LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[RebeccaJ]

Right, however I’m trying to understand your response to wussup in the context of him saying that something about God is “beyond human comprehension”. Is it that Mormon authorities say that God is not beyond human comprehension? Dallin Oaks clearly does not understand what the Trinity is talking about (“an indistinguishable Father and Son” doesn’t really say anything relevant to the Trinity, since they are distinguishable in personhood), so I’m trying to understand what is the difference between the Trinitarian understanding of the comprehensibility of God and the Mormon understanding. Is there a distinction between comprehending what has been revealed (in either context) versus comprehending everything about God?

wussup is doing the mormon speculation thing. Claiming he can comprehend God while simultaneously telling us he cannot.

Since they believe that God is a super human, which they too will become someday, they believe it is fully possible to reason out attributes of God. You see it in his post. Their god is limited to human understanding. Is bound by physical laws of nature, not the creator of them. His “being” is human, and you only have to understand yourself to understand God. If you can speculate on how humans are, you can project that speculation onto God.

Catholics, and other Christians don’t even go there because we understand God is incomprehensible and you can’t speculate about Him using human understanding.

So, the incomprehensibility of God is not there. They fully they believe they can comprehend their god. In this life their god is hiding knowledge from them. It is veiled. So if there is something that cannot be comprehended it is not because the nature of God is out of their reach. Is is because they don’t have hidden knowledge (gnosticism). wussup’s post is his/her attempt to peer into heaven and comprehend the glory that is there.

Once they have this hidden knowledge, and the power of their god given to them (because of their righteousness…being worthy) they will be gods themselves. So right now, they are essentially gods, not any different than their god, except for their god’s power and glory. They are just waiting to receive this.

 

[wussup]

wussup is doing the mormon speculation thing. Claiming he can comprehend God while simultaneously telling us he cannot.

Since they believe that God is a super human, which they too will become someday, they believe it is fully possible to reason out attributes of God. You see it in his post. Their god is limited to human understanding. Is bound by physical laws of nature, not the creator of them. His “being” is human, and you only have to understand yourself to understand God. If you can speculate on how humans are, you can project that speculation onto God.

Catholics, and other Christians don’t even go there because we understand God is incomprehensible and you can’t speculate about Him using human understanding.

So, the incomprehensibility of God is not there. They fully they believe they can comprehend their god. In this life their god is hiding knowledge from them. It is veiled. So if there is something that cannot be comprehended it is not because the nature of God is out of their reach. Is is because they don’t have hidden knowledge (gnosticism). wussup’s post is his/her attempt to peer into heaven and comprehend the glory that is there.

Once they have this hidden knowledge, and the power of their god given to them (because of their righteousness…being worthy) they will be gods themselves. So right now, they are essentially gods, not any different than their god, except for their god’s power and glory. They are just waiting to receive this.

In order and briefly:
-Ad hominem

-This is true. Any attempt at worship is an attempt to comprehend God.

-The inverse is true. We believe the Divine to be in Man, that is as Children of our Heavenly Father he has offered us an opportunity to Live With Him in the same way as Jesus, joint heirs in Christ in ALL that he has given the Lord.

-We do not believe it is possible.

-Our ability to understand God (as in this is life eternal to thee the only Living God) is limited by our mortality

-God is limited only by the necessary attributes that are required for his existence. You actually limit God. We say that God has an infinite love for His children and want to endow them with all power, to make them joint heirs with God in His Kingdom. You say he either does not Love us enough or he cannot do this.

-Yep, I attempt to understand God. Guilty.

-Nope. No amount of knowledge will allow us to attend the Kingdom of Heaven. Only faith and supplication to our (and your) Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, acknowledgment of Him as our Master will grant us forgiveness and salvation.

-Note: all the lower case g for God are ad hominem attacks.

 

[wussup]

When will the questions re. the old and new testament start.

 

[lax16]

When will the questions re. the old and new testament start.

Soon! I have to back and read my old posts on the subject and compile my questions again.
Thanks for the reminder!

