Mormons don't believe in Jesus

[deacon blues]

I read an interesting blog post from the author of Believing Christ about reactions from his book. Here, if you're interested.

https://wheatandtares.org/2017/12/13/s…

What I found a tad unbelievable, is that Robinson claims that the doctrine of grace was warmly received by "the brethren," while the members had more of a hard time with it. While that's debatable, and I'm not going to call the guy a liar because clearly that was his experience, I have to admit I'm dubious given the lack of talks about the subject. The only talk I remember on the doctrine of grace was Utchdorf's talk on it a few years ago in conference (it was in the April 2015 session; if you're interested, look it up, it was actually one of the best talks of the last ten years.) I remember teaching that lesson to the HP, and the resistance to the idea of grace was palpable.

So I agree. Mormons are not big fans of the idea that Jesus can help you. And I'm pretty sure, with all due respect to Robinson, it starts at the top.

I am bothered that Uctdorf was summarily busted down to apostle. I wonder if his talk on Grace had anything to do with it. Especially since he was busted by Pres. Nelson, who gave the talk telling us God's love is NOT unconditional. I think Mormons are Christians, but Mormonism per se distracts from the fundamentals of Christianity. (temples, rituals, blessings only come by obedience, etc., "follow the PROPHET", when Jesus said "you have one teacher, even Christ" Matt 23:7-8)

[LaMachina]

Now, a better example than the bike story would be when the kid wants a bike and Dad is realistic about the idea that working for pennies will never get her a bike. All she would have to do is ask and acknowledge that she can never do it by herself. Save the frustration of working for pennies and the frustration of knowing she can never do it. Leave out the working for pennies and focus on the idea that God really does it all.

The Mormon misunderstanding comes from the fear that Jesus taught about with the story of the laborer who worked all day, compared to the ones hired at the 11th hour. They want more reward than those who are slackers. They misunderstand the story of the prodigal son.

Is it a better example though? Certainly the point of Jesus' story is those who worked the 11th hour are as worthy as those who worked all day but they still got to work didn't they? I see no free-riders in Jesus' philosophy.

I agree that the comment 'God's love is conditional' is very problematic but I don't think most Mormons or Nelson mean it the way it sounds (I'm admittedly trying to read minds here). I believe if pressed on that comment he would say - Of course God loves all his children but God's REWARD- ie eternal life, salvation (which could be described as a manifestation of his love) is in fact conditional and many Mormons and Christians I feel would get on board with that. God and Jesus' reward being conditional doesn't seem to be un-biblical or controversial but of course what those conditions are is up for debate.

[deacon blues]

I edited my post above, because I went too far and I was wrong.Let me correct myself. In my opinion, to say Mormons don't believe in Jesus is a misrepresentation. I think Mormons believe in Jesus Christ, yet some things they do and teach can detract from parts of the message of the New Testament, particularly, an understanding of the comprehensive nature of Grace, but I am likely to be guilty of that myself, many times over. May God/Creator have mercy on me, a sinner, for judging my fellow beings too quickly.

[Ghost]

I've always found it odd that some of the people who are the most adamant about insisting that Mormons misunderstand grace (at least in my experience) are those who believe in a literal Hell where you are consigned to never-ending torture for finite infractions.

On the other hand, the Telestial Kingdom, where presumably the most heinous actors in history will spend the afterlife, can accurately be described as Heaven. There might even be progression between kingdoms, depending on who you ask.

This kind of universalism sure seems more merciful to me than the strict Heaven and Hell split.

I kind of miss the days when this kind of discussion carried more weight for me.

[Palerider]

Don't know if this idea will have any effect on the conversation here but it was my understanding that institutional "forgiveness" from the church was quite different from forgiveness proffered from the Lord. The Lord can forgive us immediately but the authorities of the church have to wade through a time critical process that convinces them that a sinner has truly repented.

