LDS and the bible vs BOM

[Horton]

I feel this whole thread can be summed by the following statement: Catholics (all Christians) follow the church Christ left us, a church of God and LDS follow the church JS left them, a church of men.

 

[jane_doe]

Ah, so you were simply stating the “gospel according to Jane Doe” rather than official LDS teaching. Thought so.

Given that ex-Mormons and never Mormons in this forum are constantly accused of claiming that teachings of past LDS prophets were never official teachings of the LDS church and simply “opinions of fallible men”, it would be a good idea if you stuck to “official” LDS teaching rather than the “gospel according to Jane Doe”. Or at least make it very clear that you are preaching the “gospel according to Jane Doe” rather than actual teachings of the LDS church.

I am here as myself, not an official church representative. I have made no other pretense and tried to be 100% transparent of my doings. If some one wants to read the official LDS lesson on repentance, I linked the official LDS Gospel Essentials manual in my original post on the subject.

 

[JaminB123]

The argument on language is interesting, but we can stick with the original language and reach the same damning conclusion.

Premise: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Basic on that language, we can ask:

1. Was BY leading the church astray when he said, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269)?

Yes.

1. Was BY leading the church astray when he taught that “…Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 51)?

Yes.

1. Was BY leading the church astray when he taught racism such as, “You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290)"?

Yes.

1. Was BY leading the church astray when he taught the Adam-God theory… and insinuated that the God had physical sex with Mary?

Yes.

The Mormon prophets absolutely led the church astray. I could give a hundred more examples with ease. There’s no question they led the church astray.

 

[XuDan]

I am here as myself, not an official church representative. I have made no other pretense and tried to be 100% transparent of my doings. If some one wants to read the official LDS lesson on repentance, I linked the official LDS Gospel Essentials manual in my original post on the subject.

I thought it was quite clear you were espousing “over the shoulder doctrine” or “according to Jane” if you will. Unfortunately though, because of the actions of others before you on this forum I think you’ll find a less than positive reaction to that unless you preface with a strong and clear disclaimer. It’s a classic example of the few ruining it for everyone. I believe that iepuras is just trying to give you a heads up about it.

 

[iepuras]

I am here as myself, not an official church representative. I have made no other pretense and tried to be 100% transparent of my doings. If some one wants to read the official LDS lesson on repentance, I linked the official LDS Gospel Essentials manual in my original post on the subject.

We know you are not an official representative of the LDS church. I went back and read through the entire lesson you linked to on lds.org. No where does it support your claim that the LDS sacrament absolves sin. The other items in your list are consistent with the official LDS lesson manual.

While you may try to be 100% transparent, you were not entirely successful in this instant when you added your opinion and personal belief to the official LDS teaching laid out in your post without clearly stating as such.

I appreciate that your posts are respectful and charitable. The thing is that many of the LDS related threads come down to what is “official” LDS teaching vs the opinions of men who happen to be prophets/apostles at the time. So it is best to be entirely clear what is official and what is opinion.

 

[iepuras]

I thought it was quite clear you were espousing “over the shoulder doctrine” or “according to Jane” if you will. Unfortunately though, because of the actions of others before you on this forum I think you’ll find a less than positive reaction to that unless you preface with a strong and clear disclaimer. It’s a classic example of the few ruining it for everyone. I believe that iepuras is just trying to give you a heads up about it.

Pretty much!

I cannot tell you how many times I provide quotes from LDS prophets and apostles only to be given the line that it is not official LDS teaching but merely an “opinion”.

 

[jane_doe]

Ok, well said ipurus and XuDan

 

[LivingWaters7]

LDS do believe that the sacrament renews covenants, including the baptismal covenant, which would include a remission of sins. However, I’m not sure that they have the same understanding of remitting sins as Catholics do. I believe jane doe’s understanding is something I heard as well when I was Mormon.

 

[jane_doe]

LDS do believe that the sacrament renews covenants, including the baptismal covenant, which would include a remission of sins. However, I’m not sure that they have the same understanding of remitting sins as Catholics do. I believe jane doe’s understanding is something I heard as well when I was Mormon.

What would be the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and remitting sins?

