LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[CEM5]

Hello to you, CEM5,

(I took a break for a few days from responding to this, because I didn’t feel like getting into that kind of discussion as I knew I had little time and knew it could get complicated, but here goes

This is one of those cases that I had expressed to Lax16 several days ago (different thread), of an inconsistency in beliefs compared with the Bible and compared with “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

Enoch “walked with God”, and Noah was “perfect in his generation” and had laws of God he was aware of. So to say that "before Moses, there were no ‘laws’ seems to be dealing only with the Mosaic law, which was given as a “lesser law” and was given after the children of Israel had rejected the idea of seeing the “face” of God for fear.

Abram communed with God, entered into covenants with God, and certainly knew both the voice of God and that he should keep the covenants he made and the laws given to him by God. Abraham is listed by Paul as a man of great faith, and Sara is also listed by Paul as a woman of great faith (Hebrews 11:11). There is no evidence within Genesis that God either reprimanded or considered it sinful that Abraham obeyed Sara’s expressed wish that he raise up seed by means of taking Hagar to wife. Neither is there evidence that God reprimanded Jacob (Israel) for accepting that he needed to keep Leah as his wife (despite having been deceived by Laban) and would be able to marry Rachel also, whom he had intended to marry. It is clear that these marriages were for the purpose of raising up seed as had been promised by God to these men.

It is also clear that both Abraham and Jacob communed with God in a relationship that was a two-way relationship where God spoke to them, and they listened and were obedient, even when asked to do hard things.

It is contradictory to think that Paul would cite the example of Abraham as a man of great faith and obedience, and yet to think that Paul had in his mind that Abraham was either grievously sinning or was doing something that needed Jesus to come and “set things right,” when the expressed belief I have seen and noted is that Jesus is Jehovah, the Great I Am (with which I agree), so certainly He could have “set things right” with Abraham and with Jacob without needing to wait until He came to earth personally in the flesh.

What Jesus did in regard to marriage is re-establish the idea of eternal marriage, through God having “joined together”, and establish that the law of Moses allowing a “writing of divorcement” was a lesser law situation, and reflected marriage for the duration of this life only, and did not reflect a kind of marriage that “God hath joined together”.

I agree about this, the “old laws” being specifically the Mosaic law, not the earlier law known by Adam, by Noah, and by Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

I think if you were to research polygamy within the Jewish culture, you might take a different point of view as to it having been “no longer practiced” “by the time Jesus came”.

I agree that we are not living under the Old Covenant, and that divorce is not the planned way for eternal marriage covenants nor for the kinds of marriage covenants that are not viewed as eternally binding but are viewed as sacred and holy.

Thanks, and same to you, CEM.

Hello to you, CEM5,

(I took a break for a few days from responding to this, because I didn’t feel like getting into that kind of discussion as I knew I had little time and knew it could get complicated, but here goes

continued…

 

[CEM5]

continued…

Hi Parker,

had to post my answer here (was too many characters with your quote included

Yes, before Moses there were no laws - no commandments, no Torah, no hundreds and hundreds of laws. Before Abraham, there was no “chosen people” either, but that didn’t negate the fact that with God we are all His created ‘children’. Even pagans and non-Christians have a concept of “right from wrong”, but unless taught, won’t know God’s will.

You are correct regarding practicing of polygamy with Jews during the time of Christ, but I was remiss in not being specific or clear: polygamy was accepted, but there were strict “rules” of adherence: A man couldn’t have more than one wife if he couldn’t afford the second, and could only have a maximum of 4 - like the later Muslims practiced. He could not have the first wife lowered in status or financial support. Each wife is to have their own separate domicile.The taking of another wife was also grounds for the first wife to divorce her husband.If divorced, the ex-husband would have to financially maintain the ex-wife’s accustomed lifestyle financially. Because almost all the Jews during the time of Christ were extremely poor, no one could afford a second wife. Not only that, but throughout the Talmudic age, not one rabbi was known to have more than one wife because the ideal legal union was to have a monogamous union. The High Priest was only allowed one wife. Polygamy was forbidden for him, and a king was not to have too many wives. Enoch did not have more than one wife.

By the way, Parker, Abraham only had one wife: Hagar, Sarah’s slave, was given to him by Sarah for the sole purpose of begetting a child for Sarah via surrogacy. Abraham also gave his wife, Sarah, to the Pharoah to protect himself from being killed. So, would you say giving your wife for the pleasure of another in order to save yourself from death is what God wanted? Not at all, yet this is what Abraham did, not once, but twice.!! See Gen. 12:15-20; Gen. 14:5,6; Gen. 20:1-l3. So we see that although man made his own “laws”, they certainly were not God’s law! That is why Jesus set things right and showed us the way.