Which is interesting because it seems that the "leader roulette" game comes into play here. I've seen people that I figured should have been either disfellowshipped or even excommunicated (cheated on his wife) whose sin was discreetly kept quiet and he was called to be a Bishop within a year of his transgression. He was a bit of a darling of the local brethren. Another who was actually quite a humble person but committed the same offense was excommunicated and suffered public humility.

The "brethren", local or otherwise, seem to have no way of telling who the Lord has forgiven and who is still going through the actual or real repentance process. They can only inflict the time penalties and then when the individual gives them the answers they're looking for he is forgiven on an institutional basis. But who knows if he has truly been forgiven by the Lord?

As far as the church is concerned they're just hoping the person doesn't embarrass them anymore with being a bad example of what a Mormon should be. It reflects badly on the church.

So you may believe in Jesus but the church believes only in what they can see.........

[Jeffret]

Don't know if this idea will have any effect on the conversation here but it was my understanding that institutional "forgiveness" from the church was quite different from forgiveness proffered from the Lord. The Lord can forgive us immediately but the authorities of the church have to wade through a time critical process that convinces them that a sinner has truly repented.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I don't think I've ever actually heard that in church. Nor does it show up in the stories Sam Young has collected. What we see in them are church leaders insisting that they determine who has achieved repentance. And insisting that any previous declarations of repentance made by some other leader are null and void. What they demonstrate is their belief that repentance comes through them. As I described initially, I see no indication that these leaders encourage the members to turn to the healing power of Jesus. Instead they work hard to keep them from those things that they claim should turn them to Jesus.

So you may believe in Jesus but the church believes only in what they can see.........

Or what they want to see.

[moksha]

If the Good Samaritan is on his way to pay his Mormon tithing and sees an injured man on the side of the road, should he spend that tithing on giving the injured man medical care, or pay his tithing?

It would be fun to hear a debate on this question. I can envision the two champion debaters.

Jesus of Nazareth - Arguing for the stance of the Good Samaritan.

Stake President Ebenezer H. Scrooge (pre-visitation) - Arguing that the tithing must flow.

This would make for a very stimulating presentation for the combined two-hour block. Afterwards, members would be asked to raise their hands to the square to sustain the position of President Scrooge.

[blazerb]

I don't think that explanation really covers it. There is possibly some of that, but it is far from all of it. If that were the primary justification, why is so much of the focus on women? They'll never get a calling of bishop or above. It's even worse than that as you'll see from reading the accounts or innumerable others (such as alas's) that I somewhat overstated the case. Some people do apparently receive institutional forgiveness. But they're pretty much all men. And too many of them are given support or placed in positions that they really shouldn't receive. Lots of Sam's stories describe how the woman or girl received far harsher treatment. Even in cases of rape and child molestation. It's the men who more frequently receive lighter treatment and they're the only ones that could be eligible for those higher callings.

I've also never heard of a man being called to higher office who was asked to confess all of his prior sins upon receiving the call. It might happen, but I've never heard of it and it seems unlikely. At that point, he's being welcomed into the club and receiving the special privileges of that club. To maintain the purity of the club, his leaders will stand by him in the face of almost all allegations or complaints.

You are right about the harsh treatment of women. There is a desire to control using the policies.

[Hagoth]

The tribalism is a joke.

Yup, this!

Not too mention that Jesus was just another borrowed story/fable from previous gods of other cultures, all the way back to Horace, the "sun/son" of God of Egypt. If the Egyptians had managed to hang on to their roots and languages they would be looking at the entire Christian world and telling them their Horace could beat up our Jesus. Of course, the ten commandments movies solidified that the Egyptian gods were false and the one true God was the one, but this argument about any of these super natural beings has been going on through all of recorded history. Fortunately, I think science and education are beginning to make some headway now.

And let's not forget the parallels with Osiris, who was the god of grain and beer. When he invited you to eat his body and drink his blood it was literal and made a whole lot more sense than when Jesus later said the same thing.

[2bizE]

The exact obedience mantra certain church GAs and other leaders have been pushing undermines the atonement of Christ and sounds a lot like Lucifer’s plan.

