@briankeepsworth This is the thinking of a man who is unable to experience the joys of life to their fullest while still being himself. If you need a substance to enliven your experience, you will never reach your full potential.
Some years ago a prominent man was excommunicated from the Church. He, years later, pleaded for baptism. President John Taylor referred the question of his baptism to the apostles, stating [in a letter] that if they unanimously consented to his baptism, he could be baptized, but that if there was one dissenting vote, he should not be admitted into the Church. As I remember the vote, it was five for baptism and seven against. A year or so later the question came up again and it was eight for baptism and four against. Later it came up again and it was ten for baptism and two against. Finally all of the Council of the Apostles, with the exception of your humble servant, consented that this man be baptized and I was then next to the junior member of the quorum. Later I was in the office of the president and he said:
“Heber, I understand that eleven of the apostles have consented to the baptism of Brother So and So,” naming the man, “and that you alone are standing out. How will you feel when you get on the other side and you find that this man has pleaded for baptism and you find that you have perhaps kept him out from entering in with those who have repented of their sins and received some reward?”
I said, “President John Taylor, I can look the Lord squarely in the eye, if he asks me that question, and tell him that I did that which I thought was for the best good of the kingdom. … I can tell the Lord that [that man] had disgraced this Church enough, and that I did not propose to let any such a man come back into the Church.”
“Well,” said President Taylor, “my boy, that is all right, stay with your convictions, stay right with them.”
I said, “President Taylor, your letter said you wanted each one of the apostles to vote the convictions of his heart. If you desire me to surrender the convictions of my heart, I will gladly do it; I will gladly vote for this man to come back, but while I live I never expect to consent, if it is left to my judgment. That man was accused before the apostles several years ago and he stood up and lied and claimed that he was innocent, and the Lord gave to me a testimony that he lied, but I could not condemn him because of that. I got down on my knees that night and prayed God to give me the strength not to expose that man, seeing that he had lied but that we had no evidence, except only the testimony of the girl that he had seduced. And I prayed the Lord that some day additional testimony might come, and it did come, and we then excommunicated him. And when a man can lie to the apostles, and when he can be guilty while proclaiming repentance of sin, I think this Church has been disgraced enough without ever letting him come back into the Church.”
“Well,” repeated President Taylor, “my boy, don’t you vote as long as you live, while you hold those ideas, stay right with them.”
I left the president’s office. I went home. … I was reading the Doctrine and Covenants through for the third or fourth time systematically, and I had my bookmark in it, but as I picked it up, instead of opening where the bookmark was, it opened to:
“I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men; but he that forgiveth not his brother standeth condemned before the Lord.” [See D&C 64:9–10.]
And I closed the book and said: “If the devil applies for baptism, and claims that he has repented, I will baptize him.” After lunch I returned to the office of President Taylor and I said, “President Taylor, I have had a change of heart. One hour ago I said, never while I live, did I expect to ever consent that Brother So and So should be baptized, but I have come to tell you he can be baptized, so far as I am concerned.”
President Taylor had a habit, when he was particularly pleased, of sitting up and laughing and shaking his whole body, and he laughed and said, “My boy, the change is very sudden, very sudden. I want to ask you a question. How did you feel when you left here an hour ago?
This thread is hilariously sad, dude argues with an AI with his weak arguments and eventually concludes that the AI is a Mormon apologist, because he can't accept the fact that there is an objective case for the significance of the Book of Mormon translation.
I'm neither a Mormon nor an apologist. The Match It challenge simply tests whether anyone has replicated the specific conditions described in Joseph Smith's accounts and contemporary witnesses: basic schooling, rapid oral dictation of a long text with no notes or major revisions, multiple consistent narrative voices, and ~280 coherent coined names.
That's evidence-based logic, not advocacy. If the premises from the historical record are wrong, point out exactly where.
Evangelical:
So you’re saying the Great Apostasy means every Christian disappeared for 1,700 years?
Latter-day Saint:
No. That’s not what we mean.
Evangelical:
Then you’re saying nobody was saved?
Latter-day Saint:
Also no.
Evangelical:
Well then what are you talking about?
Latter-day Saint:
Let’s start with a question. Did Christ establish a Church with apostles, prophets, ordinances, and authority?
Evangelical:
Sure. The apostles led the early Church.
Latter-day Saint:
Did Christ give them authority? Things like the keys of the kingdom, the power to bind on earth and in heaven, ordain leaders, and govern the Church?
Evangelical:
Yes.
Latter-day Saint:
What happened when the apostles died?
