LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[soren1]

But then that’s a given regarding the fabric of esoteric religions. Look at Scientology. It’s all about “milk before meat”… because the meat is bad. By the time you get to the stuff, though, you’ve been thoroughly brainwashed, or feel that it’s too late to turn back. Or (hopefully) break down and run away screaming. Catholicism, on the other hand, is exoteric; there’s nothing to hide, because God’s truth is wonderful and accessible (indeed, essential) for all people.

It should also be noted that “milk before meat” does not refer to lesser and more advanced doctrine in the first place. That is a clear cut misreading of 1 Cor 3:2 and Heb 5:21. It both text, it refers to the need for moral purification before instruction in truth. A bad will cannot be brought to know God, and requires the milk of moral instruction. There is no point explaining the resurrection to a person who is hooked on pornography, because he does not love truth and will not get the point even if he understands it intellectually.

That this is what St. Paul is teaching can be seen in Hebrews, when he criticizes his readers saying, “ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.” (Heb 5:12) In the preceding verse, he says that the readers are “dull of hearing.” This does not mean that they are bad at grasping doctrine; in fact, he is clearly writing for an educated audience, and some have even supposed from the rigorous content of the letter that they are a group of converted priests. Rather, “hearing” means, as it often does in Greek, obedience. The context bears this out further when St. Paul goes on to say that those who have been weaned from milk “by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” This is moral maturity, not doctrinal knowledge that he is talking about. The other place where milk/meat is discussed, 1 Cor 3:2, has the same character. Milk is the food of the carnal, while meat is the food of the righteous. (1 Cor 3:1)

This is not to deny that there is a certain heuristic propriety in teaching from first principles to more advanced concepts. What I am denying is that the milk/meat metaphor is teaching this. To be ready for meat means to have one’s will conformed to revealed truth, and does not refer to the ascent from lower to higher doctrines.

But I don’t agree with you that Mormonism brainwashes people. It miseducates them to be sure, but nothing can deprive someone the power to think for himself, nor do they attempt to do so.

 

[Peter_John]

just questioning point 2 . the profets have baptised at variouce points in the old testiment so why is the idea that it was happening 600 years before jesus so heretical? baptism was an established act of repentance by the time jesus was baptised jesus never established baptism what he did was change it from a sybolic gesture into a full blown sacrament.

They had ritual washings, but formal Christian baptism was established by Christ. Yes, John the Baptist introduced it, but he was commissioned for this, to fulfill prophecy, by the Lord Himself while they were yet still in the womb. That is part of what the story of Mary’s Visitation to Elizabeth is about. Jesus was God even in emryo, even in a fetal state. Mary was literally the temple of the Lord, or as “Theotokos” says, the vessel of the Lord, carrying Him where he needed to be even before He was born.

The details about Jesus having established baptism is from the Catechism and from the Vatican’s explanation for considering LDS baptism invalid.

 

[soren1]

They had ritual washings, but formal Christian baptism was established by Christ.

You are correct. It should also be noted that the special sense of “Baptizo” as referring to Christian baptism is a novelty of the New Testament. Prior to Christianity, it could refer to any oblation, even “baptisms” in pagan cults. It is most probably, but necessarily, used in the bare sense of “oblation” at at least one point in the New Testament (Heb 6:2).

The gospels, however, distinguish Christian baptism from Old Testament oblations in showing the contrast of the baptism of Jesus and the Baptism of John. John baptizes with water, but Jesus baptizes with fire and the Holy Spirit. This is to say that even John’s baptism, and similar pre-Christian rituals, only anticipate and prefigure the baptism of Christ.

It should also be noted that the establishment of the “Church” in pre-Christian times as seen in the Book of Mormon misses the point even further, because the Church is defined as Christ’s body and therefore comes into being when Christ take on a body. Moreover, both Paul and Peter teach that the mystery of the Church was unknown to all previous generations. (Col 1:25-27; 1 Peter 10:12) According to Peter, it was hidden even to the prophets who foretold it.

