I love your religion but this doesn't make any sense

  • Thread starter Thread starter falisrm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you actually care about this topic, i’ll ask you a question. Do all catholics need to have the power of your priests and their priesthood to be saved? You already know the answer to that one.
 
falisrm said:
Regardless of how controvosal that law was, it didn’t pertain to anyone’s actual salvation or any doctrine. All blacks could have been baptized and so forth. It didn’t pertain to their salvation if they could hold the priesthood or not. It’s not a change in any doctrine. Just a law and a principle.
Click to expand...
First, isn’t what is in your D&C doctrine? This is what every Mormon I every talk to says, that your doctrines are found in your scriptures. If this is the case, then the Official Declaration #2 (OD2) is doctrine. Though, I do agree, by the newly defined standards of “doctrine” today, the actual ban never was doctrinal.

Specifically, the priesthood DOES matter to the “plan of salvation”, as that plan includes temple ordinances, which, a person of African descent could not participate in.

If you are talking about the Salvation made possible by our Lord’s Sacrifice, then yes, I agree, this doctrine (OD2), or the previous doctrine/belief/practice…whatever it was, did not pertain.
 
falisrm said:
If you actually care about this topic, i’ll ask you a question. Do all catholics need to have the power of your priests and their priesthood to be saved? You already know the answer to that one.
Click to expand...
Jesus is our High Priest, so the answer to that is of course yes.

If you mean the Sacraments performed by someone in the clergy, yes, baptism is required.
 
So i’ve been reading the NT again and literally every single page explains the nature of god and the godhead. Its definitely not the catholic concept either. Unless of course, Christ was crazy and refering to himself a million times and praying to himself.
 
falisrm said:
If you actually care about this topic, i’ll ask you a question. Do all catholics need to have the power of your priests and their priesthood to be saved? You already know the answer to that one.
Click to expand...
Ah, wait, I think I read your question wrong. You are asking if we need to have the power of the priesthood, individually.

falisrm, all Catholics, by virtue of our baptism, have the priesthood. We call this the priesthood of believers, or sometimes you will see it called the universal priesthood.

No baptized person is excluded, ever, for any reason from this priesthood.
 
First, what i’m saying is you don’t need everyone in the church to hold the priesthood. The priesthood brings salvation in the form of baptism and the sacrament and so forth but to actually hold the priesthood, you don’t need to. Otherwise every catholic in the catholic church would be priests. That is the point i’m making that you failed to address.

Rebecca, what are you talking about?
your misunderstanding of the definition of the word doctrine. My argument stands, this is a change in law and principle, not doctrine.
scriptures.lds.org/en/od/2
 
falisrm said:
So i’ve been reading the NT again and literally every single page explains the nature of god and the godhead. Its definitely not the catholic concept either. Unless of course, Christ was crazy and refering to himself a million times and praying to himself.
Click to expand...
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Three distinct individuals. One God. The Son prayed to the Father.
 
falisrm said:
First, what i’m saying is you don’t need everyone in the church to hold the priesthood. The priesthood brings salvation in the form of baptism and the sacrament and so forth but to actually hold the priesthood, you don’t need to. Otherwise every catholic in the catholic church would be priests. That is the point i’m making that you failed to address.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got that a little late see above.
Rebecca, what are you talking about?
your misunderstanding of the definition of the word doctrine. My argument stands, this is a change in law and principle, not doctrine.
scriptures.lds.org/en/od/2
Click to expand...
Is it not doctrine?
 
Rebecca, your comment does not address the topic at hand. If all believers hold the priesthood, why do they not afficiate with baptisms or other ordinances priests do? It seems your statements are addressing the same things we believe that every member are beneficiaries of the priesthood and are partakers of in in their lives, whether they actually hold it or not. Again, this doesn’t address your claim that the LDS church changes actual doctrine.
 