Evangelical:
The Church continued.
Latter-day Saint:
The believers continued. But who inherited the apostolic keys?
Evangelical:
The Bible.
Latter-day Saint:
The Bible inherited authority?
Evangelical:
The Bible preserves the teachings.
Latter-day Saint:
I agree. But preserving teachings and possessing authority are different things.
Evangelical:
Authority comes from the Word of God.
Latter-day Saint:
Then why did Christ ordain apostles at all? Why not just hand everyone a book and say, “Good luck”?
Evangelical:
Because they were needed for the beginning.
Latter-day Saint:
Where does the New Testament say their authority would no longer be needed?
Evangelical:
The gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.
Latter-day Saint:
Agreed. We don’t believe they did.
Evangelical:
Then there couldn’t have been an apostasy.
Latter-day Saint:
Only if you define “apostasy” as “every Christian vanishes.”
Evangelical:
Isn’t that what it means?
Latter-day Saint:
No. We believe faithful Christians remained throughout history. We believe many precious truths survived. We believe God continued working with people.
Evangelical:
Then what was lost?
Latter-day Saint:
The same thing that was lost repeatedly in the Old Testament: divine authority and the right to administer God’s ordinances.
Evangelical:
So you’re saying Christians were good people but lacked authority?
Latter-day Saint:
That’s much closer to what we’re actually saying.
Evangelical:
But why would a restoration be necessary?
Latter-day Saint:
For the same reason Christ called apostles in the first place. If authority wasn’t important, there would have been nothing to restore.
Evangelical:
So when you say “Great Apostasy,” you don’t mean God abandoned humanity?
Latter-day Saint:
No. We mean humanity lost the apostolic authority Christ originally placed in His Church.
That’s a very different claim than what most people think Mormons mean.
Most arguments against the Great Apostasy start by arguing against a position Latter-day Saints don’t actually hold.
Evangelical: Mormons believe they’re saved by works.
Latter-day Saint: We believe we’re saved by grace through Jesus Christ.
Evangelical: What about “after all we can do”?
Latter-day Saint: The verse says, “It is by grace that we are saved.”
Evangelical: Right. After all you can do.
Latter-day Saint: Who is doing the saving in the verse?
Evangelical: Grace.
Latter-day Saint: And who does grace come from?
Evangelical: Jesus.
Latter-day Saint: So Jesus saves?
Evangelical: Yes.
Latter-day Saint: Then why do you keep saying we believe works save us?
Evangelical: Because it says “after all we can do.”
Latter-day Saint: Does it say we are saved by all we can do?
Evangelical: No.
Latter-day Saint: Does it say we are saved by grace?
Evangelical: Yes.
Latter-day Saint: Then why are you changing the subject?
Evangelical: Because Mormons obey commandments.
Latter-day Saint: Did Jesus tell people to obey commandments?
Evangelical: Yes.
Latter-day Saint: Did Jesus tell people to repent?
Evangelical: Yes.
Latter-day Saint: Did Jesus tell people to love their neighbors, forgive others, feed the poor, and follow Him?
Evangelical: Yes.
Latter-day Saint: So obeying Jesus means you’re trying to earn salvation?
Evangelical: No.
Latter-day Saint: Then why does it only become “works-based salvation” when Mormons do it?
awkward silence
Which Bible?
The Samaritan Bible has five books. The Pentateuch and nothing else.
The Jewish Bible has the Hebrew canon, fixed to a single manuscript tradition, the Masoretic Text.
The Protestant Bible has those same Old Testament books, reordered and retranslated, with the Apocrypha cut out. The 1611 King James actually included that Apocrypha.
The Catholic Bible keeps the Deuterocanon the Protestants dropped.
The Eastern Orthodox Bible adds more still, including Psalm 151 and an extra book of Esdras.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible runs longest of all, carrying 1 Enoch and Jubilees.
Each tradition drew its boundary in a different century, at a different council, for a different reason. There has never been one Bible.
So calling the Bible the ultimate source skips a step. Someone had to decide which books counted. Councils of men did, over centuries, and they did not agree. The source sits behind the book. It was never the book itself.
God is the ultimate source. The Bible is a witness to Him, assembled by councils.
All this Mormons v "Christians" stuff has me cracking up. You're saying the devil has inspired a whole "cult" of people to live decent, kind, generous, Christ like lives, they even worship Christ, but the grand deception is in the fine print?
Lol.
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland delivered the best explanation of how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints deviates from traditional Christianity and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Christ himself.
“If one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?”
This is a must-watch today: