Mormon - Beliefs - A civil Discussion Please

[The_Smiter]

“Without playing semantic games?”

That’s not possible. You are playing them right now, with your claim that Mormons believe that Jesus is only A son of God, not
THE son of God.

There really isn’t any way to get around our belief that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, although I do prefer your way of making the point that we also believe that we are all children of God in a spiritual sense–it certainly addresses the issue with more grace than “Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers.”

The difference between 'Only Begotten Son of God" and the rest of us, however, is NOT a semantic game. It is a very real difference. Huge.

Then you change the subject…linking your idea of the Trinity to this claim about our beliefs regarding the Paternity of Christ…as if they were synonymous. They are not.

As to 'semantic gaming"…well, one man’s semantic games are another woman’s attempt to clearly communicate.

I thought this was supposed to be a civil discussion.

I started my post with “It is my understanding…”.

I made no claim to knowledge about anything Mormon.

I came to this thread to learn and I have now been nothing but dissected and accused of things that have not been borne of my words.

If this is not a “Civil Discussion Please” as it states in the original post, then let me know and I won’t bother.

But the stuff you are accusing me of implying - I have never heard of.

As far as semantics games go, I have seen way too many posts and threads that get bogged down in semantics and definitions that they become uncharitable and nonproductive. Common frames of reference and common vocabulary are necessary for understanding. That’s all.

You are either way too defensive or have an agenda. Sorry if that’s accusatory - it’s really just an observation based on the attack that you made on my post, which based on my post, I think was really uncalled for.

 

[majick275]

Not true.

zerinus

i can name all 15 current apostles. LDS official church history documents all of JS activities as “first elder” prior to there being 12 any apostles called. The BoM shows the timeline for the nephite 12.
multiple LDs scriptural references exist for the nephite 3 and john continuing in their calling. so yeah it Is true!

 

[majick275]

“Without playing semantic games?”

That’s not possible. You are playing them right now, with your claim that Mormons believe that Jesus is only A son of God, not
THE son of God.

yet YOU are playing semantics with this. LDs doctrine is VERY clear that we are ALL LITERAL offspring of Elohim. HIS actual children in a very real sense. The LDs meaning of “begotten” is where the semantic games begin. BY and most of the early LDS leaders state that as “begotten in the flesh” meaning Elohim physically impregnated Mary thus making him the only “physical” offspring. (somewhat problematic as Elohim would be assumed to have had physical offspring in his mortal existence while working out his exaltation in fear and trembling)

There really isn’t any way to get around our belief that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, although I do prefer your way of making the point that we also believe that we are all children of God in a spiritual sense–it certainly addresses the issue with more grace than “Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers.”

see above…what does that mean to you? (begotten)

The difference between 'Only Begotten Son of God" and the rest of us, however, is NOT a semantic game. It is a very real difference. Huge.

so explain this difference…not the difference between us and Jesus in general but the difference between being born a literal child of God in the spirit world by Elohim and his wives versus Jesus being born of Elohim and one of his wives in the spirit world. because it sure sounds similar.

Then you change the subject…linking your idea of the Trinity to this claim about our beliefs regarding the Paternity of Christ…as if they were synonymous. They are not.

but they are certainly linked. The orthodox christian belief in the trinity is that they are all co-equal, consubstantial and co-eternal. uncreated unborn, eternally divine. this in contrast to LDs belief in eternal progression which is quite different.

As to 'semantic gaming"…well, one man’s semantic games are another woman’s attempt to clearly communicate.

we shall see. it usually means LDs apologists using misleading terminology to gloss over significant doctrinal differences and appear to be more “mainstream”.

 

[thecourt]

From my view as a member, I have accepted that Catholic believe what they do and I am not out to change that – I would hope I receive the same respect for what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes.

My interest is respectful dialogue – not to destroy another’s conviction in their religion of choice. The world would be in better shape if that happened more.

I say that recognizing my church will continue to share what we believe with those who honestly want to learn.

 

[JRKH]

Just a cautionary note to all.

