As Todd Requested...LDS Teachings God was once a Man

[RebeccaJ]

Oh yes, I agree, hence why I said “many Mormons” in my original statement.

Yes, I agree there are many who are have been made ignorant and the teachings of Mormonism actually keep them that way.

It is why I have said, and still say, Joseph Smith has a lot to answer for.

 

[lax16]

As I see it, the real problem lies in the constant repetition that “Mormons are nice people” and “Mormons are Christians, too.”

If they say it often enough, then hopefully, we will all come to believe it without question.

Should there not be criteria for being a Christian just like there is criteria for being a Mormon? Can I reject Joseph Smith as a prophet and still be a Mormon?
Can Mormons reject the original teachings of the early Christians but call themselves Christian because they “follow” Jesus even though it is not the same definition of “follow” that has been practiced for 2,000 years?

As far as being nice people, I definitely don’t think they have the corner on that market. Living in Utah, it is evident that they are not exactly the most courteous drivers, they don’t usually make eye contact and smile at the check-out line at Wal-Mart, and their kids don’t always play with non-members. For Catholics who have grown up here in Utah, they actually have some pretty sad stories to tell of being excluded.

 

[JHow]

Living in Utah, it is evident that they are not exactly the most courteous drivers…

Not to get too far off topic, but obviously Mormons and Catholics are all sinners and you will very good ones and very bad ones in each group.

I was waiting to turn left into the church parking lot the other day and a fellow parishioner decided I was taking too much time (i was waiting for an oncoming car who was signaling a left turn, but you never know if they really mean it), so he crossed the double line, passed me on the left and pulled into the church parking lot in front of me. Peace be with you! (Hope you have insurance, you maniac!).

 

[lax16]

The real issue is the term “prophet”. Catholics and Mormons hold prophets to different standards. Catholics use the Biblical examples and stories to see that a prophet is the mouthpiece of God and proclaims His Word and intentions. Every prophet has done this and not one has gone astray and “speculated” about what he felt God “really meant” or proclaimed other things that were so glaringly opposite of what has been revealed to us.

Mormon prophets on the other hand, speak freely, and when their views are called upon, perhaps many years later, if it doesn’t mesh with what is Biblical or revealed, they were simply speculating or only speaking as a man at that time. The idea of a “sometimes prophet” is absurd. I have asked repeatedly for evidence that any prophet of the OT was a “sometimes prophet”. The most I have received from dianad and others is the examples of Jonah running away, Moses manslaughter of an Egyptian or others. Whether Jonah was trying to avoid his calling as prophet or Moses’ actions BEFORE seeing the burning bush are shown to not pose any problem and still prove that once they were proclaimed or called to be a prophet they acted like one, it makes no difference to LDS posters here.

aquabatix - I totally agree.
Also, the LDS have stated on other threads that we don’t know if the OT prophets were acting as prophets 24/7 because we don’t have access to their daily activities.

The thing is, Joseph Smith’s words were recorded - as were Moses, etc.
Why bother recording the words of a prophet only to say that we don’t know he was acting as a prophet? Why did JS gather a crowd of followers to listen to him speak if it wasn’t important?

Unfortunately for the Mormon Church, JS history is recent and therefore much is known about his daily activities. And if his actions don’t add up to those of a prophet and his words are being discounted as “not prophetic” then…he was not a prophet.

 

[lax16]

Not to get too far off topic, but obviously Mormons and Catholics are all sinners and you will very good ones and very bad ones in each group.

I was waiting to turn left into the church parking lot the other day and a fellow parishioner decided I was taking too much time (i was waiting for an oncoming car who was signaling a left turn, but you never know if they really mean it), so he crossed the double line, passed me on the left and pulled into the church parking lot in front of me. Peace be with you! (Hope you have insurance, you maniac!).

You are absolutely right. The thing is, there have been many posts by Mormons claiming that they are the nice, clean-cut, kid-loving, clean-living people and the Catholics (and others) are not, therefore, they are the right church.

My point is, as a somewhat new resident of Utah and as a person who has been to many states in the U.S., they are no nicer (or less nice) than the rest of us. (And the driving here in Utah is enough to drive me crazy!)

 

[lax16]

I don’t know if Mormons are trying to convert people here, but they do want people to view them as fellow Christians. That will be a tough one for Christians as long as Mormons continue to reject the Trinity and creation Ex-Nihilo. Mormons can’t be accepted as Christian in the traditional sense just because they are nice folks.

Also, one thing we don’t have in common, is the belief that JS is a prophet.
If I don’t believe JS was a prophet then I cannot be called a Mormon.
If Mormons don’t believe in the basic criteria for Christianity, they then cannot be called Christian.

“I know that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God, that this is the Gospel of salvation, and if you do not believe it you will be damned, every one of you” (Journal of Discourses 4:298, March 29, 1857).

