Another Mormon Question - Jesus as Savior?

[Allweather]

I think after studying most Christian principles, the battle of Jericho is a contradiction but I am assuming there was some godly purpose in what was done. Even if what you say that is true, that all the Godly principles have been fully revealed, then we still need modern revelation because man’s understanding is never better than God’s.

Well, we must then define what we mean by “revelation.” According to my understanding, LDS believe that God can and does up and reveal very new things through the prophet in Salt Lake City. Such as polygamy. Such a thing could never happen within orthodox Christianity. Even the Protestants, who generally are not listening directly to the Pope and the other bishops, would never, ever go for polygamy. So there is something very unique in LDS authority that makes such a thing possible.

Speaking of contradictions between Scripture and Church teaching, or contradictions within Scripture itself, that is, one Scriptural thing to another Scriptural thing… the Catholic view is that there are NO contradictions. There will from time to time appear seeming contradictions, but these can usually be worked out with careful reading and study, especially of the full context. There are certainly difficult areas that appear to be contradictions, but we take it on faith that they are not contradictions, but that our understanding is faulty. Our understanding is always going to be inferior to, and (hopefully) subservient to, God’s revelation of Himself through Scripture and Church sacred Tradition.

The LDS teaching is actually very close to the Catholic except for two points: we look to the First Presidency instead of the Magisterium

Well, my feeling is that there should be no additional “magisterium” apart from the one that Jesus established. That gets back to the unity thing. If we’re as close as you say we are, then you should drop your holdout opinions and come over to join us in God’s program (please, I mean no disrespect by saying this). Without unity, we are not presenting
Christ to the world the way He wants us to.

and we believe that you can and should receive revelation for people whom you are responsible for.

I tend to agree with you on this revelation thing. I’ve had quite a bit of experience with this understanding of personal revelation, coming from my years as a fundamentalist with a vivid construct of demons, and personal communication with the Lord, almost audible communication. I don’t know if you’ve ever watched Pat Robertson from a few years ago… I don’t know if he still does this… but he would have a daily TV session in which he would pray and receive realtime messages from God. He would actually stop speaking and say, OK God, yes, I hear that… And there are many others who do the same thing. Well, I used to hang around in that type of Christianity. So, I know what you mean, or I think I know. However, nowadays, I DO NOT TRUST that communication. I have found it to be untrustworthy for me. Long story. Suffice to say, it is a very large part of why I am now Catholic, and take my teaching from orthodoxy, rather than little voices I hear in my mind. Not to say that I don’t still hear God’s voice in my mind… I do. But I am now very careful to see that what the voice tells me matches up with what I know the Catholic Church teaches. If you want specific examples from my own personal life, PM me and I’ll give you some.

 

[rmcmullan]

Well, my

feeling is that there should be no additional “magisterium” apart from the one that Jesus established.

You know we believe that Jesus established the First Presidency. We also believe that Jesus called apostles and the apostles called the leaders under them. When the apostles were martyred and there was none to replace them, the remnants of the church assumed their mantle but they are not what Jesus set up. Look, I know this is the Catholic line but it’s entirely an invention of the Catholic Church and their claim to authority. Jesus did not set up a Magisterium. That claim is just as credible as Peter James and John appearing in resurrected form and re-establishing the church in the Latter Day.

 

[Allweather]

Jesus established the First Presidency. Jesus called apostles.

Would this be the First Presidency that got polygamy revealed unto it?

The First Presidency that Joseph Smith, Jr established in March 1832 couldn’t possibly be the same one (in terms of Jesus’ authority) as Peter, James, and John who did not, and never could have, instituted plural marriage as a doctrine of the Church.

This is one way we can know that the LDS First Presidency started in March 1832 and bears no relationship, nor resemblence, to the Apostles who wrote the New Testament.

Plural marriage is a deviation from Scripture and Tradition. It doesn’t line up. Any authoritative body instituting such a doctrine couldn’t possibly be valid. You’ve wondered how do we judge revelation. That’s a good example. The Magisterium has never, and could never, institute plural marriage as a doctrine of the Church. If it did, we’d know immediately that something was very crooked.

 

[Allweather]

You know we believe that Jesus established the First Presidency. We also believe that Jesus called apostles and the apostles called the leaders under them. When the apostles were martyred and there was none to replace them, the remnants of the church assumed their mantle but they are not what Jesus set up. Look, I know this is the Catholic line but it’s entirely an invention of the Catholic Church and their claim to authority. Jesus did not set up a Magisterium. That claim is just as credible as Peter James and John appearing in resurrected form and re-establishing the church in the Latter Day.

