Views on Mormonism?

[truthsave]

A boutthe concept of saintity that was already discussed here. The difference between mormon and Christianity are evident. But mormonism idea of saintity don’t have roots even in Ebraic. Sainty in Ebraic etymology has in itself an idea of separation, saint is somebody that lives in a different way. The model of this saintity is Abhram that had to leave family and his land.
This Ebraic concept of saintity is much more present in Christian saints since they have left, they lived separated from the world. The first saints, to which St. Paul talks, were also comunity which put their belongings togheter. People who really changed their way of living.
Mormons they called themself saints of the latter days. In this context they are not separated from anything, not only, but their doctrine is what is against any form of separation even in the spiritual world. Is a doctrine of continuation. As they rightly say is progression of this actual state.
The problem is that the word progression has a positive feeling, a feeling of improvement. Even this word, progression, is there just to mislead.
You can progress in whatever direction you are.
A cancer can also progress. A state of sin can progress.
In these cases regression is an improvement.

 

[hosemonkey]

Can you show me anywhere that LDS scripture claims to a text on Astronomy?

LDS “scripture”, at least certainly in the BOM, certainly gets a big fail on history, geography and theology. So I guess that asking mormon “scripture” to be in any way accurate about Astronomy would be a big stretch. Sorry.

 

[Tony888]

Just for the record, the differences we would have with this line of thought are as follows:

1. We were created by God at conception, from nothing.
   This is inferred RCC beilef, not explicit in scripture
2. The angels were also created by God, from nothing.
   This is inferred RCC beilef, not explicit in scripture
3. God has a divine nature.
   Don’t forget the Christ part of your trinity, that is of flesh and blood
4. Man has a human nature.
5. Angels have an angelic nature.
   Except for all the ones that don’t

LDS believe we are all Gods children, not his pets

 

[PaulDupre]

Actually, Mormon believe (or at least used to) that Satan is Jesus’ older brother. When a Plan of Salvation was needed, Satan had a way that would give himself the Glory. Jesus wanted a way to glorify God. God chose Jesus’ plan and Satan rebelled and a war ensued and Satan was cast out.

TK,
That’s not correct. The LDS have taught since very early on that Jesus is the first born spirit-child of Heavenly Father and one of his eternal wives.

The rest of your post is correct from the LDS POV.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[TexanKnight]

ROFL, sorry that all scripture isn’t annotated with explanations for you.
Your response reminds me of some fundamentalists that believe the bible is a science book, and thus that dinosaurs never existed.

Can you show me anywhere that LDS scripture claims to a text on Astronomy?

There is truly no need to be sarcastic when you can’t provide evidence. The fact is, it was NEVER a metaphor until people got smarter about the stars. It is much like Joseph claiming there were men on the moon who appeared as Quakers.

But, there is no need to be rude just because you have been shown to be wrong.

 

[TexanKnight]

TK,
That’s not correct. The LDS have taught since very early on that Jesus is the first born spirit-child of Heavenly Father and one of his eternal wives.

The rest of your post is correct from the LDS POV.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Paul, what I posted is exactly what I was taught when I was LDS. I served a mission. I was in the Elders Quorum Presidency AND the Bishopric in my ward. I am not making things up.

 

[Tony888]

There is truly no need to be sarcastic when you can’t provide evidence. The fact is, it was NEVER a metaphor until people got smarter about the stars. It is much like Joseph claiming there were men on the moon who appeared as Quakers.

But, there is no need to be rude just because you have been shown to be wrong.

So you are expressing your opinion about how people interpreted Joseph’s speeches, this was long before you were born. What makes you the expert on how everyone at the start of the church, took the scripture as an actual astronomy lesson?

I don’t deny some saw it as literal, hence my comparison with bible fundamentalists. I am just suprised you insist EVERY LDS missed the metaphore of the scpritpure.

 

[TexanKnight]

So you are expressing your opinion about how people interpreted Joseph’s speeches, this was long before you were born. What makes you the expert on how everyone at the start of the church, took the scripture as an actual astronomy lesson?

I don’t deny some saw it as literal, hence my comparison with bible fundamentalists. I am just suprised you insist EVERY LDS missed the metaphore of the scpritpure.

I am expressing what I was taught when I was LDS. I am expressing what I was instructed at the MTC. I am expressing what I was I taught by the Mission President and a GC who visited us on our mission.

I suppose it is possible that all of the people who taught me this were wroing and you are right, but I doubt it. I DO believe it is another needed doctrinal change in order for the LDS Church to appear mainstream

 

[ParkerD]

…
Maybe in your LDS world “virtue = strength”, but in Christianity a virtue is understood as being:

Definition of VIRTUE
1 a : conformity to a standard of right : morality
b : a particular moral excellence…
​

Telstar,

Maybe at some point in your life, you’ll take an interest in language and its roots.

I think you can look up in a good dictionary and find that one of the definitions or connotations has to do with “active quality or power”. My Webster dictionary even uses that particular definition (#4) to describe what happened when the woman with enough faith touched Jesus’ outer garment and was healed, and He said that “virtue” “went out” of Him. That means He discerned that the power He held had been used through her faith, to heal her.

Peace, and take care.​

 

[ParkerD]

I am expressing what I was taught when I was LDS. I am expressing what I was instructed at the MTC. I am expressing what I was I taught by the Mission President and a GC who visited us on our mission.

I suppose it is possible that all of the people who taught me this were wroing and you are right, but I doubt it. I DO believe it is another needed doctrinal change in order for the LDS Church to appear mainstream

TexanKnight,

If you disagreed with what PaulDupre corrected (not saying I agree with any of it), then I suggest you weren’t listening well, because no active Latter-day Saint with a background of having studied the gospel would miss that Jesus is the First Born.

