Mormonism Question


#1

Sorry I couldn’t have a better title for this thread, but the question I’m asking is a bit involved. I’ve read quite a bit on Mormonism, but I’ve never seen an answer to this. Perhaps one of our Mormon visitors could explain:

1.) In Mormonism, why, exactly, was it necessary for Jesus to come to earth,

2.) why was it necessary (or was it?) for him to suffer and die, and

3.) on other planets, which (according to Mormonism) each has it’s own God, does the same sequence of events (a Savior coming into the world as a man to die) have to take place to open up heaven for the inhabitants of that planet?

Thanks.


#2

In a nutshell?

  1. Because he had to obtain a mortal body in order to progress to godhood.
  2. according to Mormonism, Jesus death on the cross wasn’t where “the atonement” took place. The real pain and anguish was in the Garden of Gethsemane. He took on the sins of the world “after all we can do”.
    3.Yes the same sequence takes place… with a Lucifer, a Savior, and many many spirit children waiting for their mortal bodies to progress to their own godhoods.

in Christ
Steph


#3

I am puzzled by that comment. If you had read the proper LDS literature, it is impossible for you to be in any doubt about the answer to these questions. Have you ever read the Book of Mormon? Have you read the Doctrine and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price? I doubt it, because the answer to your question is written on every other page of those books. But to not take too much of your time, here is the short answer to your questions:

1.) In Mormonism, why, exactly, was it necessary for Jesus to come to earth,

Jesus came to earth to atone for the sins of the world. That was His primary purpose.

2.) Why was it necessary (or was it?) for him to suffer and die, and

He suffered and died in order to take upon Himself the sins of the world, and thus to atone for their sins. And yes, it was necessary.

3.) On other planets, which (according to Mormonism) each has it’s own God, does the same sequence of events (a Savior coming into the world as a man to die) have to take place to open up heaven for the inhabitants of that planet?

That is an utterly incorrect understanding of LDS doctrine. There is no such thing as other people creating their own planets. The correct teaching of the LDS Church on this regard are as follows:

[LIST]*]1) There are many inhabited planets in the universe. Here is one of the differences between LDS theology and traditional Christian one. Whereas traditionally Christian theologians have acknowledged only the existence of this world as an inhabited planet; LDS scripture teaches that there are many such inhabited planets in the universe (too many in fact to count).

*]2) LDS doctrine teaches that ALL the inhabited (and uninhabited) planets in the universe were and are created by God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. There is no such thing as anybody making their own planets.

*]3) Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer not only of this world and its inhabitants, but of ALL the creations of the Almighty. Here is another difference between LDS theology and traditional Christian one. Whereas traditionally Christian theologians have restricted the effects of the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ only to this world and its inhabitants; LDS theology teaches that it encompasses a much wider sphere, and embraces ALL the creations of God and their inhabitants. So again, there is not such thing as anybody making their own planets and making saviors for them.[/LIST]
Hope that answers your question.

zerinus


#4

Have you forgotten that wonderful hymn, “If You Could Hie to Kolob” which is still in the LDS hymnbook?

  1. If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
    And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
    Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
    Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

  2. Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend?
    Or view the last creation, Where Gods and matter end?
    Me thinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found 'pure space,'
    Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place.”

  3. The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound;
    Improvement and progression Have one eternal round.
    There is no end to matter; There is no end to space;
    There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race.

  4. There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might;
    There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light.
    There is no end to union; There is no end to youth;
    There is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth.

  5. There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
    There is no end to being; There is no death above.
    There is no end to glory; There is no end to love;
    There is no end to being; There is no death above.

Where did those Gods begin to be? And of course the goal of every Mormon is to become a God and create their own universe. Since Mormons believe our God is an exalted man, they believe that previous Gods existed. Each would have had to have a Savior for their own universe. The Mormon doctrines leave us all kinds of problems when it comes to multiple Gods needing multiple atonements for their creations.


#5

Don’t introduce red herrings into the debate, thank you. That was not his question. I had answered his question. I don’t think I have any obligation to answer yours.

zerinus


#6

You are priceless. That was exactly his question. LDS doctrine leaves no choice but to believe in multiple Saviors for multiple universes. Jesus is only the Savior of our Father’s universe according to classic Mormonism.