 

[XuDan]

XuDan,
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
By your Thesaurus driven reasoning:
Astray = run-off
Astray = nonextant
Astray = kiss goodbye.
Those make less sense than Astray = Erring, but not much less sense.
Again, it is not as Stephen168 said, “I’ve heard it before.”
Rather I cannot accept as evidence against my church the opinions of folks who believe LDS prophets are infallible because astray=erring. It is easy for me to see that as a radically flawed proposition and as such I do not find it remotely compelling. That does not mean it doesn’t weigh heavily upon your decision to depart from the CoJCoLDS, just that it never will weigh heavily upon my reason-based commitments. And I hope and expect it will have little to do with the faith commitments of the average LDS.
Charity, TOm

You argue by extreme hyperbole. My synonyms were never more than once removed. But that’s fine: to end this once and for all we need to look no further than the definition.

If I Google astray, the definition that pops up at the top in that neat little box is clear as day. Here is the definition provided (emphasis mine):

a·stray
əˈstrā/Submit
adverb
1.
away from the correct path or direction.
“we went astray but a man redirected us”
synonyms: off target, wide of the mark, awry, off course; amiss
“the shots went astray”
2.
into error or morally questionable behavior.
“he was led astray by boozy colleagues”
synonyms: into wrongdoing, into error, into sin, into iniquity, away from the straight and narrow, off the right course
“the older boys led him astray”

Error is how you define astray. Erring is to be in a state of error. I’m sorry that you don’t like the definition of the word. But I can’t change the definition anymore than you can - the word is what it is and by definition supports the conclusions drawn by it’s very usage.

Looking at the emphasized section above one can say “The prophet will never lead the church into error.” By exact definition, that is what “astray” means. Which tacitly claims infallibility by proclaiming the prophets inerrancy in his leading of the church.

I don’t have to reason with you about this or agree to disagree: the definition states it clearly. If you cannot accept the definition, that is no one’s issue except your own.

 

[iepuras]

LDS do believe that the sacrament renews covenants, including the baptismal covenant, which would include a remission of sins. However, I’m not sure that they have the same understanding of remitting sins as Catholics do. I believe jane doe’s understanding is something I heard as well when I was Mormon.

It is a different understanding. Honestly, in my entire experience as a Mormon, I never felt sure that I was absolved of my sins. Ever.

While I don’t think it was ever “official” LDS doctrine, there is a common belief among Mormons that if a sin is committed again, all the previous instances of that sin come back upon that person. Basically, forgiveness is conditional on completely forsaking the sin. I don’t know that it is a common belief among younger Mormons. The belief stems from Pres. Kimball’s book “Miracle of Forgiveness”. I purchased this book about 10 years ago through the Distribution Center (not through Deseret Book), so at one point the teachings in “The Miracle of Forgiveness” had more weight than other non-canonical books. I’m not sure if this book is still sold through the Distribution Center anymore.

 

[Horton]

What would be the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and remitting sins?

The Eucharist doesn’t “remit” sins, Reconciliation does. At the beginning of Mass we are asked to call to mind our sins and ask God to forgive us. These would be our venial sins. Mortal sins may only be absolved through the sacrament of Reconciliation. Once we’ve been forgiven during Mass we are then in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist. The body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Receiving the Eucharist does not forgive our sins, that is done before we receive.

 

[XuDan]

Pretty much!

I cannot tell you how many times I provide quotes from LDS prophets and apostles only to be given the line that it is not official LDS teaching but merely an “opinion”.

Yup - you can even quote a general conference talk where they are speaking in the capacity of their office and if it it is damaging to their position then they magically pull out the “opinion” card. You can quote old lesson manuals and they ignore it or try to sweep it under the rug. Or, and this one is the most annoying, they claim that it’s you understanding that is wrong and that it “clearly means” [enter their position here]. It’s never their church’s fault. It’s always the fault of the reader/listener. At least that’s what many would have you believe.

 

[iepuras]

Yup - you can even quote a general conference talk where they are speaking in the capacity of their office and if it it is damaging to their position then they magically pull out the “opinion” card. You can quote old lesson manuals and they ignore it or try to sweep it under the rug. Or, and this one is the most annoying, they claim that it’s you understanding that is wrong and that it “clearly means” [enter their position here]. It’s never their church’s fault. It’s always the fault of the reader/listener. At least that’s what many would have you believe.