 

[soren1]

Aaaah, well stated! The Church never states that it is any power but God the Father’s by which existence was wrought. Think of it this way rather, the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price relates how Lucifer offered to be the Savior of Mankind and guaranteed all would be saved, and he wanted all the glory as well; Jesus offered to be the Savior of Mankind, but left it to Man to accept His Sacrifice of his own free will and granted to the Father all glory. It was our Father’s plan Jesus accepted as his own, their will was the same. This plan was then offered to all, and all of our Father’s children accepted the plan, we ‘bought into it’ as the management phrase goes. Michael the Archangel, you, me, or anyone else had nothing to do with the power of the creation, but rather we ‘bought into’ our Heavenly Father’s plan. We accepted it of our own free will. Think outside the Catholic box for a moment. Which makes more sense, to believe we were forced to live this hellish existence from God, or He offered a plan of salvation, letting us know we would most definitely fail our test here, but that Jesus the Christ would pay the penalty for our failure. This is freedom. This is what it is all about.

So, who was ‘with God’? In power and authority, none, yet God NEVER takes away from us the most precious commodity of all, our free will. There is one way to tell a true theology from a false one…does it give an expression of free will. I suggest the Catholic Theology, while well thought out, does not.

Michael’s active involvement in creation, as a direct assistant to Jehovah has been affirmed by every LDS Authority I know of who has ever commented on the subject, including Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley. Abraham 4 says that a multiplicity of gods “organize and form” (4:1) the heavens and the earth. There is more involved here than just having “bought into” Heavenly Father’s plan. Rather, they are active in physically preparing the earth for the creation of man. LDS.org has an article by Bruce McConkie, writing as an Apostle, which says:

*The First Day—Elohim, Jehovah, Michael, a host of noble and great ones—all these played their parts. “The Gods” created the atmospheric heavens and the temporal earth. It was “without form, and void”; as yet it could serve no useful purpose with respect to the salvation of man. It was “empty and desolate”; life could not yet exist on its surface; it was not yet a fit abiding place for those sons of God who shouted for joy at the prospect of a mortal probation. The “waters” of the great “deep” were present, and “darkness reigned” until the divine decree: “Let there be light.” The light and the darkness were then “divided,” the one being called “Day” and the other “Night.” Clearly our planet was thus formed as a revolving orb and placed in its relationship to our sun. (See Moses 2:1-3; Abr 4:1-4.) *

Thus the involvement of the gods/premortal spirits in creation is not limited to accepting God’s plan but also involves activity in “spreading abroad the earth” and the heavens, contra Is. 44:24. Notice also that in the same text it is Yahweh who speaks. For Mormonism that would indicate that Jesus is claiming to be sole creator, whereas your explanation applies it to Heavenly Father.

Now, I mentioned you have the right to your own opinion. Granting, therefore, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that our involvement extended only to buying in to God plan is still biblically untenable, because it says we made moral choices prior to coming into the world. Yet Paul writes that God chose that Esau would serve Jacob, “the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” (Rom 9:11) The claim made here, and its use in the argument that Paul is making, demands that only after birth do people make choices between good and evil. While this text in itself could not rule out every possible conception of preexistence, it does eliminate any doctrine that ascribes moral choice to preexistent souls, as your explanation of creation does.

 

[TheosisM]

wussup is doing the mormon speculation thing. Claiming he can comprehend God while simultaneously telling us he cannot.

But is that really an issue? I think that what he is doing is no different than what many Trinitarians do, and what I personally have stated in my discussions with Mormons. We can comprehend much of what has been revealed, but we don’t have exhaustive knowledge of God. A common critique of the Trinity is that it doesn’t make sense. Some Trinitarians accept this themselves and claim that it’s okay, it’s a mystery. I and other venture to say that the Trinity does make sense and can be comprehended, if we understand the words that are being used (i.e. what “being” and “person” mean). So, when we say that wussup is claiming that he can comprehend God while simultaneously saying that he cannot, we have to be more specific about what it is he is claiming he can comprehend about God, and what it is he is claiming that he cannot comprehend about God.

