Mormon Claims

[Kdesiel]

Jesus is not a man now? What do you mean? Do you mean that He does not retain His resurrected body? Catholicism teaches that Jesus was bodily resurrected and bodily ascended to Heaven, and He retains that body.

Also, Latter-day Saints do not believe that God the Father was once a sinful man. When Jesus came to this earth, He was not a sinful man. The same applies to the Father.

How can one become a “Joint Heir” with Christ, he being one without sin and perfect and us being with sin and imperfect?

If God the Father was once a man in the same regard as Christ was a man, did he also have a mission to perform, Chirst was to atone for the sins of mankind, to redeem them? If God the Father was once a man surely he also had a mission, correct?
Was he a redeemer as well? If so for whom?
Do you think this devalues the sacrifice Christ made at all?

 

[Caprica]

How can one become a “Joint Heir” with Christ, he being one without sin and perfect and us being with sin and imperfect?

Because the Bible tells us so:

Romans 8:16-17 (NAB)
16
The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17
and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.

You do realize that the Catechism also says that one can become a joint/co heir with Christ?

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.” The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts."

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

Among many others.

If God the Father was once a man in the same regard as Christ was a man, did he also have a mission to perform, Chirst was to atone for the sins of mankind, to redeem them? If God the Father was once a man surely he also had a mission, correct?
Was he a redeemer as well? If so for whom?
Do you think this devalues the sacrifice Christ made at all?

We do not know the specifics of this, as it has not been revealed.

I do not think that this devalues the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at all. Jesus Christ is the Savior for all of us. Whether or not the Father was a Savior in some other existence has no relevance or bearing on Christ being our Savior, and that it is only through Him that we are saved.

 

[DCNBILL]

Because the Bible tells us so:

Romans 8:16-17 (NAB)
16
The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17
and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.

You do realize that the Catechism also says that one can become a joint/co heir with Christ?

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.” The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts.”

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

Among many others.

We do not know the specifics of this, as it has not been revealed.

I do not think that this devalues the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at all. Jesus Christ is the Savior for all of us. Whether or not the Father was a Savior in some other existence has no relevance or bearing on Christ being our Savior, and that it is only through Him that we are saved.

Please note that this would be a huge problem for Christian believers. God is the creator of all, and nothing existed prior to His creating act.

 

[barnesms]

Uuh…the improper and illegal sexual activity I was referencing was not the result of plural marriage. I was and am talking about plain garden contemporary child molestation and other illegal sexual activity. Now…ongoing.
Now…lets suppose for a moment that every allegation against Catholic priests is true and that every accusation against LDS members is UNTRUE. This is not evidence for or against the truth of the Catholic Church. If every Catholic is a sinner and every Mormon is not… so?
Sometimes the truth can sound a little harsh. This is why it is hard to get down to the nitty gritty and sound conciliatory. I am not talking about how BAD anything is…I reject the Book of Mormon and the LDS religion…you don’t…ok fine.

I don’t question your rejection of the Book of Mormon; your membership in the Catholic Church is the result of study and prayer. I assume that you have the same respect for those who convert to the LDS Church. I believe that God has a plan for each of us and we are both on the path to return to him. Let him be the judge, but between us let us respect each others choice. Asking honest questions to understand the other. Sharing why you believe what you do and why you find them edifying is great. But stating the obvious or finding way to insult one another is not helpful. May we all be sources of God’s love. Does that make sense?

 

[barnesms]

How can one become a “Joint Heir” with Christ, he being one without sin and perfect and us being with sin and imperfect?

If God the Father was once a man in the same regard as Christ was a man, did he also have a mission to perform, Chirst was to atone for the sins of mankind, to redeem them? If God the Father was once a man surely he also had a mission, correct?
Was he a redeemer as well? If so for whom?
Do you think this devalues the sacrifice Christ made at all?

I do think that LDS interpretation of scripture can lead to some interesting positions. When Christ said in John 5:19 - “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” If this verse is carried to the extreme then Jesus would have done nothing that he had not already seen the Father do. The Son is even restricted from doing anything he hath not observed the Father do.

There is not a similar verse of scripture in any of the other books of scripture within the LDS Church. However, that does not detract from its truth or value. I have read some try to explain what it means, but I personally have never heard or read anywhere that it was taken to the extreme where God the Father served as a Savior during his eternity. It is not found in LDS Scripture, it is not doctrine of the LDS Church, nor has it ever been. What I know is that there is One Savior for all humanity; that there is only One God that Jesus prayed to and LDS pray to that same God. Everything pales in comparison to these truths and their full meaning.

 

[SirThomasMore]

SirThomasMore;6683306:

Deflect would not be an accurate description. The question is stupid and I demonstrate its stupidity by asking the same question in return. It turns to gall in your mouth because you are caught in the silliness of the question. Instead of swallowing you seek to spit it out. Better that you repent of such poor logic…I can only forgive a religion, but not a cult. That is so infantile it does not deserve a response. It has no logic, there is no merit, it does not deserve a response. Everyone calls everyone else a cult; it proves nothing.

Actually, it would be a deflection. I happen to agree that, the word cult, by definition, would apply to any religious group. But, instead of giving an answer like that, you deflect. I had nothing turn to gall in my mouth but your response. And yes, I spit it out.

 

[SirThomasMore]

What any true Christian wshould never accept is the notion that God was once a sinful man

 

[Kdesiel]

I do think that LDS interpretation of scripture can lead to some interesting positions. When Christ said in John 5:19 - “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” If this verse is carried to the extreme then Jesus would have done nothing that he had not already seen the Father do. The Son is even restricted from doing anything he hath not observed the Father do.

There is not a similar verse of scripture in any of the other books of scripture within the LDS Church. However, that does not detract from its truth or value. I have read some try to explain what it means, but I personally have never heard or read anywhere that it was taken to the extreme where God the Father served as a Savior during his eternity. It is not found in LDS Scripture, it is not doctrine of the LDS Church, nor has it ever been. What I know is that there is One Savior for all humanity; that there is only One God that Jesus prayed to and LDS pray to that same God. Everything pales in comparison to these truths and their full meaning.

That is an interesting view indeed. I’m going to have to go over John 5:19 and put some thought into it.

 

[Kdesiel]

What any true Christian wshould never accept is the notion that God was once a sinful man

I agree with this. The thought that God was once a sinful man would detract from his Godhood correct?
It would also give God a beginning would it not? A starting point?

 

[DCNBILL]

I agree with this. The thought that God was once a sinful man would detract from his Godhood correct?
It would also give God a beginning would it not? A starting point?

Not to mention bringing up the problem of who created God?

 

[Michael_Francis]

**
15 posts have been deleted for being off topic.

Remain on topic or expect the thread to be closed.
**

 

[why_me]

What any true Christian wshould never accept is the notion that God was once a sinful man

I think that it can be a comforting thought. Would it lessen your view of god if he were like us in experiencing life? Lets look at it this way: If god was once a man, he certainly knows what we are going through on this earth. And from my perspective, he would have great understanding of who I am as a human being.

And so, why shouldn’t christians accept the notion that god was once a man? Now of course, Jesus was once a man and catholics claim that he is god. What is the difference?

 

[SirThomasMore]

I think that it can be a comforting thought. Would it lessen your view of god if he were like us in experiencing life? Lets look at it this way: If god was once a man, he certainly knows what we are going through on this earth. And from my perspective, he would have great understanding of who I am as a human being.

And so, why shouldn’t christians accept the notion that god was once a man? Now of course, Jesus was once a man and catholics claim that he is god. What is the difference?

We do not claim that Jesus was sinful. He was man, yes, but not as man is

 

[Kdesiel]

I think that it can be a comforting thought. Would it lessen your view of god if he were like us in experiencing life? Lets look at it this way: If god was once a man, he certainly knows what we are going through on this earth. And from my perspective, he would have great understanding of who I am as a human being.

And so, why shouldn’t christians accept the notion that god was once a man? Now of course, Jesus was once a man and catholics claim that he is god. What is the difference?

The idea of God once being a man troubles me. Yes.
God knows me and understands me and what I experience in life because; 1. He’s God, he knows all. Simply put. I am in not position to question How he knows all. I accept he’s God.
2. He is my Creator. He knows me as well as he does because he created me.

