Mormon Doctrine that has changed

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TruthLiving said:
According to my Mormon friends, if anyone chooses to not believe in the Book of Mormon, that is their choice.
Click to expand...
We choose not to believe in it, so why are you trying to convince us that it’s true? Are you proselytizing for the LDS on CAF? You do know that’s against the rules, right?
TruthLiving said:
The church of the devil statement is false about Catholicism.
Click to expand...
It’s a false belief, yet in the past, it was openly taught by LDS to be true. We have no way of knowing what’s really taught by them, behind closed doors, now.
TruthLiving said:
The degrees of glory continue to misunderstood.
Click to expand...
Misunderstood by Mormons, yes."Characteristics of the risen body

All shall rise from the dead in their own, in their entire, and in immortal bodies; but the good shall rise to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the resurrection of Judgment. It would destroy the very idea of resurrection, if the dead were to rise in bodies not their own. Again, the resurrection, like the creation, is to be numbered amongst the principal works of God; hence, as at the creation all things are perfect from the hand of God, so at the resurrection all things must be perfectly restored by the same omnipotent hand. But there is a difference between the earthly and the risen body; for the risen bodies of both saints and sinners shall be invested with immortality. This admirable restoration of nature is the result of the glorious triumph of Christ over death as described in several texts of Sacred Scripture: Isaiah 25:8; Osee, xiii, 14; 1 Corinthians 15:26; Apocalypse 2:4. But while the just shall enjoy an endless felicity in the entirety of their restored members, the wicked “shall seek death, and shall not find it, shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them” (Revelation 9:6).

These three characteristics, identity, entirety, and immortality, will be common to the risen bodies of the just and the wicked. But the bodies of the saints shall be distinguished by four transcendent endowments, often called qualities.
  • The first is “impassibility”, which shall place them beyond the reach of pain and inconvenience. “It is sown”, says the Apostle, “in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15:42). The Schoolmen call this quality impassibility’, not incorruption, so as to mark it as a peculiarity of the glorified body; the bodies of the damned will be incorruptible indeed, but not impassible; they shall be subject to heat and cold, and all manner of pain.
  • The next quality is “brightness”, or “glory”, by which the bodies of the saints shall shine like the sun. “It is sown in dishonour,” says the Apostle, “it shall rise in glory” (1 Corinthians 15:43; cf. Matthew 13:43; 17:2; Philippians 3:21). All the bodies of the saints shall be equally impassible, but they shall be endowed with different degrees of glory. According to St. Paul: “One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory”’(1 Corinthians 15:41-42).
  • The third quality is that of “agility”, by which the body shall be freed from its slowness of motion, and endowed with the capability of moving with the utmost facility and quickness wherever the soul pleases. The Apostle says: “It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power” (1 Corinthians 15:43).
  • The fourth quality is “subtility”, by which the body becomes subject to the absolute dominion of the soul. This is inferred from the words of the Apostle: “It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:44). The body participates in the soul’s more perfect and spiritual life to such an extent that it becomes itself like a spirit. We see this quality exemplified in the fact that Christ passed through material objects."
    Even though the righteous will all be together in the same Heavenly abode, some will achieve a higher degree of glory than others, according to their personal sanctity. All holy people are individuals, with different levels of holiness, which will result in their own level of glory. So, some of them will ‘shine’ more brightly than others.
TruthLiving said:
The pre existance continues to be misunderstood — all of this according to my Mormon friends, regardless of where Joseph Smith ranked.
Click to expand...
Misunderstood by Christians because it’s a fabrication, made up by Joseph Smith.
TruthLiving said:
I have not identified what faith I have so you can drop the “I am LDS” bit. I believe in Christ.
Click to expand...
That’s what LDS claim, also. But, even the devil believes in Christ, so that’s not really a very convincing statement of your beliefs. The real question is whether or not you follow Jesus as He taught us to follow Him.
TruthLiving said:
Regardless of what anyone believes, why do some feel it is their obligation to convince others to not believe what others choose to believe??? Is freedom of religion under assault?
Click to expand...
It’s our obligation as Catholics to speak the Truth of Jesus Christ and oppose all heresies, as someone already stated. This is a Catholic forum (though it’s not run by the Church) where anyone is free to express their opinions and beliefs, or ask questions. But, they should also expect to have Catholics disagree, and show them their errors. The purpose of this section of the forum is to discuss our differences, and for Catholics to speak the truth about what Jesus really taught. If people can’t accept that fact, then they’re on the wrong forum. In the end, everyone is still free to believe whatever they choose.
 
