Mormons: Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?

[jane_doe]

That being said, for us Catholics it goes beyond that. Central to our incarnational theology is the doctrine of sanctification or deification (what our Eastern brethren call theosis). See #460 in the Catechism. Our tradition does indeed use the language of men “becoming gods” - it’s right there in the Catechism… So it is not helpful to deny this in dialogue with Mormons. What we need to point out is that we understand this very differently. For Mormons, God and men are the same “species” if you will. We are literally the spirit children of God and we can become true gods in our own right. For Catholic and Orthodox Christians we never truly become God, but rather participate in divinity. It’s rooted in the incarnation. The Son of God became man, uniting His divine nature to our human nature, so that we too can share in His divine nature. Our Lady is said to be omnipotent by grace. Popes have used this language. She is greater than any so called goddess. Yet she remains a finite creature, a woman… But she participates so perfectly in the divine nature that Her glory outshines any goddess of any religion.

Now, this is a productive post.

 

[Horton]

I’ve been trying, and have! But people keep telling me that talking about sin and God is thread-jacking (despite the title of the thread), and won’t even agree with me that God is perfect.

I… frankly I don’t have infinite patience and feel that this is very unproductive.

One person has told you that. Frankly Jane, my feeling is you participate in threads to cause drama rather than have a civilized discussion about our faith. Most of us have told you we do NOT need a primer on sin and the nature of God but somehow you can’t quite grasp the concept of the OP question. Do we believe God is perfect and ALWAYS been so, that he was never man ever, YES. Now that this point is cleared up for you (I hope) let’s move on.

 

[jane_doe]

Frankly Jane, my feeling is you participate in threads to cause drama rather than have a civilized discussion about our faith.

Horton, I really have better things to do with my time than listen to your insults.

I am here for respective *inter-faith *dialogue and try my best to always act Christ-like and respectful of other people and their views, even if I totally disagree with them. I really do appreciate the people here interested in similar.

 

[Horton]

Horton, I really have better things to do with my time than listen to your insults.

I am here for respective *inter-faith *dialogue and try my best to always act Christ-like and respectful of other people and their views, even if I totally disagree with them. I really do appreciate the people here interested in similar.

It was not an insult, it is my perception of your postings. You tend to post the typical passive-aggressive answers that many LDS people engage in. My feeling is that you have insulted everyone on this thread and other threads. I have never felt respected by you at anytime and certainly not felt a Christ-like attitude.

And with this I’m done with you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That being said, for us Catholics it goes beyond that. Central to our incarnational theology is the doctrine of sanctification or deification (what our Eastern brethren call theosis). See #460 in the Catechism. Our tradition does indeed use the language of men “becoming gods” - it’s right there in the Catechism… So it is not helpful to deny this in dialogue with Mormons. What we need to point out is that we understand this very differently. For Mormons, God and men are the same “species” if you will. We are literally the spirit children of God and we can become true gods in our own right. For Catholic and Orthodox Christians we never truly become God, but rather participate in divinity. It’s rooted in the incarnation. The Son of God became man, uniting His divine nature to our human nature, so that we too can share in His divine nature. Our Lady is said to be omnipotent by grace. Popes have used this language. She is greater than any so called goddess. Yet she remains a finite creature, a woman… But she participates so perfectly in the divine nature that Her glory outshines any goddess of any religion.

In my experience Mormons can’t grasp that Christians do not believe we become a God. In no way, whatsoever, is any Christian including Lewis discussing Mormon ideas or doctrine of exaltation. Theirs is just the usual taking of Christian words and phrases and putting their overlay on top. It’s a very deceptive and dishonest approach, IMO, coming from Mormons. I can’t see that it has been discussed here with any Mormon showing an inkling of even trying to understand that we don’t believe we become a God. So I find it best to just say, whatever it is you think a Christian, any Chistian, is saying about becoming gods, it has absolutely nothing to do with Mormon teaching.

