Mormon Christ "pretty close" to Christ of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman_Catholic_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TO THE OP:

Greetings!

If you look at it in the perspective of an LDS that quote makes complete sense.

When somebody says the Jesus of the Bible - they usually mean the Trinitarian view of Jesus because the Trinitarian churches “own” the doctrines in the Bible.

The LDS church do not hold to the Trinitarian view of Jesus, therefore, He is not exactly what “the Bible”, or more specifically, the Trinitarian translation of the Bible, says He is.

The LDS Church holds the Bible as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly - hence, we use the Book of Mormon as it’s companion to clarify the translation.

So, when a Mormon says, Mormon Christ “pretty close” to Christ of the Bible - he means that there is not much difference between the Trinitarian view and the Godhead.

It is a way to bring charity back to the churches to concentrate on the similarities instead of the differences between us to bring us closer to each other. Of course, there are just those that can’t do that.
 
twopekinguys said:
Unfortunately, you are missing one key element.

The Catholic church doesn’t have an official position on people who leave the Church, whereas the lds church does.

The lds consider anyone who leaves an apostate. Many mormon posters have said it themselves on these very forums.

Now, as far as Catholics shunning, individual members may do that, and it is wrong, but it is not church sanctioned. Unfortunately, mormonism has it in their own manuals.
Click to expand...
Show me an LDS manual that states - You must shun apostates.
 
twopekinguys said:
Unfortunately, you are missing one key element.

The Catholic church doesn’t have an official position on people who leave the Church, whereas the lds church does.

The lds consider anyone who leaves an apostate. Many mormon posters have said it themselves on these very forums.

One of the interview questions for mormons seeking a temple recommend asks if you associate with apostates. Answering yes to that question can very well effect the outcome of that interview, ultimately leading to that person not getting their recommend.

This is from the 1998 Church Handbook of instruction:

Members Whose Close Relatives Belong to Apostate Groups

Bishops and their counselors must take exceptional care when issuing recommends to members whose parents or other close relatives belong to or sympathize with apostate groups. Such members must demonstrate clearly that they repudiate these apostate religious teachings before they may be issued a recommend.

and

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members.

Now, as far as Catholics shunning, individual members may do that, and it is wrong, but it is not church sanctioned. Unfortunately, mormonism has it in their own manuals.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify this: Your post is correct except for the part about the Catholic Church not having an official position on people leaving the Church. The Church may consider such persons as schismatic (i.e. if they leave for the Orthodox Church), heretic, or apostate. All are serious sins when done with full knowledge.
 
pinay said:
Show me an LDS manual that states - You must shun apostates.
Click to expand...
LOL, typical diversion.

If you had read what I posted from the manual, you would see that it is pretty clear.

If a person in a temple recommend interview says they associate or sympathize with an apostate, do you think they are going to get it?

Come on now, you need to use a little bit of logic here don’t you think?
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
Just to clarify this: Your post is correct except for the part about the Catholic Church not having an official position on people leaving the Church. The Church may consider such persons as schismatic (i.e. if they leave for the Orthodox Church), heretic, or apostate. All are serious sins when done with full knowledge.
Click to expand...
Not quite right I’m afraid.

Assuming a person leaves the Catholic Church for the Othodox Church, they can still receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, in cases of necessity. A Catholic can also receive in an Orthodox church in cases of necessity, with the appropriate approvals.

We must also realize that Catholics believe that Orthodox have a valid Eucharist, and valid line of apostolic concession.

Code of canon Law 844 paragraph 3
 
twopekinguys said:
One of the interview questions for mormons seeking a temple recommend asks if you associate with apostates. Answering yes to that question can very well effect the outcome of that interview, ultimately leading to that person not getting their recommend.