[No Tof]

As I described initially, I see no indication that these leaders encourage the members to turn to the healing power of Jesus. Instead they work hard to keep them from those things that they claim should turn them to Jesus.

I like the term Jefferet used, “The healing power of Jesus.”
This is the thing we are expected to believe in and I feel I did believe in as a TBM. Now, not so much so in my case the other christians are right; I’m a Mormon and I don’t believe in jesus.

[Palerider]

Don't know if this idea will have any effect on the conversation here but it was my understanding that institutional "forgiveness" from the church was quite different from forgiveness proffered from the Lord. The Lord can forgive us immediately but the authorities of the church have to wade through a time critical process that convinces them that a sinner has truly repented.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I don't think I've ever actually heard that in church. Nor does it show up in the stories Sam Young has collected. What we see in them are church leaders insisting that they determine who has achieved repentance. And insisting that any previous declarations of repentance made by some other leader are null and void. What they demonstrate is their belief that repentance comes through them. As I described initially, I see no indication that these leaders encourage the members to turn to the healing power of Jesus. Instead they work hard to keep them from those things that they claim should turn them to Jesus.

So you may believe in Jesus but the church believes only in what they can see.........

Or what they want to see.

I'm quite sure this has been taught over the years. As an aside I'm aware that the church has taught that in SOME RARE cases, the prophet or an authorized apostle may actually "forgive" a sin but I don't think that's what you're getting at here.
Anyway, here's a quote from everyone's favorite book.

Here is an excerpt from The Miracle of Forgiveness (pp. 263-264) that may be useful to consider:



Bishops Remove Penalties, Not Sins


Although there are many ecclesiastical officers in the Church whose positions entitle and require them to be judges, the authority of those positions does not necessarily qualify them to forgive or remit sins. Those who can do that are extremely few in this world.

The bishop, and others in comparable positions, can forgive in the sense of waiving the penalties. In our loose connotation we sometimes call this forgiveness, but it is not forgiveness in the sense of "wiping out" or absolution. The waiver means, however, that the individual will not need to be tried again for the same error, and that he may become active and have fellowship with the people of the Church. In receiving the confession and waiving the penalties the bishop is representing the Lord. He helps to carry the burden, relieves the transgressor's strain and tension, and assures to him a continuation of Church activity.

It is the Lord, however, who forgives sin. This point, and the position of the bishop and comparable officers in the matter, was brought out in the following instruction given to bishops of the Church by President J. Reuben Clark on April 5, 1946:

...

There is in the Church... the power to remit sins, but I do not believe it resides in the bishops. That is a power that must be exercised under the proper authority of the priesthood and by those who hold the keys that pertain to that function. Woo back every sinner. Forgive them personally. The Lord has said that. Do all you can, but short of that formal remission the matter then rests between the transgressor and the Lord, who is merciful, who knows all of the circumstances, who has no disposition but to aid his children, give them comfort, guide them, and help them. But the Lord has said, "I cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." So we leave it with him, and our prayers go with the prayers of the transgressor that God will forgive him, but the path of the sinner was never smooth and I believe never will he.

...

Let it be said in emphasis that even the First Presidency and the Apostles do not make a practice of absolving sins. They waive penalties in the course of their ministrations. Thus the forgiveness or waiver of penalty is not something to be taken idly or thoughtlessly and is not to be given for a mere token effort or trial, but only for a genuine, wholehearted repentance.
Although there are many ecclesiastical officers in the Church whose positions entitle and require them to be judges, the authority of those positions does not necessarily qualify them to forgive or remit sins. Those who can do that are extremely few in this world.



...

Edited for clarity.

[el-asherah]

Let it be said in emphasis that even the First Presidency and the Apostles do not make a practice of absolving sins. They waive penalties in the course of their ministrations. Thus the forgiveness or waiver of penalty is not something to be taken idly or thoughtlessly and is not to be given for a mere token effort or trial, but only for a genuine, wholehearted repentance."