Also, there may even be a difference here between knowing something about God, and comprehending that thing. For example, it may be said that God is infinite love. Can we comprehend that? I think that is more in line with what wussup (and practically everyone) was doing.

Since they believe that God is a super human, which they too will become someday, they believe it is fully possible to reason out attributes of God. You see it in his post. Their god is limited to human understanding. Is bound by physical laws of nature, not the creator of them. His “being” is human, and you only have to understand yourself to understand God. If you can speculate on how humans are, you can project that speculation onto God.

Catholics, and other Christians don’t even go there because we understand God is incomprehensible and you can’t speculate about Him using human understanding.

I’ve read enough about the Trinity and writings about how/what God is to know that there is a lot of speculation in traditional Christianity on this. In fact, many acknowledge a difference in the Western vs. Eastern approaches to talking about God (i.e. apophatic theology). I think that we speculate about God and His actions in many cases. I started a thread in Apologetics about what it means for the Son to be eternally begotten vs. the Spirit [eternally] proceeding, in the context of co-eternal Persons, and theologians speculate on these things all the time. Limbo of Infants is a speculation on how God acts. There is certainly nothing wrong with doctrinally correct speculation, and what wussup is saying may be doctrinally correct speculation within his faith.

But, I do think that there is a lot that is open to speculation within the Mormon understanding of God, especially about whether the Father has a Father, etc.

So, the incomprehensibility of God is not there. They fully they believe they can comprehend their god. In this life their god is hiding knowledge from them. It is veiled. So if there is something that cannot be comprehended it is not because the nature of God is out of their reach. Is is because they don’t have hidden knowledge (gnosticism). wussup’s post is his/her attempt to peer into heaven and comprehend the glory that is there.

But again, I see Trinitarians doing this as well. I’m not sure about the gnosticism assertion, however Trinitarians would agree that there is a “veil” between us and God (though that veil is more like a chasm due to creatio ex nihilo), and that we have mediate knowledge about God. The beatific vision by definition is immediate (as opposed to mediate) knowledge of God.

 

[ParkerD]

Another nice job of twisting. But The saying is not “As Jesus was, God once was…” It is “As MAN IS, God once was…” And I think you would agree with me that man IS sinful…

right?

If you’re saying there can be doctrinal misunderstandings in bishopric meetings, in classes, at the MTC, or elsewhere, then yes there can be that. There may be those who never read the King Follett Discourse, and never thought about the words quoted there.

I am not uncomfortable about this subject, at all. All we have is a tiny glimpse of a picture, but that tiny glimpse says the Father was like the Son, and the Son was like the Father. LDS beliefs are that “as Christ now is, man may become” and that is New Testament doctrine. Further, as Christ is now God the Son who returned to His Father from having come down and become “God with us” and who was “fully man” during His life on earth (“As man now is”–except that He was sinless), even so man can become like Christ and inherit a joint throne that He rightfully has. John wrote “when He shall appear we shall be like Him.”

 

[sablouwho]

Hi wussup,

I wanted to comment on a few things you said, but first, I wanted to introduce myself to you since I have not interacted with you previously on any threads here. I am a Jewish woman who now believes in Jesus. Have been a “generic Christian” for 4 years, and will soon enter the Catholic Church (will be confirmed in a few weeks).

I spent a good deal of time, starting around two years after I came to faith in Jesus, as an investigator in the LDS faith. I have read the entire BoM with sincerity and earnestness, read extensive LDS apologetics, attended a pro-LDS conference sponsored by FairLDS.org, etc. I studied with some very knowledgeable LDS members because the missionary lessons were not able to address many of the questions I had. Also, I have some wonderful LDS friends that I met during my time as an investigator and who are still good friends. I like LDS people as a whole, and as individuals.

When I was an investigator, I very much wanted to be LDS. I loved the people, the values, the sense of community (which reminded me somewhat of how Jews take care of one another). Being a relative newcomer to faith in Christ, and having come from a Jewish background, I didn’t have a view of “what Jesus and God are supposed to be like” cemented into my head. So many of the common objections that trinitarian Christians will raise re: LDS beliefs were simply not an issue to me.

