LDS: Is this video accurate for your theology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Scott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ParkerD:
Baptism for the dead" is taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, and is taught by Jesus Christ through His teaching that every man must be “born of water” to enter the kingdom of heaven and that the dead shall hear His voice, and Peter’s teaching that they shall be “judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit”. (1 Peter 4:6)
Are you sure St.Paul tought about baptism for the dead or he just has talked about it?
It does make any difference to you between talking and teaching?
If he really would have thought it you don’t think his teaching he would have spread in many traditions? I don’t think you have ever posed yourself this kind of questions.

Ok then, before going on please make your research on this matter, of course they have to be serious research not only from LDS sources if not what would you think you will find? The truth or your truth? Do you really think if LDS would find something against their faith they would approve it?
So for this reason if you are interested in the truth go and find.
Then after you find you write the sources from where you get your opinion, then you will compare with me and my sources, then we will see if your sources are only mormon oriented and if my sources are Catholic or Orthodox (I am Eastern Orthodox) o0riented and then we will se who is more serious in his research.

If you want to give a try let’s give it a try.
(But if you never read about Lietzmann, J.Weiss, A.Vacant, A,Plummer, St. Chrisostom(sorry this one is a saint then maybe biased in his view, G.Nolli, Buscardo di Worms…and so on, then we should consider the signification of the original written language terms; I worn you the research of wanting to really know the truth can take long time, research and effort. I don’t think any LDS is interested in doing it.) But why not you start. I am prepared. Just don’t make it seams you know.
I can say I am not an expert but from what you are saying it seams that you have made a serious and long research before stating what you have written about.
 
NewSeeker,
Your post made me laugh, reading you argue against your own Catholic mysteries

Didn’t Jesus ascend body and soul into heaven. The term may be ‘glorified’?
Didn’t Mary, Mother of Christ, ascend body and soul into heaven
Don’t they both still have bodies, per Catholic teachings?

Now I see you argue that the LDS thinking the same is ludicrous?
Why do you limit the Father but not the Son?

I think you are here to attack, rather than understand theology.
No Mary did not ascend into heave, she was assumed into heaven, it may seem like a small difference but it has big implications.🙂
 
40.png
ParkerD:
Temple ceremonies are taught briefly in the Old Testament, and are alluded to on the Mount of Transfiguration. They are sacred, so of course they would not be openly shared with the world, just as Moses and Peter, James and John didn’t share everything they knew or learned, and had been commanded not to share certain sacred things.
Do you really want to talk about temple cerimonies? **DON’T TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT GOING TO WANTING TO EXPOSE BUT AT THE SAME TIME MAKING IT SEAMS TEMPLE CERIMONIES ARE JUSTIFIED IF NOT WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT HERE IN THIS FORUM! **

If somebody would like to believe in what our friend here says since he is alluding and justifying please ask and I am sure many here will be ready to reveal. If not so since even if for us is not sacred at all we respect even if our children believes in St. Clouse so we don’t speak about it for your respect not because we think temple cerimonies are sacred.

just as Moses and Peter, James and John didn’t share everything they knew or learned, and had been commanded not to share certain sacred things

are you sure you want to develop this?
Who told you this? Maybe Joseph Smith?

PEOPLE HERE HAVE TO KNOW FOR LDS WHAT JOSEPH SMITH SAID IS THE WORD OF JESUS. LDS DONT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JOSEPH SMITH WORDS AND JESUS WORDS WHEN JOSEPH SMITH TALK OFFICIALLY TO THEIR CHURCH IS JESUS TALKING.
 
And Tony…you are not answering people here …what about those Mormons who blaspheme the Divine Presence of Christ in the sacrament and keep searching Mormons from seeking and finding the truth…and don’t for fear of loosing their families???

There are numerous threads here on CAF that link to ever changing beliefs of Mormonism…I have read them myself from Mormon sites…‘God once a man’…
Jesus did come to earth as a man, did he not?

Some Mormons have taken the scripture that says that Jesus has never done anything except that which he’s seen the Father do, and take that to mean that God the Father once came to earth as a man. I think that they are in error, but I don’t think they are blaspheming. Just an innocent misunderstanding of the scriptures.
 
That’s not the issue at all. I asked you to explain why *you *find the idea of Kolob offensive, and in your long post, you have not even begun to answer my question.

Yes, I could address the other points, but why waste the time if you’re not going to be reasonable? The inclusion of Kolob on your list, and your refusal to explain why that’s offensive, suggests to me that you’ve merely ported over a list of Mr. Decker’s objections. And it’s his job to get offended at other people’s religions. That’s how he makes his money. He gets offended at your religion, too, and makes money from writing at that.