This is an interesting take on it, that I've never heard before! That the brethren (from bishops being a judge in Israel all the way up to the First Presidency) waive the penalties, but only the Lord can forgive the sin.

But what is the scriptural basis for having "penalties" in the first place and the "brethren waiving penalties"? and who defines what are "penalties" You gave quotes from various GAs, but I don't recall this concept ever being in the scriptures including the D&C, or is it? Or is this another thing the brethren have made up that has no basis in revelation nor scripture nor was it ever canonized before the body of the church? So many things in Mormonism seem to be because the prior guy said so (opinion of a man), and then as time goes by it becomes entrenched in the institution as doctrine, such as the "Doctrine of the White Shirt".

[Mad Jax]

No Christians do. Jesus gives absurd advice and provides a terrible example that, if followed, would lead any human being to ruin and make them miserable. Every believing Christian would abandon their families, dump their assets, berate their loved ones, and let themselves get walked all over by crooks and thugs. So like everyone else, they cherry pick and selectively interpret things to fit their own needs. Which is far, far better than having faith in someone like Jesus.

[Palerider]

Let it be said in emphasis that even the First Presidency and the Apostles do not make a practice of absolving sins. They waive penalties in the course of their ministrations. Thus the forgiveness or waiver of penalty is not something to be taken idly or thoughtlessly and is not to be given for a mere token effort or trial, but only for a genuine, wholehearted repentance."

This is an interesting take on it, that I've never heard before! That the brethren (from bishops being a judge in Israel all the way up to the First Presidency) waive the penalties, but only the Lord can forgive the sin.

But what is the scriptural basis for having "penalties" in the first place and the "brethren waiving penalties"? and who defines what are "penalties" You gave quotes from various GAs, but I don't recall this concept ever being in the scriptures including the D&C, or is it? Or is this another thing the brethren have made up that has no basis in revelation nor scripture nor was it ever canonized before the body of the church? So many things in Mormonism seem to be because the prior guy said so (opinion of a man), and then as time goes by it becomes entrenched in the institution as doctrine, such as the "Doctrine of the White Shirt".

There is scriptural support for the original Apostles having authority to designate a repentant individual. John 20: 22-23

"22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

The LDS church as usual has taken this saying and ran wild with it. When I hear the word "penalties", the old temple penalties immediately jump to mind. Of course they are all based in false doctrine synthesized by Joseph Smith. The only real penalties imposed at this present time are loss of fellowship and loss of the "saving" ordinances.

Obviously, if there were any true Apostles living today, one could give due honor to their callings and counsel. If you happen to see any, please by all means let me know.

[LaMachina]

Interesting stuff Palerider.

This whole question as to what does and does not qualify for repentance, who can make any declarations on it and how these judgements affect one's ability to participate in the congregation is clearly something religion has debated for a long time but you cite some things that I think, from the believing mormon perspective, actually bolsters their position.

One item of disagreement, I don't think it necessarily fair to compare temple penalties with the wages of sin. It seems a reasonable argument can be made that the temple penalties amount basically to "cross my heart and hope to die" when making temple covenants and promising not to reveal them. Sin meanwhile, especially by one who at one time was a believer, can result in being cut off from full fellowship through excommunication and disfellowship and ultimately being eternally cast off into the lake of fire. That all, IMO, has solid biblical precedent.

So I submit to the OP again, what exactly is unchristlike about Mormonisms approach? Besides maybe some particular examples of bishops and SP's being a-holes, what about the process is unchristlike? What about it disqualifies mormons from claiming Jesus cuz I still don't see it.

I think there is a reasonable argument that what they do is horrible and destructive but where does it contradict Jesus or Christianity as outlined in the bible? How does "we are save by grace after all we can do" not line up with Jesus' message?

[el-asherah]

There is scriptural support for the original Apostles having authority to designate a repentant individual. John 20: 22-23

"22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

The LDS church as usual has taken this saying and ran wild with it. When I hear the word "penalties", the old temple penalties immediately jump to mind. Of course they are all based in false doctrine synthesized by Joseph Smith. The only real penalties imposed at this present time are loss of fellowship and loss of the "saving" ordinances.

