Mormons: Did Christ need to be saved?

[Cowboy_Pete]

LOL, Telstar, I never meant to imply that Common Consent is a type of democracy. And mormons don’t even use the word “vote” – they say affirm or oppose.

You are very right that opposing is a very confrontational thing to do and that it hardly ever happens for the reasons that you describe.

The only time I’ve ever opposed in common consent, wasn’t over a doctrinal issue but rather over an appointment. A man I knew was beung appointed as councelor to the Bishop, whom two different women (who did not know each other) had told me had groped them on a date after they’d indicated that he should back off. I did not think that such a man should be in a position of authority, and I stood up to oppose. I ended up in the office of a stake president, who ended up calling the women involved, and IIRC ended up deciding to appoint someone else to the position of trust.

I don’t know for a fact that the man would have abused his ecclesiastical authority, but I’m glad that we have that mechanism.

 

[pablope]

Rebecca confused the attributions; it was me, not Pablope, who said:

Common consent means that an apostle’s opinions don’t become Doctrine until approved by the body of the church. .

Then how do you know if his opinion is doctrine or not? Shouldn’t it be his opinion/statement be based on already pre-approved doctrine?

D&C Section 50 is clear that revelation must be studied and subjected to a very vigorous process before it’s accepted as church doctrine

And who determines that revelation is new? Is authentic? How do you authenticate it? By another revelation? How do you authenticate that “another revelation” as real? And how do you authenticate as real the revelation you used to authenticate the previous “another revelation?”…it goes on and on…unceasingly…isn’t it?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Then how do you know if his opinion is doctrine or not? Shouldn’t it be his opinion/statement be based on already pre-approved doctrine?

And who determines that revelation is new? Is authentic? How do you authenticate it? By another revelation? How do you authenticate that “another revelation” as real? And how do you authenticate as real the revelation you used to authenticate the previous “another revelation?”…it goes on and on…unceasingly…isn’t it?

That’s all answered in D&C Section 50.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Once a man has been sustained in his calling, it means that a Mormons supports him in what he teaches and what he does, within that calling.

Common Consent has nothing to do with sustaining a person in their position. The consent is already given at that point.

Please list for us the doctrines that have gone through this process you are describing. It should be easily available, seeing that the Mormon church is obsessive about paperwork and documentation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m also finding it kind of absurd that people would accept a process that consented to the doctrine of Jesus Christ being the Son of God and the Redeemer of mankind.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Once a man has been sustained in his calling, it means that a Mormons supports him in what he teaches and what he does, within that calling.

Common Consent has nothing to do with sustaining a person in their position. The consent is already given at that point.

Please list for us the doctrines that have gone through this process you are describing. It should be easily available, seeing that the Mormon church is obsessive about paperwork and documentation.

All doctrines contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. The Official Proclamations were approved separately. When the ProcFam passes Common Consent, I expect it will be made the Third Official Proclamation.

The changes to the Word of Wisdom which made the prohibitions mandatory, and added beer to the prohibited list, were passed by common consent during Brigham Young’s time, and yet for some reason this change was not noted in any of our scriptures.

 

[RebeccaJ]

All doctrines contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. The Official Proclamations were approved separately. When the ProcFam passes Common Consent, I expect it will be made the Third Official Proclamation.

The changes to the Word of Wisdom which made the prohibitions mandatory, and added beer to the prohibited list, were passed by common consent during Brigham Young’s time, and yet for some reason this change was not noted in any of our scriptures.

Documentation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

All doctrines contained in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. The Official Proclamations were approved separately. When the ProcFam passes Common Consent, I expect it will be made the Third Official Proclamation.

The changes to the Word of Wisdom which made the prohibitions mandatory, and added beer to the prohibited list, were passed by common consent during Brigham Young’s time, and yet for some reason this change was not noted in any of our scriptures.

Also, what about the “stuff” (for lack of a better word) taught in Mormon temples? Doctrinal?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Also, what about the “stuff” (for lack of a better word) taught in Mormon temples? Doctrinal?

The word that you should have put in quotes there is “taught.”

No, the temples stuff is not subject to common consent, but virtually all of it is drawn from the standard works, and that which isn’t, is metaphorical and subject to change. All real teaching in the Temple is through the Spirit, i.e. what Catholics (correctly) call private revelation.

Doctrinal? I dunno; is private revelation doctrinal? I might slip and say “theoretical doctrines” Easier to argue over whether it’s canonical.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s all kind of whispy then, is what I think. No solid ground to stand on. No rock.

Changes to the LDS version of the Doctrine Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon have been made, and not voted on.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Changes to the LDS version of the Doctrine Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon have been made, and not voted on.

I appreciate your concerns.

However, having been one of the persons invited to examine the original copies to revise the first printer’s copy, to comply with the original dictations, I tend to personally see things differently.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide any documentation of that personal claim of mine, and I don’t expect you to take my word. Just explaing why I maintain my own position.

 

[JimmytheButcher]

Do Mormons think this just means that Jesus ***looks like ***His Father?

