G
gazelam
Guest
Which LDS doctrines have changed since you left the LDS church?
- Status
G
gracepoole
Guest
It’s inaccurate to say they “don’t even recognize Jesus Christ.”
Tis_Bearself
Patron
They don’t think He’s the Son of God in the sense we do, in him being God, one of the persons of the Trinity. They do not have Trinitarian baptism. They are quite far away from the Christianity of Protestants.
I’m not saying that means we can never say anything good about them, but face it, they’re pretty alien to Catholics.
I’m not saying that means we can never say anything good about them, but face it, they’re pretty alien to Catholics.
Last edited:
M
midori
Guest
Mormon mom blogs are awesome. They’re happy to embrace the homemaker aspects of life without feeling apologetic in the face of modern feminism, and it’s cool to see how together a lot of families are.
I also envy them their canning/food preservation/financial preparedness stuff. It makes sense for them historically, since they’ve frequently undergone persecution and things. But they’ve got their finances and their homes in order, and something like a job loss is a problem, but it’s not a disaster, because of their emphasis on emergency preparation. A lot of my tenants could learn a lot from them!
I also envy them their canning/food preservation/financial preparedness stuff. It makes sense for them historically, since they’ve frequently undergone persecution and things. But they’ve got their finances and their homes in order, and something like a job loss is a problem, but it’s not a disaster, because of their emphasis on emergency preparation. A lot of my tenants could learn a lot from them!
Last edited:
G
gazelam
Guest
I ran across a blog discussing the difference in how Zwingli and Luther saw the “Real Presence”. (See Scriptural Mormonism: Luther vs. Zwingli on the Eucharist for the full article.)
One of the paragraph explains that Luther believed that the purpose of the Eucharist was not for remembrance of Christ since that would mean that a work is required for Salvation.
“… Luther bristled. He asserted that Zwingli’s approach was a return to “works-righteousness,” since the recipient does the remembering, and thus whatever grace may come in the Lord’s Supper comes because of that human remembering. This undermines justification sola fide—and so, of course, must be rejected…” (James R. Payton Jr., Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings [Downers Grover, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2010], 111-12)
IMHO accepting and remembering are similar acts as far as the amount of effort involved. If Luther believes that mere remembering something counts as a work, then it seems to me that accepting is also a work.
A
AttackfromtheJWs
Guest
My Mormon cousins drink coffee all the time
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
Sometimes there are interesting aspects of other religions.
M
Mi_Rose
Guest
To go into the LDS temple for her daughter’s marriage my friend gave up caffeine for a year and went right back to it after the wedding.
L
Lemuel
Guest
Caffeine does not prohibit one from getting a temple recommend. It’s a weird thing, though. You can’t go to the temple if you drink coffee, yet, if you drink decaffeinated coffee, you can get a temple recommend. But it’s not about the caffeine, right? Coke or Mountain Dew won’t keep you out of the temple, and neither will herbal teas. But black tea or green tea will keep you out of the temple. But it’s not about the caffeine, right?
I dunno . . . you try to make sense of it. I can’t.
Follow the prophet.
Follow the prophet.
Follow the prophet.
He knows the way.
I dunno . . . you try to make sense of it. I can’t.
Follow the prophet.
Follow the prophet.
Follow the prophet.
He knows the way.
L
Lemuel
Guest
Molly Mormons are mostly a mirage. A great number of Mormon women are heavy into anti-depressants. And for a good reason. They can’t measure up to all these pretend Molly Mormons. It’s hard on them.
M
Mi_Rose
Guest
I stand corrected. I just know she gave up caffeine. I don’t think it makes sense either.
M
midori
Guest
Yes, it is very difficult, and there is tremendous pressure. And I have no doubt people’s internet presence is very carefully cultivated and choreographed. But just like you might sigh and wish you were like the airbrushed model on a magazine, sometimes you sigh and wish you were like the projected image, whether it’s based in reality or not. 
T
Theo520
Guest
Maybe they don’t have that need as often, they just pop into the garage and pull it down off the food store shelves.I was more referring to that day when you can’t pull it all together, but need to dash out to the market for a few things
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
@gracepoole:
I do not think 1ke was saying we don’t need guidance. He was saying we have guidance and pointing out examples.1ke:
WTH?gracepoole:
Yeah, too bad there is no Letter To Young People from Pope Francis or something like a World Youth Day and encouragement to take the World Youth Day Challenge. Too bad Pope Benedict never gave an Address To Young People or John Paul II. Too bad no one like Cardinal Dolan ever wrote something like A 10 Step Guide To Holiness. Too bad no bishops or priests ever wrote any books or gave any homilies.
