Mormons: Did Christ need to be saved?

[RebeccaJ]

hijack

OMG! I just reread your location. I never realized it was a sort of anagram (if that’s the proper word) for SLC!!


/hijack

It’s the title of a song from The Book of Mormon Musical.

youtube.com/watch?v=PnIvvOmikko

(Our houses are thatched with gold.)

 

[pablope]

I’m sorry that your brother in law is an *** and you can tell him I said so. As for the Shroud of Turin, some Mormons believe it’s real, some don’t; some Catholics believe it’s real; some don’t. I’m about 45% convinced it’s real and 55% convinced that some medieval maker of faux relics actually grabbed some poor Jewish guy around the Holy Land, circa 1200 AD, and crucified him as per the description in the NT in order to create the ultimate relic. But I don’t know, and I certainly would not mock the Shroud which I cannot dismiss as real.

And if the act of lighting a candle makes you feel closer to God, then I’d be grateful if you’d light a candle for me.

Hi, cowboy…there is so much you can learn about Mary…and she will always have you and your family in her embrace.

I lit a candle for you and your family at the adoration chapel last Monday…and I will light another one for on my next visit.

And I would encourage you to take up the rosary…to help you meditate…and take it one decade at a time…God bless always.

 

[Lefty0908]

Documentation.

The above from Rebecca was in response to Cowboy Pete’s assertion that “All doctrines contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price” (were submitted in a general conference of the church to be accepted by the membership as binding doctrine).

So Rebecca, this from the records of the Fiftieth Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 10 October 1880, and as reported in the Millennial Star 42 15 November 1880. President George Q. Cannon addressed the conference as follows:

"I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its orignal form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church."

At the first conference of the church on 9 June 1830, Joseph Smith read to the conference the Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ (now D&C 20 and 22)., Section 20 speaks of the BOM as containing the “fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (v.9). These Articles and Covenants were accepted by the conference as binding, so by deifinition, the BOM is binding upon us as well (see Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., Far West Record: Minutes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1844 p. 1-3).

The Bible has always been considered by us as containing binding doctrine because we are Christians (probably want documentation for that, too ).

RebeccaJ also said “Practically speaking, living your life day to day…are you ignoring something your prophet taught because you think it isn’t doctrinal?” Yup. I’ve been ignoring the whole Adam-God thing every day for a long time now.

I also like this commentary on how we determine and define official doctrine:
newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

[Lefty0908]

And what is the doubler standard? The LDS claims to be a restoration church…so it should follow that all it teaches from the beginning to today should all be the same and not subject to change…truth is truth…it does not change…just as God/Jesus/HS are truth and do not change…that way Catholics understand the Trinity.

] who lead your church being unclear" etc.). It doesn’t appear to me so, unless you are saying that none of the excesses were instituted by anyone “high up” (whatever that means), which is doubtful. How about the Middle-ages flaggelants? Was their movement initiated by some low-level know-nothings? I don’t think so. I know the practice was finally condemned by the CC, but not until after more than a century of practice. If it was doctrinally unsound in the end, why wasn’t it doctrinally unsound at the outset if “truth should all be the same and not subject to change?” And cloistering - where did that come from and is it doctrinally sound? I have nothing against the Carmelite Nuns for whom LDS women perform fundraisers because being cloistered, the Nuns aren’t allowed to do it themselves. But if it’s official doctrine, why aren’t you all cloistered? Did these devout Catholic women just “make up” the practice themselves or did it come from a higher source that is “unable to know and reliably teach the correct doctrine?” And really, are you saying that no votes on doctrinal matters occurred at any point during any of the 21 Catholic Ecumenical Councils – REALLY?

See, it’s easy. Anybody can play the “double standard game.” But it’s not fair. I know there are robust Catholic defenses for all my “criticisms” above. But I still hold that if you apply the same standards to your own tradition that you are trying to impose on mine, you’d come to the same conclusions. And again let me remind us all that what you are trying to extrapolate into a huge issue is a bullet point from a McConkie talk that is not even supported by his subsequent text.

 

[zaffiroborant]

pablope;8429547:

Just as well toss in this one from zaffiroborant, too: “If you are comfortable with the men who lead your church being unclear on the churches doctrine that’s great. Personally the idea, that the top leadership of the church is unable to know and reliably teach the correct doctrine of the church they are “called” to lead just floors me.”

