LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[pinay]

Parker
For those viewing

If you were bringing this to one who did not know what Christianity has brought forth for two thousand years regarding who God is, who Jesus is, how you have written your thoughts is very misleading. I see it all the time here in Utah with those taught and baptized LDS. They do not learn the truth until after the Baptism, when they begin to research Chritsianity, look into it. This is why the retention rate for new LDS converts is so low compared to the Catholic Church’s retention. When you fall in love with Jesus, love itself , it tends to stick. .

We spend a year or more helping those who are considering entering into our family, we help them build a relationship with Jesus, to fall in love with Jesus. We hide nothing. When we speak about the Holy Trinity we are as clear as we can be, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit our one in being. . That there is no other for this world or any other worlds that may exist. That they hold all things into existence. We will never posses what God has as God ourselves. Yet we have been gifted to share in what the Father and Son have always had through all of eternity. “Love”

God is creation itself, we have been created by God.

“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.’” (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).

I’m not sure what you mean by “they don’t learn the truth until after baptism”. Baptism in the Catholic church may be given with or without the knowledge of Catholic doctrine. This is not the same in LDS Baptism. In LDS baptism, it is required that you understand, acknowledge, and accept the doctrine as true before you can be qualified for baptism. So, yes,you have to learn the truth about Jesus Christ before you can be baptized and this may take a few months/years of study.

And about Gordon B. Hinckley’s quote: The Traditional Christ is the Trinitarian concept of Jesus Christ. Therefore, that Christ is not whom Gordon B. Hinckley (and the LDS) speak of. We speak of Jesus Christ who is separate and distinct in person and substance from Heavenly Father who appeared to Joseph Smith when he was 14 years old. This nature of Jesus Christ and the Godhead is what a non-LDS have to accept as truth before they can qualify for baptism.

About continuing studies after baptism, usually, a convert to the church (not born into the Church) have had their pre-baptismal studies with a missionary and some members of the ward (same as Parish). After baptism, the members of the ward continue the studies with the new member (commonly referred to as “new member discussions”). Also, every week, all members of the Church (new or old) go to Sunday School. There are several choices on which Sunday school class to attend - but usually, a new member would want to join the Gospel Principles class which goes into a lot of detail the lessons that would normally have been discussed in the “new member discussions”. After a while, a new member may want to move on to Gospel Doctrine class.

What you will find though, is that a lot of members who have been with the church for a long time come back to Gospel Principles class just to get a fresh look of the basic tenets of the church. So that, usually, you will find the new member well immersed in the Gospel Principles discussions with “seasoned” members of the church exchanging ideas and thoughts with new members learning from the old members and old members learning from the new members alike.

 

[Inishfree]

Catholic and Methodist Baptisms are a sacrament of the church. It is usually performed while the child is an infant. Confirmation is done around the age of fourteen. The child has a choice as to wether or not they want to recieve this. It is the same for Catholic and Traditional Protestants. They recieve at least eight years of CCD or Sunday School. Unless a Catholic child is going to Catholic school, he or she will learn about the Catholic faith, while in school.

Is the LDS church the only christian denomination that does not believe in the Holy Trinity?

Having the privalege of attending both a United Methodist and Roman Catholic churches. I know for sure, they believe in it. Father, son and holy spirit.

 

[pinay]

Catholic and Methodist Baptisms are a sacrament of the church. It is usually performed while the child is an infant. Confirmation is done around the age of fourteen. The child has a choice as to wether or not they want to recieve this. It is the same for Catholic and Traditional Protestants. They recieve at least eight years of CCD or Sunday School. Unless a Catholic child is going to Catholic school, he or she will learn about the Catholic faith, while in school.

Is the LDS church the only christian denomination that does not believe in the Holy Trinity?

Having the privalege of attending both a United Methodist and Roman Catholic churches. I know for sure, they believe in it. Father, son and holy spirit.

If you look back into your Catholic History, you will find that a bunch of Catholics did not follow the Trinitarian doctrine defined in the Council of Nicea. They split from the See of Rome and they are their own Church. One of them is the Arian Catholics that still exist until today.

