Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The uniqueness of the LDS Church


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Just an FYI reminder…

 Hard enough as it is to keep track of who said what when quotes remain untouched. :) 
 

 

Isn't board nannying against the rules, too?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Sure, but why doesn't it matter? Does understanding how God can be married to Mary at the same time as she is betrothed/married to Joseph without violating eternal laws not matter at all?

Understanding matters, especially since we continue to apply the same incorrect polyandry assumptions to the Nauvoo period.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Understanding matters, especially since we continue to apply the same incorrect polyandry assumptions to the Nauvoo period.

I completely agree. Understanding the relationship between God, Mary, and Joseph helps us understand the polyandry practiced in Nauvoo and early Utah. 

Link to comment
On 1/9/2022 at 8:29 PM, InCognitus said:

I'm not opposed to the idea that the name Jehovah can apply to the Father and the Son for the same exact reasons that I am not opposed to the idea that the title "Father" can apply to the Father and the Son.   But we have to be clear on what is meant when applying those name titles

I just came across this and thought it might interest some.  Pardon if repetition as haven’t read all the posts here. 
 

Quote

The first thing to notice is that Genesis 1 uses ‘elohim exclusively, where 2:4ff uses jehovah ‘elohim as an odd combined singular. LDS usage of these two terms to designate Father and Son is not derived from the Old Testament, nor should we read it in there. It’s a convention that arose, as far as I understand, with James E. Talmage. Until then, LDS tended to use the terms with much more ambiguity. Joseph at least sometimes used ‘elohim as a plural, and the Kirtland dedicatory prayer (D&C 109) which addresses Jehovah several times becomes much less troublesome when we realize that the term is probably referring to God the Father there. As late as 1961 (as pointed out by John Tvedtnes and Barry Bickmore), David O. McKay could refer to “Jehovah and his Son Jesus Christ”. Or, put much less specifically, “The scriptures do not always specify which member of the Godhead is being referred to in a given passage.”- Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 6.

https://benspackman.com/2020/05/teaching-genesis-at-institute/

Also this article by my neighbour, Dana Pike (yes, I am name dropping as it is dang cool to have an intelligent and informed and wonderfully nice guy as our neighbour, his wife is practically perfect too) starts on page 24, The Name and Titles of God in the Old Testament

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1401&context=re

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

And a comment of Ben’s that may or may not relate to the subtopic here as not having paid close attention I may be off at what the point of it is…

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10102576322845190&id=2905861&ref=content_filter
 

Quote

I think Latter-day Saints waste a lot of time, emotion, and intellectual energy on issues of secondary or tertiary importance, or on questions that simply can't be answered. If I get someone asking me one of those for the umpteenth time... yeah, I probably get a little rude, or am easily perceived as such. (People skills and subtlety are not my strong point anyway.)

The one that really irks me right now, is people straining to answer the question, "Is it the Father or the Son speaking in This Passage?"
And it doesn't matter one bit. The scriptures don't care, and it makes no difference at all. 

 

Bolding of last line is mine.

Link to comment
On 1/17/2022 at 10:38 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Hi, Tacenda. I'm new to this board and am intrigued by the conversation in this thread. 

In answer to your possibly rhetorical question:

Calling the Lord Jesus "our brother" can contribute to a historical Christian thinking that the LDS person is experiencing category confusion. The foundational teaching that God is creator and man is creature (albeit in God's image) is often rooted in John 1:1.

Howdy!

We don't make that distinction between creator and creature. All humans are potentially creators.

We believe that Father is the father of every spirit of every person, and we are all literally then all sons and daughters of our Father, as was Jesus, therefore Jesus is my brother as you too are my brother.

He is also my savior and redeemer.

Christ Jesus is not my "maker" because I am not a thing, there is no category error.  The Word created all things, but we are his brothers  and sisters, and so are co-eternal with him. We are in the same category of being as He is, yet he is infinitely farther in his progression than we are, and one day in the infinitely removed future, we may become as He is.

So for us, it is the other Christian who has category confusion!

Link to comment
On 1/10/2022 at 7:58 AM, Tacenda said:

Also, do other faiths get confused when we call Jesus our brother, not God?

In a word, yes!

See above.

Link to comment
On 1/17/2022 at 2:02 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Do you agree with Nyman that "the most important principle...is acceptance of Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God and the Savior of the world"?  Or does the Gospel of Jesus Christ have far more important principles?  And what might they be?  Do you think that the Bible and Book of Mormon agree on those most important principles?