I prayed my heart out for a testimony many, many times, often on my knees, and’or following the instructions given to me by the missionaries. I wanted a testimony very badly, and did everything I was told to do in order to get one, but it never came. And I was as earnest about it as I could possibly have been, yes, really.

I came to CAF with some questions about the CC, yet one of the things I also do here is read the LDS related threads. Not because I want to bash LDS, but rather, to understand and perhaps resolve some feelings that I have about my own LDS experiences, which despite my positive feelings about LDS people, I would describe as mixed at best Because I was strangely miserable when I was with the LDS.

So, with that said…I have a few observations and/or comments on a post you made recently, which I will continue in the next post…

 

[sablouwho]

…continued from previous post…

Go to the LDS Church site. I challenge you to find a place in it where we sell or offer teaching about another Church that are not true.

Comparing CAF and the LDS.org site is an apples to oranges comparison. One is an apologetics site, the other is the official site for a church organization. IMO, a better and more appropriate comparison would be comparing the Vatican’s website to the LDS.org site.

I have no idea of the Vat’s own website is selling the type of books you mention, though I would be kind of surprised if they were.

CAF is not unique. I’ve been to counter-missionary Jewish websites that sell books on why Jesus is a false messiah. Been to Protestant websites that sell book promoting their way of thinking and “debunking” others. And yeah, I’ve recall having visited LDS apologetics sites that sell books too, showing why their faith is true and others are not.

I don’t see why it is wrong for these apologetics websites to sell books that promote their point of view, even the ones whose points of view I disagree with.

Historically speaking, the Christian Faith has had a very difficult time of it. The earliest Christians, the Jews who converted, had to renounce their most sacred beliefs of circumcision, dietary laws, and all the Laws of Moses as being fulfilled. Only LDS of today can relate to how much trust in the Lord it requires to follow his command. Another example of such faith is the Sacrifice of Isaiah by Abraham.

As a Jew who converted to faith in Christ and had to give up a lot of what I believed, I think that in some ways I can relate to the earliest Christians. I really relate to Paul in many ways.

I realize that I am biased here as a convert who has a lot in common with the earliest Christian, but I think your comment above that I put in bold is off on a few counts as it doesn’t take into account of few key things:

Firstly, having experienced an adult conversion myself, I know firsthand how hard it is to give up longstanding beliefs and change them to belief in Christ. Thus, I believe that anyone who converts (Jew or gentile) as an adult (as the early Christians did) from decidedly NOT having faith in Jesus to then having faith in Jesus, can, as you say, “relate to how much trust in the Lord it requires to follow his command.” Because going from non-belief to belief in Jesus is a HUGE step. (Much bigger, in my own opinion, than going from a mainstream Christian group to LDS). It is VERY hard. So I take issue with the idea that that “only” LDS can relate to this. It leaves out a lot of people who have had amazing road-to-Damascus conversion experiences, like the one that I had. To leave out such people, to me, seems elitist and wrong. I don’t like criticizing LDS just for it’s own sake, but the statement also seems rather self-serving.

Secondly, you say that only the LDS of today can relate to this. Aside from the viewpoint I shared in the paragraph above, (and notwithstanding my own thoughts about whether the LDS faith is the “one true church”) I think it is incorrect and can’t help but wonder what Joseph Smith himself would say about that. In my opinion, the LDS of JS’s time were in a MUCH more difficult situation than LDS of today, they suffered much more for what they believed (regardless of whether it is true) than the LDS of today. (I am not saying that today’s LDS don’t suffer today because of their faith–I think that they do, but not nearly to the degree the early LDS experienced). I think it takes a lot more courage to start something new that goes against the status quo and literally be killed for it than it does to be born into a religion (as many many LDS are today, though there are of course many conversions too) and to just believe what you were taught from the time you were an infant.