 

[Peter_John]

ifor exampe the trinaty . some posters have claimed that mormons do not beleive in the trinaty however in 3Nephi 11:27 (yes thats part of BOM) it says " I say unto you, that the father son and holy ghost are one ; and I am in the father , and the father in me, and the father and i are one." I think we can all agree that this is a cleaqr statement that the trinity exists . go and compare it with passages in the jerusalem bible . the definition of the trinity according to the BOM is the same as according to the jerusalem bible .

now if a mormon has at somepoint said that the trinity is different or does not exist then that is a misinterpritation of their own holy book you cant dam the whole religeon and white wash everyone as beleiving that on that basis.That would be like claiming that just because the pentacostal catholics beleive that by writhing around on the floor during mas (i have witnessed this) that they will be inspired by god to reed out relevent scripture, that all catholics practise this .

as for the asumption by non catholics that BOM replaces the Gospal. 1nephi 13:40 “These last records which you have seen amongst the Gentiles [BOM ]shall establish the truth of the First the bible] which are of the 12 apostles and the lamb” BOM is ment as an educational aide complementing the gosple. if that wasnt enough proof every new elder that comes to talk with us gets asked “if you could only save one book in the entire world would it be BOM or the Bible ?” without fail the answer has always been the bible.

The Book of Mormon makes these claims, and here is the conflict: Joseph Smith’s First Vision involves having seen God the Father and Jesus Christ as two indpendent corporeal beings. This is considered in Mormonism, the most complete revelation of God, and when it seems to contradict something written, this is interpreted as not understanding what is written or error in what is written.

It is an inherent and foundational doctrine of Mormonism that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals united in purpose. The Ftaher has a distinct physical body, the sone gained one when He came to Earth, and the Holy Ghost does not yet have one, but will someday.

The Book of Mormon states that the later records will establish the truth of the first, and that means how much of them are true. The LDS claim of scriptural belief includes disbelief of whatever portion of the Bible they may consider improperly translated. While the King James Version is the version authorized for liturgical and eveangelical use in Mormonism, the Joseph Smtih Translation-actually a transliteration- is the reference for fixing doctrine.

Interstingly, as I read it the Book of Mormon affirms the validity of the Deuterocanonical books, but the LDS Church applies that verse otherwise.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

I find that having awakened from a dream and now being unable to get back to sleep, that I have the time so here goes a brief response:

Jesus was a tremendous example of being able to study the scriptures and get their real meaning without being burdened by the misinterpretations of the men around him–the Pharisees, Sadducees, scholars, and Sanhedrin. He also showed the need to seek the Spirit in reading and studying as did Paul and Peter, and showed that following a living teacher of the gospel who brought new truths to the world was not a bad thing.

Christ taught truths that lead to becoming perfect if they are applied in one’s life and are included by repentance, forgiveness, and seeking sanctification through being born of water and of the Spirit and denying oneself of all ungodliness. Some of His teachings used symbolism to have the teaching touch the heart of the listener, but sometimes the symbolism can be misunderstood, which is a given whenever symbolism is used, and He knew that would be the case. It is a case of His having given free will choice and having allowed the hearer to find truths or not, just as He spoke in parables and let people either understand or not, depending on their own heart.

Christ is not a “lesser prophet”, as you well know.

In answer to your final question: The part that emphasized personal, genuine, heartfelt prayer whether in a closet or in the field, and that the words of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Ghost will tell one “all things that ye should do”, and the part that emphasized that partaking of communion is for remembrance of Him and for seeking to have His Spirit to be with them.

I did not miss those parts. I refer to the Book’s own claim as “the fulness of the gospel” and Joseph Smtih’s affirmation of it as “the most correct book.” If these things are valid, how can other sopurces alter its plain words to mean the opposite of what it says. The most correct sources are those used to interpret the meaning of less correct sources, not the other way around. So, when using other sources to describe its clear descriptions of: 1) a Trinitarian God 2) The sancitity of Mary’s role 3) The way that the Deuterocanonical books got removed from the Protestant Bible – among other things, it should be the primaray source, or it is not the most correct book. If it is not the most correct book, Joseph Smith was not speaking truthfully.

This is a pattern for interpreting the Words of Christ. I He was the Son of God his words should be what clarify the words of others, not vice versa.