Telstar said:
We choose not to believe in it, so why are you trying to convince us that it’s true? Are you proselytizing for the LDS on CAF? You do know that’s against the rules, right?

It’s a false belief, yet in the past, it was openly taught by LDS to be true. We have no way of knowing what’s really taught by them, behind closed doors, now.

Misunderstood by Mormons, yes."Characteristics of the risen body

All shall rise from the dead in their own, in their entire, and in immortal bodies; but the good shall rise to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the resurrection of Judgment. It would destroy the very idea of resurrection, if the dead were to rise in bodies not their own. Again, the resurrection, like the creation, is to be numbered amongst the principal works of God; hence, as at the creation all things are perfect from the hand of God, so at the resurrection all things must be perfectly restored by the same omnipotent hand. But there is a difference between the earthly and the risen body; for the risen bodies of both saints and sinners shall be invested with immortality. This admirable restoration of nature is the result of the glorious triumph of Christ over death as described in several texts of Sacred Scripture: Isaiah 25:8; Osee, xiii, 14; 1 Corinthians 15:26; Apocalypse 2:4. But while the just shall enjoy an endless felicity in the entirety of their restored members, the wicked “shall seek death, and shall not find it, shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them” (Revelation 9:6).

These three characteristics, identity, entirety, and immortality, will be common to the risen bodies of the just and the wicked. But the bodies of the saints shall be distinguished by four transcendent endowments, often called qualities.
  • The first is “impassibility”, which shall place them beyond the reach of pain and inconvenience. “It is sown”, says the Apostle, “in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15:42). The Schoolmen call this quality impassibility’, not incorruption, so as to mark it as a peculiarity of the glorified body; the bodies of the damned will be incorruptible indeed, but not impassible; they shall be subject to heat and cold, and all manner of pain.
  • The next quality is “brightness”, or “glory”, by which the bodies of the saints shall shine like the sun. “It is sown in dishonour,” says the Apostle, “it shall rise in glory” (1 Corinthians 15:43; cf. Matthew 13:43; 17:2; Philippians 3:21). All the bodies of the saints shall be equally impassible, but they shall be endowed with different degrees of glory. According to St. Paul: “One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory”’(1 Corinthians 15:41-42).
  • The third quality is that of “agility”, by which the body shall be freed from its slowness of motion, and endowed with the capability of moving with the utmost facility and quickness wherever the soul pleases. The Apostle says: “It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power” (1 Corinthians 15:43).
  • The fourth quality is “subtility”, by which the body becomes subject to the absolute dominion of the soul. This is inferred from the words of the Apostle: “It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:44). The body participates in the soul’s more perfect and spiritual life to such an extent that it becomes itself like a spirit. We see this quality exemplified in the fact that Christ passed through material objects."
    Even though the righteous will all be together in the same Heavenly abode, some will achieve a higher degree of glory than others, according to their personal sanctity. All holy people are individuals, with different levels of holiness, which will result in their own level of glory. So, some of them will ‘shine’ more brightly than others.
Misunderstood by Christians because it’s a fabrication, made up by Joseph Smith.

That’s what LDS claim, also. But, even the devil believes in Christ, so that’s not really a very convincing statement of your beliefs. The real question is whether or not you follow Jesus as He taught us to follow Him.

It’s our obligation as Catholics to speak the Truth of Jesus Christ and oppose all heresies, as someone already stated. This is a Catholic forum (though it’s not run by the Church) where anyone is free to express their opinions and beliefs, or ask questions. But, they should also expect to have Catholics disagree, and show them their errors. The purpose of this section of the forum is to discuss our differences, and for Catholics to speak the truth about what Jesus really taught. If people can’t accept that fact, then they’re on the wrong forum. In the end, everyone is still free to believe whatever they choose.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in LDS doctrine that states that the church of the devil is Catholicism — not officially at all, in the Book of Mormon.