Oh wait…
For the first time in years, I’m sorry I started a thread. I can’t believe the number of cranky Catholics who feel the need to post just to say how much better Catholicism is, explain why no Catholic should need or want guidance in daily life like the example in the OP, or just…share crankiness. “I could never envy Mormons – we have the True Presence!” Of course we do. Thanks for sharing. “It’s sort of pathetic and unrealistic that you want priests to speak directly on issues of daily life, like social media.” Huh? “We already have the saints and the catechism and… What the heck could possibly be lacking?” Great. I’m thrilled for you that nothing is lacking in your faith life. I feel pretty confident that many Catholics feel differently.
Eek. Sorry. I haven’t fully “ranted” in quite a bit. Must be the heat.
A
AlbertDerGrosse
Guest
With due respect, @gracepoole, perhaps we’re speaking past each other…
… but perhaps you’re also not taking the time to humbly listen to what we are saying. Even as an ex-Mormon I think there are lots of things we Catholics can culturally appropriate from the Mormons for our own good: the Mormon idea of “every member a missionary”. If every Catholic had this idea about herself we would’ve won the culture war 3 decades ago! The Mormon practice of “Family Home Evening” on every Monday night. Catholics ought to incorporate a single night per week on which they shut off the social media and just hang out with their immediate family.
That doesn’t mean Mormons have all the answers, nor does it mean that a sensible Catholic might not disagree with you when you laud the Mormons for a particular practice. I’m an ex-Mormon Catholic who simply doesn’t agree with you that it’s a good idea for bishops, colleges of bishops, or the Curia to come up with one size fits all devotionals that all of us are bound to under pain of mortal sin. I don’t mean to crap on your ideas, but i nevertheless think your lamentations are seriously misplaced.
… but perhaps you’re also not taking the time to humbly listen to what we are saying. Even as an ex-Mormon I think there are lots of things we Catholics can culturally appropriate from the Mormons for our own good: the Mormon idea of “every member a missionary”. If every Catholic had this idea about herself we would’ve won the culture war 3 decades ago! The Mormon practice of “Family Home Evening” on every Monday night. Catholics ought to incorporate a single night per week on which they shut off the social media and just hang out with their immediate family.
That doesn’t mean Mormons have all the answers, nor does it mean that a sensible Catholic might not disagree with you when you laud the Mormons for a particular practice. I’m an ex-Mormon Catholic who simply doesn’t agree with you that it’s a good idea for bishops, colleges of bishops, or the Curia to come up with one size fits all devotionals that all of us are bound to under pain of mortal sin. I don’t mean to crap on your ideas, but i nevertheless think your lamentations are seriously misplaced.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, remember that we have had some bad run-ins with “winning the culture.”
When you say you don’t think “it’s a good idea for bishops, colleges of bishops, or the Curia to come up with one size fits all devotionals that all of us are bound to under pain of mortal sin,” what do you mean?
M
Mamaof10
Guest
Don’t envy what looks like solid guidance/teaching, it’s all brainwashing or controlling or threatening you to hell if you don’t, orders. Suffered for many years in that “church”.
G
gazelam
Guest
Interest in the original topic seems to be waning so I’ll address these off topic questions now. We probably agree it was Jesus who did the work, but probably disagree on the nature of Jesus.
LDS believe that Jesus is the only physically begotten Son of God the Father. We don’t believe there was a point where God created time and therefore believe that Jesus was begotten of The Father a certain point in time. We don’t believe in some sort of ongoing begetting of Christ. (Psalms 2:7 NIV I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, "You are my son; today I have become your father.)
This “eternally begotten” business seems to be part of the doctrine of the Trinity. We Latter-day Saints reject that doctrine as false.
(NIV) Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Jesus here is clearly referring to God the Father as the “only true God”, not Jesus Himself. LDS believe that The Father rules over the Son and that Both have to be known by us in order to gain Eternal Life.
This reference is incomplete. I don’t see anything in 2 Cor 4 about false gods.
No. There are multiple divine beings in the Universe. Christ is the divine being sent by the The father to guide Israel. Scripture and scholars confirm that your interpretation is incorrect.
Please note the following (that can be found at Question: How is Mormon belief compatible with Isaiah's statement that beside the Lord "there is no God?" - FAIR)
Passages such as Isa 44:6,8 and 45:5,21 that read “no God beside me” or a variation of that phrase are traditionally interpreted by mainstream anti-Mormons as meaning that other than Yahweh no form of deity exists at all, including exalted men. This type of interpretation at first seems obvious, but after considering similar passages in other parts of scripture it is clear that this interpretation is incorrect. For example, Isaiah 47:8-10 depicts the city of Babylon as saying:
Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:
For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.
