A Major New Study of Religion in the US Has the following to Say About Mormons:

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL! I teach Mormonism as it is, and I am not worried about what you intend to do about it. I suggest you don’t try to lecture me about what Mormonism is.
Yes, you teach Mormonism as it is…for the moment…but hang on, that can change at any moment folks!

I did not think you were worried, zerinus, but know that some of us know the truth and will continue to talk about it.

Lecture you? I let the Mormon doctrine speak for itself. Even though it is cliche.
 
Of course I do. I told you, the middle-men I believe in are inspired prophets of God, not uninspired commentators.

Okay.

A Prophet is a prophet when he is acting as such. It does not mean that when he is cooing to his baby at breakfast table he is prophesying.

Did people actually write down everytime JS cooed at his babies?
Where is that? I would like to read the documents when JS was not acting as a prophet. Please tell me where to find them. I have only read his many sermons that were written down, you know, when he called church members together and spoke to them about things of religious nature?
How many babies did he have anyway?

I don’t need to have lived in the days of Joseph Smith to make that judgement. We have living prophets and Apostles among us today about whom I need to make that judgement. I listen to their sermons every conference, and read their messages in the Ensign every month. I can tell when they are speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost (or when they are not) by the power of Holy Ghost. If you have the Holy Ghost then what seems hard to you now becomes easy.

Interesting. However, JS is the founding prophet of your religion. Have you ever read anything by him?

The best book I can recommend is the Book of Mormon, followed by the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Those are the definitive revelations he brought forth. You are overlooking the most relevant source in favour of the least relevant ones.
What least relevant ones? I quoted the D&C and you told me it was cliche.
If JS was this prolific, then he most certainly was a prophet most of the time. Of course, minus the cooing.
 
  1. I have wondered if LDS have any named saints in heaven? If LDS do have saints in heaven, what are their names?
LDS stands for Latter-day Saint. We don’t have a separate classification for saints and non-saints. Just as all the members of the primitive Church were called saints, all members of God’s true Church today are also called saints. So the answer to your question is both yes and know. It is yes because we are all saints, and we all have “names,” so we will all be “named saints”! On the other hand, the answer is no in the sense of the Catholic classification of saints and non-saints. In God’s true church such classification does not exist, because all are saints.
  1. Also, I would like to know if the LDS have any living members who live their lives as to the likeness of Mother Theresa of Calcutta?
She was certainly a very kind and caring woman, and she exemplified the admonition of the Lord to do good, and have the interest of others in mind rather than your own. I don’t know of any Mormons who are as famous as she was for her charitable work, but we certainly have Mormons who devote considerable time to helping others.
  1. Who was the author of the OP’s commentary (survey?) of the LDS church?
Take a look at the first link, to the Amazon book, and it will tell you.
 
Do LDS have religious orders or communities who live this Christian Catholic life of celibacy, poverty and obedience to God and His Church, who have rejected the world and its riches and give their way of life up to serve the poor?
No we don’t. We think the best way to serve God is not to live a cloistered lifestyle, but to be actively engaged in the community. Celibacy as a vocation is not considered a virtue in Mormonism. We believe one can serve God better by raising a righteous family than by choosing a celibate way of life. We take literally the word of the Lord in Genesis that “it is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18).
 
Please enlighten me. Is this secret knowledge that you posess allowed to be shared?
No it is not a secret. It is in the modern scriptures and revelations of the Church. That is how we know that there are indeed three heavens, which is what Paul is talking about.
 
Yes, you teach Mormonism as it is…for the moment…but hang on, that can change at any moment folks!

I did not think you were worried, zerinus, but know that some of us know the truth and will continue to talk about it.

Lecture you? I let the Mormon doctrine speak for itself. Even though it is cliche.
Your posts are reaching a point where they are no longer worth replying to.
 
LDS stands for Latter-day Saint. We don’t have a separate classification for saints and non-saints. Just as all the members of the primitive Church were called saints, all members of God’s true Church today are also called saints. So the answer to your question is both yes and know. It is yes because we are all saints, and we all have “names,” so we will all be “named saints”! On the other hand, the answer is no in the sense of the Catholic classification of saints and non-saints. In God’s true church such classification does not exist, because all are saints.
Well that’s very nice, zerinus.
She was certainly a very kind and caring woman, and she exemplified the admonition of the Lord to do good, and have the interest of others in mind rather than your own. I don’t know of any Mormons who are as famous as she was for her charitable work, but we certainly have Mormons who devote considerable time to helping others.
Please do not try to equate one who devotes considerable time to helping others with the work of Mother Theresa or the nuns in her order. I don’t care if they are Mormon or Catholic. What that one, shriveled, little woman, accomplished, with no material possessions, through nothing but love and trust in God, is extraordinary by anyone’s measure. That is what a Catholic saint is. Someone who lived an extraordinary Christian life, becoming Christ to all they encounter in a very authentic and measurable way. They are the heroes of Christianity, people that we should model.
 
Joseph Smith condemned Catholic priests because they were celibate and he chose over 30 women to have as wives…this contradicts Christ Himself and the permanency of marriage between a man and a woman.
 
