57 Years Mormon

  • Thread starter Thread starter anon82300119
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m pretty sure he would have been murdered even if he had not shot his own gun. Remember, a gun was fired into the room he was being held in. So there was some intent on someone’s part to kill him as soon as possible. That he had a gun and fought back doesn’t make it less of a murder. That he was outnumbered, made it a successful murder. However the cliche “he went like a lamb to the slaughter” is obviously misrepresentation.
Maybe, maybe not. Given how much the Mormons have distorted history, we don’t know exactly what happened or the order of events. We know that two people died on each side of the door. Beyond that, I would not care to speculate.
 
(1) “Regarding Joseph Smith and the multiple wives — I understand the purpose the Lord had for the men who made the decision regarding multiple wives.”

Would you care to describe the purpose?
Here’s a question that I have, but I’m sure will also be ignored.

If it was okay back then to be sealed to other men’s wives, is it okay to do so today? Would the Church allow me (if I were an active card-carrying member) to be sealed to another lady in the ward who was someone else’s wife? And if not, why not? When did that policy change?
 
Last edited:
For Roman Catholics, the bible is just one of three venues to revelation. All papal decrees are brought to the level of authority as the bible. All final judgments from official Church counsels, are also brought to the level of authority of as the bible, even when there is glaring contradiction
this is an inaccurate statement. Papal decrees are not a venue to revelation, neither are church councils. The Bible is the source of public revelation. The Church teaches that we have always had all of the truth of Christ since the very beginning of his life, death, and resurrection. At times, when the truth of church teaching was questioned a council would be called to examine the question and to answer it in the light of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and by means of the Christ given authority to the church.

There are no ‘levels’ of authority in the Catholic Church. The Church’s authority comes directly from Christ to his apostles through their successors. A book can’t be a ‘final’ authority. Authority can only rest in a human being, not in an object.
 
My husband was raised Mormon. He hadn’t practiced any type of religion for many, many years. Actually, when I met him 20+ years ago, he was the closest thing to an agnostic I’d ever met.

Never did I ask him to convert. I always prayed he would soften his heart to God. I told him he had a heart hole and it needed to be filled with God.

He was received in the Catholic Church Easter 2017. It’s been very humbling watching the Holy Spirit work in him.
 
Well, you don’t want to ask someone to convert, that has to be a conscious decision, you shouldn’t pressure them either, but you should be a witness. Don’t be lukewarm. I don’t think you are, or your husband would not have converted. Good witness!
 
Oh, I’m NOT lukewarm. I’ve always lived my Catholic faith and we’ve always respected each other’s beliefs.
 
God bless you. I’m sure that you will be able to give us your personal perspective on your journey and hopefully, help us better present our beliefs to the Mormon people.

Welcome home!
 
Hi, I’m not the author of the OP, but…

Thanks for the questions. I didn’t realize that the Mormons did not believe in these doctrines. I knew that their doctrine of the trinity was different, but not that they disbelieved.

Anyway,
My question to the OP was about the doctrines of one divine being,
That Doctrine is based on the word “eternal”. The Being which created the universe is eternal. He had no beginning and has no end. Since He is eternal, He is all Being. Scripture says:

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Therefore, since He is all Being, there is no room for another divine being.
The Trinity,
This is revealed by God and documented in the Scripture.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Now, if the Word was God in the beginning, then the Word is God today, because God is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

In addition, Scripture says:

2 Cor. 3:16-18, “but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.”

And Scripture also says that we can see the Lord in nature. And the Trinity is seen throughout nature. For example. There are three aspects of time. Past, present and future. Yet the three are seamlessly one. Just try to separate the past from the present or the present from the future. You can’t.

Now, look at matter. All matter exists in three dimensions. Height, width and depth. And the three are seamlessly one. Therefore, the entire universe is in the image of the Living God.
and creation ex-nihilo,
Ex-nihilo, the Doctrine that the universe was created out of nothing. Scripture says:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

There is no mention of Him turning anything into something, so, there you are.
which your response doesn’t address. You reflexively returned to Joseph Smith. I’m interested to hear what he has to say on those topics, if he chooses to respond.
He chooses not to say anything until he’s better able to address the questions. But, perhaps you can explain the Mormon answer to these questions. That way we can compare and see which is more logical and which is more attested in Scripture.
 