 

[Horton]

In my experience Mormons can’t grasp that Christians do not believe we become a God. In no way, whatsoever, is any Christian including Lewis discussing Mormon ideas or doctrine of exaltation. Theirs is just the usual taking of Christian words and phrases and putting their overlay on top. It’s a very deceptive and dishonest approach, IMO, coming from Mormons. I can’t see that it has been discussed here with any Mormon showing an inkling of even trying to understand that we don’t believe we become a God. So I find it best to just say, whatever it is you think a Christian, any Chistian, is saying about becoming gods, it has absolutely nothing to do with Mormon teaching.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Bolding mine

 

[Tarquin]

frankly I don’t have infinite patience and feel that this is very unproductive.

Unproductive, like asking the same question over and over, so keep asking it over and over.

Tarquin, if you are unwilling to answer a super simple question, then this conversation is a waste of my time.

Something you need to understand, jane_doe, is I am not responsible for how you use your time. Nor am I responsible for whether or not you are wasting your time. Who gets to determine whether a question is “simple” – the questioner who doesn’t know the answer, or the one being pressed to answer “simply”?

A person who repents stands at the final day before God 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect, 100% a co-heir with Christ. Do you or do you not understand that?
(We must establish a basic understanding before moving on to more advance topics)

Talking about sins, repentance, and perfection are essential prerequisites topics before talking about “Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?”
Now, would you agree that God is 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect?

Well, then, don’t let me stop you. Go ahead, talk about sins, repentance and perfection. What are they? In particular what is perfection? I thought I had partly explained how Catholics and Mormons each perceives the perfection of God. If more needs to be said on that, please don’t keep me in suspense.

And, No, I do not understand what MORMONS mean by “co-heir with Christ”.

Regardless of that - If you believe “we must establish a basic understanding before moving on to more advance topics”, try what I would do. I have been discussing religion for many years, so have learned to deal with some verbal obstacles. Here’s one way I found to get beyond such obstacles, whether actual or merely perceived: Answer my question myself!

Let’s see how someone, let’s call him Hypothetical_Tarquin, might handle it, if someone else, let’s call her Hypothetical_Mormon, were to say such-and-such, and Hypothetical_Tarquin questioned them about what they said. This is just an example, to show how to get beyond an unanswered question.

Hypothetical_Mormon: God had the potential to sin when he was in his mortality, proving to His Father how good and worthy he was to obtain exaltation and his own worlds to rule over, and so on.
Hypothetical_Tarquin: Forget what your Church teaches and tell me what you believe personally - did God sin while he was in his mortality and had the potential to sin?
Hypothetical_Mormon: My personal beliefs have nothing to do with it. I rely on Scripture and modern day prophets.
Hypothetical_Tarquin: Yes, but surely after reading the Scriptures and listening to modern day prophets and filtering out the teachings of the dead prophets from the living prophets, you have reached your own conclusion about this. So what do you personally believe, regardless of what your prophets said or your Scriptures report? Tell me what you believe personally - did God sin while he was in his mortality and had the potential to sin?
Hypothetical_Mormon: I believe the Scriptures and I believe my prophets. That is what is important here, not what individual persons believe beyond what the Lord has revealed.
Hypothetical_Tarquin: We can go no further until you answer my question! Tell me what you believe personally - did God sin while he was in his mortality and had the potential to sin?
Hypothetical_Mormon: No!
Hypothetical_Tarquin: Okay Hypothetical_Mormon, I understand. That’s okay. You don’t have to answer the question. We can deal with the issue in another way without making you feel uncomfortable about answering a simple question. How about this.

Either you believe God did sin while He was in His mortality,
or you believe God did not sin while He was in His mortality.
So let’s examine both possibilities. That way, we will cover what you would have answered, either way.

If God did sin while He was in His mortality … (whatever argument follows, for example, then God not only has the potential to sin, but has a record of having sinned, so how can we ever trust him not to sin again?)

