LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StJudePray4Me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe the Salt Lake City teachings to be the most accurately representative of Mormonism simply because Joseph Smith and Bringham Young, the very leaders of Mormonism, considered the Wasatch Valley, Utah their promised land, where they settled in, and began building their church.

As such, I disregard peripheral, and always look to who is the founder of these man made religions, how they developed, how consistent their belief…and subsequently, not Logan, Utah, or Provo, Utah, but the Mormonism within the great temple at Salt Lake City is the one most faithful to Joseph Smith and Bringham Young.

The Salt Lake City Temple/churches are the descendents by the founders of Smith and Young.
 
KathleenGee said:
I believe the Salt Lake City teachings to be the most accurately representative of Mormonism simply because Joseph Smith and Bringham Young, the very leaders of Mormonism, considered the Wasatch Valley, Utah their promised land, where they settled in, and began building their church.

As such, I disregard peripheral, and always look to who is the founder of these man made religions, how they developed, how consistent their belief…and subsequently, not Logan, Utah, or Provo, Utah, but the Mormonism within the great temple at Salt Lake City is the one most faithful to Joseph Smith and Bringham Young.

The Salt Lake City Temple/churches are the descendents by the founders of Smith and Young.
Click to expand...
It’s a little sneakier than that. SLC isn’t teaching anything at this time on this subject, but they have omitted previous teachings from their manuals. So, it becomes a question of what is doctrinal? What was once taught and is omitted, or, there is no doctrine on the subject because there isn’t anything about it in the current manual? SLC isn’t clarifying.

Practically speaking, an individual Mormon will say they can pray and receive their own answer. So, that is how you get 100 Mormons believing 100 different things, which is perfectly acceptable in Mormonism.
 
Peter_John said:
Strictly speaking it falls under culture more than doctrine. Men who wear colored shirts rather than white shirts to Sacrament meeting often get lovingly advised by their leaders that they should wear a white shirt, and tie of course, in case they also neglected to wear one of those. This is more emphasized as they take greater roles in meetings or hold more responsible positions of leadership. Even now when talking with LDS members they might demonstrate that someone has a less “orthodox” attitude by referring to the wearing a colored shirt. Once a priesthood leader has advised you personally about wearing a white shirt (or cutting your hair, beard or mustache, or wearing a tie) disregarding that counsel becomes an act of self-affirmation and arguably dissent.
Click to expand...
So church leaders feel the need to admonish those wearing a colored shirt but not those who fail to follow the policies for baptizing the dead. Those are just messed up priorities.
 
zaffiroborant said:
So church leaders feel the need to admonish those wearing a colored shirt but not those who fail to follow the policies for baptizing the dead. Those are just messed up priorities.
Click to expand...
Church leaders will correct practices in things like geneaology and temple work IF they see it and if there is a risk of some media or PR problem. But in general temple work is considered so important they like to let it roll on.
 
KathleenGee said:
Peter John,

You are defining the ‘New Mormon’…and those are the ones I think are full of baloney, because they appear to deny any of the other things we disagree with or think down right outlandish…so they do not come across as truthful to me.

I mean, we can admit things that came out of bad popes, bad behavior, lack of charity, excessive, imbalanced penitential practices…but then we do not have changing beliefs.
Click to expand...
The “New Order Mormons” I am discovering are either beyond belieivng Mormonism and moved on elsewhere, but still involved because the LDS culture is their culture and heritage: it is not just their church, it is part of their community, their recreation, their education. It is impractical to let it go.

The others are those at the in between phase who are beginning to recognize that the emperor wears no clothes, but do not know how to deal with it.

It is so hard to imagine what breaking loose can be like. i struggled with it for 30 years, even when I did not think it influenced me, it still did.
 
Peter_John said:
The “New Order Mormons” I am discovering are either beyond belieivng Mormonism and moved on elsewhere, but still involved because the LDS culture is their culture and heritage: it is not just their church, it is part of their community, their recreation, their education. It is impractical to let it go.

The others are those at the in between phase who are beginning to recognize that the emperor wears no clothes, but do not know how to deal with it.