Nor is it ever explicitly stated as to whether Satan is Jesus’ brother (or our brother, for that matter), other than the tempter himself using that expression. He always deceives, always.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight,

If you disagreed with what PaulDupre corrected (not saying I agree with any of it), then I suggest you weren’t listening well, because no active Latter-day Saint with a background of having studied the gospel would miss that Jesus is the First Born.

Nor is it ever explicitly stated as to whether Satan is Jesus’ brother (or our brother, for that matter), other than the tempter himself using that expression. He always deceives, always.

Dear Brother Parker

You do not know me, but rest assured that I did not hear incorrectly. One with my experience and background would not have.

Again, I can understand the changing of doctrine. There is much from erly LDS that needed changing in order to appear less fringe

 

[ParkerD]

Dear Brother Parker

You do not know me, but rest assured that I did not hear incorrectly. One with my experience and background would not have.

Again, I can understand the changing of doctrine. There is much from erly LDS that needed changing in order to appear less fringe

TexanKnight,

I had counselors when I was a bishop, and served under and with Elders Quorum presidents also, such that I am very much aware that just because you served in whatever position, does not mean that you listened well or understood every doctrine taught.

That Jesus is the First Born is a basic doctrine, not to be missed by anyone who studies the topic in any depth at all.

You could look in the Pearl of Great Price and refresh your memory.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight,

I had counselors when I was a bishop, and served under and with Elders Quorum presidents also, such that I am very much aware that just because you served in whatever position, does not mean that you listened well or understood every doctrine taught.

That Jesus is the First Born is a basic doctrine, not to be missed by anyone who studies the topic in any depth at all.

You could look in the Pearl of Great Price and refresh your memory.

Brother Parker,

Again, my education, background and experience are what they are. But I truly understand the fact it is no longer taught.

Peace

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

Maybe at some point in your life, you’ll take an interest in language and its roots.

I think you can look up in a good dictionary and find that one of the definitions or connotations has to do with “active quality or power”. My Webster dictionary even uses that particular definition (#4) to describe what happened when the woman with enough faith touched Jesus’ outer garment and was healed, and He said that “virtue” “went out” of Him. That means He discerned that the power He held had been used through her faith, to heal her.

Peace, and take care.

Like I said, in Christianity, the generally ***understood ***meaning of virtue (particularly in that context) is the first one listed in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, that I posted, previously (there were 6 other definitions listed). Just because Mormonism chooses to use a less likely meaning because it fits their particular agenda, which is never a surprise to me, that doesn’t mean that your interpretation of it’s meaning in this instance is the correct one.

Please, don’t try to brag to me about your supposedly superior skills and knowledge of the English language, or it’s roots, when it’s quite apparent that your own skills in vocabulary and grammar are so obviously less than stellar. I might be less highly educated, but I ain’t really as stupid as you think I am.

 

[ParkerD]

Like I said, in Christianity, the generally ***understood ***meaning of virtue (particularly in that context) is the first one listed in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, that I posted, previously (there were 6 other definitions listed). Just because Mormonism chooses to use a less likely meaning because it fits their particular agenda, which is never a surprise to me, that doesn’t mean that your interpretation of it’s meaning in this instance is the correct one.

Please, don’t try to brag to me about your supposedly superior skills and knowledge of the English language, or it’s roots, when it’s quite apparent that your own skills in vocabulary and grammar are so obviously less than stellar. I might be less highly educated, but I ain’t really as stupid as you think I am.

Telstar,

I never said or implied you are the word you used. I think you use English pretty well.

I don’t know if the translation you use has the word “virtue” in Mark 5:30, Luke 6:19, and Luke 8:46, but if not then we are at an impasse on the question of the use of the word “virtue” to mean “power” or “strength” and be completely compatible with “Christianity” other than perhaps “Catholic Christianity”.

 

[ParkerD]

Brother Parker,

Again, my education, background and experience are what they are. But I truly understand the fact it is no longer taught.

Peace

TexanKnight,

Peace to you also. What you wrote that excluded Jesus being the First Born, was never taught, ever, nor will you ever find it quoted in any strictly Latter-day Saint source text at any time by any Latter-day Saint author who had studied the subject in the scriptures.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight,

Peace to you also. What you wrote that excluded Jesus being the First Born, was never taught, ever, nor will you ever find it quoted in any strictly Latter-day Saint source text at any time by any Latter-day Saint author who had studied the subject in the scriptures.

Brother Parker,

I understand the need for your position. I really do.

Peace

 

[RebeccaJ]

ROFL, sorry that all scripture isn’t annotated with explanations for you.
Your response reminds me of some fundamentalists that believe the bible is a science book, and thus that dinosaurs never existed.

Can you show me anywhere that LDS scripture claims to a text on Astronomy?

Abraham 3 explicitly says it is teaching fact. Facts that Abrahm should teach to a pharaoh of Egypt.

Also, all the years I was LDS, no one ever taught Kolob as a metaphor. Not once. It was always taught as a rather amazing astronomy lesson, seeing that Mormons believe it was God giving the astronomy lesson.

But I was taught from CES material, not the FAIRwiki.

ldsces.org/inst_manuals/pgp/pgp-3.htm

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul, what I posted is exactly what I was taught when I was LDS. I served a mission. I was in the Elders Quorum Presidency AND the Bishopric in my ward. I am not making things up.

Just curious, TK, what was the time frame of your LDS membership? That often makes a difference when discussing what we were taught (as LDS teachings change dramatically decade by decade). I was LDS from 1975 through 1986.

Paul

 

[KathleenGee]

Real science changed Mormonism.

Now Mormonism is wanting to be us.