On the other hand, if God did not sin while He was in His mortality . . . (whatever argument follows, for example, since God did not sin, (1) how did he ever have potential to do so in the first place, and (2) that means God has potentials that he never actualized. This may not mean much to a Mormon, but to one familiar with Christian theology, there is no potentiality in God. Having an unactualized potential would be an imperfection. A perfect being is one that has totally actualized/realized His full potential.)

Hypothetical_Mormon: Gee Whillikers, Hypothetical_Tarquin, I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Hypothetical_Tarquin (blushing): Shucks, Ma’am, glad to help. That’s what I’m here for.
Hypothetical_Mormon: Now that we’ve gotten over that little obstacle I put in your way, what now?
Hypothetical_Tarquin: Now that we have dealt with your question, Hypothetical_Mormon, in terms of either answer you might have given, by demonstrating how I would respond to whichever answer you would have given, “we can move on to more advance topics.” So now I ask you, what are those “more advance topics” and how do they relate to the OP?

Do you see how this works, jane_doe? Try this next time you feel you have a question that absolutely must be answered before you can figure out what to say next. Take the initiative. Examine both answers a person might give – yes, no – and from those answers (one probably being correct, and the other, if incorrect, you may have corrected in your own response), “move on to more advance topics”.

 

[Tarquin]

Here is an alternative way to handle “The Jane Doe Dilemma.”

You might extend as much tolerance towards what you believe is my refusal to answer your question as you expect others to extend to you for your refusal to answer Hatikvah’s question:

Post 211
Horton: “And yet you continue to waste our time by not answering the OP question, which is “super simple”.”
Jane_doe: * “I have answered it many times, starting with post number 2” *

But, Jane_doe, this is the “answer” you have given in post number 2:

Post 2
Jane_do: * “Shrug Don’t know, don’t care. It’s of no consequence.” *

If you sincerely believe “Don’t know, don’t care” is a legitimate answer to the question, you should have no problem, barring hypocrisy, in accepting this as an answer to your question about salvation, God’s grace, purity, and perfection:

‘Isn’t that close to begging the question? The thread is about that: “Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?” Could He sin? Did He sin? If He sinned, is He “without blemish”? Jane_does says yes. If He sinned, is he “blameless”? And a big question IgnatianPhilo asked - Is He pure? - insightfully distinguishing between someone who has * always* been pure and someone who had to * become** purified before he was pure.’ (slightly paraphrased)*

 

[jane_doe]

Here is an alternative way to handle “The Jane Doe Dilemma.”

You might extend as much tolerance towards what you believe is my refusal to answer your question as you expect others to extend to you for your refusal to answer Hatikvah’s question:

Post 211
Horton: “And yet you continue to waste our time by not answering the OP question, which is “super simple”.”
Jane_doe: * “I have answered it many times, starting with post number 2” *

But, Jane_doe, this is the “answer” you have given in post number 2:

Post 2
Jane_do: * “Shrug Don’t know, don’t care. It’s of no consequence.” *

If you sincerely believe “Don’t know, don’t care” is a legitimate answer to the question, you should have no problem, barring hypocrisy, in accepting this as an answer to your question about salvation, God’s grace, purity, and perfection:

‘Isn’t that close to begging the question? The thread is about that: “Do you believe that God the Father sinned, or had the potential to?” Could He sin? Did He sin? If He sinned, is He “without blemish”? Jane_does says yes. If He sinned, is he “blameless”? And a big question IgnatianPhilo asked - Is He pure? - insightfully distinguishing between someone who has * always* been pure and someone who had to * become*** purified before he was pure.’ (slightly paraphrased)

Except scripture makes no such distinction, nor does it say scarlet sins shall be made white except for that tiny spot is still scarlet.

 

[Tarquin]

Risking wrath by going on to what jane_doe thinks of as more advanced topics before satisfying her need to know my personal beliefs regarding accepted Catholic doctrine.

