Mormonism

[LivingWaters7]

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.

I don’t believe that you actually read my statement. I stated that the belief in becoming like God, being joint-heirs with Christ, is sometimes called theosis or deification. I then clearly stated-“While certain traditional Christian groups have that belief, our belief (which we call exaltation/eternal life) is different in a few senses.” I was obviously not “pretend[ing]” that we believe the same things, and I made a distinction between theosis/deification, and “our belief”, exaltation. I am confident that I have read the same FAIR/FARMS material on the subject that you have.

 

[LivingWaters7]

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?

No, the first principle is faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If someone comes to have faith in Him and accept His restored Gospel, it would then follow that they accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Christ’s Church.

 

[LivingWaters7]

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!

Yes, I know what you’re talking about. We’re talking about two different things. While we do tend to accept the reformation as sort of “paving the way”, we believe that only a restoration could bring back truths that were lost and the priesthood of God. This distinction between reformation and restoration is one that is commonly discussed in Latter-day Saint belief, including at our General Conference at times.

 

[LivingWaters7]

#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?

Upfront about what? No, my Church does not call Jesus Christ the “brother of Satan”. Yes, we believe that we are all children of our Father in Heaven, including Christ and Lucifer, who became Satan. However the above is merely a tactic used by critics to inflame, as if implying that Christ and Satan are somehow on parity in our faith. Please see these links for more on that issue:

en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Brother_of_Satan
fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Is_Lucifer_the_Brother_of_Jesus.pdf

#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)

I assume you are referring to “penalties” that were part of the sacred Latter-day Saint temple ordinance known as the Endowment. These penalties do not mean that the atonement of Jesus Christ was/is insufficient. They have nothing to do with spilling my own blood for atonement (and nothing of the sort can be seen in the quotes you provide), and were symbolic. I find LDS apologist Jeff Lindsay’s page on “Questions About the Mormon Temple Ceremony and Masonry” particularly insightful on this issue, and demonstrates the Biblical and ancient Israelite origin of “penalties” related to covenants (noting that in the temple, Latter-day Saints believe that we enter into sacred covenants with God, so covenant is the context of these penalties). This portion of his article is of interest on this issue:

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_masons.shtml

**"However, you should understand that ancient Jewish and Middle Eastern covenants often involved oaths associated with the concept of a severe penalty for violating the oath. This is explained in Thomas R. Valletta’s article, “The Captain and the Covenant,” in Alma, the Testimony of the Word (Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds., Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1992, pp. 226-227):

Oaths and "Cutting a Covenant"
The texts of both Old Testament covenants and covenant renewals and Ancient Near Eastern treaties support the notion of the serious binding nature of covenants. Considerable scholarly effort has been expended detailing the comparisons between their structural similarities (see Baltzer; McCarthy). In 1954, George E. Mendenhall compared the structure of the Sinai Covenant with that of the Hittite treaties of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. (p. 54). The Hittite treaties, in his estimation, have an identical structural typology with that of the biblical covenant. He also suggests that initially there was a formal oath which was "a conditional self cursing, an appeal to the gods to punish the promiser if he defaults" (p. 52). There was, according to Mendenhall, "some solemn ceremony which accompanied the oath" (p. 61). Weinfeld agrees that the covenant had to be "confirmed by an oath (eg Gen 21:22-24; 26:26-31; Deut 29:9-29; Josh 9:15-20; 2 Kgs. 11:4; Ezek 16:8; 17:13-19); which included most probably a conditional imprecation: "May thus and thus happen to me if I violate the obligation" (p. 256). "Sacrifices accompanied the oath in connection with a covenant," according to M. H. Pope, which may be the origin of the Hebrew idiom "to cut a covenant with" someone. He explains:

