LDS, Do you believe that Jesus died for our salvation?

[ParkerD]

Actually the age of seven or eight is a traditional age of accountability. The Catholic Church makes use of this age to have the child receive his/her first Holy Communion. This means that a child is aware of sin and right and wrong, and can make a confession to the Priest about his/her sins. Granted, those sins are usually rather trivial, but they still are small sins that could grow bigger without religious education and a sense of remorse.

Christine,
Thanks for explaining that. I think it was an important point.

Since this thread has talked about the importance of ancestors also in the LDS beliefs, I have thought this morning that it might be helpful to mention that all of the records that several church organizations have kept over many, many years about christenings, have been an important resource for preserving the names of people who have lived on the earth, and sometimes of their parents’ names. When I think of the vital importance the parents attached to having their child christened, I realize what a good thing that was in preserving those names and records. Today many people use those records to research their family history.

Speaking of families, my brother and his family live in Custer near Bellingham. They love it there. Have a great weekend.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I don’t have a CCC citation, but I understand that the position of the Catholic Church (not trying to be provocative here, just accurate) is that there is only ONE Church ~ the Catholic Church ~ Latin Rite. Other Christian faiths that have some part of the Truth, but lack the fullness of Truth found in the Catholic Church are technically “sects”, not churches. As Christ has only one body, so to the Church can be only one, because WE are the Body of Christ.

Whenever anyone is baptized using the proper form and matter, regardless of the Christian denomination, they are brought into the Body of Christ, the Church. Some faiths the purport to be Christian do not use the proper form and matter, or have other theological defects, so their baptisms are not effective. It is important to note that the Church is not a building, or an organization. WE are the Church. When you’re baptized, you’re a member. After that, it’s up to you.

I’m not sure what you meant here but the Catholic Church doesn’t equal the Latin Rite. There are many other “rites” in the Catholic Church, Byzantine and Maronite to name some.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’m not sure what you meant here but the Catholic Church doesn’t equal the Latin Rite. There are many other “rites” in the Catholic Church, Byzantine and Maronite to name some.

I didn’t say that Catholic Church = Latin Rite. I was describing the Church as “Catholic Church” and specifying “Latin Rite”, as opposed to the other rites. Perhaps that is not quite accurate, but I was attempting to specify the Catholic Church not in the sense of Catholic equaling Universal, but in the sense of the Catholic Church in communion with Pope Benedict XVI. Hope that makes sense

 

[sympathy07]

If you want to know about this questions then read Bible you can find your answers in Bible.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Christine,
Thanks for explaining that. I think it was an important point.

Since this thread has talked about the importance of ancestors also in the LDS beliefs, I have thought this morning that it might be helpful to mention that all of the records that several church organizations have kept over many, many years about christenings, have been an important resource for preserving the names of people who have lived on the earth, and sometimes of their parents’ names. When I think of the vital importance the parents attached to having their child christened, I realize what a good thing that was in preserving those names and records. Today many people use those records to research their family history.

Speaking of families, my brother and his family live in Custer near Bellingham. They love it there. Have a great weekend.

You’re right, baptism records are extremely important for tracing geneology. My Mom’s side of the family came from Sicily, and it is extremely difficult to trace that side of the family because of the dearth of baptisimal records. My Dad’s side, on the other hand, has been traced back for generations. I know the LDS has an amazing database of geneology. It’s so interesting to learn about one’s ancestors!

 

[MelanieAnne]

You’re right, baptism records are extremely important for tracing geneology. My Mom’s side of the family came from Sicily, and it is extremely difficult to trace that side of the family because of the dearth of baptisimal records. My Dad’s side, on the other hand, has been traced back for generations. I know the LDS has an amazing database of geneology. It’s so interesting to learn about one’s ancestors!

The genealogy records of the LDS church are great & very helpful for those that wish to learn more about their ancestors.

The problem I have with their keeping all this records is that they use them to do baptisms for the dead. I’m not happy about the idea of them using the name of, for example, my great-grandfather and baptizing him into their faith without his permission, or at least the permission of his family. But that’s why they have the records, so that everyone can be Mormon.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The genealogy records of the LDS church are great & very helpful for those that wish to learn more about their ancestors.