There is no “eternal marriage”: marriage is soley for this earthly life, and upon death, as has already been shown and explained, ends. We become as the angels who neither marry nor are given in marriage. This is what Jesus taught, and the Church upholds. That is why Christian marriages are a sacrament, and “until death do us part”.

blessings to you,
CEM

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker,

…
By the way, Parker, Abraham only had one wife: Hagar, Sarah’s slave, was given to him by Sarah for the sole purpose of begetting a child for Sarah via surrogacy. Abraham also gave his wife, Sarah, to the Pharoah to protect himself from being killed. So, would you say giving your wife for the pleasure of another in order to save yourself from death is what God wanted? Not at all, yet this is what Abraham did, not once, but twice.!! See Gen. 12:15-20; Gen. 14:5,6; Gen. 20:1-l3. …
blessings to you,
CEM

CEM5,

I really don’t have much time. First, Hagar was called in the Bible “wife” of Abraham, and I realize it was for the purpose of begetting a child since Sarah was childless–but she was described as “wife”.

The idea that Abraham “gave his wife” as you noted, is incorrect. He did say she was his “cousin” (same word in their language as “sister”, and a truth in that she was his cousin), and did it because otherwise there would have been the temptation to have him killed so they could marry her if they knew he was her husband at the outset–in other words, he wanted time to establish a relationship with them before they would just have him killed upon seeing her for the first time.

But that doesn’t mean Abraham was treating Sarah in the way you described of having her given “for the pleasure of another”. There is not the slightest indication that she had a relationship outside of her marriage, nor that Abraham planned that she would or even thought that she would. He was going to be a stranger where they were going, and needed time to be allowed to become known by the people and the Pharaoh, but the evidence is that he planned to disclose that she was indeed his wife after he had had the chance to become known by them.

A wish of peace to you.

 

[catholic-rcia]

The following is from
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0110qq.asp

Be careful of falling into the trap of thinking that every point of faith and morals has to be explicitly attested in Scripture. That isn’t the case. It’s an advantage if one can show Scripture clearly supporting a position, but it isn’t required.

On the subject of polygamy, Scripture indicates that for a time God did tolerate this practice during the Old Testament. However, it was portrayed even then as a negative thing. When Scripture describes the domestic life of polygamists, it brings out consistently the negative effects of polygamy—jealousy, taunting, conflict, favoritism—as different wives and children struggle for position within the family. (Take for example the strife between the wives of Abraham, Jacob, or Elkana; see Gen. 21, 29–30, 1 Sam. 1).

The problems were so clearly recognized that, even if there was not then a flat-out prohibition on the practice, there had to be special legislation concerning polygamy. Thus a husband playing favorites among his wives was not allowed to deprive the children of his first wife their inheritance rights in favor of the children of a more recent wife (Deut. 21:15–16). Kings in particular were forbidden to multiply wives to themselves (Deut. 17:17). Unfortunately, this prohibition was often not followed.

As time progressed, the problems with polygamy became more and more obvious, and it stopped being practiced.

The clincher came in the time of Christ, when Jesus indicated that marriage was to be restored to the state God had intended in Genesis 2. Thus Jesus prohibits divorce (Mark 10:2–9) on the grounds that it was not provided for in God’s original plan. God made one man and one woman to be together. Polygamy is ruled out by the same logic. God’s plan was for Adam and Eve to be together, not for Adam to be married first to Eve and then later to Barbara, and certainly not for Adam to be married to Eve and Barbara at the same time…Catholic Answers

 

[SteveVH]

There is obviously some sort of progression after we die. That much is clear. The “advantage” would certainly be in the amount of progress one has made in attaining eternal life. If you have applied the grace of Christ more frequently and more fully in your mortal life, then you would be closer to attaining eternal life when you die. Isn’t that the goal?

This comment was made a little while back but it just struck me as I was reading through this thread. Heaven is our destiny. We only reach heaven by the grace of God through merits of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ, not through some process of progression based upon our own efforts. The parable of the workers is probably the best example. Each worker agreed to his wage for a certain number of hours worked. The last worker to show up received the same wage as those who had worked all day and they were upset about that. It is the goodness and mercy of God that is at work here and it is certainly the Catholic postion, I believe, that even at the last moment of death one can reach out to God and be saved.

The point is, this cannot be measured in human terms. None of us know the struggles and challenges any particular person may go through in their lives that may have prevented them from knowing God at all. A child brought up in a Godless family, for instance, does not have the same advantage that one brought up in the Church would have. Only God can make that determination. What did you do with what you were given? That seems to be the real question. I think this entire notion of progression is very dangerous and misses the mark completely.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

This comment was made a little while back but it just struck me as I was reading through this thread. Heaven is our destiny. We only reach heaven by the grace of God through merits of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ, not through some process of progression based upon our own efforts. The parable of the workers is probably the best example. Each worker agreed to his wage for a certain number of hours worked. The last worker to show up received the same wage as those who had worked all day and they were upset about that. It is the goodness and mercy of God that is at work here and it is certainly the Catholic postion, I believe, that even at the last moment of death one can reach out to God and be saved.

