Question for Mormons

[rinnie]

Hi, Rinnie,
I don’t know how you’re going to take the news (nor how you ever got the impression in the first place other than perhaps someone getting confused by the understanding that Adam is Micheal the Archangel):

The LDS (Mormons) don’t believe Jesus is or was Adam.

The LDS believe in “One God” as stated in the Book of Mormon and the Intercessory prayer of the Savior.

Have a wonderful week, Rinnie.

Hi Parker, My Mistake, I meant Adam was St Michael the archangel, Not Jesus. My mind was thinking one thing, and my fingers were typing another Sorry.

 

[rinnie]

Mormons do not believe that Jesus Christ is St. Michael the Archangel. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists do.

Yes I was corrected here on that. It is the JW and SDA that believe that. Sorry Parker, my bad!

 

[dianaiad]

Yes I am learning that. Sorry for my ignorance. I some how always thought that it was all in the same lines of belief. I am learning now there is quite a world of difference between the 3. But I am learning

Keep asking…

One suggestion though…Don’t ask a Mormon what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, and don’t ask Jehovah’s Witnesses what SDA’s believe, and don’t ask any of us what Catholics believe! Go to the source; ask true believers what their beliefs are. Some of them may be a little confused as to their official teachings, but nobody is ever confused about what they, personally, believe…and true believers know their own religion better than non-believers and ex-believers, every time.

Diana, who was just accosted in the park by a Jehovah’s Witness and stuck in my car for nearly fifteen minutes while he leaned in and lectured me about how Christ’s second coming happened in 1914.

At least, I think that’s what he said. I could be wrong. I was more interested in removing his elbows from my window than I was in theological discussion. I will admit, though, he now has me curious. Now I have to go to a JW and find out.

grrr.

 

[rinnie]

Keep asking…

One suggestion though…Don’t ask a Mormon what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, and don’t ask Jehovah’s Witnesses what SDA’s believe, and don’t ask any of us what Catholics believe! Go to the source; ask true believers what their beliefs are. Some of them may be a little confused as to their official teachings, but nobody is ever confused about what they, personally, believe…and true believers know their own religion better than non-believers and ex-believers, every time.

Diana, who was just accosted in the park by a Jehovah’s Witness and stuck in my car for nearly fifteen minutes while he leaned in and lectured me about how Christ’s second coming happened in 1914.

At least, I think that’s what he said. I could be wrong. I was more interested in removing his elbows from my window than I was in theological discussion. I will admit, though, he now has me curious. Now I have to go to a JW and find out.

grrr.

I agree And thats how I got mixed up. And yes when you are a true believer you do take the time to learn what your faith teaches. A lesson for us all. No matter what the faith!!

Many People claim to be Catholic also and have no clue what the Church teaches. ITs sad

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca was the one who used the term ‘demi-god.’ No Mormon would ever refer to Him in that manner, since we too believe that He is "fully human and fully divine,’ or rather, wholly God, the second Member of the Godhead.

demigod: The term “demigod”, meaning “half-god”, is usually used to describe mythological figures whose one parent was a god and whose other parent was human, as such, demigods are human-god hybrids.

…

from lds.org

one: He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal.

two: *“. . . try to go along with the Savior, live with him, let him be an actual man, half divine, of course, but nevertheless moving as a man moved in those days.” * ( * Behold the Lamb of God, * p. 8.)

 

[Publisher]

demigod: The term “demigod”, meaning “half-god”, is usually used to describe mythological figures whose one parent was a god and whose other parent was human, as such, demigods are human-god hybrids.

…

from lds.org

one: He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal.

two: *“. . . try to go along with the Savior, live with him, let him be an actual man, half divine, of course, but nevertheless moving as a man moved in those days.” * ( * Behold the Lamb of God, * p. 8.)

Sounds like an unfortunate turn of a phrase by a Mormon author…not clarification nor statement about ‘official Mormon doctrine.’