My point is this: Do you apply the same standards articulated above to the excesses of the concept of Inquisition ("If you are comfortable with the men [Pope Lucius III in the papal bull *Ad Abolendam

] who lead your church being unclear" etc.). It doesn’t appear to me so, unless you are saying that none of the excesses were instituted by anyone “high up” (whatever that means), which is doubtful. How about the Middle-ages flaggelants? Was their movement initiated by some low-level know-nothings? I don’t think so. I know the practice was finally condemned by the CC, but not until after more than a century of practice. If it was doctrinally unsound in the end, why wasn’t it doctrinally unsound at the outset if “truth should all be the same and not subject to change?” And cloistering - where did that come from and is it doctrinally sound? I have nothing against the Carmelite Nuns for whom LDS women perform fundraisers because being cloistered, the Nuns aren’t allowed to do it themselves. But if it’s official doctrine, why aren’t you all cloistered? Did these devout Catholic women just “make up” the practice themselves or did it come from a higher source that is “unable to know and reliably teach the correct doctrine?” And really, are you saying that no votes on doctrinal matters occurred at any point during any of the 21 Catholic Ecumenical Councils – REALLY?

See, it’s easy. Anybody can play the “double standard game.” But it’s not fair. I know there are robust Catholic defenses for all my “criticisms” above. But I still hold that if you apply the same standards to your own tradition that you are trying to impose on mine, you’d come to the same conclusions. And again let me remind us all that what you are trying to extrapolate into a huge issue is a bullet point from a McConkie talk that is not even supported by his subsequent text.

Flagellating and cloistering are spiritual exercises practiced by individuals or in the case of monks and nuns, groups of individuals. In this they are like praying the rosary, going on a pilgrimage or Eucharist adoration, they are not “doctrine” but they are also not doctrinally unsound. While all of these practices are allowed to individuals none are required.

FWIW Wiki seems to show that flagellation was instituted by those in lower levels and tolerated by higher levels until claims by it’s practitioners conflicted with doctrine.

The movement did not have a central doctrine or overall leaders, but a popular passion for the movement occurred all over Europe in separate outbreaks. The first recorded incident was in Perugia in 1259, the year after severe crop damage and famine throughout Europe. It spread from there across Northern Italy and thence into Austria. Other incidents are recorded in 1296, 1333-34 (the Doves), notably at the time of the Black Death (1349), and 1399. The nature of the movement grew from a popular interest in religion combined with dissatisfaction with the Church’s control.

Here is the whole Wiki entry on the flagellants if you’re interested.

 

[Stephen168]

I know there are robust Catholic defenses for all my “criticisms” above.

Yes, your ‘criticisms’ are meaningless to the thread. Not one of your points defends the posts you reference.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The above from Rebecca was in response to Cowboy Pete’s assertion that “All doctrines contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price” (were submitted in a general conference of the church to be accepted by the membership as binding doctrine).

So Rebecca, this from the records of the Fiftieth Semiannual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 10 October 1880, and as reported in the Millennial Star 42 15 November 1880. President George Q. Cannon addressed the conference as follows:

"I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its orignal form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church."

“Lectures on Faith” was removed from the LDS version of the D&C in 1921. Was the D&C voted on again with this significant change?

At the first conference of the church on 9 June 1830, Joseph Smith read to the conference the Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ (now D&C 20 and 22)., Section 20 speaks of the BOM as containing the “fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (v.9). These Articles and Covenants were accepted by the conference as binding, so by deifinition, the BOM is binding upon us as well (see Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., Far West Record: Minutes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1844 p. 1-3).

Why does people voting on something in 1830 or in 1880 make that affirmation binding for people in 2011?

Why do you think voting on something makes it scripture?

The Bible has always been considered by us as containing binding doctrine because we are Christians (probably want documentation for that, too ).

Documentation that the Bible is considered LDS scripture, having never been voted on, what makes it scripture for you? And why not use the Joseph Smith Translation?

RebeccaJ also said “Practically speaking, living your life day to day…are you ignoring something your prophet taught because you think it isn’t doctrinal?” Yup. I’ve been ignoring the whole Adam-God thing every day for a long time now.

Yes, and I said it in a context of the general conference that just occurred this month. So care to answer what I asked instead of dodging?

I also like this commentary on how we determine and define official doctrine:
newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

This is a new innovation, which, is not in itself doctrinal. Never voted on. Subject to change without notice.

 

[PaulDupre]

Yes, I’m quite sure that Jeremiah, before declaring his prophecies, put them to a vote before all the people of Israel.

