A Catholic Look at Mormanism

[theidler]

I honestly cannot understand why Mormonism as a belief is given any credibility or consideration - it seems to me to be so blatantly false. Most religions of the world have some kind of shred of credibility, if not very much credibility. I have always said that I admire the faith of Mormons - given the dubious history, the lack of any historical evidence, the suspect practices related to freemasonry, the writing style of the BoM, etc. etc. etc. - they believe with an admirable and strong faith. I sincerely admire the strength of their faith (as well as their charitable works in the world), that’s for sure - given the multitudinous amount of evidence that is not in favor of the belief system, it’s astounding that they still believe in the doctrines regardless.
Parker, maybe you can help me out here. I state my comments with all due respect friend, I’m not here to bait you or mock you. I just don’t understand. Usually if I speak with Mormon missionaries, they cannot answer or simply don’t answer any questions I ask so that I might better understand what it is exactly that they believe. Obviously, I’m not going to believe or accept the doctrines of Mormonism, but I wouldn’t mind at least getting some clarity here.

 

[Khalid]

Like I said before, the Mormons believe in this great apostasy…with the death of the last apostle…then it changed to some time some where later…then it came about because the Church’s administration was illicit…but we do not see how or where or what were the reasons why the Catholic priesthood is ilicit and corrupt…

In my conversation with the Mormon missionaries, to attempt to paraphrase about this very issue, seemed to come from a misunderstanding of Apostolic succession as being vested in the Pope alone (and additional misunderstanding that great sin doesn’t remove the indelible mark of ordination in any case: even if it did, their argument is still flawed: at what level does sinfulness erase ordination? at any one time, were all bishops who ordained any other bishop all sinful enough to erase this mark? etc.)

It went something like this:

“Weren’t there horrible, adulterous, murderous Popes?”

“Yes. Alexander Sextus and several others in the middle ages.”

“What about them? If the Pope was so corrupt, apostolic succession was broken at that point.”

I don’t know if this represents the standard Mormon view on the subject (which I doubt, as up until 1990 even Protestant ministers were depicted as agents of Satan in the Masonic-derived Temple Endowment ceremony), but it was the one that the missionaries presented.

At the time I was not a Christian, but a dead-in-the-water half-atheistical Muslim-in-name-only, studying Christianity with a proclivity to three churches: Orthodox, Catholic, and Mormon, understanding Apostolic succession to be necessary (as Mormons do claim to have Apostolic succession) before I studied Mormonism as well and saw its patent unbelievability (as well as the more I learned, I learned the priesthood never had vanished, and couldn’t have possibly been restored to Joseph Smith).

As I said in an earlier post, “They promised to make me a god if I would only quit smoking and drinking and give them 10% of my money - and 10% of nothing is nothing - and I still couldn’t convince my power-hungry carnal self of any truth in the religion, and I can convince myself of anything.”

The tritheistic monolatrism and doctrine of “eternal progression” and the pre-existence of intelligence and matter, of which the Mormon God was merely an exalted organizer, not de novo creator, raise insurmountable philosophical issues - defeaters for those propositions, central to the Mormon faith. Not to mention all the smaller absurdities and contradictions.

It’s ironic to read the Book of Mormon, and see it as essentially a product of its era - 19th century Protestantism - of which it is essentially a piece of pious literature in the tradition of 4 Esdras and Pilgrim’s Progress. It’s not out of place as a piece of pious fiction in the Protestant tradition at all. Although presenting itself with an elaborate and miraculous backstory - and realizing it teaches in its pages nothing theologically incompatible with standard Protestantism (although historically incompatible with reality), none of the distinctives of Mormonism that separate it from the Christian faith. The Trinity is clearly announced in its pages, and Jesus says once (I believe in Ether - that’s right, Ether, like the anaesthetic/stuff between stars, not Esther, just like “Nephi” was obviously coined from “Nephilim” in the Bible, and “Laman” from “Laban”, etc.*), unequivocally, “I am God.” - a most contradictory statement for a being that is “separate from God, but united in purpose”.

Even in the Books of Abraham and Moses none of the distinctives of the Mormon faith are preached, although they are surely much more heterodox than the Book of Mormon itself. In JS - Matthew, no distinctives are preached. In the Doctrine and Covenants, hardly any distinctives are preached, if any at all (I read all 132 of the D&C, but can’t remember if any were: certainly not in the earlier ones); almost all of the distinctives were added later in Joseph Smith’s career and in that of his successors, as the Temple ceremony was instituted not more than a month after Joseph Smith was initiated in to Freemasonry: added partially by a man known with historical certainty to have been a magician, Freemason, and occultist, with most distinctives developed by Brigham Young & Successors.