I always figured He inherited His Mother’s holy hands and holy feet. He certainly inherited Her Eyes and His Flesh is verifiably Her Flesh… so He must be a handsome fella because by all accounts She is beautiful.

In truth, I’d say that everything He has about Him except His divine consubstantiality with the Father is due to Mary. That’s probably why people who reject Her, He sends straight to hell as St. Louis de Montfort says, " The heretic and the hardened sinner show nothing but contempt and indifference for our Lady. He endeavours by word and example, openly or insidiously - sometimes under specious pretexts - to belittle the love and veneration shown to her."

 

[Pythons]

I found this article “Our Relationship With the Lord” written by Bruce R. McConkie and found in the BYU Devotional dated March 2, 1982. This portion of the article left me somewhat stunned :

**"5. Christ worked out his own salvation by worshiping the Father.

After the Firstborn of the Father, while yet a spirit being, had gained power and intelligence that made him like unto God; after he had become, under the Father, the Creator of worlds without number; after he had reigned on the throne of eternal power as the Lord Omnipotent-- after all this he yet had to gain a mortal and then an immortal body.

After the Son of God “made flesh” his “tabernacle,” and while he yet “dwelt among the sons of men”; after he left his preexistent glory as we all do at birth; after he was born of Mary in Bethlehem of Judea–after all this he was called upon to work out his own salvation.

Of our Lord’s life while in this mortal probation the scripture says, “He received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness.” Finally, after his resurrection, “he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; and he received all power both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.” (D&C 93:12-17)**

Do Mormons actually believe that Christ needed salvation? If so, from what did he need to be saved? From sin? If not sin, then what?

Thank you.

“ALL” the cults promulgate a peccable Christ…
…This is why the same groups reject the Creed from the Council of Nicaea.
…They believe Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation.
…Had that happened whatever Christ WAS prior to the Incarnation would eternally cease to exist.

The Seventh-Day Adventists have made even more statements than the Mormons in this area.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I always figured He inherited His Mother’s holy hands and holy feet. He certainly inherited Her Eyes and His Flesh is verifiably Her Flesh… so He must be a handsome fella because by all accounts She is beautiful.

In truth, I’d say that everything He has about Him except His divine consubstantiality with the Father is due to Mary. That’s probably why people who reject Her, He sends straight to hell as St. Louis de Montfort says, " The heretic and the hardened sinner show nothing but contempt and indifference for our Lady. He endeavours by word and example, openly or insidiously - sometimes under specious pretexts - to belittle the love and veneration shown to her."

We don’t share your belief in the immaculate conception. But I don’t think it’s fair to suggests that means that we “belittle” your veneration.

As for your love of Mary, I think there’s a lot we can learn from you in that regard, and you could teach us, unless you prefer to use Mary as a shibboleth against us. Which I don’t think she would like much.

 

[KathleenGee]

Your leaders discourage anyone from wanting to learn more of Mary.

Mary has brought more people to Christ than any other. The first evangelist was a married lay woman, not a man.

The apostles prayed constantly with Mary…and we can safely assume she taught them many more things about Him because she was and is His mother, and her prayers most powerful.

Mary is the means Christ was brought into the world. Many Christians give rightful honor to their own mothers, but nothing for the Mother of Christ.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Your leaders discourage anyone from wanting to learn more of Mary.

The world wide web lays at your fingertips. If what you say is true, then you can prove it with a link to an actual LDS source. If you cannot, then I can only assume that you are repeating gossip. I do not doubt that you believe the things you say to be true, but please verify such terrible accusations before you spread them.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I have a brother in law who gives me fairly constant grief over my RC conversion. His main sticking points seem to be, lighting a candle when I pray, and what’s up the the Shroud of Turin.

It seems rather random to me.

There was a long thread a while back comparing LDS belief of a heavenly mother to Catholic veneration of Mary. Mary is not divine, would be the primary difference. That thread fleshed out the common LDS teaching of Mary being an ordinary woman given an extraordinary task (giving birth to Jesus), but other than that, her life, and she herself, was ordinary.

LDS don’t pray to Jesus, let alone His Mother, so there is another way in which LDS are kept from Mary, the Mother of God. You can’t have a relationship with someone who you never talk to.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

I have a brother in law who gives me fairly constant grief over my RC conversion. His main sticking points seem to be, lighting a candle when I pray, and what’s up the the Shroud of Turin…

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.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

eh, I don’t think he’s an ***, we just seem to not “get” each other, at all.

I don’t know what he was trying to get at with the Shroud. Or the candles. Both encounters with him, being on the very strange side of things.

I already lit a candle for you. Mary has you in her arms. I make rosaries, if’n you ever come up to SLC, you’re going home with one.

 

[Telstar]

eh, I don’t think he’s an ***, we just seem to not “get” each other, at all.

I don’t know what he was trying to get at with the Shroud. Or the candles. Both encounters with him, being on the very strange side of things.

I already lit a candle for you. Mary has you in her arms. I make rosaries, if’n you ever come up to SLC, you’re going home with one.

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