Question for LDS folks.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tmaque
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Outerspace said:
Well among my concerns is moderation. A lot of times in forum like this (not limited to Catholics) moderation can be one sided. I see that some Mormons were banned.

So if you’re already going one on four and you’re arguing with handcuffs because you don’t want to get moderated while your opposition is high fiving each other unencumbered, it’s not worthwhile. I think we’ve all been there.

Not to say that’s what has happened, I’m brand new, but that’s where I’m coming from. I give as good as I get, I can be aggressive or mild, I generally match whatever the other side does, I just want a level playing field.
Click to expand...
I know. I belonged to a LDS site. Folks were downright RUDE and awful to me, and nothing happened to them. Yet, I was banned if I responded even a LITTLE.
 
TexanKnight said:
Well…it means light on THIS earth…Adam and Jesus came down and created everything. Then Adam came with one of his wives, according to BY, from another planet and brought seeds and stuff and they made this planet pretty.
Click to expand...
So its safe to say we can blame Adam for marijuana and beer (wheat, barley and hops) because he brought the seeds 😊
 
RebeccaJ said:
Mormons have always taught that their God will always be higher than any man who becomes a god from this planet. This is not because their God IS God, it is because their God, who was once a man, is further along in his progressions and always will be. This is the understanding of Mormon subordination to God. I don’t see how that article changes this teaching/belief, it is only rephrasing it, and like a lot of Mormon apologetics, it obfuscates associated Mormon teachings. Obfuscation is not truth.

Theosis has nothing in common to Mormonism’s idea of progression and exaltation.
Click to expand...
Another word for it is “seniority”. They basically use the same principle when they choose the next “prophet”.
 
SteveVH said:
I don’t think this changes anything. The very idea that co-eternal intelligences (along with co-eternal matter) exist contradicts the Christian doctrine that God is omnipotent. From the Mormon view God is dependent upon “intelligences” and “eternal matter” in order to fashion the universe and all creatures. So he doesn’t really create any more than we create from existing substances, he’s just learned to do it on a grander scale. This view completely diminishes God’s power, glory and majesty. It is the result of making God in man’s image and likeness.
Click to expand...
It changes everything! This new belief is that God has always been God. The old belief is that God was once a man. If this was not something new then why is this professor even discussing it at all? Of course it’s something new and different.

Old view-God was once a man and then progressed to Godhood
New view-God was never a man and has always been God (I don’t how this is possible with a body but whatever, that step toward reason must come later I suppose, 1 step at a time.)

You don’t think anything has changed?
 
I don’t think any of you actually read the article. If you did read the article your comprehension skills, frankly, stink big time.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Mormons have always taught that their God will always be higher than any man who becomes a god from this planet. This is not because their God IS God, it is because their God, who was once a man, is further along in his progressions and always will be. This is the understanding of Mormon subordination to God. I don’t see how that article changes this teaching/belief, it is only rephrasing it, and like a lot of Mormon apologetics, it obfuscates associated Mormon teachings. Obfuscation is not truth.

Theosis has nothing in common to Mormonism’s idea of progression and exaltation.
Click to expand...
Didn’t read the article obviously. Especially this part: **“this contemporary view doesn’t require that some force have brought God into existence. It allows that he has eternally been God.” **

“Eternally been God” means he was never anything BUT God
 
I might be mistaken but tmaque seems like he is defending the mormons. Are you or were you ever a mormon? Because some of us here where and we know a little something about their history too guy.
 
How has the Mormon activity been on here lately? Seems like since the 19th somebody would have shown up to enter their two cents. I havent been on Non Cath Religions in like six months
 
Tmaque said:
Didn’t read the article obviously. Especially this part: **“this contemporary view doesn’t require that some force have brought God into existence. It allows that he has eternally been God.” **

“Eternally been God” means he was never anything BUT God
Click to expand...
Tmaque,

It sounds like you are promoting the new and improved “contemporary view” in Mormonism. That may not be the case; but when other forum members aren’t buying into it, you are shouting. What’s that about?

Should we all be jumping up and down saying how great the contemporary Mormon view is?

If Mormons are departing from the beliefs of their founder J. Smith and the early prophets; they are just creating another offshoot from a religion rooted in paganism. I don’t see any reason to celebrate or to delve into it. It’s still paganism.

Anna
 
I think Tmaque feels a need to defend the LDS since they have abandoned us. Some of the anti-Mormon comments I have seen lately have been off-putting even to me. I always thought that if they ever abandoned their constant attempts to convert us, that most LDS-related threads would just sort of die out. :o Sadly, I am finding that to be untrue. 🤷

Can we just say that a diversity of beliefs among LDS may be a sign of the end for them?
 
Tmaque said:
It changes everything! This new belief is that God has always been God.
Click to expand...
Hold your horses there. That is not at all what this means. They can say God is eternal because they believe we are eternal and that God was once as we are now; in their mind “eternal”.

“The second way: The more common contemporary LDS belief about intelligence is that each person, including God, exists eternally as an individual entity.”

What has changed? You think they actually believe that God has existed as God from eternity and did not progress from a lower state? As you see above they still believe we are co-eternal with God. That means that we originally existed on our own, quite apart from anything God has done. The entire theology is so flawed that this little change, if it really is a change, does nothing to make it any better.
Tmaque said:
The old belief is that God was once a man. If this was not something new then why is this professor even discussing it at all? Of course it’s something new and different.

