Sign in to follow this  
fiona84

Uncomfortable Doctrine

Recommended Posts

Guest ceeboo

CeeBoo,

Don't let these lifelong Mormons get you down. :D

I'm a convert to the LDS church and very well understand that other denominations have difficulty with Joseph Smith, and prophets, and revelation and restoration.

We (LDS) claim the need to have constant revelation, while other denominations see no need for it because they have the ultimate, the testimony of Jesus Christ through the Bible. If Christ came to fulfill the law of Moses why could he not just as well have fulfilled all the prophets too? Jesus Christ pretty much gave us the formula for good living and most importantly salvation, any thing more or less than this seemed, well cultish to me before I converted. I mean, come on, a man saying he is a prophet of God? And if some man outside our (LDS) church said he was a prophet of God, what would we Mormons think? We would think that poor man was wacko. It's a tough doctrine.

So how do we know if a man is a prophet? Beats me, inspiration I suppose, but many have prayed and not felt such inspiration. The scriptures say by their fruits you shall know them. So I suppose we could look at that too. But that's not always convincing either.

For me, it was just a need to know more. The Christian doctrines of the several denominations I belonged to simply failed to answer most questions that I had personally about spiritual matters. Why must people who have never heard the gospel burn in hell if God is truly a loving and merciful God? How could a good man who is not a Christian burn in hell while those who are "saved" Christians but not actually good people go to heaven? Why must children burn in hell if they aren't baptized? Exactly what really did happen in those three days after Christ died and before he was resurrected? How can God be three individuals and one at the same time, is he spirit or body? And so forth and so on... Seems the only church doctrines that satisfactorily answered all my questions, after years of study, was the LDS church. And although the Bible doesn't "prove" LDS doctrine, it doesn't disprove it either, so from my perspective the LDS doctrine is still in harmony with the Bible.

For me, I back tracked from there. If these things are true (and I never felt a greater peace in my life than I did when I learned these doctrines), and if the teachings only lead to peace, love, understanding and good, then they must be from God. And where do we get those teachings? From the Book of Mormon and the D&C, (those things the Bible doesn't directly answer). And from where came the B.O.M and D&C.? Joseph Smith. Well, then I started to believe that he was at least an intelligent, spiritual, and inspired man. But wait... what is an inspired man who reveals spiritual truths to those seeking real answers to difficult spiritual questions? That would be a prophet, and that would be ...... Joseph Smith. (And to be honest, from my background, I didn't like that, but as I continued to pray and truly study out all the answers to my unanswered spiritual questions with an open mind to the LDS perspective, after having tried all others, I finally gained a testimony of those teachings, and the source thereof.

Of course, I won't expect you or anyone to believe me. I just like having the chance to tell my own journey. :D

cheers:)

Hello richlitell,

( your not the comedian I am thinking of are you ?) :)

Thank you for sharing your journey with me.

I noticed you answered all your questioins, so I will simply offer a few words with you.

I am not sure ( no need to tell me ) which several Christain groups you have been with to imply the " all those people will burn in hell " or " Christains that are not good people will go to heaven" but what I can offer you is that none of the comments you suggest have validity in my religion.

It is not a matter of me believing you, rather I do appreciate you contributing your journey to this.:)

God bless,

Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden

Frankly, I am kinda used to the whole Christian world thinking that the mormons or anyone who disagrees with them will burn in hell. I am comforted to hear that the Catholic position may be different from that.

:)

Share this post


Link to post

Hi everyone,

Those who know me on here know that I came back to church 'full force' last year after being only semi-active for a few years.

I a convert, a college student who converted when I was 13.

Yesterday at sacrament meeting we had a high council speaker and he made me really uncomfortable. He kept calling God/Heavenly Father just 'Father' and while that sounded odd to me, what really bothered me what how he kept referencing us becoming gods and goddesses in the afterlife.

I have always had a hard time with this doctrine. When he spoke, I felt awful. I felt uncomortable, like a jolt of annoyance shot through me. I saw a few people give eachother 'looks', as well.

To make it worse I had my nonmember, investigating husband with me who has no idea what any of that means.

I left in a bad mood after Relief Society. That doctrine is really a testimony killer for me. I just cannot believe that we will become gods and goddesses, it seems really blasphemus and counter to what is taught in the scriptures.

