LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[Inishfree]

Thank you Parker for your reply. I think when people try to understand each other’s religous beliefs it leads to a greater respect.

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you Parker for your reply. I think when people try to understand each other’s religous beliefs it leads to a greater respect.

Inishfree,

Thanks for your kindness, and your interest in seeking understanding and respect. I agree with you so much… It was interesting reading about your ancestral roots, and that you have taken on the role of “family historian”–very significant and worthwhile. May God bless you abundantly in all these efforts.

 

[KathleenGee]

Pinay,

You have to study church history. From the very beginning the apostles and their successors and many others – through the Holy Spirit – were most faithful in passing down the truth of Jesus Christ.

This happened through all sorts of times of peace and persecution, and the expansion of the Good News throughout the ancient world at that time…the first 300 years or so, the founding of Christ’s Church.

It wasn’t like the Catholic Church decided to make a power play through a decree. It was one single cleric contesting his bishop–successor to the apostles, that Christ had a beginning…and that implies He was of a substance that begins…and ends…and thi further means, then, that Christ is not God.

This is anathema…to describe Christ in a way that He is not of God by having a beginning. Christ is the Eternal Word.

All this came about after the form of administration was defined – one head with supporting presbyters, the development of which books in Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit for public revelation–that would support Christ’s mission to be savior of all men, and defining our beliefs in the authentic Christ through the Apostles Creed.

When this one cleric contested saying Christ had a beginning…there were other easterners who believed the same…but the problem was it was denying Christ’s divinity. Arianism had very unclear understanding of Christ’s divinity.

So the ecclesiastics of the Church were only fulfilling their duties to ensure the truth of Jesus Christ was made known to the world, and thus the Nicene Creed. was developed.

As a matter of fact…English was not translated well from the Latin, having been done so rather hastily. This Advent we will be using a new translation in all the English speaking countries part of the Nicene Creed…stating Jesus Christ is consubstantiated with God…meaning of the same substance of God in His divinity.

There is no word in the dictionary to describe Christ is consubstantiated in English, so the Church had to create and define this word…Remember, what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, our ecclesisatics truly Christ’s representatives here on earth.

Jesus Christ is the apex of civilization, He fulfills all prophets, and all priests, and all kings. Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word through which the universe was made.

 

[KathleenGee]

Parker,

Anyone in the world can discern a higher source, this stated in the Book of Wisdom and in Paul’s Romans.

But the Lord is always calling us to be one with Him…and because Christ came to us through the chosen people of Israel, we in turn through Christ, become heirs as well of salvation history.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

Anyone in the world can discern a higher source, this stated in the Book of Wisdom and in Paul’s Romans.

But the Lord is always calling us to be one with Him…and because Christ came to us through the chosen people of Israel, we in turn through Christ, become heirs as well of salvation history.

Kathleen,

If by “a higher source” you mean the Holy Spirit who communicates truth by communicating with our heart through our spiritual sensitivity to the Spirit’s guidance and promptings, then I think that takes careful discernment that is available to anyone in the world who seeks it prayerfully, with faith and sincere intent and the keeping of the commandments in their personal life.

As far as being “heirs of salvation history”, the Savior taught that He came to earth for all mankind, so there is not a sense of needing to be “heirs of salvation history” if that implies some inherent need to rely on the Jews or their heritage. We each can have a one-to-one relationship with Christ, just as He promised. Our “salvation history” is personal, one-to-one, and happening every day of our lives if we choose a personal, lively relationship with Him wherein He helps us change through repentance and sanctification.

 

[KathleenGee]

Salvation history, to acknowledge or be a part of it, is a great grace, and a common bond, that has verifiable people, places, events…and we are all heirs…there is the same commonality in the personages of the Church…triumphs, failures, sins…

It gets down to the bottom line that we are all human, and Christ is the closest God can reveal Himself to us, to the point that Christ humbles Himself so much, that He becomes life for us in the Eucharist.

Jesus is complete in Who He is. No one can come after Him to give a message greater or different from Him, because that scatters His sheep and leads them away from the divine life already present in the here and now.

So what is the message then of the Golden Plates…why didn’t Jesus reveal this to us when He was with us?

