Mormon straw men

  • Thread starter Thread starter teancum79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I got that part. So, they ignore the heaven that birds fly in, and count three other heavens… and it seems that the only true “hell” is the “outer darkness” or something like that. So there appears to be 4 states/places total for the end.

The description Zerinus gave me earlier was a bit misleading…

JSjr also seems to overlook that in the book of Revelation, John was granted superhuman power to “hear” all of creation. And it is quite odd, that in preaching to the dead that Jesus just didn’t turn all of their “ears” on to hear him – so he had to say the message only once for all. After all he had to preach to at least the justified so they could know his message – the speaking in tongues miracle at Pentecost shows that God knows how to do that kind of thing for big crowds even with language barrier problems.
The incident doesn’t say the apostles “spoke” all these different tongues, just that everyone heard them in their own tongue.

How much of a gospel did he have to preach to them for the preaching to be sufficient in LDS thinking?

Not to mention that the only LDS I talked to mentioned that St. John was never to die, and I think 4 others in the Americas — but they all disappeared from the tangible earth. Are we to understand he imagined them Translated into the Celestial kingdom?

That is exactly the kind of thing which would be interesting to talk about, in addition to obvious biblical clashes. Do you recall where this might be stated, in D&C or someplace else?

ibid.
Yes, they “…] ignore the heavens that birds fly in.” The 3 heavens are in referrence to 3 specific partitions of heaven. The most devout of LDS go to the “highest glory” AKA the Celestial Kingdom, Those who lead decent lives but never completed the most “basic” of LDS ordinances (including a Temple marriage) gain the second degree of glory AKA the Terrestrial Kingdom. Those who lead evil lives gained the Telestial Kingdom (3rd Heaven) and those who flat out denied Jesus in front of his face (this is of course “Jesus” in the LDS standard) went to “Hell” AKA Outer Darkness.

Yes, indeed, there were 3 (not 4) others BESIDES St. John who “never tasted death” (in LDS theology). These other 3 were all Nephites.

Essentially, as you seem to point out, these 3 (plus St. John) never tasted death, however they have yet to resurrect or be “exalted”. These 4 individuals in LDS theology are STILL roaming the earth and making converts of the LDS gospel as mortal men.

Growing up LDS I understood all of this to be the evidence of a just and merciful God. “God wouldn’t damn a segment of his creation based solely on geographical location or cultural upbringing” so it seemed only logical that God would extend something like “Temple Baptisms” to those that have pased on without having had the oportunity to hear and accept the Gospel.

However understanding the concept of “Baptism of desire” really makes all that’s done inside an LDS Temple (as far as post-human salvific ordinances) utterly moot.
 
Another reason I ask is that – since time is explicitly mentioned by JSjr, – the spirit world is temporal as well in his view – so is the spirit world all on the same clock so to speak for the LDS 1hour there = 1hour here? that kind of thing.

Since you mention three days, is that then all the time he had in the spirit world too? (I think you see what I would like to pin down).
I assume there must be some kind of “time correlation” between what happens here in this world and what takes place in the spirit world. What appeared to us as three days, could not have appeared to them as three years, for example.

zerinus
 
I guess this would lead you to believe that John the Baptist, Moroni, et. al. have all been judged and are among the few currently in the Celestial Kingdom (though if my memory serves me correctly, THIS would contradict the LDS doctrine that only God the Father, and Jesus are currently in heaven, everyone else is in the Spirit World).
This is more of one of those IMPLIED beliefs rather than explicity stated ones. It is well-understood in LDS theology that “theosis” is taken to mean something VERY literal. In LDS theology, gaining access to the Celestial kingdom means that you will “be just like God”. It is taught that Jesus wasn’t “divine” until he was “exalted” BY VIRTUE OF his resurrection. (Therefore the LDS do not even believe in the same NATURE of Jesus as Catholics or any other practitioner of Christianity does).

Exaltation = theosis.

So, it would follow that since we only worship Jesus and his Father in Heaven, only these two individuals reside in the Celestial kingdom.
 
That illustrates my point very well. That didn’t mean that the Ethiopian shouldn’t have been reading the Bible at all. If he hadn’t been reading his Bible, he wouldn’t have known what was said to be able to ask intelligent questions about them. If you read the LDS scriptures I had told you, there may be passages in them that will not be clear on the first reading; but there will be many more passages that will be clear, and you will learn a lot from them. The bits that are not clear at first will become clear as you read along, or as you ask questions later.