    In the sacrifices of the covenant the animals were cut in two, and one or both parties passed between the pieces (Gen. 15:10, 17). In Jeremiah 34:18 those who break the covenant with the Lord are told that they will be made like the calf which they cut in two and passed between its parts. This suggests that the oath which bound the parties to a covenant may have stipulated in the conditional curse that the violator should be treated like the sacrificial animal. (p. 576) 

This imagery illuminates the divine warnings of an impending sword to come down upon a covenant-breaking Israel. For example, in Leviticus 26:25, we read: "And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy" (compare Deut 32:41; Jer 46:10). Metaphorically and historically, a covenant-breaking Israel faced the terrible prospect of a punishing sword.**

…continued

 

[LivingWaters7]

…continued
**
References Cited
Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary, in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings. Trans. David E. Green. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971.

McCarthy, Dennis J. Old Testament Covenant. Richmond, VA: Knox, 1972.

Mendenhall, G. E. "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition." The Biblical Archaeologist (Sept 1954) 17:50-75.

Pope, M. H. "Oaths." The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Ed. George A. Buttrick. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962. 3:575-76.

Weinfeld, M. "Berith." Trans. John T. Willis. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 4 vols. Ed. G. J. Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975. 2:253-79.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has an article, “Covenant, the New” by Archibald McCaig, which also explains that “the ancient Semitic method of making a covenant” involved a reference to death for failure to keep the covenant:

the sacrificial animals being divided, and the parties passing between the pieces, implying that they deserved death if they broke the engagement. The technical Hebrew phrase for making a covenant is "to cut a covenant."

Further insight comes from the journal Biblica has an interesting article related to this topic by Paul Sanders, “So May God Do To Me!,” Vol. 85, No. 1, 2004, pp. 91-98. (The link is for a PDF file. There is also an HTML version, but if you don’t have Greek and Hebrew fonts installed, some parts will not look right.) From the summary:

In the Hebrew Bible we find the self-imprecation "So may God do to me and more also!" (2 Sam 3,35, 1 Kgs 2,23, etc.). In many cases, the phrase is immediately conditioned: "So may God do to me and more also, if you will not be the commander of the army" (2 Sam 19,14). God may punish the speaker, if the latter fails his promise. Ancient Mesopotamian sources suggest that the word "So" in the Hebrew expression originally referred to a gesture in use when taking an oath: the touching of the throat.

In light of this information about ancient oaths, the early and presumably optional inclusion of symbolic penalties with oaths made in the Temple is remarkably consistent with ancient Semitic covenants. Such penalties should not be viewed as recent innovations from Masonry, but as legitimate concepts from the ancient covenant-making patterns. (See also “Simile Curses in the Ancient Near East, Old Testament, and Book of Mormon” by Mark J. Morrise.)
**

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.

This of course is a caricature of Latter-day Saint views on Heaven.
en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/%22Celestial_sex%22
Latter-day Saints believe that Heaven is living in God’s presence for eternity with our families. We believe that through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become like God (or “gods” if you will), sharing in the life that He has, being joint-heirs with Christ. We also believe that our families can continue for the eternities, however the logistics of that is not known, and we never believe that it is something of a “churning out” or “eternal sex”.

 

[triumphguy]

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.

That’s good to hear.

But you do know how LDS are supposed to catechize, and it’s not by stating the differences, but by making the diffences look like similarities. Otherwise known as lying. Which apparently IS OK for LDS to do when talking to non LDS. I can probably find a link if you like.

Here you go: mormonthink.com/lying.htm

So lying, re-writing scripure, and murdering in order to steal relgious items are OK.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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, and I’m glad you signed in!

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

The point for LDS using different terms is, when you say things like:

Latter-day Saints believe that the Second Person of the Godhead (what we call the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost together) did incarnate in the man Jesus Christ.

You are not being clear in what you believe. Mormons don’t use the word “incarnate” in your teachings, you co-opt the word to appear that you have Christian beliefs in order that people will accept Mormonism as a Christian religion. However, you do not have Christian beliefs, you have Mormon beliefs. For Mormons, every single person is “incarnate”. Jesus Christ just being one of the many incarnate spirits that you believe in (including yourself).

