Mormonism

[LivingWaters7]

Let’s break that down.

Do you believe that Christ died on the cross for our sins? Not suffered and died, but specifically died on the cross for our sins. Not suffered in Gethsemane for our sins, but through his death on the cross saved us from our sins?

Latter-day Saints believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ began in the Garden of Gethsemane and was completed on the Cross at Calvary. We do not separate the two events regarding His atoning sacrifice. He suffered and died for us, and both were important parts of His atonement, saving us from our sins.

AND do you believe that His death was sufficient in and of itself?

Christ’s atonement is the only way that we can receive eternal life.

 

[TexanKnight]

The doctrine of homoousios was not always taught. Indeed, the word had a different meaning and was used by Arians prior to appropriation at the Council of Nicaea (which, as I mentioned, is an interesting occurrence in light of comments on this thread about definitions.

The Trinity was always taught.when heresies came about, a council was held to clarify.

 

[triumphguy]

But is it sufficient? Or is it just a “logic gate?”

BTW Brigam Young doesn;t agree with you about the Cross.

 

[TexanKnight]

Latter-day Saints believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ began in the Garden of Gethsemane and was completed on the Cross at Calvary. We do not separate the two events regarding His atoning sacrifice. He suffered and died for us, and both were important parts of His atonement, saving us from our sins.

Christ’s atonement is the only way that we can receive eternal life.

The problem is, the Jesus they refer is NOT the true Jesus

 

[Anniejoe]

Yes, LivingWaters7, I know that your response referenced “ante-Nicene” beliefs. I was quoting from Kelly, the expert you cited. Kelly discusses “anti-Nicene”, that is beliefs in opposition to the Nicene formulations. His comments about views in opposition to the Nicene Creed in no way support your statement that most Christians did not believe in the Trinity.

May you someday come to know God as He is.

 

[triumphguy]

The problem is, the Jesus they refer is NOT the true Jesus

That’s right, and “Heavenly Father” is not the Ultimate God. We are all children of a “lesser god!”

This earthly Jesus is now on Kolob,

1. If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
   And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
   Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
   **Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?
2. Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend?
   Or view the last creation, **Where Gods and matter end?
   Me thinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,’
   Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place.”

 

[triumphguy]

For the record: I have no problem wth mormons believing anything. What irks me is when they pretend that their beliefs are the same as mine, and try and engage me in some kind of dialogue meant to convert me.

However, right from their website

The true doctrine of the Godhead was lost in the apostasy that followed the Savior’s mortal ministry and the deaths of His Apostles. This doctrine began to be restored when 14-year-old Joseph Smith received his First Vision (see Joseph Smith—History 1:17). From the Prophet’s account of the First Vision and from his other teachings, we know that the members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22). Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation.

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=29ec2f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

If they said: Catholic beliefs are anathema, and wrong, and your idea of Jesus is wrong, and then they honestly talked about their real beliefs I would have a lot more respect for them. I still wouldn’t convert, but I would respect the LDS more.

I’d love to use the local cannery for day though:thumbsup:

 

[Pepband_Mom]

No, it doesn’t mean that we just believe that He existed. It means that we accept who He said He was, that He is our divine Lord and Savior, and knowing that He died for our sins, and that through His atonement, we can be forgiven of our sins and receive eternal life. Having faith in Christ means that we follow His commandments and become His disciples.

#1
The LDS Lord and Savior is the SPIRIT ‘BROTHER OF SATAN" - Jesus had a “good” plan, Satan a “bad” plan & the “council of the gods” chose Jesus’ plan. So your “JESUS” is the “divine Lord and Savior” but your sect calls him brother of Satan do they not? Why aren’t your missionaries more up front about this?

#2
IF the Atonement of Christ was perfect, why the BLOOD OATHS IN THE TEMPLE CEREMONIES, thereby spilling your own (“atoning”) blood?

OATH #1 “We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so; we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots.”

OATH #3 “We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out.” They changed the last part now days to:
“Rather than do so I would suffer my life be taken.”

And that my friend is sacred???

When was it required for a CHRISTIAN DISCIPLE of CHRIST to swear a BLOOD OATH or that you suffer your “life be taken”? So who takes the life of the poor chap who spills the beans on the Tokens?:blackeye: That would seem to be against the COMMANDMENT “thou shalt not kill (murder).”