… In the same way that Joseph Smith saw the book of Mormon, Roman Catholics see her Church counsels and papal decrees.
Not true.

Jesus Christ established the Church and gave the Church the mission to Teach the whole world all the He commanded. The Church, in obedience, began preaching, then wrote the first documents in support of that mission. We call that the New Testament. Then, the Church convened councils and gave decrees to advance that Great Commission of Jesus Christ. Everyone can see that which the Church produced to advance Christ’s agenda.

On the other hand, Joseph Smith claimed that an invisible being provided him an invisible book which he was supposed to copy and proclaim to the world.

Unless you want to deny the existence of Jesus Christ, you have no footing to compare Mormonism with Catholicism.
For Roman Catholics, the bible is just one of three venues to revelation.
This is true.
All papal decrees are brought to the level of authority as the bible.
They are infallible, that’s true.
All final judgments from official Church counsels, are also brought to the level of authority of as the bible, even when there is glaring contradiction.
Not true. Catholic Doctrine does not contradict Scripture. You can try to produce one if you like and we can discuss it to see if your claim has merit.

In the meantime, I’ll bring one up against you. Sola Scriptura blatantly contradicts Scripture. See 2 Thess 2:15.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
But there are Catholics out there, like myself who consider the New Testament as God’s final word to His Church and is more than sufficient to educate, train and grow in the knowledge of Christ.
You’re misunderstanding that verse. That verse also contradicts the man made doctrine of Scripture alone. Let’s look at it in detail.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,

All Scripture. Not ONLY Scripture. If it were only Scripture, it would contradict
2 Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Men were inspired to preach and to write down the Word of God.

and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
  1. profitable doesn’t mean necessary
  2. profitable for instruction. That means that someone is going to instruct, correct, reprove the man of God. Since a book can’t jump up and speak, this is not about the Bible alone. But about the Magisterium using the Bible when profitable to teach the Word of God.
See also Heb 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Please consider this narrow but significant issue as you explore the many flavors of Christianity.
You’re giving anti-biblical advise. Jesus only established one Church and Taught one Doctrine.

Ephesians 4:5One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
 
I agree Jesus only established one Church and taught one doctrine. Agreed! but that doctrine today continues to evolve and expand in meaning and doctrine through papal decree and Church council pronouncements.

We can agree that God has spoken, but we disagree that God is still speaking. His son sad down at the right hand of the Father, signifying that his work was complete and He will not speak any more revelation until He returns, but His enemies must first be made a footstool.

Joseph Smith rejected the bible and introduced another revelation. In a cleaver way he used scripture and mixed it with extra biblical information. Church councils who decree the settled matters of doctrine, such as the fact that all men are sinners, now have an exception. Mary was born without sin and lived sinless. This decree came centuries after the Apostles lived and died. It violently contradicted the clear and concrete teaching of both the Old and New Testament, including the obvious evidence found from Mary’s life.

This extra-biblical revelation is NOT an example of how God still speaks or that God has changed His mind about who has sin and who doesn’t. The thought itself is a slap in the face to all that the Apostle Paul has taught the Church at Rome. So please spare me the lecture on how I am teaching anti-biblical doctrine. I stand on what I said.
 
I agree Jesus only established one Church and taught one doctrine. Agreed!
Check!
but that doctrine today continues to evolve and expand in meaning and doctrine through papal decree and Church council pronouncements.
No. Only in depth of understanding.
We can agree that God has spoken,
Ok.
but we disagree that God is still speaking.
Do you think God has died?
His son sad down at the right hand of the Father, signifying that his work was complete and He will not speak any more revelation until He returns, but His enemies must first be made a footstool.
He will not speak any new revelation. But He regularly repeats His Revelation.
Joseph Smith rejected the bible and introduced another revelation. In a cleaver way he used scripture and mixed it with extra biblical information.
Agreed.
Church councils who decree the settled matters of doctrine, such as the fact that all men are sinners, now have an exception. Mary was born without sin and lived sinless. This decree came centuries after the Apostles lived and died.
On the contrary, the reason you don’t know that the Church always taught that Mary is sinless is because you set aside Christ’s Traditions.