The branch of LDS lead by Emma Smith (his wife) and Joseph Smith III (his son) is not much different from any other Protestant denomination beyond an acceptance of the Book of Mormon (which, as mentioned, teaches no Mormon doctrine in its pages), although it has its quirks (as do many Protestant denominations, from those of the Adventists to the Disciples of Christ allowing Arians - anyone who professes Christ is Savior - to share their symbolic communion).

*I never figured out from what Biblical characters did Mormon and Moroni derive, but I would say the derived from the same due to similarities in the name. If they were original inventions, that makes sense too, the names being very similar.

 

[theidler]

In my conversation with the Mormon missionaries, to attempt to paraphrase about this very issue, seemed to come from a misunderstanding of Apostolic succession as being vested in the Pope alone (and additional misunderstanding that great sin doesn’t remove the indelible mark of ordination in any case: even if it did, their argument is still flawed: at what level does sinfulness erase ordination? at any one time, were all bishops who ordained any other bishop all sinful enough to erase this mark? etc.)

It went something like this:

“Weren’t there horrible, adulterous, murderous Popes?”

“Yes. Alexander Sextus and several others in the middle ages.”

“What about them? If the Pope was so corrupt, apostolic succession was broken at that point.”

I don’t know if this represents the standard Mormon view on the subject (which I doubt, as up until 1990 even Protestant ministers were depicted as agents of Satan in the Masonic-derived Temple Endowment ceremony), but it was the one that the missionaries presented.

At the time I was not a Christian, but a dead-in-the-water half-atheistical Muslim-in-name-only, studying Christianity with a proclivity to three churches: Orthodox, Catholic, and Mormon, understanding Apostolic succession to be necessary (as Mormons do claim to have Apostolic succession) before I studied Mormonism as well and saw its patent unbelievability (as well as the more I learned, I learned the priesthood never had vanished, and couldn’t have possibly been restored to Joseph Smith).

As I said in an earlier post, “They promised to make me a god if I would only quit smoking and drinking and give them 10% of my money - and 10% of nothing is nothing - and I still couldn’t convince my power-hungry carnal self of any truth in the religion, and I can convince myself of anything.”

The tritheistic monolatrism and doctrine of “eternal progression” and the pre-existence of intelligence and matter, of which the Mormon God was merely an exalted organizer, not de novo creator, raise insurmountable philosophical issues - defeaters for those propositions, central to the Mormon faith. Not to mention all the smaller absurdities and contradictions.

It’s ironic to read the Book of Mormon, and see it as essentially a product of its era - 19th century Protestantism - of which it is essentially a piece of pious literature in the tradition of 4 Esdras and Pilgrim’s Progress. It’s not out of place as a piece of pious fiction in the Protestant tradition at all. Although presenting itself with an elaborate and miraculous backstory - and realizing it teaches in its pages nothing theologically incompatible with standard Protestantism (although historically incompatible with reality), none of the distinctives of Mormonism that separate it from the Christian faith. The Trinity is clearly announced in its pages, and Jesus says once (I believe in Ether), unequivocally, “I am God.” - a most contradictory statement for a being that is “separate from God, but united in purpose”.

Even in the Books of Abraham and Moses none of the distinctives of the Mormon faith are preached, although they are surely much more heterodox than the Book of Mormon itself. In JS - Matthew, no distinctives are preached. In the Doctrine and Covenants, hardly any distinctives are preached, if any at all (I read all 132 of the D&C, but can’t remember if any were: certainly not in the earlier ones); almost all of the distinctives were added later in Joseph Smith’s career and in that of his successors, as the Temple ceremony was instituted not more than a month after Joseph Smith was initiated in to Freemasonry: added partially by a man known with historical certainty to have been a magician, Freemason, and occultist, with most distinctives developed by Brigham Young & Successors.

The branch of LDS lead by Emma Smith (his wife) and Joseph Smith III (his son) is not much different from any other Protestant denomination beyond an acceptance of the Book of Mormon (which, as mentioned, teaches no Mormon doctrine in its pages), although it has its quirks (as do many Protestant denominations, from those of the Adventists to the Disciples of Christ allowing Arians - anyone who professes Christ is Savior - to share their symbolic communion).

Well put friend.