There are a whole bunch of Christians who are not Trinitarians - but, as far as the Christian Coalition is concerned, if you’re not Trinitarian you’re not Christian… So, if you follow that definition (which doesn’t make sense because Arians were Christians before the Council of Nicea - they didn’t stop becoming Christians just because they didn’t agree with the decision of the Council on the nature of Christ), then there are no non-Trinitarian Christians.

 

[Inishfree]

Then believe what you will, Parker, you are certainly free to do so. I happen to find your position unconvincing. It is clear that Peter was chosen, above the rest of the Apostles. This does not mean that the other Apostles did not receive authority as well, but not the same authority. Christ said that he had been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” and then commanded all eleven of them to go out to all nations, baptising them and teaching them all that He had commanded, and then He promised to remain with His Church until the end of time (no anticipation of an apostasy here). But it was only to Peter that He gave the keys to the kingdom, signifying a different authority. Only Peter’s name was used as the foundation upon which Christ was to build His Church.

You can choose to ignore this and go through mental gymnastics in order to arrive at a different meaning, but those words remain and they are very clear. “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church…” He did this in order to maintain unity within His Church, among other reasons. He did not desire each “church” to operate independently of the others, as in the Orthodox Churches of today, even though we do recognize their apostolic authority, and he certainly did not desire the truth he handed down to Peter and the Apostles to be changed or modified by every guy that comes along with a different idea to the point that some “Christian” churches are unrecognizable as even being Christian other than in name only. It is why He sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all truth. Those that choose to reject this Church have chosen to reject this truth as well.

As far as your claim that the Holy Spirit “confirms truths to individuals through their sincere heartfelt prayers if they have studied the Bible with an open heart” this is not evidence. Forget that fact that you are implying that the rest of us either do not have the Holy Spirit, or do not pray sincerely or do not study the Bible with an open heart and therefore have not arrived at your conclusion. One can always make the claim that “God told me so”, but when it conflicts with what we know He said, it is unconvincing, or worse.

I learned this when I was attending a Methodist church as a child. We believed in the Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostotic Church. We prayed the Apostles Creed, every Suday, along with The Lord’s Prayer.

 

[SteveVH]

If you look back into your Catholic History, you will find that a bunch of Catholics did not follow the Trinitarian doctrine defined in the Council of Nicea. They split from the See of Rome and they are their own Church. One of them is the Arian Catholics that still exist until today.

Yes, there is one on every corner. The Catholic Church condemned this heresy a long time ago. But the LDS view is not one of Arianism, but rather polytheism.

There are a whole bunch of Christians who are not Trinitarians - but, as far as the Christian Coalition is concerned, if you’re not Trinitarian you’re not Christian… So, if you follow that definition (which doesn’t make sense because Arians were Christians before the Council of Nicea - they didn’t stop becoming Christians just because they didn’t agree with the decision of the Council on the nature of Christ), then there are no non-Trinitarian Christians.

Please name the “whole bunch” of Christians who are not Trinitarians. Arians can hardly be called Christian when they deny the very nature of the Christian God. They were never referred to as “Arian Christians” anyway. They are simply Arians. You can call a dog’s tail a leg if you wish, but it still has only four legs.

 

[zaffiroborant]

If you look back into your Catholic History, you will find that a bunch of Catholics did not follow the Trinitarian doctrine defined in the Council of Nicea. They split from the See of Rome and they are their own Church. One of them is the Arian Catholics that still exist until today.

.

Do you think that people who don’t believe that Jesus is God or in anyway divine qualify as Christians? The Arians don’t simply not believe in the Trinity, they don’t believe Christ is in anyway divine, he is nothing more than a a man who is “spiritually” the Son of God.

Do you agree with this statement from their web-site

“Jesus Christ, the same man who was crucified on the cross under Pontius Pilate was not the same entity that created the Universe, the earth”

If so do you think anyone who thinks Jesus simply taught and exemplified a sound approach to compassionate living qualify as a Christian and I’m going to do what he said qualifies as a Christian? Even though they don’t believe any of that silly religious malarkey about dieing to save us from our sins?