The point is, this cannot be measured in human terms. None of us know the struggles and challenges any particular person may go through in their lives that may have prevented them from knowing God at all. A child brought up in a Godless family, for instance, does not have the same advantage that one brought up in the Church would have. Only God can make that determination. What did you do with what you were given? That seems to be the real question. I think this entire notion of progression is very dangerous and misses the mark completely.

And unfortunately I think that your understanding of Latter-day Saint theology on progression is missing the mark as well. We don’t believe that we reach Heaven “through some process of progression based upon our own efforts.”. Latter-day Saints believe that it is only through the atoning sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that we can receive eternal life. We cannot save ourselves, nor can works alone save. It is only through the greatest work, Christ’s atonement, that we can be saved.

 

[SteveVH]

And unfortunately I think that your understanding of Latter-day Saint theology on progression is missing the mark as well. We don’t believe that we reach Heaven “through some process of progression based upon our own efforts.”. Latter-day Saints believe that it is only through the atoning sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that we can receive eternal life. We cannot save ourselves, nor can works alone save. It is only through the greatest work, Christ’s atonement, that we can be saved.

Yes, I know. The Mormon posters keep saying this but how does this not conflict with progression? I will agree 100% that we should “progress” in holiness throughout our lives, but only because this would be natural in our interior life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (also a gift from God) which is then manifested in our works. I will freely admit that I have never understood the Mormon concept of progression simply because I think it is flawed theology (that “Heavenly Father” progressed from a human being to a divine being) making God no greater than ourselves, the only difference being the time He has spent “progressing”. It is quite possible that I just misunderstand your position.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Yes, I know. The Mormon posters keep saying this but how does this not conflict with progression? I will agree 100% that we should “progress” in holiness throughout our lives, but only because this would be natural in our interior life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (also a gift from God) which is then manifested in our works. I will freely admit that I have never understood the Mormon concept of progression simply because I think it is flawed theology (that “Heavenly Father” progressed from a human being to a divine being) making God no greater than ourselves, the only difference being the time He has spent “progressing”. It is quite possible that I just misunderstand your position.

Allow me to briefly respond (I have to run out to my lab in a few minutes, so hopefully ParkerD will also respond).

Latter-day Saints believe that our progression is tied firmly to the atonement of Jesus Christ. It is because of His atonement that we can progress to become like God (i.e. gods). Continued faith and repentance is tied to this process (i.e. enduring to the end). We also participate in “saving ordinances”, such as baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, being endowed in the temple, etc. These ordinances are also empowered through the atonement. Our works and progression are motivated and manifested through our continued faith in our Savior, and that of course will not end in the afterlife. While Latter-day Saints accept a belief in deification, which we refer to as “exaltation”, our belief that we become like God, living the life He does, through the atonement of Jesus Christ (and not on any mere works of our own, which cannot exalt anyone), does not mean that we forget about God, forget about our Savior, etc, and no longer depend on Them. It is the opposite. God will always be greater than us (which I think can be tied to ideas of progression, as well as God continuing to be, and always will be, our God, our Father, whom we rely on for everything). So, Latter-day Saints would firmly agree with the first part of this sentence from your previous post- “We only reach heaven by the grace of God through merits of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ, not through some process of progression based upon our own efforts.”, and we firmly reject the latter, since “our own efforts” are nothing. Everything in the restored Gospel is based on the infinite atonement of Jesus Christ.

I hope that helps (faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior was the topic in one of our Sunday School classes yesterday, so I guess it’s on my mind even more today).

 

[SteveVH]

Allow me to briefly respond (I have to run out to my lab in a few minutes, so hopefully ParkerD will also respond).

Latter-day Saints believe that our progression is tied firmly to the atonement of Jesus Christ. It is because of His atonement that we can progress to become like God (i.e. gods). Continued faith and repentance is tied to this process (i.e. enduring to the end). We also participate in “saving ordinances”, such as baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, being endowed in the temple, etc. These ordinances are also empowered through the atonement. Our works and progression are motivated and manifested through our continued faith in our Savior, and that of course will not end in the afterlife. While Latter-day Saints accept a belief in deification, which we refer to as “exaltation”, our belief that we become like God, living the life He does, through the atonement of Jesus Christ (and not on any mere works of our own, which cannot exalt anyone), does not mean that we forget about God, forget about our Savior, etc, and no longer depend on Them. It is the opposite. God will always be greater than us (which I think can be tied to ideas of progression, as well as God continuing to be, and always will be, our God, our Father, whom we rely on for everything). So, Latter-day Saints would firmly agree with the first part of this sentence from your previous post- "We only reach heaven by the grace of God through merits of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ, not through some process of progression based upon our own efforts.", and we firmly reject the latter, since “our own efforts” are nothing. Everything in the restored Gospel is based on the infinite atonement of Jesus Christ.