Are you aware that it was in fact a pervasive teaching/belief in the ancient Christian Church? The teaching was ubiquitous and summarized by the quote: "God became man so that man might become a god." (St. Athanasius)

I think you are simply wrong about being contrary to the scriptures. The LDS understanding may not be explicitly stated in the scriptures but it certainly isn't contradicted and is strong implied by a multitude of verses.

I hate having these doubts about god-hood, and I have prayed and prayed but I cannot feel the spirit when praying about this.

To make it worse I always think of Pres. Hinkley saying "I don't know that we teach that" when asked about the godhood doctrine on Larry King. It seems like even he was uncomfortable with that!

I sincerely would like some help with this. What do you guys think? When was this first taught and how can it be compatable with us believing in God and Christ? Maybe some history will make me feel better?:confused:

ETA: When do members first get taught this? I never heard a thing about it until I was past YW, and that bothers me. It certainly wasn't mentioned when I got the discussions and the whole 'secrecy' about it makes me dislike it even more.

You are misstating what President Hinckley said. He wasn't responding to whether we, like the ancient Church, believe in deification. He was responding to a question about whether God was once a man and his answer was absolutely correct. As a member of 40 years, I've have never been taught that by the Church. I am aware of the origin of the thought and aware of the speculation but simply put, we don't teach it.

I have no idea what you are talking about... "secrecy." I can think of lots of complex theology that isn't served up to investigators on a platter but the Church has massive amount of scholarship, lesson material, inspirational writings and talks on the matter. If you need resources, Let me know and I point you in the direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ceeboo

Are you aware that it was in fact a pervasive teaching/belief in the ancient Christian Church? The teaching was ubiquitous and summarized by the quote: "God became man so that man might become a god." (St. Athanasius)

.

Hello Snow.

To add another perspective to this lively discussion, If I may.

" God became man so that man might become god " Is a very long and honestly highly debated subject. Rather than start a whole new " debate " on this forum ( not my desire or intention ) I will humbly offer a short version "Catholic perspective" for consideration.

Catholics believe Christ is the head of his Church and we are the mystical body of that Church ( Christ and his Church together make up " whole Church " ) or The Church is one with Christ. We share in HIS DIVINITY when we partake in the Holy Eucharist and become divine in Christ but our nature remains human.

Additionaly, to try and be clear. " God became man " part ( from our perspective ) is that God indeed truly became man ( Jesus ).

At any rate, I thought I would share another perspective.

God bless,

Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have much difficulty believing we shall be come god-like. After all, we will be glorified, and we will rule and reign with Christ. However, can I expect to some day have subjects that worship me? To me, such a belief would cross the line. Even if I remain a subject to my Heavenly Father, and continue to worship him throughout eternity, if I also believe I shall receive worship...that seems blasphemous to me. At least one LDS member has publically posted that such is unthinkable, and seems blasphemous too. Perhaps this is an area of speculation, but many non-LDS believe this is standard LDS teaching--that members expect to become Gods.

With respect, I think that your use of the word "subjects" points perhaps to a difference of understanding about the nature of God the Father.

Yes, if we think of God as being similar to a temporal king or ruler or dictator, even though we may consider Him to be benevolent, we would, perhaps because of our revulsion towards pride and arrogance, think it repulsive that we would ever want to be a God. Yet we strive to become like Him.

But if we can grasp an understanding that God the Father is literally the Parent of our spirit bodies, and we are literally His sons and daughters, then we can perhaps understand that we are not "subjects" of God anymore than our earthly children are subjects to us as the parents of their physical bodies.

It helps me understand God, the universe, and everything much better when I consider all that to be just a family affair. In our earthly roles as father, mother, sons, daughters, we are approximating as closely as we possibly can on earth the order of heaven - we are practicing for the time when we too will be grownups.

God's commandments are not the dictates of a king, they are the instructions of a loving Parent who wants us to come Home to Him and knows that if we will only obey those instructions we will find our way back. In obedience to His counsel we walk the strait and narrow path that leads most securely back to where we came from.

God is not God to anyone except His own children!

That's why there is only one God for us, only one natural Parent.

Why shouldn't we strive to grow up and become like our Father in every way, including after an enormous amount of instruction and learning, being authorized to have our own "eternal increase", our own CHILDREN?

Below is a link to more information on this subject:

Ask a Mormon - LDS Cyber Missionaries Forum lds1.org • View topic - Gods - Plural

.

Edited by justamere10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure it would be fair or accurate to imply we ( Catholics and LDS ) believe in the same Jesus Christ ??

But we do. We both believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. We may not always believe the same details about him, but there is only one Christ and we both believe in that same one.

To suggest the " early church " fell into apostasy and in the same sentence to add that "particulary since the Protestent reformation " seems to be a HUGE contradiction in itself.

I'm sorry, I do not see the contradiction. Could you clarify?

What I do not agree with is that those cautions had to do with the " Church " that Jesus built on the " rock of Peter " in which Jesus himself said would prevail over ALL.

If you believe it has not prevailed ( went into Great Apostasy ), you would have to say Jesus was wrong or was not telling the truth.

No, we don't believe Jesus was wrong or that he lied. The church will prevail over all eventually (one could argue that it is already in that process). Jesus never said that an apostasy would not occur. And keep in mind that all promises from God are predicated upon the faithfulness of humanity. God has revoked his promises many times when mankind has not held up their end of the agreement.

And as has already been pointed out, the "rock" was not Peter, but revelation.

I'm sorry, it looks like I'm picking on you! I certainly don't mean to. I've really enjoyed your very thoughtful and intelligent replies.

For what it's worth, I was raised Catholic and I believed in an apostasy before I ever learned anything about the LDS church. I got this idea from the scriptures in the Bible and a comparison of God's dealings with people today (i.e. no prophets) compared to Biblical times (prophets). That was before I knew that there is a living prophet today, of course.

Edited by MormonMama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if we can grasp an understanding that God the Father is literally the Parent of our spirit bodies, and we are literally His sons and daughters, then we can perhaps understand that we are not "subjects" of God anymore than our earthly children are subjects to us as the parents of their physical bodies.

This is the crux of the matter, all right. If you are right, then everything else follows. If we are literally the off-spring of God, spirit-children, of the same essence, then, imho, of course we will become Gods. However, such is not the understanding of Protestants and Catholics. We believe we are God's highest creation--his opus, his masterpieces. We are the children of our Artist-King...but we are not begotten of Him. Therefore, yes, we are his subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the crux of the matter, all right. If you are right, then everything else follows. If we are literally the off-spring of God, spirit-children, of the same essence, then, imho, of course we will become Gods. However, such is not the understanding of Protestants and Catholics. We believe we are God's highest creation--his opus, his masterpieces. We are the children of our Artist-King...but we are not begotten of Him. Therefore, yes, we are his subjects.

Just to clarify, we do believe we are His literal spirit children (Numbers 27:16), not that we were begotten of Him in the flesh. The ONLY one who was, was our Savior & Lord, Jesus Christ.

Edited by PapilioMemnon
Scripture, Simplifying, Notification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the crux of the matter, all right. If you are right, then everything else follows. If we are literally the off-spring of God, spirit-children, of the same essence, then, imho, of course we will become Gods. However, such is not the understanding of Protestants and Catholics. We believe we are God's highest creation--his opus, his masterpieces. We are the children of our Artist-King...but we are not begotten of Him. Therefore, yes, we are his subjects.

Right, it's a difference of opinion/understanding about the nature of God.

Latter-day Saints of course do not believe that all of God's children will 'grow up' to become as He is anymore than the owner of a corporation would find that each of his ten children would qualify to be chairperson of the board or CEO. There's that little matter of mortal freedom to choose among opposites such as good and evil, light and darkness, virtue and vice etc. each accummulating choice adding to the probability of eternal consequences.

There is a great deal of controversy over when life (soul/spirit/ghost in the machine) enters an unborn human body. In your view, at what point in lineal time (as we commonly discuss it) does God create those spirits? And, because such a discussion would be controversial, how could we know for sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure it would be fair or accurate to imply we ( Catholics and LDS ) believe in the same Jesus Christ ??

Carl

Jesus was a fairly common name back then and there are a lot of Jesuses in the Latin American countries, still when you add up all the details in his life that seem to be in common, I feel confident we are talking about the same person.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one Jesus of Nazareth who walked on water, raised the dead, healed the sick, forgives sins, was crucified and rose from the grave the third day, who is the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Great I AM, the ETERNAL GOD.

-a-train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a secret. Ok? Stuff like this shouldn't and won't be made part of any youth manual. I have heard about this since the time of my youth....but I also had a father who loved to read lots of member authored books on this subject and many others.

But I was always taught the difference between revealed doctrine and speculation. That is why you haven't perhaps been exposed to it. It is speculation.....and if you want to learn about it you can.

I think you will find the doctrine clearly laid out in the youth manuals. And yes it will be the revealed doctrine and not the speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

Those who know me on here know that I came back to church 'full force' last year after being only semi-active for a few years.

I a convert, a college student who converted when I was 13.

Yesterday at sacrament meeting we had a high council speaker and he made me really uncomfortable. He kept calling God/Heavenly Father just 'Father' and while that sounded odd to me, what really bothered me what how he kept referencing us becoming gods and goddesses in the afterlife.

I have always had a hard time with this doctrine. When he spoke, I felt awful. I felt uncomortable, like a jolt of annoyance shot through me. I saw a few people give eachother 'looks', as well.

To make it worse I had my nonmember, investigating husband with me who has no idea what any of that means.

I left in a bad mood after Relief Society. That doctrine is really a testimony killer for me. I just cannot believe that we will become gods and goddesses, it seems really blasphemus and counter to what is taught in the scriptures.

I hate having these doubts about god-hood, and I have prayed and prayed but I cannot feel the spirit when praying about this.

To make it worse I always think of Pres. Hinkley saying "I don't know that we teach that" when asked about the godhood doctrine on Larry King. It seems like even he was uncomfortable with that!

I sincerely would like some help with this. What do you guys think? When was this first taught and how can it be compatable with us believing in God and Christ? Maybe some history will make me feel better?:confused:

ETA: When do members first get taught this? I never heard a thing about it until I was past YW, and that bothers me. It certainly wasn't mentioned when I got the discussions and the whole 'secrecy' about it makes me dislike it even more.

I think the terms are what people get turned off about and they put the wrong thought about it as = Godhood in the sense of us being Equal with HF. That is not the doctrine and never has been. Joint heirs with Christ is the doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ceeboo

But we do. We both believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. We may not always believe the same details about him, but there is only one Christ and we both believe in that same one.

I'm sorry, I do not see the contradiction. Could you clarify?

No, we don't believe Jesus was wrong or that he lied. The church will prevail over all eventually (one could argue that it is already in that process). Jesus never said that an apostasy would not occur. And keep in mind that all promises from God are predicated upon the faithfulness of humanity. God has revoked his promises many times when mankind has not held up their end of the agreement.

And as has already been pointed out, the "rock" was not Peter, but revelation.

I'm sorry, it looks like I'm picking on you! I certainly don't mean to. I've really enjoyed your very thoughtful and intelligent replies.

For what it's worth, I was raised Catholic and I believed in an apostasy before I ever learned anything about the LDS church. I got this idea from the scriptures in the Bible and a comparison of God's dealings with people today (i.e. no prophets) compared to Biblical times (prophets). That was before I knew that there is a living prophet today, of course.

Hi MormonMoma, ( That is a great screen name :) )

" same Jesus Christ " Not to split hairs, YES, under certain criteria we do indeed believe in the same Christ in the scripture, my point was that when looking at Jesus under the light of our different religious teachings and such, NO, we do not believe in the same Jesus. In addition, the " details " you suggest are a large matter.

" To suggest that " early Church " fell into great apostasy and then in same sentence add " particulary since the Protestant Reformation " is a HUGE contradiction in itself.

I will try and clarify: The " early Church Great apostasy ( suggested by LDS for the purpose of said restoration) is claimed to have happened " shortly after the original 12 apostles passed " I guess that would mean around the year 100, 200, or so. ( LDS can not place a date on this proposed monumental event) The Protestant Reformation was in the 1500's. So IMHO, the usage of the two to support the Great apostasy claim is rather contradictry:confused:.

I am not sure how to respond to your offering of " The Church will prevail over all eventually"

I will suggest you sound Catholic :)

" The rock was not Peter but revelation " I have heard this from others, I simply do not agree nor see any scripture to support that, rather IMHO, it is very clear that the " rock " was Peter.

