Another Mormon Question - Jesus as Savior?

[MelanieAnne]

The Mormons will actually sometimes USE the word “Trinity” but their understanding of the word is not the same as Catholics and Protestants. This is why the Mormon baptism is not accepted by the RCC (and at least some others) while other Protestant Christian baptisms ARE.

Mormons believe that God the Father, Jesus the Son (in their view, humanity’s “elder brother” and a TOTALLY SEPARATE PERSON from God the Father, with a separate body) and the Holy Spirit are three separate BEINGS with one common PURPOSE. This is not the “Trinity” as most of us understand it.

YES Mormons believe that God the Father (usually referred to as “Heavenly Father” who, by the way, according to the Mormons, is married to “Heavenly Mother”) has a DIFFERENT BODY and EXISTENCE from Jesus the Son, who is the Redeemer of THIS WORLD (as opposed to OTHER WORLDS they don’t name.) They believe that it is POSSIBLE (but I don’t know how probable) that a human from this world can go on to become exalted (that is, a GOD) & I have even heard some theorize that part of that “exaltation”, towards becoming God of another world (similar to Jesus in our world) will involve their being crucified as the Redeemer of these other worlds. PUH-LEEZE!!

And then there is the whole business of their PRIMARY scripture being translated from “Golden Plates” that no longer exist using magic rocks viewed at the bottom of a hat. They don’t tell you that part when they’re trying to seduce you into joining their religion. In fact, they cover it up and hope you don’t ask about it if you’ve ever heard of it. And they have weird silly stories that don’t answer the question if you DO ask. (I’ve heard them from a former Mormon Missionary!) They just keep talking about all the nice stuff like family and hope you ignore or don’t know about all the rest. Those are the facts. Although I have, regrettably, strayed off topic. Sorry!

The KEY for me in this entire question, is the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I am just “guessing” here, but my thinking is that when Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come to us, to teach us, to guide us, Jesus was only talking about “ONE” Holy Spirit, not a PANTHEON of Holy Spirits. So, going with that assumption, most of us Christians, regardless of how they worship, understand what the Holy Spirit has taught us about the Trinity ONE WAY, and the Mormons seem to have had a Holy Spirit that taught them ANOTHER WAY.

Obviously, if there is only ONE Holy Spirit, one of the above-mentioned teachings of the Holy Spirit is correct and one is not. Because the REAL Holy Spirit would not give one set of information to one group and another set of information to another group. The Holy Spirit is NOT about confusion.

Since I tend to reject scripture that no longer exists & was translated by holding magic rocks in the bottom of a hat, and I tend to favor of REAL SCRIPTURE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS and still exists today, as does the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ himself, I am a Catholic & not a Mormon.

 

[rmcmullan]

Maybe you all could go into more what the difference is between private and public revelation. It looks to me to be arbitrary. If you want to say private revelation is only for the individual(s) who received it, I can buy that. If you want to say that you that public revelation is revelation that someone receives but is binding on others, I can buy that too. But the truth binds everyone and everything and any revelation must abide in truth, public or private.

I am very suspicious indeed that this concept of private/public revelation is just a construct used to prevent anyone from contradicting the established teaching of the Catholic Church. Not sure what a Magistrium is or what role it play here.

 

[DianJo]

Maybe you all could go into more what the difference is between private and public revelation. It looks to me to be arbitrary. If you want to say private revelation is only for the individual(s) who received it, I can buy that. If you want to say that you that public revelation is revelation that someone receives but is binding on others, I can buy that too. But the truth binds everyone and everything and any revelation must abide in truth, public or private.

I am very suspicious indeed that this concept of private/public revelation is just a construct used to prevent anyone from contradicting the established teaching of the Catholic Church. Not sure what a Magistrium is or what role it play here.

Okay, I’ll try…Although someone who is a little more knowledgeable about this will hopefully chime in…

Your first inclination about private revelation was correct. Catholics believe that private revelation is for the person who receives it. It is not binding on all the faithful.