I don't know if one could classify a principle as the most important one, but I would say it is one
of the important ones. That Ensign article (which was sanctioned for publication by the church,
like all their publications) seems to say the Book of Mormon is superior in explaining that principle.

I was just posing my question to see if you believed the Book of Mormon reveals a correct interpretation
and understanding of Jesus being the literal Son of God which is not taught in the Bible. 

The principle of some man becoming a god and then Heavenly Father of Earth is probably the biggest
LDS principle which is unscriptural and leading people to worship a false god.  

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Calm said:

Otoh, I see no reason my personal lack of care should dictate what others feel is inappropriate to discuss.

Yet I know you are carefull about not offending people- and that you would not take this attitude in case of say, racist comments.

So if someone made a blatantly racist comment perhaps using even racist epithets which you found offensive, would you not respond in order to allow your  " personal lack of care.... dictate what others feel is inappropriate to discuss."

To make it crystal clear though I cringe doing so, you would not be offended by an explicit conversation about how exactly Father had sex with Mary?  That's how I saw the previous comments.

I find it hard to believe.   🤨

I would find such a discussion revolting and inappropriate and do all I could to close it down.   I would find it worse than a racist rant.   I would see it as my duty to try to correct it.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
2 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't know if one could classify a principle as the most important one, but I would say it is one
of the important ones. That Ensign article (which was sanctioned for publication by the church,
like all their publications) seems to say the Book of Mormon is superior in explaining that principle.

I believe you are misinterpreting the author's intent in the Ensign article.  You are focusing on the phrase "literal Son of God" (for whatever you think this means), and seem to believe the article is saying that the Book of Mormon is superior to the Bible in teaching this.  But that's not what the article says at all:

Quote

The uniqueness of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests upon several basic principles and ordinances that the world has long forsaken in whole or in part. These unique features are taught in the Bible, but through misinterpretation and misunderstanding they have been gradually deleted from the tenets of modern Christianity.

The most important principle, of course, is acceptance of Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God and the Savior of the world. To this principle, the Book of Mormon bears a second witness in dozens of instances. Its primary objective is to convince Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God. This correct second witness has become more and more valuable as the world has increasingly entertained various alternate opinions of Jesus. The Book of Mormon proclaims him to be more than a great teacher, or a great philosopher, or a great moral and ethical proclaimer. These opinions have replaced Isaiah’s prophetic designation of the Christ as “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (Isa. 9:6.) In making a substitution, splintered Christianity has assimilated fragments of philosophies and rituals that took the place of original Christian unity and the plan of salvation. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the Book of Mormon corrects the false doctrine and affirms the true.

Two things of note from the article quote above:

  1. It clearly says that these "unique features are taught in the Bible", and that the Book of Mormon is a "second" witness (to the Bible) of these teachings.   In order to be a "second" witness, there has to be a "first" witness, which of course is the Bible.
  2. What the author says the Book of Mormon "corrects" are the opinions and misinterpretations that have occurred in some "modern" factions of Christianity related to the divinity of Jesus Christ.  Jesus is not merely a great philosopher, or merely a great moral teacher.  He is "the Eternal God".

I do believe the Book of Mormon is far clearer than the Bible in teaching the divinity of Jesus Christ, but the author doesn't seem to be making that claim in the article.

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I was just posing my question to see if you believed the Book of Mormon reveals a correct interpretation
and understanding of Jesus being the literal Son of God which is not taught in the Bible. 

Two questions for you: 

  1. How exactly do you understand the phrase "literal Son of God"? 
  2. What do you believe the author of the Ensign article means by that? 
Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Calm said:

I just came across this and thought it might interest some.  Pardon if repetition as haven’t read all the posts here. 

Thanks for posting it.  Quoting Ben Spackman from your posts:

8 hours ago, Calm said:

The first thing to notice is that Genesis 1 uses ‘elohim exclusively, where 2:4ff uses jehovah ‘elohim as an odd combined singular.

I've always found that fact interesting (that "Jehovah" doesn't show up until Genesis 2).  It's always fun to point that out when conversing with Jehovah's Witnesses :) 

7 hours ago, Calm said:

The one that really irks me right now, is people straining to answer the question, "Is it the Father or the Son speaking in This Passage?"
And it doesn't matter one bit. The scriptures don't care, and it makes no difference at all. 

I agree, and I think this is a basic principle that is taught all through the scriptures about all who are sent out as authorized representatives of the Father.  (i.e. "He that heareth you heareth me" (Luke 10:16), or "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38)).   It makes no difference at all.