Oh, wait, they were all trying to kill him because of what he was preaching,

Then how did his prophecies make it into the bible if the people didn’t vote to sustain them?

How ridiculous is that? A prophet is a prophet whether the people he is preaching to accept and sustain his teachings or not.

 

[pablope]

]

Just as well toss in this one from zaffiroborant, too: “If you are comfortable with the men who lead your church being unclear on the churches doctrine that’s great. Personally the idea, that the top leadership of the church is unable to know and reliably teach the correct doctrine of the church they are “called” to lead just floors me.”

You point out and mention the inquisition, do you even know what is was for?

And really, I am at a lost what you are saying here. And why would anyone high up institute and condone abuses?

How about the Middle-ages flaggelants? Was their movement initiated by some low-level know-nothings? I don’t think so. I know the practice was finally condemned by the CC, but not until after more than a century of practice.

I think you mistaking practice/disciplines versus the dogmas and doctrines. Practices/disciplines can change, but not dogmas and doctrines, the CC. Example is celibacy for our priest. It was allowed before, but the CC imposed celibacy as a rule sometime in 1000 AD or so.

And cloistering - where did that come from and is it doctrinally sound?

It is a practice that some orders practice, as part of the rules of their order…so if you want to see why, you have to research the particular order why they practice it.

But if it’s official doctrine, why aren’t you all cloistered?

It is not doctrine…and it is a choice for those called to lead such life and there is a purpose for it.

Did these devout Catholic women just “make up” the practice themselves or did it come from a higher source that is “unable to know and reliably teach the correct doctrine?”

There is some basis for it, based on the founder of the order.

And really, are you saying that no votes on doctrinal matters occurred at any point during any of the 21 Catholic Ecumenical Councils – REALLY?

In the Council recounted in Acts 15, was there a vote?

See, it’s easy. Anybody can play the “double standard game.” But it’s not fair. I know there are robust Catholic defenses for all my “criticisms” above. But I still hold that if you apply the same standards to your own tradition that you are trying to impose on mine, you’d come to the same conclusions. And again let me remind us all that what you are trying to extrapolate into a huge issue is a bullet point from a McConkie talk that is not even supported by his subsequent text.

Actually, come to think of it…the LDS claim to be a restoration of the original church…so the LDS should have higher standards…and since the LDS seems to have no standards, just goes to prove the contrary, isn’t it?

 

[Lefty0908]

Yes, your ‘criticisms’ are meaningless to the thread. Not one of your points defends the posts you reference.

OK. I can do that, too. Your criticisms are meaningless to the thread. Not one of your points defends the posts you reference vis-a-vis the McConkie talk.

These are just games. No one has an interest in understanding or even legitimate criticism. Have fun.

 

[Pythons]

The obvious position a Mormon finds themselves in subsequent to looking at early Church History…
…Is that Mormon doctrines are alien to both Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition.
…They simply are not there simply because they never were there.

 

[Lefty0908]

The obvious position a Mormon finds themselves in subsequent to looking at early Church History…
…Is that Mormon doctrines are alien to both Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition.
…They simply are not there simply because they never were there.

Gee, now I know how Tina Turner felt when she was still with Ike .

Based on what I explained regarding the process by which we consider doctrinal matters to become official and binding upon us, I thought the following sounded pretty familiar and comfortable, seeing as what I said about how LDS define official doctrine coincides substantially with the quote below, and in my mind, points out again the double standard by which you judge the Latter-day Saints in this thing.

"Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25)."

And, oh yeah, unlike SteveVH who obviously “stumbled” across his initial post by researching the UTLM website (who knew this was a Catholic resource?), I got the excellent quote above from catholic.com (and I’m serious about that – this is a wonderful site about which you must all be very proud).

 

[RebeccaJ]

The difference is claims of prophethood. The Bible clearly gives us ways to test a person who claims to be a prophet. Joseph Smith doesn’t pass. LDS prophets today never prophecy, making it just a title given out automatically to whatever man is chosen to lead your church.

Looks false to a Catholic, because we take the gift of prophecy seriously, understanding that God can choose anyone to bestow this gift…men, women or children.

I don’t see that Mormons have a prophet, but do have a string of men making best guesses and leading like a business person leads. But no prophets.

 

[mwok]

Like I posted in the “How do Mormons do it?” thread.

The difference can be seen in a comparison between Humanae Vitae and Continuing Revelation. The Pope at the time declared something that has always been evil as evil even under enormous pressure to change the Church’s position, while the “Prophets” keep changing things depending on whether “we are ready for the change”.