Anyone know if that has ever been accomplished or just a VAIN temple “oath”. If a vain temple oath, why is it there? (Joseph Smith did borrow it from the Masons)

FINALLY,
Your heaven is eternal sex between the new LDS god & the poor wife churning out “spirit” children. Doesn’t sound like ETERNAL REST to me, sounds like a NIGHTMARE. But wait! The NEW Testament says we “live like the Angels”. Hummmmm, so this “eternal marriage” thing is yet another contradiction of the Bible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The doctrine of homoousios was not always taught. Indeed, the word had a different meaning and was used by Arians prior to appropriation at the Council of Nicaea (which, as I mentioned, is an interesting occurrence in light of comments on this thread about definitions.

Homoousius is not a doctrine, it is a theological term used to describe the nature of God. It means “same essence”. The council didn’t pick a word and then decide a description of Jesus should match this word. The council used a word to describe Christian doctrine, in the context of Christian belief, and in defense of doctrine held at the time and still held today. Which is, Jesus Christ is God, not a lesser God, or a created God, or one of innumerable Gods. GOD.

It doesn’t matter how the term was, or is, used by anyone else, it is the context that matters. Just as it doesn’t matter that you say Mormons believe Jesus is God incarnate. In context, we know the differences. Both Arianism and Mormonism being a shadow of truth, the same words or terms mean different things in the context of true Christianity.

 

[zaffiroborant]

JND Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines is one historical treatise that demonstrates the landscape found in ancient ante-Nicene Christianity, where Nicene-Constantinopolitan definitions on God (i.e. homoousios, a word that Arians actually used, which was then redefined by the Nicene Christians, an interesting thing in light of some of the comments in this thread) were not found. Indeed, Early Christians that were Arians were not re-baptized, which seems to indicate that they had valid Christian baptism despite being non-Trinitarians.

I’ve downloaded a copy of Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines, could you point to where he elaborates on* “the definitions provided by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed were of course not held to by many if not most of the early Christians,”*, in particular, “if not most”? While I will eventually read the whole thing, I have a lot going on right now and a bit of other reading I need to finish so I ask that you support your assertion of “most”.

As to baptism, you are viewing it through Mormon eyes, other eyes wouldn’t necessarily see it as a problem.

If anyone is interested Kelly’s work can be downloaded here and of course reviews can be read at Amazon.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Sure. Latter-day Saints typically speak of “salvation” and “eternal life” separately, and eternal life is also know as “exaltation”. By “salvation”, we typically mean being saved from physical death. Latter-day Saints believe that through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, all are saved from physical death (i.e., all will be resurrected). However, our Father in Heaven desires more than that for us. He desires that we return to His presence, live with Him for eternity, and become like Him, sharing in His life as joint-heirs with Christ. This belief is sometimes known as deification or theosis (becoming ‘gods’). While certain traditional Christian groups have that belief, our belief (which we call exaltation/eternal life) is different in a few senses.

Exaltation is not sometimes known as deification or theosis. It’s getting a bit tedious to keep sending LDS to their own FAIR website to read about the distinction between the two. It is a dishonest for LDS to muddle the two entirely different concepts together in an effort to pretend we believe the same things. Theosis and exaltation speak directly to the nature of God and the nature of man, an area we could not be further apart on.

 

[Anniejoe]

Exaltation is not sometimes known as deification or theosis. It’s getting a bit tedious to keep sending LDS to their own FAIR website to read about the distinction between the two. It is a dishonest for LDS to muddle the two entirely different concepts together in an effort to pretend we believe the same things. Theosis and exaltation speak directly to the nature of God and the nature of man, an area we could not be further apart on.

We’re witnessing normal cult tactics. Definitions are moving targets, assertions can’t be backed up, claims of supporting evidence evaporate into thin air when pursued, and so forth. When your philosophy is built on lies, you can only resort to lies to reel in their victims. These folks do a lot of damage to the gullible, because they talk a good game. Another reason for good, solid catechesis for our youngsters (and the adults who missed out in their youth!).

