- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hello everyone! I am of somewhat different beliefs than the rest of y’all but I have really enjoyed stalking this board:) and reading the posts. I feel like I can agree with so much that I’ve read that what I disagree with doesn’t even matter.
My position is a different one than most on here but I really feel to share it. I have testimony that Joseph Smith was absolutely a prophet, that he did translate the BoM by the power of God. I also believe the BoM to be the “most correct book on Earth” etc….now why did Brother Joseph apparently take other men’s wives and marry underage girls as well as all the other many things that seem wicked? Honestly I don’t know. If it’s all true or not all I can say is that I’ve received an absolute witness that he was a prophet regardless of whether or not I can understand all of those things.
When the church was first restored there was a huge emphasis on “knowing” the doctrine. Basically everyone was encouraged to obey the first principles of the gospel in order to receive the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost so that they would “know” that Jesus is Lord and Savior, rather than merely believing it. The absolute necessity if receiving this knowledge is part of the plain and precious things removed from the Bible. All the BoM does is repeat this message over and over again. Have faith, repent, be baptized, receive laying on of hands then comes the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, then can ye speak with a new tongue and shout praises to the Holy One of Israel(2nephi 31) I, personally know several people who have received this gift but sadly the numbers have dwindled since the church was restored to where hardly any receive it now. As a matter if fact an elderly friend of mine who received the gift along with his wife in his younger days was threatened with excommunication for bearing his testimony. He was actually told by his bishop that he refused to believe that some lay member of the church could receive gifts that the bishopric themselves haven’t received! He’s still there-hanging by a thread. But he says he can’t not bear his testimony because he knows how very important it is for everyone to receive this. Another friend said that after he received this baptism he asked the Lord why LDS don’t suffer persecution like they used to and the Lord told him it’s because the first principles of the gospel aren’t preached in their purity, but when the day comes that they are then persecution will increase.
Now I personally do not believe the follow the prophet doctrine. I think it’s straight from hell and keeps people from developing a relationship with Christ. I do however feel that I can sustain Monson as the rightful president of the church. I cannot sustain him as prophet seer and revelator. A prophet is defined as one who has the “testimony of Jesus” and the testimony of Jesus is the baptism of fire, which Jesus himself performs. So until I hear a church leader bear testimony of that I am not going to even bother praying about whether or not they are a prophet.
If the wrong people knew about my beliefs I would be excommunicated I’m sure! I hope I will be welcome here. I feel like I really have a lot to offer and am humble enough to know I have a lot to learn as well.
You’re not alone in some of your ideas. Now I’m wondering where you’re coming from in the new tongue thing. Are you talking about a Pentecostal type experience?
if so, there is plenty of evidence of that in the early LDS, but we have buried it, and replaced it with a trite argument that it refers to the languages missionaries learn in the MTC!
Hi Lera, Welcome to the community. Thanks for sharing a bit of your views and perspective. It seems you are more on the literal end of the spectrum, but also aware of the issues. I would like to ask the rest of our community to be patient with this because our site really should support a variety of perspectives and views. If they help someone find peace in their faith, satisfaction and confidence, and more specifically help you stay connected to Mormonism in a functional way … we should honor that even if we didn’t get to that spot by the same path.
Lera wrote:My position is a different one than most on here but I really feel to share it. I have testimony that Joseph Smith was absolutely a prophet, that he did translate the BoM by the power of God. I also believe the BoM to be the “most correct book on Earth” etc
Interesting enough, I think I agree with most of that. I just define the variables different. I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, but I radically changed my perspective about what that means. I also think the BoM is inspired scripture from God, even if I am not very attached to it being “true.” See what I mean? We might get to similar points but by very different routes.
Lera wrote:When the church was first restored there was a huge emphasis on “knowing” the doctrine. Basically everyone was encouraged to obey the first principles of the gospel in order to receive the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost so that they would “know” that Jesus is Lord and Savior, rather than merely believing it.
