Jason_J

Members
  • Posts

    474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jason_J

  1. Whoops, looks like we won't be continuing the conversation...hopefully another Catholic poster will share their view (and hopefully StephenVH will post over at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion, where his posting interests/style are more appropriate).
  2. I think there's a difference between expressing a non-LDS view (as people do here frequently) and debating/critiquing. Well they probably moved it because the stated purpose of the Christian Beliefs Board is "General Religious Discussions for Friends of Other Faiths", and as we view the threads there, we see that it's basically for discussion of the beliefs of other Christian faiths. This thread really isn't about Christian Beliefs. Also, as we see on the Terms and Conditions that you agreed to upon registering, "1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere. " Posting about "false prophecies" is certainly derogatory towards the Church. Also, a mod already responded as to why it was moved-I also must mention with my mod hat on that this thread does not belong in the Christian Beliefs forum, whose purpose is to discuss the beliefs of faiths other than those of the LDS church. Therefore it will be moved to its proper forum and subject to the rules of that forum. But yes, as I believe I mentioned to you the last time you visited, Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board really is the forum you're looking for if you're interested in debating in the way you're used to over at Catholic Answers Forum (plus it's more...active than here). There are a number of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, atheists, and other non-LDS that debate over there. This forum isn't really about debating and apologetic arguments, at least to the degree you desire. General Discussions - Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board
  3. Thanks. And I do believe I've recommended to him that board as one designed for debating and apologetics, as opposed to this one and its stated purpose. Hopefully he will accept the invitation. :)
  4. You left off the first sentence: "Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight." Yes, as I mentioned before, we agree. The Hill Cumorah where Joseph obtained the plates is the same Cumorah where Moroni hid the records.
  5. I made a new thread over in the Christian Beliefs forum to learn more about how Catholics view prophets, prophecy, and revelation :) http://www.lds.net/forums/christian-beliefs-board/54443-catholic-church-prophets.html#post758829
  6. One of the foundational claims of the restored Church is that our Church is led by revelation, just like the New Testament Church. The apostles that lead our Church are regarded as being prophets, men who receive revelation from God to guide God's people. The President, the presiding high priest of the Church, is also regarded as "The Prophet". Therefore, we disagree with the Catholic belief that revelation has ended. We believe that the Heavens are open, and God still speaks. We can also receive revelation from God to guide our own lives and those we have stewardship over (such as in our families or in our ward and stake callings, etc), to answer questions, etc. In response to posts in another thread: So does God inspire the leaders of your Church? Are they guided by the Holy Ghost? How is "development of doctrine" understood in light of no further revelation? What is the difference between private and public revelation? What is "the Mormon sense of the word"? Also, where is this definition of prophet that you are referring to coming from? For comparison, here's how Latter-day Saints understand prophets: "As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, as did Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators. Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God's will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit."-http://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng Prophet - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism So if you would, I'd be interested in learning how you as a Catholic view revelation, prophets, and their role in the Church.
  7. Glad to hear. And yes, I already posted links to two of your posts in the "Cumorah" thread over there. The problem is you don't seem to be able to accept how we, believing Latter-day Saints, understand our own history, our own leaders, our own beliefs. You repeatedly dismiss it al in favor for your own non-LDS (have you ever even been a member?) view and read things with your preconceived notions. We post something, and you say, essentially "no, sorry, that's not what he really meant" or something similar. There's nothing wrong with dialoguing and debating. You should do that. The problem is the way you do it, and how you don't let us speak for ourselves and for our own faith (especially when you rely on tired arguments like "false prophecies").
  8. No, I agree with you. I don't think he's interested in hearing our opinions and understanding our perspectives, and learning how believing Latter-day Saints understand our own faith (I doubt he's read the links I've provided), but is attempting some sort of "gotcha", then go back to Catholic Answers Forum and report how he "won". But I could be wrong, hopefully.