It seems you do not understand the sheer power of the atonement.
ALL sin that is repented of is washed clean. It no longer matters. It is no longer remembered. At the day of judgement and beyond, a repentant drug-trafficking scum-bag stands 100% clean and pure: his sins are wiped clean, they no longer matter, they are no longer remembered- he is 100% clean and pure and stands as a joint heir with Christ Himself.

I wonder who does understand “the sheer power of the atonement” aside from God.

My view of the power of the Atonement is that – thanks to the grace of God – it is full and complete, not partial or selective, and unlike what Mormons teach, it doesn’t come in steps. So I don’t fully understand why any Mormon would pretend to believe the Atonement is as generous as Christians believe it to be, a grace of God. A Christian believes people who repent and believe in Jesus are forgiven through his sacrifice and God’s grace. But Prophet Spencer W. Kimball taught,

One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation. Along with all the other works necessary for man’s exaltation in the kingdom of God this could rule out the need for repentance. It could give license for sin [Grace is “license for sin”!? – Tarquin] and, since it does not require man to work out his salvation, could accept instead lip service, death-bed “repentance,” and shallow, meaningless confession of sin. . . . If by the word “salvation” is meant the mere salvation or redemption from the grave, the “grace of God” is sufficient. But if the term “salvation” means returning to the presence of God with eternal progression, eternal increase, and eventual godhood, for this one certainly must have the “grace of God,” as it is generally defined, plus personal purity, overcoming of evil, and the good “works” made so important in the exhortations of the Savior and his prophets and apostles. (Miracle of Forgiveness”

Mormons believe adulteresses and others, even mere liars (Doctrine and Covenants 76:103), even if they repent are barely a tad above hell-bottom (the region below the telestial kingdom) and countless degrees below heaven (the top of the celestial kingdom where God the Father is found). Mormon missionaries taught me the atonement only guaranteed we would be resurrected, not that our sins were wiped clean 100% (see Kimball’s quote above), and thus qualified to live with the Father in the top of the Celestial Kingdom. Has that teaching changed? Is the Atonement enough now, does it purify 100% and we don’t need the Mormon Church?

Mormonism’s “Telestial Kingdom” is described in the Doctrine and Covenants as “the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser” – lesser – as though the people there have a different degree or amount or quality of: blame, blemish, purity, perfection. For if all who repent and accept Christ are 100% blameless, 100% without blemish, 100% pure, 100% perfect, should they not also be 100% a co-heir with Christ, and if co-heirs, in the same kingdom enjoying the same inheritance? And yet not only does God the Father refuse to attend to the Telestial Kingdom and the people in it, not even Christ attends his alleged co-heirs! That is truly in-co-heir-ent.

“These are they who receive not of his (Christ’s) fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial . . . . And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation. Doctrine and Covenants 76:86, 88). Strangely heired, as they never see God the Father nor Christ either one.

If when God and Jesus forgive us, we are “100% pure” – and if that is true, why are there even a Telestial and a Terrestrial Kingdom to begin with! If we are “100% clean and pure” by the Atonement, why don’t we all get to the top degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom? Your third Article of Faith reads, “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” It seems that “the sheer power of the atonement” is not enough to save a Mormon. They also need to be obedient to “the laws and ordinances” of the Mormon Church. It seems the atonement, to Mormons, is not so sheer (complete, absolute) as you imply, without obedience to various laws and submission to various ordinances.

If the past does not matter, jane_doe, how does anyone know who goes into the Terrestrial, Telestial, and Celestial Kingdoms? If the past does not matter, why do your prophets say you must “work” your way to exaltation? Is it because what we have done in the past determines where we will go in the future? Do you reject the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price where it indicates that the past does make a difference. Those who were “noble and great” before the world was, were, because of their pasts, are made rulers and religious leaders.