 

[Inishfree]

Do you think that people who don’t believe that Jesus is God or in anyway divine qualify as Christians? The Arians don’t simply not believe in the Trinity, they don’t believe Christ is in anyway divine, he is nothing more than a a man who is “spiritually” the Son of God.

Do you agree with this statement from their web-site

If so do you think anyone who thinks Jesus simply taught and exemplified a sound approach to compassionate living qualify as a Christian and I’m going to do what he said qualifies as a Christian? Even though they don’t believe any of that silly religious malarkey about dieing to save us from our sins?

Good question. Chistians do believe Jesus is the Messiah. He is divine, the only son of God and died for our sins. That is what unites us. Protestant and Catholic alike.

 

[Inishfree]

If you look back into your Catholic History, you will find that a bunch of Catholics did not follow the Trinitarian doctrine defined in the Council of Nicea. They split from the See of Rome and they are their own Church. One of them is the Arian Catholics that still exist until today.

There are a whole bunch of Christians who are not Trinitarians - but, as far as the Christian Coalition is concerned, if you’re not Trinitarian you’re not Christian… So, if you follow that definition (which doesn’t make sense because Arians were Christians before the Council of Nicea - they didn’t stop becoming Christians just because they didn’t agree with the decision of the Council on the nature of Christ), then there are no non-Trinitarian Christians.

I have a question for you and please don’t quote BOM. Because I have never read it.

I would like to know if you believe in the Emaculate Conception? All Protestants and Catholics believe this to be true.

Thanks in advance.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I have a question for you and please don’t quote BOM. Because I have never read it.

I would like to know if you believe in the Emaculate Conception? All Protestants and Catholics believe this to be true.

Thanks in advance.

That is not true. Alot of Protestants do not beleive in the Blessed Virgins’ Immaculate Conception. You maybe thinking of the virgin birth of Christ the two are not the same.

The Immaculate Conception is that the BVM was conceived without sin.

 

[KathleenGee]

Pinay,

The Arians believed that Christ had a beginning, but the Nicene Creed was composed…and now with our English translation more like the Latin, and its translation more the same in other non-English speaking countries, we will say of Christ consubstantiated with the Father.

In other words, Christ has the same substance as the Father, which is God…Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word through which the Father spoke in creating the universe, giving it carnate form through Christ.

In salvation history, Christ is the apex of God’s revelation to us. God cannot come any closer to us except through Christ, His Son.

Nothing can be greater than Jesus, nothing or no one can explain Who He is than the Holy Spirit help in understanding in what the Lord already revealed about Himself to His apostles.

 

[Inishfree]

That is not true. Alot of Protestants do not beleive in the Blessed Virgins’ Immaculate Conception. You maybe thinking of the virgin birth of Christ the two are not the same.

The Immaculate Conception is that the BVM was conceived without sin.

Thank you, that was what I meant to say. The virgin birth of Christ. I think Protestants and Cathlics believe this. Not God having relations with Mary.

I knew that Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed mother. I believe it too. Another reason for me becoming Catholic.

I have a few questions for the practicing LDS members though. Have you ever seen the golden tablets Joseph Smith spoke of? And if so, what do they look like? Are they in a Utal museum for the public to see. Plus, the man on top of Morman Temples what does that represent?

 

[TheExorcist]

I have a few questions for the practicing LDS members though. Have you ever seen the golden tablets Joseph Smith spoke of? And if so, what do they look like? Are they in a Utal museum for the public to see. Plus, the man on top of Morman Temples what does that represent?

Only about 13 people have seen the plates that Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon came from. When the work of translation was done the angel Moroni (the man on top of the LDS temples) took them back to heaven

 

[ParkerD]

I have a few questions for the practicing LDS members though. Have you ever seen the golden tablets Joseph Smith spoke of? And if so, what do they look like? Are they in a Utal museum for the public to see. Plus, the man on top of Morman Temples what does that represent?