I hope that helps (faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior was the topic in one of our Sunday School classes yesterday, so I guess it’s on my mind even more today).

Thanks, BYU, but this brings up another question concerning the idea of progression. You say that “God will always be greater than us (which I think can be tied to ideas of progression, as well as God continuing to be, and always will be, our God, our Father, whom we rely on for everything)”. Is His always being greater than us akin to an engine on a train always being in front of the last car on the train, or was He always greater than us from eternity? In other words, was there anything or anyone who has ever been equal to God (including other Gods in other worlds)? Another way of putting this, was God, at some point in time, not as great as He now is (such as when He was a man who had not yet progressed to godhood)? I am not speaking of the incarnation of the Son, but rather of the Father.

Thanks.

 

[Telstar]

snip So, Latter-day Saints would firmly agree with the first part of this sentence from your previous post- "We only reach heaven by the grace of God through merits of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ, not through some process of progression based upon our own efforts.", and we firmly reject the latter, since “our own efforts” are nothing. Everything in the restored Gospel is based on the infinite atonement of Jesus Christ.

I hope that helps (faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior was the topic in one of our Sunday School classes yesterday, so I guess it’s on my mind even more today).

This is one part that always confuses me and seems like a complete contradiction in LDS theology. On one hand, LDS doctrine says that we only reach Heaven through the merits of the atonement of Christ, as a free gift from God, yet LDS doctrine also requires an infinite number of “conditions” (ordinances) that must be performed, or met, by any individual that wishes to “progress” on to eternal life, in order to receive that “free gift”. It also seems to me that those LDS “ordinances” and conditions are judged by men in power in the church (Bishops, Quorum, President, etc.) to determine which of the faithful can consider themselves to be “worthy Mormons” (such as the ‘temple recommend’).

To me, that leaves the eternal fate and salvation of millions of Mormons, worldwide, in the hands of their own local ward and stake leaders, that are mere men that can be prone to error. What if they hold some kind of a personal grudge against any individual in the community that might affect their neutrality in this situation? Please, explain to us how my view of this is incorrect and how individuals can be so sure that their local bishop is correct in his judgement? Doesn’t this judgement by ‘man’, in effect, nullify or replace the judgement of God?

 

[Tony888]

This is one part that always confuses me and seems like a complete contradiction in LDS theology. On one hand, LDS doctrine says that we only reach Heaven through the merits of the atonement of Christ, as a free gift from God, yet LDS doctrine also requires an infinite number of “conditions” (ordinances) that must be performed, or met, by any individual that wishes to “progress” on to eternal life, in order to receive that “free gift”. It also seems to me that those LDS “ordinances” and conditions are judged by men in power in the church (Bishops, Quorum, President, etc.) to determine which of the faithful can consider themselves to be “worthy Mormons” (such as the ‘temple recommend’).

To me, that leaves the eternal fate and salvation of millions of Mormons, worldwide, in the hands of their own local ward and stake leaders, that are mere men that can be prone to error. What if they hold some kind of a personal grudge against any individual in the community that might affect their neutrality in this situation? Please, explain to us how my view of this is incorrect and how individuals can be so sure that their local bishop is correct in his judgement? Doesn’t this judgement by ‘man’, in effect, nullify or replace the judgement of God?

I find your response very hypocritical. Don’t you as a Catholic believe

• the Priest(s) decide who can get married in the church
• the Priest(s) decide who can receive an annulment with all the benefits of a second marriage in the church, instead of living in sin
• the Priest(s) decide who can receive the sacraments of confirmation and pennance (I recall being interviewed)
• the Priest(s) hear confession and decide if sins shall be forgiven, and what pennance is appropriate

Don’t you see your hypocricy?

 

[RebeccaJ]

There is a very important difference between all of Christianity and Mormonism. One that can be subtle.

Mormons have an idea of progression, that is, starting from the bottom and working up. The fall was necessary in order that “progression” could begin…from the bottom.

Christianity understands that God created us (mankind) exactly where He wanted us to be, in His Grace, as His children. The Fall lowered us to where God did not intend us to be, at all. By the Cross of Jesus Christ, we are raised with Him, to where God intends us to be…with Him.