I’ll take a contrary stand. I think Joseph Smith was a religious genius and highly developed mystic. I think he was interested in restoring some type of hidden knowledge (thus the emphasis we see today on correct thinking), but I think he was initially even more interested in elevating people to experience the dramatic epiphanies he did. What I am getting at is this: I think he focused more on the experience than the doctrine. That’s my historical analysis and take on it.
Lera wrote:Now I personally do not believe the follow the prophet doctrine. I think it’s straight from hell and keeps people from developing a relationship with Christ. I do however feel that I can sustain Monson as the rightful president of the church. I cannot sustain him as prophet seer and revelator.
I don’t think the early foundational leaders of Mormonism believed in absolute, unquestioning obedience either. I have a hole pile of quotes to that effect from their sermons. Yes. That kind of cult of personality leads away from the Gospel. I do feel comfortable sustaining the leaders of the LDS Church as prophets, seers and revelators though. I just don’t think that’s as big a deal as too many people in the church think. My definition is very broad for who is a “prophet” and what is “revelation.”
FWIW, I believe I’ve had that deep transformative experience with the Holy Ghost (whatever it is). It doesn’t change my intellectual doubts and questioning, but I have this core sense that I am at peace with the universe, with God.
Pure religion IMO is largely experiential. It is not completely intellectual or academic. The Gospel is about a transformation, an enlightenment, a sanctification of our humanity.
Welcome, Lera. Glad to have you come out of lurking-dom and provide an intro!! 
I also have a testimony Joseph Smith was a prophet and I love the Book of Mormon as the word of God.
I look forward to reading and learning from your posts. Welcome!!
Welcome, Lera. I’m out of time this morning, but I enjoyed reading your intro post. I actually understand a bit of where Lera is coming from. I have had spiritual experiences that convinced me to join the Church, and that the Book of Mormon is true, and that Joseph Smith was some kind of divinely appointed prophet. Can’t deny that. On the other hand, I no longer believe the current menu of prophets and apostles have it all anymore. They have become executives with spiritual leanings. And fierce loyalty to the church. I don’t see them as the same kind of inspired, talk with God prophets of old or like Joseph Smith reported he was.
Here is a case in point….once GBH made a statement in a priesthood or general conference that the Church is big on education. Why, he said? Because it increase’s Members’ ability to serve in the church. That was what he said.
At that point, I realized that so much of the preaching and encouragement is given from the perspective of “what is good for the Church”. If there truly was a balance between the church’s interests, and any competing or even coincident interests from its Members, then there wouild likely have been some comment from GBH at the time that the church is big on education because it increase’s one’s knowledge in this life, their capacity to have a wide range of employment that is suitable to the member, and enobles the mind. Not the narrow “It’s good for the church’s supply of free labor”.
This is only one instance, but also, following local and prophetic advice has gotten me into trouble a number of times, and made me miserable. The wisest prophet I know of is the individual person who consults God, receives personal revelation, and therefore, is a prophet to his own personal affairs, looking at the issues about which revelation is sought through the lens that only individual cant truly understand and validate.
Follow the prophet is a suggestion in my view — each instrument in God’s orchestra has its own tuning.
SamBee wrote:You’re not alone in some of your ideas.
Now I’m wondering where you’re coming from in the new tongue thing. Are you talking about a Pentecostal type experience?
if so, there is plenty of evidence of that in the early LDS, but we have buried it, and replaced it with a trite argument that it refers to the languages missionaries learn in the MTC!
I was actually referring to 2Nephi 3:13 “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.”My only experience with tongues is when an angel came to me in a dream when I was a teen and spoke to me mostly telepathic, or spirit to spirit. But he also spoke in a foreign language. I speak English so what was the point? Well, it was probably either his own language or the Adamic language. Either way I understood every word he said! One of my best friends and sis-in-law, who has received the baptism spoken of here, told me when she shouts praises it isn’t in her own tongue.
Just looking through the history of the church you can see way too many accounts of speaking in tongues to think it’s just learning another language fast.
As far as a “pentecostal thing” what happened there was the apostles receiving the baptism by fire/AKA first comforter/sanctification(there are many terms for it). They couldn’t receive it while Jesus was on the Earth because #1 He is the one who performs it and #2They had God living with them therefore what need would they have of a lesser authority like the Holy Ghost?