 

[ParkerD]

So what is the message then of the Golden Plates…why didn’t Jesus reveal this to us when He was with us?

Hi, Kathleen,

Since I can assume your question was directed to me, here is a response:

Jesus revealed the gospel and gospel teachings and all of His dealings with human history among all people, only to the extent the people were willing and desirous of receiving those revealed truths. He upholds free will choice, and doesn’t flood people with more knowledge than will be for their benefit or has been sought after by them with sincerity of heart. When He taught, “Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened” He was teaching that principle.

He revealed what the people were prepared to receive. (No doubt the apostles knew more than what the people generally knew, but additional knowledge they had was only to be shared based on being prompted by the Holy Spirit or having been advised by Christ that they could share it.)

The message of the Golden Plates is that God had a plan that included the group “whose branches run over the wall” from the tribe of Joseph, and that they could “talk of Christ” and “rejoice in Christ” just as we can today; and we can learn about Him through many prophets who gave teachings that reinforce all the positive, enlightening teachings of the Bible, thereby strengthening through reinforcement and showing how God’s hand overspreads the whole earth, sometimes with blessings that some people don’t necessarily know about, but He knows about.

 

[KathleenGee]

It is interesting you mention Joseph in ancient times…

I heard a recent talk that the new Joseph is none other than St. Joseph…just as the ancients were exhorted to go to Joseph in their necessities and provisions, we ask St. Joseph for his intercessory prayers for quiet patience, and his help in our labors and day to day necessities…‘Go to St. Joseph!’

About the Holy Spirit, I heard recently that in Mormon assemblies, the Holy Spirit is referred to as ‘It’.

We do refer to the Holy Spirit as Him, the Consoler…

Jesus Christ, and the fruit of His mission, is His Eucharist…to receive Him…there is nothing greater or more than Him…many in Catholicism and Orthodoxy renounce the allowed gifts of this world to possess only Christ Himself…

 

[KathleenGee]

I must add as well that we have to discern spirits. The epistles warn of listening to an angel other than what the apostles teach.

Also, Joseph Smith was not tested or challenged by those consecrated to God in Christianity’s 2000 year old history to determine whether or not his locutions, apparitions, and visions were of God or not.

One sign of a true prophet is that of continuity, like building an understanding and relationship with God, block upon block, and that the prophecy comes true.

Joseph Smith denounced Christianity as all creeds corrupt. Where does he get the authority and source to make such claims or provide such information…it is outside God’s means.

 

[ParkerD]

I must add as well that we have to discern spirits. The epistles warn of listening to an angel other than what the apostles teach.

Also, Joseph Smith was not tested or challenged by those consecrated to God in Christianity’s 2000 year old history to determine whether or not his locutions, apparitions, and visions were of God or not.

One sign of a true prophet is that of continuity, like building an understanding and relationship with God, block upon block, and that the prophecy comes true.

Joseph Smith denounced Christianity as all creeds corrupt. Where does he get the authority and source to make such claims or provide such information…it is outside God’s means.

Kathleen,

I agree that “we have to discern spirits”. I also agree with what Paul wrote, that “though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8) He followed that admonition with explaining more about what he meant by that statement, by saying: “the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For neither I received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (1:11, 12). He then goes on to explain about how he had been blessed to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, and that they without circumcision had the blessings of the Holy Spirit with them. It is evident from Paul’s writing that the major issue he was dealing with in writing to the saints in the “churches of Galatia” was that some had been “removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (1:6) and that they had become confused about the application of “the law” including circumcision, and were caught up in “the law” rather than understanding that “the just shall live by faith.” (see Galatians 3, and also 4:9, 21, and all of chapter 5). He wrote about the “fruit of the Spirit”: “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” (5:22-23)

One way to discern “spirits” is thus “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Is there an emphasis on the “wisdom of men” or on “the law” or on one particular item of the gospel rather than the whole gospel?

