Jesus from LDS point of view

[TOmNossor]

And those differing views are the individual members (obviously all the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) on the forums do not all speak the same.

Speaking for myself, official LDS doctrine from Salt Lake City is what I believe and a conviction of through the Holy Ghost.

This view could be similar to Catholics ---- no at all Catholics walk in total loyalty to Rome.

I had dinner with my childhood priest three nights ago. We discussed theology for much of the evening.
He claims his parish is a “Vatican II” parish. He is not a fan of Catholic Answers or much of the programing on Immaculate Heart Radio. They are too Conservative.
I have Seda-vacantist friends and SSPX friends who could be considered more Conservative than Catholic Answers.
My parish priest is a fan of Pope Francis, but was not as positive about Benedict.

It can be said respectfully that trying to define LDS doctrine is like trying to “nail jello to the wall.”
While Catholic doctrine IMO is more concrete than LDS doctrine, it is far from easy to know which view to embrace.
Charity, TOm

 

[CourtingTex]

I had dinner with my childhood priest three nights ago. We discussed theology for much of the evening.
He claims his parish is a “Vatican II” parish. He is not a fan of Catholic Answers or much of the programing on Immaculate Heart Radio. They are too Conservative.
I have Seda-vacantist friends and SSPX friends who could be considered more Conservative than Catholic Answers.
My parish priest is a fan of Pope Francis, but was not as positive about Benedict.

It can be said respectfully that trying to define LDS doctrine is like trying to “nail jello to the wall.”
While Catholic doctrine IMO is more concrete than LDS doctrine, it is far from easy to know which view to embrace.
Charity, TOm

Understanding LDS doctrine does not have to be “nailing jello to wall”. Unless you know, refer to official LDS sources to answers to questions. Of course, you can ask a active Latter Day Saint such as myself.

 

[JMM1957]

I had dinner with my childhood priest three nights ago. We discussed theology for much of the evening.
He claims his parish is a “Vatican II” parish. He is not a fan of Catholic Answers or much of the programing on Immaculate Heart Radio. They are too Conservative.
I have Seda-vacantist friends and SSPX friends who could be considered more Conservative than Catholic Answers.
My parish priest is a fan of Pope Francis, but was not as positive about Benedict.

It can be said respectfully that trying to define LDS doctrine is like trying to “nail jello to the wall.”
While Catholic doctrine IMO is more concrete than LDS doctrine, it is far from easy to know which view to embrace.
Charity, TOm

Not trusting in the Lord’s establishment of the one true visible Church, and Apostolic Succession within that Church, that is the issue.

 

[JMM1957]

First of all, I am not a paid spokesperson for the church who can answer or refer to official sources about your question. I believe in Jesus and know he is the son of God. I do not believe that Jesus was ever married and my understanding of the scriptures and what the ancient prophets, again the scriptures and what the modern prophets have said which is nothing about Jesus being married.

Again, you may not believe Jesus was married, but several of your early prophets seem to have. It may not be official doctrine today, or ever, I don’t know, but it clearly was taught by some leaders at one time in the earlier days of your church.

 

[eddie_too]

the Church of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) is a man-made religion. all man-made religions will contain teachings that are wrong.

the amount of doctrinal truth found in man-made religions typically depends upon how far a man-made religion deviates from the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). usually, those man-made religions that were derived directly from the RCC contain more of the doctrinal truths of christianity, e.g. orthodox, lutheran, etc.

in modern times, even those man-made religions that were derived directly from the RCC are having a hard time resisting the “spirit of the age” that leads them to teach incorrect moral truths. these sects (even though they derived directly from the RCC) have begun to condone human practices such as divorce and re-marriage, same-sex marriage, artificial contraception, abortion, encouragement of homosexuality and transgenderism, the use of force by governments that is not related to self-defense, euthanasia of both the old and the disabled, and even more recently acceptance of assisted suicide by people who simply want to die for reasons unrelated to physical health or ability.

man-made religions such as the LDS which were formed with only an extremely tangenital relationship to christianity and virtually no relationship to the RCC teach little of the doctrinal truths of christianity, but, perhaps surprisingly, tend to be closer to the teachings of the RCC on some of the above moral issues.

 

[Horton]

First of all, I am not a paid spokesperson for the church who can answer or refer to official sources about your question. I believe in Jesus and know he is the son of God. I do not believe that Jesus was ever married and my understanding of the scriptures and what the ancient prophets, again the scriptures and what the modern prophets have said which is nothing about Jesus being married.

I didn’t ask if you believe Jesus was married, I asked how do you explain the contradiction of only married men can be exalted and Jesus being exalted without being married?

 

[CourtingTex]

I didn’t ask if you believe Jesus was married, I asked how do you explain the contradiction of only married men can be exalted and Jesus being exalted without being married?

If individual members, whether General Authorities or not, in General Conference in April or October or other opportunities to speak, DOES NOT mean what they say is doctrine and is to be accepted is not how I come to understanding of doctrine by the Holy Ghost. The church is clear on how one can come to a knowledge of what the church professes.

Regarding this issue — as I said if some members believe this matter about Jesus being married ---- that is their choice. That is not the doctrine of the church.

 

[Horton]

If individual members, whether General Authorities or not, in General Conference in April or October or other opportunities to speak, DOES NOT mean what they say is doctrine and is to be accepted is not how I come to understanding of doctrine by the Holy Ghost. The church is clear on how one can come to a knowledge of what the church professes.

Regarding this issue — as I said if some members believe this matter about Jesus being married ---- that is their choice. That is not the doctrine of the church.

