LDS: What do you know about your Heavenly Mother? Would you like to know more?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_John
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveVH said:
So she was not uniquely chosen by God to be the Mother of Christ? Her uniqueness lies only in that she accepted, but if she had not accepted, He would have just chosen someone else? So it wasn’t that she was unique, but rather that her role was unique?
Click to expand...
Many are called, but few are chosen. To accept and keep the calling one has makes one special and unique.
Thank you for this. I think I understand where you are coming from, though I may not agree with all of it.
Click to expand...
I try to make sense every now and then. :cool:
We actually agree on this, in part. We do not hold that one must have been visited by a missionary and taught the Gospel in order to be saved. If that were the case, then those people would be dependant upon man for their salvation. We do believe that those who have not heard the Gospel with their ears, still have the laws of God written upon their hearts. They know that they should not steal from each other, or kill each other, for instance. We believe they will be judged according to what they knew in their hearts and how they applied that knowledge to their lives. The only difference really, is that they still have only this life in which to choose good or evil according to their state.
Click to expand...
Peace
Click to expand...
You may find we have many similar or overlapping beliefs.
 
Flyonthewall,

You say overlapping beliefs…‘you’ vs ‘me’…Jesus called us to be one.

The symbol of the Church is the image of the Eucharist with the Cross at the center; all the baptized who commune through the Eucharist are one…Bread of Life, Manna from Heaven, the Vine and branches…

We must consume the Lord to be one with Him and with each other…

And when we commune, in time, some earlier than others, we discover that Mary is there. She gave us the means to the Eucharist…Christ’s humanity.

There is great virtue in the unity of one heart and one mind…don’t intend to join more in this debate…but there is such a great value to unity in our culture of American self-independence.
 
flyonthewall said:
You may find we have many similar or overlapping beliefs.
Click to expand...
A tapestry carries a similar image and pattern on each side, but only one is the true picture.

That isone reason the Heavenly Mother is so important to the image. Catholicism has a clear picture, coherent with the parts of the whole, instead of just a mention.
 
flyonthewall said:
Many are called, but few are chosen. To accept and keep the calling one has makes one special and unique.
Click to expand...
Except that we believe Mary was born without the stain of original sin. She was unique from the beginning, specially chosen by God. No other woman on earth could have taken this role for the simple reason that all other woman inherited the sin of Adam and Eve and had committed personal sin as well. Christ, being holy, could not be born of one who was not holy and “full of grace”. I know that we disagree about the effects of original sin (which is why I started the other thread), but I just wanted you to know the Catholic perspective.
 
SteveVH said:
Except that we believe Mary was born without the stain of original sin. She was unique from the beginning, specially chosen by God. No other woman on earth could have taken this role for the simple reason that all other woman inherited the sin of Adam and Eve and had committed personal sin as well. Christ, being holy, could not be born of one who was not holy and “full of grace”. I know that we disagree about the effects of original sin (which is why I started the other thread), but I just wanted you to know the Catholic perspective.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Always open to understanding the faith of others.
 
flyonthewall said:
Thanks. Always open to understanding the faith of others.
Click to expand...
To understand this better, consider this: Since Jesus Christ had no mortal father, all those “begats” in the Old Testament that traced the ancestry of David, and then the ancestry of Christ traced the ancestry of Mary. When God forbade people anciently to wed outside the covenant, he was already limiting who the potential ancestors of the Holy Mother would be. He was narrowing the potential sets of traits to be passed on and even then shaping what portion of humanity would shape her. That ancestry had to cross within general lines of ancient Hebrew royalty with direct ancestry to the throne of David.

There was no nature versus nurture debate in the preparation for Mary and her sacred Son. The covenant secured God’s control over both genetic and environemntal factors in creating the temple of His incarnation. First the Rose of Sharon would come out of Noah’s Line (secured by the Flood), then Shem’s, then Abraham’s, Isaac’s instead of Ishmael’s, Jacob’s instead of Esau’s (always the younger brother) – but then Judah’s instead of Joseph’s. Then the royal line of David. Kings, shepherds, adulterers all in one – along with the occasional gentile convert – would combine to produce the most perfect woman since Eve, and more perfect in that she would trust God.

I know that Mormons understand the signioficance of all this as ancestry of Christ. To understand it from a Catholic perspective takes recognition that we do not believe in God’s physical being other than in Christ’s incarnation. Hence, all of the Lord’s physical nature was complete in the “Theotokos”, in the Virgin Mary. His corporeal nature is complete in her geneology. Consider when – through what we know of science now – a woman’s physical contribution to a new child is complete withing her own body.

If, as Catholics believe, everything corporeal in the Incarnation of Christ came from Mary, it means that in Mary’s conception the Incarnation of our Lord was already set. If you have a hard time getting a handle on our concept of Mary’s Immaculate Conception (since it is difficult to consider how someone can be shektered from Original Sin without recognizing the existence of it) consider it this way: When Mary was herself conceived everything physical in the nature of Christ (and in Catholic view the nature of the Very Eternal Father Incarnate) was already present in her. While she was just an embryo she carried Christ within Her own body.

I have no concluding statement, just something to think about, if only to better identify with a Catholic perspective.
 
Peter_John said:
To understand this better, consider this: Since Jesus Christ had no mortal father, all those “begats” in the Old Testament that traced the ancestry of David, and then the ancestry of Christ traced the ancestry of Mary. When God forbade people anciently to wed outside the covenant, he was already limiting who the potential ancestors of the Holy Mother would be. He was narrowing the potential sets of traits to be passed on and even then shaping what portion of humanity would shape her. That ancestry had to cross within general lines of ancient Hebrew royalty with direct ancestry to the throne of David.