The differences in principles and doctrines are huge but they are both truths. Principles or laws to the principles change. Doctrines never do. So you can choose to live higher principles like honesty or charity and you can create programs and patterns that effect principles, like the need to learn about god and his gospel.

Doctrines are “Truths that pertain to the plan of salvation”.
So the nature of god or the ordinances of god like baptism. Or even the doctrines of our purpose here on earth. Those doctrines are as real as ever and i’ve never seen a single doctrine ever change in the bible or in real life, (well except for all the different doctrines taught in the thousands of churches).

Don’t get me wrong, i love your guy’es church but there’s a lot of doctrines that don’t make any sense.
 
falisrm said:
Rebecca, your comment does not address the topic at hand. If all believers hold the priesthood, why do they not afficiate with baptisms or other ordinances priests do? It seems your statements are addressing the same things we believe that every member are beneficiaries of the priesthood and are partakers of in in their lives, whether they actually hold it or not. Again, this doesn’t address your claim that the LDS church changes actual doctrine.
Click to expand...
I agree, it is off topic. No, it is not the same belief you hold.

Can a deacon in the Mormon church officiate over the sacrament?

Rather than continuing to take this off topic, there are threads on this topic already, you can search for them if you are interested in understanding better. Also, wikipedia has a fairly decent document.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers
 
The Trinity is difficult to understand by those of us still held to the limits of human intellect and reason. In heaven, we will be able to see God and comprehend him without this limitation.

The Father has no body and needs no Body. The Holy Spirit has no body and needs no Body. Prior to the fall of man, the Son had no body and needed no body. He chose to take on human form that he may take upon himself the sins of the world. Now, once he did that, the two natures (humand and devine) would be forever joined.

I am missing how the ressurection at the end of time conflicts with the Trinity.
 
Yes, i’m confused since Jesus is also God the father so he too would have to have the body of jesus, but your beliefs are that he is everywhere and nowhere and has no shape or form.
 
falisrm said:
Yes, i’m confused since Jesus is also God the father so he too would have to have the body of jesus, but your beliefs are that he is everywhere and nowhere and has no shape or form.
Click to expand...
Now I see a little better.

The Father is God. Jesus is God. THe Holy Spirit is God. Yet, we do not have three gods but one God. Now, the Father is not the son. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. Three distinct persons, one God.

The Father, since he is God, is beyond the rules of nature, so He can be everywhere at once. Since He is not Jesus, he does not have the Human Body.
 
I see your belief but it doesn’t make sense. So Jesus and the father are the same or one person but Jesus has a body and the Father has no body, how is that possible if they are the same person. So the father is in Jesus’s body but we can still say he is everywhere because his presence is everywhere.
 
falisrm said:
I see your belief but it doesn’t make sense. So Jesus and the father are the same or one person but Jesus has a body and the Father has no body, how is that possible if they are the same person. So the father is in Jesus’s body but we can still say he is everywhere because his presence is everywhere.
Click to expand...
3 is a number. 5 is a number. 10 is a number. 3 is not 5. 5 is not 10. 10 is not 3.

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. They are both God, but they are not the same person. One is the Father while the other is the Son.

This is a heavy theological concept and it is one that we must accept on faith.
 
falisrm said:
Your starting to sound like a mormon. Careful there.
Click to expand...
If it is in response to my “accept on faith” statement, I would say “Guilty.” All religions in the end have at least one part that must be accepted on Faith.
 
falisrm said:
I see your belief but it doesn’t make sense. So Jesus and the father are the same or one person but Jesus has a body and the Father has no body, how is that possible if they are the same person. So the father is in Jesus’s body but we can still say he is everywhere because his presence is everywhere.
Click to expand...
Jesus and the Father are so united that Jesus could say that he and the Father are One. Yet the Father and the Son are not the same person. This doesn’t make sense from a human perspective. We accept it as revealed truth. We cannot totally understand or explain it. We can’t visualize it. We can’t see this kind of unity in the physical world so we don’t know how to think about it. It should not amaze us that God is beyond our human understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top