They may appear like searching questions to you, but may not be very intelligent questions if you haven’t familiarized yourself with the original materials in the first place.
Zerinus, with all due respect:
The dark skinned Ethiopian, hot in the sun – going along in his chariot, had not read the new testament or ANY scripture relating to Jesus – He had a single SCROLL that of Isaiah.
With all due respect how does this prove your point?

In our conversation, I can’t hear you speak – but the construction of your sentences conveys a “superiority complex” which isn’t helping you convey the book of Mormon or any other book.
I think it illustrates my point that even though the Ethiopian had not read the “Newer” Gospel of Jesus Christ – that he had enough familiarity with the hidden testament that he was more than prepared to have an intelligent conversation about the true fulfillment of those OT scriptures.
The heaven that the scriptures talk about is the heaven that God and the immortal angels dwell, not the one in which mortal birds fly.
And I have quoted a scripture which talks about the heaven birds do fly in – which the LDS tend to ignore. Demonstration in the very light of accusation proves the point quite well!
Your sentences appear a bit confused, and I am not quite sure I have understood your question. But as far as I can understand the question, the reason why Jesus did not manifest Himself to all the dead in the spirit world was not just because He didn’t have the time to; but because they had been sinners, and therefore unworthy of His presence. Therefore Jesus appointed the righteous spirits whom He had appeared to and instructed, to go and preach to those whom He had not personally visited because of their unwothiness.
Really, my sentences are confused – How old are you?
Has anyone taught you about the value of politeness?

The D&C quoted actually SAYS that there was not enough time…
And, yet, while Jesus walked the earth he came for sinners – and during this time he knew LAZARUS and many others who well could have taught ANY gospel, and who clearly saw Fr. Abraham and the spirits in prison – or else do the ones Jesus weeps over go to the outer darkness? – so there would have been no need for Jesus to go there in the first place if he weren’t going to personally preach at least “You’re FREE”
Your guess would be as good as mine; but I would say they ran into billions, not millions.
zerinus
Why do you mention millions if you don’t think that was the number?

I am very familiar with the OT and NT scriptures, and any additions to these scriptures would naturally extend what these scriptures say in at least a consistent way. I think you need to read my questions more carefully, and grasp they are not as shallow as you tend to think – but don’t expect me to “give you all my thoughts” so that you may weave a fairy tale about them.
I expect an apologist to at least think about where the other is coming from before making smart remarks.

I have to see my wife now, I’ll discuss later when I get the chance.
 
This is more of one of those IMPLIED beliefs rather than explicity stated ones. It is well-understood in LDS theology that “theosis” is taken to mean something VERY literal. In LDS theology, gaining access to the Celestial kingdom means that you will “be just like God”. It is taught that Jesus wasn’t “divine” until he was “exalted” BY VIRTUE OF his resurrection. (Therefore the LDS do not even believe in the same NATURE of Jesus as Catholics or any other practitioner of Christianity does).

Exaltation = theosis.

So, it would follow that since we only worship Jesus and his Father in Heaven, only these two individuals reside in the Celestial kingdom.
On the off chance you’re still around and interested in this thread…

The Eastern orthodox talk about “theosis” as a continual process in the afterlife – focusing more on this aspect than on the total fulfillment of being in God’s presence. When you say, “literal”, how do you mean that? With respect to the Eastern Orthodox, I had to ask what was the difference between infinte becoming like God – and being God. They don’t think it ever ends, but at the same time – they don’t seem to understand that it can’t really be “infinite” growth.

With respect to the LDS, does this mean that the logical conlusion is a “literal” becoming God?
 


Zerinus, with all due respect:
The dark skinned Ethiopian, hot in the sun – going along in his chariot, had not read the new testament or ANY scripture relating to Jesus – He had a single SCROLL that of Isaiah.
With all due respect how does this prove your point?
And to be perfectly clear of the appropriateness of the scripture I cited:
Jerim 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil
Is there no response at all?

If there was a mere slip of the tounge, or somethig out of context – I am happy to set it aside for further conversation – as no one is perfect at what they say, and I do not condemn perople where misunderstanding is possibly involved.