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sounds like an unfortunate turn of a phrase by a Mormon author…not clarification nor statement about ‘official Mormon doctrine.’

lol.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Sounds like an unfortunate turn of a phrase by a Mormon author…not clarification nor statement about ‘official Mormon doctrine.’

Right, it’s only in one of their teaching manuals.

 

[Publisher]

Right, it’s only in one of their teaching manuals.

I’m sure it is…but still an unfortunate turn of a phrase that only adds to the confusion of what is “official” Mormon belief…perhaps an LDS brother or sister could respond much better on the subject than I…

 

[amontoya]

I’m sure it is…but still an unfortunate turn of a phrase that only adds to the confusion of what is “official” Mormon belief…perhaps an LDS brother or sister could respond much better on the subject than I…

How much more “official” can you get than an official Mormon doctrine teaching manual?

 

[Todd520]

I’m sure it is…but still an unfortunate turn of a phrase that only adds to the confusion of what is “official” Mormon belief…perhaps an LDS brother or sister could respond much better on the subject than I…

What you are implying is that you think the LDS truely believe that Jesus was less than fully divine. I challenge you to justify this belief. If true, it would be expounded on in core talks and teachings. I am not aware of any teachings that support Jesus was not fully divine.

I would use the same turn of phrase myself. Fully divine + fully human = Jesus
So, Jesus was made of two components or parts, BUT these parts are 100% human and 100% divine (not your standard 50/50). Regular use of fractions doesn’t work here because we are talking about God, hence the unfortunate turn of phrase you object to

Catholic example - Even though the bible has statements that show (me) Mary was not perpetually virgin, I KNOW it is not Catholic doctrine because of the volume of writing that expands on her perpetual virginity.

A turn of phrase is just that, while core doctrine has weight behind it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I can appreciate your reading it that way, but there are NO TEACHINGS that support Jesus was not fully divine. I would use the same turn of phrase myself
Fully divine + fully human = Jesus
So, Jesus was made of two components or parts, BUT these parts are 100% human and 100% divine (not your standard 50/50).
Regular use of fractions doesn’t work here because we are talking about God, hence the unfortunate turn of phrase you object to

What you are implying is that you think the LDS truely believe that Jesus was less than fully divine. I challenge you to justify this belief. If true, it would be expounded on in core talks and teachings.

Catholic example - Even though the bible has statements that show (me) Mary was not perpetually virgin, I KNOW it is not Catholic doctrine because of the volume of writing that expands on her perpetual virginity.

A turn of phrase is just that, while core doctrine has weight behind it.

one: He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal.

half = 1/2, .5, 50%

 

[dianaiad]

I can appreciate your reading it that way, but there are NO TEACHINGS that support Jesus was not fully divine. I would use the same turn of phrase myself
Fully divine + fully human = Jesus
So, Jesus was made of two components or parts, BUT these parts are 100% human and 100% divine (not your standard 50/50).
Regular use of fractions doesn’t work here because we are talking about God, hence the unfortunate turn of phrase you object to

What you are implying is that you think the LDS truely believe that Jesus was less than fully divine. I challenge you to justify this belief. If true, it would be expounded on in core talks and teachings.

Catholic example - Even though the bible has statements that show (me) Mary was not perpetually virgin, I KNOW it is not Catholic doctrine because of the volume of writing that expands on her perpetual virginity.

A turn of phrase is just that, while core doctrine has weight behind it.

Todd, Publisher wasn’t making that claim. He was attempting to help clarify it.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

So the LDS church was teaching false beliefs in official teaching manuals?

 

[dianaiad]

How much more “official” can you get than an official Mormon doctrine teaching manual?

I would say that scripture would be. Catholicism has had a great many ‘teaching manuals’ in its day…many different catachisms. It’s only been very recently that there has been one official one.

We do not claim that the people who write our teaching manuals are prophets, or perfect, or don’t have ‘unfortunate turns of phrases.’ If WE don’t, YOU can’t.