 

[Khalid]

Like “Lehi” from “Levi”, “Lemuel” from “Samuel”, etc.

In addition, some of the names make no sense, like “Lemuel”, means “Lemu [nonsense word] of God”: this is brought up in even greater clarity when Kolob (the star which God is near) is named, as it’s obviously tied to names ending with “-el” so common in the OT (i.e. “Kobol” in Battlestar Galactica), created by someone with no knowledge of Hebrew trying to replicate the unique sounds of the Bible, but again makes no sense. I believe Abraham says something like, “and it is called Kobol, for the Lord is mighty there”, although it would end in “el” if it was so. The actual translation would be something like, “it is called Elohel,** for the Lord is mighty there”, “elohim” (plural of el/eloah) meaning both “God” and “mighty ones” and “judges” and “angels”.

**That’s a pun on the internet slang “LOL”.

(ran out of time to add this to above post by editing)

 

[KathleenGee]

Khalid…you are especially blessed by the Holy Spirit to discern truth…It has been alleged that the Mormon writings were really the work of a man named Rigdon…the stories to me… sound like the type of American folklore…try reading Washington Irving’s stories…classics…my mother’s favorite writer…I liked them very much as well…

The universal faith is not about the Lone Ranger Pope or bishop, or any individual. It is about communion with the Lord through the Holy Spirit, this unity we experience in our faith…the Holy Father, the bishops in communion with him and all believers they represent in their specific locals.

Yes, it can be traced back to Peter that the succession to him has never been broken. But again, no one person has any monopoly on holiness. Seminarians are told before ordination that they will encounter parishioners with faith greater than their own and to know it is the Lord working through the sacrament of Holy Orders and not them. They must renounce themselves always as ministers of the Lord. Several priests told me their greatest temptation was not what you think…most want to be alone at the end of a very intense day serving many people…their greatest temptation is taking the work of the Lord and making it their own.

A pope, a bishop, a priest may sin…commit many sins…but they are still ordained in the sacrament of Holy Orders; they can still say Mass, and through Christ, absolve sin and provide us the Eucharist. We owe priests our prayers and penance for them; if we do not pray continually for priests…well, they are the greatest targets of Satan and can cause the greatest scandal…we are seeing it today as the laity seeks comfort instead of the holiness and the cross and self-denial.

Khalid…men and women as well have no monopoly on holiness…the condition is that we empty our selves in prayer and let the Lord and His will guide us instead. Some time…seek out the writings of St. Catherine of Siena, a doctor of the Church. You will be amazed…and if you do read her, I hope you get back to me and share with me your impressions of her.

Likewise, I greatly appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut of Paul DuPre and Peter John who take to task those Mormons who claim we are bringing up things about their religion that are not true.

We know they teach them to be gods some day…Satan’s greatest lie.

St. Michael said, ‘Who can be like God!’

 

[ParkerD]

Hello, Parker,

No offense, but none of that convoluted explanation changes the fact that Jesus said that any woman that marries another man, when she already has a husband, is an adulteress. …Where would we ever draw the line and decide that God would not approve of anything we want to do?

Hi again, Telstar,

Here are all the verses in the four gospels that include the word “adultery”:

Luke 16:18
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Matthew 5:32
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mark 10:11
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Mark 10:12
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

John 8:3
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Matthew 5:27
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Matthew 15:19
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mark 7:21
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Mark 10:19
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

Matthew 19:18
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

Luke 18:20
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Not one of those includes the explanation or definition you provided. “Put away” means “divorced” or “divorce”, it doesn’t mean “died” or “whose spouse has died”.

A person who is familiar with receiving personal revelation is familiar that they need to

1. know the scriptures having studied them well;
2. be living by every commandment in the gospel, including repenting daily and praying daily with a sincere heart with words from the heart, having a heart-felt two-way conversation with God through the influence of the light of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost;
3. listen with patience for the calm, peaceful assurance when God answers the person’s sincere prayer with light and inspiration that brings continued peace and assurance–not just for a few seconds but for days thereafter so they know they weren’t just getting the answer they wanted in the moment they asked.

Those items being the case, there is no need for anyone to think that sincere prayer will lead someone away from God or from doing His will, so long as they have lived sincerely, with the love of God in their heart and with real intent of wanting to do His will, by those truths listed above.

 

[Khalid]

Those verses, on the face, tear down the Mormon position.