I am not here for a shallow discussion.
 
On the off chance you’re still around and interested in this thread…

The Eastern orthodox talk about “theosis” as a continual process in the afterlife – focusing more on this aspect than on the total fulfillment of being in God’s presence. When you say, “literal”, how do you mean that? With respect to the Eastern Orthodox, I had to ask what was the difference between infinte becoming like God – and being God. They don’t think it ever ends, but at the same time – they don’t seem to understand that it can’t really be “infinite” growth.

With respect to the LDS, does this mean that the logical conlusion is a “literal” becoming God?
Sorry, I really ought not use the term “theosis” as to not cause confusion.

“Theosis” is the term the LDS use, however to a Catholic/Orthodox ear, a better term would probably be “deification” or even “apotheosis”.

In Mormonism, one is in all literal senses transformed into A god when he is exalted (goes to the celestial kingdom).

This doctrine is held against GOD as well.

President Lorenzo Snow (a prophet in the LDS faith) said at a General Conference “As man is God once was. As God is man may become.”

This is what I meant by the heresy (that God has not infinitely been God. He aspired to godhood, and in Mormonism we can theoretically do the same).
 
Sorry, I really ought not use the term “theosis” as to not cause confusion.

“Theosis” is the term the LDS use, however to a Catholic/Orthodox ear, a better term would probably be “deification” or even “apotheosis”.

In Mormonism, one is in all literal senses transformed into A god when he is exalted (goes to the celestial kingdom).

This doctrine is held against GOD as well.

President Lorenzo Snow (a prophet in the LDS faith) said at a General Conference “As man is God once was. As God is man may become.”

This is what I meant by the heresy (that God has not infinitely been God. He aspired to godhood, and in Mormonism we can theoretically do the same).
Wow. I didn’t see that one going – apo-theosis. literally: away from (result) of theosis or the extreme of theosis. Yeah, I guess it fits – though of course as you point out the Orthodox don’t actually believe theosis means becoming God as the LDS appear to do.

No offense, and I can see a rather sharp tool is in the shed!
But, you, as an ex-mormon, and with respect to how I would think about the sayings of an ex-Catholic – carry both a certain credibility, and a certain stigma.
I don’t want to reject people on the mere ground that someone who left their faith has an axe to grind (which as a Catholic I would see as valid in your case – but to be fair, so far the only thing really upsetting me about the non-ex-Mormons is that they seem to reject me out of hand without really considering what I have asked.)
This gives me a bad feeling because I don’t know why they treat me like an imbecile instead of just asking questions of me – although perhaps it is a bad day – and honest folk will continue a conversation when they understand the other really means them no harm.

So, If there are others who are Mormon (not ex-Mormon) who would like to correct anything – please do – I’m not one to be hypocritical if I can possibly avoid it.
 
Wow. I didn’t see that one going – apo-theosis. literally: away from (result) of theosis or the extreme of theosis. Yeah, I guess it fits – though of course as you point out the Orthodox don’t actually believe theosis means becoming God as the LDS appear to do.

No offense, and I can see a rather sharp tool is in the shed!
But, you, as an ex-mormon, and with respect to how I would think about the sayings of an ex-Catholic – carry both a certain credibility, and a certain stigma.
I don’t want to reject people on the mere ground that someone who left their faith has an axe to grind (which as a Catholic I would see as valid in your case – but to be fair, so far the only thing really upsetting me about the non-ex-Mormons is that they seem to reject me out of hand without really considering what I have asked.)
This gives me a bad feeling because I don’t know why they treat me like an imbecile instead of just asking questions of me – although perhaps it is a bad day – and honest folk will continue a conversation when they understand the other really means them no harm.

So, If there are others who are Mormon (not ex-Mormon) who would like to correct anything – please do – I’m not one to be hypocritical if I can possibly avoid it.
Indeed, if I have erred in any of the aformentioned I pray that an active Latter Day Saint correct me. I would hate to bear false witness.
 
As a final note , for now –

It took Fr. Serpa this long to reply – and he doesn’t have the time to fix the issue (and probably won’t soon). So I will just forward the PM about the CA article to the forum moderator – and hope it doesn’t die there – if it does, I guess there will have to be enough Mormons making a stink to get the right person’s attention about the shallow article …

😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top