 

[TexanKnight]

Exaltation is not sometimes known as deification or theosis. It’s getting a bit tedious to keep sending LDS to their own FAIR website to read about the distinction between the two. It is a dishonest for LDS to muddle the two entirely different concepts together in an effort to pretend we believe the same things. Theosis and exaltation speak directly to the nature of God and the nature of man, an area we could not be further apart on.

exactly

 

[SpeSalvi]

Was it Martin Luther that wanted to get married, or wasn’t it the King of England when the Church of England broke off? Either way, Latter-day Saints don’t really agree with those that seek/sought to reform Christianity. Instead, we believe that our Church is a restoration of the Church established by Jesus Christ anciently.

I’d just like to address that: As an LDS child growing up in Sunday school, we spent quite a few weeks learning about Martin Luther and the other reformers that “paved the way” for the LDS church to come into place. We were taught (straight out of the Sunday School Manual) that they were all inspired by God to do what they did to set the groundwork. The LDS church certainly DOES agree with those that “reformed” Christianity and praises them for their works. This was reinforced when my Husband was going through the discussions with the LDS missionaries about a year and a half ago and Martin Luther came up. The missionaries explained that the LDS church believes Martin Luther was prompted by the Holy Ghost to nail his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg.

The LDS church is VERY pro-reformation, although they claim to be Restored.

I’ve been lurking on these forums for about a year now and finally got around to registering. I’d just like to throw out there that the MANY former LDS-turned-Catholic members on here helped give me the courage to leave the LDS church. I was baptized last Easter and am so, so glad I’m finally home I’m currently in the waiting process for the LDS church to confirm that my name was removed from their records as well, hoping that doesn’t take too long!

 

[rainman10]

Sure. Latter-day Saints typically speak of “salvation” and “eternal life” separately, and eternal life is also know as “exaltation”. By “salvation”, we typically mean being saved from physical death. Latter-day Saints believe that through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, all are saved from physical death (i.e., all will be resurrected). However, our Father in Heaven desires more than that for us. He desires that we return to His presence, live with Him for eternity, and become like Him, sharing in His life as joint-heirs with Christ. This belief is sometimes known as deification or theosis (becoming ‘gods’). While certain traditional Christian groups have that belief, our belief (which we call exaltation/eternal life) is different in a few senses.

To receive the gift of eternal life, Latter-day Saints believe that one must first have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of their sins, be baptized by proper priesthood authority (because LDS believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the “one true Church”, we believe that only it has the priesthood of God, and therefore the power and authority to baptize and perform other sacred ordinances), receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end. Other sacred ordinances that we believe are essential to receiving eternal life are receiving the holy priesthood of God (for males), being endowed with power from on high (aka the “endowment”), and being eternally married to one’s spouse (we believe that neither the man is without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord). The last two sacred ordinances are performed in temples, which we believe are houses of the Lord (I went today and I love going there). So, we believe that if one has faith in Christ, they will follow His commandments (and of course we believe that some of these commandments the Lord has given in these latter-days through continuing revelation), and receive eternal life.

On confession of sins, Latter-day Saints believe that one must always repent. In general, we can confess our sins directly to God, however certain serious sins should be confessed to one’s local leader, known as a bishop, who can help that person in the repentance process. Because we consider our ordinances (what some call “sacraments”) to be sacred, and include covenants that we enter into with God, reflection and repentance should always be done before participating, so that we do not participate unworthily.

Hope that helps.

Aren’t the first required beliefs that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and that the LDS church is the one true church? Then, maybe, next have faith in Jesus Christ?

 

[Deacon_John_Sun]

Hi. Marine:
First Mormonism is NOT and I Repeat NOT a Christian Religion as far as the Catholic Church. They are a cult. They DO NOT believe in the Triune God. Three Devine persons in one being. True they believe in Jesus but not as we do. He is an individual not one with the Father or Holy Spirit. Second: We as Catholics believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church notice the lower case “c” - just means universal not Catholic as in Roman Catholic, which is the “Rite” to which we belong; a billion plus of us. You will find that when a person is baptized even in a Catholic church they are baptised a “Christian” NOT a Catholic any more than a person baptized in a Methodist church is baptized a Methodist. They are baptized “Christian” as well.
I say keep visiting as many denominations as you wish hopefully you will find that the Catholic remains the most fulfilling. And remember everyone is aour brother or sister.
To God alone give glory through Jesus, who is THE CHRIST.
Deacon John (Roman Catholic)
p.s. people make the church not the brick and mortar