My favorite is when the Journal of Discourses is downplayed as mere opinion when it is heavily quoted in the lesson manuals for the RS/Priesthood manuals in the Teachings of the Presidents series for the older prophets. I guess the JOD is opinion when the quotation is damaging but true doctrine when it supports current teaching. How convenient.

 

[XuDan]

My favorite is when the Journal of Discourses is downplayed as mere opinion when it is heavily quoted in the lesson manuals for the RS/Priesthood manuals in the Teachings of the Presidents series for the older prophets. I guess the JOD is opinion when the quotation is damaging but true doctrine when it supports current teaching. How convenient.

Exactly! It means what it means until we don’t like what it means then it is opinion. It’s all very convenient.

 

[zaffiroborant]

By “repentance process” I don’t mean church court or anything like that. The repentance process is:

1. Recognizing that what you’re doing is a sin.
2. Feeling godly sorrow and the need for your savior. Invite Him into your heart.
3. Forsaking the sin.
4. Confessing the sin to the Lord, and in some cases other people (depending on the sin and who’s involved).
5. When possible, make reconciliation. Example: returning something you stole.
6. Accepting the Lord’s forgiveness and forgiving yourself. Part of this is partaking of the Lord’s Supper for absolution of sins and renewing that sacred relationship.

The above are universal in the Mormon church, and I imagine not much different in the Catholic church either. (LDS article on it: lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng)

The role of a priest/bishop does differ between the two churches though. In Catholicism, the priest plays the role persona Christi (as you neatly explained) and should be involved in the reconciliation of all (???) sin. In Mormonism, ‘lesser’ (horrible term) sins are handled without a Bishop being involved. A bishop only comes in for major sins and is viewed as a coach/guide to help you through your repentance because it can be very hard. The Bishop is in no way viewed as stand-in for Christ and it is only Christ that does the actual forgiving (like in Catholicism only Christ actually forgives).

Again, all of the above is universal throughout the Mormon church (being identical in Bolivia, Boston, and Bangkok).

On a different note: what is a Mormon church court? Formally known as a “disciplinary council”, they are convened when there has been an outrageous sin committed and the person is unrepentant**. When an unrepentant person whom loves their sins more than God, it is sometimes best for that person to be released from their covenants with God, to prevent further damnation of themselves and possible harm to those around them. Excommunication is an extreme action taken only when the person refused to forsake the sin and all other actions have been exhausted. How someone’s disciplinary process exactly goes is as individual as that person and involves much prayer.

Sins which could result in a church court being convened (non-exclusive): murder, incest, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, abortion, major theft, sale of illicit drugs, fraud, perjury, and blatantly leading others into apostasy. Overall, very serious sins.

You are 100% not sent to disciplinary counsel for things like drink coffee, not paying tithing, not attending church meetings, having doubts in your faith, or personally disagreeing with church leaders.

**Slight caveat on the “unrepentant” part of this: in some extreme cases a person will be formally disciplined regardless of whether or not they are repentant (example: child molester). This is done to protect the church body, and the person is encouraged to repent and undergo the mighty change of heart that they might one day readmitted into the body of Christ.

No it is not the same nor is it universal in the LDS church. When LDS see the bishop he is the one who determines when the repentance process is over. A young couple with a date set to soon be married in the temple but stumble and have sex could have very different outcomes depending entirely on the fiat of their bishop. One bishop could view the confession as completion of the repentance process while another might tell the couple they must wait a year to be married in the temple. One bishop can require weekly meetings for an indeterminate amount of time for masturbation while another could require abstaining from taking or passing the sacrament for a month and yet another nothing.

In the Catholic church it is not a process, you confess your sins and you are granted absolution. And while a priest can not grant absolution if he believes you are not properly disposed I’ve never experienced it nor have I ever had a close friend or family member experience it. Through those high school and college years where people would discuss in detail (the openness startled me) their failures or in it seemed in some cases their adventures with sexuality those that went to confession (again I was startled at just who went) none were denied absolution.