No, I’d have to say that the claims of the Catholic Church as to authority are very well attested by the witness of history, and do not rely on latter day visitations by spirit beings claiming to be someone they are not.

It seems to me that Latter Day Saints, being disconnected from Tradition, and having discounted the authority of the New Testament, and badly misinterpreting the Old Testament as a result, do not have the ability to rightly judge the validity of spirit beings coming to them in dreams and visions.

14 year old Joseph in the woods could not know that the two floating spectres before him were NOT Jesus and Heavenly Father, because he had no connection to the ancient faith. We judge these things by our connection to the faith. So, Joseph, rather than going to the proper ecclesiastical authorities and accepting their judgement on this and other visions and revelations, decided that he’d establish his own organization apart from them. The result was a new church, one which invented new doctrines and theories about the nature of God, and which remains to this day apart from the ancient faith.

In the final analysis, Catholic claims to authority are vastly more believable than LDS claims, and I’m pretty sure most rational people in the world understand that, which is why the LDS church is rather small, attracting mostly people who are not grounded in true faith. As a general rule (there certainly ARE exceptions) people who are well-catechised in Christianity do not fall for LDS tales. R, you yourself have shown by your lack of knowlege about the Magisterium, that you were not well-grounded in the faith, and so you may’ve been one of these who were most vulnerable to tall tales. I’m glad you’re here. Now you’ve got a chance to fill in the holes in your understanding, and could maybe come 'round to see thru the holes that still exist in LDS theories.

 

[rmcmullan]

So you have to be well grounded to be a Catholic!

Okay, at least you’re not disputing that the Magisterium is a Catholic only thing, distinct from an apostolic leadership.

In the long run, we have to go with what our head and heart tells us and I respect your decision, Allweather. And I can’t say it’s unreasonable, it really is. If you ever meet with the Mormon missionaries, they’ll give you a Book of Moromon for your head and a invitation to prayer for personal revelation for your heart. Yours takes you elsewhere and I am content that you are at peace with your decision.

 

[majick275]

well said rmcmullan. a respectful disagreement. i obviously side with allweather on this issue but good on you.

 

[Allweather]

So you have to be well grounded to be a Catholic!

Not to be a Catholic/Christian. I think you’re badly mis-stating what is true, and what I’ve said. A person is Christian by virtue of, first, baptism, and then, by virtue of confession of faith in confirmation and then living the sacraments. It is a process that begins at baptism.

You say you were baptised Catholic. Fine. That made you Catholic. In earlier posts you stated that you’d been catechised, and I gathered from the emphases you placed on the various things you’d done as a young Catholic, had been thoroughly catechised. There is now little question that many things did not get into your learning, among them the basic nature of the authority structure of the Church. One assumes from this that other things also are missing from your knowlege.

I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. You’re old enough now to know what is what. But now, your roots run deep in this odd American religion Mormonism, and you know that uprooting would be virtually impossible. So even though you see the truth of what we say, you will not do what others have done as a matter of conscience, which is to take the shovel to the soil and do the transplanting that leads to better fruit and eternal life with a God that is not of flesh and bone.

Okay, at least you’re not disputing that the Magisterium is a Catholic only thing, distinct from an apostolic leadership.

Not quite right. Yes, the Magisterium is a Catholic Only Thing, which is to say that those outside the Church that Jesus established upon the Apostles are not under the authority of the Magisterium. I’m not sure how the Orthodox Catholic schismatics are viewed, or how they view themselves in this regard. They have valid orders, but reject certain aspects of Papal authority, so I’m not sure how that works. But I’m very certain that Protestants and Mormons, as well as the various sects and cults, are outside of this authority by choice, so in that sense yes, the Magisterium is Catholic only.

But you’re incorrect in stating that the Magisterium is “distinct from an Apostolic leadership.” The Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. That means they exercise all the same authority (with the exception of certain Apostolic prerogatives according to my limited understanding) that the Apostles were given by Jesus. So, the Magisterium is not distinct from Apostolic Authority. I’m not sure where you reason that it is, except that it is true that *Mormon apostles *have no Apostolic Authority, because they are not connected in any way with the Apostles, and they teach doctrines that are, to put it mildly, without merit under Christian Tradition.

In the long run, we have to go with what our head and heart tells us and I respect your decision, Allweather. And I can’t say it’s unreasonable, it really is. If you ever meet with the Mormon missionaries, they’ll give you a Book of Moromon for your head and a invitation to prayer for personal revelation for your heart. Yours takes you elsewhere and I am content that you are at peace with your decision.

