LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[RebeccaJ]

You are correct, but, at the same time, there are a gazillion people who will correct the 10-year-old’s edit.

But, if you follow the citations, I don’t see anywhere where it is questionable. And there’s also Webster. So, the wikipedia entry is definitely not standing alone.

pinay, just as wikipedia is not the infallible interpreter of Scripture, so it is not the defining organ of Christianity, Christ’s Church is.

 

[pinay]

I will never understand why a Catholic would become Mormon, giving up the Real Presence of Jesus Christ for Wonder bread, among many other things…the richness of everlasting life in Jesus Christ for the promise of becoming a god.

Okay, I’ll address this one… fasten your seatbelts… because… I didn’t learn this as an LDS. I learned this as a Catholic.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 460:

The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”

“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God. For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

No difference.

 

[pinay]

pinay, just as wikipedia is not the infallible interpreter of Scripture, so it is not the defining organ of Christianity, Christ’s Church is.

Not the point… the issue is the authoritative definition of the word Christian - because, there are a jillion churches who claim to be Christ’s Church. Roman Catholicism being one of them.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Okay, I’ll address this one… fasten your seatbelts… because… I didn’t learn this as an LDS. I learned this as a Catholic.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 460:

No difference.

See Kathleen’s remarks regarding the deceit you have fallen for.

There is quite a difference, and if you were the well catechized Catholic you claim to be, you would be able to describe those differences.

It starts with WHO GOD IS…which is not how you are or will ever be.

The foundation of Mormonism is severely flawed, and informs every aspect…it is not Catholic or even pseudo-Catholic, it is something other.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Not the point… the issue is the authoritative definition of the word Christian - because, there are a jillion churches who claim to be Christ’s Church. Roman Catholicism being one of them.

See SteveVH’s posts…Mormons ignore Christian history, to their own detriment.

 

[lax16]

As established by the United States Patent Office, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not own the term “Mormons”.

Therefore, the Fundamentalist LDS Church, the Reorganized LDS Church, the Community of Christ, Stanley King LDS, the Sherman Russell LDS… there’s tons and tons of Churches who hold the Book of Mormon as true… have a claim to the term “Mormons” as well.

So, your reasoning doesn’t apply here.

Who gets to decide… I assure you, it’s not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unless you’re in a country where the Mormon name is trademarked.

So, my go-to source is always the Merriam Webster. And according to Miss Merriam (hey, take note, I’m using personification here!)

Mormons
1: the ancient redactor and compiler of the Book of Mormon presented as divine revelation by Joseph Smith
2: latter-day saint; especially : a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

According to Merriam, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a claim to it. What can I say…

Hi pinay - I guess you didn’t see that the word “own” was in quotes? meaning - It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who decides who is a legit mormon. you know, who gets to go into the temple and do the rituals necessary for salvation?

Even all of those sects you mentioned that claim to be followers of the BoM are shunned by the LDS and especially those who are (still) polygamists because they are following original doctrine.

That’s why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are policing their temples because all do not belong - those who do not fit the definition of a worthy Mormon.

In other words, even Mormons live by definitions, and so can the Christians that have continued on for 2,000 years. It’s just the way it is.

 

[SteveVH]

I am not refuting the facts. I’m merely pointing out that the facts you presented does not make the Catholic Church the “owner” of the term Christian just like the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints does not own the term “Mormons” - even if there are a jillion sects out there who do not fall in-line with LDS doctrine.

I did not give you wikipedia. I gave you all the supporting documents of the wikipedia entry for the term Christian in addition to Merriam Webster. I don’t know how much more authoritative you can go from there on the meaning of a certain English word.

I’m not sure if I mentioned this before… but I don’t really much care what you want to define Christian as. It is merely a word. A label. If you don’t want to use Merriam Webster’s definition, that’s fine. It doesn’t change what you nor I believe in.

Pinay, this conversation started when you tried to say that this only what I believed. I have just shown you that it isn’t just what I believe but that this belief actually has some substance. Now you say you won’t refute the facts. Of course you won’t, because they are true. Can I say that I believe that Jesus came from the moon and that we should serve green cheese at communion and still call myself “Christian”? How far do we go here? Sorry, it was defined a long time ago and Mormonism doesn’t meet the definition.

 

[pinay]

See Kathleen’s remarks regarding the deceit you have fallen for.