 

[Todd520]

For definition challenged readers. Here is Christian

A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who Christians believe is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, and the son of God.Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity (“tri-unity”), a description of God as Father, as Son, and as Holy Spirit. This includes Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and the vast majority of Protestantism. A minority are Nontrinitarians.

The term “Christian” is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like

The word catholic . . . was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. It’s very appropriate for Catholics to control the definition of what is a Catholic.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly acknowledges non catholic forms of christianity

the Christianity of which we speak is that which we find realized in the Catholic Church alone; hence, we are not concerned here with those forms which are embodied in the various non-Catholic Christian sects, whether schismatical or heretical.

Catholics should be proud of thier Catholic brand and stop trying to make Christian something it is not.
CATHOLIC DOES NOT EQUAL CHRISTIAN

 

[lax16]

For definition challenged readers. Here is Christian
Quote:
A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who Christians believe is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, and the son of God.Most Christians believe in **the doctrine of the Trinity **(“tri-unity”), a description of God as Father, as Son, and as Holy Spirit. This includes Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and the vast majority of Protestantism. A minority are Nontrinitarians.

The term “Christian” is also used adjectivally to describe anything associated with Christianity, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like

The word catholic . . . was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. It’s very appropriate for Catholics to control the definition of what is a Catholic.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly acknowledges non catholic forms of christianity

Catholics should be proud of thier Catholic brand and stop trying to make Christian something it is not.
**CATHOLIC DOES NOT EQUAL **CHRISTIAN

Hi Todd - Thank you for your definition which states most Christians believe in the Trinity. Of course, Mormons do not.
Are you saying that I am trying to make Christian something it is not? I thought that is what the Mormons are doing by saying: that God was once man, we were conceived by heavenly father and mother, re-defining the Trinity, all churches (including the one founded by Jesus Christ as the Catholic Church) are an abomination in the sight of God, Jesus Christ Himself states that all churches are the great and abominable church (D&C1:30-31,38:10-11, 29:21,88:94), no Christian churches have ever done any good (Apostle John Taylor), Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” whom the Lord denounces…(Apostle Orson Pratt), Book of Mormon references to the abominable church 91 Nephi 13:5-6/1 Nephi 13:8/1 Nephi 13:26/1 Nephi 13:28/1Nephi 13:34/1 Nephi 14:3/1 Nephi 14:9/1 Nephi 14:12-17/1 Nephi 22:13/1 Nephi 22:14/2 Nephi 10:16/2 Nephi 28:18…

Now, if the Christian churches are all so horrible and evil in the sight of God why in the world would you want to be called a Christian?
Seems to me the Mormons need to find a new word to describe their relationship with Jesus Christ because the one that has been around for two thousand years is absolutely terrible!
I see…let’s rip on the Catholics and Protestants for 150+ years… then wonder why they can’t understand our interest in joining them in the Christian family…hmmmm…

 

[ParkerD]

Lax16,
Answer is “no”. Background for the answer is:

1. Intelligences (yours, mine, everyone’s) always existed. (“Intelligence” can be thought of as a form of “higher energy” or “degree of light”.
2. Your body didn’t always exist. (Not saying you don’t already know that.) It had a beginning through “marital relations” of your parents. Your spirit was placed into your body through a means Heavenly Father knows about, but we don’t. Your spirit existed before your body existed.
3. Your intelligence was placed into your spirit through a means Heavenly Father knows about, but we don’t. It was definitely not by the same “marital relations” process whereby your physical body was formed. When Elder Widstoe said “deeper meaning than we can fathom” I would think that those who read those words are aware that they mean that to speculate about the process is to wander into a subject matter that we wouldn’t be able to “fathom” and therefore wouldn’t understand even if it was explained to us by a divine messenger (but hasn’t been explained).

Lax16,
I bumped this again in case you missed my response. Peace to each and all of you.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Lax16,
Answer is “no”. Background for the answer is:

1. Intelligences (yours, mine, everyone’s) always existed. (“Intelligence” can be thought of as a form of “higher energy” or “degree of light”.
2. Your body didn’t always exist. (Not saying you don’t already know that.) It had a beginning through “marital relations” of your parents. Your spirit was placed into your body through a means Heavenly Father knows about, but we don’t. Your spirit existed before your body existed.
3. Your intelligence was placed into your spirit through a means Heavenly Father knows about, but we don’t. It was definitely not by the same “marital relations” process whereby your physical body was formed. When Elder Widstoe said “deeper meaning than we can fathom” I would think that those who read those words are aware that they mean that to speculate about the process is to wander into a subject matter that we wouldn’t be able to “fathom” and therefore wouldn’t understand even if it was explained to us by a divine messenger (but hasn’t been explained).