  9. So you believe your church is led by prophets? That is a first I've ever heard from a Catholic, nor is it something I was ever taught as a Catholic. In contrast, we Latter-day Saints firmly and loudly proclaim that the restored Church of Jesus Christ is led by prophets, men who receive divine revelation from God to lead His people, men who can also receive further revelation as Christ continues to reveal Himself to us this day. Please cite an actual Catholic document demonstrating the belief that the Pope and the College of Bishops are prophets. If you cannot, then that is merely your opinion, and not an actual official Catholic Church viewpoint. Red herring. I never said anything of the sort. You seem to be continuously reading things into the words people say. Please read my words again. Again, I thought you were familiar with what Latter-day Saints actually believe? . Latter-day Saints certainly believe that the Father is embodied. However, that does not mean that He isn't Spirit too (indeed, when Jesus came to the earth then ascended to Heaven, He didn't stop being a spirit, did He?). God is a spirit, was a spirit, and will forever be a spirit. We believe as our scriptures teach, and Jesus' example demonstrates why your attempted criticism fails. No need for the scare quotes (though amusing). And as for the alleged false prophecies, well, nothing new there: Generation Joseph Smith/Alleged false prophecies - FAIRMormon Joseph Smith's Alleged 56-Year Second Coming Prophecy - Revision - SHIELDS Did Joseph Smith deliver prophecies that didn't come true? And of course some fulfilled prophecies, for good measure: LDS FAQ: Fulfilled Prophecies of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet And as for how Latter-day prophets are certainly prophets in the Biblical sense, and are certainly not supposed to be inspired robots that are infallible and never make mistakes or are not entitled to their opinions, including on faith matters: The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy On the Fallibility of Inspired Human Leaders in the True Church of Jesus Christ Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets
  10. I'm not sure by your posts... Is the Pope a prophet? Are the Pope and Magisterium prophets of the Lord? I'm not sure why you're referring to infallibility of your leaders when, as far as I know, Catholics do not regard them as prophets just like those we read in the Bible. Therefore, why should we expect the prophets of the restored Church to function as non-prophets in the Catholic Church? Prophets can make mistakes and be wrong about things. We see this right in the Bible, I assume you are familiar with that. Divine revelation is never wrong, but prophets can be wrong about something. This is an important distinction, and is Biblical. There is no example of a Latter-day prophet receiving revelation from God and giving an opinion conflicting with that. If there is, please give evidence. And Latter-day Saints rely completely on God's revelations throughout the ages, including post-Biblical, as contained in our Standard Works. We also receive personal revelation from God as well, following the Biblical example. See above. In the quote I was replying to, provided by you, it quite clearly stated that Joseph and all of his associates have always taught that the place where Moroni anciently hid the gold plates is the same place that Joseph recovered the plates. This is what we all believe. The question then becomes, is the place where the battle took place the same as where Moroni buried the plates. As we have already seen, varying opinions have been given throughout Church history. Indeed, from the actual text of the Book of Mormon, we see that the topography and geography described does not match the upstate New York Cumorah. Thanks for your opinion. There's no need to overlay your view of that onto what Latter-day Saints believe about ourselves and our prophets and apostles. Oh, you mean like the differences between the Old Testament and New Testament? Surely you see the fallacy in your own argument. The same principle applies. It has been a revealed truth that God extends His priesthood to whomever He chooses (I assume you can see how that works going from Old Testament to New Testament, correct?). God is not static, and we see clear precedent in the Bible as to how God functions in revealing His will to His people. Canonized scripture is what is contained in the Standard Works. I thought you were familiar with Mormonism? And yes, it will still be canonized scripture tomorrow. Indeed, our canon is open, since God still speaks to His people, the Lord continues to reveal Himself to us, and further light from God could be revealed to His prophets at any time, and be added to canonized scripture, just like in the New Testament Church.