" sorry that you are picking on me " Not at all, I think the sharing of our different views are indeed a very healthy process.:) not to mention a humbling one, for me anyway.

you were raised Catholic and believed in an apostasy::: I am Catholic and not only do I believe in apostasy but there is scriptural evidence to support these warnings of falling away. The ENORMOUS difference is there is NO scriptural evidence that even hints at a complete or total apostasy ( lights out, Jesus' Church done, etc, etc). This " Great apostasy" IMHO, would be needed for " restoration ".

God bless,

Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi MormonMoma, ( That is a great screen name :) )

Thanks! :D

" same Jesus Christ " Not to split hairs, YES, under certain criteria we do indeed believe in the same Christ in the scripture, my point was that when looking at Jesus under the light of our different religious teachings and such, NO, we do not believe in the same Jesus. In addition, the " details " you suggest are a large matter.

I understand what you are trying to say (at least, I believe I do), but most people I know who say that we LDS believe in a "different Jesus" are really saying that we believe in a totally different and false Christ who we just think is the Jesus of the Bible, and that is simply not the case (and I've found that most of those I know who say such things, when quizzed, actually do not know much about what we believe at all).

" To suggest that " early Church " fell into great apostasy and then in same sentence add " particulary since the Protestant Reformation " is a HUGE contradiction in itself.

I will try and clarify: The " early Church Great apostasy ( suggested by LDS for the purpose of said restoration) is claimed to have happened " shortly after the original 12 apostles passed " I guess that would mean around the year 100, 200, or so. ( LDS can not place a date on this proposed monumental event) The Protestant Reformation was in the 1500's. So IMHO, the usage of the two to support the Great apostasy claim is rather contradictry:confused:.

Again, I think I understand what you are saying. My understanding has always been that the "great" apostasy occurred when the early prophets and disciples of Jesus were all killed or died and the keys to the priesthood were not able to be passed on. I personally do not consider the Protestant Reformation to be an "apostasy" (though you could maybe say it was an apostasy from the Catholic church), I consider it to be something like a schism in an already existing apostasy. But that is strictly my interpretation of it, and I will be the first to admit that I am not greatly schooled in religious history.

I am not sure how to respond to your offering of " The Church will prevail over all eventually"

I will suggest you sound Catholic :)

Lol, or maybe that's one of the points that Catholics and LDS agree on? ;)

" The rock was not Peter but revelation " I have heard this from others, I simply do not agree nor see any scripture to support that, rather IMHO, it is very clear that the " rock " was Peter.

I really do not think it is clear and do not view the scriptures as supporting this.

" sorry that you are picking on me " Not at all, I think the sharing of our different views are indeed a very healthy process.:) not to mention a humbling one, for me anyway.

I'm glad. I just didn't want to offend you in any way. :)

you were raised Catholic and believed in an apostasy::: I am Catholic and not only do I believe in apostasy but there is scriptural evidence to support these warnings of falling away. The ENORMOUS difference is there is NO scriptural evidence that even hints at a complete or total apostasy ( lights out, Jesus' Church done, etc, etc). This " Great apostasy" IMHO, would be needed for " restoration ".

Perhaps I should have clarified better. I believed from a very young age in a "Great Apostasy". By that I mean that we had lost the full powers of the Gospel. I didn't know exactly what that meant until I found the LDS church, but I knew that things were missing from the world that had existed in Christ's time (such as prophets, apostles, etc.). When we LDS speak of a "total" apostasy, we are referring to the loss of priesthood keys, of prophets, etc., not of Christ's church being done or "lights out" (I'm actually not quite sure what you mean by that) or anything like that.

Maybe you've heard of the glass table analogy? The fullness of the Gospel, of Christ's true church, is a whole glass table. During the apostasy, the table was shattered. Many different Christian faiths and sects arose, each with a piece of the table, a part of the truth. Good Christians doing their best to live their respective faiths as they understood them, based on the piece(s) of the truth that they had. When Heavenly Father and Christ restored the true church through Joseph Smith, the table was whole again.

I know you may not agree with this analogy, but does it at least make sense as to how we LDS view the apostasy and other churches?

Thanks again for your wonderful and very respectful posts. I hope I am coming across as respectful to you as you have been to us. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ceeboo

Thanks! :D

I understand what you are trying to say (at least, I believe I do), but most people I know who say that we LDS believe in a "different Jesus" are really saying that we believe in a totally different and false Christ who we just think is the Jesus of the Bible, and that is simply not the case (and I've found that most of those I know who say such things, when quizzed, actually do not know much about what we believe at all).

