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

[Ross09]

For whomever has read this thread,
I have had the impression this morning that I would not feel comfortable standing in the presence of the Apostle John (which I hope to do someday) without having pointed out the following impression related to the words “joint heir”:

John would want it to be understood that he knew the precise connotation of the words “joint heir” and the word “throne”, and he used those words knowing exactly what they meant in the real world. “Heir” means “the recipient of the promised inheritance.” “Joint” means “together with.” “Throne” means “kingship throne.” A joint heir receives the same inheritance as the rightful Sonship heir. How could John have said it more clearly? Why does one think he repeatedly said, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith.”?

We are taught that the passage means we will have what the Son has, not be what the Son is, the latter which is what I feel you are implying, no?

 

[MelanieAnne]

I may be way off base, but it seems like Mormons today don’t believe in a lot of the stuff that was taught by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. For sure, they don’t believe in polygamy anymore. I don’t know for sure, but people with their own planets, and God impregnating Mary seems to be debatable too. I think they are more mainstream in a lot of thier religious beliefs now, but of course they have beliefs and practices unique to the LDS church. At least that is what I think I am gleaning from these posts.

Yes, Mormonism appears to be evolving. Many things that were once taught as doctrine are no longer taught & many Mormons who are relatively young or new to the church have even told us that these old things were NEVER doctrine, even though tey used to be taught in their seminaries & Sunday Schools. There appears to be a certain amount of confusion as to what Mormon doctrine even IS at times.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Yes, Mormonism appears to be evolving. Many things that were once taught as doctrine are no longer taught & many Mormons who are relatively young or new to the church have even told us that these old things were NEVER doctrine, even though tey used to be taught in their seminaries & Sunday Schools. There appears to be a certain amount of confusion as to what Mormon doctrine even IS at times.

Well, I suppose that happens in other faiths too. Not all Catholics are experts on their religious doctrine. That’s why this forum is so interesting - you learn all kinds of things, and some of it sure isn’t doctrine!!

Most importantly, we need see each other not so much through our doctrines, as through the way we act toward one another and in our own lives. I seems to me that most of the Mormons I have known, and the ones I have met through this forum, live very Christian lives - they are kind and considerate of others, are loyal to their church and families, and rely on guidance from the Holy Spirit in most of their decisions.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Well, I suppose that happens in other faiths too. Not all Catholics are experts on their religious doctrine. That’s why this forum is so interesting - you learn all kinds of things, and some of it sure isn’t doctrine!!

You’re certainly right about Catholics! I suppose that’s why every year at the Feast of the Immaculate Conception our Pastor feels the need to explain that it’s not about the conception of Jesus.

 

[ParkerD]

We are taught that the passage means we will have what the Son has, not be what the Son is, the latter which is what I feel you are implying, no?

Ross09,
Thanks for asking for the clarification. I did actually mean “have what the Son has,” not “be what the Son is.” The Son has all power (omnipotence), a fullness of love, all knowledge (omniscience), and a fullness of joy. He already had those qualities in the pre-mortal world, but by means of this life and the spirit world and our resurrected condition when we will still be learning, He has provided a way for us, though imperfect, to gradually learn enough and change enough through sanctification and His grace, so that in a far distant point in time in the future, we can “have what He has.” This is only possible through Him, because of His atoning sacrifice and His role as our Advocate with the Father.

Again, thanks for asking. I hope I have clarified. Have a good day.

 

[Ross09]

Ross09,
Thanks for asking for the clarification. I did actually mean “have what the Son has,” not “be what the Son is.” The Son has all power (omnipotence), a fullness of love, all knowledge (omniscience), and a fullness of joy. He already had those qualities in the pre-mortal world, but by means of this life and the spirit world and our resurrected condition when we will still be learning, He has provided a way for us, though imperfect, to gradually learn enough and change enough through sanctification and His grace, so that in a far distant point in time in the future, we can “have what He has.” This is only possible through Him, because of His atoning sacrifice and His role as our Advocate with the Father.

Again, thanks for asking. I hope I have clarified. Have a good day.

My understanding is different. We won’t inherit God’s qualities of omnipotence, and probably not omniscience. But as faithful believers we are promised eternal life in the presence of God.

 

[pipper]

Religio71,
(1) It means exactly what the words say. “Only” is singular, and means “uniquely distinctively one of a kind.” “Begotten” is from the word “beget” which means “to procreate as the father” (see dictionary) but we know that He “procreated” in such a way (through the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost) that Mary remained a Virgin yet Jesus Christ inherited God the Father’s divine qualities and was thus God the Son in the Flesh.

(2) Now you get to teach me. If you would like, I would like to have a better understanding of what evidently is my misunderstanding about that and about becoming a joint heir. I am not questioning your beliefs. I just want to try and really understand them without having to read a catechism or the Catholic encyclopedia, which when I read I often don’t understand in a way that makes sense to me. Thanks in advance.