The problem I have with their keeping all this records is that they use them to do baptisms for the dead. I’m not happy about the idea of them using the name of, for example, my great-grandfather and baptizing him into their faith without his permission, or at least the permission of his family. But that’s why they have the records, so that everyone can be Mormon.

Yes, that’s probably what they are ultimately for, but as a side benefit, it is a great resource for those looking to trace their ancestries.

I have heard that you have a choice though. If you don’t want to be baptized Mormon after you’re dead, you can refuse.

 

[ParkerD]

You’re right, baptism records are extremely important for tracing geneology. My Mom’s side of the family came from Sicily, and it is extremely difficult to trace that side of the family because of the dearth of baptisimal records. My Dad’s side, on the other hand, has been traced back for generations. I know the LDS has an amazing database of geneology. It’s so interesting to learn about one’s ancestors!

Christine,
I saw this post before the more recent one, and had thought about responding, so here goes:

I sincerely appreciate your example to me in being able to take a conversation that can either be positive or negative, and you are able to choose the positive and build on it. Thank you for doing that often in these conversations. It seems to me that you choose to “build a bridge” rather than “pull up the drawbridge”. Thanks, and God bless you.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Yes, that’s probably what they are ultimately for, but as a side benefit, it is a great resource for those looking to trace their ancestries.

I have heard that you have a choice though. If you don’t want to be baptized Mormon after you’re dead, you can refuse.

Yes, you can, according to them. But I don’t care for the arrogance implied in doing it without permission in advance.

 

[Jerusha]

If you don’t want to be baptized Mormon after you’re dead, you can refuse.

There might be some awfully angry ghosts haunting the LDS church. If we have friends like that, we don’t have anything to worry about.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Christine,
I saw this post before the more recent one, and had thought about responding, so here goes:

I sincerely appreciate your example to me in being able to take a conversation that can either be positive or negative, and you are able to choose the positive and build on it. Thank you for doing that often in these conversations. It seems to me that you choose to “build a bridge” rather than “pull up the drawbridge”. Thanks, and God bless you.

Ditto, Parker. I think Catholics and Mormons could learn a lot more from each other if we stop being so defensive and offensive.

 

[Catholic20064]

Ditto, Parker. I think Catholics and Mormons could learn a lot more from each other if we stop being so defensive and offensive.

That would be no problem as long as the Mormons give up their obviously false religion which says that God the Father was once a man just like me and that Jesus is not the uniquely divine Son of God.

 

[Catholic20064]

Christine,
I saw this post before the more recent one, and had thought about responding, so here goes:

I sincerely appreciate your example to me in being able to take a conversation that can either be positive or negative, and you are able to choose the positive and build on it. Thank you for doing that often in these conversations. It seems to me that you choose to “build a bridge” rather than “pull up the drawbridge”. Thanks, and God bless you.

I don’t think you can have a positive conversation with a Mormon as long as they are unwilling to admit they teach that God was once a man like us and that Jesus is not uniquely divine. That many Mormons who frequent this board are unable to honestly teach what their religion loudly proclaims should help us all understand how offensive Mormon doctrine really is. And their embarrassment about being honest about it speaks volumes.

 

[ParkerD]

I don’t think you can have a positive conversation with a Mormon as long as they are unwilling to admit they teach that God was once a man like us and that Jesus is not uniquely divine. That many Mormons who frequent this board are unable to honestly teach what their religion loudly proclaims should help us all understand how offensive Mormon doctrine really is. And their embarrassment about being honest about it speaks volumes.

Catholic20064,
It appears that your comment has been basically directed to me. I’m not embarrassed about being honest about my religion and about my beliefs. I do feel constrained by the teachings of the prophet Alma who taught:

Alma 12:8 And Zeezrom began to inquire of them diligently, that he might know more concerning the kingdom of God. And he said unto Alma: What does this mean which Amulek hath spoken concerning the resurrection of the dead, that all shall rise from the dead, both the just and the unjust, and are brought to stand before God to be judged according to their works?
9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

This teaching probably runs counter to your beliefs, but it is very much a part of my beliefs. When I write in on this forum, I am sensitive to whether I am “writing too much” based on the above scripture and others. Another teaching of Alma is here:

Alma 29:4 I ought not to harrow up in my desires, the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.
5 Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience.
6 Now, seeing that I know these things, why should I desire more than to perform the work to which I have been called?
7 Why should I desire that I were an angel, that I could speak unto all the ends of the earth?
8 For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.