Again, I think I understand what you are saying. My understanding has always been that the "great" apostasy occurred when the early prophets and disciples of Jesus were all killed or died and the keys to the priesthood were not able to be passed on. I personally do not consider the Protestant Reformation to be an "apostasy" (though you could maybe say it was an apostasy from the Catholic church), I consider it to be something like a schism in an already existing apostasy. But that is strictly my interpretation of it, and I will be the first to admit that I am not greatly schooled in religious history.

Lol, or maybe that's one of the points that Catholics and LDS agree on? ;)

I really do not think it is clear and do not view the scriptures as supporting this.

I'm glad. I just didn't want to offend you in any way. :)

Perhaps I should have clarified better. I believed from a very young age in a "Great Apostasy". By that I mean that we had lost the full powers of the Gospel. I didn't know exactly what that meant until I found the LDS church, but I knew that things were missing from the world that had existed in Christ's time (such as prophets, apostles, etc.). When we LDS speak of a "total" apostasy, we are referring to the loss of priesthood keys, of prophets, etc., not of Christ's church being done or "lights out" (I'm actually not quite sure what you mean by that) or anything like that.

Maybe you've heard of the glass table analogy? The fullness of the Gospel, of Christ's true church, is a whole glass table. During the apostasy, the table was shattered. Many different Christian faiths and sects arose, each with a piece of the table, a part of the truth. Good Christians doing their best to live their respective faiths as they understood them, based on the piece(s) of the truth that they had. When Heavenly Father and Christ restored the true church through Joseph Smith, the table was whole again.

I know you may not agree with this analogy, but does it at least make sense as to how we LDS view the apostasy and other churches?

Thanks again for your wonderful and very respectful posts. I hope I am coming across as respectful to you as you have been to us. :)

Hello again MormonMoma,

First and most importantly as I see it, you have been more than respectful to me and I do appreciate the ability to " trade " thoughts in a Christ-like manner. I will add that because I am on an LDS forum, the credits for respect and kindness truly belong to the LDS members on this forum. ( Thanks to all for that )

" False Christ " you mention, ABSOBATOOOOTLY NOT, If I came across that way I am truly sorry. I will give you my opinion on this, 33% of the human population on earth claim to follow Jesus ( billions of people follow ONE MAN :):) ) To me, that means we all do our best as sinners to follow his teachings, examples, and mostly try to treat eachother with the kind of love that this world has never nor ever will see again ( until ofcourse any of us may be given entrace to his kingdom ). What I am trying to say is that IMHO we all have a chance to be saved because of what Jesus did for ALL.

Having said that, I do believe it to be healthy, humbling, and indeed challenging to be able to converse about the different teachings as well as the reasons for those teachings that other religions offer.I want to be clear, I obviously do not believe there was a need for restoration nor do I believe in several of the LDS doctrines. THAT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT I DO NOT RESPECT THE LDS MEMBERS NOR DOES IT IMPLY THAT I AM SUPERIOR IN ANY WAY NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT I DO NOT APPRECIATE THEIR PERSPECTIVES AND IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT MEAN THAT I FEEL THEY DO NOT DO THEIR VERY BEST TO LIVE A CHRIST-LIKE LIFE ( EXACTLY LIKE I DO ).

Concerning the rest of your post, It ( to me anyway ) is more than ok to agree to disagree

and leave eachother with a huge smile from one of Gods' broken children to another one of Gods' broken children.

I haven't ever heard the " Glass table analogy ", pretty interesting, thanks for sharing :)

Thanks to you," MormonMoma " I am thinking of changing my name to " CatholicCarl ":)

0

BTW, I wish I could figure out how to post back with broken up quotes like you and others do ( Me dumb dumb )

God bless,

Carl

Edited by ceeboo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and most importantly as I see it, you have been more than respectful to me and I do appreciate the ability to " trade " thoughts in a Christ-like manner.

I'm glad to know that. I can sometimes come across far harsher than I mean to, and it's often hard to tell "tone of voice" through the written word, so I'm glad to know that you've been able to glean the respect I mean to you.

" False Christ " you mention, ABSOBATOOOOTLY NOT, If I came across that way I am truly sorry.