The watered down version of the gospel we’re fed is shameful! Speaking in tongues is the LEAST of all the gifts and we don’t even see that anymore. Obviously we’re in a very critical time. Moroni 10:24 “And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.
25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God.”
Thank you all for welcoming me! I look forward to learning and growing…what a lovely site! Lera, thanks for your intro. Very interesting. Keep it coming. Welcome to the group. Mike from Milton.
Quote:Speaking in tongues is the LEAST of all the gifts and we don’t even see that anymore.
I used to go to a Pentecostal church, you used to see it all the time there, and you COULD feel the spirit. Of course, they’d say the Mormon phenomenon is counterfeit, and the Mormons would say the Pentecostalists are counterfeit…
🙄 The one thing was that it was a very mixed feeling. Some people genuinely seemed to be experiencing something positive and spiritual, others were NOT using a real language of any description (it was all repetition and obviously made up), and there were others who creeped me out on occasion. I remember going to an all night Baptist service where this guy seemed to rock backwards and forwards and bark every time that the word Jesus was mentioned. Something wasn’t right there, either spiritually or mentally.SamBee wrote:Quote:Speaking in tongues is the LEAST of all the gifts and we don’t even see that anymore.
I used to go to a Pentecostal church, you used to see it all the time there, and you COULD feel the spirit. Of course, they’d say the Mormon phenomenon is counterfeit, and the Mormons would say the Pentecostalists are counterfeit…
🙄 The one thing was that it was a very mixed feeling. Some people genuinely seemed to be experiencing something positive and spiritual, others were NOT using a real language of any description (it was all repetition and obviously made up), and there were others who creeped me out on occasion. I remember going to an all night Baptist service where this guy seemed to rock backwards and forwards and bark every time that the word Jesus was mentioned. Something wasn’t right there, either spiritually or mentally.
I’ve never been to a pentecostal church but I did watch a documentary about them. Can’t remember the name of it. They seemed like decent people. What it really made me think of though is how Joseph Smith condemned such practices as unnatural and without useful purpose, since they communicated no intelligence (TPJS, pp. 204, 214). He also admonished the saints to not speak in tongues unless someone with the gift of interpretation was present. (History of the Church 5:31) I would say that anything that is given by the power of the Holy Ghost is not counterfeit regardless of whence it comes. I happen to know for a fact that there are people of other faiths that are better(more humble, faithful, giving, etc…) than I am. Being Mormon certainly isn’t going to save me. Only Jesus Christ can do that, and He can do it for anyone who truly humbles themselves and repents.Lera wrote:Being Mormon certainly isn’t going to save me. Only Jesus Christ can do that, and He can do it for anyone who truly humbles themselves and repents.
:thumbup: Well said!! I like that message! Thanks for sharing.Quote:Being Mormon certainly isn’t going to save me. Only Jesus Christ can do that, and He can do it for anyone who truly humbles themselves and repents.
That also has the advantage of being official Mormon doctrine.
:thumbup: Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Being Mormon certainly isn’t going to save me. Only Jesus Christ can do that, and He can do it for anyone who truly humbles themselves and repents.
That also has the advantage of being official Mormon doctrine.
:thumbup: Oh Ray, you make me laugh sometimes.
(Baptism, Laying on of hands for the Holy Ghost, Receiving the MP, Endowment, Temple marriage… they don’t mean a thing as far as salvation is concerned in the LDS church…)
cwald, we’ve had this discussion in other threads, but when we believe vicarious ordinances will be done for every person who ever has lived in the history of the world – and when we also believe that those who are baptized Mormons can and will lose any benefit of those ordinances if they don’t have faith, repent and endure to the end with the companionship of the Holy Ghost, of course it’s accurate to say, Quote:“Being Mormon certainly isn’t going to save me. Only Jesus Christ can do that, and He can do it for anyone who truly humbles themselves and repents.”
Seriously, friend, exactly what in those exact words is contrary to Mormon theology and foundational doctrine? The first sentence is 100% accurate, and no member I know would argue otherwise – and I also don’t know any member who would argue with the second sentence, again, especially given our temple theology.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.