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

 

[Tarquin]

Again, Spencer W. Kimball said, “But if the term “salvation” means returning to the presence of God with eternal progression, eternal increase, and eventual godhood, for this one certainly must have the “grace of God,” as it is generally defined, plus personal purity, overcoming of evil, and the good “works” made so important in the exhortations of the Savior and his prophets and apostles.” and “True repentance does not permit repetition. Forgiveness is not assured if one reverts to early sins. The Lord said: . . . go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return. . . . (D&C 82:7.)” If a person repents, sincerely, is he forgiven? I would say yes, a Kimballite would say no, because he might sin again, so he cannot be forgiven until there is no chance he will sin again, which means – when he dies. Essential a death-bed repentance.

B. H. Roberts taught, “Intelligence, purity, truth, will always remain with us relative terms and also relative qualities. Ascend to what heights you may, ever beyond you will be other heights in respect of these things, and ever as you ascend more heights will appear, and it is doubtful if we shall ever attain the absolute in respect of these qualities. Our joy will be the joy of approximating them, of attaining unto ever increasing excellence, without attaining the absolute.” (“Defense of the Faith and the Saints”)

The effect of the Atonement, or the purity of those who accept Christ and are forgiven is “relative” in terms of where it gets them, because it does not get us all to the same place, some going to one degree of Glory and some to other degrees of Glory, right?

How about a person who never commits sin, if he is not baptized into the LDS Church, where does he wind up – in the Celestial Kingdom with God the Father? Or someplace else, a place so unworthy of God that he never even visits there? If a man never commits sin, is he “100% pure”? If he accepts and believes in Jesus, is he “100% blameless”? If he is blameless, without blemish, pure, perfect, but unbaptized, will he enter the Celestial Kingdom? Or will you say that not being baptized a Mormon is a blemish or impurity? Is he pure, but not pure enough? Must he have “plus personal purity”?

 

[jane_doe]

Tarquin,'you are very much misunderstanding LDS beliefs.

 

[Tarquin]

Except scripture makes no such distinction, nor does it say scarlet sins shall be made white except for that tiny spot is still scarlet.

Nor does scripture say that those called by Christ would need to be restored 1800 years later, nor that there would have to be a “Trustee-in-Trust” in Christ’s organization, nor that the Church should build a university, nor that the Church should publish magazines, practice polygamy, have secret temple rituals, wear special under-garments, excommunicate members who disbelieve what a prophet says, instruct all believers to gather in one place, run for public office, tell people that if they believe in Jesus and are baptized, their skin color will change, make laws about what they eat (contra Matthew 15:11 and Acts 10:14-15), and many other Mormon innovations. It is amazing to see Mormons struggle with the obvious necessity of reasoning some things out for themselves instead of expecting to find answers written out black and white for them in the Scriptures.

Your approach to reasoning runs contrary to what the Priesthood teaches. Are you sure you are a Mormon?

In several places in the scriptures, the Lord says, “Come, let us reason together.” He even gives the reason for reasoning in the following passage:

And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;

Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face.

Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand.[D&C 50:10–12; see also Isaiah 1:18]

The Lord thus places value on reasoning as a means of understanding.

Let me note in passing that our experiences with students in mathematics courses tell us that our society does not place much value on reasoning. Many of the major forces in our society don’t want you to reason. They would like you to just do as you are requested without thinking about it. Think of advertising, politics, and special interest groups of all sorts. Further, society doesn’t give us much practice in reasoning as we are growing up. Even in school the emphasis seems too often to be on memorizing and regurgitating rather than on reasoning, and outside of school we spend a lot of time in passive entertainment. To live without reasoning sounds to me more like Lucifer’s plan than the plan of happiness.