However, there have been times in the past that such visions have involved the multitudes, for instance, Our Lady of Lourdes. The appartitions took place over a long period of time and the whole of Europe was making pilgrimages in hopes of healing. Our Lady healed many people, this is documented. She also identified herself as “The Immaculate Conception.” Catholics had already believed this about her and what she did was confirm our belief and the Church “officially” instituted the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. To my knowledge, this is the only time that a revelation stemming from a private appartition ever manifested itself later in the form of a dogma (don’t forget this was NOT new revelation, it was a confirmation of an existing belief).

*When a vision happens, someone almost always contacts the Church to investigate. These investigations sometimes take many years, as in the case of Lourdes. Most of these visions are discounted, some are not. When they are investigated in the positive, all the Church says is that there is nothing in the vision that contradicts the divinely revealed truths we hold to and that if someone wants to believe in them, then it’s okay and would be a pious practice. But…these visons are never held to be binding on the faithful as a whole. A person can believe in them or not. *

The Magesterium is the College of Bishops and the Pope - they are the teaching office of the Church. Their only job is to protect the divinely revealed truths, left to us by Jesus and the Apostles, to explain and proclaim them to all the world - as Jesus commanded they do. They do NOT proclaim any new dogmas/doctrines. They have, in the past, made an accepted, existing belief into dogma usually because of some universal question or misunderstanding. They do that to clear things up and to define it once and for all, “officially.”

Does that clarify things any?

 

[Allweather]

Maybe you all could go into more what the difference is between private and public revelation. It looks to me to be arbitrary. If you want to say private revelation is only for the individual(s) who received it, I can buy that. If you want to say that you that public revelation is revelation that someone receives but is binding on others, I can buy that too. But the truth binds everyone and everything and any revelation must abide in truth, public or private.

I am very suspicious indeed that this concept of private/public revelation is just a construct used to prevent anyone from contradicting the established teaching of the Catholic Church. Not sure what a Magistrium is or what role it play here.

I think DianJo covered it very nicely.

One of the problems with the revelations reported by Joseph Smith, Jr, and other Mormons, is that many of them deviate badly from the faith. One good example is Mormon plural marriage. Mormon polygamy is so far gone wrong, that there is no way to reconcile it with Christian teaching and practice. This is one evidence we use to know that these types of revelations are false. You can’t have a revealed truth suddenly be contradicted by another “revealed truth.” This is one function of Sacred Tradition: to be used as a measuring tool to discern the truth of things that come later.

 

[Allweather]

Not sure what a Magistrium is or what role it play here.

I just noticed this sentence. rmcmullan, I seem to recall you going on a great length supporting your claim to be a former Catholic. So let me understand this correctly: You are a former Catholic, properly catechised, raised in the True Faith, with full knowledge, and YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE MAGISTERIUM IS??? OR WHAT ROLE IT PLAYS???

You got some ‘splainin’ to do, my friend.

 

[DianJo]

I think DianJo covered it very nicely.

One of the problems with the revelations reported by Joseph Smith, Jr, and other Mormons, is that many of them deviate badly from the faith. One good example is Mormon plural marriage. Mormon polygamy is so far gone wrong, that there is no way to reconcile it with Christian teaching and practice. This is one evidence we use to know that these types of revelations are false. You can’t have a revealed truth suddenly be contradicted by another “revealed truth.” This is one function of Sacred Tradition: to be used as a measuring tool to discern the truth of things that come later.

*I think that’s one of the big problems I have with Mormonism (of course, this is not the only issue I have with LDS). These so called “Apostles” that are the leaders of the church seem to be revising things constantly. They seem to contradict each other through the years - I can never get a straight answer about anything because a Mormon will always pull out a new teaching from these Apostles that’s totally opposite of the previous teaching. *
**
Thank God Sacred Tradition does not do that! Thank God we have a Sacred Tradition we can trust with the Truth! All new revelation ended with the Last Apostle - the Apostle John. There are no more Apostles, there can be no more Apostles. God revealed everything He needed to reveal in His Son Jesus Christ.

 

[Mapi]

Please forgive me for asking this but could an exmorman catholic PM me? I am a catholic who has been considering the mormon church since January and am trying to back away from it now. Am confused about some things.
Thanks.
Johannah

Don’t do it!!! I did it, and now I am sorry for it and paying for it!!