There is quite a difference, and if you were the well catechized Catholic you claim to be, you would be able to describe those differences.

It starts with WHO GOD IS…which is not how you are or will ever be.

The foundation of Mormonism is severely flawed, and informs every aspect…it is not Catholic or even pseudo-Catholic, it is something other.

You are completely correct, of course. If it was Catholic or even pseudo-Catholic, we would have communion with the Pope.

And yes, I can describe those differences. And it is these differences that made me choose one over the other. I don’t expect you, or anybody else for that matter - including my children - to believe in the same thing. It is a journey reserved for each individual’s appeal to their own relationship with Jesus Christ.

The only thing that matters is the love and respect we give each other despite our differences. To be honest, true, and benevolent with our dealings with our fellow men following Christ’s example. That is what makes us Christians.

 

[pinay]

Pinay, this conversation started when you tried to say that this only what I believed. I have just shown you that it isn’t just what I believe but that this belief actually has some substance. Now you say you won’t refute the facts. Of course you won’t, because they are true. Can I say that I believe that Jesus came from the moon and that we should serve green cheese at communion and still call myself “Christian”? How far do we go here? Sorry, it was defined a long time ago and Mormonism doesn’t meet the definition.

I apologize profusely. I did not realize you misunderstood what I said. I meant YOU as in - the Roman Catholic Church - not You as in SteveVH. I should have been more clear.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are completely correct, of course. If it was Catholic or even pseudo-Catholic, we would have communion with the Pope.

And yes, I can describe those differences. And it is these differences that made me choose one over the other. I don’t expect you, or anybody else for that matter - including my children - to believe in the same thing. It is a journey reserved for each individual’s appeal to their own relationship with Jesus Christ.

The only thing that matters is the love and respect we give each other despite our differences. To be honest, true, and benevolent with our dealings with our fellow men following Christ’s example. That is what makes us Christians.

pinay, I am honest with you. It is Mormons who have lied to you, not me.

PS: I know many atheists who meet your definition of Christian.

 

[SteveVH]

I apologize profusely. I did not realize you misunderstood what I said. I meant YOU as in - the Roman Catholic Church - not You as in SteveVH. I should have been more clear.

No apology necessary as I was never offended, but thanks anyway. But the question remains, how far do we go before one does not meet the definition of “Christian”? I am truly interested in your answer. Or is it that one can call himself Christian regardless of belief? Do I just have to say “I follow Christ” even if I just believe he was a wise man, but not the Son of God? Where do you draw the line?

Thanks.

 

[choliks]

You are correct, but, at the same time, there are a gazillion people who will correct the 10-year-old’s edit.

But, if you follow the citations, I don’t see anywhere where it is questionable. And there’s also Webster. So, the wikipedia entry is definitely not standing alone.

The point that a gazillion people can edit articles in wikipedia further galvanizes the fact that it’s not authoritative. But we digress…

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t expect you, or anybody else for that matter - including my children - to believe in the same thing. It is a journey reserved for each individual’s appeal to their own relationship with Jesus Christ.

The only thing that matters is the love and respect we give each other despite our differences. To be honest, true, and benevolent with our dealings with our fellow men following Christ’s example. That is what makes us Christians.

So then, being Mormon is not really all that important? To each his own as long as we love and respect one another?

 

[pinay]

Hi pinay - I guess you didn’t see that the word “own” was in quotes? meaning - It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who decides who is a legit mormon. you know, who gets to go into the temple and do the rituals necessary for salvation?

Even all of those sects you mentioned that claim to be followers of the BoM are shunned by the LDS and especially those who are (still) polygamists because they are following original doctrine.

That’s why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are policing their temples because all do not belong - those who do not fit the definition of a worthy Mormon.

In other words, even Mormons live by definitions, and so can the Christians that have continued on for 2,000 years. It’s just the way it is.

Okay, I’m sorry. I misunderstood your post completely.

The term Mormon is not specific to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But, if you’re using the term Mormon to refer specifically to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then no - being temple-worthy is not the qualification to be a “legit-Mormon”. Being baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and strive to meet your baptismal covenants make you a “legit-Mormon”.