It is so hard to imagine what breaking loose can be like. i struggled with it for 30 years, even when I did not think it influenced me, it still did.
Click to expand...
I think in a lot of ways New Order Mormons can tell MORE truth than TBMs about early church history and teachings. NOMs come in A LOT of different flavors though so that may not be true in all cases. I’m actually a NOM.
 
zaffiroborant said:
So church leaders feel the need to admonish those wearing a colored shirt but not those who fail to follow the policies for baptizing the dead. Those are just messed up priorities.
Click to expand...
I am sure that senior leaders admonish subordinate leaders who do not follow it, but some will take the attitude that they do it their own way. There could also give the instructions with a wink and a nod.

The shirt and tie deal is more an example of managing by flowchart, and demonstrating submission.

Your observation is, however, consistent with the LDS Church firing a journalist who truthfully reported that a prominent LDS leader had made a fortune by fabricating heroic stories about himself for inspirational talks presented over decades, while the leader remained a general authority, even if relieved of active responsibilities.

I do think we need to be fair and note that Catholic history is replerte with its own examples of official hypocrisy. This is a phase all religions seem to pass through in their formation if they have any authoritative hierarchy.

Even though Salt Lake City is not even 200 years old, Joseph Campbell used it as an example of a place where from one location you can see three structures that summarize the evolution of powerful institutions. You can see the LDS Temple (Church) the Utah State Capitol building (State) and the LDS Church Office Building (Corporation).
 
TheExorcist said:
I think in a lot of ways New Order Mormons can tell MORE truth than TBMs about early church history and teachings. NOMs come in A LOT of different flavors though so that may not be true in all cases. I’m actually a NOM.
Click to expand...
I’ve been visiting the NOM site (don’t know if we’ve run into each other there or not). I find it very dynamic, and wish it had been available 20 years ago.
 
Peter_John said:
I’ve been visiting the NOM site (don’t know if we’ve run into each other there or not). I find it very dynamic, and wish it had been available 20 years ago.
Click to expand...
Probably haven’t seen me on there as I briefly visited just to get an idea of what it was. I probably should spend more time there as it would be an additional support structure for me. I think that NOM is a product of a vibrant Internet and since the (main consumer) Internet was still in it’s infancy there was essentially no venue.
 
TheExorcist said:
Probably haven’t seen me on there as I briefly visited just to get an idea of what it was. I probably should spend more time there as it would be an additional support structure for me. I think that NOM is a product of a vibrant Internet and since the (main consumer) Internet was still in it’s infancy there was essentially no venue.
Click to expand...
I started a “Considering Catholicism?” thread under the Faith and Spirituality forum. Immediately got some questions about “the Scandal” and dispensed with them quickly. Haven’t had many since.
 
pinay said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually the difference is in the autonomy. and the sharing in his existence. I perceived this completely different leaving Mormonism than you perceived it.
 
lax16 said:
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.
Click to expand...
According to the Associated Press Style manual, last time I looked, only members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the global one based in Salt Lake, should be specifically referred to as Mormon.
 
Peter_John said:
I started a “Considering Catholicism?” thread under the Faith and Spirituality forum. Immediately got some questions about “the Scandal” and dispensed with them quickly. Haven’t had many since.
Click to expand...
I’ll definitely have to take a look!
 
Back…

What is ‘The Scandal’?

Where are you accessing, Peter John…what is the blog?
 
Exorcist…

Are you serious…‘The Scandal’ is Blessed Mother???
 
It surprises me how little the Nicene Creed has come up in this discussion. I thought part of the purpose of setting down the creed so early in the church’s history was to make it clear what Christianity taught. It was a good means of understanding what a Christian believes, and by application one can tell pretty quickly who is and is not Christian. Following the simple etymology of the word Christian to mean “follower of Christ” is not really a fair representation of Christianity. That’s why the creed was created. As far as I’m concerned, the Mormons as well as some parts of Protestantism are not Christian because they reject the very statement of the faith that was agreed upon when the early church gathered to discuss what they believed. That doesn’t make Mormons bad people any more than it makes Buddhists bad people for not being Christian. To argue that living a life of kindness means that you are a Christian seems rather simplistic to me, and it’s too easily refuted by the number of kind people that have no attachment to Jesus whatsoever. Plainly put, no matter how nice Mormons are, if they don’t accept the creed, they aren’t Christian. It surprises me to read through 30 some odd pages and not see that already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top