Posted on 09/30/2011 11:12:07 AM PDT by Colofornian
I found this article "Our Relationship With the Lord" written by Bruce R. McConkie and found in the BYU Devotional dated March 2, 1982. This portion of the article left me somewhat stunned :
"5. Christ worked out his own salvation by worshiping the Father.
After the Firstborn of the Father, while yet a spirit being, had gained power and intelligence that made him like unto God; after he had become, under the Father, the Creator of worlds without number; after he had reigned on the throne of eternal power as the Lord Omnipotent-- after all this he yet had to gain a mortal and then an immortal body.
After the Son of God "made flesh" his "tabernacle," and while he yet "dwelt among the sons of men"; after he left his preexistent glory as we all do at birth; after he was born of Mary in Bethlehem of Judea--after all this he was called upon to work out his own salvation.
Of our Lord's life while in this mortal probation the scripture says, "He received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace; and he received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness." Finally, after his resurrection, "he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; and he received all power both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him." (D&C 93:12-17)
Do Mormons actually believe that Christ needed salvation? If so, from what did he need to be saved? From sin? If not sin, then what?
Thank you.
this is why people don't trust mormons orem. You say mormons believe Jesus was God - that is not correct according to mormon doctrine. The mormon Jesus was A god, and that he was never eternally a 'god' but some how bypassed the standard progression path to obtain 'godhood' without first being tested on earth, marrying in a temple and progressing. This is something that 'heavenly father' never accomplished.
Mormons like to couch their terms in words familiar to Christians - thus you like to say "God" rather than a god, one of a plethora of gods. Honesty in doctrine is severely lacking.
Here's an analogous situation, borrowed from Freeper William Clark, illustrating how one can have faith in 'a' Christ but not the true Savior Christ:
"I always like to use the analogy of Jim Caviezel [In Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of The Christ']. Like the Mormon Jesus, he dressed the part, spoke the same words (in the original language, no less), and was referred to as Jesus Christ within a specific context, but it makes all the difference in the world whether one worships and depends upon him for their salvation or the genuine article."
Everybody thinks we’re awful. It’s a waste of time and energy to hit that frontally. And if one thought we were wrong, it might make good sense to think we were supremely wrong. If anybody wants me to get upset about the LDS thinking we’re the ho’ of Bab’lon, I say,”Take a number.”
ONE of the reasons people think were so wrong is that we actually think Reason has a role in construing Revelation. So, I think that some doctrines of God can be criticized not only on the basis of their Scriptural support (or lack thereof) but because they are unreasonable, one way or another.
So I’d like to know more about what the LDS think, because a lot of what I HEAR they think strikes me as silly. But I don’t want to waste my time arguing against what they DON’T believe.
Start here....
www.utlm.org
www.mormonoutreach.org
both sites are well documented, espeically UTLM.org which also covers history.
I’m also lazy. I was thinking of letting oremites tell me what the LDS believe.
Good point, however most lds don’t know what lds teaches.
And if you notice what is posted here is directly from lds sites.
Since this is post about mormonISM and not baseball, I have know idea what you are talking about.
Source?
I was watching the playoffs when I wrote that. The game was rained out in the 2nd inning. Sigh.
To be more clear, you posted:
“D&C 29:21: “And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign.”
“Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” whom the Lord denounces - Apostle Orson Pratt The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255
Under the name of modern Christianity, scripturally called “Babylon the Great”—”The whore of all the earth,” with whom the nations for centuries have committed fornication, and have drank out of her filthy cup. - Apostle Orson Pratt, The Essential Orson Pratt, p.109”
To which I replied, ‘what LDS Freeper said that?’. I was talking about my observation about statements made by Freepers on FR concerning the “Whore of Babylon/goddess worshipping/cult stuff about the Catholic Church, and who I have observed to make comments like that on FR. So I assumed it was some sort of quote made by a LDS Freeper that you had found.
Freegards
Reaganaut, svcv wants to know the source of your statement:
“The public distance of terms like that is part of their trying to be considered Christians ‘just like everyone else’ which started in the late 1980’s.”
Thanks.
Freegards
“The public distance of terms like that is part of their trying to be considered Christians ‘just like everyone else’ which started in the late 1980’s.”
- - - -
Thanks for the ping. I did write that and my source is my own personal experience (you can also see the change slowly occuring if you have the stomach to go back and read old General conference reports).
When I was ‘investigating’ and just joined the LDS church, I was corrected several times by saying we were Christians along the lines of “We are Mormons, not Christians”.
Then the LDS joined with others in the Vision Interfaith Satellite network (American Council of Churches etc) in the late 1980’s. The LDS used this network to help change their public persona (for propaganda). This move saw a change to the ‘we are Christians too’ spiel. I heard less and less of “Christians are Evil” and more of “We are the only TRUE Christians”.
When I was at BYU in the early 1990’s, the tone was (and to a large degree still is) “We are the only TRUE Christians, the others are fakes”. That is still their stance and must remain so since they still claim to be ‘restored’ Christianity.
Just be prepared. The LDS think nothing of lying and/or spinning what they believe to make ‘the Church’ look better. They use the same words as Christians but have vastly different meanings.