Well that’s very nice, zerinus.

Please do not try to equate one who devotes considerable time to helping others with the work of Mother Theresa or the nuns in her order. I don’t care if they are Mormon or Catholic. What that one, shriveled, little woman, accomplished, with no material possessions, through nothing but love and trust in God, is extraordinary by anyone’s measure. That is what a Catholic saint is. Someone who lived an extraordinary Christian life, becoming Christ to all they encounter in a very authentic and measurable way. They are the heroes of Christianity, people that we should model.
Do you remember the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16? That is how people will be admitted into heaven, not who has done more and who has done less. Acceptance before God is not determined by your criteria.
 
Do you remember the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16? That is how people will be admitted into heaven, not who has done more and who has done less. Acceptance before God is not determined by your criteria.
We are all called to be saints, zerinus, and people like Mother Theresa or St. Francis of Assisi or countless other Catholic saints only show us how far from sainthood we actually are and how far we still have to go. And yes, we will be measured by what we have done and what we have not done. I thought even Mormons believed that. It is how we remain in Him and do not fall from the vine. Our love must be put into action, we must give flesh to the words of the Gospel, and if we don’t, we will be judged accordingly. It is not my criteria, it is God’s.
 
Parker, I have never understood why the LDS believe that Paul is speaking of different levels of heaven in the passage found in 1 Corinthians 15:36-49. He is clearly speaking of the difference between our earthly bodies and our glorified bodies subsequent to the resurrection. This has nothing to do with different levels of heaven.

Could you please explain? Thanks.
SteveVH,
I think what has happened along the way is that those verses, by talking about “celestial bodies” and “terrestrial bodies” as the quality of the body of the person who has been resurrected, and whether they have a “glory of the sun” or of the moon or of the stars, have been tied to the related concept of a sphere of glory where they will dwell.

A person resurrected to a terrestrial body (with the glory of the moon by comparison) is not going to feel comfortable around those who were resurrected to a celestial body (with the glory of the sun by comparison). They would want to be around people with a “like glory” in their countenance and their situation. So in that way, it does end up having to do with “different levels of heaven” or in other words, that there is a “third heaven” as Paul wrote about.
 
What about non-LDS children? Who does their temple-work? And who does the temple work for all the aborted children?

This seems inconsistent with what other LDS sources tell be about exaltation and the necessity of temple work. Are you saying that a Buddhist who lives a life that responds to the graces that he was given by God can become an exalted being just like an LDS member who has undergone the LDS temple endowments? Again, I’m not talking about just getting in the door to heaven here, I’m talking about a non-LDS member obtaining what I understood LDS members believed was the highest possible heavenly reward - exaltation. Are you saying that LDS doctrine teaches that this is possible for non-LDS members? If so, I’d like to see a citation to some LDS authority that states this. Because I have always been told that the exaltation of a person depends upon the extent to which they accept LDS endowments.

Then why are the endowment ceremonies still concealed from the general public?

Peace,
Robert
Robert,
I personally make the assumption that if a baby did not gain the breath of life, they have a chance to come to earth in another body, with another family.

During the Millenium, there will be a great deal of temple sealings going on that will have partly to do with children from all over the world, as the descendants of their relatives become interested in them and provide the family history research necessary for a family to be sealed together, including the babies or young children who died. No child will be “left out”. It will be a perfect work though certainly tedious and pretty mind-boggling–but actually quite fascinating as one does family history research.

The above paragraph also relates to your question about “Buddhists”, as also what I had previously noted as to “what did they do with what they knew?” God knows the hearts of all humankind, of course, and knows their desires, so the spirit world will be a place of learning about Christ for many millions of people who lived by the best light and knowledge they had in their circumstances in life. So given that situation, and with the understanding expressed by Peter about Christ teaching in spirit prison and as Christ taught using Isaiah 61:1-2, yes, they can be exalted through choosing Christ’s fullness and grace in the spirit world, if they lived on earth by the best light and knowledge they had and didn’t turn away from opportunities to be enlightened by the light of Christ or by the Holy Ghost (even if they knew it not at the time).

I’ll give a reference at the end. As far as temple ordinances and ceremonies being kept as “things not lawful to be uttered”, it has to do with the symbolism of being able to be trusted by God with knowledge that is sacred. For a person to think they could ever be “exalted” meaning be given the amazing ultimate grace of being allowed to be omniscient, would certainly mean that such a person would be able to understand that they would have tremendous knowledge that would need to be guarded and protected and kept safe. So this life becomes symbolic of what would eventually be at some point in eternity, and the temple becomes symbolic of showing a willingness to guard, protect, and safe-keep knowledge in eternity.

Here is a D & C scripture and a link and quote about your question about a Buddhist who lived by the best light and knowledge they had:

137:7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.
10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=4119cb7a29c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=88021b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

"So far as mortality is concerned, millions of the inhabitants of the earth live according to the best light they have—according to the best knowledge they possess. I have told you frequently that they will receive according to their works; and all, who live according to the best principles in their possession, or that they can understand, will receive peace, glory, comfort, joy and a crown that will be far beyond what they are anticipating. They will not be lost (DBY, 384).

