation was not possible outside it, and therefore also for the papal authority. In verse 18, Jesus says:

Jenyar, the Catholic church's doctrine that salvation is not possible outside derives by her definiton of the Church, which includes those in heaven as members of the Church.

Not even the Catholic Church itself can trace its line directly to Peter.

Brutus, yes we can, in a manner of speaking. It does take some amount of faith, because some of the early Pope's names are debated, but Irenaeus wrote the succession of the Popes up until his time.

I think that most every Christian denomination acknowledges that there was at one time a falling away from the original teachings of Christ otherwise there never would have been a reformation. People like Luther, and Calvin could sense there was something not right in the Christian church. They did not know at the time that the true church of Christ would be restored back to the Earth later on.

But you don't believe what Calvin and Luther believed? The reformers, well most of them, did not believe in a widespread apostasy. The Catholic church to them at some point in the middleages lost track, but they would have considered most of the Church Father's and prior saints within the Church. That is why Calvin and Luther read St. Augustine's work and derived so much their theology from it.

 

[Jenyar]

Thanks okinrus. I admit my statement was made on account of discussions I've had, not knowledge of official doctrine. You are better equipped than me to address this side of the issue.

Brutus,

You're still saying two things at the same time: modern day revelation, and reliance on the tradition Jesus established when He equipped the church. This tradition is what you seem to call "priesthood". But it doesn't even rely on natural, biological succession! It is the church of believers itself, built on the eternal priesthood of Christ.

1 Peter 2:4-5
As you come to him, the living Stone — rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him — you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.​

That's a priesthood in service of Christ himself - one that is eternal and therefore cannot be passed on. If Mormons still adhere to a priesthood that has to be passed on, they have not restored the gospel, but nullified it!

 

[Brutus1964]

I will get back to our point of discussions but one thing I would like to bring up is the problem with arguing any two religions is that each side uses their own beliefs as the baseline to compare the other one with. You cannot do that because if one belief system is faulty then you cannot use that faulty system to compare the other church. You can't say the other guys church is wrong because it doesn't jive with your own understanding of the scriptures or doctrines of your own church. That is just like saying the New Testament cannot be true because it contradicts the Old Testament or that the Bible cannot be true because it contradicts the Koran. It is impossible to prove or disprove a belief system based on another belief system. It is just like the Atheists trying to prove theists wrong based on their own belief system. It is all a matter of faith. I have faith that the LDS church is true, just like you have faith that your belief system is true. The only thing we can do is pray and have faith that God will reveal the truth to us.


That being said here is my response to Jenyar.

Jenyar Wrote:
You're still saying two things at the same time: modern day revelation, and reliance on the tradition Jesus established when He equipped the church. This tradition is what you seem to call "priesthood". But it doesn't even rely on natural, biological succession! It is the church of believers itself, built on the eternal priesthood of Christ.

If that is the truth then all religions that profess to believe in Christ are equally valid. But, if priesthood only requires you to believe then why do other churches ordain ministers into the priesthood? Shouldn’t all believers have the priesthood in your view?

My response to Okinrus.

Okinrus Wrote:
But you don't believe what Calvin and Luther believed? The reformers, well most of them, did not believe in a widespread apostasy. The Catholic church to them at some point in the middleages lost track, but they would have considered most of the Church Father's and prior saints within the Church. That is why Calvin and Luther read St. Augustine's work and derived so much their theology from it.

Luther, Calvin and other reformers only recognized that the church had gone astray they did not realize that the teachings of the church had become completely corrupted from the original Church. They thought that by simply adopting a more strict interpretation of the scriptures that it would set things right. They did not realize that only those who have authority from God can establish his church on Earth. We have the Bible but during the Emperor Constantine’s time and the Nicene Creed they had taken out of the Bible and had rewritten many of the plane and simple truths of the Bible. They voted themselves as the authority to compile the books of the prophets and compile it into the New Testament. In what authority did they do that? Did they have divine Revelation to tell them which books should be added and which should not? They themselves did not even claim to have that kind of Revelation. No prophet or apostle at that time was alive to instruct them and let them know the will of the lord.