Thirdly, I would also add that, IMO, LDS are not the only group with faith in Jesus, who are following what they believe are God’s commands, and appreciating how hard that can be. Mainstream Christian people who follow what they believe are God’s commands, “pay for” having faith all the time, as individuals or sometimes as groups. While I am thankful that anti-Semitism is quite politically incorrect these days, unfortunately, being anti-Christian is very much acceptable in popular culture. Christians who take a hit for their faith can absolutely relate to how hard it is to trust in the Lord and follow his commands.

I get flak from my own family about my faith in Jesus, so I just have quite a bit of difficulty with the idea that “only” LDS can know how hard it is to trust in the Lord.

 

[sablouwho]

…continued from previous post…

Quoting myself here:

I get flak from my own family about my faith in Jesus, so I just have quite a bit of difficulty with the idea that “only” LDS can know how hard it is to trust in the Lord.

One more thought occurs to me–despite the spiritual blindness that Jews have regarding Jesus, observant Jews do believe in, and trust in, God–they just don’t realize (yet) that Jesus is actually part of the “God package”. Taking the Shoah (Holocaust) into account, I think that the statement made by wussup above:

**

Only LDS of today can relate to how much trust in the Lord it requires to follow his command.

**

really discounts the suffering of other religious and ethnic groups in a manner that I find somewhat disturbing and lacking in empathy.

 

[AtticusFinch]

If you’re saying there can be doctrinal misunderstandings in bishopric meetings, in classes, at the MTC, or elsewhere, then yes there can be that. There may be those who never read the King Follett Discourse, and never thought about the words quoted there.

Yes. But I did.

I am not uncomfortable about this subject, at all. All we have is a tiny glimpse of a picture, but that tiny glimpse says the Father was like the Son, and the Son was like the Father. LDS beliefs are that “as Christ now is, man may become” and that is New Testament doctrine.

Ah, but the saying is not “as man is, Christ once was…” or even “As Christ was, God once was…” It is as MAN IS, God once was…so please stop using red herrings. Man is sinful. Try as you might yo run from that teaching, you can’t

 

[guanophore]

For me, Jesus built only one true church. If the church that you are belong now has a doctrine which is contradictory to what’s written in the bible then you need to seek the right one. It’s like choosing the best school for you. The one that will teach you the right lessons that you will benefit on it. Many thinks that Catholicism is not the true church that’s why they are trying to convert them to their religion or church which they think is the right one.

And what do you think?

 

[wussup]

Michael’s active involvement in creation, as a direct assistant to Jehovah has been affirmed by every LDS Authority I know of who has ever commented on the subject, including Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley. Abraham 4 says that a multiplicity of gods “organize and form” (4:1) the heavens and the earth. There is more involved here than just having “bought into” Heavenly Father’s plan.

If I gave the impression that the role of some was more than mere by in I apologize. I was speaking to the lowest common denominator. Still, whatever Michael or Jesus did was under the Authority, Power, Dominion, and Glory of our Heavenly Father. They did nothing of themselves, all power came from the Father, through Jesus Christ.

The claim made here, and its use in the argument that Paul is making, demands that only after birth do people make choices between good and evil. While this text in itself could not rule out every possible conception of preexistence, it does eliminate any doctrine that ascribes moral choice to preexistent souls, as your explanation of creation does.

You make a good point. This is one of those times when there is enough legitimate LDS doctrine to question that make believe stuff is superfluous. There is scriptural evidence to support the fact that Christ’s apostles believed a) in a premortal existence and b) that even there they had some ability to exercise free will to work against the wishes of the Father. One passage in mind is John 9:1-3;

And as [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man which was blind from [his] birth.

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Clearly the apostles believed this man existed as an entity of some type, who could exercise free will, and who God could use how this individual exercised their free will in this mortal existence. Christ did not correct them, but rather on the contrary agrees that this man’s exercise of his free will did not in this case (my opinion) be the ‘cause’ of his blindness, but rather ‘that the works of God should be made manifest in him’.

So how to place these illustrations in doctrinal accordance? I believe it again has to do with understanding that God does not work in the ‘cause and effect’ frame. He works outside of that. He ‘knows the beginning from the end’ etc. Jacob and the mysterious blind man are who they are. There ‘personality’ will never be other than what they are.