Now, if individual Mormons wish to state that, that is their opinion only — it has never been the doctrine of the LDS church officially.
 
TruthLiving said:
There is nothing in LDS doctrine that states that the church of the devil is Catholicism — not officially at all, in the Book of Mormon.

Now, if individual Mormons wish to state that, that is their opinion only — it has never been the doctrine of the LDS church officially.
Click to expand...
Yes…it has. And still is (only they do not make it obvious any more.

I should know better than you. I was LDS…All you have is LDS friends…right?
 
TruthLiving said:
There is nothing in LDS doctrine that states that the church of the devil is Catholicism — not officially at all, in the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...
You realize of course that the book of mormon is not the only thing they consider scripture right? Of course you do, or is that what your “mormon friends” have told you.
TruthLiving said:
Now, if individual Mormons wish to state that, that is their opinion only — it has never been the doctrine of the LDS church officially.
Click to expand...
Is that what your “mormon friends” keep telling you? I’m afraid I have to go with what former mormons tell us as a direct result of their involvement, as opposed to your “mormon friends”.

I’m just sayin…
 
TruthLiving said:
There is nothing in LDS doctrine that states that the church of the devil is Catholicism — not officially at all, in the Book of Mormon.

Now, if individual Mormons wish to state that, that is their opinion only — it has never been the doctrine of the LDS church officially.
Click to expand...
Is that you, Tony? :hmmm:

Most of the LDS beliefs listed in the D&C are not ‘officially’ found anywhere in the BoM, either. In fact, many of them completely contradict what’s written in the BoM, and the Bible. Does that mean they’re not believed or taught by the church? Nope. And, even though the church has tried to expunge all records of them previously teaching it, from their official website and all other sources, the fact remains that it was clearly expressed by many of their leaders, even at General Conference, from the very beginning.

You really should take off that mask. We all know that you’re either Mormon, now, or you’re a new recruit, working your way up to your baptism in the temple. It’s not really that hard to figure out that you have some kind of ‘stake’ in this argument. 😉
 
TexanKnight said:
Yes…it has. And still is (only they do not make it obvious any more.

I should know better than you. I was LDS…All you have is LDS friends…right?
Click to expand...
You have the choice to believe that — I am not trying to change your choice to believe that — officially it is not correct.

For your info — I have lots of friends, including Catholics (who are not members of the forums), non religious friends, as well as Mormons.
 
TruthLiving said:
You have the choice to believe that — I am not trying to change your choice to believe that — officially it is not correct.

For your info — I have lots of friends, including Catholics (who are not members of the forums), non religious friends, as well as Mormons.
Click to expand...
So that whole temple ritual involving a Catholic priest as being an “agent of satan” is all bunk then?
 
theidler said:
So that whole temple ritual involving a Catholic priest as being an “agent of satan” is all bunk then?
Click to expand...
I dont expect TrueLiving would know what you are talking about. I doubt their friends are old enough to have seen that version of the film.

That said, I am and it’s a fair statement that to say it was specifically a Catholic priest can be argued against. It could have been a more generic pastor who happens to wear a collar, which would include Anglican etc etc.
 
theidler said:
So that whole temple ritual involving a Catholic priest as being an “agent of satan” is all bunk then?
Click to expand...
Officially the LDS church has said that? No!!!

No wonder why my Mormon friends have to set the record straight regularly, when they have friends asking questions about the church — then have to give a appropriate response to the temple and a Catholic priest being a agent of Satan??? Where does this stuff come from?

Of course they do not give a response to such at all.
 
Here is something i find interesting about doctrine changing, when it pertains to birth control.

From lds.org:

“Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife.”

From lds-mormon.com:

“It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many chldren to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord.”

Notice on the quote from lds.org, that the Lord is now left out of the decision. The second quote actually comes from the 1998 version of the church handbook of instruction.

What I also find interesting is how birth defects play into all of this. Birth control, and abortion. There is that little loophole about birth defects.

“Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by.”
(First Presidency {David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner} Letter to presidents of stakes, bishops of wards, and presidents of missions, 14 April 1969)

I believe it was Parker, as well as a couple of lds posters (who are no longer with us), that have said abortion in the face of serious birth defects was allowed.