Inishfree,

I hope you understand that the Latter-day Saints believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, when she was “great with child”, and at the time of the birth of the baby Jesus as well as a reasonable time after He was born.

To clarify about the “golden tablets”–Joseph Smith explained that Moroni came to retrieve them after the translation was complete, and “called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, 1838.” So we don’t know if Moroni placed them into safe-keeping on this earth, or took them to heaven with him, but he is “in charge” of them.

It would be contrary to the order of heaven for those golden tablets to be available to be seen, because then a person who saw them would be in less of an “act of faith” position to do what Moroni said the reader of the book should do–to ask God about the truthfulness of the record and the teachings of the book. They would be in an “act of reason” position, which is not the way spiritual truths are revealed nor spiritual knowledge communicated to the heart, soul, and spirit of a person. So active Latter-day Saints don’t “wish” they could see the golden tablets, as some sort of “proof” about their existence.

 

[KathleenGee]

Do the golden tablets replace the 10 commandments?

When Moses came down from Mt Sinai holding the clay tablets inscripted by the finger of God, the people were worshipping the Golden Calf. The law was broken between God and His people, and then Moses threw down clay tablets to the ground in response to the people’s idolatry. The Hebrew priesthood was lost except the Levi because they would not worship the Golden Calf.

But the Levi’s were dictated by time and geneology. They could only serve as priests for a particular time.

Christ comes from the order of Melchizedek, where there is no time, and Melchizedek prophecies the coming one day of the perpetual sacrifice. No matter how much believers in God try, inspite of all their good intentions…they, we sin.

So in light of this, then what good is belief in the Golden Plates, when the 10 Commandments themselves were broken and shattered, thrown to the ground by Moses.

 

[Inishfree]

Thnak you taking the time to give me your replies. I hope no one was thinking. I was being disrespectful. It goes against my Catholic belief to do this. I admit. I know very little about the LDS Church and their doctrine.

I honestly respect everyone’s choice. It is what America stands for. My Gaelic Irish ancestors came to the USA for the freedom to be Catholic. They had been reduced to extreme poverty by Penal Laws and vast lands they once owned, were taken from them.

I have several ancient Gaelic Irish bloodlines. Dating back to the time of St. Patrick and Pre-Christian Ireland. I an sort of the family historian. It is a hobby of mine.

God bless you all.

 

[Inishfree]

Do the golden tablets replace the 10 commandments?

When Moses came down from Mt Sinai holding the clay tablets inscripted by the finger of God, the people were worshipping the Golden Calf. The law was broken between God and His people, and then Moses threw down clay tablets to the ground in response to the people’s idolatry. The Hebrew priesthood was lost except the Levi because they would not worship the Golden Calf.

But the Levi’s were dictated by time and geneology. They could only serve as priests for a particular time.

Christ comes from the order of Melchizedek, where there is no time, and Melchizedek prophecies the coming one day of the perpetual sacrifice. No matter how much believers in God try, inspite of all their good intentions…they, we sin.

So in light of this, then what good is belief in the Golden Plates, when the 10 Commandments themselves were broken and shattered, thrown to the ground by Moses.

I wonder this too, Kathleen. That was why I was asking my questions. I wasn’t making fun of Mormans. I wondered what was written on the golden tablets and if was something simular. Of course, I believe Moses recieved the Ten Commandments.

 

[ParkerD]

I wonder this too, Kathleen. That was why I was asking my questions. I wasn’t making fun of Mormans. I wondered what was written on the golden tablets and if was something simular. Of course, I believe Moses recieved the Ten Commandments.

Inishfree and Kathleen,

Kathleen used the term “golden plates” which is the more common description than “golden tablets” since that probably does lead to confusion with something like the Ten Commandments, written by the hand of God.

The “golden plates” were inscribed by men, who were prophets or historian/prophets keeping the records of how their own people had a relationship with God and taught about that relationship and about keeping the commandments (including about the need to keep the Ten Commandments, which they knew about and had them and taught them to their children).

