Uncomfortable Doctrine

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

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.

[a-train]

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

[MobyMule]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

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.

[MobyMule]

Originally Posted by fiona84

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?

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.

Originally Posted by MormonMama

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.

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

[MormonMama]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

Hi MormonMoma, ( That is a great screen name )

Thanks!

" 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.

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.

Originally Posted by MormonMama

Thanks!




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

[MormonMama]

Originally Posted by ceeboo

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.

[richlittell]

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.

[fiona84]

Originally Posted by jazzy225

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.