Christian belief is very clear, there is One God, and Jesus Christ is GOD INCARNATE. He is not a spirit incarnated. We are not incarnated beings, we are created beings. There are no other incarnations in existence but Him. He IS GOD. This is not Mormon belief or teaching.

When we use the word homoousios, our use is clearly defined in the very place you are objecting to, the Nicene Creed. We aren’t trying to appear Arian in order to be accepted as Arians. The Nicene Creed refutes Arianism as heretical.

Context is everything, but unfortunately, LDS have a wide-spread tendency to take their arguments out of context, using sophistry instead.

 

[David]

Latter-day Saints firmly believe that Jesus Christ suffered and died for our sins. While we do not use the cross as a religious symbol, we firmly believe that Christ died on the cross at Calvary, and was resurrected on the third day. It is only through His atoning sacrifice that we believe we can be cleansed of our sins and receive eternal life.

Hello LivingWaters,
The Mormon idea of eternal life, is when one becomes a god himself. This violates the first commandment. Mormons believe in many gods. The first commandment teaches there is only one God.
Mormons use Christian terminology to mean completely different ideas. Very confusing for everyone involved. The Mormons define God differently than any ancient religion or even the webster dictionary.

Peace
David

 

[Stephen168]

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.

What was the Arian’s doctrine and how did they use ‘Homoousius’ to describe it?

 

[naamabay]

cytotec.us/img/3_en.jpg

**
Dudes, this service is good! It is my third order. This time it is lamisil pills and I have almost OK. I know how they order system works and when my package is a bit late I do not worry because I know that it will arrive no matter what.

buy priligy
buy priligy online
priligy uk
generic priligy
order priligy
dapoxetine
buy dapoxetine
acne differin gel
buy lamisil online
acne differin gel
dapoxetine where to buy
where can i purchase dapoxetine
dapoxetine order
dapoxetine for sale
dapoxetine hydrochloride
buy dapoxetine online
order dapoxetine online
dapoxetine overnight
**

 

[twopekinguys]

Reported above post.

didn’t want to quote it

 

[joclucsylv]

LivingWaters,
Did you say that we are children of satan?? Can you explain that and the biblical basis for that?

Also, out of curiosity, why are you on a Catholic board? I guess I ask because I wouldn’t be interested in being part of a Mormon board or Protestant board for that matter.

 

[Jerusha]

Livingwaters said;

. Yes, we believe that we are all children of our Father in Heaven, including Christ and Lucifer, who became Satan. However the above is merely a tactic used by critics to inflame, as if implying that Christ and Satan are somehow on parity in our faith.

They have God, gods, angels both good and fallen, and human souls and ghosts all mixed up and interchangeable. Once you understand that, you can understand the faults in their reasoning.

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes, I know what you’re talking about. We’re talking about two different things. While we do tend to accept the reformation as sort of “paving the way”, we believe that only a restoration could bring back truths that were lost and the priesthood of God. This distinction between reformation and restoration is one that is commonly discussed in Latter-day Saint belief, including at our General Conference at times.

Yes…the lost truths of early Christianity like polygamy…which was apparently rampant in the New Testament, and 15 Apostles, and stake presidents, and wards and stakes, and blood oaths (I missed where Jesus discussed those), and people called Seventies, and paying for heaven, and women being subservient to men, etc

 

[SpeSalvi]

Thanks to all for the welcomes I’m no apologist, but I do love discussing the faith!

Yes, I know what you’re talking about. We’re talking about two different things. While we do tend to accept the reformation as sort of “paving the way”, we believe that only a restoration could bring back truths that were lost and the priesthood of God. This distinction between reformation and restoration is one that is commonly discussed in Latter-day Saint belief, including at our General Conference at times.