Reading what was translated from what was written on the “golden plates” is only useful if a reader is curious about how it would be or could be that a group of people outside of the actual record of the Bible could have a relationship with God that included having prophets among them, with teachings inspired by God. It would mean that such a reader would need to understand that the Bible is a record of God’s dealings with a select group of people who had prophets among them, and that the Bible does not limit itself to being the only record possible of God’s dealings with people who knew about God and made covenants with God–that there could have been such another group of people on the great planet earth than just the people at Jerusalem, and that the two groups would not be mutually exclusive meaning they could both exist at the same time period, in different places on the earth.

It would mean a curiosity about God’s dealings with mankind on a larger scale than “the Bible is the be-all and the end-all” for how God dealt with mankind during the history of the world.

 

[pinay]

Yes, there is one on every corner. The Catholic Church condemned this heresy a long time ago. But the LDS view is not one of Arianism, but rather polytheism.

I didn’t say LDS is Arianism. I merely answered the question, “are there other Christian denominations besides the LDS who do not believe in the Holy Trinity”.

And LDS in not polytheist (c’mon Steve, you’ve studied LDS long enough to know the difference, yes?). But that’s for another thread.

Please name the “whole bunch” of Christians who are not Trinitarians.

Here’s a list of them. I don’t know if that’s a complete list. But, it’s more than I can tell you off the top of my head.

Arians can hardly be called Christian when they deny the very nature of the Christian God. They were never referred to as “Arian Christians” anyway. They are simply Arians. You can call a dog’s tail a leg if you wish, but it still has only four legs.

Do you think that people who don’t believe that Jesus is God or in anyway divine qualify as Christians? The Arians don’t simply not believe in the Trinity, they don’t believe Christ is in anyway divine, he is nothing more than a a man who is “spiritually” the Son of God.

Do you agree with this statement from their web-site

If so do you think anyone who thinks Jesus simply taught and exemplified a sound approach to compassionate living qualify as a Christian and I’m going to do what he said qualifies as a Christian? Even though they don’t believe any of that silly religious malarkey about dieing to save us from our sins?

Before the Council of Nicea - or was it Ephesus - Arians (among others) were Christians. It wasn’t until the Catholic church declared that whoever do not believe in the Holy Trinity cannot be counted among “us” that their Christian label came into question.

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.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I didn’t say LDS is Arianism. I merely answered the question, “are there other Christian denominations besides the LDS who do not believe in the Holy Trinity”.

And LDS in not polytheist (c’mon Steve, you’ve studied LDS long enough to know the difference, yes?). But that’s for another thread.

Here’s a list of them. I don’t know if that’s a complete list. But, it’s more than I can tell you off the top of my head.

Before the Council of Nicea - or was it Ephesus - Arians (among others) were Christians. It wasn’t until the Catholic church declared that whoever do not believe in the Holy Trinity cannot be counted among “us” that their Christian label came into question.

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.

So you don’t have to believe that Jesus is God, or that He died for our sins, or that He was “born of a Virgin” or that He was resurrected, or that He is the way and the truth and the life. Thank you it is helpful to understand the scope of belief the LDS church encompasses. I had no idea these were not fundamental beliefs.

It’s Merriam Webster and you do know that Merriam is not a first name.

 

[pinay]

So you don’t have to believe that Jesus is God, or that He died for our sins, or that He was “born of a Virgin” or that He was resurrected, or that He is the way and the truth and the life. Thank you it is helpful to understand the scope of belief the LDS church encompasses. I had no idea these were not fundamental beliefs.

It’s Merriam Webster and you do know that Merriam is not a first name.

Zaffiroborant… we were talking of Arians - not LDS… follow the thread please…

Yes, I do know Merriam is not a first name - I was using the ontological metaphor of personification to sound cool. I guess it didn’t work.

Anyway, just so you won’t walk away with all these crazy ideas about LDS -
Yes, LDS believe Jesus is God
Yes, LDS believe He died for our sins
Yes, LDS believe He was born of Mary who was a virgin at the time
Yes, LDS believe He is resurrected
Yes, LDS believe He is the way the truth and the life.

Yet, amazingly, a number of Catholics on this forum don’t believe LDS are Christians. Oh well.