Old view-God was once a man and then progressed to Godhood
New view-God was never a man and has always been God (I don’t how this is possible with a body but whatever, that step toward reason must come later I suppose, 1 step at a time.)

You don’t think anything has changed?
Click to expand...
I think you’re reading much more in to it than it actually says and it really changes nothing. What about the rest of their theology? If it says what you think it says it will only act to confuse Mormons. It doesn’t clear anything up for anyone else either.
 
What about the rest of their theology? If it says what you think it says it will only act to confuse Mormons. It doesn’t clear anything up for anyone else either.
Click to expand...
In that respect, Mormonism has always had one characteristic in common-- confusion. Nothing new there.
 
Tmaque said:
Didn’t read the article obviously. Especially this part: **“this contemporary view doesn’t require that some force have brought God into existence. It allows that he has eternally been God.” **

“Eternally been God” means he was never anything BUT God
Click to expand...
Yeah, I read it. Some Mormons, if not a lot of Mormons, just throw stuff out there to see what will stick. I know of an online Mormon that sees prophecies in a rock. So what. 🤷 It is like they are trying to trump each other with the greatest innovation, and are thrilled when people glob onto their individual speculations. Publish it through BYU and you are really something. I see nothing of importance.
 
This thread has devolved into what I feared it would. I simply wanted an LDS opinion as to whether or not what this BYU professor said was true. Do most contemporary LDS hold this view or not? I 'm not defending Mormonism in any way.

I must admit I am frustrated with the urge of people on this forum to Mormon-bash at the first opportunity. My question was never about the doctrine itself and I was not interested in opinions of Catholics on this forum regarding LDS doctrine. I already know the opinions of Catholics on the issue.

Time to close the thread.
 
Tmaque said:
This thread has devolved into what I feared it would. I simply wanted an LDS opinion as to whether or not what this BYU professor said was true. Do most contemporary LDS hold this view or not? I 'm not defending Mormonism in any way.

I must admit I am frustrated with the urge of people on this forum to Mormon-bash at the first opportunity. My question was never about the doctrine itself and I was not interested in opinions of Catholics on this forum regarding LDS doctrine. I already know the opinions of Catholics on the issue.

Time to close the thread.
Click to expand...
As I stated above, some of us here were mormons so for us to speak on this subject is fair.
 
Tmaque said:
This thread has devolved into what I feared it would. I simply wanted an LDS opinion as to whether or not what this BYU professor said was true. Do most contemporary LDS hold this view or not? I 'm not defending Mormonism in any way.

I must admit I am frustrated with the urge of people on this forum to Mormon-bash at the first opportunity. My question was never about the doctrine itself and I was not interested in opinions of Catholics on this forum regarding LDS doctrine. I already know the opinions of Catholics on the issue.

Time to close the thread.
Click to expand...
Tmaque,

Yet, not one LDS forum member has responded.

Stating the truth about Mormon beliefs is not Mormon-bashing. It is simply stating truth.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread here in which the only responses came from those to whom the question was asked.

Anna
 
kimg901 said:
As I stated above, some of us here were mormons so for us to speak on this subject is fair.
Click to expand...
👍

It’s very fair. It’s very valid. Many of us actually taught within our wards in Sunday School, RS, Priesthood, very former returned missionaries too.

We have the unique ability to explain LDS doctrine, from both the LDS view, and also, now, seeing it from the Catholic view.

So we are unique disciples of the Lord because of our journeys.
 
Marie5890 said:
👍

It’s very fair. It’s very valid. Many of us actually taught within our wards in Sunday School, RS, Priesthood, very former returned missionaries too.

We have the unique ability to explain LDS doctrine, from both the LDS view, and also, now, seeing it from the Catholic view.

So we are unique disciples of the Lord because of our journeys.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And speaking only for me, I studied a lot as a Mormon. it was my studying that eventually led me out of the LDS Church. But, I do not hate it. I look back with fondness on my time as a Mormon…especially my time as a missionary. I try very hard to be fair. But everything I say is true. It is not bashing.
 
Tmaque said:
This thread has devolved into what I feared it would. I simply wanted an LDS opinion as to whether or not what this BYU professor said was true. Do most contemporary LDS hold this view or not? I 'm not defending Mormonism in any way.

I must admit I am frustrated with the urge of people on this forum to Mormon-bash at the first opportunity. My question was never about the doctrine itself and I was not interested in opinions of Catholics on this forum regarding LDS doctrine. I already know the opinions of Catholics on the issue.

Time to close the thread.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you feel that way.

It isn’t Mormon bashing to discuss what the Mormon church teaches and Mormons believe. It also isn’t Mormon bashing to say Mormons will hide what they believe, or gloss over teachings they know are sketchy looking to outsiders. I don’t think it is news to them that it is something they do. Pointing it out serves to enable those who don’t know this is an acceptable way, to LDS, to present their teachings. They call if “milk before meat”.

This article is trying to make meat look like milk. All I’m saying is, I don’t buy it. I’m not saying you have to agree with me, or even give a hoot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top