 

[Jenyar]

I will get back to our point of discussions but one thing I would like to bring up is the problem with arguing any two religions is that each side uses their own beliefs as the baseline to compare the other one with. You cannot do that because if one belief system is faulty then you cannot use that faulty system to compare the other church. You can't say the other guys church is wrong because it doesn't jive with your own understanding of the scriptures or doctrines of your own church. That is just like saying the New Testament cannot be true because it contradicts the Old Testament or that the Bible cannot be true because it contradicts the Koran. It is impossible to prove or disprove a belief system based on another belief system. It is just like the Atheists trying to prove theists wrong based on their own belief system. It is all a matter of faith. I have faith that the LDS church is true, just like you have faith that your belief system is true. The only thing we can do is pray and have faith that God will reveal the truth to us.

Yes, and that is why Christians do not regard The Mormon church as "Christian". Believing that Jesus existed in one form or another doesn't make one a Christian. The Muslims also believe they have the "restored message of God", that the Christian church "got it wrong", and yet you are not a Muslim.

The problem is that the Mormon church relies on Christian history, scripture, and terminology to express their beliefs. They then attach whole new meanings and legends to it while relying on the original beliefs for support. It is definitely not "all a matter of faith" -- you claim to rely on things you reject.

For instance, the Book of Mormon is supposed to be both a superceding and a more ancient work, yet it contains elements of the King James version -- elements that are peculiar to the KJV. However you wish to explain it, it implies reliance.

The New Testament relies on the success of the OT, the fulfilment of Mosaic laws and God's promises. It's relation to the OT is unlike the Book of Mormon's relation to the Bible, because it admits the validity of the Hebrew faith: That God is the only God and Saviour, and that there is no=ne else beside Him. That He chose a nation for himself, that He chose an image that is true to Him and gave it life, and that He never let them fall out of His hand. Never.

 

[Silas]

I will get back to our point of discussions but one thing I would like to bring up is the problem with arguing any two religions is that each side uses their own beliefs as the baseline to compare the other one with. You cannot do that because if one belief system is faulty then you cannot use that faulty system to compare the other church. You can't say the other guys church is wrong because it doesn't jive with your own understanding of the scriptures or doctrines of your own church. That is just like saying the New Testament cannot be true because it contradicts the Old Testament or that the Bible cannot be true because it contradicts the Koran.

Spot on - exactly the problem I've seen on another thread in which Woody took the opportunity to criticise the Pope's title as the Vicar of Christ and various other Catholic doctrines on the basis that there's no Biblical authority for it. Wow, I guess a billion Catholics had better wrap it all up and become Baptists then!

 

[Hanna]

Everything in the Mormon doctrine can be understood due to Joseph Smith's vision.If you compare his teachings to the Bible there's almost nothing left.They say there are mistakes in the Bible and The Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are both divine and given by God to the hands of the Prophet.Then it makes no sense to discuss about this or that doctrine based on "sola scripitura".They've brought new ones, some considered non-christians.Just remember that our first parents were cheated by the promise of becoming God...also according to them we have a Heavenly Mother.

 

[okinrus]

Luther, Calvin and other reformers only recognized that the church had gone astray they did not realize that the teachings of the church had become completely corrupted from the original Church. They thought that by simply adopting a more strict interpretation of the scriptures that it would set things right.

OK, I think that signficantly weakens your argument. Doesn't disprove it, but if these so-called reformers could make <em>that</em> mistake, they should also be able to make a mistake about the Church going astray, of doctrine not of practice for we are well aware that people in the church went astray in practice.

They voted themselves as the authority to compile the books of the prophets and compile it into the New Testament. In what authority did they do that? Did they have divine Revelation to tell them which books should be added and which should not?

They didn't vote to have the authority. They had the authority to teach, and to teach they had the authority to choose the material. But, yes, the scope of the divine Revelation, no one knows. Perhaps God allowed them to choose the books with only minor intervention. Only if the book was heretical do I think God would have intervened.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

okinrus: OK, I think that signficantly weakens your argument. Doesn't disprove it, but if these so-called reformers could make <em>that</em> mistake, they should also be able to make a mistake about the Church going astray, of doctrine not of practice for we are well aware that people in the church went astray in practice.

They didn't vote to have the authority. They had the authority to teach, and to teach they had the authority to choose the material. But, yes, the scope of the divine Revelation, no one knows. Perhaps God allowed them to choose the books with only minor intervention. Only if the book was heretical do I think God would have intervened.
*************
M*W: Interesting concept but a couple of questions:

1) If the church was 'infallable' (the church meaning 'people'), what scientific evidence do you have to say it was the 'people' who went astray and not the 'church.?'

2) If it was the 'church' (people) who went astray by using a book that was 'heretical,' why haven't they been banished from the face of the earth? (If they have, no one knows their outcomes).