 

[ParkerD]

…
It should also be noted that the establishment of the “Church” in pre-Christian times as seen in the Book of Mormon misses the point even further, because the Church is defined as Christ’s body and therefore comes into being when Christ take on a body. Moreover, both Paul and Peter teach that the mystery of the Church was unknown to all previous generations. (Col 1:25-27; 1 Peter 10:12) According to Peter, it was hidden even to the prophets who foretold it.

Soren1,

I think you have missed the meaning of the word “mystery” in whatever passages you have found it.

(I don’t know what passage in the writings of Peter you are referring to, since there is not a 1 Peter 10:12.)

If one looks at Romans 16:26-27 they encounter the words “mystery”, “kept secret since the world began”, “made known to all nations”–which is consistent with Paul’s other uses of the word “mystery” in that he championed the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles and rejoiced in the fact that they were being embraced into all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that they didn’t have to be circumcised to receive those blessings. He also writes about “predestined” and “foreknowledge of God” and ties those words to “mystery”.

I think his memory of his own strong opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ ties to his use of the word “mystery” in that he was a student of the writings of the prophets, yet he missed the meaning entirely that Christ had been prophesied to come in the way that He did, and came to earth and here Paul had missed the meaning entirely and fought against it.

So there are at least two elements of the meaning: 1) that the Gentiles would receive the fullness of the gospel including becoming “perfect” through the Savior’s atoning grace and their repentance, and 2) that Christ’s mission was spiritual rather than the overthrow of a government and re-establishing of a ruling nation of Jews and the house of Israel as the Jews had in their minds the Messiah was supposed to do.

A wish of peace to all. I had noticed this thread was still being viewed, so I thought I should add a clarification about this word “mystery” and that it has nothing to do with whether the Book of Mormon peoples had an organization that could be called a “church” before the coming of Christ to earth.

 

[soren1]

Soren1,

(I don’t know what passage in the writings of Peter you are referring to, since there is not a 1 Peter 10:12.)

ParkerD,

It was a typo. I meant to write 1 Peter 1:10-12. It says:
The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
Though the word “mystery” is not used here, the concept is in play. There were things revealed to the prophets in previous times which they themselves did not understand. In particular, the prophets did not know that a new body of worshippers, distinct in some way from old Israel, would be the subject of God’s redemption through Israel. That is to say, they did not know about the Church.

I think you have missed the meaning of the word “mystery” in whatever passages you have found it.

and

If one looks at Romans 16:26-27 they encounter the words “mystery”, “kept secret since the world began”, “made known to all nations”–which is consistent with Paul’s other uses of the word “mystery” in that he championed the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles and rejoiced in the fact that they were being embraced into all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that they didn’t have to be circumcised to receive those blessings. He also writes about “predestined” and “foreknowledge of God” and ties those words to “mystery”.

So there are at least two elements of the meaning: 1) that the Gentiles would receive the fullness of the gospel including becoming “perfect” through the Savior’s atoning grace and their repentance, and 2) that Christ’s mission was spiritual rather than the overthrow of a government and re-establishing of a ruling nation of Jews and the house of Israel as the Jews had in their minds the Messiah was supposed to do.

Yes, indeed, that is just what I mean by “the mystery of the Church” – the extension of the preaching of the gospel to the gentiles brought about by the spiritual redemption of Christ, as opposed to a worldly victory. That is basically what is said in Col 1:24-27, which I cited before, and is assumed in most of the NT’s discussions of the Church.

But what is the nature of that unexpected spiritual redemption? What brings about the incorporation of the Gentiles into the gospel community? What principle unifies and explains the two elements you have correctly identified? The answer is grace, for it is through the outpouring of grace that Jesus reestablishes the Kingdom as a spiritual entity, and it is by grace that the New Covenant incorporates the gentiles. Accordingly, when the council of bishops debates whether to include the gentiles in the Church, the concluding point on which Peter hangs his hat is that salvation in Christ is by grace, and therefore available to the gentiles. (Act 15:11)

The texts I am have cited so far (also Eph 3:2-3) show that salvation through grace belonged to the mystery hidden from past generations. But did the Old Covenant constitute God’s people on the basis of grace? The New Testament writers contrast the Old and New Covenants by virtue of the absence of grace in the Old (that is, as a formally constitutive principle that defines God’s covenant people), as opposed to the advent of grace in Christ. (John 1:17) The doctrine of grace as a mystery emerges in pretty much all the texts that deal with the Church as a mystery. (Maybe there are exceptions, but I don’t know about them.)