Edit to add:

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Also this article by my neighbour, Dana Pike, starts on page 24, The Name and Titles of God in the Old Testament

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1401&context=re

Thanks for posting this, I haven't seen that publication before.  Very interesting articles in there!

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We don't make that distinction between creator and creature. All humans are potentially creators.

Just wanted to add that all things humans know were created by humans, because we create reality around us as we see it, not as "it is"

And then we DEFINE what we perceive by giving it a name, just as Father "called" the first round of "darkness" (a human conception) and "light" (another human conception) as one thing- a "DAY".

And so yes, in John 1 - it is the Word which creates all things AS HUMANS see them- through a glass darkly, because in the story of Babel we are told that our languages are "confounded"

But one day we will be able to commuicate in pure experience- as we see things "face to face"

We wil be back to perception as Adam perceived- "face to face", as described in what we call the "Adamic Language" which will not be counfounded by a human brain made of meat.  ;)

Now, stuck in earthly experience, we are ALL MEATHEADS!!!   8P

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet I know you are carefull about not offending people- and that you would not take this attitude in case of say, racist comments.

So if someone made a blatantly racist comment perhaps using even racist epithets which you found offensive, would you not respond in order to allow your  " personal lack of care.... dictate what others feel is inappropriate to discuss."

To make it crystal clear though I cringe doing so, you would not be offended by an explicit conversation about how exactly Father had sex with Mary?  That's how I saw the previous comments.

I find it hard to believe.   🤨

I would find such a discussion revolting and inappropriate and do all I could to close it down.   I would find it worse than a racist rant.   I would see it as my duty to try to correct it.

As with a racist remark, it would depend on the purpose, the intent of the person saying it.  There would be a very limited context of sincerely trying to understand rather than to belittle or offend, just as I would not see it as appropriate to be offended if someone said “ I don’t know what #@%$ means.  Can you explain to me why some people get upset when it is said as I heard others use it and they just laughed.”

Link to comment
3 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't know if one could classify a principle as the most important one, but I would say it is one
of the important ones. That Ensign article (which was sanctioned for publication by the church,
like all their publications) seems to say the Book of Mormon is superior in explaining that principle.

Monte Nyman's views are his own, Jim.  He was not a General Authority.  Many people have been published in LDS magazines and manuals.  That does in no sense make their words official doctrine, nor correct interpretation of Scriptural Canon.  One sees the same phenomenon in Methodist manuals and magazines.

3 hours ago, theplains said:

I was just posing my question to see if you believed the Book of Mormon reveals a correct interpretation
and understanding of Jesus being the literal Son of God which is not taught in the Bible. 

As I said before, neither the Bible nor Book of Mormon used the phrase "literal son of god," so your point is moot.  One must ask the hard question, which is:  Do the Bible and Book of Mormon differ in any respect on the nature of the conception and birth of Jesus?  To answer that question, one must assemble all the quotations from both and try to discern whether there are in fact substantive differences among them.

3 hours ago, theplains said:

The principle of some man becoming a god and then Heavenly Father of Earth is probably the biggest
LDS principle which is unscriptural and leading people to worship a false god.
  

And you got this from where in the Book of Mormon?

Link to comment
23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Maybe I did not communicate it well.

I am not talking about the birds and bees.  I meant details about your conception.

Did it start with a kiss? Then what happened, who touched who where and when?  What was the first clothing removed etc.

THAT is what I meant would be none of anybody's business, and disrespectful to even ask here.

This is GOD!

It's none of our business and irrelevant anyway 

Hate to bring this up but just can't help it, but this is how I feel about a bishop's interview with the youth. These questions shouldn't be asked. Let them work it out with God unless, they feel the need to go to the bishop and get it off their chests. 

(bold mine)

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Hate to bring this up but just can't help it, but this is how I feel about a bishop's interview with the youth. These questions shouldn't be asked. Let them work it out with God unless, they feel the need to go to the bishop and get it off their chests. 

(bold mine)

I agree.  And a former bishop, I have never asked nor been asked any questions remotely this intimate nor have I heard of or been trained that a bishop should go there. 

Yes, people have confessed- that is different.

Maybe it is a Utah thing?

Link to comment
13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In a word, yes!

See above.

We used to sing the following song in The Church of Christ:

-God is my Father

-Jesus is my Brother

-and the blessed Holy Spirit is my guide

-The devil’s no relation

-For I’m a new creation

-I’m a member of the family of God

I guess the only thing we might quibble on is the devil part. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Peacefully
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Whaaaa....Calm wasn't nannying, she's being helpful. Maybe you read her wrong.