 

[Tony888]

“Lectures on Faith” was removed from the LDS version of the D&C in 1921. Was the D&C voted on again with this significant change?

Why does people voting on something in 1830 or in 1880 make that affirmation binding for people in 2011?

Why do you think voting on something makes it scripture?

Documentation that the Bible is considered LDS scripture, having never been voted on, what makes it scripture for you? And why not use the Joseph Smith Translation?

Yes, and I said it in a context of the general conference that just occurred this month. So care to answer what I asked instead of dodging?

This is a new innovation, which, is not in itself doctrinal. Never voted on. Subject to change without notice.

Actually, the sustaining vote doesn’t make it scripture. If you read the newroom link provided, you will see that doctrine is set by the the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I’m guessing they would confirm their inspiration through a vote, much like the RCC Councils did when they set RCC doctrine. And are you not still bound by these council votes?

 

[mwok]

Actually, the sustaining vote doesn’t make it scripture. If you read the newroom link provided, you will see that doctrine is set by the the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I’m guessing they would confirm their inspiration through a vote, much like the RCC Councils did when they set RCC doctrine. And are you not still bound by these council votes?

I think you have doctrine/dogma confused with discipline. For a doctrine/dogma it is true regardless of an outcome of a vote (i.e. Christ’s Resurrection, it happened no matter how many and who agrees/disagrees).

 

[Pythons]

Gee, now I know how Tina Turner felt when she was still with Ike .

I think not.

Lefty0908:

Based on what I explained regarding the process by which we consider doctrinal matters to become official and binding upon us, I thought the following sounded pretty familiar and comfortable, seeing as what I said about how LDS define official doctrine coincides substantially with the quote below, and in my mind, points out again the double standard by which you judge the Latter-day Saints in this thing.

Catholicism initially had a Canon of Faith & those Books which were according to that Canon of Faith…
…Were codified as the Canon of Scripture FOR the Faith they reflected.
…Mormonism simply can’t be reconciled with the Canon of Scripture.

Because Mormonism rejects the Trinity it is impossible that Mormonism systematizes Scripture…
…Who will end up being saved when this world closes out time as we know it.
…Were already Eternally saved in Christ before the world was created.
…In Mormonism Christ could have lost His own salvation.

According to Scripture this is both blasphemy and a doctrine of Antichrist.
Lefty quotes some Catholic Teaching:

"Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25)."

And, oh yeah, unlike SteveVH who obviously “stumbled” across his initial post by researching the UTLM website (who knew this was a Catholic resource?), I got the excellent quote above from catholic.com (and I’m serious about that – this is a wonderful site about which you must all be very proud).

I’ve known several Mormons and could easily vote for one in this next election…
…This however does not change the fact that according to the “King James Bible”.
…Smith taught the doctrines of Antichrist and gloated while doing it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, the sustaining vote doesn’t make it scripture. If you read the newroom link provided, you will see that doctrine is set by the the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I’m guessing they would confirm their inspiration through a vote, much like the RCC Councils did when they set RCC doctrine. And are you not still bound by these council votes?

Mormons are individualistic, is what I understand. When I ask you, why are you bound for something you didn’t agree to personally, it is in the context of Mormon teaching. The one that ParkerD slips into every post he makes…the Mormon idea of free will being that you vote on agreeing, or not, to everything God wills, personally, or else you are not bound by it.

The councils don’t interject new doctrines, ever. So I don’t know what you think we would be voting on. We also do not believe we can vote on whether or not we sustain the will of God. We seek to follow God’s will, trusting God will guide us.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Mormons are individualistic, is what I understand. When I ask you, why are you bound for something you didn’t agree to personally, it is in the context of Mormon teaching.

I agreed personally to accept the entire package.

But under section 50, common consent isn’t so much about “voting” as it is a safeguard against false doctrine.

While Lefty’s example of flagelating would be spurious if he’d offered it as a disproof of the Catholic church, that’s clearly not the spirit in which he offered the example. The point is that flagelating is no more absurd an example than the theories and practices which folks here routinely pass off as representative of the LDS church.

I also like this commentary on how we determine and define official doctrine:
newsroom.lds.org/article/appr…ormon-doctrine
This is a new innovation, which, is not in itself doctrinal. Never voted on. Subject to change without notice.

No, that’s not an innovation; it’s simply a commentary on how things are done. Most of what the article describing comes right out of Section 50, which was revealed only 1 year after the LDS Church was founded. Other parts are more descriptive of how the LDS people think.