If [people] have a law, no matter who made it, and do the best they know how, they will have a glory which is beyond your imagination, by any description I might give; you cannot conceive of the least portion of the glory of God prepared for his beings, the workmanship of his hands (DBY, 385)."

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=81969c84f5d6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Please keep in mind that what matters in becoming “like Christ” is learning to love what He loves, and to accept His nurturing and guiding influence, whether through symbolism or through direct teachings and other means whereby He teaches and the Holy Spirit teaches.
 
We are all called to be saints, zerinus, and people like Mother Theresa or St. Francis of Assisi or countless other Catholic saints only show us how far from sainthood we actually are and how far we still have to go. And yes, we will be measured by what we have done and what we have not done. I thought even Mormons believed that. It is how we remain in Him and do not fall from the vine. Our love must be put into action, we must give flesh to the words of the Gospel, and if we don’t, we will be judged accordingly. It is not my criteria, it is God’s.
First of all we (Mormons) are saints. Secondly, although I am sure St Francis and Mother Theresa are virtuous and saintly people, and will receive a great reward from God in heaven, I don’t think God judges people by your criteria. People serve God in various way and in different capacities; and each has its own place and is equally important. The head cannot not say to the foot “I have no need of thee,” or the other way round (1 Corinthians 12:20-21). According to your criteria, Mother Theresa has a higher station before God than Peter or John. I don’t think so.
 
It is the patristic teaching my friend. 😉
Yes, it is most definitely a Patristic teching, but one so blatantly ignored by the RC or one which leaves the members ignorant of the teaching. The EO have been diligent in their pursuit of holiness through an understanding/doctrine/teaching of Theosis that it is the norm. Jesus became man so that man might become god strikes fear into the vast majority of people and yet it is clearly taught in the New Testament and by most of the early church fathers.

It makes the critique of Mormons sounds silly. Too often Mormon beliefs are derided and ridiculed. This particular criticism would stop en toto if they only understood Catholic teachings on deisim or more appropriately, Theosis.

Too often we sensationalize the teachings and beliefs of others while we stay ignorant of our own teachings. Pity that we ignore Christ’s teachings for the benefit of ridiculing another’s.
 
We are all called to be saints, zerinus, and people like Mother Theresa or St. Francis of Assisi or countless other Catholic saints only show us how far from sainthood we actually are and how far we still have to go. And yes, we will be measured by what we have done and what we have not done. I thought even Mormons believed that. It is how we remain in Him and do not fall from the vine. Our love must be put into action, we must give flesh to the words of the Gospel, and if we don’t, we will be judged accordingly. It is not my criteria, it is God’s.
See reply here.
 
With all the seemingly anti-Mormon “discussion” here on this site, I find it rare that anyone here objects to the moral behavior of present day Mormons.

Which, for my money, even outweighs the whole “apostacy of the early Church” thing y’all have going on.

Best wishes.
The Apostacy of the early church is certainly of major concern to the Catholic Church and the Mormon church. Their doctrines are uniquely tied to this concept. As such, it becomes a major topic of conflict for both parties. However, I have to assume that to participate in any degree of conversation depth, it must be accepted that both parties agree to disagree on this topic and move on.

Some will continue to issue this topic in sensationalized langugage ad nauseum; they do no benefit to the topic except cheapen the depth of the conversation. Mormons must deny Apostolic succession and Catholics will uphold it adamently.

Living in Abu Dhabi, I will say one thing…I really do enjoy being around people that act in accordance to the way Christ taught his followers to act. These people are tolerant, generous, kind, peaceful, clean, reject all immorality, and are dedicated to holiness. If ye love me, keep my commandments. Now if we could just get a focus on Christ these people would be saints indeed.
 
Joseph Smith condemned Catholic priests because they were celibate and he chose over 30 women to have as wives…this contradicts Christ Himself and the permanency of marriage between a man and a woman.
Kathleen, I am not aware of Smith having condemned Catholic priests. I think you might be extrapolating this position from one of Smith’s visions; however, I am not aware of Smith having ever talked badly against Catholics. To the contrary, he spoke highly of tolerance toward all religions.

This seems to be one of your favorite criticisms. Could you explain how it applies today to the Catholic Church and to the Mormons? Does it apply at all or is this is a favorite drum beat in your walk? It can be shrill and it borders on deception. Is that your objective or is it something else?
 
Well that’s very nice, zerinus.

Please do not try to equate one who devotes considerable time to helping others with the work of Mother Theresa or the nuns in her order. I don’t care if they are Mormon or Catholic. What that one, shriveled, little woman, accomplished, with no material possessions, through nothing but love and trust in God, is extraordinary by anyone’s measure. That is what a Catholic saint is. Someone who lived an extraordinary Christian life, becoming Christ to all they encounter in a very authentic and measurable way. They are the heroes of Christianity, people that we should model.
This sounds like the arguments about who has the best Saints, Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. It is petty and is not allowed on this forum per fiat by admins.

The facts are as stated, saints were members of the early church and is stated in the New Testament. Catholic Saints are the exceptional examples of true holiness on earth. They serve as many things for us to commune with them.

Enough said, move on from this issue; it is not appropriate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top