Continued…
G
gazelam
Guest
These passages use the exact same phrase as Isa 44 and 45, yet they certainly do not exclude the existence of any city other than Babylon. The city of Ninevah would be very upset if this were the case, as Zephaniah depicts Ninevah in Zephaniah 2:15 as saying:
This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.
Again it is clear that this phrase does not exclude the very existence of other cities.
Using these parallel phrases makes it clear that Isaiah is not excluding the very existence of any other deity when he quotes Yahweh as declaring “there is no God beside me.” There are, in fact, several scriptures in the Old Testament that imply that Yahweh is in fact one of a number of Gods, albeit supreme. Compare the following passages from the KJV, NIV and ESV versions of the Bible:
• The heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings [fn. Lit "sons of god(s)]? In the council of holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. O LORD God almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you (NIV Psalms 89:5-8).
• Among all the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works (Psalms 86:8).
• _God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgmen_t (ESV Psalms 82:1)
• God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (KJV Psalms 82:1)
These scriptures speak of divine beings, “gods” who are the “sons of god(s)” who are heavenly beings who dwell in the skies. These cannot be idols or false gods. Yahweh dwells among them, reigns over them, and holds judgment in their midst.
Another favorite scripture of the critics of the LDS doctrine of exaltation is Isaiah 43:10. They seem to believe it contradicts this doctrine when it says:
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Whether this passage is referring to false idols who represent deities that do not exist, or whether it refers to real divine beings who exist alongside and subordinate to Yahweh is not crucial for responding to this particular criticism. The passage specifically says “before” and “after” Yahweh. Since Yahweh has always existed, and since He will always exist no man can ever be exalted “before” or “after” Yahweh. All men who are exalted to godhood will be contemporaries of Yahweh, and will never precede nor follow Yahweh’s existence. They will also become part of the divine council over which he presides.
Continued again…
This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.
Again it is clear that this phrase does not exclude the very existence of other cities.
Using these parallel phrases makes it clear that Isaiah is not excluding the very existence of any other deity when he quotes Yahweh as declaring “there is no God beside me.” There are, in fact, several scriptures in the Old Testament that imply that Yahweh is in fact one of a number of Gods, albeit supreme. Compare the following passages from the KJV, NIV and ESV versions of the Bible:
• The heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings [fn. Lit "sons of god(s)]? In the council of holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. O LORD God almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you (NIV Psalms 89:5-8).
• Among all the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works (Psalms 86:8).
• _God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgmen_t (ESV Psalms 82:1)
• God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (KJV Psalms 82:1)
These scriptures speak of divine beings, “gods” who are the “sons of god(s)” who are heavenly beings who dwell in the skies. These cannot be idols or false gods. Yahweh dwells among them, reigns over them, and holds judgment in their midst.
Another favorite scripture of the critics of the LDS doctrine of exaltation is Isaiah 43:10. They seem to believe it contradicts this doctrine when it says:
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Whether this passage is referring to false idols who represent deities that do not exist, or whether it refers to real divine beings who exist alongside and subordinate to Yahweh is not crucial for responding to this particular criticism. The passage specifically says “before” and “after” Yahweh. Since Yahweh has always existed, and since He will always exist no man can ever be exalted “before” or “after” Yahweh. All men who are exalted to godhood will be contemporaries of Yahweh, and will never precede nor follow Yahweh’s existence. They will also become part of the divine council over which he presides.
Continued again…
G
gazelam
Guest
Last of the three comments…
The Jewish study Bible states the following…
Many modern readers regard the Shema as an assertion of monotheism, a view that is anachronistic. In the context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole Lord of Israel . . . the v. makes not a quantitative argument (about the number of deities) but a qualitative one, about the nature of the relationship between God and Israel. Almost certainly, the original force of the v., as the medieval Jewish exegetes [noted], was to demand that Israel show exclusive loyalty to our God, YHWH–but not thereby to deny the existence of other gods. In this way, it assumes the same perspective as the first commandment of the Decalogue, which, by prohibiting the worship of other gods, presupposes their existence. (The Jewish Study Bible [2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 361)
The Jewish study Bible states the following…
Many modern readers regard the Shema as an assertion of monotheism, a view that is anachronistic. In the context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole Lord of Israel . . . the v. makes not a quantitative argument (about the number of deities) but a qualitative one, about the nature of the relationship between God and Israel. Almost certainly, the original force of the v., as the medieval Jewish exegetes [noted], was to demand that Israel show exclusive loyalty to our God, YHWH–but not thereby to deny the existence of other gods. In this way, it assumes the same perspective as the first commandment of the Decalogue, which, by prohibiting the worship of other gods, presupposes their existence. (The Jewish Study Bible [2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 361)
- Status