This thread has gone well so far because we are exchanging ideas firmly based in documented beliefs.
Let us continue in this. If either side posts something inaccurate, let’s try to provide the links and quotes from official documents as much as possible.

I know that I am learning much.

Peace
James

 

[MEgus]

this is simply not true. the LDS have 15 apostles currently and have done that a number of times. JS went quite some time with NO apostles while presuming to act authoritatively. the BoM has 24 apostles, with 12 amongst the nephites at the same time that 12 were in israel. LDs doctrine then has 4 during the “great apostasy”, the 3 nephites and John. (which actually means they have 19 now).
the bible has 13 at one point. the bishops are the successors of the apostles since the apostles called them to preside over the church and the definition of apostles that they (the apostles) give appears to show it was a one time only calling just as there can no longer be a “high priest” because Jesus is now the high priest forever.

Actually, we do not have 15 Apostles, we have 12.

We have a First Presidentcy that acts as three presidents. Very similar to Peter, James, and John in the Bible.

In addition, we then have 12 Apostles.

The Nephites in the Book of Mormon did not have 12 Apostles, they had 12 Disciples who were under the 12 Apostles. No where in the Book of Mormon are they called Apostles.

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

Hmmmm-
I would need to see a source for this. Preferably a Scholarly Greek source indicating that the term “Apostle” in ancient times is different than that applied today.

If anything I would say that the application today is more restrictive in that we equate Apostle with the 12 Chosen by Jesus as His main missionaries.

Peace
James

James, I could be wrong, but I think the term “Apostles” was first used by Jesus Christ. I don’t think the word existed before that.

But let me know what you find out when your searching.

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

This presumes a lot that is unlikely but I will try to answer.
First of all, Since a Bishop was sent to this Island in the first place it presumes that there is communication between the Island and the outside world. Thus it is unlikely that the Deacons would be unable to seek help from Holy Mother Church.
Also I certainly don’t know how a Church Scholar might answer this.
However, for the sake of discussion -

If the Above scenerio occurred and all fully ordianed priests were killed, and the Deacons knew they were cut off they MIGHT choose after much prayer and deliberation to follow the course you suggest. All the while continuing to try and reestablish communciation with The Church in Rome.
Since you are refering to a time of several hundred years, it is obvious that by the time communication is reestablished, there would have been several gernerations of Bishops appointed and naturally there might have been some changes in Canon Law etc over teh centuries. However, so long as the Episcopate continued to minister within the rules of the Church there would not be a break in the guidance of the Holy Spirit nor a break in the Apostolic line. After all the Deacons themselves were commissioned by the Bishop.

As for whether the Church would choose to leave the Bishop or replace him would depend upon a number of factors. There certainly would be an investigation into the state of the Church on the island; the practices used might be bit out of date and that sort of thing.
My guess is that as long as the interem Bishop and Priests had acted and taught in ways consistant with the Church as they knew it, and they are willing to be re-educated to be brought up to date, that they would be accepted byt the Church. The most I could think that the Church might do is send a New Bishop and ask the “interem Bishop” to step down or to act as a “co-adjutor” during the time of re-intigration of the Church into full communion.

Now let me ask you a question.
What would happen if, during a meeting of the 12 Mormon Apostles there was a fire and they were all killed? Clear Break in Apostolic Succession.

Peace
James

OK, I guess if that’s what the Church believes then I can see why you would think that there was not a lack of priesthood authority. If anyone who had ever been ordained could ordain anyone else, then I would agree with you.

Our beliefs are that there is a certain authority given. Only the head of the church(like Peter) is able to exercise this at one time. And only the Apostles hold the keys to binding and sealing on earth and heaven.

MEgus

 

[RebeccaJ]

James, I could be wrong, but I think the term “Apostles” was first used by Jesus Christ. I don’t think the word existed before that.

But let me know what you find out when your searching.

MEgus

I think you should be the one to back this claim up.