I realize that too long of posts are probably not read, so I will continue my response to you in another post, soon.

 

[Catholic20064]

Catholic20064,

I realize that too long of posts are probably not read, so I will continue my response to you in another post, soon.

This whole post sounds like the old milk before meat argument. Don’t let anyone know what Mormons really teach until you’ve got the potential sucker baptized. Then you tell them the doctrine that was omitted from the missionary discussions. At that point they either accept them or as most commonly happens, they go out the door never to come back. It takes a lifelong indoctrination from the cradle to cause most Mormons to believe what their church really teaches because it is so absurd it can only be imparted through continued brainwashing from the cradle on.

 

[Finrock]

I don’t think you can have a positive conversation with a Mormon as long as they are unwilling to admit they teach that God was once a man like us and that Jesus is not uniquely divine. That many Mormons who frequent this board are unable to honestly teach what their religion loudly proclaims should help us all understand how offensive Mormon doctrine really is. And their embarrassment about being honest about it speaks volumes.

Hi Catholic20064! Good morning to you. I hope today has been going wonderful for you!

I’m sorry that your experiences with members of the LDS church have all been so negative. I can’t say the same thing for my brothers and sisters of other religions. I’ve had very positive interactions with people of many different faiths and they have felt the same. So, I know it’s possible. Perhaps you’ve just been so unfortunate as to always have spoken to a rude and mean spirited Mormon?

I probably haven’t been here as long as you have, but so far, I haven’t seen any Mormon who posts here not being honest about their religious beliefs. At least that is not the impression I’m getting. Perhaps they are only speaking to what they understand the gospel to be. I know in past conversations people who are not LDS or even people who use to be LDS haven’t always understood precisely what it is the LDS believe or what the doctrine is. There is so much misinformation out there that I don’t blame people for sometimes thinking some of the things they do about Mormon beliefs. However, I’ve learned from experience when trying to understand other people’s beliefs, that if you take the time to listen and forsake suppositions, you will usually end up coming away from the conversation with a better understanding of where the person is coming from. I don’t always agree with everything, but I expect that to be the case. I, personally, don’t want to spend too much time arguing disagreements, more than I would either like to teach my beliefs or learn the beliefs of another.

Another thing that you might also find helpful in your conversations with Mormons and with anyone, for that matter, is if you come across someone who is being caustic, be kind and gentle and almost always their disposition will change. Of course, sometimes people are so full of anger and prejudice, that they are blinded at which point you can only pray for them and hope they will be able to get past their anger and become whole again through the atonement of Jesus Christ. As I’ve always been taught, you can’t control how others will act, but you can control how you will react.

I hope your conversations with Mormons in the future will be more positive. Be well!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[MelanieAnne]

Ditto, Parker. I think Catholics and Mormons could learn a lot more from each other if we stop being so defensive and offensive.

Hi Christine,

This statement sounds very friendly and nice. But if we look at the substance of it, there may be a problem. What is it that we might learn from a Mormon? In matters of faith there is little, if anything, we can learn about Mormonism that is not in direct conflict with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Certainly major doctrines of each faith are in opposition to eachother.

As Catholics, we believe all that the Church has set forth as doctrine. ALL, not part, not “this and that” ~ no “cafeteria” style picking and choosing those parts we like and those parts we don’t. Otherwise, we’re not really Catholic. When we begin to subscribe to tenets of another faith, even with good intentions, we are separating ourselves from our own Catholic faith.

Now, of course, we can learn about the Mormon faith just so we know about it, not having any impact on our own faith. And we can also learn other things from Mormons about other subjects not pertaining to faith. But when we stray into to discussions of faith, we have to be careful because there is no such thing as a Mormon Catholic or a Catholic Mormon. Some sort of blend of the two faiths separates anyone who accepts that from the Catholic faith because acceptance of any Mormon doctrine automatically includes rejection of some part of the Catholic faith. Once we do that, we are no longer Catholic.

 

[ParkerD]

I don’t think you can have a positive conversation with a Mormon as long as they are unwilling to admit they teach that God was once a man like us and that Jesus is not uniquely divine. That many Mormons who frequent this board are unable to honestly teach what their religion loudly proclaims should help us all understand how offensive Mormon doctrine really is. And their embarrassment about being honest about it speaks volumes.