A wish of peace to all. I had noticed this thread was still being viewed, so I thought I should add a clarification about this word “mystery” and that it has nothing to do with whether the Book of Mormon peoples had an organization that could be called a “church” before the coming of Christ to earth.

The Church in the Book of Mormon is constituted by a Christian baptism of grace as seen in Mosiah 18:16-17:
*And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were baptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the grace of God. And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church. *
That Alma’s baptism constitutes the Church through grace (even covenantal grace, per Mosiah 18:13, Alma 7:15) is more than sufficient establish an oppostion between BOM and New Testment ecclesiology, for reasons I have but partly given.

 

[Peter_John]

ParkerD,

It was a typo. I meant to write 1 Peter 1:10-12. It says:
The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
Though the word “mystery” is not used here, the concept is in play. There were things revealed to the prophets in previous times which they themselves did not understand. In particular, the prophets did not know that a new body of worshippers, distinct in some way from old Israel, would be the subject of God’s redemption through Israel. That is to say, they did not know about the Church.

and

Yes, indeed, that is just what I mean by “the mystery of the Church” – the extension of the preaching of the gospel to the gentiles brought about by the spiritual redemption of Christ, as opposed to a worldly victory. That is basically what is said in Col 1:24-27, which I cited before, and is assumed in most of the NT’s discussions of the Church.

But what is the nature of that unexpected spiritual redemption? What brings about the incorporation of the Gentiles into the gospel community? What principle unifies and explains the two elements you have correctly identified? The answer is grace, for it is through the outpouring of grace that Jesus reestablishes the Kingdom as a spiritual entity, and it is by grace that the New Covenant incorporates the gentiles. Accordingly, when the council of bishops debates whether to include the gentiles in the Church, the concluding point on which Peter hangs his hat is that salvation in Christ is by grace, and therefore available to the gentiles. (Act 15:11)

The texts I am have cited so far (also Eph 3:2-3) show that salvation through grace belonged to the mystery hidden from past generations. But did the Old Covenant constitute God’s people on the basis of grace? The New Testament writers contrast the Old and New Covenants by virtue of the absence of grace in the Old (that is, as a formally constitutive principle that defines God’s covenant people), as opposed to the advent of grace in Christ. (John 1:17) The doctrine of grace as a mystery emerges in pretty much all the texts that deal with the Church as a mystery. (Maybe there are exceptions, but I don’t know about them.)

The Church in the Book of Mormon is constituted by a Christian baptism of grace as seen in Mosiah 18:16-17:
*And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were baptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the grace of God. And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church. *
That Alma’s baptism constitutes the Church through grace (even covenantal grace, per Mosiah 18:13, Alma 7:15) is more than sufficient establish an oppostion between BOM and New Testment ecclesiology, for reasons I have but partly given.

Ya know, the Bible makes a lot more sense when one need not redefine its terms based on writing that is allegedly more accurate.

It is interesting to see where one phrase purports that the “Church” was not known in Old Testament times, then a subsequent phrase cites a book that affirmed the Church was not only ofreseen but implemented before Jesus’ time.

 

[Peter_John]

The only problem with this is that in the Bible we have God saying that there is no other God but me. If that is true then would not it nullify what you have written in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being 3 entirley different gods? Would it not lead to the Triniterian of 1 God in 3 persons.

So how do we justify apparent contradictions with Biblical verses affirming that God is “the King over all the gods” (Psalm 95, I think)

LDS apologetics uses such verses (or statements like Paul’s “though there be many that are called gods … yet to us there is one God…” to support that the idea of a multiplicity of gods is inherent in both Old and New Testament practice, and a teaching whose details were later suppressed through corrupted scripture

How can these seemingly contradictory statements both be true while retaining the Bible’s integrity as sacred writ, without altering anything?