So in light of this, Mormons view their ordinances as requirements of a progression towards where their god wants them to be. If you don’t do the ordinances, you don’t progress. This is why work for the dead is done…gotta help the dead progress. IF a person is not given permission to attend a Mormon temple, or get baptized, their progression is halted, and their eternal state is at an extreme risk.

Christians understand that God has raised us up, as a royal nation, a holy people. We walk and live in the Light of Christ. We are not working to progress to it, we are working at living the reality of WHO WE ARE now, in this moment, by the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Catholic rites are not required for us to work our way towards something that has already been given to us, freely, out of God’s Love and Charity towards mankind. The Sacraments of the Catholic Church are gifts, they impart graces, gifts of the Holy Spirit, that help us to live a Christian life. The first, baptism, imparts many graces, and initiates us into the family of God. A Catholic is given this gift shortly after they are born. It is given to them freely, and gives to a child graces that help them to grow in the Love of God.

When a priest interviews a child for confirmation, it is not to determine if the child is worthy to be confirmed. It is to ensure that the child understands his/her Catholic faith, and understands the baptismal vows that they will renew. If the child does not understand, they won’t be barred from confirmation until they are “worthy”, they will receive further instruction, so that they understand what it is they are doing.

The same thing for confession and marriage. A priest is not deciding if a person is worthy to be forgiven, they are helping the penitent discern how to live a Christian life.

Catholic marriage should be entered as two people who have the same intention as the Church has, that is, to live Christian lives, together, as one. If the couple have no intention of living a Christian life, why have a Catholic wedding? Again, it isn’t about being “worthy”, it is about intention, and is it aligned to that of the Church in which they are being married.

When a person dies, their life will be judge according to their understanding of God, and how they lived that understanding. We do not perform Catholic rites for the dead, as the dead are judged at the moment of their death.

 

[Telstar]

This is one part that always confuses me and seems like a complete contradiction in LDS theology. On one hand, LDS doctrine says that we only reach Heaven through the merits of the atonement of Christ, as a free gift from God, yet LDS doctrine also requires an infinite number of “conditions” (ordinances) that must be performed, or met, by any individual that wishes to “progress” on to eternal life, in order to receive that “free gift”. It also seems to me that those LDS “ordinances” and conditions are judged by men in power in the church (Bishops, Quorum, President, etc.) to determine which of the faithful can consider themselves to be “worthy Mormons” (such as the ‘temple recommend’).

To me, that leaves the eternal fate and salvation of millions of Mormons, worldwide, in the hands of their own local ward and stake leaders, that are mere men that can be prone to error. What if they hold some kind of a personal grudge against any individual in the community that might affect their neutrality in this situation? Please, explain to us how my view of this is incorrect and how individuals can be so sure that their local bishop is correct in his judgement? Doesn’t this judgement by ‘man’, in effect, nullify or replace the judgement of God?

I find your response very hypocritical. Don’t you as a Catholic believe

• the Priest(s) decide who can get married in the church
• the Priest(s) decide who can receive an annulment with all the benefits of a second marriage in the church, instead of living in sin
• the Priest(s) decide who can receive the sacraments of confirmation and pennance (I recall being interviewed)
• the Priest(s) hear confession and decide if sins shall be forgiven, and what pennance is appropriate

Don’t you see your hypocricy?

Did you get that response straight out of the Mormon handbook on “snappy answers to Catholics that dare to ask any questions about the temple or priests”?

If you don’t know, or can’t be bothered to provide an answer to my questions, please, don’t just throw accusations of hypocrisy at me, or post a litany of bullet points on the functions of Catholic Priests that you think refutes any reason I may have for asking them. I was asking simple questions about something that I don’t understand. That being, how LDS leaders are key in determining which Mormons can ultimately reach ‘exaltation’, the highest position attainable in Heaven, for any Mormon. That decision functions as a major factor in determining a Mormon’s eternal salvation. Catholics leave that final judgement solely up to God, not any man or even group of men.

Your response is completely irrelevant because those functions of the Catholic Priesthood are completely unrelated to the questions I asked.

I sure hope you’re not a school teacher… seriously.

 

[ParkerD]

This is one part that always confuses me and seems like a complete contradiction in LDS theology.
(1) On one hand, LDS doctrine says that we only reach Heaven through the merits of the atonement of Christ, as a free gift from God, yet LDS doctrine also requires an infinite number of “conditions” (ordinances) that must be performed, or met, by any individual that wishes to “progress” on to eternal life, in order to receive that “free gift”.
(2) It also seems to me that those LDS “ordinances” and conditions are judged by men in power in the church (Bishops, Quorum, President, etc.) to determine which of the faithful can consider themselves to be “worthy Mormons” (such as the ‘temple recommend’).