The Lord gives further light on the relationship of reason and faith in His interaction with Oliver Cowdery and his attempt to translate. Oliver was told that it was not enough just to ask, even in faith, but “you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right” (D&C 9:8). I think this pattern can apply to everything we study: we should do our best to reason it out and then ask the Lord to give us insight by the Spirit. I conclude from what the scriptures say that we are expected to use both reason and faith as we learn.

From what I have observed, Latter-day Saints contrast with many Christians in believing that reason even applies in understanding theological ideas. So much in classical Christianity is labeled as unexplainable mystery that many believers never try to reason things out. (Branch President, Missionary Training Center, thrice Bishop)

From the Introduction to the Brigham Young version of "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church:

Although President Brigham Young had only 11 days of formal schooling, he understood the need for learning both the things of the world and the wisdom of God. He never ceased learning from books, from the scriptures, and from the revelations of the Lord, and he taught the Saints to establish schools and to delight in learning.

Not only does the religion of Jesus Christ make the people acquainted with the things of God, and develop within them moral excellence and purity, but it holds out every encouragement and inducement possible, for them to increase in knowledge and intelligence, in every branch of mechanism, or in the arts and sciences, for all wisdom, and all the arts and sciences in the world are from God, and are designed for the good of his people (DBY, 247).

The greatest difficulty we have to meet is what may be termed ignorance, or want of understanding in the people (DBY, 247).

The religion embraced by the Latter-day Saints, if only slightly understood, prompts them to search diligently after knowledge [see D&C 88:118]. There is no other people in existence more eager to see, hear, learn, and understand truth (DBY, 247).

And you say I misunderstand “Mormon beliefs”!

 

[Tarquin]

It seems you do not understand the sheer power of the atonement.
ALL sin that is repented of is washed clean. It no longer matters. It is no longer remembered. At the day of judgement and beyond, a repentant drug-trafficking scum-bag stands 100% clean and pure: his sins are wiped clean, they no longer matter, they are no longer remembered- he is 100% clean and pure and stands as a joint heir with Christ Himself.

There is no “historical purity” or “relative purity”, the past does not matter. Clean = Clean. Pure = Pure.

Please consider this very relevant scripture: “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.” (1 John 3:2-3) How can we purify ourselves “as he is pure” if there are differences in his purity and our purity? Has John given us an impossible task?

No, not John. Mormons.

“100% pure”? Prophet Spencer W. Kimball taught,

One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation. Along with all the other works necessary for man’s exaltation in the kingdom of God this could rule out the need for repentance. It could give license for sin [Grace is “license for sin”!? – Tarquin] and, since it does not require man to work out his salvation, could accept instead lip service, death-bed “repentance,” and shallow, meaningless confession of sin. . . . If by the word “salvation” is meant the mere salvation or redemption from the grave, the “grace of God” is sufficient. But if the term “salvation” means returning to the presence of God with eternal progression, eternal increase, and eventual godhood, for this one certainly must have the “grace of God,” as it is generally defined, plus personal purity, overcoming of evil, and the good “works” made so important in the exhortations of the Savior and his prophets and apostles. (Miracle of Forgiveness”

It looks like pure ≠ pure. For if Atonement, belief in Jesus, and the grace of God purify us, no matter how much /sic/ we are purified, we still need “personal purity,” hence are only relatively pure. God’s grace and Jesus’ propitiation only give us a degree of purity, not 100% purity. If it were 100%, Kikmball would not teach we need God’s grace, Jesus’ propitiation, and the Holy Spirit, but, Kimball adds that we need all that “plus personal purity.” And more, “personal purity, overcoming of evil.” Who can overcome evil? Kimball? You? Me? That’s why God sends the Messiah. To overcome evil. As it says in the Christian Bible, “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity, so that through His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were subject to lifetime bondage. (Hebrews 2:14-15)

So let me boil this down, you cannot find any scriptural evidence to support your assertion that, “There is a qualitative difference between a pure thing and a purified thing.”