Once more you dodge the actual question. Please go back to my very specific question in the post you just responded to. I’m asking you to explain the contradiction. I understand you don’t believe Jesus was married, and that many LDS today don’t believe that. Given that understanding,*** how was Jesus exalted to the highest level of LDS heaven without being married? ***

Since I know there is no official doctrine, how do you believe it to have happened?

 

[CourtingTex]

Once more you dodge the actual question. Please go back to my very specific question in the post you just responded to. I’m asking you to explain the contradiction. I understand you don’t believe Jesus was married, and that many LDS today don’t believe that. Given that understanding,*** how was Jesus exalted to the highest level of LDS heaven without being married? ***

Since I know there is no official doctrine, how do you believe it to have happened?

Jesus Christ was the son of God, the only prefect being ever. Your view about exaltation and Jesus ---- who are you or I, I submit, to decide about Christ. My priority is following Christ every day and modeling my life.

 

[Horton]

Jesus Christ was the son of God, the only prefect being ever. Your view about exaltation and Jesus ---- who are you or I, I submit, to decide about Christ. My priority is following Christ every day and modeling my life.

I give up:shrug:

I will never understand an organization that works on the premise that:

1. The rules exist until someone changes the rules.
2. Members of the organization may have their own opinions but must never speak with authority on the rules.

 

[CourtingTex]

I give up:shrug:

I will never understand an organization that works on the premise that:

1. The rules exist until someone changes the rules.
2. Members of the organization may have their own opinions but must never speak with authority on the rules.

For me, this is just a continuous effort to play “gotta ya - this is why my church is false” in the eyes of loyal Catholics.

Those who sincerely want to know can certainly go to lds.org and mormon.org for answers — talk to missionaries without converting to the church and I am willing to answer through private messages.

I am not going to contend with whoever who wants to argue or something else. Pardon if that not the answer you want.

Kind regards.

 

[Marie5890]

I give up:shrug:

I will never understand an organization that works on the premise that:

1. The rules exist until someone changes the rules.
2. Members of the organization may have their own opinions but must never speak with authority on the rules.

Im thinking that there are Mormons who are more “cafeteria-esque” than there used to be when I was LDS.

It may, and I realize it’s only a may, be more fruitful to ask what is official LDS teaching and doctrines, and less of asking individual Mormons what they personally believe.

It seems that some don’t adhere to the actual teachings, and in fact, may not know what the official teachings presently are, or have been, in the past.

 

[CourtingTex]

Im thinking that there are Mormons who are more “cafeteria-esque” than there used to be when I was LDS.

It may, and I realize it’s only a may, be more fruitful to ask what is official LDS teaching and doctrines, and less of asking individual Mormons what they personally believe.

It seems that some don’t adhere to the actual teachings, and in fact, may not know what the official teachings presently are, or have been, in the past.

That view can be applicable to Catholics or other religious groups.

I know Catholics who do not know fully what Catholicism is.

 

[Marie5890]

That view can be applicable to Catholics or other religious groups.

I know Catholics who do not know fully what Catholicism is.

Absolutely!!

They are called cafeteria Catholics!!! And it turns out that others denominations have the same problem with their own membership.

 

[CourtingTex]

Absolutely!!

They are called cafeteria Catholics!!! And it turns out that others denominations have the same problem with their own membership.

Amazing we agree. Latter Day Saints (Motmons) have differing views on Christ.

 

[JMM1957]

Im thinking that there are Mormons who are more “cafeteria-esque” than there used to be when I was LDS.

It may, and I realize it’s only a may, be more fruitful to ask what is official LDS teaching and doctrines, and less of asking individual Mormons what they personally believe.
**
It seems that some don’t adhere to the actual teachings, and in fact, may not know what the official teachings presently are, or have been, in the past.**

When the rules can change, and the goal posts moved at any time, I can see why there would be confusion among some members. I don’t want to sound like I’m picking on anyone, let me be clear, because there are members of many churches, including the CC, where members don’t understand the basic teachings the way they should. I thank God though, that throughout the history of the CC, our doctrines are solid and unchanging.

 

[Marie5890]

When the rules can change, and the goal posts moved at any time, I can see why there would be confusion among some members. I don’t want to sound like I’m picking on anyone, let me be clear, because there are members of many churches, including the CC, where members don’t understand the basic teachings the way they should. I thank God though, that throughout the history of the CC, our doctrines are solid and unchanging.

con·ti·nu·i·ty

noun
1.
the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time.
"

 

[CourtingTex]

When the rules can change, and the goal posts moved at any time, I can see why there would be confusion among some members. I don’t want to sound like I’m picking on anyone, let me be clear, because there are members of many churches, including the CC, where members don’t understand the basic teachings the way they should. I thank God though, that throughout the history of the CC, our doctrines are solid and unchanging.

My church;s doctrine is, using your words, “solid and unchanging”. What individual members or General Authorities may say when they give talks MAY vary with some part of the doctrine and that is their view of the doctrine they are speaking about (or they do not understand basic teachings) That does not change the doctrine.

 

[kimg901]

My church;s doctrine is, using your words, “solid and unchanging”. What individual members or General Authorities may say when they give talks MAY vary with some part of the doctrine and that is their view of the doctrine they are speaking about (or they do not understand basic teachings) That does not change the doctrine.

So polygamy and blacks not being able to hold the priesthood were never doctrine?

 

[ffg]

The missionaries that stopped by this summer said that Jesus is God.

And then I think one of them said that Jesus is A God.

I didn’t get to read the whole thread, but it doesn’t seem like this is the case for the LDS on here.

What IS the teaching on Jesus from the POV of LDS?

God, A God, or not?