  11. And here is the deal. When I study my Church, its history and its doctrines and beliefs, that knowledge helps build my faith, not tear it down or lessen it in any way. The more I study, the greater my faith. I, as a member of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, can do all of the things you said above, and all of that applies to me, and ever other Latter-day Saint. I, and many other members of the restored Church, have studied much material, written by both Latter-day Saints, and non-LDS, that support our beliefs and practices. This isn't just related to the Book of Mormon, but also many of our restored beliefs. As time passes, with advancing science and technology, the more evidences mount supporting the Book of Mormon, other Restoration scriptures, and Restoration beliefs. I personally am excited for a book to be released later this year by Latter-day Saint scholar Dr. John L. Sorenson (PhD in Anthropology) giving an extremely lengthy and detailed treatise on the relationship between Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon. I rather enjoy this very brief summary he provides (posted in this thread at MDDB ): My forthcoming book, Mormon’s Codex (in prolonged editing at Maxwell Institute; I hope it will appear in print shortly after the first of the year), will be my ultimate contribution to presenting and establishing truth in relation to the scripture. It will establish that nearly 400 “correspondences” are found between Mormon’s volume and the scholarly literature on Mesoamerica (based on a 133-page bibliography). The book will be bulky, of course (hence the lengthy editorial process). It will represent (almost) all the truth I have been able to establish in my scholarly effort. I believe it will establish beyond reasonable question to both Latter-day Saints and non-LDS scholars as well that Joseph Smith had in his possession, and translated, a Mesoamerican codex written by Mormon in the late fourth century AD. I do not directly comment much on alternative “theories” of how the text of the scripture came to be; I simply, straightforwardly lay out what the text tells me: Joseph had a codex written on metal plates. There is no other explanation for the “Mesoamericanisms” found in the scripture. Also see the Summary Conclusion of the book, posted in the thread: Mormons Codex - General Discussions - Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board - Page 8 Oh and of course there's his previous short book on the matter, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Very interesting, for a book Joseph and/or his companions just made up. No, the reason Cumorah is not excavated is because those same scholars you are referring to don't believe that that is the Cumorah where the remains and artifacts would be found. Yes, it is the Cumorah where Moroni buried the gold plates, and where Joseph found them, but it is not the Cumorah that Latter-day Saint scholars are looking for, because those Latter-day Saint scholars believe that the American portion of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. But then, more than one person has said that already. Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon « FAIR Book of Mormon Evidences, Part One: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility Book of Mormon Evidence, Part Two: Chiasmus, Olives, Volcanoes, Ancient Names Like Alma, and More Book of Mormon Evidence, Part 3 The Arabian Bountiful Discovered? Evidence for Nephi's Bountiful - Warren P. Aston - Journal of Book of Mormon Studies - Volume 7 - Issue 1 Joseph's Prophecy of Moses and Aaron - John A. Tvedtnes - Insights - Volume 21 - Issue 1 Lehi in the Desert Meridian - Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica - Meridian Magazine - LDS, Mormon and Latter-day Saint News and Views Daniel C. Peterson: "Evidences of the Book of Mormon" https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/01/mounting-evidence-for-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng And that's just an extremely small taste. This is why your argument unfortunately does not hold much weight with those Latter-day Saints that have studied both sides of the matter, including the works of Latter-day Saint scholars on the matter (and is an argument we've heard for years, which demonstrates a lack of actual engagement with scholarly material from our side of the matter). So, while we certainly exercise our faith in God our Eternal Father, praying to Him in the name of Jesus Christ for guidance and answers to our questions, and we believe that God can and does answer our prayers, and that we can receive that answer through the powerful witness of the Holy Ghost (just like we read in the Bible), we don't just turn our brains off, and we use reason too, and there are many Church sponsored and unaffiliated organizations and people that engage in scholarly work in support of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Restoration.