If we both search the Scriptures at the same time, who do you think will come up with a supportive scripture first – the one who says there is a difference between being absolutely pure by virtue of one’s own inherent nature, and being conditionally purified by another – or the one who says there is no difference between an absolutely, eternally, and inherently pure Being and another being, finite, changeable, unperfected, who must be purified by that First Being? And if we rely on reasoning, beyond the scritpures, and one of us reasons and the other does not, whom do you believe people will consider the most “reasonable”?

As for teachings of Mormon prophets, one referred to that “relative perfection which enables men to enjoy the near-constant companionship of the Lord’s spirit” (Bruce McConkie), another “The gospel suggests to us ultimate perfection, but eternal progression rests on the assumption of gradual but regular improvement in our lives. In the city of Enoch the near perfection of this people occurred ‘in process of time’ over many, many years. This is also the case with us.” (Neal A. Maxwell, teaching that perfection is a gradual process, thus apparently has stages and degrees); “Intelligence, purity, truth, will always remain with us relative terms and also relative qualities.” (B. H. Roberts

I was about to explain again, but it takes less time simply to refer you to the relevant posts:
#147, 161, 168, 169, maybe some others. It is good to use scriptural citations when they are available, but in the spirit of the Scriptures – “Come let us reason together” let’s not hide behind our scriptures.

 

[Horton]

100% pure”? Prophet Spencer W. Kimball taught,

Quote:

One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation. Along with all the other works necessary for man’s exaltation in the kingdom of God this could rule out the need for repentance. It could give license for sin [Grace is “license for sin”!? – Tarquin] and, since it does not require man to work out his salvation, could accept instead lip service, death-bed “repentance,” and shallow, meaningless confession of sin. . . . If by the word “salvation” is meant the mere salvation or redemption from the grave, the “grace of God” is sufficient. But if the term “salvation” means returning to the presence of God with eternal progression, eternal increase, and eventual godhood, for this one certainly must have the “grace of God,” as it is generally defined, plus personal purity, overcoming of evil, and the good “works” made so important in the exhortations of the Savior and his prophets and apostles. (Miracle of Forgiveness”

I always knew the LDS had a different idea of what sin & repentance was but I had no idea it was so repugnant. I guess this is why they or part of the reason they don’t views Jesus Christ like Christians do. That they don’t see him as the Savior of the world or the Son of God.

I’ve always wondered why intelligent people could believe this, especially converts but now I’m getting it. As Catholic Christians we are taught God first, others second, ourselves last. That performing works of mercy and charitable deeds selflessly is what God expects of us. That using our talents, time, & treasure is to glorify God. But what I’m starting to understand about those who believe in the LDS is that man first, family second, God third and others last. By the assumption that a man can “work out” his salvation and become a god…it seems to me that man is putting himself at the front of the line. That may look attractive to a man with low self esteem or a under developed ego. I’m guessing the wives go along with it since they are taught the only way to heaven is through marriage to a good LDS man.

Thank you Tarquin

 

[Tarquin]

By the assumption that a man can “work out” his salvation and become a god…it seems to me that man is putting himself at the front of the line. That may look attractive to a man with low self esteem or a under developed ego. I’m guessing the wives go along with it since they are taught the only way to heaven is through marriage to a good LDS man.

Thank you Tarquin

Sure. And, ouch! - I don’t recall if I had thought of that before, but I think you are right. If I have to get my own self to heaven in order to avoid misery, I’ll do what I have to. Then, if I have time, maybe I’ll help others. Finally, maybe I’ll say an extra thank you to God. Or not. I won’t need to since it did it myself.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I always knew the LDS had a different idea of what sin & repentance was but I had no idea it was so repugnant. I guess this is why they or part of the reason they don’t views Jesus Christ like Christians do. That they don’t see him as the Savior of the world or the Son of God.