 

[MEgus]

Psalm 69 is a prophecy of the crucifixion of Jesus. Simon Peter saw Judas as one these wicked men who persecuted him who was smitten. His citation of thos prophecy was Peter’s pronouncement that Judas would be blotted out of the book of the living.

The bishoprik part of Acts 1:20 was original with Peter, who understood the primary ecclesial role of the Twelve as bishops (apostolic bishops, not Mormon bishops). Note the colon in Acts 20, indicating the translators’ understanding of the two parts of the verse - the fulfilment of the prophecy of David and the resulting pronouncement by Peter.

So Paul, what your saying is that the part about bishoprik was not in the original scripture that was quoted.

So, that was added.

Your understanding was that Peter added that when he was quoting original scripture, is that right?

MEgus

 

[MEgus]

It is my understanding that Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is A son of God, but not THE son of God.

I guess my question is - without playing semantic games - do Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is God made Man, that He is one person in the Trinity that includes God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, that Jesus Christ lived as fully human and fully divine and that He suffered and died on the cross to pay for our sins? I do not want to get oo Catholic in terminoligy - but I think I hit the high points.

If this is what Mormons believe, then I have been mistaken.

In a note of charity - I love to see Mormon me3n and women out on their missions and wish it were something that Christian faiths would adopt in a more prevalent manner for people at such an age.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believe that Jesus Christ was the first born Spirit Son of God the Father. After that, all the rest of us were also spirit sons and daughters of God the Father.

Jesus Christ is the “Word” as spoken by John.

Jesus Christ is also the one who physically created all things after they were created Spiritually by God the Father.

Jesus Christ is the “Only Begotten” son of God the Father and God the Father is the literal Father of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin here upon the earth and lived as man. In his death, he took upon himself the sins of the world. And not just this world, but all the worlds that have been or will be created. He is our Savior and Redeemer. Only through his Atonement can we be saved. Because he had an Eternal Father, he had the ability to overcome death. Because he had a mortal mother, he was subject to death. Only Jesus Christ had the power to break the bands of death so that all of God’s Children here upon the earth could be resurrected one day.

He is a member of the God head. But, he is still subject to God the Father. God the Father is Jesus’ God just as he is our God.

I hope that clarifies things.

MEgus

 

[majick275]

Actually, we do not have 15 Apostles, we have 12.

We have a First Presidentcy that acts as three presidents. Very similar to Peter, James, and John in the Bible.

In addition, we then have 12 Apostles.

The Nephites in the Book of Mormon did not have 12 Apostles, they had 12 Disciples who were under the 12 Apostles. No where in the Book of Mormon are they called Apostles.

MEgus

all three members of the current first presidency are ordained apostles. those callings are not vacated by their current role. disciples versus apostles in the BoM is an obvious semantic game that only recently has come into favor with apologists. read your early LDS writings on them. every follower of Christ is/was a disciple. Jesus calling 12 specifically means they were not just 12 followers. you certainly can’t make that argument about john…so even by your reasoning there are 13 on earth right now…by pretty much every LDs leader up to Joseph Fielding smith there are 19 on earth right now. by the most narrow interpretation of current doctrine there are 16.

 

[majick275]

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believe that Jesus Christ was the first born Spirit Son of God the Father. After that, all the rest of us were also spirit sons and daughters of God the Father.

Jesus Christ is the “Word” as spoken by John.

Jesus Christ is also the one who physically created all things after they were created Spiritually by God the Father.

Jesus Christ is the “Only Begotten” son of God the Father and God the Father is the literal Father of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin here upon the earth and lived as man. In his death, he took upon himself the sins of the world. And not just this world, but all the worlds that have been or will be created. He is our Savior and Redeemer. Only through his Atonement can we be saved. Because he had an Eternal Father, he had the ability to overcome death. Because he had a mortal mother, he was subject to death. Only Jesus Christ had the power to break the bands of death so that all of God’s Children here upon the earth could be resurrected one day.

He is a member of the God head. But, he is still subject to God the Father. God the Father is Jesus’ God just as he is our God.

I hope that clarifies things.