Kind of you to defend me.

I wasn’t telling anyone what to do, just reminding in case forgotten because I hadn’t remembered a violation for quite sometime. Rod isn’t someone who typically chooses to break the rules even when apparently annoyed from what I can tell, but no one can choose to keep or break a forgotten rule. 
 

Posters can choose to do what they want with the info I posted and linked to.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree.  And a former bishop, I have never asked nor been asked any questions remotely this intimate nor have I heard of or been trained that a bishop should go there. 

Yes, people have confessed- that is different.

Maybe it is a Utah thing?

I know you were a bishop :) I should have emphasized not all bishops do this. I'm going off letters written during the Sam Young campaign about bishop interviews. And felt bad later on after I couldn't delete my comment, that I would derail the topic. It may or may not be a Utah thing. 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know you were a bishop :) I should have emphasized not all bishops do this. I'm going off letters written during the Sam Young campaign about bishop interviews. And felt bad later on after I couldn't delete my comment, that I would derail the topic. It may or may not be a Utah thing. 

I think it was less Utah thing and more all over leadership roulette. Someone needs a certain mentality to see that kind of knowledge/confession as both helpful and healthy to push kids in ways that probably rarely are healthy.  I never experienced it from my home wards or BYU branch presidents, but I heard of nonUtahn roommates or siblings that did in their home wards.  My husband, Orem boy, never did, but I have heard of others growing up in Utah who did.  I will try and remember to see if his sisters experienced or their children (mine didn’t).  I would very much want to know how widespread it was, but I think it has been too long and stories repeated and memory modified too often that unless this was documented somehow by the Church back then, we won’t find any close to reliable estimates, especially if we go worldwide.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Howdy!

We don't make that distinction between creator and creature. All humans are potentially creators.

We believe that Father is the father of every spirit of every person, and we are all literally then all sons and daughters of our Father, as was Jesus, therefore Jesus is my brother as you too are my brother.

He is also my savior and redeemer.

Christ Jesus is not my "maker" because I am not a thing, there is no category error.  The Word created all things, but we are his brothers  and sisters, and so are co-eternal with him. We are in the same category of being as He is, yet he is infinitely farther in his progression than we are, and one day in the infinitely removed future, we may become as He is.

So for us, it is the other Christian who has category confusion!

I'm trying to follow your reasoning and am coming up short of the mark. I've noticed in conversations with my LDS family members that we'll use some of the same words, but we attribute entirely different meanings to those words.

I'll say just a little here, on what I mean when I reference a distinction between creator and creature. In my view:

God is the creator of the universe, the creator of space and time. Therefore, God must exist beyond space and time.

When you say that "We don't make that distinction between creator and creature," what I hear is "there is no difference between what exists beyond space and time and what exists in space and time."  

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Orthodox Christian said:

I am totally mystified here. 

We believe that God the Father is an exalted, perfect human and that all humankind are his actual spirit children (we are in his image, look like him in spirit and body just as we are in the image of our biological parents) and Jesus is also his only begotten, physical son. This makes for a bunch of speculation about Jesus’ birth and the relationship of his parents, including some from past leaders. We don’t actually known how it was done. The whole idea can be very offensive to many nonLDS Christians. 
 

I don’t know if I shared this with you, I tend to post it for those not too familiar with our faith so they get a basic idea of our actual doctrine to make sense of the speculation we get into in the board. 
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-gospel-according-to-st-luke/lesson-43-luke-1?lang=eng

Quote

Explain that we do not know, beyond the accounts in the scriptures, how the miracle of Jesus Christ’s conception happened; we are simply told that it was miraculous and that the child who would be born would be the Son of God.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 1/19/2022 at 5:04 PM, InCognitus said:

I do believe the Book of Mormon is far clearer than the Bible in teaching the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Two questions for you: 

  1. How exactly do you understand the phrase "literal Son of God"? 
  2. What do you believe the author of the Ensign article means by that? 

How do you believe the Book of Mormon is far clearer than the Bible in teaching the divinity of Christ?

Regarding #1.  Literal Son of God to me means God literally becoming a man in human flesh via
a miraculous birth to Mary.  Regarding #2 - I do not know, but it seems he was meaning something
different than how the Bible describes it as he was saying the phrase "literal Son of God" has been
misinterpreted or misunderstood.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...