“Not all spirits are of God, even Satan can appear as an angel of light” - if you receive “personal revelation”, it can lead you astray, and always will. Either what is “revealed” is in the Bible or Sacred Tradition already, in which case you didn’t need the revelation, or it isn’t, in which case it’s probably not of God. If the “revelation” allows the exception or abrogation of anything in the Bible or Tradition, it is of Satan.

Praying for guidance as is commonly understood is different than “private revelation”, but as I understand it, the Mormon definition of “private revelation” includes praying for guidance (which is acceptable, and pious), as “men/parents are entitled to private revelation extending over matters of family and child-rearing” - that’s praying for guidance, not personal revelation (I believe that is in Gospel Principles, 2009 printing).

Religious experience/“burning in the bosom” isn’t a way to determine truth of any sort, as every single religion on the face of the planet has adherents who claim to have contacted or been touched by God, the transcendent, etc.: religious experience is common to all religions. Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Wiccanists, Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox all have religious experiences that seem to confirm, for them, that their religion is the correct one. “Not all spirits are of God.”

Religious experience is a boon to faith, once the object of faith has been established through other means, such as reason and historical research. It is not a valid method of determining the object of faith.

 

[theidler]

Those verses, on the face, tear down the Mormon position.

“Not all spirits are of God, even Satan can appear as an angel of light” - if you receive “personal revelation”, it can lead you astray, and always will. Either what is “revealed” is in the Bible or Sacred Tradition already, in which case you didn’t need the revelation, or it isn’t, in which case it’s probably not of God. If the “revelation” allows the exception or abrogation of anything in the Bible or Tradition, it is of Satan.

Praying for guidance as is commonly understood is different than “private revelation”, but as I understand it, the Mormon definition of “private revelation” includes praying for guidance (which is acceptable, and pious), as “men/parents are entitled to private revelation extending over matters of family and child-rearing” - that’s praying for guidance, not personal revelation (I believe that is in Gospel Principles, 2009 printing).

Religious experience/“burning in the bosom” isn’t a way to determine truth of any sort, as every single religion on the face of the planet has adherents who claim to have contacted or been touched by God, the transcendent, etc.: religious experience is common to all religions. Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Wiccanists, Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox all have religious experiences that seem to confirm, for them, that their religion is the correct one. “Not all spirits are of God.”

Religious experience is a boon to faith, once the object of faith has been established through other means, such as reason and historical research. It is not a valid method of determining the object of faith.

Bingo.

 

[KathleenGee]

When Christ appeared on the Road to Emmaus, the focus was not burning in the bosom…but the reality of Truth in that it is the Lord Jesus Himself - Who leads us to understand the transcendant meanings of Scripture…He showed His apostle and follower then and there the real meaning of Scripture so they could go and teach without questioning…

True faith always has the mark of certitude, based on the truth of God in how He has been revealed to us, not to this special person or that anointed one…but to someone called among the gathering of people…open himself to scrutiny and not blind faith…in the tradition and understanding of faith that is passed down in salvation history, generation after generation.

Discernment involves the truth and our desire to receive the truth…needing the act of will, a well formed conscience…not emotions or feelings. In the Catholic tradition, what we are always told to avoid is judging things by our feelings, our passions…but to seek God’s will through detachment and self-denial.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Moroni is a city on the Comoros Islands. (Cummorah) In JS time, they were called Camora, and the first edition of the BoM is spelled Camorah.

There was a fascination with finding a hidden treasure of Captain Kidd, in Vermont, c.1825. Captain Kidd’s tales with pirates involved adventures on the Comoros. The pirate treasure looked for via divining rods on islands off the coast of Vermont.

People called this treasure “slippery”, meaning by supernatural (occult) means it slipped away, never to be found. In JS money digging years, he would draw a circle around the hole he was digging. If anyone dropped dirt within the circle, he would cry out that this had caused the treasure to slip away. There is slippery treasure and other items found in the BoM as well.

Helaman 13: 31

And behold, the time cometh that he curseth your riches, that they become slippery, that ye cannot hold them; and in the days of your poverty ye cannot retain them.

Helaman 13: 33

O that I had repented, and had not killed the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out. Yea, in that day ye shall say: O that we had remembered the Lord our God in the day that he gave us our riches, and then they would not have become slippery that we should lose them; for behold, our riches are gone from us.

Helaman 13: 36

O that we had repented in the day that the word of the Lord came unto us; for behold the land is cursed, and all things are become slippery, and we cannot hold them.

Mormon 1: 18

And these Gadianton robbers, who were among the Lamanites, did infest the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof began to hide up their treasures in the earth; and they became slippery, because the Lord had cursed the land, that they could not hold them, nor retain them again.