#7

Thank you! :slight_smile:

That was exactly his question.

It was far from it.

LDS doctrine leaves no choice but to believe in multiple Saviors for multiple universes.

It does no such thing.

Jesus is only the Savior of our Father’s universe . . .

He is not.

. . . according to classic Mormonism.

There is no such thing as “classic Mormonism”.

zerinus


#8

correction, Christian theology is silent about whether other planets are inhabited. your knowledge of LDS theology is no doubt sound, but please do not make incorrect statements about Christian theology to back it up.


#9

This guy doesn’t know Mormon theology either.


#10

Thank you for correcting me—assuming that you are indeed correct. :slight_smile: I am not too sure! That depends on which Christian theology you are looking at, I guess. Both Copernicus’ and Galileo’s theories were condemned by the Catholic Church at one time for teaching that the sun standing still and the earth and planets move round the sun. Were they really willing to accept the idea that there might be other inhabited planets in the universe, beside our own? I have my doubts. Going further back in time, they probably didn’t even know that there were such things as planets, or even that the earth was a planet. They thought that the earth was flat. So to what extent your statement holds true I am not too sure.

zerinus


#11

“Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar that through which we are now passing. He became God - an exalted being - through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey.”

  • Elder Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, p 104

This is just one of hundreds of quotes from LDS apostles and prophets demonstrating the Mormon belief that their god was not always a god.

So, Zerinus, who created the world on which your heavenly father was born and grew up?

Since Jesus did not exist at that time (except perhaps as raw intelligence), who was your heavenly father’s savior?

Paul


#12

You need to educate yourself on what the Galileo affair was and was not about. What it was NOT about was science. The Church was not making a definitive statement about geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. Galileo was in fact censored (i.e., forbidden from teaching on this topic) because, among other reasons:

a) He offered no proof for his theories. Even though he was correct, modern scientists find the proofs he offered lacking, as did his contemporaries (note: most scientists of his time – including many who were priests – believed in heliocentrism, but they would not teach it because, at the time, there was no scientific proof – a prudent approach. They also did NOT believe the world was flat (or “not a planet”?!) This is a myth propagated by our fine public school system. :rolleyes: People in those days were a lot smarter than we like to give them credit for)

b) He publicly responded to the criticisms from Bible scholars that his theory contradicted Scripture by saying the Church scholars were wrong, thus saying he knew more about the Bible than the Church.

c) He persisted teaching his theories as fact at a university where he was employed (established by the Church, BTW), and released books that taught the same and insultingly mischaracterized the views of the Pope and other clerics – some who had been his defenders.

Before you repeat (mis)information, you need to do some research from reliable sources. This will give you a start:

catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=galileo

That aside, I’m still looking for reliable answers on my original Mormon questions. To deny that the LDS church teaches these things is a condescending tactic to be used on less informed people. I have read the LDS “inspired” canon, and I do know what they teach, thank you. I’m just looking for clarification on these certain points.


#13

#14

That said, nevertheless the fact remains that they were not willing to tolerate his ideas that the earth and the planets revolved around the sun. They believed that the earth was at the center of the universe, and everything else revolved around it. Were they really willing to tolerate the idea that there might be other inhabited planets beside our own? I very much doubt that.

That aside, I’m still looking for reliable answers on my original Mormon questions. . . . I have read the LDS “inspired” canon, and I do know what they teach, thank you.

You have? Ummmm. :rolleyes: That is a surprise! Tell me something, in answer to your first two questions, when you were reading the “LDS ‘inspired’ canon,” did you happen to come across any of these verses by any chance?