Again, my apologies for not recognizing what was being asked. I would only reiterate in the revealed word to Paul in his letter to the Ephesians, “And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:” (Eph 3;9, similar Heb 1:2). What role exactly other had, it was only under the power and authority of our Lord that it was accomplished.

 

[wussup]

No, nothing new

I don’t know about that. Telling the Jews that Christ fulfilled the Law and that the Law of Moses was no longer valid was a pretty big step.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD;6456826:

If you’re saying there can be doctrinal misunderstandings in bishopric meetings, in classes, at the MTC, or elsewhere, then yes there can be that. There may be those who never read the King Follett Discourse, and never thought about the words quoted there.

Yes. But I did.

I am not uncomfortable about this subject, at all. All we have is a tiny glimpse of a picture, but that tiny glimpse says the Father was like the Son, and the Son was like the Father. LDS beliefs are that “as Christ now is, man may become” and that is New Testament doctrine.

Ah, but the saying is not “as man is, Christ once was…” or even “As Christ was, God once was…” It is as MAN IS, God once was…so please stop using red herrings. Man is sinful. Try as you might yo run from that teaching, you can’t

You don’t get it. That statement was not by Joseph Smith. It was by Lorenzo Snow, and it was made when he was a youth new in the church. Here is the statement in the King Follett Discourse, as transcribed as having been stated in the talk by Joseph Smith, with phrases I am going to underline so you will see the key points about what I had noted:

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power— to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me.

The Righteous to Dwell in Everlasting Burnings

These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children.

Here is an easily found website with the entire talk as it was transcribed:

utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/kingfolletsermon.htm

Peace to you and all. I think I’ve said enough (many will say “more than enough”).

 

[TheosisM]

The Catechism states this:

“460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.””

Using Atticus Finch’s logic applied to the above, this mean that Jesus became a sinful man, because “our nature” includes original sin, and “man” [we] are sinful. However obviously that is not the case. Similarly, I am confused as to why he is trying to force this interpretation of the “as man is…” couplet, when the LDS are telling us that they don’t believe that the Father was a sinful man. If the couplet is implying that the Father was a sinful man because of “as man “is””, then the Catechism is also implying that the Son became a sinful man, since He “assumed our nature”, which includes original sin.

 

[wussup]

…continued from previous post…

Comparing CAF and the LDS.org site is an apples to oranges comparison. One is an apologetics site, the other is the official site for a church organization. IMO, a better and more appropriate comparison would be comparing the Vatican’s website to the LDS.org site.

That is fair. On the other hand, this web-site is under the direct approval and in formal affilitation with the RC via the San Diego Archdiocese. I tried to find the reference where the Bishop signed an affidavit that used to be on this web-site. If it was withdrawn, than I withdraw my statement.

CAF is not unique. I’ve been to counter-missionary Jewish websites that sell books on why Jesus is a false messiah. Been to Protestant websites that sell book promoting their way of thinking and “debunking” others. And yeah, I’ve recall having visited LDS apologetics sites that sell books too, showing why their faith is true and others are not.

Again, this is true. I am not a fan of members of my Church who bash other religions. Even Joseph Smith said we ought to seek truth where ever it may be and the RC definitely is a source I go to.

I don’t see why it is wrong for these apologetics websites to sell books that promote their point of view, even the ones whose points of view I disagree with.

I think it is both wrong and ill-advised. There is a difference between illustrating differences, and illustrating far flung or made up non-sense as main stream. An example in RC theology would be much of what is taught at some of the liberal Catholic Schools or some who embrace Libertarian Theology. There are some Catholic Priests who support abortion, some who support gay marriage, etc… I do not for a moment think of these as indicative of Catholic Doctrine. So, when someone takes umbrage (correctly) at those who bash the RC and then use these same policies to attack others, well that is hypocrisy.

As a Jew who converted to faith in Christ and had to give up a lot of what I believed, I think that in some ways I can relate to the earliest Christians. I really relate to Paul in many ways.