  12. With all due respect, perhaps it is because you don't understand LDS theology, or how we understand our own leaders and teachings. Latter-day Saints do not believe that prophets cannot make mistakes. They are human, as we all are. In the Church of Jesus Christ, we are all called to be prophets, receiving divine revelation and guidance from the Lord for our lives and those we take care of. In our church callings, we receive revelation to guide those under our stewardship. Similarly, the apostles that lead our Church receive revelation to guide it. In all cases, it is understood that we are not always receiving such revelation, and we can certainly give our opinions and uninspired thoughts on matters. This goes back to the very beginnings of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, where Joseph Smith himself stated "a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such". Other LDS leaders throughout the ages have said the same thing. Further, there is no Biblical precedent for saying that prophets are not allowed to share their own opinions and thoughts on matters, or that they must be thought to be inspired by God always. Indeed, one Biblical commentator has said this, which aligns nicely with the concept you seem to reject: "Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition—each with his own education or want of education—each with his own way of looking at things—each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries-James R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible: Complete in one volume, with general articles (New York : Macmillan, 1984 [1904]), p. cxxxv. See this- Mormonism and doctrine/Prophets are not infallible - FAIRMormon for more information, especially some interesting comparisons between Biblical prophets and Latter Day prophets, showing that the "giving his opinion" statement is not an argument of convenience or lack of answer, but a completely valid and scriptural one, including how we understand our own leaders. Perhaps you should read this quote again, it isn't saying what you want it to say. We completely agree that the hill where Joseph obtained the gold plates is the same hill that Moroni hid the records in. We aren't going back to South America. We're talking about Mesoamerica. http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ash-Where_Did_the_Book_of_Mormon_Take_Place.pdf 2012 Reading Mormon’s Codex « FAIR Again, numerous hits and associations here, especially for a book allegedly invented by Joseph and/or his associates. Again, prophets and apostles, like everyone, are entitled to their opinions and viewpoints. Please cite a canonized revelation from our prophets and apostles stating that the Book of Mormon took place in upstate New York.
  13. We also need to remember that prophets and apostles, like everyone, are entitled to their views and opinions, and are not always speaking under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, in their official capacities. Further, there is no recorded, canonized revelation from any latter day prophets that state where exactly Cumorah is. Many Latter-day Saint scholars have written numerous books and articles demonstrating that archaeologically, Mesoamerica is a stunning hit for the location of the events of most of the Book of Mormon (in addition to the research documenting Lehi's travels in the Middle East and their journey to the Americas). It really is very compelling, and perhaps you should take some time to read some of that scholarship, if you really are interested. Surprising how this happens, especially when Joseph and/or his associates just made it all up.
  14. I think it's common to be a little confused after the temple endowment. You generally don't know what's going to happen, despite the Temple Prep class. I went to a friend's endowment two months ago, and he expressed similar feelings to me. Coming from an "anti" background, I was more familiar with the endowment than others, so I knew what to expect. However, it was definitely a big difference experiencing it than just reading it. I think it's helpful to read various resources that talk about the temple in an ancient context, and you'll see how much of it finds ancient precedent. Reading such things is definitely helpful. And you do have to go repeatedly so that you can at least be more familiar with the presentation of the Endowment. The most important thing to think about as you attend the temple is to think about the endowment as symbolizing your own personal progression to the presence of God. That's really what the temple is all about: returning to God's presence. Reading about Adam and Eve, the Fall, the atonement, Revelation, etc are helpful. Check out this website: Mormon Monastery - Mormon Temple Information, Preparation and the Book of Mormon This might be especially helpful: Mormon Monastery » Mormon Temple Reading
  15. Thanks for these thoughts. I think this is interesting when we think of the LDS Church as continuing in the same vein as what we read in the OT, the NT, and the Book of Mormon, where there were miracles, visions, Heavenly visitations, angelic ministrations, etc. Did visits from Heaven end with the Restoration? I think some LDS believe that such things don't really happen anymore. It's interesting to think about the Divine events that occur throughout the scriptures, and then think about the Church with its belief in continuing revelation, open canon, etc. It is also interesting to think about what it means in the Aaronic priesthood to have the keys of the "ministering of angels"...hmm... Skalenfehl, thanks for your testimony. Do you believe that you have been tasked to share your experiences? Do you believe that you've been ministered to by angels and/or the Lord? Feel free to ignore if you don't want to answer :).