Joseph Smith did not bring to the world “another gospel”, nor did the angel Moroni who gave the world the opportunity for additional witnesses and amplified teachings, through the translation made available by the means God had prepared and by the Holy Spirit working through those means–for it is the same gospel one finds in that record as in the Bible. One of the things it does is amplify some of the teachings that Paul also gave, about how “the law was a schoolmaster to bring us (meaning the Jews and the house of Israel) to Christ.” It also amplifies the need for discerning spirits, and for gaining the fruit of the Spirit in one’s personal life.

A wish of peace to you and all.

 

[Inishfree]

Inishfree,

Thanks for your kindness, and your interest in seeking understanding and respect. I agree with you so much… It was interesting reading about your ancestral roots, and that you have taken on the role of “family historian”–very significant and worthwhile. May God bless you abundantly in all these efforts.

You are very welcome. For me, learning about the different branches of Christianity has help strengthen my own Catholic faith. Not to mean that mine is good and your’s is bad. I enjoy talking with fellow christians and feeling the joy of our shared belief in the Messiah. I feel this way about Non-Christians faiths too. I see many simularites in all of the great faiths and this proves to me over and over, there is truely, God.

Hope everyone here has a blessed day!

 

[pinay]

Pinay,

You have to study church history. From the very beginning the apostles and their successors and many others – through the Holy Spirit – were most faithful in passing down the truth of Jesus Christ.

This happened through all sorts of times of peace and persecution, and the expansion of the Good News throughout the ancient world at that time…the first 300 years or so, the founding of Christ’s Church.

It wasn’t like the Catholic Church decided to make a power play through a decree. It was one single cleric contesting his bishop–successor to the apostles, that Christ had a beginning…and that implies He was of a substance that begins…and ends…and thi further means, then, that Christ is not God.

This is anathema…to describe Christ in a way that He is not of God by having a beginning. Christ is the Eternal Word.

All this came about after the form of administration was defined – one head with supporting presbyters, the development of which books in Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit for public revelation–that would support Christ’s mission to be savior of all men, and defining our beliefs in the authentic Christ through the Apostles Creed.

When this one cleric contested saying Christ had a beginning…there were other easterners who believed the same…but the problem was it was denying Christ’s divinity. Arianism had very unclear understanding of Christ’s divinity.

So the ecclesiastics of the Church were only fulfilling their duties to ensure the truth of Jesus Christ was made known to the world, and thus the Nicene Creed. was developed.

As a matter of fact…English was not translated well from the Latin, having been done so rather hastily. This Advent we will be using a new translation in all the English speaking countries part of the Nicene Creed…stating Jesus Christ is consubstantiated with God…meaning of the same substance of God in His divinity.

There is no word in the dictionary to describe Christ is consubstantiated in English, so the Church had to create and define this word…Remember, what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, our ecclesisatics truly Christ’s representatives here on earth.

Jesus Christ is the apex of civilization, He fulfills all prophets, and all priests, and all kings. Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word through which the universe was made.

Hi Kathleen, was this in response to my answer to the question of “Are their christian denominations who do not believe in the Holy Trinity?” in which I replied that I consider Arians as Christians?

I’m not sure I can put your response in context of the thread.

Yes, I have studied Catholic church history (as a devout Catholic, I went to Catholic schools from Kindergarten all the way to getting a Bachelors Degree and religious education is a requirement every year). And nowhere in my studies did I get the impression that Arians were not considered Christians - not in communion with Eastern and Roman Catholics for sure - but still Christians nontheless.

 

[zaffiroborant]

• not in communion with Eastern and Roman Catholics for sure - but still Christians nontheless.

Well their baptisms would not be accepted.

 

[Inishfree]

Well their baptisms would not be accepted.

I don’t think they would be accepted by Traditional Protestant churches either.

 

[KathleenGee]

Sigh, Pinay,

I gave you a reply and it was lost…in essence…Arius denied the foundation of Christ’s Church, that He lived, died, and resurrected, He was both God and Man.

Following Arianism was denying all finality to the revelation of Who Christ is, and opening up the way to a return to pagan polytheism.

Today young people are being educated in church history and philosophy, but there is a gap on bringing them into the reality of the Eucharist, the communion of saints, and seeing the Catholic faith in action. So many lose their faith in Catholic school because faith has been reduced to an intellectual endeavor without the inner and greater reality of faith.