Very true, and I respect your decisions also. You’re a decent person, and we’re all happy to have you as a neighbor. BTW I have already done this Book of Mormon thing… frankly I cannot bear to read it directly, so I mostly deal in synopses of it. As I argue with Mormons, I find I pick up quite a lot of it, being forced to read it piecemeal in order to find out what the argument is about. Years ago I had a friend who tried to gather me into the Mormon fold, and I did pray the prayer after browsing thru the BoM, but I had no results, nor would I ever expect to.

Currently I am starting in on a book written by a former Catholic priest who became a Mormon for a few years, but, finding out for himself that Mormonism couldn’t possibly be true after all, he returned to the Catholic Church as a layman. You may’ve heard of him. Anyways, the point would be that there is something beguiling about Mormonism, such that even an educated and, by all appearances, a well-grounded Catholic, even a priest (!!) could fall prey to it. Yet, after a few months, he realized the error by using his head, and returned to the True Faith even at the sacrifice of his priestly ministry. THAT is a man with a conscience after all. He could’ve stayed with the error and been a rather famous person within Mormonism. Coming back to the True Faith involved a level of humiliation that could only be accepted by a man who knew the truth, and had been set free by it. Wouldn’t you say?

 

[Paul_G]

alma,
Catholics believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE God and the ONLY god anywhere ever. They have always been God and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial. .

How do you know this to be true?

Paul

 

[majick275]

A combination of things. I see it consistently in sacred scripture, I see it consistently in sacred tradition where it’s scriptural context is explained and thus I gain an intellectual knowledge. I pray and I receive the testimony of the Holy Spirit that can only exist when all three are in harmony. Now please understand that I am only speaking about myself in direct answer to your question. others may have differing experiences just as valid.

 

[Allweather]

How do you know this to be true?

Paul

The Jews are relentlessly monotheistic. One theme that runs throughout God’s revelation of himself to the Jews is that there is only one God, which is one of the things that made the Hebrews so unique among their neighbors, who had many gods.

Jesus arrived with a complicated explanation of himself and his relationship to God. At times he said he IS God, at other times he prayed to God as if God were a separate being.

Reading the Bible, I can see how people might arrive at conclusions either way: That there is only one God, or that there are more than one. Yet Christianity flows out of Judaism. The one God of the Jews couldn’t have suddenly become the multiple Gods of the Mormons. God didn’t split himself up into three separate Gods when He incarnated Himself as Jesus. The words of Jesus have to be interpreted in light of what had gone before.

This is what Catholic Tradition does. It doesn’t go leaping off into some entirely new direction. It is careful to flow from one thing to the next, always interpreting what is now in light of what was before.

If it was critical for the Jews to know that God is one, that there never was any God before Him, and never will be another God after Him, and if Christianity is a fulfillment of that Judaism, then the Christian God is the same God as the Hebrew God, and therefore is only One. Interpretations of sayings by Jesus that imply that there is more than one God can’t possibly be right, so there has to be another reality, which is the Trinity, that there is only one God but that he has revealed Himself in three distinct persons.

Mormon conclusions are possible only by them having new revelations, new scriptures, and interpretations that are at variance with what has gone before. This is also typical of the other sects and cults, each with its own variations.

 

[Paul_G]

Thank you majick and Allweather for your responses. As this topic seems to be the point at which all are judged, by both Catholics and Evangelicals, and perhaps others, as to who is a Christian or not, it would be useful for me to know how exactly this doctrine came to be.

I agree that the Gospel of Christ continues on as the fulfillment of the Law. However, I’m wondering if, throughout the ages, our Father in Heaven gave all knowledge out. For example, did He give knowledge to Adam what Noah was going to deal with, or to Noah what Abraham and his families were going to accomplish and so on.

For those under the Law of Moses, I believe there was certainly only one God (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) What if this one God was Jesus, who acted under the direction of the only true God the creator of all things, this would present two distinct personages - If I’m not mistaken, I believe there are early Christian writers who taught this.

I’m just wondering if it was not possible that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (who Jesus revealed) were redefined in such away as to conform to the Law of Moses Model of God instead of being a new paradigm in the unfolding, and dispensing of information, of Heavenly Fathers plan for mankind.

Paul

 

[Allweather]

I agree that the Gospel of Christ continues on as the fulfillment of the Law. However, I’m wondering if, throughout the ages, our Father in Heaven gave all knowledge out. For example, did He give knowledge to Adam what Noah was going to deal with, or to Noah what Abraham and his families were going to accomplish and so on.