To me, that leaves the eternal fate and salvation of millions of Mormons, worldwide, in the hands of their own local ward and stake leaders, that are mere men that can be prone to error.
(3) What if they hold some kind of a personal grudge against any individual in the community that might affect their neutrality in this situation?
(4) Please, explain to us how my view of this is incorrect and how individuals can be so sure that their local bishop is correct in his judgement?
(5) Doesn’t this judgement by ‘man’, in effect, nullify or replace the judgement of God?

Hi, Telstar,

Since BYUChemAlum gave me an “opening” during their reply asking that I respond also, I think your questions explore in more depth several meanings that hopefully can become clearer by thinking about some Biblical examples.

(1) One is talking about the fullness when they are talking about reaching “eternal life”, which is described simply as “God’s life” or “becoming like Christ”. What happened to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration is a brief “glimpse” of an example that there is both order in how “eternal life” is reached–that it comes through the Savior, and the timing is up to God and requires meaningful preparation–and that there is knowledge to be had and also covenant making which are simply not given to everyone. So having that kind of knowledge and covenant making require “reaching for it”, requires faith, and requires being ready to receive the covenant which means when the person makes such a covenant, they are promising absolutely that they will not break their covenant, worlds without end.

Life is full of trials, disappointments, buffetings, becoming shaped like “clay in the hands of the potter” or like a “jewel” having been fashioned by Christ through all those challenges. When one enters the “strait gate” onto the path that leads to eternal life, then once on that path it is assured that the person who accepted being on that path will be tested and will be figured out through that testing, “what is their meddle?”. “Whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth” will be their experience along that path.

So entrance onto the path was “free” in the sense that everyone is invited and it really is their free will choice whether they want to be on the path to “eternal life”, but the Bible conveys amply that once on that path, the person has entered a shaping process, a cleansing process, and a learning process whereby they become a “jewel” instead of what they had started out as.

Making covenants are really helps, because by making covenant promises, the person gets it into their soul that they have promised God directly with their full heart, and that they need to live up to what they promised even while they are going through the testing of their “meddle” and being shaped into a “jewel”. (See Malachi 3:17)

(2) Priesthood leaders can make mistakes, for sure, but that means they need to draw close to the Spirit as they are counseled and reminded to do, and that they should “err” on the side of extending the love, compassion, and forgiveness shown by the Savior’s example while also protecting the “young, little ones” from the “wolves” who would enter the flock of God and potentially do harm, in whatever way.

A Latter-day Saint is aware that priesthood leaders are on the same kind of path of being “tested” as is anyone else–that “we are all in this together” and that “the body hath need of every member” and each is significantly important. So when a leader makes what looks like an “error” in judgment, and may well be, then the member can know that “they really are still learning just like me” and that of course God is ultimately the perfect Judge and people are not a perfect judge, but that a leader seeks the Spirit in their judging of worthiness and it is through discernment by the Spirit that they may make a decision about worthiness, along with helping the individual discern their own worthiness through counseling together about the situation.

(3) Then the leader has a leader who oversees them, and a member can meet with someone else and ask that a situation be considered if they think it needs to be considered by the overseeing leader. (There are “bishops”, the “stake high council”, and the “stake presidency”, and the “stake presidency” have a reporting line to the “apostles” who hold the ultimate keys which is why the Biblical phrase “whatsoever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”.)

(To be continued)

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation to Telstar:

(4) I have found that bishops are very discerning and compassionate, and if I haven’t agreed with a particular decision I became aware of, then down the road a piece I may find out something that makes that decision make sense, or I see things work out for the best after all, for the individuals involved. Members know that personal patience is part of the “jewel”, so they had best expect that their own patience will be tested and proven in many, many ways–even through imperfect people along the way who may be in a calling that affects them.

(5) If a person is worthy to enter a temple, then that means they have answered some very basic worthiness questions, each of which can readily be tied to the Bible. It means that they need to be honest in their answers, and that their worthiness ultimately is up to them personally and that their personal repentance may be a part of that if needed. But, again, the questions are basic, and frankly aren’t that “difficult” to live by.

I may not have answered your questions in the way you wished, but I’ve tried to shed some light about them, so best wishes to you and have a good day, sincerely wished.

 

[SteveVH]

There is a very important difference between all of Christianity and Mormonism. One that can be subtle.

Mormons have an idea of progression, that is, starting from the bottom and working up. The fall was necessary in order that “progression” could begin…from the bottom.

Christianity understands that God created us (mankind) exactly where He wanted us to be, in His Grace, as His children. The Fall lowered us to where God did not intend us to be, at all. By the Cross of Jesus Christ, we are raised with Him, to where God intends us to be…with Him.