To think he would have to go through life as a man in order to relate to his creations would suggest God is not all knowing, he doesn’t have a perfect knowledge of things.

Jesus was a Perfect man. He committed no sin. His purpose here was not to just live a life so he could relate or understand Humanity better, his was a higher calling of redeeming man kind.

“As man is God once was, as God is man may become.” denotes that God would have to be a “Man” in order to become “God”. Not a “Perfect Man” who became “God” but a Man. This denotes an everyday “Sinful” man such as you and I not a perfect man such as Christ.

 

[stormy99]

As we do each Sunday at Mass?

stormy

 

[evanfaust]

then my point is still valid. The verse he usus says HOW they will prophesy

no sack cloth. so it fails

You fail to understand the scripture! Sackcloth in this case is not literal, but very simbolic, Sackcloth meaning the call of repentance and that they were fasting.

Sackcloth was a coarse, dark cloth made of the hair of camels and goats. This cloth was made into rough garments for people to wear as a symbol of sorrow and mourning.

For example, what were some of the things the people of Nineveh did to help them repent? (They believed Jonah, they fasted and prayed in sackcloth and ashes, and they turned from their evil ways)

What did the people and the animals wear while they were fasting? (Sackcloth)

 

[evanfaust]

I agree with this. The thought that God was once a sinful man would detract from his Godhood correct?
It would also give God a beginning would it not? A starting point?

Jesus was a God before coming to this world, he walked as a man and felt all that which we humans feel…and yet He did not have a beginning. His physical body had a beginning, HIs spirit had a beginning, but His essence or Inteligence (Light and Truth) always existed. The same applies to us…we always existed, we are co-eternal with God.

 

[evanfaust]

But it still doesn’t support the appointing of prophets in the manner of the LDS. It says two will prophesy, but nothing about a chain of “prophets” appointed by a group of men who lived their whole lives in the cloister of mormonism. Nor do your apostles in anyway meet the criteria of Matthias or the calling of Paul.

According to Catholics and Protestants the “cannon of scriptures” have been closed and the there is no more need for new revelation or prophets after the Biblical time. This scripture in Revelation clearly invalidates that argument. The point of chapter 11 is to mention those two prophets and the calling for repentance and what will happen to them, after being rejected. These two prophets can be two Seventies, two apostles, two representatives of the first presidency or even two missionaries.

Does Paul meet the criteria to be an Apostle? How about Barnabas, or the James the Lord’s brother? You might be misunderstanding the calling of an Apostle.

 

[evanfaust]

“As man is God once was, as God is man may become.” denotes that God would have to be a “Man” in order to become “God”. Not a “Perfect Man” who became “God” but a Man. This denotes an everyday “Sinful” man such as you and I not a perfect man such as Christ.

First of all, this is not official doctrine of the LDS Church and it has never been as stated by someone here before. If it is not in the Standard Works (Scriptures) it is not considered official. We have no revelation given to any prophet as this statement being scripture. Therefore, this is speculation! But this speculation makes sense, for this reason some prophets mentioned it.

As for the word “man”…Christ Himself said it…

“It is also written in your law, that the testimony of **two men **is true. **I am **one that bear witness of myself, and **the Father **that sent me beareth witness of me.” John 8:17-18

 

[SirThomasMore]

You fail to understand the scripture! Sackcloth in this case is not literal, but very simbolic, Sackcloth meaning the call of repentance and that they were fasting.

Sackcloth was a coarse, dark cloth made of the hair of camels and goats. This cloth was made into rough garments for people to wear as a symbol of sorrow and mourning.

For example, what were some of the things the people of Nineveh did to help them repent? (They believed Jonah, they fasted and prayed in sackcloth and ashes, and they turned from their evil ways)

What did the people and the animals wear while they were fasting? (Sackcloth)

That seems to be so typical of the LDS Doctrine. Take as fact what you need to support your belief, than take as symbolic that which hurts your belief.

There must be prophesy because it says there will be two prophets, yet the rest of the phrase is symbolic because it says sackcloth.

The LDS Church makes it living off of picking and choosing what verses to accept in the Bible. Picking and chossing what outlandish comments your "prophets’ have made, and pickiung and choosing what you consider real and what you consider symbolic