I’ve always wondered why intelligent people could believe this, especially converts but now I’m getting it. As Catholic Christians we are taught God first, others second, ourselves last. That performing works of mercy and charitable deeds selflessly is what God expects of us. That using our talents, time, & treasure is to glorify God. But what I’m starting to understand about those who believe in the LDS is that man first, family second, God third and others last. By the assumption that a man can “work out” his salvation and become a god…it seems to me that man is putting himself at the front of the line. That may look attractive to a man with low self esteem or a under developed ego. I’m guessing the wives go along with it since they are taught the only way to heaven is through marriage to a good LDS man.

Thank you Tarquin

I’ve always seen the LDS idea of Savior, as utilitarianism that goes with the constant underlying stream in Mormon teaching, of the same.

But anyway, “The Miracle of Forgiveness” has caused people to despair of ever being forgiven. It was one of those books that every Mormon owned and every missionary had on their mission, along with “Mormon Doctrine”. Both books have now been relegated to the dust bin of “just opinion”. In the case of Miracle of Forgiveness", that’s a good thing. It has terrible theology that was taught to a whole generation of Mormons as gospel truth.

 

[Horton]

Sure. And, ouch! - I don’t recall if I had thought of that before, but I think you are right. If I have to get my own self to heaven in order to avoid misery, I’ll do what I have to. Then, if I have time, maybe I’ll help others. Finally, maybe I’ll say an extra thank you to God. Or not. I won’t need to since it did it myself.

Right

 

[Tarquin]

Both books have now been relegated to the dust bin of “just opinion”. In the case of Miracle of Forgiveness", that’s a good thing. It has terrible theology that was taught to a whole generation of Mormons as gospel truth.

The living prophets are more important than the dead prophets. As the living prophets deny the doctrines taught by the dead prophets, they (the living) continue their hopefully not eternal progression into genuine Christianity. I have not yet found anything theologically outstanding, shocking, remarkable, or very much supportive of the distinctive doctrines of Smith, Young, Taylor, and the two Joseph Fielding Smiths, nor even of Talmage, Widtsoe, and Bruce McConkie, in the writings and speeches of Thomas Monson. I suppose the next Prophet’s teachings will be scarcely distinguishable from normal Christianity. At which point Mormons can point to everything that had previously been taught in seminaries, institutes, religious and church history courses at BYU, Ricks, and BYU-Hawaii, by Priesthood teachers, Relief Society teachers, Gospel Doctrine teachers, and so on, as . . . (you guessed it) their own opinions. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Opinionators.?

 

[Tarquin]

Tarquin,'you are very much misunderstanding LDS beliefs.

Which post(s) is this in reference to?
Please correct my misunderstanding.
Please quote the sentences which demonstrate my misunderstanding.
Please offer correction to them.
If specific Bible passages apply, please cite a few.
Even if only Book of Mormon passages apply, please cite a few.

Ezra Taft Benson instructed Mormons:

**“We are to use the Book of Mormon as the basis for our teaching.”

“We are to use the Book of Mormon in handling objections to the Church.”

“The Book of Mormon is the great standard we are to use.”

"How are we to use it? We are to get a testimony of it, we are to teach from it, we are to hold it up as a standard and “hiss it forth.”**

The first is that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. This was the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement. He testified that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion” (Introduction to the Book of Mormon). A keystone is the central stone in an arch. It holds all the other stones in place, and if removed, the arch crumbles.

There are three ways in which the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the keystone in our witness of Christ. It is the keystone of our doctrine. It is the keystone of testimony.

The Book of Mormon is the keystone in our witness of Jesus Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone of everything we do. It bears witness of His reality with power and clarity. Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. * - And several revisions, which revising continues today. - Tarquin] *Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power. But it does even more. Much of the Christian world today rejects the divinity of the Savior. They question His miraculous birth, His perfect life, and the reality of His glorious resurrection. The Book of Mormon teaches in plain and unmistakable terms about the truth of all of those. It also provides the most complete explanation of the doctrine of the Atonement.

Thank you.