And yes - temple covenants are of a higher order. Therefore, if you cannot even meet your baptismal covenants, then adding more covenants to that is only going to hurt you. Because, a covenant is a promise you make to God - pretty serious stuff. If you have not made the covenant, you are not bound to it. So first and foremost - you will need to meet your baptismal covenants, then once you got that down pat, then you can make more covenants at the temple. So yeah, not all “legit-Mormons” can enter certain parts of the Temple reserved for the fulfillment of higher covenants - even if they are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, yes, if you’re not even a member of the church, so much more that you can’t make those covenants.

So, it goes completely beyond definitions and go into actions. Calling yourself “Mormons” does not qualify you for anything.

Make sense?

 

[lax16]

Yes. You cannot get baptized under LDS authority unless you believe this… let alone make covenants in the Temple.

So then you do agree that religions have a right to define their beliefs…including the early Church I hope!

 

[lax16]

Okay, I’m sorry. I misunderstood your post completely.

The term Mormon is not specific to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But, if you’re using the term Mormon to refer specifically to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then no - being temple-worthy is not the qualification to be a “legit-Mormon”. Being baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and strive to meet your baptismal covenants make you a “legit-Mormon”.

And yes - temple covenants are of a higher order. Therefore, if you cannot even meet your baptismal covenants, then adding more covenants to that is only going to hurt you. Because, a covenant is a promise you make to God - pretty serious stuff. If you have not made the covenant, you are not bound to it. So first and foremost - you will need to meet your baptismal covenants, then once you got that down pat, then you can make more covenants at the temple. So yeah, not all “legit-Mormons” can enter certain parts of the Temple reserved for the fulfillment of higher covenants - even if they are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, yes, if you’re not even a member of the church, so much more that you can’t make those covenants.

So, it goes completely beyond definitions and go into actions. Calling yourself “Mormons” does not qualify you for anything.

Make sense?

Hi pinay - no problem!

But the point is this. The term Mormon originated with a group of people that believed Joseph Smith to be a prophet and to have received the BoM through divine means. Yes, it was a nickname that stuck, but at the beginning, all Mormons started from the same point.

Somewhere along the line splinter groups broke off claiming the BoM and JS as their starting point but disagreeing on doctrinal issues along the way.

You must agree that only ONE of these churches can be correct or else you would not belong to the one led by Pres. Monson. You agree to follow the “rules” and beliefs as laid out by those who came before you. If you didn’t you couldn’t claim to be a member.

The same with the Catholic Church. The doctrines that were developed and fought for early on have stayed around for 2,000 years. Yes, there are splinter groups. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Church has existed and can trace Her teachings back to the beginning of Jesus and the Apostles.

The definition of a Christian was developed very early on as we know by the many martyrs that went to their death defending it. Otherwise, they would not have stood up for ALL of the beliefs unto death. The early Christians did not compromise on their beliefs.

Once again, the point is that every group defines what it takes to belong. Mormons can say that Jesus is this or that, but that still does not meet the criteria of what it has always meant to be a Christian.

I would not tell you that I am a Mormon but do not believe JS to be a prophet but like to read the BoM. You and all LDS can have a deep love for Jesus and His saving grace, but that is still not fully understanding Him in the way the Apostles and martyrs did. It is different. It is only a partial understanding of what Christians have always known about Christ.

Anyway, I think you will agree that we live in a world full of definitions and we both belong to churches with very clear definitions of what it takes to be a faithful member.

 

[lax16]

Okay, I’ll address this one… fasten your seatbelts… because… I didn’t learn this as an LDS. I learned this as a Catholic.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 460:

No difference.

So you are saying you agree with Sts. Irenaeus and Athanasius here?

What about their teachings on the Trinity?

 

[pinay]

No apology necessary as I was never offended, but thanks anyway. But the question remains, how far do we go before one does not meet the definition of “Christian”? I am truly interested in your answer. Or is it that one can call himself Christian regardless of belief? Do I just have to say “I follow Christ” even if I just believe he was a wise man, but not the Son of God? Where do you draw the line?

Thanks.

English is only my 3rd language (I’m going to keep a count of how many times I say that on this forum… it’s like a beloved broken record. LOL!)…

So, when it comes to word definitions I always refer to Merriam Webster as authoritative. Yes, there is the Urban Dictionary now, but I haven’t quite migrated to that as authoritative yet (to the chagrin of my husband who loves the new words in there).

So, according to Webster, a Christian is one who believes and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. That’s where I draw the line.