So please explain why the actual LDS teachings about Kolob are offensive. Not what Ed Decker said that we believe about Kolob. Just the idea that God has a particular physical place, throne, which could be referenced in Abraham’s time by saying that it was “near” some star named Kolob.

You said that the list of doctrines makes you feel physically sick. So I ask you, what makes you so upset about that info about Kolob?

Address that and then I’ll move to another point. But if you don’t, I don’t think I should lose my time.

You say that Kolob is “blasphemy”? I don’t understand why… Have you really thought this through?
If I may, I really want to jump in here, because I see two major reasons for such a huge misunderstanding between the two of you. The first problem is due to the theological differences that cause problems in understanding on your side that seem to add to your confusion, because of a basic difference in certain terminology and religious concepts. Second, truthsave is at an even further disadvantage in explaining what he means, because English is not his primary language, so he struggles with trying to find the right way to express what he believes without unintentionally insulting what you believe. It’s hard enough to do that when we both speak perfect English.

The biggest problem Catholics and other Christians have with accepting the concept of God ‘living on a planet (or star) called Kolob’ is that it significantly diminishes Who God really is, in many numerous ways. First and foremost, it implies that He merely exists as a physical ‘being’ within the confines of this universe, which brings Him down to the same level as we are. That’s what truthsave means by saying it’s ‘lowering’ Him. In truth, God is totally incapable of being confined within any space or time.

In fact, God created both time and space, and they exist within Him, like a mere thought exists within our own mind. They are as completely insignificant in comparison to God, as a tiny molecule of water is insignificant in all of the oceans of this world. God never had a beginning and will never have an end. He alone created everything that exists in the entire spiritual and physical reality. He is pure Spirit, meaning that He is not merely a physical being as we are. Having ‘lived on a planet’, in any way, implies that He is not ‘eternal’, nor is He Omnipotent or Omniscient. If God ever ‘lived’ anywhere within the confines of time and space, then He cannot be God as Christianity defines Him.

Not only does that concept diminish the true Power and Glory of the Eternal Father, but it also diminishes the Power and Glory of the Son and the Holy Spirit. It diminishes the immense sacrifice of the Son in becoming man, if He is believed to be little different than the rest of us. It diminishes His Death and Resurrection in the process, because if He was no different than we are, there was really no great sacrifice for Him to come to earth in the first place. So, by lowering our entire conception of Who God really is, we denigrate everything that God has done in relation to that concept. The reason that we see this as such a serious blasphemy, is not because it bruises our egos, but because it insults God, Himself, in thousands of different ways. Our strong reaction is because of the thought of what all of those beliefs do to the respect that is due to God, and how it injures Him by showing such disrespect of Who He is and what He has really done for all of us.

I hope this explanation helps to close the gaps in understanding between LDS and the Christians that have been trying to explain why we see these things as we do, at least concerning this particular problem between us.
 
NewSeeker,
Your post made me laugh, reading you argue against your own Catholic mysteries

Didn’t Jesus ascend body and soul into heaven. The term may be ‘glorified’?
Didn’t Mary, Mother of Christ, ascend body and soul into heaven”
Don’t they both still have bodies, per Catholic teachings?

Now I see you argue that the LDS thinking the same is ludicrous?
Why do you limit the Father but not the Son?

I think you are here to attack, rather than understand theology.
Tony888, all your post reveals is your seeming inability to think beyond the limitations of our three-dimensional universe. Mormons, following Joseph Smith, posit a limited God that resides and has always resided within such a cosmos, where matter and God are coeternal. The Mormon god does not transcend a material, three-dimensional cosmos. He is a part of it. He is like an immortal spaceman or Zeus. That’s what’s ludicrious. Nothing I said contradicts Catholic teaching. We don’t know what resurrected, transcendent bodies are like. It’s obvious they won’t be made of matter in the sense we understand. How can they, since matter as we know it is limited and finite? God’s realm is infinite and transcendent, a place where only spirit and resurrected bodies reside (whatever they’re like). Jesus’s resurrected body can take on different forms and even pass through walls, as shown in the various post-resurrection accounts. The same goes for Mary, who has taken on different appearances in her various apparitions over the centuries. Mary was one of us and the Second Person became one of us, taking on material bodies in a three-dimensional finite universe, but after Jesus’s resurrection and ascension, and Mary’s assumption, their earthly bodies were not just resuscitated mortal bodies, like Lazarus. Their bodies were glorified and changed into something else we cannot understand, something able to reside in the regions beyond time and space (whatever that means; we have no experience of what life beyond time and space will be like. Even use of the term ‘regions’ is inappropriate, as it signifies a specific locale). Resurrected bodies aren’t material in the sense we understand.

