LDS: Is this video accurate for your theology?

[RebeccaJ]

The question is, do you take Doris Day, or the Bible as the authority on what Saint means?

Dorothy, not Doris.

I think Dorothy Day understood very well what it means to be a Saint. She also understood how the title is misused.

As for “good Christian”/“bad Christian”…it’s the same kind of thing. Words applied to people, without understanding really what is being said, or the implications for oneself.

Catholics are called to live a Christian life, which means, following Jesus Christ as one of His disciples. All sin and fall short, which is why we need Jesus Christ. Saints through the ages have recognized this need, and taught it with their lives…how they live and/or how they die.

Saints know the gaze of Christ and how to be the face of Christ for others.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

There is more to it…

Matthew 7:21…21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

So you define Christian as someone that’s getting into heaven?

 

[Telstar]

Interesting. LDS would say that trying as hard as you can to follow Christ’s teachings is what would make you a saint.

I completely agree with that statement. The only problem is that when you follow LDS theology, you are not necessarily following all of the teachings of Jesus Christ as He taught us we should. You are actually following what I might call a ‘feel good’ version of ‘Jesus lite’ that only chooses some of those teachings, according to Joseph Smith’s interpretations and ideas about what Jesus taught (sorry, but that was the best phraseology I could think of to make my point ). Those ideas have been added to and subtracted from, over the years, by other church leaders that keep readjusting, changing, or even eliminating some of those interpretations and ideas. After a while, it’s very much like the Telephone game analogy. By the time you add up all of those misinterpretations and changes, there is very little left of the true teachings that Jesus died for and gave us to follow. And before you even ask, no, just the basics is not enough. As others have said, even Satan knows that Jesus Christ is the Savior and the true Son of God. But, that’s the main reason he was thrown out of Heaven, because he thought he should have a higher place in Heaven than any human being, Jesus included. (angels are not just people waiting to be born, and Lucifer was the highest and most favored angel in Heaven)

Please, don’t think that I’m trying to be smug or insulting just for the sake of belittling anyone. I’m sincerely not trying to do that. I’m just trying to say this in a way that will make it clear to you what we mean, and how serious it is. When the Pope, Himself, declares that LDS beliefs are so vastly different from Catholic teachings that we can’t even recognize LDS Baptism as valid, there is something very wrong. There are very few Christian Baptisms that the Church will not recognize as valid. The main reason given for it in this case, is because of what the LDS Church teaches about the nature of God, including the way it defines every Person of the Holy Trinity. When you also consider the fact that not even all Mormons can seem to agree on the nature of God, it just complicates the situation even more. That’s just the beginning of the vast differences between the LDS and Christianity.

If a Catholic doesn’t try as hard as he or she can to follow Christ, do you say that Catholic is not a Christian?"

No, because as long as they have been taught the faith correctly, they are still very much true Catholics. But, being Catholic makes it harder on them, in the end. If they stray far from following Jesus, then they might need all of our prayers more than ever, because our salvation is never guaranteed, just because we’re Catholic, by any means. We’ll all be judged by God according to how well we follow the teachings of Jesus. If we don’t do as we should, we can go to hell just as easily (probably even quicker) as any non-Catholic that lives in a similar way.

One advantage that we have is the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession), where we can be forgiven for our sins. But, full Absolution also depends on whether or not we are sincerely sorry for them, and try to avoid them in the future. If we’re not, God will know it and we will not be forgiven. Only God can decide, in the end, if we were truly sorry, or just paying lip-service.

Most folks that I know that call themselves Christians, mean someone who believes themselves to be saved from death and hell through Jesus Christ’s atonement.

Catholics do believe that we can all be saved by the Blood of Jesus Christ, but it’s never etched in stone that we are until the final Judgement. Many other Christians that claim to be ‘saved’, might not necessarily be saved, no matter how much they believe it to be true. No one can ever know for sure until they stand naked in front of God, when they die.

If that person doesn’t try to follow Christ’s teachings, we say that they are “not a good Christian.”

We shouldn’t really call anyone a ‘bad Christian’, because we would be perceived as passing judgement on the state of their soul. We might see that their actions don’t reflect living in a Christlike manner, and might even be sinful, but we should never condemn them. But if we know them (friends or family), personally, we might want to remind (admonish) them that we believe what they’re doing is wrong. Beyond that, the best thing we can do is to pray for them to recognize their own sins, before it’s too late, out of love for them. (Hate the sin, not the sinner.)

Do Catholics never use the phrase “not a good Christian”? Because from your definition, all Christians would be good Christians.

We can make an assessment of someone’s actions being sinful, but we’re never supposed to say anyone is a ‘bad person’, or that they’re ‘going to hell’. (I can’t guarantee it never happens, because there are some people that will do it without really thinking about it.)

 

[pismopal]

Interesting. LDS would say that trying as hard as you can to follow Christ’s teachings is what would make you a saint.

If a Catholic doesn’t try as hard as he or she can to follow Christ, do you say that Catholic is not a Christian?"