Arians may not believe that Jesus Christ is Divine, but they do follow the teachings of Jesus Christ showing the fruits thereof in their adherence to the great commandments, so, I personally consider them Christians by virtue of Webster’s definition. So, if popular media count them as Christians, then sure, why not.

Okay, now here’s the really crazy thing, Steve. There’s the Westboro Baptist Church, I’m fairly certain you are familiar with them. They call themselves Baptists - that is, Christians. Definitely Trinitarians. They claim they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ. But are they really? See, that’s why I don’t make blanket statements on which group is or is not Christian because you always end up with - “they don’t agree with me, therefore, they must not be Christian” even if it is as blatantly wrong as WBC. As you said - where do you draw the line? I’m not of any authority to draw any lines…

I let their actions speak for themselves and have my own personal opinion - nothing more. So yes, even though I do not believe that the actions of the entire WBC show that they are Christian, I am not of any authority to declare them non-Christians.

Okay, another example - Ghandi. You look at his entire history and you see that the way he lived his life is aligned with Christian principles. But, according to him - he is not Christian. So, even if I consider his actions Christian - he definitely is not one.

But then you see the LDS Church. Christian or not, you see the fruits of their actions and clearly see their adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ in the way they are taught to conduct themselves and the way they are taught to treat their fellow man. Therefore, to me, they are defiinitely Christian. But, like anything else, I am of no authority to declare them such.

 

[pinay]

Hi pinay - no problem!

But the point is this. The term Mormon originated with a group of people that believed Joseph Smith to be a prophet and to have received the BoM through divine means. Yes, it was a nickname that stuck, but at the beginning, all Mormons started from the same point.

Somewhere along the line splinter groups broke off claiming the BoM and JS as their starting point but disagreeing on doctrinal issues along the way.

You must agree that only ONE of these churches can be correct or else you would not belong to the one led by Pres. Monson. You agree to follow the “rules” and beliefs as laid out by those who came before you. If you didn’t you couldn’t claim to be a member.

The same with the Catholic Church. The doctrines that were developed and fought for early on have stayed around for 2,000 years. Yes, there are splinter groups. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Church has existed and can trace Her teachings back to the beginning of Jesus and the Apostles.

The definition of a Christian was developed very early on as we know by the many martyrs that went to their death defending it. Otherwise, they would not have stood up for ALL of the beliefs unto death. The early Christians did not compromise on their beliefs.

Once again, the point is that every group defines what it takes to belong. Mormons can say that Jesus is this or that, but that still does not meet the criteria of what it has always meant to be a Christian.

I would not tell you that I am a Mormon but do not believe JS to be a prophet but like to read the BoM. You and all LDS can have a deep love for Jesus and His saving grace, but that is still not fully understanding Him in the way the Apostles and martyrs did. It is different. It is only a partial understanding of what Christians have always known about Christ.

Anyway, I think you will agree that we live in a world full of definitions and we both belong to churches with very clear definitions of what it takes to be a faithful member.

And here’s where we diverge. Because, I don’t consider those splinter groups of the original Mormon church as non-Mormons… Mormon is not the name of my church - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the name of my church. And even the Church knows that they are not the authority on who is, or is not Mormon - but they are the authority on who is, or who is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It’s the same way I see the word Christian. Splintering from the See of Rome, in my opinion, does not make somebody non-Christian - it may make them non-Catholic (big C).

 

[pinay]

So then, being Mormon is not really all that important? To each his own as long as we love and respect one another?

To determine who gets to be called Christian? Yes. Mormon/Catholic/etc… not important.

In general? Being a Mormon only becomes important if, on your diligent and honest search for truth, you are led to the restored gospel. But, if in your diligent and honest search for truth, you find yourself in the Catholic church - then the Catholic church is what’s important to you. Regardless of what you deem important, the universal Christian teaching is to love God with all our mind, heart, and strength, and to love our neighbors as God loves us. Not that - we only love our neighbors if they’re Catholics…

Therefore, a Christian’s role is to encourage others to seek diligently and honestly for truth in all things as they do the same for themselves. Parents are especially tasked with this important job to help their children build their own relationship with Christ. I would not want my children to be LDS just because I’m one. I want them to find out for themselves the truth of it. Being a Catholic/LDS/whatever is not enough. Diligently and honestly studying the teachings of Christ, with an appeal to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment, following the promptings of the Spirit to wherever it may lead, and applying such learning in our everyday lives is… very important.