Personally, I don’t believe we know everything there is to know about God. We probably never will. In other words, even when we behold the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven, we probably won’t then know everything there is to know about God. So, no, I don’t believe that God “gave all knowledge out” and I don’t believe he necessarily ever will, though I’m OK with it whether He does or does not. It is enough for me to know that I am His beloved, that he will not abandon me, ever, and that I will live in the light of that love for eternity.

For those under the Law of Moses, I believe there was certainly only one God (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) What if this one God was Jesus, who acted under the direction of the only true God the creator of all things, this would present two distinct personages - If I’m not mistaken, I believe there are early Christian writers who taught this.

There is one God, and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, eternally begotten of the Father, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, through Him all things were made (my paraphrase of the Nicene Creed). Jesus is eternally one with the Father. So in that sense, yes, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is Jesus, as Jesus is God, the same God, eternal, indivisible, a distinct person, but not a distinct being. My problem is that this Trinity business is beyond my ability to comprehend, and in fact I’m pretty sure there are no human beings who are able to truly comprehend the reality of it. This is one reason I think it behooves us to stick to the interpretations of it that are given by the Church that Jesus established, by his authority, guidance and protection.

I’m just wondering if it was not possible that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (who Jesus revealed) were redefined in such away as to conform to the Law of Moses Model of God instead of being a new paradigm in the unfolding, and dispensing of information, of Heavenly Fathers plan for mankind.

Paul

Many things are possible. Rather than ruminate endlessly about possibilities, which is the realm of science fiction, I believe we are better served by submitting to the Church that Jesus established. If we submit to authority and get with the program, then we don’t have to worry about possibly attaching ourselves to fictional accounts that will lead us into outer space, rather than into the arms of Jesus.

 

[majick275]

not only does the bible explicitly state that there are no other Gods but so does the BoM. To try to twist into that some “of this world” or “as far as the OT folks knew” or even the God acting under the direction of a higher God seems to be ignoring all that we know about the context of those scriptures and those who wrote them.

 

[Paul_G]

Personally, I don’t believe we know everything there is to know about God. We probably never will. In other words, even when we behold the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven, we probably won’t then know everything there is to know about God. So, no, I don’t believe that God “gave all knowledge out” and I don’t believe he necessarily ever will, though I’m OK with it whether He does or does not. It is enough for me to know that I am His beloved, that he will not abandon me, ever, and that I will live in the light of that love for eternity.

I’m not sure what the “Beatific Vision of God in Heaven” is, and I can assume it is not quite like LDS kingdoms of glory

There is one God, and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, eternally begotten of the Father, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, through Him all things were made (my paraphrase of the Nicene Creed). Jesus is eternally one with the Father. So in that sense, yes, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is Jesus, as Jesus is God, the same God, eternal, indivisible, a distinct person, but not a distinct being.

I see we can agree on many things however the Nicene Creed is not one of them. I just don’t see it as part of original Christianity found in the New Testament or that of the early writers of the Church. It seems to me that the formation of the creed was a means to an end inspired not of God but by the political necessities surrounding the formulators at that time. Since it has been a tradition for so long it seems to me that it has taken on the air of legitimacy and truth.

Since it appears to me that there is no pre-existing tradition to support the formation of this creed, I can see no other explanation than this creed being an expedient manufacturing of man. Since I’m not conversant with Catholic Doctrine, it would be great to be shown some additional information, of which I may not be aware, from your perspective that would shed more light on this issue for me.

Many things are possible. Rather than ruminate endlessly about possibilities, which is the realm of science fiction, I believe we are better served by submitting to the Church that Jesus established. If we submit to authority and get with the program, then we don’t have to worry about possibly attaching ourselves to fictional accounts that will lead us into outer space, rather than into the arms of Jesus.

I suppose we can be grateful that the Hebrews followed Moses with what I’m sure seemed just as difficult a story to believe as that of Joseph Smith. Stories being difficult and seemingly unbelievable do not necessarily make them untrue.

Sorry, my job makes it difficult to respond to posts in a timely manner at times

Paul

 

[Allweather]

I’m not sure what the “Beatific Vision of God in Heaven” is, and I can assume it is not quite like LDS kingdoms of glory

My layman’s understanding is that the Beatific Vision is what our experience of God will be in Heaven. As you probably know, orthodox Christianity (Catholic AND Protestant) doesn’t describe Heaven in great detail. Here is an article about the orthodox understanding of Heaven:

newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm

I see we can agree on many things however the Nicene Creed is not one of them. **I just don’t see **it as part of original Christianity found in the New Testament or that of the early writers of the Church. **It seems to me **that the formation of the creed was a means to an end inspired not of God but by the political necessities surrounding the formulators at that time. Since it has been a tradition for so long **it seems to me **that it has taken on the air of legitimacy and truth.