  16. OK I'm back (just had a 2 hour ward conference call ). Still going through the comments on this thread. I guess it's okay if we discuss Snuffer (and John Pontius? Does he have similar views as Snuffer? I have his book as well, but haven't read it), just don't want it to be solely about these personalities. In my 2 years as a member, I guess I haven't heard much about receiving the Second Comforter in this life. The doctrine is certainly there, as we see. I think this is a somewhat uniquely LDS belief. I find this concept very interesting, for obvious reasons, as well as the fact that it seems like some members believe that the days of miraculous manifestations, Heavenly visitations, etc are very rare, if they happen at all (I had this conversation awhile ago with a friend. And I think other posters alluded to this earlier in the thread, or maybe it was another thread I read). I do think it is interesting to view scripture as recordings of those that have received visitations from God, and that many if not most of them have examples that we can follow, and that the Church, its ordinances, the commandments, the repeated emphasis on prayer and scripture study, etc., all relate to encountering the Divine in various ways, such as through the Spirit, and the Second Comforter. I think that having your calling and election made sure, and the Second Comforter, are two areas that I haven't really known much about in my time as a member, though I have heard the former taught before.
  17. Just a friendly reminder that I'm not really interested in having a thread about Denver Snuffer (I'm reading the link to a previous thread on him), but about receiving the Second Comforter (thanks for the link!), and what that concept means in the context of the Gospel. :)
  18. Oh ok, that's interesting, I'll check out the previous threads, thanks. Do you have any comment on the concept of receiving the Second Comforter, a personal visit from Christ in this life? This thread isn't necessarily about Denver Snuffer (I only mention him because his book brought this concept to my attention), as it's more about that concept (I mentioned Bruce McConkie's General Conference talk on the 10 Blessings of the Priesthood in the hope that we wouldn't necessarily discuss Snuffer personally).
  19. So I've owned Denver Snuffer's book "The Second Comforter-Conversing With the Lord Through the Veil" for some time now, however I'm only just starting to read it (still in the overview). For those that don't know, here is an excerpt from the book that explains what it's about: "The title is not misleading. This book is about receiving an audience with Christ, as He promised. He is the promised Second Comforter and this book is about the process of having a personal visit from Him." Now, I'm sure that such a concept is one that would be attractive to many. Who wouldn't want a personal visit from Jesus Christ our Savior in this life? Such a special interaction with the Divine, following many examples in the scriptures and recounted throughout the Restoration, would surely be a life-changing experience. But the skeptic in me also questions this. What are your thoughts on this? From what I'm aware, Denver Snuffer is a controversial author. However ignoring him specifically, what about this concept of receiving the Second Comforter, a personal visit from the Lord, in this life? Has anyone read this book? It seems that while this concept isn't really taught in church (I've never heard it, though I've only been a member for 2 years), it is something that has been taught, such as in Bruce McConkie's "The Ten Blessings of the Priesthood": " Blessing ten: We have the power—and it is our privilege—so to live, that becoming pure in heart, we shall see the face of God while we yet dwell as mortals in a world of sin and sorrow. This is the crowning blessing of mortality. It is offered by that God who is no respecter of persons to all the faithful in his kingdom. “Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am.” (D&C 93:1.) “And again, verily I say unto you that it is your privilege, and a promise I give unto you that have been ordained unto this ministry”—he is speaking now to those who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood—“that inasmuch as you strip yourselves from jealousies and fears, and humble yourselves before me, for ye are not sufficiently humble, the veil shall be rent and you shall see me and know that I am—not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual. “For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God. “Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind. “Ye are not able to abide the presence of God now, neither the ministering of angels; wherefore, continue in patience until ye are perfected.” (D&C 67:10–13.)"
  20. Catechism of the Catholic Church- 460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." Very interesting indeed! Always interesting to compare LDS exaltation with Catholic/Orthodox theosis, and how our differing understandings of the nature of God and man affect those doctrinal differences.
  21. No, no specific issue. Just trying to understand how we can know what is regarded as inspired and/or revealed knowledge/guidance, and what isn't. Selek's answer was good.
  22. Hey everyone. So I've been meditating lately on the concept of having living prophets and apostles, and I love reading the New Testament and knowing that our Church has prophets in these days just like during NT times. I know that it is taught that not everything a prophet says is inspired. It is also said that the prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as one. My question then becomes, how do we know when a prophet is acting as a prophet? Does the Church have any guidelines on that? Are there any GC talks I could read about that matter?