I am not religio, but I hope no-one will object if I interject a few words.
Mormonism, and orthodox Christianity often use the same words and phrases, but often mean very different things with those same words, and I think that just might be your problem with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Perhaps you are reading the catechism and interpretting it through your LDS lenses, re-defining Catholic words through Mormon meanings. Maybe that is the reason you “don’t understand in a way that makes sense” to you. No offense but when people read the 6 articles of faith through orthodox Christian eyes parts of them make sense, and are not highly objectionable to us. But they mean entirely different things when one takes into consideration the uniquely LDS meanings.

BTW, I would recomend the Catechism over the Catholic Encyclopedia, the encyclopedia was written nearly a century ago, and is dated.

 

[ParkerD]

Gottle of Geer and Pipper,
Thanks for the dialogue.

Gottle of Geer, here is the thread where I think you will find most of your questions answered, plus a thorough back and forth discussion including citing dialogue from the time of Joseph Smith. Enjoy your weekend.

 

[JohnVIII]

Please answer this one question for me: (3) If I committed the sin of first-degree murder, could I be totally forgiven solely by the merits of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross; and in the hereafter go on to the first-degree of the Celestial Kingdom and be a God?

(3) Absolutely not. King David understood that he would be rescued from Hell, but had disqualified himself from being a joint heir because of what he had done with Uriah.

Then clearly, your answer to the question of this thread “LDS, Do you believe that Jesus died for our salvation” is “No”, Jesus did not save King David, nor the Apostle Paul - or perhaps you think they may have some chance for salvation if they shed there own blood (not the blood of Jesus - there own blood!) This of course is the Mormon doctrine of “Blood Atonement”. The Blood of Jesus is not good enough to save a murderer, so they must shed there own blood for their sins!

 

[ParkerD]

John VIII,
I personally don’t believe in any such thing as the shedding of blood as the death penalty for someone, but I guess that for serious enough aggravated murder, I do believe in the death penalty by the means lawfully established after a jury trial and a conviction without any question of the guilt involved.

As for Paul, he had “consented unto [Stephen’s] death” but that is not equivalent to aggravated murder. It did not bring about the death of Stephen, nor did Paul execute anyone personally nor was he in charge of executions–he “gave his voice against them.” Paul could be forgiven through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and could qualify for celestial glory because his complicity had been based entirely on how he was taught and what he was taught as a Pharisee. He could repent with full access to the atonement.

King David’s situation was much different than Paul’s, and he himself understood that because of his personally and knowingly and deliberately bringing about the death of Uriah, he had to suffer the pains of hell. Yet he understood “thou wilt not leave my soul in hell” (Acts 2:27)–he would be saved from the eternal torment of hell, after suffering there for a very long time. He understood that Christ would also suffer the pains of hell as a part of the atonement, and that the atonement would be sufficient that David could indeed be rescued from the condition of hell and be brought into a resurrection of glory. This is one of the reasons that the concept of several degrees of glory is so important to understand. Heaven is more than one place, and more than one type of glory, depending upon what each person did with what they knew–did they act out of ignorance, or out of knowledge, when they committed serious sin? David was repentant, but that could not rescue him in and of itself, due to the seriousness of his crime against his own knowledge and against God. He knew that he could only be partially rescued, after his own personal suffering which would be intense anguish.

As for those who set themselves up as judges of others, I would not want to be in their shoes, because truly Christ taught, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you again.” (Matt. 7:1-2) Those who judge harshly using words of condemnation, will have such judgment meted unto them by this law of restoration or in other words, “that which goes around comes around.” I would want to consider abundant mercy including merciful words if I were in a role of judging others, or if I place myself in the situation of judging the motives of others.

 

[Sunstone]

Why would Jesus die for our salvation if it was going to be lost in an apostasy soon after He ascended into heaven?
How do you justify Joseph Smith not lying?
How do you know that the vision he had was a Holy vision, and not from something bad?
You believe what the scriptures say, so why then do you not confess your sins someone in your church?
Why do you not ask Mary or saints to pray for you, do you not believe you all make up the Body of Christ?
Why do you choose to have a picture of Joseph Smith in churches and not Mary, Jesus’ Mother?
Do you think Joseph Smith is more important than Mary?
Why don’t you believe Jesus is God when he says in the bible so many times that he is?
Why do you baptize the dead?

always wondered about these questions!

Mormons assert a historical pattern of apostasy and restoration. They cite some biblical texts for this (such as Amos 8:11-12 and 2 Thes. 2:3), but it’s most strongly rooted in Jacob 5 of the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith was like any other man. No doubt he lied about some things.

I can’t prove that Joseph Smith’s vision was holy. The fruits of believing in that vision have been good, though.

Mormons confess some sins to Bishops and other leaders.

Mormons respect Mary, but Mormon theology is not well-developed concerning her.

I’ve seen pictures of both Mary on the donkey being led by Joseph and the Nativity scene in Mormon churches.

I don’t think Joseph Smith is more important than Mary. I’d say they are important in different ways.

I believe Jesus is God.

Baptism for the dead is taught in the Mormon scripture the Doctrine & Covenants. Mormons also interpret 1 Cor. 15:29 and the activities of some early Christians as affirmative of the practice.

Thank you for asking.