Your explanation here thoroughly negates the idea that we are the literal offspring of heavenly parents. We existed before “mom” and “dad” made spirit bodies for us so they have nothing to do with creating us in any sense. They just manufactured a spirit shell for us to live in and then arranged for us to be inserted in a physical body. They did nothing more than fashion a matroyka. “Marital relations” is the cause of offspring, if there are no marital relations in the creation of “spirit children” then what is the point of a mom and a dad, either one could manufacture these spirit bodies on their own.

 

[ParkerD]

Your explanation here thoroughly negates the idea that we are the literal offspring of heavenly parents. We existed before “mom” and “dad” made spirit bodies for us so they have nothing to do with creating us in any sense. They just manufactured a spirit shell for us to live in and then arranged for us to be inserted in a physical body. They did nothing more than fashion a matroyka. “Marital relations” is the cause of offspring, if there are no marital relations in the creation of “spirit children” then what is the point of a mom and a dad, either one could manufacture these spirit bodies on their own.

Zaffiroborant,
I suppose that that same logic of “what is the point of a mom and a dad” is used in some fashion to defend the idea commonly brought forward in today’s society that a “mom” and a “dad” aren’t necessary to raise well-balanced children–but I disagree wholeheartedly with that logic also. There is so much more to the idea of raising “offspring” than just “manufacturing” them (as most would agree), that the logic falls flat when looked at with any degree of thought.

“Marital relations” only begins a process of allowing parents to “raise” “offspring” in our world. Some parents adopt and become parents indeed and raise “offspring.” The role of a mother in nurturing her child is just as significant–more so, I personally think–than the role she had in bringing her child into the world. The same goes for the father of a child.

However, there is a significant issue that can become important to someone familiar with the line of reasoning that questions the “first cause” God and the “problem of evil”, particularly with respect to the existence of a rebellious “fallen angel” when the “first cause” belief says that that same “fallen angel” was perfectly foreknown (through omniscience) and that perfect omnipotence brought all subsequent causes and effects into our world and universe, including that omnisciently known “fallen angel” who brought the “problem of evil” into the world.

The issue is that knowing that the rebellion of those fallen angels was allowed in the midst of the fact that those spirits had a prior intelligence which was not “created” by God but was brought into the higher state of being a spirit, and in that higher state they rebelled using their free choice, deals a surer blow to the argument about the “problem of evil” as to the existence of God and the existence of His perfect love, perfect omniscience, and perfect omnipotence.

Those who rebel, ultimately do so having chosen and therefore caused their own rebellion. It was allowed by God, but not part of chain reaction from a “first cause” that brought all effects into being, directly or indirectly, from that first cause.

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
I bumped this again in case you missed my response. Peace to each and all of you.

Hi Parker - Thank you for reposting your response. I did not respond because you didn’t ask me any questions - however, I decided to read up on the concept of preexistence in order to respond to you. Thank you once again, because it is a topic I know nothing about. Funny enough, after reading about it for quite a while this morning, I still know very little about it!

It appears to me that it was St. Iranaeus who solidified the teachings of the day, separating from the gnostics. It seems that Mormons are closer to the gnostic teachings on this subject?

The CCC 296 states "We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely “out of nothing…”
Scriptural references:
2 Maccabees 7:22-23 - “I do not know how you came into existence in my womb; it was not I who have you the breath of life, nor was it I who set in order the elements of which each of you is composed.”
2 Maccabees 7:28 - “I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things; and in the same way the human race came into existence.”

Obviously, Catholic doctrine teaches that our Heavenly Father does need a relationship in heaven with Heavenly Mother in order to create our souls.
Where do Mormons get their teachings on this subject? Is it based on teachings in the Book of Mormon?

 

[Returning_Home]

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly acknowledges non catholic forms of christianity

Catholics should be proud of thier Catholic brand and stop trying to make Christian something it is not.
**CATHOLIC DOES NOT EQUAL **CHRISTIAN

While I can’t speak for everyone here, I agree that Protestants and many of their branches are indeed Christians. The majority of the differences between us and them are the differences of men and the interpretation of scripture. I have long maintained that stance, which has put me in oppositon of some Catholics.

That said, since Catholics pray to the God of the Bible, it’s humorous that you’re going to try to take that position since we know you can’t defend it.

Mormons aren’t Christians because Smith taught another gospel, which we’ve been warned about throughout the Bible, and that gospel is exaltation, not salvation. The Jesus of the Bible came to give us the opportunity to wash away our sinful nature. The Mormon jesus, however, wants the basically good-natured mankind to become gods like God. That’s not found anywhere in the Bible or even the BOM.

 

[Returning_Home]

Now, if the Christian churches are all so horrible and evil in the sight of God why in the world would you want to be called a Christian?
Seems to me the Mormons need to find a new word to describe their relationship with Jesus Christ because the one that has been around for two thousand years is absolutely terrible!