I realize that I am biased here as a convert who has a lot in common with the earliest Christian, but I think your comment above that I put in bold is off on a few counts as it doesn’t take into account of few key things:

Firstly, having experienced an adult conversion myself, I know firsthand how hard it is to give up longstanding beliefs and change them to belief in Christ. Thus, I believe that anyone who converts (Jew or gentile) as an adult (as the early Christians did) from decidedly NOT having faith in Jesus to then having faith in Jesus, can, as you say, “relate to how much trust in the Lord it requires to follow his command.” Because going from non-belief to belief in Jesus is a HUGE step. (Much bigger, in my own opinion, than going from a mainstream Christian group to LDS). It is VERY hard. So I take issue with the idea that that “only” LDS can relate to this. It leaves out a lot of people who have had amazing road-to-Damascus conversion experiences, like the one that I had. To leave out such people, to me, seems elitist and wrong. I don’t like criticizing LDS just for it’s own sake, but the statement also seems rather self-serving.

Secondly, you say that only the LDS of today can relate to this. Aside from the viewpoint I shared in the paragraph above, (and notwithstanding my own thoughts about whether the LDS faith is the “one true church”) I think it is incorrect and can’t help but wonder what Joseph Smith himself would say about that. In my opinion, the LDS of JS’s time were in a MUCH more difficult situation than LDS of today, they suffered much more for what they believed (regardless of whether it is true) than the LDS of today. (I am not saying that today’s LDS don’t suffer today because of their faith–I think that they do, but not nearly to the degree the early LDS experienced). I think it takes a lot more courage to start something new that goes against the status quo and literally be killed for it than it does to be born into a religion (as many many LDS are today, though there are of course many conversions too) and to just believe what you were taught from the time you were an infant.

Thirdly, I would also add that, IMO, LDS are not the only group with faith in Jesus, who are following what they believe are God’s commands, and appreciating how hard that can be. Mainstream Christian people who follow what they believe are God’s commands, “pay for” having faith all the time, as individuals or sometimes as groups. While I am thankful that anti-Semitism is quite politically incorrect these days, unfortunately, being anti-Christian is very much acceptable in popular culture. Christians who take a hit for their faith can absolutely relate to how hard it is to trust in the Lord and follow his commands.

I get flak from my own family about my faith in Jesus, so I just have quite a bit of difficulty with the idea that “only” LDS can know how hard it is to trust in the Lord.

Again, well stated. Still, as a general rule, you are an exception. I was a missionary in South Africa and the converts who came from a devout non-Christian background experienced extremes in suffering at the hands of their family and friends. I don’t think that I said ‘only’, but I think it is much more challenging to one’s faith to go from non-LDS to LDS than vice verse.

 

[wussup]

After looking back at what I said, I apparently I did use the adjective ‘only’. That was clearly an exaggeration. My apologies to all. My only excuse is to late at night and to long working hours.

 

[sablouwho]

After looking back at what I said, I apparently I did use the adjective ‘only’. That was clearly an exaggeration. My apologies to all. My only excuse is to late at night and to long working hours.

Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it.

 

[sablouwho]

Still, as a general rule, you are an exception.

Can you please clarify–I am not sure to what I am an exception?

I was a missionary in South Africa and the converts who came from a devout non-Christian background experienced extremes in suffering at the hands of their family and friends.

I have no doubt of this. Speaking from my knowledge/experience of Judaism, coming from a Jewish family, etc, and knowing other Jews who have converted to various forms of faith in Jesus (including a few that are LDS) I can say without question that there is indeed quite a bit of suffering that goes on. But it is in no way limited to LDS. Jews don’t like it when one of their own becomes a believer in Jesus, regardless of what faith/sect the convert joins.

I don’t think that this phenomenon is monopolized by the conversion to LDS, however. Nor do I think it is monopolized by those who convert TO mainstream Christianity after being something else.

I mean, no group seems to like it when “one of their own” leaves and becomes something else! It’s human nature to feel this way, afterall.