How sad.

Sources used:
lds-mormon.com/birth.shtml
lds.org/study/topics/birth-control?lang=eng&query=birth+control
 
TruthLiving said:
then have to give a appropriate response to the temple and a Catholic priest being a agent of Satan??? Where does this stuff come from?

.
Click to expand...
1969 version of the temple film (with Gordon Jump) has a minister who is shown to be an unwitting agent of Satan.

That is where it comes from.

Of course your friends would not know this. That version has long since gone and been replaced by the 1990 version.

Clearly I know more about Mormonism than you do. And more than your friends, as well.

imdb.com/title/tt0064697/
 
twopekinguys said:
Here is something i find interesting about doctrine changing, when it pertains to birth control.

From lds.org:

“Children are one of the greatest blessings in life, and their birth into loving and nurturing families is central to God’s purposes for humanity. When husband and wife are physically able, they have the privilege and responsibility to bring children into the world and to nurture them. The decision of how many children to have and when to have them is a private matter for the husband and wife.”

From lds-mormon.com:

“It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many chldren to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord.”

Notice on the quote from lds.org, that the Lord is now left out of the decision. The second quote actually comes from the 1998 version of the church handbook of instruction.

What I also find interesting is how birth defects play into all of this. Birth control, and abortion. There is that little loophole about birth defects.

“Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by.”
(First Presidency {David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner} Letter to presidents of stakes, bishops of wards, and presidents of missions, 14 April 1969)

I believe it was Parker, as well as a couple of lds posters (who are no longer with us), that have said abortion in the face of serious birth defects was allowed.

How sad.

Sources used:
lds-mormon.com/birth.shtml
lds.org/study/topics/birth-control?lang=eng&query=birth+control
Click to expand...
LDS-mormon is not official LDS site — it is the views of those who have put it on the web.

Any statements from the Handbook of Instructions are restricted — further since it has gotten into the hands of those who have put it on the web, without the official LDS church’s permission, due to the copyright.
 
TruthLiving said:
Officially the LDS church has said that? No!!!

No wonder why my Mormon friends have to set the record straight regularly, when they have friends asking questions about the church — then have to give a appropriate response to the temple and a Catholic priest being a agent of Satan??? Where does this stuff come from?

Of course they do not give a response to such at all.
Click to expand...
A source is here: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6085
I would specifically quote this part of the article:
“My parents were always disturbed with two aspects of the ceremony. First, they disliked the ritual mocking of a Catholic priest or Protestant minister, portrayed as being paid money by Satan to preach the Bible to the world.”

So, TruthLiving, what happens then in the real ritual, if the above is not true or was not true in the past?
 
TruthLiving said:
LDS-mormon is not official LDS site — it is the views of those who have put it on the web.

Any statements from the Handbook of Instructions are restricted — further since it has gotten into the hands of those who have put it on the web, without the official LDS church’s permission, due to the copyright.
Click to expand...
I never said that lds-mormon was an official site. However, they do have quotes from official lds documents.

What does the handbook being “restricted” have to do with the validity of what is being taught?

For not being mormon, you sure know alot about what is restricted or not…hmmmmm

The fact remains that the church handbook of instruction teaches one thing, and the lds official website is teaching another.

As far as being restricted, or copyrighted, maybe you should check into what is called “fair use”.

ETA:
Let me help you out.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
Code: 
 1.   The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of   commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
 2.   The nature of the copyrighted work
 3.   The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
 4.   The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
 
theidler said:
A source is here: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6085
I would specifically quote this part of the article:

“My parents were always disturbed with two aspects of the ceremony. First, they disliked the ritual mocking of a Catholic priest or Protestant minister, portrayed as being paid money by Satan to preach the Bible to the world.”
Click to expand...
I can affirm that is what happened in the '69 version of the endowment ceremony. It was removed for the '90 version.

I have experienced both versions.
 
Marie5890 said:
I can affirm that is what happened in the '69 version of the endowment ceremony. It was removed for the '90 version.

I have experienced both versions.
Click to expand...
Two sources then - TruthLiving, what do you answer to these? Did you not know that this kind of thing took place?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top