I’m aware of what you believe. I was born and raised LDS and was a VERY strong member of the LDS church until I made the decision to become Catholic. What I was making clear is that your distancing yourself from the reformers by saying "Either way, Latter-day Saints don’t really agree with those that seek/sought to reform Christianity. " just isn’t true. The LDS church DOES agree with those that sought to reform Christianity and even praises them for their attempts.

Needless to say, most Catholics aren’t fans of Luther or Calvin and it’s an automatic turn-off when you start talking about how you believe they were inspired. The way you phrased your original statement may have mislead Catholics that weren’t aware of LDS beliefs into thinking that the LDS church is an ally when it comes to the subject of the reformation and that’s simply not true. The LDS church is grateful for the reformation because it DID pave the way for the LDS church to come into being. Had the reformation not happened, Joseph Smith would have been punished for Heresy and that would’ve been that.

Just trying to clarify. Going from the LDS church to the Catholic Church, I’ve been amazed at just how much the LDS church really does have a lot of protestant ideology and traditions.

 

[hosemonkey]

When you shake it all down, what you are left with at the end of the day, is the fact that Joseph Smith was a delusional con artist who had a vivid imagination and a great gift of gab. To have constructed a book of “scripture” and to have gulled so many people. puts him high in the pantheon of all-time thimbleriggers. I do not dislike mormons, what I dislike intensely is the inability of their organization to tell the truth about just exactly what their beliefs are and their lack of candor when trying to pull in the rubes that they are proselytising. And their contension that the Church was in need of restoration, thereby implying that Jesus Christ failed in His mission. False “prophet”, false doctrine, false religion, deluded people. God help them.

 

[Jerusha]

False “prophet”, false doctrine, false religion, deluded people. God help them.

Can you imagine every true Saint who has been proxy-baptized by the Mormons praying for those poor deluded people? Maybe that is what is happening to the LDS church?

 

[zaffiroborant]

I don’t believe that you actually read my statement. I stated that the belief in becoming like God, being joint-heirs with Christ, is sometimes called theosis or deification. I then clearly stated-“While certain traditional Christian groups have that belief, our belief (which we call exaltation/eternal life) is different in a few senses.” I was obviously not “pretend[ing]” that we believe the same things, and I made a distinction between theosis/deification, and “our belief”, exaltation. I am confident that I have read the same FAIR/FARMS material on the subject that you have.

Nonsense you were equating exaltation with theosis with very little distinction. “different in a few senses” is not a distinction, it is, as I said a muddling of the two. LDS are heavily invested in presenting themselves as really close to non-LDS Christianity in belief, and so we have “different in a few senses” instead of the truth about the differences. The differences in theosis and exaltation are foundational, they are not little differences like leavened and unleavened bread. The are the basis for how we understand who we are, who God is, and our relationship to Him. LDS have to downplay this difference otherwise they are forced to explain things that even your prophet is unwilling to address when speaking to non-members.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Upfront about what? No, my Church does not call Jesus Christ the “brother of Satan”. Yes, we believe that we are all children of our Father in Heaven, including Christ and Lucifer, who became Satan. However the above is merely a tactic used by critics to inflame, as if implying that Christ and Satan are somehow on parity in our faith. Please see these links for more on that issue:

LDS uniformly dislike this subject and voice the opinion LW has here. But I would point out that the “Jesus and Satan are brothers” teaching does nothing more than clearly delineate the differences in understanding between LDS and non-LDS. Jesus and Satan being brothers is absolutely impossible in any Christian teaching other than the teachings of the LDS church. It is one of those areas LDS detest being brought up because they know it places them unequivocally outside any belief held by Christians of any kind by requiring an explanation as to how this is possible. This in turn requires a dive into “deep doctrine” not something that can be reconciled with all other Christian belief. As a result you see (as we saw here)any time this is brought up they attack the one who mentions it hoping to at best discredit the person, or at least deflect the conversation.