Whatever a glorified, resurrected body might be like, it is the kind appropriate to heaven - the transcendenant, eternal realm of God which lies outside of and beyond all possible material universes/multi-verses, transcends both time and space, etc. The Mormon idea of a god made of matter, walking around in a robe on some planet near Kolob, is ridiculous.
 
Jesus did come to earth as a man, did he not?

Some Mormons have taken the scripture that says that Jesus has never done anything except that which he’s seen the Father do, and take that to mean that God the Father once came to earth as a man. I think that they are in error, but I don’t think they are blaspheming. Just an innocent misunderstanding of the scriptures.
But it really doesn’t matter what the individual Mormons think, just like it doesn’t matter what individual Catholics think. The Mormon people as well as the Catholic people can certainly make errors in their personal interpretations of their church’s teachings. But can the church itself make errors? What really matters is what does the Mormon church itself have to say about these matters? What has the Mormon church taught in its short history? Does it still teach the same things today, that it taught 180 years ago? Have Mormon truths changed in this short time period?
 
Jesus is Eternal Word…Alpha and Omega…it is through Jesus Christ the heavenly Father created the universe…and this is Catholic teaching of Christology.

Jesus’ final visitation was on the day of the Resurrection on the road to Emmaus…which is interpreted by Mormons to focus on the burning in the bosom as the means to discern if a revelation is from God or not.

Jesus was in His resurrected state, His body not glorified yet…and the disciples – after 3 days – did not recognize Him…as was the case with Mary Magdalen…He looked different.

But the Resurrected Lord gave life and meaning to understanding Sacred Scripture, that brought them new life…Jesus the Eternal Word…and then He came to journey’s end, and ate with them and then disappeared…showing that the way to Christ is to also find nourishment from Him in the meal He left us --His Eucharist.

What this all means is that the lowest God could come to reach us is in the form of man…Christ in human form, Who always was…took on human form so He could be with us, teach us, cure and heal us, and be atonement for our sins by dying on the Cross.

It also means that as Jesus looked different and new on the day of the Ressurection in the garden where He was buried…with Jesus growing in the His very Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity…one day at a time…we would become renewed…redeemed…by partaking in divine grace with Christ.

With Jesus, day by day, we are renewed and in time we look different.

So the greatest event in history is when God took on the form of man to redeem us.

This is total opposite to Mormon doctrine that God was once man.

But for us, our righteous is found in Christ, and that we can enter into divine life today. But entering into this divine life will not make us a new god or make us a new creator…we can be instruments of the virtues of Christ, extend His teachings and healings, and help give people hope and direction to start again…this is God in action…but it has nothing to do with becoming gods some day and having rule and power.

The more we ‘lose’ our life to Jesus and allow His life to enter us through the sacraments, the more we die to ourselves, the more – in Christ-- we become our true selves!

That is why Christ said His kingdom is among us, it is already here, and it is the Pearl of Great Price…again, very different from the teachings of the Mormon’s Pearl of Great Price.
 
No Mary did not ascend into heave, she was assumed into heaven, it may seem like a small difference but it has big implications.🙂
Sorry, but her body went with her right?!?!

Do Jesus and Mary have bodies, so that the other guy was arguing against RCC doctrine?
 
Sorry, but her body went with her right?!?!

Do Jesus and Mary have bodies, so that the other guy was arguing against RCC doctrine?
Jesus ascended into Heaven under His own power, as God. Being “assumed” into Heaven means that Mary didn’t get there by her own power, but was drawn into Heaven by the power of God, body and soul. Her body is “glorified”, just like Jesus, so it does not have the same physical properties that our bodies do. She can pass through solid matter, just like Jesus passed through the locked door in the Upper Room.

I have no idea what you mean about someone that was arguing against Catholic doctrine, except Mormons. If you’re referring to NewSeeker, how specifically do you see him as arguing against doctrine? I don’t recall anything he said being contradictory to Catholic belief. I do agree with him that Mormons can’t seem to grasp the idea that God is not confined within the material (physical) universe in any manner. He exists outside of time and space and is not made up of any physical matter, whatsoever. He is pure Spirit and always has been. Spirits (like angels) are not made up of ‘matter’. The only physical body that God has is that of Jesus, when He took on human flesh. But, it is no longer the same as our flesh is, because His is now ‘glorified’. 🤷
 
Back in the mid to late 1960’s and in my teens, in Sunday school I was taught that the black people originated from Cain being punished by God to killing his brother Abel. God placed a mark on all of Cain’s descendants by making their skin a dark color.
One Baptist told me in the 50’s he was taught the ‘mark of Cain’ was a punishment from God AND that the Knights of Columbus were going to rise up and kill all Protestants when Kennedy became President.