Matthew 24:35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

But you don’t beleve that God could protect His Word when it is passed down by the Church in Tradition. But we believe in God.
It violently contradicted the clear and concrete teaching of both the Old and New Testament, including the obvious evidence found from Mary’s life.
Produce the chapter and verse.
This extra-biblical revelation is NOT an example of how God still speaks or that God has changed His mind about who has sin and who doesn’t.
Here’s what Scripture actually says:

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Thus we see, that St. Paul Taught with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that many people died, even though they had not sinned.
The thought itself is a slap in the face to all that the Apostle Paul has taught the Church at Rome. So please spare me the lecture on how I am teaching anti-biblical doctrine. I stand on what I said.
It is you who is slapping St. Paul in the face. You have taken his teachings and turned them on their head. In this way, you have proven St. Peter’s warning true:

2 Pet 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 
Mary was born without sin and lived sinless. This decree came centuries after the Apostles lived and died. It violently contradicted the clear and concrete teaching of both the Old and New Testament, including the obvious evidence found from Mary’s life.
You said you agree that Jesus established one Church and taught one doctrine… Do you believe Jesus is God? Do you believe Jesus was sinless? Do you believe Jesus is Holy?

How could Jesus be born of a sinful woman? He could not and even the angel said Hail, FULL OF GRACE… who else is full of grace? any other person you know except Jesus?
 
Last edited:
How could Jesus be born of a sinful woman?
Mormons believe that God had physical sex with Mary and that’s how Jesus was conceived. She was betrothed to Joseph at the time. Don’t we call that fornication or adultery or something. I don’t know … it’s just all weird.
 
I believe Jesus is God and is holy. I believe and know Jesus is sinless because He was born of a sinless parent; the Holy Spirit.

It is a fallacy to believe that sin could transfer from Mary to Jesus, seeing that Jesus lived sinless, yet Mary too was a sinner, according to scripture. The deduction is logical that sin could not be transferred to Christ via Mary. He never sinned and nowhere in scripture did the apostles believe Mary was sinless, including Mary herself who cried out to God “her savior.”

Scripture declares that Adam sinned and fell. death reigned from Adam to Moses. (Ro. 5:14) it was according to the transgression of Adam. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1st. Cor. 15:22.
When Rome decided that sin could be transferred from Mary to Jesus and thus Mary needed to be sinless, they got it wrong. It is as simple as that. Here’s why I know this: What test did they perform to find out?.. How can anyone know how sin is transferred? Since the concept itself is spiritual.

We can only, by logic, deduce from scripture how a women with a nature to sin, could give birth to a sinless man, via the power of the Holy Spirit. Why is this miracle not acceptable while the other (so-called miracle) is?

Actually it is more of a miracle to believe that God came in flesh via a sinful being which is a grandiose miracle of God, than to alter the very disposition of Mary by making her sinless and causing all kind of theological diversions by critics who can read scripture.

Secondly, Jesus is called the “first-born” of Mary, implying others were born of her, to which scripture named at least four of her children, and two girls. This too was a mistake on the shoulders of Rome. I can go on about mistakes, but I am not here to insult you. I just want to reason with you.
 
Welcome friend. Welcome to the Church Christ established and has been true since .
 
Are you kidding me. full of grace. Grace is unmerited FAVOR… MARY HAD UNEARNED FAVOR WITH GOD.
who else do I know who has such favor? … get a Strong’s concordance out and look up the word GRACE in conjunction with all believers in Christ and find out who is full of grace. You will be shocked at the answer my friend.
Not to minimize what God has done through Mary. She was and is a wonderful person and she truly is full of grace. But she is not alone.
 
Hi!

I was on my way out and your post lured me back in… welcome Home!

It would be great to see your exchange as you can offer a perspective that those like me do not have.

I welcome your collaboration on the forums!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Hi, Anon!

I usually do not join threads when they are developed; but I’ll return to this one and catch up (I read/respond through the whole thread).

Thank you for sharing your experience!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top