[LIST]
*]1 Ne. 11:33 he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins
*]2 Ne. 2:7 he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin
*]2 Ne. 9:7 it must needs be an infinite atonement
*]2 Ne. 10:25 May God raise you from everlasting death by the power of the atonement
*]2 Ne. 11:5 great and eternal plan of deliverance
*]Jacob 4:11 reconciled unto him through the atonement of Christ
*]Mosiah 3:16 blood of Christ atonement for their sins
*]Mosiah 4:6 come to a knowledge of … atonement which has been prepared
*]Mosiah 13:28 were it not for the atonement … they must unavoidably perish
*]Mosiah 14:10 thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin
*]Alma 7:11 take upon him the pains and the sicknesses
*]Alma 34:8 he shall atonement for the sins of the world
*]Alma 42:23 the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection
*]Hel. 5:9 saved, only through the atonement blood of Jesus Christ
*]3 Ne. 11:14 God of the whole earth … slain for the sins of the world
*]Moro. 8:20 setteth at naught the atonement
*]Moro. 10:33 sanctified … through the shedding of the blood
*]D&C 18:11 he suffered the pain of all men
*]D&C 19:16 I, God, have suffered these things for all
*]D&C 29:1 I Am, whose arm of mercy hath atonement for your sins
*]D&C 38:4 by the virtue of the blood which I have spilt, have I pleaded
*]D&C 45:4 behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin
*]D&C 74:7 little children are holy … through the atonement
*]D&C 76:69 Jesus … wrought out this perfect atonement
*]D&C 138:2 the great atonement sacrifice that was made by the Son
*]Moses 5:7 a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten
*]Moses 6:54 Son of God hath atonement for original guilt
*]A of F 3 through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved[/LIST]
I extracted these from the Topical Guide. It is not comprehensive. There are more. If you happen to have a copy of your LDS standard works handy, would you care to have a look at these, and tell me what they say? Many of these verses will need to be read in their context, so make sure you look at the surrounding verses as you read them.

Continued/…

zerinus


#15

And in answer to your third and last question (and some of the other issues raised by others in this thread), did you happen to come across any of these verses by any chance?

D&C 76:

43 Who {Jesus} glorifies the Father, and saves ALL the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

How does that read in your ears? It says that Jesus is the Savior of ALL of God’s creations, not just of this earth, right? So that does not leave any room for anybody else becoming saviors of any other planets, no? And how about the next verse? Did you happen to come across this one by any chance, when you read your LDS canon of “inspired” scripture?

D&C 38:

1 Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made;

2 The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes;

3 I am the same which spake, and the world was made, and ALL things came by me.

Did you get that? So ALL things came by Jesus Christ, right? That rules out anybody else mekaing planets and making saviors for them, no amigo?

I’m just looking for clarification on these certain points.

Well good. I hope you got your answers this time round.

To deny that the LDS church teaches these things is a condescending tactic to be used on less informed people.

Which “things”? Care to be a bit more specific my friend?

zerinus


#16

D&C 76 came out of the era when Joseph Smith still was teaching there was only one God. Later on he taught that God had a Father as did all the previous Gods. Your quotes don’t impress me much. The God’s who existed as God prior to our God had Saviors for their own universes. You know that LDS teach that God the Father had a Father. Why are you dodging the issue?


#17

This has long been my same question. Yet every time I ask it I get non-answers. I further ask that if God grants a planet of his own to a human to be the god of that planet, then who do the inhabitant’s worship? Do they worship their heavenly father and mother or do they worship the heavenly father of their heavenly father and mother? If they worship their own heavenly father, doesn’t that violate the commandment not to put other gods before Him?

If the Heavenly Father of our universe and our planet is just another in a long line of many gods of other planets and universes, at what point does one worship the ONE omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God who is unchanging and has been the same throughout all eternity?


#18

When he converts to Catholicism! :thumbsup:

God bless you,
Paul


#19

That is a figment of your imagination. It is wishful thinking on your part. D&C 76 is part of the canon of LDS scripture. It is the word of God, period. It is true.

Your quotes don’t impress me much.

I dare say so—as if I cared.

The God’s who existed as God prior to our God had Saviors for their own universes.

There is no such thing in LDS theology. This is what true LDS doctrine teaches:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

Did you get that? “No God beside me”. That is the true doctrine of the LDS Church.

You know that LDS teach that God the Father had a Father.

It does not. It has been taught in the past, but it is now believed to have been a mistake, and it is not officially taught by the Church any more. It is not found anywhere in any of the canonized scriptures of the Church, which is the authoritative source of all LDS theology and doctrine.

Why are you dodging the issue?

I do not. Every religion has the right to define its own theology. I don’t tell the Catholics what they should believe, and they had better not come and tell me what I should believe.

zerinus


#20

Oh we would never do that…but let us remember that the Church does not change its theology every few years like some faiths do.
Just how many theology things have the mormons changed over the years??? why where they changed?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.