Bigotry was pervasive back in the pre-70’s, regardless of denomination.
 
Jesus ascended into Heaven under His own power, as God. Being “assumed” into Heaven means that Mary didn’t get there by her own power, but was drawn into Heaven by the power of God, body and soul. Her body is “glorified”, just like Jesus, so it does not have the same physical properties that our bodies do. She can pass through solid matter, just like Jesus passed through the locked door in the Upper Room.

I have no idea what you mean about someone that was arguing against Catholic doctrine, except Mormons. If you’re referring to NewSeeker, how specifically do you see him as arguing against doctrine? I don’t recall anything he said being contradictory to Catholic belief. I do agree with him that Mormons can’t seem to grasp the idea that God is not confined within the material (physical) universe in any manner. He exists outside of time and space and is not made up of any physical matter, whatsoever. He is pure Spirit and always has been. Spirits (like angels) are not made up of ‘matter’. The only physical body that God has is that of Jesus, when He took on human flesh. But, it is no longer the same as our flesh is, because His is now ‘glorified’. 🤷
So, you agree that Catholic doctrine teaches Christ, one part of the Trinity has a physical body of flesh and bone (with additional properties from his Glorified state)

LDS do not teach differently.
We do not put limits on God or Jesus by claiming they both have a physical nature.
 
One Baptist told me in the 50’s he was taught the ‘mark of Cain’ was a punishment from God AND that the Knights of Columbus were going to rise up and kill all Protestants when Kennedy became President.

Bigotry was pervasive back in the pre-70’s, regardless of denomination.
No one taught racism as a divine order of God in a pre-existing life, this life, and the life to come; except Mormon “prophets”.

No one ever taught that white people would become gods, in the life to come, and non-whites would be their servants; except Mormon “prophets”.
 
Back in the mid to late 1960’s and in my teens, in Sunday school I was taught that the black people originated from Cain being punished by God to killing his brother Abel. God placed a mark on all of Cain’s descendants by making their skin a dark color.
Same here… in the 1970’s.
 
Jesus is of the same substance as God. Christ has always existed in God as Eternal Word. John 1:18, 3:13, 31, 8:23, 58.

It is at the Incarnation, which Mormons do not believe…that Christ then takes on human form through Mary, and subsequently the main reason for our devotion to Mary because she is the means by which Christ came into this world to receive His flesh and blood.

Christ’s human nature was glorified at His Resurrection from the dead.
 
So, you agree that Catholic doctrine teaches Christ, one part of the Trinity has a physical body of flesh and bone (with additional properties from his Glorified state)

LDS do not teach differently.
We do not put limits on God or Jesus by claiming they both have a physical nature.
Why wouldn’t Catholics believe that Jesus had a body of flesh and bones? He is the Incarnation. He is God, that lowered Himself and became man.

I disagree that LDS don’t put limits on the Father by claiming He has a body, because it implies that He was once human and is nothing more than we are, or can be. That’s a flat out lie. He was never human, and He never had a body of flesh and bone, at any point in time. We and the entire physical and the spiritual realms would cease to exist if He stopped thinking about it for a fraction of a second. He created it all out of absolutely nothing. He’s not a fancy spaceman that those Ancient Alien guys keep preaching on TV. He’s not some weird human from another planet with special powers, like Superman. He’s certainly not the mere figment of Joseph Smith’s grandiose imagination, that’s an unspeakable insult to His true Power and Glory. He’s Almighty God. All of humanity that has ever existed on earth, is less than a speck of dust in a million universes, compared to Him.
 
Originally Posted by Tony888
So, you agree that Catholic doctrine teaches Christ, one part of the Trinity has a physical body of flesh and bone (with additional properties from his Glorified state)
LDS do not teach differently.
We do not put limits on God or Jesus by claiming they both have a physical nature.
Why wouldn’t Catholics believe that Jesus had a body of flesh and bones? He is the Incarnation. He is God, that lowered Himself and became man.