This is from the 1998 Church Handbook of instruction:

Members Whose Close Relatives Belong to Apostate Groups

Bishops and their counselors must take exceptional care when issuing recommends to members whose parents or other close relatives belong to or sympathize with apostate groups. Such members must demonstrate clearly that they repudiate these apostate religious teachings before they may be issued a recommend.

and

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members.
Click to expand...
Hi twopekinguys,

The LDS Temple is a very sacred place. Not all LDS members can go there. In my ward, only 60% of the adult members have temple recommends.

The LDS Temple is where one receives higher ordinances. It’s not for the willy-nilly Mormon. It is for those who are living their lives in such a way for them to be ready for more ordinances. How can you receive a higher ordinance (for example - being sealed to your spouse) when you can’t even meet your baptismal covenants?

An apostate cannot and should not have a temple recommend. The interview is the only place that we can prevent that. Now, there are apostates that have entered the temple by lying on interviews. It is pretty easy for somebody who doesn’t really have faith in the gospel to not have a stirring of conscience when they answer the interview questions. I can’t do it - it’s just like a Catholic lying to a Catholic priest during confession - it’s a very difficult thing to do. So, the bishops and stake presidents (who sign the recommend) are taught to prepare themselves for interviews by getting to know each LDS member of their ward individually. My family is Catholic. It’s something that my bishop asks me about on my interviews - because he knows I go to Catholic mass with my family sometimes. He needs to make sure I still sustain the restored gospel. Nothing in the manual, the interview, or anything of the sort tells me I cannot go with my family to Catholic mass as long as I don’t partake in the Catholic sacraments.

Least of all, nowhere in any of that does it say - apostates are shunned. NOWHERE. If a member of the LDS church cannot even get a temple recommend, how much more for apostates.
 
twopekinguys said:
Not quite right I’m afraid.

Assuming a person leaves the Catholic Church for the Othodox Church, they can still receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, in cases of necessity. A Catholic can also receive in an Orthodox church in cases of necessity, with the appropriate approvals.

We must also realize that Catholics believe that Orthodox have a valid Eucharist, and valid line of apostolic concession.
Click to expand...
Of course that is all correct, however a Catholic leaving for the Orthodox Church is still committing the sin of schism, since they are leaving the unity of the Bishop of Rome (“refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” CCC 2089). The Orthodox Church is in schism from the Catholic Church, however it (as well as the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, and the PNCC if I remember correctly) still maintains apostolic succession, and therefore has valid orders and sacraments. and the Catholic Church allows intercommunion under certain circumstances.

Anyway, my point was that the Catholic Church does have official positions regarding Catholics that leave the Church. What we don’t have is any sort of official “shunning”, whether implicit or explicit.
 
twopekinguys said:
LOL, typical diversion.

If you had read what I posted from the manual, you would see that it is pretty clear.

If a person in a temple recommend interview says they associate or sympathize with an apostate, do you think they are going to get it?

Come on now, you need to use a little bit of logic here don’t you think?
Click to expand...
If a person in a temple recommend interview says they associate or sympathize with an apostate, do you think they are going to get it?*

Yes. I got a temple recommend and I associate and sympathize with Catholics. My entire family is Catholic and it is not a secret in the Mormon community that I still love the Catholic Church even if I do believe it is apostate.

Come on now, you need to use a little bit of logic here don’t you think?

I have. I was hoping you would too.
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
Anyway, my point was that the Catholic Church does have official positions regarding Catholics that leave the Church. What we don’t have is any sort of official “shunning”, whether implicit or explicit.
Click to expand...
Hi CatholicGuyNY,

Thank you for this post.

It is the same in the LDS Church. You don’t have to believe it, of course.

I don’t know of ANY Christian church that officially “shuns” those of other churches implicit or explicit. It is just not something in line with Christian principles.

What I see is uncharitable people using this “shunning” experience to tear down another church/person - whether it be a member of a church shunning people who leave the church or people who left a church shunning people from the old church, or anybody wanting to tear down another person or the other person’s church. It is a human thing, not a church thing.
 
pinay said:
Hi twopekinguys,

The LDS Temple is a very sacred place. Not all LDS members can go there. In my ward, only 60% of the adult members have temple recommends.