The first degree of studying faith is through prayer and the Holy Spirit. It is so easy to divorce one’s faith from study…I think young people in Catholic high school are given too many academic studies better reserved for college students, and not enough on real faith. Religious ed teachers want their kids to be able to reason, etc.,…but not be on fire for Christ…to the detriment and destruction of the child’s faith.

Arius’ convictions came from a certain philosophy rather from the reality that Christianity is based on a living person.

 

[lax16]

So, who owns the word Christian? It’s like the word biscuit. Who owns that word? Because, in the Philippines - a Ritz cracker is a biscuit. But no… in America, that’s a cracker not a biscuit. Whatever.

Anyway… according to Mirriam Webster (who, for a while there, I thought was the un-contested authority of American English words until I started playing words with friends and there are words there you can’t use), a Christian is one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

So, according to Mirriam, Arians are Christians.

But hey, if you want to add a qualification there to say - only those who believe that Jesus Christ is Divine can use the label Christian - then sure, Arians are not Christians. But LDS are still Christians.

But hey, if you want to add a qualification there to say - only those who believe in the Holy Trinity can use the label Christian - then sure, LDS are not Christians. I really could care less. I know what I believe, whatever you call me doesn’t change that.

So for me, I go by Mirriam Webster until somebody bans her book from the public libraries. So, Arians are Christians, LDS are Christians, Unitarians are Christians, Catholics are Christians, Protestants are Christians…etc. etc.

You know what, I see all this as like kids in the school cafeteria. Using every possible opportunity to segregate themselves so they can find reasons to look down on another… only blonde cheerleaders on this table… you brown-haired card-carrying member of the math club, you go sit there by the trash can.

Hi pinay - I am a little confused here.
Can a Mormon who still practices polygamy (and there are many polygamists here in Utah) rightfully call themselves Mormon?
or has the practice been denounced by “LDS church authority” and has been determined by “LDS church authority” that anyone practicing polygamy is not a faithful mormon?
Would a polygamist Mormon need to call themselves something other than Mormon?
Who gets to make that determination?
Does the LDS church have the right to define Mormonism or is it up to individuals to make the call?
thanks!
lax16

 

[pinay]

Hi pinay - I am a little confused here.
Can a Mormon who still practices polygamy (and there are many polygamists here in Utah) rightfully call themselves Mormon?
or has the practice been denounced by “LDS church authority” and has been determined by “LDS church authority” that anyone practicing polygamy is not a faithful mormon?
Would a polygamist Mormon need to call themselves something other than Mormon?
Who gets to make that determination?
Does the LDS church have the right to define Mormonism or is it up to individuals to make the call?
thanks!
lax16

Ah lax! This is a VERY VERY VERY good question!

Okay, there’s the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, right? Then there are other off-shoots of that church - like, Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints… etc… There’s quite a bit of them.

Back in the olden days - the general public started calling the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Mormons - because they’re always handing out Book of Mormons… so they thought, yeah, it’s that Book of those them Mormons over there…

Anyway, the label stuck and everybody started calling the LDS church Mormons, even the members started calling themselves Mormons.

So then, the other off-shoots started calling themselves Fundamentalist Mormons, Reorganized Mormons, etc.

Unfortunately, due to the persecution that the church suffered (yea, in Missouri, you have constitutional protection to kill a Mormon until 1976, crazy, huh?), the term Mormon got a negative connotation attached to it.

So, the Church has been actively trying to promote the “correct” name of the Church. In the meantime, the name Mormon is still out there - so the Church is trying to slowly remove the negative connotation of the Mormon label. They tried to apply for a trademark for the name. It was approved internationally but the application in the US got denied because the name is too generic to be trademarked.

So, what the Church is now trying to do is to present the label Mormon in a positive light through ads (yeah, you probably have heard it before - I’m blah-blah-blah and I’m a Mormon…).

But, then things like Warren Jeffs splashes on the news and he is called Mormon. And a survey sent out showed that more than 50% of Americans believe Warren Jeffs is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, the church issued a request to the news sources to make sure they either use the proper name of the Church - that is, Fundamentalist - and not just call them “Mormons”. So, while this news story was brewing, the news casters, started to add in the news cast - “not a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or something to that effect.