Ether 14:1

And now there began to be a great curse upon all the land because of the iniquity of the people, in which, if a man should lay his tool or his sword upon his shelf, or upon the place whither he would keep it, behold, upon the morrow, he could not find it, so great was the curse upon the land.

 

[Khalid]

Moroni is a city on the Comoros Islands. (Cummorah) In JS time, they were called Camora, and the first edition of the BoM is spelled Camorah.

So, there goes “Cumorah” and “Moroni” - not even the slightest bit of originality in the Book of Mormon! For some reason, I was holding out hope that something wasn’t just a slight twist on what was already known, and what Joseph Smith was immersed in since childhood.

The slippery riches make a lot of sense too, since he was a treasure-dowser and crystal-gazer for treasure, if I recall correctly, and carried on his person amulets to help him. Nevertheless, I don’t recall that he had any success (you would think God would have led him to some so he could print the Book of Mormon…), and I do recall that he was charged with fraud for acting like he could.

Camorah? I wonder if that’s where Scott Lynch got “Cammorra” from for the Lies of Locke Lamora? I always thought it was based on Gomorrah, for the iniquity and perversion of the city.

Whether or not Mr Lynch is, Mormons do write good fantasy fiction - I’m looking at Brandon Sanderson, Tracy Hickman and Orson Scott Card, and the writers for Battlestar Galactica - because, well, their entire theology is fantasy fiction. All they have to do is embed it in a fantasy narrative with some magic, and one has Mistborn. They write bad fantasy fiction too - like Stephanie Meyer.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Orson Scott Card’s “Alvin the Maker” series is straight up Mormon fan fiction, full of frontier folk magic and belief. I enjoyed the series, but couldn’t help thinking the whole time, how could this man could remain a believing Mormon? I can only guess that he ignores what he knows, or in that Mormon way of compartmentalizing, doesn’t know what he knows.

 

[KathleenGee]

I didn’t keep notes…there was a post here some where…may be not even 3 months back that also touched on the origin of Moroni…may be Rebecca has it…but I thought there was some other info…

John Paul II said not to believe in any angels not mentioned within Sacred Scripture.

 

[KathleenGee]

My great grandfather from Ireland taught my grandmother a folkstory from his land…it went on and on…how the Irish love to embellish…I lost tract…but again, it had a sense just similar to what I had read on some passages and style of writing of some old Mormon books I came across in their LDS bookstore…

 

[theidler]

John Paul II said not to believe in any angels not mentioned within Sacred Scripture.

Are you sure?

 

[Khalid]

Michael, Gabriel, Raphael (and Uriel, if you count 4 Esdras): what others do you need?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Orson Scott Card’s “Alvin the Maker” series is straight up Mormon fan fiction, full of frontier folk magic and belief. I enjoyed the series, but couldn’t help thinking the whole time, how could this man could remain a believing Mormon? I can only guess that he ignores what he knows, or in that Mormon way of compartmentalizing, doesn’t know what he knows.

And his Ender series became more and more tedious while painting a grotesque picture of Catholicism. I read the first three of the series and was so disappointed and exasperated by the third book that I never read another of his books. I must have 4 or 5 of his books, my extended family has always been great about giving me books by authors that I’m reading and Card was no exception so I have them but I won’t be reading them. He may well have written other more entertaining books but after the tedium, lame plot twists, and dangling plots, and his ugly presentation of Catholicism in the last one I read I won’t be bothering with Card again.

 

[KathleenGee]

The 3 archangels are those only named in Scripture…but there are many places in Scripture…as well as in worship…the words of angels we proclaim at the Sanctus…that are acknowledged and used…

check out www.raphael.net/Church/JohnPaul2d.htm

www.etwn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ANGEL.HTM…we look to Sacred Scriptures and to tradition…St. Thomas Aquinas and others studied the angelic choirs…recall the angels at the Nativity…the angel who freed Peter out of jail, many angels coming to our aid…the good angels help us…we have our own angels…the nuns told us we could name our own…sentimental I don’t know…but I did.

But what our Holy Father meant were claims of specific named angels…not mentioned in Scripture…a different message and purpose. Note too as well how the bad angels tempted Adam and Eve to become as gods…

I thank the Good Lord many times for the help of my angel(s)…some times I get sleepy, make mistakes…even when backing out my car…so many times I know the Lord and his angel are guiding me out right…but I don’t want to push myself and test God either…if you know what i mean…

John Paul’s catechesis from ETWN is more in depth…so I hope I didn’t mean to say there were no other angels except the 3 archangels.