Most folks that I know that call themselves Christians, mean someone who believes themselves to be saved from death and hell through Jesus Christ’s atonement.

If that person doesn’t try to follow Christ’s teachings, we say that they are “not a good Christian.”

Do Catholics never use the phrase “not a good Christian”? Because from your definition, all Christians would be good Christians.

LoL! The book of Mormon does not “plagiarize” the Bible, any more than Paul “plagiarized” the Old Testament whenever he cited it. The Book of Mormon quotes the words of Isaiah. JS, recognizing that the meaning was identical to Bible verses, used the language which he was familiar with for such contexts, i.e. the King James Bible.

I don’t think my analogy about motorcycles got any “traction”…(pun intended) with you I personally am not in the position of being able to describe anyone as “not a good Christian”. I speak for myself.
Now about that BOM subject. Experts on the subject of forgeries…none of these experts were from BYU certainly…but experts none the less…have come to the conclusion that whoever wrote the BOM was trying to mimic the style and language of the KJ version of the Bible.
Now I offer my sympathy and will get out of your way as you do your best to square LDS with the ancient teaching of true Christianity and who Joseph Smith…or Brigham Young were.

 

[pismopal]

So you define Christian as someone that’s getting into heaven?

I think you are blurring the distinction between whether someone as an individual will be judged worthy by God and whether LDS is teaching the tenents of Christianity. The former is not for us to call…the latter is an easy one. LDS is not mainstream Christianity and that will not change regardless of what you have chosen to believe or how you behave…sorry:blush:

 

[DCNBILL]

Wow, very interesting to watch. Not quite sure what to think.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Nope – that was the opinion of one LDS apostle, who later recanted publicly.

That abhorrent heresy was taught by a few prophets, I’m sad to say; that is an ugly thing in our history. (If you’ve had no such bad moments in your history, then congradulations.) Nevertheless, at no time did all of our apostles accept that belief, therefore it was a lie for Ed Decker and his disciples to assert that this was ever LDS doctrine, let alone that it’s "what Mormons believe today.

This is a bit of a sensitive issue to me personally, since my father has uncovered in our genealogy that one of own ancestors was a freed slave who moved west with the Saints. I’ve two uncles, a sister, a brother, and my own father whose hair will still dread-lock if they let it grow long enough. Circumstances suggest that he must have been able to pass for white (as many folks did when they moved west), and also that white members of his community, including the family of his former owner, also converted and apparently must have kept the secret of his ancestry.

The point is this – the church was not racist at its inception. Brigham Young introduced some racist policies and for a while racist views were predominant in the church, but they were never universally accepted by church leaders, nor by the membership. Was the racist theme that Brigham Young introduced a blight on our history? Yes. Does that prove that Joseph Smith was not a prophet? No.

I undertstand that is the story today. It works for some people I guess. But I was taught it, more than once. It would be the defining doctrine for a child of 9 or 10 years old to hear and think, “I am being lied to.” this was in Sunday school, primary, and later in seminary. I thought it a bunch of baloney the first time I heard it. But I was taught it, by Mormons in Mormon religious classes, so, it came down to at that time, to questioning everything that Mormons were telling me, all the way to atheism.

But my childhood discernments were correct. Mormonism is layer upon layer of lies. This new way for Mormons to look at their history isn’t very honest, either.

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

I’m disappointed the video didn’t talk about my “favorite” part of Mormon doctrine–that the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Missouri.

 

[truthsave]

I’m disappointed the video didn’t talk about my “favorite” part of Mormon doctrine–that the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, Missouri.

This was new for me. Will go to search for proof in the history of the “church” LSD.
do you remember where did you get that from?
And then why everything was happening in USA territory? even the New
Jerusalem if I am not wrong should be in USA territory. Correct me if I am wrong

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

You can check it out here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_County,_Missouri#Latter_Day_Saints

Many members (including notable members—Joseph Smith and Brigham Young among them) of the mainline LDS Church, past and present, have believed that Jackson County was the site of the biblical Garden of Eden.[7]

Mormons in general are extremely nice and pleasant people. Too bad they’re not Christian. They need an internal reformation that leads to orthodoxy, badly.

 

[pismopal]

You can check it out here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_County,_Missouri#Latter_Day_Saints

Many members (including notable members—Joseph Smith and Brigham Young among them) of the mainline LDS Church, past and present, have believed that Jackson County was the site of the biblical Garden of Eden.[7]

Where would the people who don’t like coffee go?

 

[Tony888]

I think you are blurring the distinction between whether someone as an individual will be judged worthy by God and whether LDS is teaching the tenents of Christianity. The former is not for us to call…the latter is an easy one. LDS is not mainstream Christianity and that will not change regardless of what you have chosen to believe or how you behave…sorry:blush:

So you are saying only “mainstream” Christians can use the term Christian

It’s sort of a majority vote thing rather than a “believe in Christ” or a biblical thing.

 

[Miriam1947]

So you are saying only “mainstream” Christians can use the term Christian

It’s sort of a majority vote thing rather than a “believe in Christ” or a biblical thing.