Been there done that and I can admit now that when I was LDS I lied about what we believed in order to make ‘the Church’ look good.
So the question could be asked, if I am admitting to lying in the past, why would I be telling the truth now? The difference is huge. When I was LDS, I thought I followed Christ, but I didn’t. I followed a false Christ. After I left, I ‘met’ the Christ of the Bible and He changed me radically and for the better. I was unregenerated as a Mormon and now am Born Again. I don’t need to lie about my faith to make a ‘church’ any church look good. I have yet to meet a Christian who hides or covers any part of their faith. However, I still see the LDS do it all the time on here and elsewhere in my ministry work.
At least check out UTLM.org and at a MINIMUM THIS Page which covers the difference in definitions.
http://utlm.org/onlineresources/terminologymain.htm
Makes sense to me.
Mormonism is a works based religion. Enough good works and you become a god. Both God the Father and God the Son had to earn their way to godhood.
I’m intrigued by the confession, and saddened.
I remember asking an LDS on FR if he could recommend a book of LDS systematic theology. His reply was the LDS doesn’t do systematic theology!
Can you say WHY you misrepresented the Church of LDS? I hope I’m not deluding myself with an especially awful spiritual pride, but I work hard to be more exact and accurate in my presentation of Christianity as Catholics see it. I can’t imagine a good reason to prevaricate about it.
The other freeper was right, the LDS don’t do systematic theology. For years the closest thing was Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”. Now that has been thrown under the bus because some of his statements are embarassing to the LDS church even though they have not reputiated anything said in there and it was approved by the Prophet and Apostles and published by the main LDS publishing company (an LDS version of nihil obstat or imprimitur). The LDS use manuals, published every few years, on a rotation for Sunday School, Priesthood/Relief Society and their High School and College religion classes. They are also discouraged from researching on their own or reading old ‘primary sources’. Sadly, they are spoon fed theology in a manner that keeps them from looking too deep. My ‘crime’ as it were was going beyond the manuals given to me and actually trying to make sense and research LDS history and doctrine in order to prove the ‘antis’ were lying.
As to why I lied about LDS beliefs (or dissembled), there is a constantly used phrase/idea that comes down from the leadership of “every member a missionary”. It means that every member is to try to convert people to Mormonism. Couple that with the other oftused meme of “don’t do anything that makes ‘the Church’ look bad” and you have an interesting combination. The “why” gets down to these. It is easier to lie or omit things or twist words than it is to explain what the LDS really believe and risk losing a potential convert or have someone go away thinking less than glowing things about the LDS church.
Every member is expected to find ‘investigators’ (people who would be interested in converting who take the missionary discussions - similar to RCIA). There is also a lot of people who hear things about beliefs but don’t know enough to know what the LDS are saying, that they use different meanings for terms, even though the LDS usually know that Christians mean different things. A typical exchange could go like this...
non - LDS - “I have a lot of Mormon friends, and they are nice people, but don’t Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?”
LDS - No! We don’t believe that at all! Jesus is the only begotten Son of God! Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and they said that all other churches had some problems and Joseph needed to start a Church that was the same as the one when Jesus Christ was on the Earth. Why don’t you come over for dinner and we will have the missionaries talk to you? There is a set of 6 discussions that they give that shows what we believe.
non-LDS - “Well, ok, but I read somewhere that Mormons believe they will become Gods”
LDS - “That was probably written by someone who has a grudge against the Church. They probably are one of the ones who gets paid to badmouth the Church or someone who couldn’t live by the principles of the Church so they left or they were offended by someone in their ward.
Ok, lets parse this. Notice how many times “the Church” is used. For the LDS it is all about “the Church”. LDS ‘testimonies’ often start out with “I know the Church is true”.
Then there is the automatic denial that Jesus and Satan are brothers. We saw it on this a thread the other day even. Now, all LDS know that their church teaches Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers. So why would you get a resounding “NO”? Because it makes their theology look silly. By stating “No” the LDS are lying to you, but they are thinking “Well they aren’t flesh brothers, just spirit brothers like we all are, Jesus is our Elder brother”. The other day an LDS came on one of these threads and stated “Jesus and Lucifer aren’t brothers, as if by Mary!”. Notice the subtlety of it. “As if by Mary” implying they aren’t physical brothers (which no one claimed). But they left out That Lucifer was the second born and Jesus was the firstborn of the spirit children.
Next we come to what would appear to be a rebuttal to the claim Jesus and Satan are brothers. “Jesus is the only begotten Son of God!” what they are not telling you is that they mean it in a literal sense. Jesus and Satan are SPIRIT brothers (like all of us) but Jesus is God’s physical son, God came down, had sex with Mary and conceived Jesus. So it isn’t a rebuttal at all and the LDS know that. They are intentionally twisting words to make you think they don’t believe Jesus and Satan are Spirit brothers.