I disagree that LDS don’t put limits on the Father by claiming He has a body, because it implies that He was once human and is nothing more than we are, or can be. That’s a flat out lie. He was never human, and He never had a body of flesh and bone, at any point in time. We and the entire physical and the spiritual realms would cease to exist if He stopped thinking about it for a fraction of a second. He created it all out of absolutely nothing. He’s not a fancy spaceman that those Ancient Alien guys keep preaching on TV. He’s not some weird human from another planet with special powers, like Superman. He’s certainly not the mere figment of Joseph Smith’s grandiose imagination, that’s an unspeakable insult to His true Power and Glory. He’s Almighty God. All of humanity that has ever existed on earth, is less than a speck of dust in a million universes, compared to Him.
Telstar is correct. The Father is not human, is not a spaceman walking around in a robe on a planet near Kolob. He is not like Zeus, with a beard and a glowing robe. The Father resides outside space and time, outside any and all material realities. All that exists is His creation, all contained in His thought, continually being maintained in existence from moment to moment by Him. He is spirit, never having taken on human form. That is what the Son did in the Incarnation, when He entered the domain of matter, space, and time. Heaven is not a place within our universe or any possible universe. Like the Father, it also transcends space and time. This is difficult for us to understand and imagine, rooted as we are in a physical universe. God’s ‘throne’ in heaven is not on some planet near Kolob, part of his own Creation, which he organized out of pre-existing matter, coeternal with Him. God resides in heaven outside of his Creation, above and beyond any and all material creations and universes. Jesus, Mary, and the Saints are all ‘there’ with Him (whatever that means; ‘there’ is an inappropriate word as it denotes place, but that’s all we have to describe a place that’s not ‘here’ with us in the physical universe). This is something no one living has experienced nor can it be imagined (though some have been granted glimpses of it by the grace of God), rooted as we are in the material cosmos where the laws of physics, space, and time all apply. All our conceptual points of references are tied to and depend on the material cosmos, hence our difficulty.

To say that Jesus’s resurrected body is made of matter is inappropriate. The term ‘matter’ as we understand it doesn’t apply to anywhere except the physical universe. To say that Jesus became a man, took on flesh and bone, occupied a particular space in that physical universe, then ascended to heaven with that material body does not mean that Jesus’s resurrected body is made of matter in the same way it was comprised of matter during Jesus’s life. This is where Mormons (and others who mistake the imaginable with the real) get tripped up. They begin from Joseph Smith’s false premise that spirit is refined matter and that spirit, matter, and God are coeternal. No wonder they have difficulty with the idea of resurrected bodies that transcend the limits of space and time and no wonder they keep trying to enflesh the Father. When they think of the divine essence, which is spirit, they keep trying to force it into concepts tied to the material universe (e.g., the trinitarian god is a ‘substance’, a floating mass, a gas). No wonder they can’t conceive how the Father can simultaneously exist and also be non-material (be pure spirit). But imagination is not conception. We can conceive how this can be, even if we can’t imagine it. We have help with our conceptions through revelation and Tradition. From this we know that the Father is spirit and is utterly transcendent. Joseph Smith’s testimony is not credible in the least. We can, therefore, dispense with his false notion that spirit, matter, and God are coeternal.

In sum, we don’t know what resurrected bodies are made of - Jesus’s, Mary’s, or anyones. We have difficulty with the notion of a resurrected body of flesh and bones that transcends time and space because our points of reference are all necessarily tied to the physical universe, which is nothing but matter, energy, time, and space. Whatever they’re like, they’re the kind of bodies that are able to transcend the limitations of space and time. Are they made of matter? Not the kind of matter we know, that’s for sure. They wouldn’t transcend, if so. Anything more than that is speculation and guesswork. One fascinating attempt at creating a plausible notion of what such a life might be like is C.S. Lewis’s “The Great Divorce”. Highly recommended.
 
One Baptist told me in the 50’s he was taught the ‘mark of Cain’ was a punishment from God AND that the Knights of Columbus were going to rise up and kill all Protestants when Kennedy became President.

Bigotry was pervasive back in the pre-70’s, regardless of denomination.
Don’t really care what Baptists said in the 50’s. What I do care about is the misinformation I taught as a youngster by Mormon Sunday school teachers. Not by just one, but by several teachers.
 
God is Spirit. Without His will for our existence, we would not be here.

Jesus is God, of the same substance, one God, with the same essential purpose of having pleasurable and providential relationship with mankind. At one point, Jesus even called the Apostles as friends. God is seeking communion with us.

If God was once man, then became God it is saying then that man is creator. Who created this universe…man? Science can’t prove that.

The emphasis on Mormonism is man becoming god as proposed by Lucifer to Eve in the garden. St. Michael exclaimed throughout the heavens, ‘Who is like unto God!’

No man is like unto God. As it says in Revelations, God simply puffs on the AntiChrist trying to ascend into heaven as god, only to be sent down into the pool of fire.

Reading Sacred Scripture, the warning and consequences are all there when people seek pleasures outside of God’s will and providence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top