MEgus

a few questions:

who was Jesus spirit mother?
Who is Elohim’s God?
who atoned for the sins of elohim when he was mortal?
Who will be the savior on the worlds to be created and populated by exalted children of elohim?
who is jesus sealed to?

 

[MEgus]

a few questions:

who was Jesus spirit mother?
Who is Elohim’s God?
who atoned for the sins of elohim when he was mortal?
Who will be the savior on the worlds to be created and populated by exalted children of elohim?
who is jesus sealed to?

Didn’t you forget a few?

Like, Can God create a rock too big for him to lift?

Or where is the end to space if it has no end?

Or If there was no beginning or end, how can God start out Genesis with “In the Beginning”?

Or any other number of questions without any answers.

You know, how about this, when you get up there you could ask him. How about that?

You know, I try to keep things civil, but sometimes stupid questions get the better of me.

Sorry.

MEgus

 

[dianaiad]

yet YOU are playing semantics with this. LDs doctrine is VERY clear that we are ALL LITERAL offspring of Elohim

Yes. literal spiritual children; His created children; The idea floating out there seems to be one of God keeping women eternally pregnant, but if you think about it, that’s pretty ludicrous; WE believe that He has a physical body. Wouldn’t pregnancy as people think about it, produce children who have physical bodies? I mean, that’s what happens HERE. Therefore, since our believe is that He has a physical body (and if you are examining our beliefs, you have to examine them in their own context) then His creation of spiritual children has to be very different from what we think about.

HIS actual children in a very real sense. The LDs meaning of “begotten” is where the semantic games begin.

How so? the definition of ‘begotten’ is “'generated by procreations, “naturally begotten child” of parents and children; related by blood; biological child.” or …'engendered" or (according to the OED) 'procreated"

So we mean "begotten’ in the exact dictionary sense: Jesus Christ is the Only begotten Son of God in the flesh; He caused Mary to conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and thus is the Father of Jesus physically as well as spiritually. There are no semantic games being played here by US.

BY and most of the early LDS leaders state that as “begotten in the flesh” meaning Elohim physically impregnated Mary thus making him the only “physical” offspring. (somewhat problematic as Elohim would be assumed to have had physical offspring in his mortal existence while working out his exaltation in fear and trembling)

Why?

see above…what does that mean to you? (begotten)

I guess the real question is, what does it mean to you? If, as you seem to be claiming, it does NOT mean that Jesus is the mortal Son of God, and if, as you are claiming in regard to the Trinity, Jesus is eternally co-equal with God, then how can Jesus be the Son of God in any fashion? You seem to be denying the idea that He was physically begotten of God in mortality, so…what then?

so explain this difference…not the difference between us and Jesus in general but the difference between being born a literal child of God in the spirit world by Elohim and his wives versus Jesus being born of Elohim and one of his wives in the spirit world. because it sure sounds similar.
but they are certainly linked. The orthodox christian belief in the trinity is that they are all co-equal, consubstantial and co-eternal. uncreated unborn, eternally divine. this in contrast to LDs belief in eternal progression which is quite different.

we shall see. it usually means LDs apologists using misleading terminology to gloss over significant doctrinal differences and appear to be more “mainstream”.

Well, your comparison sounds similar because you are comparing strawmen.

Precisely exact strawmen, at that.

 

[JRKH]

OK, I guess if that’s what the Church believes then I can see why you would think that there was not a lack of priesthood authority. If anyone who had ever been ordained could ordain anyone else, then I would agree with you.

Before we go jumping to any conclusions based on this, let me be clear that the scenerio you proposed is highly unlikely and those invovled would be acting in the best manner they could given this extrordinary circumstance. Also remember that I said that, once communciation was re-established with Rome there would undoubtedly be an investigation.

Our beliefs are that there is a certain authority given. Only the head of the church(like Peter) is able to exercise this at one time. And only the Apostles hold the keys to binding and sealing on earth and heaven.