Lol, no! Not you. Sorry, I didn't mean that you were giving me that impression. Far from it! It just usually IS the reaction I get from other Christians (not all, of course), so it always makes me feel a bit "careful" when discussing this subject.

I will give you my opinion on this, 33% of the human population on earth claim to follow Jesus ( billions of people follow ONE MAN :):) ) To me, that means we all do our best as sinners to follow his teachings, examples, and mostly try to treat eachother with the kind of love that this world has never nor ever will see again ( until ofcourse any of us may be given entrace to his kingdom ). What I am trying to say is that IMHO we all have a chance to be saved because of what Jesus did for ALL.

I totally agree! In fact, you'll find that most LDS agree with your last statement (though of course that gets us off into the "salvation" vs. "exaltation" debate, and I'm not ready to go there quite yet, lol).

Having said that, I do believe it to be healthy, humbling, and indeed challenging to be able to converse about the different teachings as well as the reasons for those teachings that other religions offer.

I agree. I've taken a class on world religions and I really enjoyed learning about different faiths. I think it's important to learn about the various faiths in this world (Christian and non-Christian) and to be able to respect those beliefs, even if we do not agree with them. I think a lot of the problems in this world that are often blamed on religion can actually be blamed on intolerance to a religion that is different from our own. I feel that if everyone could adopt a "live and let live" policy (or would that be "believe and let others believe"), a lot of the problems of this world would vanish.

THAT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT I DO NOT RESPECT THE LDS MEMBERS NOR DOES IT IMPLY THAT I AM SUPERIOR IN ANY WAY NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT I DO NOT APPRECIATE THEIR PERSPECTIVES AND IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT MEAN THAT I FEEL THEY DO NOT DO THEIR VERY BEST TO LIVE A CHRIST-LIKE LIFE ( EXACTLY LIKE I DO ).

Again, agreed. I think you've been nothing but respectful and friendly. I hope I also do not come across as "holier than thou" (no pun intended, lol). I do not feel at all that you have given off an attitude of superiority, so don't worry about that. I also hope you don't feel that I am trying to "convert" you. Of course, I think it's human nature that when we feel we have knowledge that others don't have, we feel an obligation to impart that knowledge to others, and I am no different. But I certainly don't want to cross that line from imparting knowledge to cramming it down the throat. So please let me know if I do. :)

Concerning the rest of your post, It ( to me anyway ) is more than ok to agree to disagree and leave eachother with a huge smile from one of Gods' broken children to another one of Gods' broken children.

Are we twins separated at birth? Lol! ^_^

I haven't ever heard the " Glass table analogy ", pretty interesting, thanks for sharing :)

You're welcome.

Thanks to you," MormonMoma " I am thinking of changing my name to " CatholicCarl ":)

Lol, I'm glad to be of service.

BTW, I wish I could figure out how to post back with broken up quotes like you and others do

I just type the quote brackets ([*quote][*/quote] minus the asteriks) around whatever part I want to quote. Maybe there's an easier way to do it, but that's how I do it anyway. No, you're not dumb (notice I left that out of your quote)!

If I don't chat with you again tonight, have a very good evening. :D

Edited by MormonMama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI ceeboo,

You are so good at responding to people's posts. Thanks.

I personally do not see a contradiction in believing that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built in times past, no more than us believing that Joseph Smith could be considered the rock upon which the Lord has restored his church in these latter-days (from our perspective, of course). The question would be that even if Peter was the initial rock upon which the church was founded, has that authority truly passed down through the ages to the current Pope or was there an apostasy somewhere in these two thousand years since the time of Christ. I would say that no one can really prove this philosophically, scripturally or historically -- I mean neither the LDS position nor the Catholic church's position, although both sides, of course, would say their is scriptural and historical evidence to strengthen their conclusion.

In response to your comment on my other post: Besides being a member of three major Christian sects (my parents changed over once, and I made a change once), I had studied all the major world religions and philosophies before converting to our church, that would include Catholicism, Taoism, Confucianism, Nihilism, etc...--most everything except Islam. The LDS doctrine answered all my questions, but I found many good things in all my studies.

cheers. :)

Edited by richlittell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blessings of Exaltation

Our Heavenly Father is perfect. However, he is not jealous of his wisdom and perfection. He glories in the fact that it is possible for his children to become like him. He has said, "This is my work and my glory--to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, "All things are theirs" (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).