Obviously, if there were any true Apostles living today, one could give due honor to their callings and counsel. If you happen to see any, please by all means let me know.

Yes I was aware of that scriptural reference John 20: 22-23, but no where does does the verse mention that the brethren have the authority to waive penalties, exact penalties or to define what the penalties are. The concept of the brethren exacting a penalty such a withholding a "saving ordinance" seems to be entirely missing from the scriptures, and to me is very un Christ like. It appears to me that the whole "we the brethren can punish you" does come from the temple penalties mind set which is still with us.

[LaMachina]

There is scriptural support for the original Apostles having authority to designate a repentant individual. John 20: 22-23

"22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

The LDS church as usual has taken this saying and ran wild with it. When I hear the word "penalties", the old temple penalties immediately jump to mind. Of course they are all based in false doctrine synthesized by Joseph Smith. The only real penalties imposed at this present time are loss of fellowship and loss of the "saving" ordinances.

Obviously, if there were any true Apostles living today, one could give due honor to their callings and counsel. If you happen to see any, please by all means let me know.

Yes I was aware of that scriptural reference John 20: 22-23, but no where does does the verse mention that the brethren have the authority to waive penalties, exact penalties or to define what the penalties are. The concept of the brethren exacting a penalty such a withholding a "saving ordinance" seems to be entirely missing from the scriptures, and to me is very un Christ like. It appears to me that the whole "we the brethren can punish you" does come from the temple penalties mind set which is still with us.

I don't believe anyone would claim "we the brethern can punish you". Not sure where that is coming from, possibly blood atonement stuff? The temple penalties, as I understand them, are self-inflicted and as I mention above could be described as "cross my heart and hope to die" even though they were no doubt more awful and disturbing than any playground vow.

For me, the decree that one can remit or retain sins is synonymous with "waiving penalties" considering the penalty for remaining in sin is eternal suffering in the lake of fire. No doubt a pretty awful penalty most would like waived. I'm not sure what language or phrasing you are expecting but for me it seems pretty clear.

[Palerider]

There is scriptural support for the original Apostles having authority to designate a repentant individual. John 20: 22-23

"22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

The LDS church as usual has taken this saying and ran wild with it. When I hear the word "penalties", the old temple penalties immediately jump to mind. Of course they are all based in false doctrine synthesized by Joseph Smith. The only real penalties imposed at this present time are loss of fellowship and loss of the "saving" ordinances.

Obviously, if there were any true Apostles living today, one could give due honor to their callings and counsel. If you happen to see any, please by all means let me know.

Yes I was aware of that scriptural reference John 20: 22-23, but no where does does the verse mention that the brethren have the authority to waive penalties, exact penalties or to define what the penalties are. The concept of the brethren exacting a penalty such a withholding a "saving ordinance" seems to be entirely missing from the scriptures, and to me is very un Christ like. It appears to me that the whole "we the brethren can punish you" does come from the temple penalties mind set which is still with us.

I don't believe anyone would claim "we the brethern can punish you". Not sure where that is coming from, possibly blood atonement stuff? The temple penalties, as I understand them, are self-inflicted and as I mention above could be described as "cross my heart and hope to die" even though they were no doubt more awful and disturbing than any playground vow.

For me, the decree that one can remit or retain sins is synonymous with "waiving penalties" considering the penalty for remaining in sin is eternal suffering in the lake of fire. No doubt a pretty awful penalty most would like waived. I'm not sure what language or phrasing you are expecting but for me it seems pretty clear.

The implication in the temple penalties is that they could be executed (pardon the pun) in a number of ways by different individuals. See this article in wiki.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_(Mormonism)

It's also important to remember that the J. Reuben Clark quote was made long before the penalties had been completely removed from the temple ceremony.

[deacon blues]

Where was the J. Reuben Clark quote? Did I miss something?