Next Phrase - “Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and they said that all other churches had some problems and Joseph needed to start a Church that was the same as the one when Jesus Christ was on the Earth.” This is referring to the “First Vision” (of which there are several contradictory accounts) and the Great Apostasy. The LDS will tone down things said about other Christians. In the first vision account, Smith isn’t told that other churches ‘had problems’ he was told “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,104-1-3-4,00.html
“All wrong”, “Corrupt” and Creeds an abomination are not the same as “some problems” and the LDS know that. But they will soften it in order to not scare people off or to put the LDS church in a ‘better light’.
Next - about becoming Gods. Notice the LDS response is to go down a rabbit hole, rather than addressing the comment. Instead they lead the person to believe that the source was unreliable, or written by someone who had something to gain (money) or a former Mormon with a grudge. The question itself isn’t even addressed (lying by omission). It also causes the person to think that they might be wrong and that the LDS don’t believe that, even though the LDS person knows they do.
Finally, the invitation to meet with the missionaries. There is an assumption by many that these are people who know more about Mormonism than the average member and that isn’t true either. Most men and quite a few women serve LDS missions (I nearly did). They don’t have special knowledge. They also don’t tell you is the goal of those 6 discussions is to get you baptized Mormon and there is pressure put on you to read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, make commitments and convert. Those 6 discussions aren’t just a summary of LDS beliefs, they are the requirements for conversion and that is their goal. But they don’t tell you that, they make it sound like this is just a friendly way of talking to knowledgeable people about what the LDS believe.
Also, there is the doctrine of ‘line upon line, precept upon precept’ or “milk before meat”, that coverts are only told doctrines when they are spiritually ready to hear them. The missionary discussions are the barest of milk. You learn one set of things in them, and then after you convert you start to learn the rest of LDS theology. Then after a year of faithful membership (sometimes more) you get to go to the LDS temple and learn the ‘meat’ doctrines and are sworn to secrecy (used to have to swear blood oaths).
Your attitude is not prideful at all, in fact is a good one to have. Part of why I do this, is I believe in full disclose and the LDS do not tell the truth to outsiders about what they believe, usually under the idea of ‘milk before meat’. For Christians there is no reason not to tell the whole truth, even if it is someone who may not understand yet. Rather we help them understand rather than say they can’t know yet.
I hope this helps and I pinged some other ex-Mormons who will probably tell you the same thing I have. I’m heading out of town in about 10minutes until tomorrow night, but will respond if you have any more questions when I get back. Also, I can provide sources for any of the teachings above.
For more on the mormon emphasis on "the Church"...
Note what is emphasized first. Read the article, and see more of that attitude.
This is actually pretty sad.
Being a sort of a would-be scholastic, if I had the smarts, I find an attempt at a coherent account and, at least, honesty about where one proceeds with reason and where one throws up one's hands and falls on one's knees pretty important.
Pretty much everybody makes fun of Aristotle's n "first mover" argument, but I think it does prove the existence of a 'first cause' and leads to important conclusions about it.
Nobody seriously pretends that Aristotle proved or that anybody can prove that the first cause is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Faith and Revelation, in our view, not only complement but 'perfect' reason, and the 'love' that Aristotle (or Plato or, for that matter, Hegel or Heidegger) talks about is a pale and mindless shadow of the love of God in Christ Jesus.
I guess I mention all this because if one approaches the Gospel this way, about the first conclusion one reaches is that what the LDS think God is SEEMS incoherent.
It's not a five minute conversation, but to me, terms like Justice, Love, Beauty, and even Truth imply ONE unconditioned and supreme being which/who unites those realities in itself/himself.
To cut to the chase, if we all can become 'gods' then the gods we can become are not what I mean by "God."
Put it another way: to me "Godness" implies unity and existence. For there to be a, so to speak, "species"of Gods, is literally unthinkable.
I reach that conclusion without a reference to Scripture. And if I were to talk this over with a LDS, that's where I'd begin.
And if he were to say, "Well, maybe it doesn't make sense, but you have to believe it," I'd ask how I could know that I believed it if I didn't have the least clue how it could be."
I know there is some sort of fellowship between LDSs and Catholics, because we both think we get mugged a lot. But, wow, your account is really stunning. A bunch of guys converting people to stuff they don't understand and are discouraged from trying to understand! Wow!
Check out the first 50-100 posts on this thread in light of my ‘conversation’ tactics above.
There is one LDS person on there who does exactly what I point out above (with the exception of the missionary invitation).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2787143/posts?page=46#21
Well, this is very sad.
It would be good if oremites could bring some arguments to explain and support his side. His silence is disturbing.
IMO, having been there, the silence is a result of a) not being really prepared to defend their faith because there is no consistency/logic to it, and 2) a very real fear that we ‘antis’ might be right and they would lose their ‘testimony’ of the LDS Church (and we are back to ‘the Church’ being primary - not Christ).
This isn’t meant as an attack in any way, it is just simply the way it is.
Quite honestly, it was very hard for me to break some of these habits when I first left the LDS church, to get rid of the paranoia to lose the fear that my then newfound CHRISTIAN faith wasn’t going to go away if I read something, to realize I had to be able to defend my faith and learn basic theology. I joke about it, it it is also very true - I went to Bible College to get my theology straight. My BA degree is Biblical Studies and Theology which is a result of my having to re-learn things after leaving Mormonism like basic definitions and how to really read the Bible in context.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.