They will become gods.

They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father. They will be an eternal family.

They will receive a fulness of joy.

They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have--all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: "The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them" (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36).

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Publication Notes

Gospel Principles

Published by

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Salt Lake City, Utah

© 1978, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1995, 1997

by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America.

English approval: 6/96

From the introduction page, LDS.ORG--Gospel Principles was written both as a personal study guide and as a teacher’s manual. Therefore, you can use this manual in many ways. It can help you—

• Build your knowledge and testimony of the gospel.

• Answer questions about the gospel.

• Study scriptures by topics.

• Prepare talks.

• Prepare lessons for family home evening.

• Prepare lessons for Church meetings.

Misshalfway,

Take a look at the copyright above, I tend to disagree with your statement at the top about "it is something we talk about NOT something we teach". Clearly, above it is used as a "a personal study guide and as a teacher’s manual"

Line that super concerns me in red...that implies we will be worshipped. :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Line that super concerns me in red...that implies we will be worshipped. :eek:

Either way, I guarantee you won't have to worry about it in practical terms for a VERY long time - way beyond this lifetime.

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, I guarantee you won't have to worry about it in practical terms for a VERY long time - way beyond this lifetime.

HiJolly

And because you will at that time have reached perfection, what mortals call "worship" may be understood as love, your own children calling home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ceeboo

HI ceeboo,

You are so good at responding to people's posts. Thanks.

I personally do not see a contradiction in believing that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built in times past, no more than us believing that Joseph Smith could be considered the rock upon which the Lord has restored his church in these latter-days (from our perspective, of course). The question would be that even if Peter was the initial rock upon which the church was founded, has that authority truly passed down through the ages to the current Pope or was there an apostasy somewhere in these two thousand years since the time of Christ. I would say that no one can really prove this philosophically, scripturally or historically -- I mean neither the LDS position nor the Catholic church's position, although both sides, of course, would say their is scriptural and historical evidence to strengthen their conclusion.

In response to your comment on my other post: Besides being a member of three major Christian sects (my parents changed over once, and I made a change once), I had studied all the major world religions and philosophies before converting to our church, that would include Catholicism, Taoism, Confucianism, Nihilism, etc...--most everything except Islam. The LDS doctrine answered all my questions, but I found many good things in all my studies.

cheers. :)

Hello richlittell,

I do appreciate your efforts in explaining that you do not see a contradiction in regards to Peter being the " rock " and suggesting that JS is the " rock " in which the Lord has restored the Church. In an effort to be transparent with you, I simply can not connect those two very distant dots. I would stand by my original contribution in this matter, If there was a need to restore ( 1600 years or so down the road ) then it seems rather obvious IMHO that Jesus' words that HIS CHURCH would never fall would lead me to the only conclusion there is, his ( THE LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST ) promise has indeed not happened as well as implying that his Church needed to be fixed.

Concerning the later part of your comments to me:

" even if Peter was the initial rock " :confused: My offering would be there was and is only one "rock" as Jesus boldly stated so.

" Has that authority truly passed down through the ages or has there been an apostasy during these two thousand years " IMHO, It has absolutly passed down, not because of human perfection ( obviously far from it :eek:) nor because of a " Catholic superiority complex " but completly because the very creator of HIS CHURCH, JESUS, BUILT IT, GAVE THE AUTHORITY AND GRACE TO SUSTAIN IT AND PROMISED US ALL IT WOULD NEVER FALL AND WOULD STAND UNTIL THE VERY END. I would also add that there has indeed been apostasy ( we are all warned of this as supported by Scripture) and IMHO there continues to be apostasy, a vastly different thing than complete or great apostasy that is required for " restoration ".

Due to your experience in several " flavors " of religions, I do respect and appreciate your pespective that you have shared with me, thanks :). Similarly to you, I have also found many good things about the LDS Church. Again, in an effort To be transparent with you, what does any or all of that really mean, by what measuring stick should we ALL be using to determine the place we worship as well as call our " home" ???? A monumetal question IMHO :)

Thanks for the back and forth,

God bless,

Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello richlittell,

I do appreciate your efforts in explaining that you do not see a contradiction in regards to Peter being the " rock " and suggesting that JS is the " rock " in which the Lord has restored the Church.

Um... The "rock" is not and never was Joseph Smith. Never.

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this