New Forum Member Alaris: LDS & Topic of Interest

  • Thread starter Thread starter alaris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought about this conversation. I agree there is no common frame of reference. Catholics think about the trinity, continued revelation, etc. really differntly.

We can’t agree on the nature of the Trinity, and then you’re trying to figure out who specifically the Holy Spirit is. Then you trying to find significance that it has not been revealed to us yet. Next you’re wondering what how that significance relates to the idea continued revelation…this is what I think is happening at least…maybe.

As for continued revelation, I have idea about about how some of the LDS folks here may begin to try to relate. Certainly, Catholics think things change and humanity grows spiritually…but they don’t really think in terms of continued revelation. Try reading the following book…the Phenomenon of Man by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ


It is by a Catholic Priest who believes in evolution (so if you don’t believe in evolution you may not get much out of this). The book was initially prohibited by the Catholic Church, but they are warming up to it. Many of the Popes have praised Teilhard, and there continues to be a push and petitions to allow for greater acceptance of his work. The book is about how humanity grows spirtually and becomes more complex.
 
Last edited:
@(name removed by moderator)

This is the perfect example of how this conversation is already productive despite our different interpretations of the Trinity. Whether the three aspects of one deity are represented by three individuals or they are three individuals … 😇 … we can still certainly compare notes where our ultimate conclusions about what we’re seeing is different.

We believe Elohim is God the Father, and Jehovah is the premortal deity of Jesus Christ, and … well The Holy Ghost. See what I mean? The premortal Holy Ghost is sort of glossed over. In the Book of Mormon, the Spirit of the Lord appears to Nephi in his vision (1 Nephi 14 iirc) and suddenly an angel is speaking to Nephi and it’s difficult to tell whether it’s the same individual or not.

LDS belief is Jehovah / Jesus’ atonement & resurrection were the final steps to inheriting all the father has. Joseph Smith said (and I believe I shared this quote earlier) that the Holy Ghost is in a state of probation and should he prove successful, he will go on to experience the same or similar course as the Son. I believe this 100 %. However, there is so little information on this, and I believe this has been hidden deliberately.

1 Enoch speaks of the Elect one (chosen one) who is like the Holy Ones (The term Enoch uses for the seven Archangels) whose name is hidden from the foundation of the world. His name is hidden … The angel of the LORD’s name is hidden (Judges 13.) In the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Angel Jaoel (Iaoel, Yahoel, Jahoel, Jehoel are all alternate spellings - almost as if there is some mystical force 😉 😉 deliberately masking this information) tells Abraham he is set over him and his posterity and his identity will be hidden after “the sacrifice” which I believe was referring to either the sacrifice Jaoel instructions he gives to Abraham or the “sacrifice” of Isaac. Like the Angel of the LORD, Jaoel’s behavior is very similar and very authoritative.

1 Enoch & the Apocalypse of Abraham are not considered canon with LDS. 1 Enoch is referenced in the Bible, and the Apocalypse of Abraham is dated back to 70 AD. I believe these clues are on the periphery because of the hidden nature of the identity and dominion of this person.

I may be running out of real estate here, but I believe the Angel of the LORD’s dominion is a subset - his dominion begins with Abraham or post flood, and his mortality is the fulfillment of Yom Kippur as referenced in Hebrews 9 and alluded to at the end of Revelation 11. Jaoel was even dressed similarly as the High Priest who Paul said signifies the Holy Ghost! We LDS do believe Jehovah / Jesus’ dominion is a subset of Elohim and the throne is given to him at Elohim’s behest. Likewise, the Angel of the LORD’s dominion is yet another subset - “He that sitteth upon the throne” is a term that repeats throughout Revelation. This implies the person seated on the throne is sitting upon someone else’s throne & power.
 
Last edited:
This is very complex. A Catholic will have a very hard time relating to this. Perhaps try to tie it into your life and other people’s lives…see if you even can.
 
Last edited:
I understand. Imagine if you will that God gives you a key of understanding unearned. Just, here you go.

Then you take that key and see what doors it unlocks and suddenly not only is that key confirmed to be true over and over and over again, you want to shout this from the rooftops, AND learn as much as you can and see how this key fits into everything!

Take Isaiah for example. There is a duality where Isaiah overlays the people and places and events of his day to prophesy of end times people and places and events.

Then there is an overlay of duality of the prophecies of Jesus Christ and another messianic figure. This key also helps to unlock that understanding. The dominion of this messianic person is clearly Israel. Well, Israel is a subset isn’t it? The covenant to Abraham reaffirmed with Isaac and Jacob and overlaid on the 12 sons / tribes of Jacob is all a subset of God’s people. If this messianic figure is Jesus Christ why not speak of the covenant with Adam and his posterity? Or Noah? Why is there this tighter scope thousands of years after Adam? Why did the people in Adam’s day live so long and mankind’s lifespan condense post flood? Are these facts related? Absolutely, yes. The dominion that begins post flood / post judgement is a new dominion and is a subset and is governed by this Angel who met with Abraham, who stopped him from sacrificing his son, who met Moses in the burning bush, led Israel out of bondage - PARTED THE RED SEA - met with Joshua on the plains of Jericho - met Samson’s parents and told them his name is secret / incomprehensible / wonderful (the definitions of this one Hebrew word.) He is the messenger of the Covenant in Malachi 3. What is messenger? The same exact Hebrew word for Angel. He very likely announced the Savior’s birth and was the one who rolled back the stone. Who … is … he? He is the Holy Ghost.
 