There was no nature versus nurture debate in the preparation for Mary and her sacred Son. The covenant secured God’s control over both genetic and environemntal factors in creating the temple of His incarnation. First the Rose of Sharon would come out of Noah’s Line (secured by the Flood), then Shem’s, then Abraham’s, Isaac’s instead of Ishmael’s, Jacob’s instead of Esau’s (always the younger brother) – but then Judah’s instead of Joseph’s. Then the royal line of David. Kings, shepherds, adulterers all in one – along with the occasional gentile convert – would combine to produce the most perfect woman since Eve, and more perfect in that she would trust God.

I know that Mormons understand the signioficance of all this as ancestry of Christ. To understand it from a Catholic perspective takes recognition that we do not believe in God’s physical being other than in Christ’s incarnation. Hence, all of the Lord’s physical nature was complete in the “Theotokos”, in the Virgin Mary. His corporeal nature is complete in her geneology. Consider when – through what we know of science now – a woman’s physical contribution to a new child is complete withing her own body.

If, as Catholics believe, everything corporeal in the Incarnation of Christ came from Mary, it means that in Mary’s conception the Incarnation of our Lord was already set. If you have a hard time getting a handle on our concept of Mary’s Immaculate Conception (since it is difficult to consider how someone can be shektered from Original Sin without recognizing the existence of it) consider it this way: When Mary was herself conceived everything physical in the nature of Christ (and in Catholic view the nature of the Very Eternal Father Incarnate) was already present in her. While she was just an embryo she carried Christ within Her own body.

I have no concluding statement, just something to think about, if only to better identify with a Catholic perspective.
Click to expand...
Peter John, just wanted to say I’m really happy that you became a Catholic. I don’t think I’ve heard a better explanation. 👍
 
SteveVH said:
Peter John, just wanted to say I’m really happy that you became a Catholic. I don’t think I’ve heard a better explanation. 👍
Click to expand...
Thank you, but credit the numerous priests and lay people of varied minsets but true faith who have informed my catechesis.
 
Peter_John said:
Thank you, but credit the numerous priests and lay people of varied minsets but true faith who have informed my catechesis.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think we would all have to say the same thing. This, however, is what I love so much about converts. They actually know their faith and have taken the time to be catechized. Sadly, there are only a small number of cradle Catholics who feel the need to dive deep into the faith and are able to defend it.

God bless you.
 
Peter_John said:
I completely agree with that – but it does not change the fact that there is a Mother in Heaven, and she is the Mother of all Christian Faith. As she carried Christ into our world, She introduces Him to out Hearts, and the Holy Spirit testifies to the truth.

The belief in the Holy Mother is a magnet God has given us specifically to draw people into the Church. This substitution, with no additional explanation – she just is that she is, in Mormonism – allows people to misperceive the Call. We have a responsibility as Catholics to help LDS members to get to know their REAL Mother in Heaven who does exist, but about whome they are told nothing.
Click to expand...
The Mormon r religion is classified as a cult.
Check out what they do believe.

bluelake
 
bluelake said:
The Mormon r religion is classified as a cult.
Check out what they do believe.

bluelake
Click to expand...
Actually The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not formally classified as a cult. I am partial to the view that it constitutes a new emerging world religion, related to Christianity but independent of it, like Islam.

I know what Mormons believe. I believed it most of my life, and many in my family still believe it.
 
Peter_John said:
Actually The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not formally classified as a cult. I am partial to the view that it constitutes a new emerging world religion, related to Christianity but independent of it, like Islam.

I know what Mormons believe. I believed it most of my life, and many in my family still believe it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think this is probably the best compromise the LDS church can expect from much of the Christian community. “Cult” is generally an Evangelical slur. However NOT the mainstream position Salt Lake would like.
 
I agree. I don’t want to call them a cult either.

Forgive me if I am wrong. But, I think it was Peter John who explained on another thread.

LDS is related to Christianity, but different. Same with Islam.
 
Cultus Marianas…is the cult of Mary…her devotees…JPII referred to devotion in this identity…

Another concept of cult is when people are being manipulated to remain in a group that violates their freedom…may be a managerial style that can make something cultish…
 
KathleenGee said:
Cultus Marianas…is the cult of Mary…her devotees…JPII referred to devotion in this identity…

Another concept of cult is when people are being manipulated to remain in a group that violates their freedom…may be a managerial style that can make something cultish…
Click to expand...
…and Cultus marianas gets us back to a Mother in Heaven.
 
hosemonkey said:
I think that I would classify the LDS “church” as closer to Hinduism, who believe in a multiplicity of “gods.”
Click to expand...
Good point. Perhaps it should be. The LDS relate themselves to Christianity. I understand their teachings to be pagan. Gods and goddesses, reminds me of Roman Mythology.
 
SteveVH said:
Except that we believe Mary was born without the stain of original sin. She was unique from the beginning, specially chosen by God. No other woman on earth could have taken this role for the simple reason that all other woman inherited the sin of Adam and Eve and had committed personal sin as well. Christ, being holy, could not be born of one who was not holy and “full of grace”. I know that we disagree about the effects of original sin (which is why I started the other thread), but I just wanted you to know the Catholic perspective.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is true!

I believed this about the Blessed Mother, when I was still Protestant. Mary was without sin.
 
Inishfree said:
Good point. Perhaps it should be. The LDS relate themselves to Christianity. I understand their teachings to be pagan. Gods and goddesses, reminds me of Roman Mythology.
Click to expand...
No that’s not EXACTLY true. Paganism generally refers to non-Abrahamic religions. Where Mormonism would fall within that Abrahamic circle. Non-Trinitarian, dispensational, restorationists but Abrahamic nonetheless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top