 

[triumphguy]

I’d just like to address that: As an LDS child growing up in Sunday school, we spent quite a few weeks learning about Martin Luther and the other reformers that “paved the way” for the LDS church to come into place. We were taught (straight out of the Sunday School Manual) that they were all inspired by God to do what they did to set the groundwork. The LDS church certainly DOES agree with those that “reformed” Christianity and praises them for their works. This was reinforced when my Husband was going through the discussions with the LDS missionaries about a year and a half ago and Martin Luther came up. The missionaries explained that the LDS church believes Martin Luther was prompted by the Holy Ghost to nail his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg.

The LDS church is VERY pro-reformation, although they claim to be Restored.

I’ve been lurking on these forums for about a year now and finally got around to registering. I’d just like to throw out there that the MANY former LDS-turned-Catholic members on here helped give me the courage to leave the LDS church. I was baptized last Easter and am so, so glad I’m finally home I’m currently in the waiting process for the LDS church to confirm that my name was removed from their records as well, hoping that doesn’t take too long!

Welcome “home.” It must have taken a lot of courage and faith (and maybe some pain) to leave the Church of your childhood.

 

[LivingWaters7]

For the record: I have no problem wth mormons believing anything. What irks me is when they pretend that their beliefs are the same as mine, and try and engage me in some kind of dialogue meant to convert me.

However, right from their website

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=29ec2f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

If they said: Catholic beliefs are anathema, and wrong, and your idea of Jesus is wrong, and then they honestly talked about their real beliefs I would have a lot more respect for them. I still wouldn’t convert, but I would respect the LDS more.

I’d love to use the local cannery for day though:thumbsup:

I don’t know about other individual Latter-day Saints, however I certainly do not pretend that our beliefs are the same. Indeed, we are perfectly happy with our differences, since Latter-day Saints believe in a restoration of the Truth. I love those differences (and the beliefs and practices that I have come to accept after leaving traditional Christianity for restored Christianity) and talk about them always.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Homoousius is not a doctrine, it is a theological term used to describe the nature of God. It means “same essence”. The council didn’t pick a word and then decide a description of Jesus should match this word. The council used a word to describe Christian doctrine, in the context of Christian belief, and in defense of doctrine held at the time and still held today. Which is, Jesus Christ is God, not a lesser God, or a created God, or one of innumerable Gods. GOD.

It doesn’t matter how the term was, or is, used by anyone else, it is the context that matters. Just as it doesn’t matter that you say Mormons believe Jesus is God incarnate. In context, we know the differences. Both Arianism and Mormonism being a shadow of truth, the same words or terms mean different things in the context of true Christianity.

I am well aware of how the term came into usage. The point is that the term was originally used by Arians to describe their doctrine, and was then redefined by the Nicene proponents to describe their own doctrine, which is an interesting development in light of comments on this very thread about Latter-day Saints allegedly changing what words mean.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I’ve downloaded a copy of Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines, could you point to where he elaborates on* “the definitions provided by the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed were of course not held to by many if not most of the early Christians,”*, in particular, “if not most”? While I will eventually read the whole thing, I have a lot going on right now and a bit of other reading I need to finish so I ask that you support your assertion of “most”.

No problem, I will get back to you. Perhaps I was thinking of another text, but I’ll browse through again and let you know.

As to baptism, you are viewing it through Mormon eyes, other eyes wouldn’t necessarily see it as a problem.

Yet telling me that I am viewing it through “Mormon eyes” doesn’t tell me anything (anymore than my saying that you are viewing something through “Catholic eyes” doesn’t say anything). The point I was making was that it is said that non-Trinitarians are non-Christian since they reject the Trinity. However, Arians, who are clearly non-Trinitarian, were not rebaptized, hence they were seen to have valid Christian baptism. Further, if I remember correctly, Constantine was baptized by an Arian, and is regarded as a Saint in the Orthodox tradition (and presumably the Eastern Catholic tradition). Interesting.