  23. Ok. I think it is most certainly the case that one can be a saint and then not be a saint in this earthly life as members of the earthly Church of Jesus Christ, in the same way that one can be "saved" then "lose their salvation". While we don't know who will make it to Heaven, we do know that members of the Church here on earth (the "church militant" in the communion of saints, if you will), are considered saints, saints that are working out their salvation with fear and trembling. No, not according to my (personal?) understanding (anymore than your understanding), but the understanding of the Church, which seems to be in common with what is presented as the "scriptural usage" on the OrthodoxWiki link. Of course. Of course. However I'd hope that there's a difference between Protestants/Christians in general and the demons, namely, that we profess to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and place all of our trust and hope in Him and His atoning sacrifice on our behalf, and not anyone or anything else. While the demons may "believe" in Jesus Christ, i.e., they know that He exists, is God, etc., that "belief" is not the same as the "belief" of a Christian. I'm sure you would agree.
  24. Of course. The question I am asking is what is the origin of the definition provided by StephenVH, as well as if there is usage of the definition he provided by the ECFs.
  25. Well it matters because I'd simply like to know when the earliest usage of the word saint to mean, as you say, "only that the person is in heaven.", and where it comes from. You state that it comes from Sacred Tradition. How do you know? Where can we find that definition within Sacred Tradition? Are there any ECF quotes that demonstrate that definition? I would think that the belief in the communion of saints shows that the word saint doesn't "only" mean that the person is in heaven, so I was trying to understand your usage of the word in that sense when there is a broader usage within Catholicism, where it can refer to different concepts depending on context (i.e. canonized saints, communion of saints, etc). And my Church uses the word "saint" in the Biblical sense, and follows what the OrthodoxWiki (as an example) states as the Scriptural usage-"In the Holy Scripture, the word saint is used to refer to those who have been set apart for the service of God, consecrated for his purposes. As such, all members of the Church are called saints, regardless of their personal holiness or sinlessness. It is still appropriate to use the term in this way. ". We believe that all members of Christ's Church, whether on earth or in Paradise, are saints. Not sure if that's how Protestant churches use "saint" as well, but if so, that we agree with what the OrthodoxWiki states on the scriptural usage. As we have seen, Latter-day Saints would agree with what the Orthodox apparently teach as the usage of "saints" in the Bible, to mean all members of Christ's Church, regardless of their personal holiness or sinlessness. Now, while we do not canonize saints as the Catholic and Orthodox churches do, we do recognize that, in addition to the general usage of "saint", there are some people that lead such a Christ-like life that we try to emulate their walk with Christ (in addition to always following the example of Jesus Christ Himself primarily). If someone leaves the Church of Jesus Christ, they are no longer members of Christ's Body, and are therefore no longer considered "saints". If the Catholic Church accepts what apparently is the Orthodox "general" usage of "saint" to mean all members of the Church, regardless of personal holiness or sinlessness (and I'd assume that it does based on the communion of saints belief, in addition of course to the canonization of saints practice), then are those that leave the Catholic Church, after being in it for many, many years (and I talk to these people every day, whether online or in real life), and are they considered "saints"? For Latter-day Saints, we believe that all members of the Church of Jesus Christ, whether on earth now, or in Paradise, are considered saints of God. Regardless of personal holiness or sinlessness, we are all considered saints, apparently following the scriptural example. (though not deriving the usage from it of course). When one becomes a member of Christ's Body, they are set apart and become one of the elect. Now, naturally we all have sins, and are sinners, and some may have "darkness" (as you put it) in their lives that we are not aware of. Naturally, we leave that judgment up to God, and always emphasize repentance and reliance on Christ's atoning sacrifice to be forgiven of our sins, washed clean, and empowered to walk with Jesus Christ our Savior. As long as they are members of Christ's Church, regardless of personal holiness or sinlessness (as the OrthodoxWiki states), they are considered saints, saints on a Journey with Christ. Hope that sheds light on the LDS use of the word saint.