The LDS Temple is where one receives higher ordinances. It’s not for the willy-nilly Mormon. It is for those who are living their lives in such a way for them to be ready for more ordinances. How can you receive a higher ordinance (for example - being sealed to your spouse) when you can’t even meet your baptismal covenants?

An apostate cannot and should not have a temple recommend. The interview is the only place that we can prevent that. Now, there are apostates that have entered the temple by lying on interviews. It is pretty easy for somebody who doesn’t really have faith in the gospel to not have a stirring of conscience when they answer the interview questions. I can’t do it - it’s just like a Catholic lying to a Catholic priest during confession - it’s a very difficult thing to do. So, the bishops and stake presidents (who sign the recommend) are taught to prepare themselves for interviews by getting to know each LDS member of their ward individually. My family is Catholic. It’s something that my bishop asks me about on my interviews - because he knows I go to Catholic mass with my family sometimes. He needs to make sure I still sustain the restored gospel. Nothing in the manual, the interview, or anything of the sort tells me I cannot go with my family to Catholic mass as long as I don’t partake in the Catholic sacraments.

Least of all, nowhere in any of that does it say - apostates are shunned. NOWHERE. If a member of the LDS church cannot even get a temple recommend, how much more for apostates.
Click to expand...
You are confusing and combining several issues to the point that your posts aren’t very coherent.

I know what the temple is, and I know about the ceremonies. Personally, I don’t agree with anything that goes on there, but that is for another topic.

I also never said anything about apostates entering the temple, so I’m not sure why or how you got to that conclusion. 🤷

Let’s look at it this way, and maybe you will understand.

If you go for your recommend interview, and your bishop gets to the part about associating with apostates. You say, “Yes, I go to Mass, and I agree that Jesus is in the Eucharist”, do you think you are going to get your recommend? Of course you’re not. The bishop is going to tell you to quit doing it. He is going to tell you to quit associating (shun) those people who got you to do that.

or

You go for your interview, and when it comes to the apostate question, you say something like, “My neighbors have a Bible study, and some of their thoughts make sense”. He is going to tell you to stop going (shun) them.

So, as you see, if you want your recommend bad enough, you are going to stay away from those people and those situations. Therefore, it is shunning.

The lds don’t want you in a position to where you might believe something other than what they are feeding you.

I know the lds don’t mind if you go to another church’s service or Mass. I see missionaries at Mass quite frequently. Even converted a couple…😛

So, long story short, your bishop/church is telling you to shun people.

By the way, the dictionary shows the definition of “shun” as:

to keep away from (a place, person, object, etc.), from motives of dislike, caution, etc.; take pains to avoid.

See the connection? If not, I’m not sure anyone could ever explain it to you.
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
Of course that is all correct, however a Catholic leaving for the Orthodox Church is still committing the sin of schism, since they are leaving the unity of the Bishop of Rome (“refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” CCC 2089). The Orthodox Church is in schism from the Catholic Church, however it (as well as the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, and the PNCC if I remember correctly) still maintains apostolic succession, and therefore has valid orders and sacraments. and the Catholic Church allows intercommunion under certain circumstances.

Anyway, my point was that the Catholic Church does have official positions regarding Catholics that leave the Church. What we don’t have is any sort of official “shunning”, whether implicit or explicit.
Click to expand...
We are in agreement here, but we should also note that there is a difference between being “apostate”, and in “schism”.
 
pinay said:
Hi CatholicGuyNY,

Thank you for this post.

It is the same in the LDS Church. You don’t have to believe it, of course.

I don’t know of ANY Christian church that officially “shuns” those of other churches implicit or explicit. It is just not something in line with Christian principles.

What I see is uncharitable people using this “shunning” experience to tear down another church/person - whether it be a member of a church shunning people who leave the church or people who left a church shunning people from the old church, or anybody wanting to tear down another person or the other person’s church. It is a human thing, not a church thing.
Click to expand...
Facts and discussion are not “tearing down”.