 

[RebeccaJ]

There was in Palestine a couple, Joseph and Mary. They lived in Nazareth. They had traveled, evidently, from Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to pay a tax that had been decreed by the Roman Emperor. That was the ostensible purpose. She, heavy with child, traveled all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give birth to a half-Deity. No other man in the history of this world of ours has ever had such an ancestry—God the Father on the one hand and Mary the Virgin on the other.

lds.org

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I would say that scripture would be. Catholicism has had a great many ‘teaching manuals’ in its day…many different catachisms. It’s only been very recently that there has been one official one.

Which isn’t really relevant, since the issue is in what is contained in these “teaching manuals”, and whether they are teaching incorrect beliefs.

We do not claim that the people who write our teaching manuals are prophets, or perfect, or don’t have ‘unfortunate turns of phrases.’ If WE don’t, YOU can’t.

So who writes these manuals, and do they have to be approved by someone in authority before being published as a manual from “The Church”?

 

[JeanMichel]

I’m sure it is…but still an unfortunate turn of a phrase that only adds to the confusion of what is “official” Mormon belief…perhaps an LDS brother or sister could respond much better on the subject than I…

Publisher, I think you are correct. The topic of this quote was counsel that individuals come to know Christ personally. It was not a statement about doctrine as the full text demonstrates below:

*B. The Goal: To Know Christ in a Real, Personal, and Close Association

The first step in knowing Christ is to learn all that we can about him. President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., has offered the following advice:

“. . . I am quite a believer in studying the life of the Savior as an actual personality. That is not often done. Our students of the Bible and of the New Testament, seem to refrain from trying to build a biography of the Master. . . .

“. . . try to go along with the Savior, live with him, let him be an actual man, half divine, of course, but nevertheless moving as a man moved in those days.” ( Behold the Lamb of God, p. 8.)

Once you have begun to understand Christ’s true attributes and personality, place these characteristics into your life. When confronted by a circumstance, ask yourself, What would Jesus do? “Many of my decisions have been motivated by [this question],” Elder Marion G. Romney has testified, “Doing what I have thought He would have done has always brought satisfaction and joy.” (“Jesus Christ, Man’s Great Exemplar,” Speeches of the Year, 1967, p. 2.)
*

I do believe it was a poor turn of phrase. LDS do believe that Jesus is fully divine, but in my reading they seldom use terminology such as “half divine” or “fully divine”. It is not a question of degrees, but more importantly it is simply not a topic. They seem to satisfy themselves with the concept that Jesus was the Only Begotton Son of God the Father, co-Eternal with God and forever part of the Godhead.

LDS theology has never arrived at a point where essence is contemplated. They seem quite comfortable with being monotheists, but when pushed they are also comfortable with the concept of heno/poly-theism in that they believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God or Gods.

Ousia is a philosophical construct needed to explain how God the Father could have a seperate being, Jesus, as a Son and still honor the absolute need of monotheism. LDS seem to ignore this need entirely and thus fall victim to the claim of being heno/poly-theists.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You have to be careful, as LDS use Christian terms that they have redefined.

 

[JeanMichel]

one: He lived in a lowly home, the only man born to this earth half-Divine and half-mortal.

half = 1/2, .5, 50%

As a feeble man, I have never appreciated this phrase, “fully human and fully God”. It causes people to quickly jump to mathmatical equations just as Rebecca has done. Unfortunately, when doing so we are left with the forumla - 1 (fully human) + 1 (fully God), which must then equal = 2 what. Certainly one cannot be proposing that 1+1=1 are you? Even 1st graders know that is incorrect.

The simple mathmatical formula you are criticizing is actually more correct from a mathmatical position - 1/2 (man) + 1/2 (god) = 1 Jesus Christ.

Overall, this play of words is not effective conversation. When using it, you confuse those with mathmatical minds. What is absolutely certain for Catholics and Mormons is that they both believe that Jesus was the Son of God, co-Eternal with the Father, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified for our sins, and rose the third day. They both believe that Jesus is the only way to return to God. These are truths that all humanity should come to know and love.