I see what you mean. Certainly all commandments boil down to the two great commandments from our end and all actions on God’s end comes down to love. 🙂
 
@AlbertDerGrosse I am unfamiliar with the word “Moridor” and a quick google presented an Urban Dictionary definition that I presume you did not intend.

You are correct on the less Orthodox teachings - I wrote an article on multiple mortal probations - a belief that was clearly embraced by early members of the church - and the vehement hostility I received in an LDS forum was quite shocking. Vehement anger! “How dare you imply I would have to come and live my life again!”

Me: “Well Heber C. Kimball believed it…”
Angry person: “RAWR!”
 
hope said:
I don’t agree that it is a good reason to attack an others faith.
Click to expand...
Let’s get a couple things straight here. I never said it was acceptable to attack anyone’s faith. Second, the “good reason” that exists that I stated makes “conversation” difficult, or impossible, is that terms are not defined the same way.
hope said:
it is hard to discuss a subject but then again little effort was made to define it.
Click to expand...
If any productive dialogue is to occur, then this will need to be the starting point. It seems to me that the OP is skipping ahead, looking for information about a certain “phrase” or reference to a person (angelic or otherwise). The root of this question goes back to the definition of the terms, which in turn, is based upon the doctrines of the faith, which are diametrically opposed to one another.
 
alaris said:
I am unfamiliar with the word “Moridor” and a quick google presented an Urban Dictionary definition that I presume you did not intend.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed an ‘r’. “Morridor” as in “Mormon Corridor”. Think of it as the Bible Belt of Mormonism (or Book of Mormon Belt, if you prefer). Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Eastern Nevada, Alberta Canada, and the States of Sonora and Chihuahua in Mexico.

I ask because the Mormons in those places tend to be BIC Mormons and so even if the LDS Church doesn’t explicitly emphasize Mormon Esoterica these days, individuals from the Morridor are likely to still know about it due to family members, neighbors, etc. I grew up in California but have loads of extended family in southern Utah. I remember only learning about the Adam-God Doctrine during a week long stay with family out there. I mentioned it to fellow California Mormons once I got back and they assured me that it was nonsense, that I must’ve heard it from an anti-Mormon source. I was taught it in an LDS Sunday School class in Cedar City, UT!
 
I’ve never heard the term but I like it! Indeed I am in the Morridor: Arizona. Grew up in California myself.
 
I apologize. I didn’t mean to indicate that you thought it was acceptable to attack anthers faith. You are always charitable in your answers. I do see your point that if there is no common ground you cannot discuss a subject.
God Bless You
 
On a lighter note ;-), I never understood the LDS thing about not drinking.

I mean the first miracle of Jesus was turning water into wine…not grape juice…not attacking by the way…just confused

Here we are as good Catholics comparing notes about our favorite Bourbons.
40.png
The alcoholic drink that’s even better for you than wine Casual Discussion
Perhaps…just maybe…the Pope read this and joined in too…

 
Last edited:
Mormons believe its a new commandment that wasn’t revealed by God until the Prophet Joseph Smith, so Mormons have no problem with all the Old and New Testament references to booze. It’s kind of like our understanding of divorce: God tolerated it in the Old Testament “because of the hardness of their hearts”, but when Jesus came in the New he abolished it making the marriage bond indissoluble by anything other than death.

Even when Joseph Smith first presented the world with the Word of Wisdom (which is the Mormon dietary code prohibiting alcohol, among other things), it wasn’t look upon as a strict prohibition. It was a wise and pious recommendation. Theres contemporary testimony of Joseph Smith using tobacco and drinking beer. Even by the time the Mormons made it to the Salt Lake Basin under the leadership of Brigham Young it would be a few more years until he clamped down on it. It wasn’t until the 1920s that the LDS Church made strict sobriety a condition for entrance to the temple.
 
Pssst. Newsflash. Mormons drink, smoke, use swear words, get divorced, etc just like people who aren’t Mormons.
 
Uh, strict sobriety? Nope. Many Mormons have disputed that claim inc those who (say they) have positions in the temple. They’ve told me that Mormons aren’t as pure as the image they project to the world. They drink, smoke, use swear words, have affairs, get divorced, etc just like those who aren’t members of their church. Soft drinks inc caffeinated are sold at their colleges and universities. And they aren’t solely for the non-Mormon students.
 
That some members of the LDS Church are not living up to the precepts of their religion doesn’t mean the religion doesn’t insist on those precepts.

The Catholic Church insists on all sex acts between a married couple being open to life, and this is a condition of receiving the Eucharist. Is that not a correct statement despite the fact that loads of Catholics use contraception and receive the Eucharist anyway?
 
What I’m saying is, it may be written down. But you’d be amazed at the number of Mormons who don’t obey their rules. I sure was because it was one of the things I admired about them.

And the ones who aren’t obeying their church’s precepts are members in good standing not former members.
 
Last edited:
Oh I’m familiar with it. I’ve been on both sides of the aisle. Hypocrisy is bound to happen wherever you involve human beings. 🙂
 
lilypadrees said:
And the ones who aren’t obeying their church’s precepts are members in good standing not former members.
Click to expand...
Yup. Just like the Sunday Mass attending, Eucharist receiving Catholics who use birth control.
 
There are hypocrites everywhere…no religion is without them.

The point of my comment about wine was that it is another frame of reference issue.

I think alcohol can be healthy and a way to bond socially and spirtually if used in moderation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top