Please dont’ start with the persecution card. It has been played over and over to the point of being boring.
 
pinay said:
Thank you for your prayers. I will pray for yours as well.
Click to expand...
Not necessary. The “pretty close” god you pray to can;t answer prayers. When you start praying to God of the Bible…the TRUE God, let me know
 
pinay said:
Hi twopekinguys,

The LDS Temple is a very sacred place.

No, it is very SECRET. Now, I know that you longer say that Satan bought the Popes, and I know you longer have your wives pledging obedience, and I know you longer make your disgusting and gruesome blood oaths (I guess the lds god changed his mind on all those) but it is still secret. And anyplace that does or did until 1990 all of those things is NOT of God
Click to expand...
 
SirThomasMore said:
Not necessary. The “pretty close” god you pray to can;t answer prayers. When you start praying to God of the Bible…the TRUE God, let me know
Click to expand...
I do, just to let you know.

Even if we don’t have the same understanding of exactly how he looks like doesn’t mean we have different Gods.

It’s like somebody saying, “the J F Kennedy I know is a liberal democrat” and another somebody says, “well, the J F Kennedy I know is more conservative than today’s moderate democrat”. They’re talking about the same J F Kennedy and follow the same “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” principle.

But, it’s okay, you don’t have to accept my prayers.
 
SirThomasMore said:
pinay;6755207:
Hi twopekinguys,

The LDS Temple is a very sacred place.

No, it is very SECRET. Now, I know that you longer say that Satan bought the Popes, and I know you longer have your wives pledging obedience, and I know you longer make your disgusting and gruesome blood oaths (I guess the lds god changed his mind on all those) but it is still secret. And anyplace that does or did until 1990 all of those things is NOT of God
Click to expand...
Okay. That’s fine.

I hope when you learn about Catholic history that you won’t treat it as badly as you treat the LDS church. If what you do to the LDS church on this forum is representative of what you feel is true Christianity, then I will tell you straight out, the Catholic church do not hold to that kind of behavior from its members.
Click to expand...
 
pinay said:
I do, just to let you know.

Even if we don’t have the same understanding of exactly how he looks like doesn’t mean we have different Gods.

It’s like somebody saying, “the J F Kennedy I know is a liberal democrat” and another somebody says, “well, the J F Kennedy I know is more conservative than today’s moderate democrat”. They’re talking about the same J F Kennedy and follow the same “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” principle.

But, it’s okay, you don’t have to accept my prayers.
Click to expand...
But isn’t it more than just “what he looks like”? It’s entirely different to say “JF Kennedy was a mortal human. He had a beginning and an end” with “JFK was an immortal lizard person, who never died, and now resides in his underground lizard kingdom”.

Its not the same JFK, or God, if their very NATURE, their very ESSENCE is different. In Jewish thought, a name is not merely an arbitrary designation, a random combination of sounds. The name conveys the nature and essence of the thing named. It represents the history and reputation of the being named.

We know from the Tetragammaton that God is defined by his very “being”. No other created being, you or I can claim that. God “is”, and always have been. We may have similar ideas about God’s loving nature, etc, but the vital differences between what God is, and what we humans are will never be reconciled.
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
Anyway, my point was that the Catholic Church does have official positions regarding Catholics that leave the Church. What we don’t have is any sort of official “shunning”, whether implicit or explicit.
Click to expand...
The mormon church teaches that those who see through the lies of mormonism:

“They experience darkness, ignorance, doubt, pain, sorrow, grief, mourning, unhappiness; no person to condole [lament] with in the hour of trouble, no arm to lean upon in the day of calamity, no eye to pity when they are forlorn and cast down; and I comprehend it by saying ** death, hell and the grave**. This is what they will get in exchange for their apostasy from the Gospel of the Son of God”

In essence, you teach that God shuns those who leave. I don’t know how you can get any more explicit than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top