 

[Kristine1957]

Mapi Why are you sorry???

 

[Pjs2ejs]

What happened to Alma? Gun and run?

 

[Allweather]

What happened to Alma? Gun and run?

I’m wondering the same thing about rmcmullan. He has yet to illuminate us with reference to my question in #28.

Neither of these men are gun and run, though. They probably are just busy on other matters, and will come along soon.

 

[johannahw]

One thing that still bothers me are all the changing teachings from previous prophets of God. What I was told was that each succeeding prophet’s revelations outweigh those of the previous prophet. That’s why Jospeh Smith could claim having more than one wife was a revelation and have another prophet reveal from God that that teaching was no longer the case.
Johannah

 

[Allweather]

One thing that still bothers me are all the changing teachings from previous prophets of God. What I was told was that each succeeding prophet’s revelations outweigh those of the previous prophet. That’s why Jospeh Smith could claim having more than one wife was a revelation and have another prophet reveal from God that that teaching was no longer the case.
Johannah

Actually, polygamy is still valid, but it isn’t practiced by the main LDS body out of Salt Lake City. In the late 1800s the U.S. Federal Government was on verge of dismantling the LDS operation, mainly due to polygamy. Quite a lot of confiscation of LDS property, and jailing of polygamists, had already been accomplished under Federal laws. At that point, a revelation was got by the prophet which stated essentially that polygamy was not to be practiced anymore unless specifically authorized by the prophet. This initial statement didn’t quite do the trick, as many LDS men continued to practice polygamy, and so another, more strongly attested order was issued a few years later. Nowadays, any LDS people doing polygamy are excommunicated. But the revelation is still there, and could be reinstituted at any time by a sitting prophet.

And, as I’m sure you know, there are many fundamentalist Mormon sects who DO practice polygamy today, scattered around CA, AZ, UT, and Lord knows where else. Maybe Canada and Mexico. Polygamy continues to be a primary feature of Mormonism, even though it isn’t being practiced right at this moment by the largest of the Mormon bodies.

 

[DixiesFinest]

I heard Mitt Romney the other night talk about his faith and how he believes in God and that Jesus is his Savior. Do Mormons believe in the Trinity? I’m trying to figure out why Mormons are not considered Christians by many. By his remark, I would think that as long as he believes Jesus is his Savior Protestants would agree he was a Christian?

Mormonism denies the Trinity, thus Christianity.

fisheaters.com/trinity.html

catholic.com/library/Distinctive_Beliefs_of_Mormon.asp

catholic.com/library/Gods_of_the_Mormon_Church.asp

 

[Kristine1957]

One thing that still bothers me are all the changing teachings from previous prophets of God. What I was told was that each succeeding prophet’s revelations outweigh those of the previous prophet. That’s why Jospeh Smith could claim having more than one wife was a revelation and have another prophet reveal from God that that teaching was no longer the case.
Johannah

If you look at mormon history their Prophets change the doctrine when something becomes a problem.

Look at Legrand Richards statements in 1978 when african americans were finally able to recieve the priesthood. Richards said that President Kimball interviewed"" each of the twelve apostles to see how they felt about it and asked them to pray…this went on for weeks! I thought it was a REVELATION? Why would a church president have to ask all these men for thier opinion if it was a revelation from God?

 

[LittleDeb]

Actually, polygamy is still valid, but it isn’t practiced by the main LDS body out of Salt Lake City. In the late 1800s the U.S. Federal Government was on verge of dismantling the LDS operation, mainly due to polygamy. Quite a lot of confiscation of LDS property, and jailing of polygamists, had already been accomplished under Federal laws. At that point, a revelation was got by the prophet which stated essentially that polygamy was not to be practiced anymore unless specifically authorized by the prophet. This initial statement didn’t quite do the trick, as many LDS men continued to practice polygamy, and so another, more strongly attested order was issued a few years later. Nowadays, any LDS people doing polygamy are excommunicated. But the revelation is still there, and could be reinstituted at any time by a sitting prophet.