So, in direct answer to your question - there are a lot of different churches who are off-shoots of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who use the label Mormons. Some of these churches are polygamist churches. But no, they are not members of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. Polygamists are ex-communicated from that church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

newsroom.lds.org/article/polygamous-mormons

 "There is no such thing as a "polygamous" Mormon. Mormon is a common  name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The Church discontinued polygamy  more than a century ago. No members of the Church today can enter into  polygamy without being excommunicated. Polygamist groups in Utah,  Arizona or Texas have nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus  Christ of Latter-day Saints.
          When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, terms such as those listed above are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "**The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death**."

…I think those churches would disagree.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Denominations

 

[pinay]

Sigh, Pinay,

I gave you a reply and it was lost…in essence…Arius denied the foundation of Christ’s Church, that He lived, died, and resurrected, He was both God and Man.

Following Arianism was denying all finality to the revelation of Who Christ is, and opening up the way to a return to pagan polytheism.

Today young people are being educated in church history and philosophy, but there is a gap on bringing them into the reality of the Eucharist, the communion of saints, and seeing the Catholic faith in action. So many lose their faith in Catholic school because faith has been reduced to an intellectual endeavor without the inner and greater reality of faith.

The first degree of studying faith is through prayer and the Holy Spirit. It is so easy to divorce one’s faith from study…I think young people in Catholic high school are given too many academic studies better reserved for college students, and not enough on real faith. Religious ed teachers want their kids to be able to reason, etc.,…but not be on fire for Christ…to the detriment and destruction of the child’s faith.

Arius’ convictions came from a certain philosophy rather from the reality that Christianity is based on a living person.

Kathleen, trust me, if there’s anybody more faithful than a devout Filipino Catholic, I haven’t met them yet. So your observation that Catholic schools (at least the Filipino ones, I don’t know about American ones) are not taught “real faith” (whatever that means) is in error. You know why divorce is illegal in the Philippines? Yep, you got it - the faithful Catholic voters.

But, that’s irrelevant to the discussion. Because Catholics do not have the exclusive rights to the word Christian. Just because a Christian does not hold Catholic theology doesn’t stop them from being believers and followers of Christ’s teachings.

A Catholic who declares “Love God with all your heart mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself” is Christian.

An Arian who declares “Love God with all your heart mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself” is… still Christian.

But, if you prefer to change the definition of Christian to - somebody who, not only believes and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ but would have to be Trinitarian as well - then you’re welcome to it. Just let everyone of us know where the deposit of authority on the definition of the word Christian is, and we’ll make sure to use the term properly.

 

[SteveVH]

Kathleen, trust me, if there’s anybody more faithful than a devout Filipino Catholic, I haven’t met them yet. So your observation that Catholic schools (at least the Filipino ones, I don’t know about American ones) are not taught “real faith” (whatever that means) is in error. You know why divorce is illegal in the Philippines? Yep, you got it - the faithful Catholic voters.

But, that’s irrelevant to the discussion. Because Catholics do not have the exclusive rights to the word Christian. Just because a Christian does not hold Catholic theology doesn’t stop them from being believers and followers of Christ’s teachings.

A Catholic who declares “Love God with all your heart mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself” is Christian.

An Arian who declares “Love God with all your heart mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself” is… still Christian.

But, if you prefer to change the definition of Christian to - somebody who, not only believes and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ but would have to be Trinitarian as well - then you’re welcome to it. Just let everyone of us know where the deposit of authority on the definition of the word Christian is, and we’ll make sure to use the term properly.

I believe that authority would belong to the only Christian church in existence for the first 1500 years of Christian history. The definition is ours by right. Neither the Arians nor any other heretical group that has raised its ugly head over the centuries were considered Christians, they were considered heretics. However even they were closer than the LDS who are not even considered heretics by the original Church, but rather a completely different religion altogether. This is due to the fact that they deny the very nature of God as revealed to the Church by Jesus himself. So it begins with a fundementally flawed theology from which the rest of the erroneous doctrines eminate. That is why the LDS cannot be considered “Christian”, in spite of the fact that Christian terms are used. They are only used to couch non-Christian dogmas.