Catholic20064,
I have no idea how you received the very wrong misunderstanding as to the teaching in the LDS church of Jesus Christ’s unique divinity. Only He was divine as the Firstborn of the Father in both pre-mortal life (as the Firstborn spirit Son of God) and in mortality as the Only Begotten Son of the Father. He is absolutely unique in every conceivable way.

I am very much aware that there is a simple phrase “God was once a man like us” or “As man now is, God once was,” but when you look at the context of Joseph Smith’s teaching on this subject, you find that he is quoting the Bible to show that Christ “does what He sees that the Father did before this world came into existence.” Joseph Smith also taught what the Apostle John taught and Christ Himself taught, that humankind can become joint-heirs with Him through His power and His grace.

I am not surprised at all by the Nicene council having to come to grips with that idea of becoming a joint heir with Christ, and also with the idea of whether God the Father has a body and is a separate being from God the Son. I am not surprised at all that they decided it was “easier” to have people believe that God is too mysterious to really be understood, and that when God the Son came to earth, that was really another manifestation of God the Father. Further, that any idea of becoming joint-heirs is too prideful to be acceptable doctrine, (even though it is clearly and repeatedly taught by Christ and John). Further, that humankind should accede to the Nicene council’s teachings and authority rather than have any impression that every person can have a relationship with God that entitles them to receive personal revelation, including revelation about their potential to actually become like Him since He is our Father who loves us just as a father loves his children and wants them to be as happy as he is.

In this world, we think in terms of win/lose–if there is a winner, there must have been many losers. Christ offered a completely different picture. He is the pre-eminent Victor, the Conqueror, but He offers a joint throne with Him, through Him, because of Him. This does not make Him any less. It means He has done something that really is mortally inconceivable. I can’t possibly comprehend how eternity can allow such a thing (it seems too far a stretch of the imagination and certainly unattainable except for the fact that God can do ALL THINGS), but yet HE PROMISED IT ANYWAY.

I don’t blame you for resisting the idea. I would also, if it hadn’t been so clearly taught in the Bible.

 

[Religio71]

Catholic20064,
I have no idea how you received the very wrong misunderstanding as to the teaching in the LDS church of Jesus Christ’s unique divinity. Only He was divine as the Firstborn of the Father in both pre-mortal life (as the Firstborn spirit Son of God) and in mortality as the Only Begotten Son of the Father. He is absolutely unique in every conceivable way.

I am very much aware that there is a simple phrase “God was once a man like us” or “As man now is, God once was,” but when you look at the context of Joseph Smith’s teaching on this subject, you find that he is quoting the Bible to show that Christ “does what He sees that the Father did before this world came into existence.” Joseph Smith also taught what the Apostle John taught and Christ Himself taught, that humankind can become joint-heirs with Him through His power and His grace.

I am not surprised at all by the Nicene council having to come to grips with that idea of becoming a joint heir with Christ, and also with the idea of whether God the Father has a body and is a separate being from God the Son. I am not surprised at all that they decided it was “easier” to have people believe that God is too mysterious to really be understood, and that when God the Son came to earth, that was really another manifestation of God the Father. Further, that any idea of becoming joint-heirs is too prideful to be acceptable doctrine, (even though it is clearly and repeatedly taught by Christ and John). Further, that humankind should accede to the Nicene council’s teachings and authority rather than have any impression that every person can have a relationship with God that entitles them to receive personal revelation, including revelation about their potential to actually become like Him since He is our Father who loves us just as a father loves his children and wants them to be as happy as he is.

In this world, we think in terms of win/lose–if there is a winner, there must have been many losers. Christ offered a completely different picture. He is the pre-eminent Victor, the Conqueror, but He offers a joint throne with Him, through Him, because of Him. This does not make Him any less. It means He has done something that really is mortally inconceivable. I can’t possibly comprehend how eternity can allow such a thing (it seems too far a stretch of the imagination and certainly unattainable except for the fact that God can do ALL THINGS), but yet HE PROMISED IT ANYWAY.

I don’t blame you for resisting the idea. I would also, if it hadn’t been so clearly taught in the Bible.

what does it mean to LDS that Jesus was the only begotten son of the Father?

and neither the Nicene Creed nor the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was/is a manifestation of the Father.

 

[Religio71]

and the Catholic Church does teach that we become joint-heirs in Christ.