I agree, Lax. How about Smithians? Or better yet, Smythians?

 

[mark_a]

I have not read the entire thread, so please excuse if necessary.

are you aware that the Mormon Church teaches that god took on flesh and had sexual intercourse with Jesus mother? to beget Jesus?

Mormons, is the above a genuine LDS belief?

 

[mark_a]

Seems to me the Mormons need to find a new word to describe their relationship with Jesus Christ because the one that has been around for two thousand years is absolutely terrible!

Isn’t that what the name change to “The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints is all about”?

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker - Thank you for reposting your response. I did not respond because you didn’t ask me any questions - however, I decided to read up on the concept of preexistence in order to respond to you. Thank you once again, because it is a topic I know nothing about. Funny enough, after reading about it for quite a while this morning, I still know very little about it!

It appears to me that it was St. Iranaeus who solidified the teachings of the day, separating from the gnostics. It seems that Mormons are closer to the gnostic teachings on this subject?

The CCC 296 states "We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely “out of nothing…”
Scriptural references:
2 Maccabees 7:22-23 - “I do not know how you came into existence in my womb; it was not I who have you the breath of life, nor was it I who set in order the elements of which each of you is composed.”
2 Maccabees 7:28 - “I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things; and in the same way the human race came into existence.”

Obviously, Catholic doctrine teaches that our Heavenly Father does need a relationship in heaven with Heavenly Mother in order to create our souls.

Where do Mormons get their teachings on this subject? Is it based on teachings in the Book of Mormon?

Lax16,
Good day to you. I assume you may have not edited and intended the statement you made in your sentence before the questions.

Here is a link that provides some of the scriptural background for the answers to your questions:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=c66197a7c1d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=88021b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

There are a few teachings in the Book of Mormon about pre-mortal life, but mostly in the Bible and in the Pearl of Great Price. Mormons believe that the “sons of God” who shouted for joy as described in Job 38:7 were faithful spirits who included more than the FirstBorn, Jehovah.

 

[ParkerD]

I have not read the entire thread, so please excuse if necessary.

Mormons, is the above a genuine LDS belief?

Mark A,
No, it is not–but that is an accusation that comes up again and again, and is refuted again and again.

I was pleasantly surprised one day when someone responded on an older thread that showed that some Catholics believe that Jesus is actually the Son of Heavenly Father, and grew inside of Mary’s womb through a miraculous (as I would agree) way that God knew about but that we don’t know of its details.

That Mary was a virgin when she both conceived and when she gave birth to Jesus Christ, is attested plainly in the Book of Mormon, in no uncertain terms.

 

[mark_a]

Mark A,
No, it is not–but that is an accusation that comes up again and again, and is refuted again and again.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I was pleasantly surprised one day when someone responded on an older thread that showed that some Catholics believe that Jesus is actually the Son of Heavenly Father, and grew inside of Mary’s womb through a miraculous (as I would agree) way that God knew about but that we don’t know of its details.

Don’t know much about Apostolic Christianity and Catholicism, do ya?

That Mary was a virgin when she both conceived and when she gave birth to Jesus Christ, is attested plainly in the Book of Mormon, in no uncertain terms.

How 'bout after? Just curious.

 

[Stephen168]

No, I’m not wrong, and have never backed down from discussing what I know about my faith

You are wrong is thinking you are quoting a 20 year old English phrase when in fact you are quoting a 1600 year old Greek phrase. By not explaining the 50-150 year old English phrases made my Mormon leaders you have backed down from the discussion.

**If you have a sincere question, please post it and I will respond **as I do with all reasonable threads.

I have asked other Mormons sincere question I usually receive a similar response that you give; which is say the Catholic Church does or believes the same thing and the example giving is not what the Catholic Church does or believes. So I am left not knowing what the Mormon Church teaches or practices while the discussion turns to explaining Catholic belief and practices.

If you have been here for the past several weeks, you will have noticed there have also been unreasonable threads where the same LDS quotes are repeatedly brought up out of context and refruted. I call them disengenuous because the same 1-2 CAF posters are repeating the same quotes and ignoring the explanations provided - they are broken records with no interest in the true meaning

I believe the posters are looking for true meaning. The Catholic Church belief system is based on faith and reason. The Mormon Church is based on faith. When a Catholic asks the Mormon to reason, the Mormon comes up short. Start at the beginning of this thread:
A Catholic says that Mormons believe God was once a sinful man; it is based on reason.
A. Mormons believe God was once a man
B. Man is sinful
Therefore God was once a sinful man.

Your response seems to be:
A. Mormons believe God was once a man
B. Mormons believe God was never sinful
Therefore _________________(run away and quote the catechism)

My question would be: How does the Mormon Church fill in the blank?