 

[ParkerD]

And what an ugly situation this creates later if the wife marries a second husband for time and they go on to have more children. Who are those children sealed to? They can’t be sealed to the newly formed couple since they aren’t even sealed together. Mom could ask to have the previous sealing cancelled leaving the first husband dangling in the after life. The whole families can be forever is a mess and in reality breaks up families for eternity. …

Zaffiroborant,

It’s complicated, but “welcome to life–it’s complicated”.

The children are sealed to their mother if she had a temple sealing.

“Mom” can only have the first sealing “cancelled” if she had divorced the first husband, and then it’s not automatically granted.

Families who qualify through their faithfulness and love, for the Celestial Kingdom, certainly won’t have the kinds of unkindly attitudes and misunderstandings as are here on this earth.

 

[Telstar]

Hi again, Telstar,
quoted scriptures
Not one of those includes the explanation or definition you provided. “Put away” means “divorced” or “divorce”, it doesn’t mean “died” or “whose spouse has died”.

Thank you for proving part of my point for me. There’s nothing in any of those Gospel quotes that says “putting away” one’s spouse is ever acceptable, except for the case of fornication. As long as both spouses are alive, divorce must never be a permitted. That’s God’s law “from the beginning” that Jesus was referring to in the passage that LDS claim proves that Jesus taught ‘eternal marriage’. Moses only allowed divorce because men would resort to killing their wives if they found another woman that they wanted, instead. So, to keep men from falling into even greater sin, he allowed them to give their wife a ‘bill of divorce’. Jesus said that it was never meant to be that way, at all. But, LDS can get divorced at any time, then marry someone else without feeling any guilt, as long as they “pray about it” and find a way to justify their reasons for doing it. That’s what the Jews were doing, too. That’s why Jesus called them hypocrites.

However, my other point was that if Jesus ever taught eternal marriage, as LDS perceive it, He would have taught them that no one would ever be able to remarry, even if their spouse died. Otherwise, He would be promoting a contradiction of His own teaching on eternal marriage. Jesus never contradicts Himself. If marriage is eternal, then a man or woman that is left behind when their spouse dies, would still be bound by their eternal covenant (vow) of marriage.

A person who is familiar with receiving personal revelation is familiar that they need to

1. know the scriptures having studied them well;

How does this fit when missionaries try to convert others to the faith after their first or second ‘visit’, when the prospects know absolutely nothing about LDS scripture? Should they really trust their “personal revelation” that it’s a good thing to become a Mormon?

1. be living by every commandment in the gospel, including repenting daily and praying daily with a sincere heart with words from the heart, having a heart-felt two-way conversation with God through the influence of the light of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost;

No one really lives by every commandment in the Gospels, at all times. Even when we try very hard to do it, we can still be deceived by the devil, especially when we rely on our own ‘feelings’.

1. listen with patience for the calm, peaceful assurance when God answers the person’s sincere prayer with light and inspiration that brings continued peace and assurance–not just for a few seconds but for days thereafter so they know they weren’t just getting the answer they wanted in the moment they asked.

We can always make very poor decisions, and be completely convinced that we’re making the right choices, no matter how sincerely we pray about it. Anyone that believes otherwise, is deceiving himself.

Those items being the case, there is no need for anyone to think that sincere prayer will lead someone away from God or from doing His will, so long as they have lived sincerely, with the love of God in their heart and with real intent of wanting to do His will, by those truths listed above.

As Khalid already pointed out, what LDS refer to as “personal revelation” is what Catholics refer to as praying for guidance and receiving what we believe is an inspiration, in answer to our prayer. The biggest problem with fully trusting in that process, as he also pointed out, is that it’s very difficult for us to really know whether the answer we ‘receive’ is actually from God, or if it’s just our own imagination that convinces us that God has given us an actual answer. That can be a very dangerous way to make any important decision.

We can never really be sure that the answer we think we get from God, isn’t just a result of us deceiving ourselves into making the wrong decision, just because it’s what we really want, and not because it’s actually the right thing to do. Any major serious decision should be discussed with family, friends and even a neutral party that has a lot of experience in those kinds of matters. Trusting in our own ‘feelings’ or ‘inspirations’, is seldom a good way to make any important decision. People have a tendency to be able to justify almost any decision that they make, if it’s what they really want. That doesn’t mean that it’s the right choice, or that it’s approved by God.