And, as I’m sure you know, there are many fundamentalist Mormon sects who DO practice polygamy today, scattered around CA, AZ, UT, and Lord knows where else. Maybe Canada and Mexico. Polygamy continues to be a primary feature of Mormonism, even though it isn’t being practiced right at this moment by the largest of the Mormon bodies.

And of course they still believe in heavenly polygamy and that is still practiced. A man can married in the temple after his wife dies, no matter how many wives he outlives. He will be “with” them in heaven populating his planet. A woman can only be married once in the temple if she outlives her husband. Even if they never had children, she’s still sealed to him. So even where they try to get around the Scripture, “not married in heaven” by saying that only applies because she had no children by any of the men, it breaks down here.

This is inconsistent with Christianity.

(I’m heading out of town so I can’t respond to anyone, but I just wanted to expand on Allweather’s very accurate assessment.)

 

[PaulDupre]

If you look at mormon history their Prophets change the doctrine when something becomes a problem.

Look at Legrand Richards statements in 1978 when african americans were finally able to recieve the priesthood. Richards said that President Kimball interviewed"" each of the twelve apostles to see how they felt about it and asked them to pray…this went on for weeks! I thought it was a REVELATION? Why would a church president have to ask all these men for thier opinion if it was a revelation from God?

President Kimball never claimed that he had a revelation telling him to allow men of African descent to hold the priesthood. He only said that it had been weighing on his mind for some time (read: there was pressure from the U.S. government, rebellion in the Mormon ranks, and trouble in foreign missions, especially Brazil). He decided to make a policy change, as was his right as president of the church. The Mormon people took it as a revelation because that’s how they think.
God bless,
Paul

 

[MelanieAnne]

Hi Paul ~ are you sure about that “no revelation” part? I don’t have cite, although perhaps I could dig one up, but I believe that the ordination of men of African descent is listed as one of the revelations to the Mormon Prophet.

 

[DianJo]

President Kimball never claimed that he had a revelation telling him to allow men of African descent to hold the priesthood. He only said that it had been weighing on his mind for some time (read: there was pressure from the U.S. government, rebellion in the Mormon ranks, and trouble in foreign missions, especially Brazil). He decided to make a policy change, as was his right as president of the church. The Mormon people took it as a revelation because that’s how they think.
God bless,
Paul

May I ask a question here, please?

Was the previous “ban” on allowing African Americans to be ordained originally a revelation to a prophet? When was that revelation (year) and by whom was it made?

Thanks for your indugence.

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi Paul ~ are you sure about that “no revelation” part? I don’t have cite, although perhaps I could dig one up, but I believe that the ordination of men of African descent is listed as one of the revelations to the Mormon Prophet.

You are correct that it is considered a revelation. I had forgotten how the official declaration reads. When the policy was first officially announced in June of 1978 (I remember it well. I was a missionary in Taiwan at the time and it was like a shockwave going through the Mormon world), there was no mention of a revelation. The announcement just said that the brethren had decided. When the policy was first announced, there was tremendous resistance to the idea from Mormons who had been raised with the teaching that blacks would not hold the priesthood until sometime during the millenial reign of Christ on the earth. This had been the prophets’ consistent teaching about blacks and the priesthood ever since the days of Brigham Young. So when the new policy was presented to the church in general conference several months later, it was presented as a revelation so no faithful Mormon could argue the point. Here is the “Official Declaration” as printed in the current “Doctrine and Covenants”, considered scripture by the Mormons.

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—2
To Whom It May Concern:
On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:
In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.
President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:
June 8, 1978
To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:
Dear Brethren:
As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.
Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.
We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.
Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency
Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.
Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

God bless,
Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

May I ask a question here, please?

Was the previous “ban” on allowing African Americans to be ordained originally a revelation to a prophet? When was that revelation (year) and by whom was it made?

Thanks for your indugence.

According to the church, Joseph Smith “discovered” this teaching when he “translated” the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham, both of which deal with blacks and the “curse” on them which made them ineligible to hold the Mormon priesthood.

The Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham can be found in the Pearl of Great Price, considered scripture by Mormons.

God bless,
Paul