So in light of this, Mormons view their ordinances as requirements of a progression towards where their god wants them to be. If you don’t do the ordinances, you don’t progress. This is why work for the dead is done…gotta help the dead progress. IF a person is not given permission to attend a Mormon temple, or get baptized, their progression is halted, and their eternal state is at an extreme risk.

Christians understand that God has raised us up, as a royal nation, a holy people. We walk and live in the Light of Christ. We are not working to progress to it, we are working at living the reality of WHO WE ARE now, in this moment, by the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Catholic rites are not required for us to work our way towards something that has already been given to us, freely, out of God’s Love and Charity towards mankind. The Sacraments of the Catholic Church are gifts, they impart graces, gifts of the Holy Spirit, that help us to live a Christian life. The first, baptism, imparts many graces, and initiates us into the family of God. A Catholic is given this gift shortly after they are born. It is given to them freely, and gives to a child graces that help them to grow in the Love of God.

When a priest interviews a child for confirmation, it is not to determine if the child is worthy to be confirmed. It is to ensure that the child understands his/her Catholic faith, and understands the baptismal vows that they will renew. If the child does not understand, they won’t be barred from confirmation until they are “worthy”, they will receive further instruction, so that they understand what it is they are doing.

The same thing for confession and marriage. A priest is not deciding if a person is worthy to be forgiven, they are helping the penitent discern how to live a Christian life.

Catholic marriage should be entered as two people who have the same intention as the Church has, that is, to live Christian lives, together, as one. If the couple have no intention of living a Christian life, why have a Catholic wedding? Again, it isn’t about being “worthy”, it is about intention, and is it aligned to that of the Church in which they are being married.

When a person dies, their life will be judge according to their understanding of God, and how they lived that understanding. We do not perform Catholic rites for the dead, as the dead are judged at the moment of their death.

Nice explanation of the distinction, Rebecca.

 

[SteveVH]

(5) If a person is worthy to enter a temple, then that means they have answered some very basic worthiness questions, each of which can readily be tied to the Bible. It means that they need to be honest in their answers, and that their worthiness ultimately is up to them personally and that their personal repentance may be a part of that if needed. But, again, the questions are basic, and frankly aren’t that “difficult” to live by.

I have always been struck by the words of our Catholic bishops when they refer to themselves as “your unworthy servant”. This would include our Popes. The entire idea that any human being could determine the “worthiness” of another, or that anyone could ever become worthy, is absent in Catholicism. Before we receive the Eucharist we say “Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”. The whole point is that none of us are ever worthy, Parker. That is why we need Jesus Christ. It is why we, as Catholics, are urged to confess our sins on a regular basis. It is only in realizing our “unworthiness” that holiness can enter our life.

Implicit in the Mormon idea that one can be found worthy to enter a temple is that some are worthy, while others are not. For one to even think of one’s self as worthy is an idea straight from the evil one. If you are worthy, you have no need for Christ. Adding to this is the fact that worthiness is determined by men asking “worthiness questions”. At the same time you claim that all is dependent upon the atonement of Jesus Christ. Apparently, not unless you answer the worthiness questions correctly. There is a conflict here that seems to be ignored or rationalized away.

 

[ParkerD]

I have always been struck by the words of our Catholic bishops when they refer to themselves as “your unworthy servant”. This would include our Popes. The entire idea that any human being could determine the “worthiness” of another, or that anyone could ever become worthy, is absent in Catholicism. Before we receive the Eucharist we say "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.". The whole point is that none of us are ever worthy, Parker. That is why we need Jesus Christ. It is why we, as Catholics, are urged to confess our sins on a regular basis. It is only in realizing our “unworthiness” that holiness can enter our life.

Implicit in the Mormon idea that one can be found worthy to enter a temple is that some are worthy, while others are not. For one to even think of one’s self as worthy is an idea straight from the evil one. If you are worthy, you have no need for Christ. Adding to this is the fact that worthiness is determined by men asking “worthiness questions”. At the same time you claim that all is dependent upon the atonement of Jesus Christ. Apparently, not unless you answer the worthiness questions correctly. There is a conflict here that seems to be ignored or rationalized away.

SteveVH,

This post reminds me of the analogy of marriage that in effect would mean that the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments had died with the coming of the New Covenant.

I have no doubt that we will never even come remotely close to being on the same page with respect to the idea of keeping the commandments and thus being “worthy”. The commandments aren’t hard to understand, and aren’t that hard to keep.

Being worthy means one is keeping the commandments–simple, straightforward, and not something that needs to be excused by just saying “unworthy servants” and excusing behavior. The commandments were given to be kept and be a blessing to people by keeping them.