There was a very sad tale on NOM from a woman who divorced her husband and then left the church, she ended up living with her boyfriend for a time and then got married. She wanted to go back to the church so she approached her bishop to begin the repentance process. It was heartbreaking to read her posts on how she had done everything he asked and every new thing he came up with. She just wanted it to be over and begin being treated like any other member 19 months into the repentance process, she was despondent and hopeless.
I’ve taught RE for 12 years in 3rd 5th and 6th grades (one year in 2nd) and worked with the confirmation program for 12 years now. Every year the kids go to confession as a class and every year my eyes brim when I see how confession affects the kids. They are truly and visibly lightened by the experience. They are excited yet subdued, they are at peace and filled with hope, they are renewed by it.

I don’t see it as anything close in our 2 churches.

And no not all sin needs to be confessed through the sacrament and every Sunday their is in the Mass a Penitential Rite where we reflect on our sins that don’t require confession.

 

[jane_doe]

In the Catholic church it is not a process, you confess your sins and you are granted absolution. And while a priest can not grant absolution if he believes you are not properly disposed I’ve never experienced it nor have I ever had a close friend or family member experience it. Through those high school and college years where people would discuss in detail (the openness startled me) their failures or in it seemed in some cases their adventures with sexuality those that went to confession (again I was startled at just who went) none were denied absolution. …
I’ve taught RE for 12 years in 3rd 5th and 6th grades (one year in 2nd) and worked with the confirmation program for 12 years now. Every year the kids go to confession as a class and every year my eyes brim when I see how confession affects the kids. They are truly and visibly lightened by the experience. They are excited yet subdued, they are at peace and filled with hope, they are renewed by it.

I don’t see it as anything close in our 2 churches.

You don’t see repentance as a process at all? I’m confused / skeptical of that claim.

Say person commits sin. Is there not a process where this person’s 1) realizes they messed up, 2) feel that this is wrong, 3) stop the sin?

It seems to me that those would be essential. After all, Catholic confession is NOT a drive-through-and-keep-doing-what-your-doing type thing (to my understanding anyways, correct me if I’m wrong).

 

[zaffiroborant]

Sins which could result in a church court being convened (non-exclusive): murder, incest, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, abortion, major theft, sale of illicit drugs, fraud, perjury, and blatantly leading others into apostasy. Overall, very serious sins.
.

These are all very serious sins and they bring untold pain to the victims. But then as we see so many times with children these days so does gossip. How many young people kill or harm themselves because their classmates say dreadful things about them and they have no way to battle the social media onslaught? How is gossiping about another any less a sin against someone, less of a destroyer of the innocent and defenseless, how is theft of agood name any less worthy of a church court? Is driving someone to suicide through gossip better than consensual homosexual relations, is it better than theft or fraud?

 

[jane_doe]

These are all very serious sins and they bring untold pain to the victims. But then as we see so many times with children these days so does gossip. How many young people kill or harm themselves because their classmates say dreadful things about them and they have no way to battle the social media onslaught? How is gossiping about another any less a sin against someone, less of a destroyer of the innocent and defenseless, how is theft of agood name any less worthy of a church court? Is driving someone to suicide through gossip better than consensual homosexual relations, is it better than theft or fraud?

I shall turn the same question to you: why is gossiping not a mortal sin?

(As to my original post, I said the list was non-exclusive. There are MANY ways to sin horribly)

 

[zaffiroborant]

You don’t see repentance as a process at all? I’m confused / skeptical of that claim.

Say person commits sin. Is there not a process where this person’s 1) realizes they messed up, 2) feel that this is wrong, 3) stop the sin?

It seems to me that those would be essential. After all, Catholic confession is NOT a drive-through-and-keep-doing-what-your-doing type thing (to my understanding anyways, correct me if I’m wrong).

In the Catholic church the fact that you cared/worried/wanted to make the effort to go and confess your sins is almost always considered as all three of your steps, and so by your voluntary act of confession you do not have to prove that you “1*) realizes they messed up, 2) feel that this is wrong, 3) stop the sin?*”. This is not the way it happens in the LDS church, within the LDS church you may (or may not) have to prove to the bishop that you “1) realizes they messed up, 2) feel that this is wrong, 3) stop the sin?”