There is a ver good answer. It interests me to hear what answers may come up…

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

It was a typo. I meant to write 1 Peter 1:10-12. It says:
The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
Though the word “mystery” is not used here, the concept is in play. There were things revealed to the prophets in previous times which they themselves did not understand. In particular, the prophets did not know that a new body of worshippers, distinct in some way from old Israel, would be the subject of God’s redemption through Israel. That is to say, they did not know about the Church.

…
The Church in the Book of Mormon is constituted by a Christian baptism of grace as seen in Mosiah 18:16-17:
*And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were baptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the grace of God. And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church. *
That Alma’s baptism constitutes the Church through grace (even covenantal grace, per Mosiah 18:13, Alma 7:15) is more than sufficient establish an opposition between BOM and New Testment ecclesiology, for reasons I have but partly given.

Soren1,

I suppose that I should respond to your post here, hoping that there may be some good thing that can come from providing a response while not wanting to hinder your free will choice in what you have determined as the basis for what I myself look at as another fulfillment of “seeing, they see not”.

First, here is the Douay Rheims translation of 1 Peter 1:10-12, which is less helpful than the KJV but more helpful than the translation you chose for this passage, other than its benefit toward the assertion you have made about “grace”.

[10] Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and diligently searched, who prophesied of the grace to come in you. [KJV “unto you” rather than “in you”.]

[11] Searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ in them did signify: when it foretold those sufferings that are in Christ, and the glories that should follow: [12] To whom it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to you [KJV “unto us” rather than “to you”] they ministered those things which are now declared to you by them that have preached the gospel to you, the Holy Ghost being sent down from heaven, on whom the angels desire to look.

This passage does not say that the prophets didn’t know about Christ or His sufferings and His provident grace, and does not say that they didn’t know about the gospel going to the Gentiles and that they would also receive all the grace Christ offers to all mankind. The book of Isaiah is very clear about the gospel being given to the Gentiles after being given to the Jews and the house of Israel.

But what Peter notes is that when Isaiah and the other prophets saw that great outpouring of the gospel to all nations including the Gentiles, and the Gentiles being brought into the covenant, that Isaiah wasn’t telling that for the benefit of the Jews of his time or the kingdom of Israel of his time, since it didn’t apply to what they needed to do and didn’t apply to their time in history. The gospel going to the Gentiles was going to come at the later time, after the coming of the Messiah to the earth, just as Jesus taught when He said to go to all nations and yet had said during His ministry that He was come “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

So the prophet Isaiah and other prophets knew of Christ’s grace, knew of the gathering of both the house of Israel and of the Gentiles into the fold of Christ, and knew that it would not be during their own time period but in a later time period that the Gentiles would receive the gospel and be gathered into His arms of safety.

“Grace” certainly applied to all believers in Christ, including the prophets and those who understood their prophecies about His mission and including those who had it hidden from their understanding because of their own spiritual blindness.

 

[KathleenGee]

On the side, here…when I get the time…I want to come and read the posts between Soren and Peter John…I can follow their posts the best understanding Mormonism and Catholic differences…

Thank you both for participating…

Kathleen

PS God bless and keep you, Parker…

 

[zaffiroborant]

Soren1,

I suppose that I should respond to your post here, hoping that there may be some good thing that can come from providing a response while not wanting to hinder your free will choice in what you have determined as the basis for what I myself look at as another fulfillment of “seeing, they see not”.

How can you hinder Soren1’s free will choice?

 

[ParkerD]

How can you hinder Soren1’s free will choice?

Z,

I guess that was an expression of a personal wish and somewhat of a struggle I deal with, of whether to encourage someone with a strong set of beliefs to look at another translation such as Douay Rheims or the KJV and perhaps find a whole new way of looking at a passage, in that if someone has made a determination in their mind they may feel pushed into a corner if what they had believed is shown to have been not quite so cut and dried. I don’t want to push anyone into that kind of corner, as I feel like that hinders their free will choice.

Everyone should have the full benefits of their free will choice with no sense of being forced or pushed into a corner. I certainly don’t feel pushed into a corner nor do I struggle in the least with whether the Book of Mormon was correct in identifying the abundant grace Christ offers, before He was actually born into the world.