Peace to you and all.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

I have always been struck by the words of our Catholic bishops when they refer to themselves as “your unworthy servant”. This would include our Popes. The entire idea that any human being could determine the “worthiness” of another, or that anyone could ever become worthy, is absent in Catholicism. Before we receive the Eucharist we say "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.". The whole point is that none of us are ever worthy, Parker. That is why we need Jesus Christ. It is why we, as Catholics, are urged to confess our sins on a regular basis. It is only in realizing our “unworthiness” that holiness can enter our life.

I actually see no problem with this, and “worthiness” is in fact found in Catholicism. For example, if you are not in a state of grace, and have unconfessed mortal sin, then you are not to partake of the Eucharist. So, you must be “worthy” to partake of the Eucharist, and being in a state of mortal sin makes you “unworthy”. This concept is based on 1 Corinthians 11:27, isn’t it?-“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Clearly a concept of worthiness is found in this example.

Also, if a priest knows that one is in a state of mortal sin, would they restrict that person from receiving the Eucharist? This seems to be the case in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, where priests may not even give communion to someone that did not confess to them previous to reception of the Eucharist (since Confession is done face to face in the Eastern churches). Since they do not know that person, they do not know the “worthiness” of that person, so they do not commune him/her.

Latter-day Saints are continuously urged to “endure to the end” and enter into a continued process of repentance. Repentance is made possible by the atonement of Jesus Christ, and all of our ordinances are participations in His atonement.

Implicit in the Mormon idea that one can be found worthy to enter a temple is that some are worthy, while others are not. For one to even think of one’s self as worthy is an idea straight from the evil one.

How exactly is it? For Latter-day Saints, being found worthy to enter the temple means that one is following the commandments of Jesus Christ, continuously exercising faith in Him and His Gospel. If one is not following His commandments, continuously repenting, etc., then they are not ready to enter into further covenants with God in the holy temple. I find this to be no different than what we see in 1 Corinthians 11:27. How do you know when you partake of the Eucharist worthily or unworthily?

If you are worthy, you have no need for Christ.

That does not logically follow, and that is certainly not Latter-day Saint belief. We believe that we always need Christ, and we are always in need of Him and His atoning sacrifice. We firmly believe in “enduring to the end”, which involves Christ at every step of the way. If one is worthy to do something, such as be ordained to the priesthood or receive temple ordinances, it is because they have followed Christ and His commandments, and they continue to do so.

Adding to this is the fact that worthiness is determined by men asking “worthiness questions”. At the same time you claim that all is dependent upon the atonement of Jesus Christ. Apparently, not unless you answer the worthiness questions correctly. There is a conflict here that seems to be ignored or rationalized away.

Of course all is dependent on the atonement of Jesus Christ. This is not an either/or situation, and it has not been demonstrated that it is such. If one answers “worthiness questions” truthfully and “correctly”, this means that they have exercised faith in Jesus Christ and in His Gospel, have followed His commandments, have continued to enter into covenants with God, and have continued to repent of their sins. Worthiness is completely tied to following Christ, and there is no separation. It is quite simple that if one is not allowing the infinite atonement of Christ to be operative in their lives, then they are not worthy. Again, I find similarities with what is found in 1 Corinthians 11.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Christians understand that God has raised us up, as a royal nation, a holy people. We walk and live in the Light of Christ. We are not working to progress to it, we are working at living the reality of WHO WE ARE now, in this moment, by the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Latter-day Saints believe this as well. We believe that the Church is a royal nation and a holy people, and that we are called to walk and live in the Light of Christ. Believe in progression, in becoming conformed to the image of Christ, becoming like Him, is not separated from that.

Catholic rites are not required for us to work our way towards something that has already been given to us, freely, out of God’s Love and Charity towards mankind. The Sacraments of the Catholic Church are gifts, they impart graces, gifts of the Holy Spirit, that help us to live a Christian life. The first, baptism, imparts many graces, and initiates us into the family of God. A Catholic is given this gift shortly after they are born. It is given to them freely, and gives to a child graces that help them to grow in the Love of God.

Is santification a one time event, something that you already have achieved now, or is it something that you continue to grow in, that you are continuously sanctified, through participating in the sacraments?

When a priest interviews a child for confirmation, it is not to determine if the child is worthy to be confirmed. It is to ensure that the child understands his/her Catholic faith, and understands the baptismal vows that they will renew. If the child does not understand, they won’t be barred from confirmation until they are “worthy”, they will receive further instruction, so that they understand what it is they are doing.

The same thing for confession and marriage. A priest is not deciding if a person is worthy to be forgiven, they are helping the penitent discern how to live a Christian life.

If the priest determines that the person is not truly repentant, will he absolve them? There are threads on this very forum about such an issue, and the priest may not offer absolution in certain cases. This is of course a worthiness issue.