Here is a short article about the Nicene Creed, will take just a few moments to read:

newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

In view of the fact that this creed is a profession of faith among all Catholics, both east and west, as well as the vast majority of Protestants, it would appear that Mormons are in a tiny sliver of minority by rejecting it.

The creed is very ancient, and demonstrates, among other things, that the Christianity of the first 4 centuries after Jesus ascended to Heaven is the same Christianity found in the Catholic Church today. Catholics recite this creed orally at every Sunday Mass. It is our profession of faith.

Since it appears to me that there is no pre-existing tradition to support the formation of this creed, I can see no other explanation than this creed being an expedient manufacturing of man. Since I’m not conversant with Catholic Doctrine, it would be great to be shown some additional information, of which I may not be aware, from your perspective that would shed more light on this issue for me.

Unfortunately I am not an expert in this area. Hopefully, someone else reading this will jump in and offer better information.

However, it doesn’t seem logical to think that “there is no pre-existing tradition to support the formation of this creed.” It is very Biblical. It expresses descriptions of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, which is the central doctrine of the Christian religion. I am not surprised that Mormons reject it, because it flies in the face of their particular description of the nature of God that deviates far afield of orthodox Christianity.

I suppose we can be grateful that the Hebrews followed Moses with what I’m sure seemed just as difficult a story to believe as that of Joseph Smith. Stories being difficult and seemingly unbelievable do not necessarily make them untrue.

Moses had quite a hard time talking the Hebrews into following him. He and God both anticipated this, and that is why God provided Moses with some “evidences.” Apart from the staff that turned into a serpent, and the leprous arm, there were the various plagues wrought upon Egypt, all the way until the Passover in which every firstborn male in Egypt, including animals, as well as the son of Pharoah, were slain.

You draw a parallel between this story from the Bible, and the story that Joseph Smith told about seeing Heavenly Father and Jesus during the First Vision in 1820, to which there were no other witnesses. Or the claims that he found a book of ancient stories engraved on gold plates that no one but he saw. A handful of others claim to have “seen” them in spiritual vision, or to have touched them as they were covered with cloth. So, I hardly would compare these stories told by JS, Jr to the wonderful story of Israel’s miraculous liberation from Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the pillar of flame, the manna, and on and on. There is no comparison at all!

Sorry, my job makes it difficult to respond to posts in a timely manner at times

Paul

I understand… I also am a man under authority… in other words, I work for a living! I hope to carry on this conversation with you.

 

[Paul_G]

I will have a look at the linked material. Thanks

Paul

 

[majick275]

the nicene creed and the apostles creed are both developments of the “old roman symbol” which dates back to the 2nd century. It is a further extension of the didache. everything in the creeds is promoted in the various writings of the anti-nicene fathers and thus can be seen as “common” views of the christian faith in the early church. nothing in the creeds contradicts sacred scripture and everything in them can be supported by scripture. about the only religions that claim belief in christian scripture and refer to themselves as christians but reject the creed are jehovah’s witnesses, mormons and the church of the new jerusalem.

Mormon rejection of the creeds comes from the pearl of great price, JS-H in the account of the first vision there, Joseph Smith is told “all their creeds are an abomination”.

I would then ask what part(s) of either nicene or apostles creed are abomination and why?

 

[Paul_G]

However, it doesn’t seem logical to think that “there is no pre-existing tradition to support the formation of this creed.” It is very Biblical. It expresses descriptions of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, which is the central doctrine of the Christian religion. I am not surprised that Mormons reject it, because it flies in the face of their particular description of the nature of God that deviates far afield of orthodox Christianity.

I suppose this statement is what is of interest to me, could you point out those biblical passages that show the triune nature as taught by Catholic doctrine. Thanks

Paul

 

[majick275]

here is some food for thought on that (biblical passages included):

contenderministries.org/biblestudy/trinity.php

answers.org/theology/trinity_biblical.html

 

[Paul_G]

here is some food for thought on that (biblical passages included):

contenderministries.org/biblestudy/trinity.php

answers.org/theology/trinity_biblical.html

Thank you for the links, however, I would much more prefer to dialogue with you as to your own thoughts in the posts themselves, I do not have the time to read through such documents to glean what you are trying to communicate to me. Perhaps you could condense these points in your posts. Thanks

Paul