I thought I was a Christian. I had no idea. I was never baptized. Therefore I was never a true Christian.

I just thought I was because occasionally I went to a Protestant church. Oops.

Thanks be to God, I finally became baptized into the Catholic Church. :harp:

This site has the coolest smilies ever!

 

[pismopal]

So you are saying only “mainstream” Christians can use the term Christian

It’s sort of a majority vote thing rather than a “believe in Christ” or a biblical thing.

Did you read my post about the motorcycle analogy? You can call yourself whatever you want…and you do… but if you wish to be called mainstream Christian by other mainstream Christians you would need to adhere to basic tenents of Christian belief. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not mainstream Christian either but they would argue with that…so what? As I said …they are free to call themselves whatever as long as the believers in the basic tenents of Christianity know the difference.
Now here is what confuses me…either you don’t know what the mainstream believers have as articles of faith or you don’t know your own. It has to be one or the other because you would not be clamoring for the title so enthusiastically if you knew the huge…and I mean huge differences in our faiths. and I mean beginning with Joseph Smith…his plates…his visions…his BOM which he said relegated the Bible to inferior status and on and on ad infinitum.
Last item…I never said that “only mainstream Christians” can call themselves Christians. You can describe yourself anyway you wish just as JW’s are free to do. As I said in my analogy…you can ride around on 4 wheels and call it a motorcycle if you want…helmet and all. You can call yourself a “motorcyclist” to everybody you meet but the AMA knows what a motorcycle is and so does everyone else. Please understand that.
A question for you…do you consider members of the Catholic faith to be Christian? What would your leader say about us as Christians since the official LDS line is that our Church is apostate?..no dancing straight answer

 

[rainman10]

I undertstand that is the story today. It works for some people I guess. But I was taught it, more than once. It would be the defining doctrine for a child of 9 or 10 years old to hear and think, “I am being lied to.” this was in Sunday school, primary, and later in seminary. I thought it a bunch of baloney the first time I heard it. But I was taught it, by Mormons in Mormon religious classes, so, it came down to at that time, to questioning everything that Mormons were telling me, all the way to atheism.

But my childhood discernments were correct. Mormonism is layer upon layer of lies. This new way for Mormons to look at their history isn’t very honest, either.

I was taught the same thing, too.

Interesting, Rebecca, that I felt the same way as you did as a youngster. I never felt comfortable with many of the teachings and at that time I didn’t know why (Holy Spirit, maybe?). When I used to get up and give my testimony in my pre-teens, I only did that because I thought that is what I was expected to do, not because that is what I really believed. I didn’t become an atheist, though. I was fortunate enough to have married a wonderful Catholic woman and went to Mass with her, but I did not convert to Catholicism until about 25 years later.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I never felt comfortable with many of the teachings and at that time I didn’t know why (Holy Spirit, maybe?). .

Why do folks make fun of the idea of “feelings” coming from the Holy Ghost when it’s a mormon talking, but not when it’s a Catholic talking?

 

[truthsave]

Why do folks make fun of the idea of “feelings” coming from the Holy Ghost when it’s a mormon talking, but not when it’s a Catholic talking?

We Eastern Orthodox don’t support any kind of feelings. There is too much possibility to be misleaded. Whatever feeling you can have, or vision or whatever it is not a bad think to doubt that the what you have was true. It shows to the lord that you are extremely careful and that is in your deep desire not to fall in any devil’s trick. Then if it is real from the Lord it is ok you just doubted and keep on praying.
As far as concern Roman Catholics I can answer seeing my mother (Roman Catholic) and my sister. They don’t rely too personal feeling too much as to say they are a testimony.

You have all the time to make your feeling pass thorugh an objective test. First of all talking to some spiritual advisor. Subjective feeling and revelation are not encouraged.

How would you know is not the devil.
we are not even capable of guessing that the serial keller was our extremely polite and well mannered and clean dressed neibourgh. Do you really think we can detect the devil?
First he is an angel and second he has much more experience then any human being so I think subjectivly discovering one of his trick is hard.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Luke Chapter 24:

13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

19 “What things?” he asked.

“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”

 

[truthsave]

Cowboy_Pete:
But everyone knows it! The problem was not then. Jesus had just died, no different doctrine, confusion and burnt of heart insisting from each one side their own truth.
It was the very beginning of Christianity.
Now is another story. The adversary know how to confound.
Over there is not stated that whenever you feel a burning inside it means that it is the truth.
I remember another person personally answered to you about it and in a very good manner.
It means either we have to discuss again and again the same topic and if I tell youone thing here then tomoroww is like saying nothing. So why writing then?
If I have a burning feeling inside when hearing a moving subject for me it means that is Jesus or the truth?
I don’t think is difficult to understand…

 

[rainman10]

Why do folks make fun of the idea of “feelings” coming from the Holy Ghost when it’s a mormon talking, but not when it’s a Catholic talking?

Ok, bad terminology on my part. Correction:

I never was comfortable with many of the teachings of the Mormon church.