Okay, make it three questions:

3) Why hasn't god intervened in this mess for righteousness sake?
(Could it be that the whole idea of a dying demigod savior was created by the 'church' (i.e. people) and doesn't really exist?

 

[§outh§tar]

Anyone who thinks the divine plan is centered on America is a moron.

 

[water]

Anyone who thinks the divine plan is centered on America is a moron.

Why? Care to substantiate this?

 

[Brutus1964]

Medicine Woman Wrote:
3) Why hasn't god intervened in this mess for righteousness sake?
(Could it be that the whole idea of a dying demigod savior was created by the 'church' (i.e. people) and doesn't really exist?

God did intervene. He along with Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and by instruction through divine Revelation gave him the authority to restore the true gospel of Jesus Christ back to Earth.

Southstar wrote:
Anyone who thinks the divine plan is centered on America is a moron.

God inspired this country to be established in order to make it possible for the true church of Jesus Christ to be restored. The United States Constitution was divinely inspired for the express purpose of bringing this about.

Plus it's Mormon, not moron you left out the second M. he he.

 

[Jenyar]

God did intervene. He along with Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and by instruction through divine Revelation gave him the authority to restore the true gospel of Jesus Christ back to Earth.

I rest my case: Mormons rely on things they reject. So I'd like to ask someting more particular...

What exactly is it that Christians got wrong? You say all those fanciful Mormon doctrines and complexities are not necessary for salvation, that it's the "simple things" that count. Then all of them must come down to this: Joseph Smith restored "something" that was lost -- something so essential, and so utterly lost, that nobody outside Joseph Smith's church have any hope. To phrase it differently: what specifically do Christians lack that the LDS have?

* * *​

I see I missed something in a previous post you made.

If that is the truth then all religions that profess to believe in Christ are equally valid. But, if priesthood only requires you to believe then why do other churches ordain ministers into the priesthood? Shouldn’t all believers have the priesthood in your view?

Profession does not make Christianity "valid" (Matt. 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven..."). Christ is the final priest (see Hebrews 7), conferring the new priesthood to all who serve God through Him:

Revelation 1:5-7 ...and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father -- to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.​

Who are the "other churches"? No reformed church ordains 'priests'. I think this is a confusion of terms again. Maybe okinrus could better inform you about the role of priesthood in Catholic church. A traditional priest is a mediator between God and men, a representative of God. By declaring us children through Christ, God made us all his representatives, able to approach Him directly.

It seems the Mormon church have reinstated the former priesthoods (which were declared "weak and useless" in Hebrews 7:18), in effect trying to demote Christ from His eternal office -- "the one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life" (v.16).

28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect for ever.​

 

[okinrus]

1) If the church was 'infallable' (the church meaning 'people'), what scientific evidence do you have to say it was the 'people' who went astray and not the 'church.?'

M*W, some of what Martin Luther had to say was good, in that there was a priest making exaggerated claims about indulgences. But his doctrines concerning sola-scriptura and sola-fide were wrong, and were eventually declared so. I wouldn't necessarily assume every statement from church officials is infalliable. Not every statement caries that weight.

2) If it was the 'church' (people) who went astray by using a book that was 'heretical,' why haven't they been banished from the face of the earth? (If they have, no one knows their outcomes).

Muslims use a book with doctrinal errors. God doesn't banish them from the face of the earth.

3) Why doesn't god intervened in this mess for righteousness sake?

What do you mean by righteousness sake? God will destroy this world and everything in it. If he kept intervening, this world would never be destroyed I'd think.

Jenyar, for the most part your right. In most reformed churches, the preachers are called ministers not priests. But in the anglian church, I believe they still ordain priests.

 

[Jenyar]

Unlike both Roman Catholics and the Continental Reformers, Anglicanism has avoided excessively defining the presbyterate or priesthood.​

(They use priest and presbyter (or "elder") interchangeably.)

Anglicanism did reject certain medieval errors as well as stress in the Ordinal several basic functions of the reformed Catholic priesthood. First of all, Anglicanism rejected the notion that the priest’s liturgical function is to offer a propitiatory sacrifice anew at each Mass. Secondly, Anglicanism rejected any concept of presbyteral dignity based on such notions of propitiatory sacrifice. ... A priest’s authority to preach, to administer the sacraments, and to care for souls comes from the bishop [who is the visible head of a particular church or portion of a church]. -- Anglican belief and practice​