A continuing wish and hope of peace to all readers.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Z,

I guess that was an expression of a personal wish and somewhat of a struggle I deal with, of whether to encourage someone with a strong set of beliefs to look at another translation such as Douay Rheims or the KJV and perhaps find a whole new way of looking at a passage, in that if someone has made a determination in their mind they may feel pushed into a corner if what they had believed is shown to have been not quite so cut and dried. I don’t want to push anyone into that kind of corner, as I feel like that hinders their free will choice.

Everyone should have the full benefits of their free will choice with no sense of being forced or pushed into a corner. I certainly don’t feel pushed into a corner nor do I struggle in the least with whether the Book of Mormon was correct in identifying the abundant grace Christ offers, before He was actually born into the world.

A continuing wish and hope of peace to all readers.

If something so small as asking someone to look at another translation or to hear a different interpretation of a passage hinders free will then any religious discussion or proselytizing also hinders free will choice. And why would anyone feel pushed into a corner by hearing of someone elses’ interpretation, heck stating your interpretation doesn’t even qualify as proselytizing.

 

[Tony888]

‘No’ now, or ‘no’ back then? It is confusing, all of the changes.

The last missionaries to speak with me were honest enough to admit that the LDS deity is different in substance from the Christian God. I appreciate that.

I disagree and suspect there was confusion

The Catholics believe that 1/3 of their Trinity is both flesh and diety (Christ)
The LDS believe that 2/3 of their Godhead is both flesh and diety (God the Father and Christ)

 

[zaffiroborant]

I disagree and suspect there was confusion

The Catholics believe that 1/3 of their Trinity is both flesh and diety (Christ)
The LDS believe that 2/3 of their Godhead is both flesh and diety (God the Father and Christ)

The LDS deity is different in substance from the Christian God, to say otherwise is deceptive.

 

[ParkerD]

The LDS deity is different in substance from the Christian God, to say otherwise is deceptive.

This would be because both the word “Christian” (as used in the context of that sentence) and the word “substance” (which is not a Biblical word at all and given the context of that sentence) disregard Biblical teachings and go off on a tangent that is not in the Bible.

When the meaning becomes “owned” by the user of the word disregarding its origin, then of course the person will be able to take their definition of the word and say “anyone who uses the word I have defined in my certain way in a different way, even if it is as used in the Bible through its origin, has been deceptive”.

Thus the word “deceptive” has been re-defined also by the user of the word.

 

[SteveVH]

If something so small as asking someone to look at another translation or to hear a different interpretation of a passage hinders free will then any religious discussion or proselytizing also hinders free will choice. And why would anyone feel pushed into a corner by hearing of someone elses’ interpretation, heck stating your interpretation doesn’t even qualify as proselytizing.

If I may add something here. If pointing out flaws in another’s interpretation or understanding of the Gospel is interfering in one’s free will choice, then what is the point of having Mormon missionaries, who’s very purpose is to influence one’s understanding and pursuade them to change their beliefs?

 

[zaffiroborant]

If I may add something here. If pointing out flaws in another’s interpretation or understanding of the Gospel is interfering in one’s free will choice, then what is the point of having Mormon missionaries, who’s very purpose is to influence one’s understanding and pursuade them to change their beliefs?

Agreed, those 50,000 missionaries are hindering the free will choice of hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[Peter_John]

Agreed, those 50,000 missionaries are hindering the free will choice of hundreds of thousands of people.

That I have to dispute. I do not see how offering someone another choice hinders their free will choice. Nobody holds a gun to the heads of the people who choose to convert to Mormonism. Now – as many of the arguments put forward in these pages show – there is often not a full disclosure of all LDS beliefs in what they present before converts choose to join them. In defense of the missionaries themselves, they do not perceive themselves as being deceptive. Many really do believe that converts understand some ideas better after confirmation.

Sure, once someone joins and starts hearing what the missionaries didn’t tell them they have a real hard time getting their names off the roles by requesting it, but there is a quicker way. All they have to do is voice disagreement with enough LDS teachings. Then they will get excommunicated from the LDS church, and with that status the Church won’t care if they ever come back.

To be fair, many Catholics who choose to convert to Mormonism do not clearly understand their own faith and that is the fault of faith formation education within the Catholic Church. If we are not properly catechizing our own members, are we not hindering their free will choice with bad information as well?