MEgus

In one sense I agree with you. When Jesus gave this authority to the 12 for founding the Church it was given only to Peter and then to the twelve.
The difference lies in the understanding of what it means to be able to bind and loose. The Apostles Passed on their Apostolic Authority to the Bishops of the Church. Those Bishops passed on that same Apostolic Authority to their successors and so on. Thus, since it was the Apostles who passed this on, it is clear that Apostolic Succession continued. It was bound on Earth and is Bound in Heaven. The guidance of the Holy Spirit never left the Church. The “Valid Prieshood” was never Lost.

Now - About a fire killing all of the LDS Apostles - what would the LDS Church do? Disband?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

James, I could be wrong, but I think the term “Apostles” was first used by Jesus Christ. I don’t think the word existed before that.

But let me know what you find out when your searching.

MEgus

Actually I would suggest that, since Apostle is a Greek term, it is unlikely that Jesus used the term at all. Like the Kepha/Petros issue it might be a matter of what would the term be in Aramaic.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I would like an answer to this the following question based upon this quote from page 4 of the LDS pamphlet entitled, “The Restoration”

"The Scriptures reveal a pattern of God repeatedly reaching out to His children, even though we do not always listen:

• God Chooses a prophet.
• The prophet teaches the gospel and leads the people.
• God Blesses the people.
• The people gradually disregard or disobey the teachings of the prophet. They eventually reject the prophet and his teachings and fall into apostacy.
• Because of apostacy, people lose knowledge of the gospel. Priesthood authority is taken from among them.
• When the time is right and people are ready to follow Him again, God chooses another prophet, restores the priesthood and the Church, and directs the prophet to teach the gospel."

So
How many times has the gospel been restored by LDS count and who were the “prophets” who restored it?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

You were doing fine until you got to “the bishops are the successors…” because THAT is where the hitch lies for us. As well, you seem to have forgotten that for a ‘one time only’ calling, there were quite a few who were given it.

Paul, Mattias…you know, those guys? Paul is the classic prophet/apostle; never having met Christ in life, he received revelation and was sent to be taught–and was called to be an apostle.

Rather like the guys we have doing that now.

The thing that I have noted in a couple of my posts attempts to address this succession issue.
Plainly expressed it is this.
Jesus Christ gave the Apostles the Power to Bind and Loose, and what they Bound or Loosed on Earth was Bound or Loosed in Heaven -

I believe we agree on this point.

Now What did Jesus gove them authority to Bind and Loose - I believe the term is “Whatever” or as translated in the KJV, “Whatsoever”.
I see no limitations here.
Christ Promised the Holy Spirit to Guide the Apostles and the Church. The Apostles passed on their Authority to Men who just happened to be called “Bishops” instead of “Apostles” These direct successors to the Apostles lead the Church.
Thus was it bound on earth by the Apostles, and thus it is bound in Heaven by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The term may have changed, but the “Priesthood Authority” remained.

As to Paul being called directly and named “Apostle”, given the number of missionary journeys he went on the term Apostle fits perfectly well.
The only real difference between the term Apostle and missionary is that Apostle comes from the Greek and missionary comes from the Latin.

Also you will note that, when the Church at Antioch had disputes regarding the need to follow mosaic Law and dietary issues Paul did not “resolve” this by “revelation” but rather went to Jerusalem and the matter was discussed in the presence of many, including James - Both Apostle AND the first Bishop of Jerusalem and Peter - Apostle AND the first Bishop of Rome.

Peace
James

 

[PaulDupre]

So Paul, what your saying is that the part about bishoprik was not in the original scripture that was quoted.

So, that was added.

Your understanding was that Peter added that when he was quoting original scripture, is that right?

MEgus

Peter didn’t add to the psalm. He cited the psalm as a prophecy about Judas and used his authority to bind and loose to pronounce a judgement on Judas and to authorize his replacement as one of the twelve.

We Catholics see it this way: Jesus intended the church to start out with twelve bishops (signifying the twelve tribes of Israel) and then to expand the number of bishops as the church grew and established more churches (dioceses).

Paul