Another Mormon Question - Jesus as Savior?

[Erich]

Maybe you all could go into more what the difference is between private and public revelation. It looks to me to be arbitrary. If you want to say private revelation is only for the individual(s) who received it, I can buy that. If you want to say that you that public revelation is revelation that someone receives but is binding on others, I can buy that too. But the truth binds everyone and everything and any revelation must abide in truth, public or private.

From the December 2005 issue of This Rock:

Jesus Christ “completed and perfected revelation and confirmed it with divine guarantees” (*Dei Verbum *4). The *Catholic Encyclopedia *notes: Public revelation was complete in the time of the apostles. They alone had the mission to give to the teaching of Christ the development that was to be opportunely suggested to them by the Paraclete.Private revelation, on the other hand, is in a different category. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive revelation but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history (CCC 67).The miracles associated with private revelations are meant to verify the authenticity of the revelation, not to turn it into a public revelation.

The miracles of Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourdes, and other apparitions remain private revelation because the Church teaches that there is to be no new public revelation: “No new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ” (DV 4). New public revelation would mean that Christ did not give to his apostles the fullness of the faith and that he waited some two thousand years to “fill in the blanks.” That proposition is similar to the claim of Mormons and other sects that claim that Christ gave new public revelation to their particular prophets—a proposition incompatible with Christian orthodoxy.

 

[DianJo]

According to the church, Joseph Smith “discovered” this teaching when he “translated” the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham, both of which deal with blacks and the “curse” on them which made them ineligible to hold the Mormon priesthood.

The Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham can be found in the Pearl of Great Price, considered scripture by Mormons.

God bless,
Paul

Thank you, Paul, for that information.
*I really have a problem with this and just cannot, for the life of me, understand how rational, intelligent people can fall for this and for over 200 years for goodness sake! This is presidential hocus-pocus with (supposed)“revealed truths!” *
**
And it’s not just this - it’s about all the celestial stuff and eventually, if you’re a real good Mormon and attain the highest level of heaven, you’ll have your own planet where you will be god and your wife will be…what?..mother of the new creation?, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being 3 separate beings with “one purpose…” having a plurality of gods, Jesus is our “brother” somehow in this creation and he is a created being… See, I just can’t comprehend this and I’ve never been able to get a straight answer from anyone in explaining this stuff. This is why Mormon baptisms are not considered valid- because of their understanding of the Trinity; there is no Trinity. Jesus said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - the Trinity.

The REAL Twelve Apostles never taught anything remotly resembling this stuff. Mormons want everyone to believe they are Christians but how can we believe this? However, Mormons are some of the most prayerful, honest and loving people there are. They at least have the spirit of what Jesus taught. I have to say that they are “Christian” in the way they live and love others.
**
I’ll probably upset someone with all this and I am so sorry, I really don’t mean to be disrespectful - it’s more fustration in not being able to understand the rationale of all this. I just cannot see it; I cannot comprehend it. I apologize from the bottom of my heart!
Thanks for your help.

 

[Allweather]

I really have a problem with this and just cannot, for the life of me, understand how rational, intelligent people can fall for this and for over 200 years for goodness sake! This is presidential hocus-pocus with (supposed)“revealed truths!”

They’ve got a ways to go to make 200 years. Their church was founded on 6 April 1830. It is true that the Book of Mormon had been in print and for sale for a couple of years prior to this, and certainly there was a following around Joseph and his family already. But the odd doctrines didn’t develop until well after the founding. In fact, the early LDS church was fairly orthodox. You take away the prophet thing, and the Book of Mormon thing, and they were just another Protestant sect.

 

[DianJo]

They’ve got a ways to go to make 200 years. Their church was founded on 6 April 1830. It is true that the Book of Mormon had been in print and for sale for a couple of years prior to this, and certainly there was a following around Joseph and his family already. But the odd doctrines didn’t develop until well after the founding.** In fact, the early LDS church was fairly orthodox. You take away the prophet thing, and the Book of Mormon thing, and they were just another Protestant sect**.

Gosh - I would think they’d fair much better if they’d drop all that “other stuff!” It’s really too bad the Mormom faith has gone so farr off the rails because the people - from those that I’ve encountered - are wonderful “Christian” people in the real sense.

Thanks for the info.

 

[IAMLDS]

Gosh - I would think they’d fair much better if they’d drop all that “other stuff!” It’s really too bad the Mormom faith has gone so farr off the rails because the people - from those that I’ve encountered - are wonderful “Christian” people in the real sense.

Thanks for the info.

Thanks DianJo,

I think WE, meaning everyone, would rather be identified as Christian people in the “real” sense. In the end it is what we do that defines who we are. One reason, perhaps the biggest reason, that I follow Christ is becuase he walked the talk. I AM.

 

[Allweather]

Gosh - I would think they’d fair much better if they’d drop all that “other stuff!” It’s really too bad the Mormom faith has gone so farr off the rails because the people - from those that I’ve encountered - are wonderful “Christian” people in the real sense.

I agree. The problem that I personally have with LDS at the institutional level is the same one I have with every other sect that is out of communion with the very Church that Jesus established upon the Apostles. I believe that this disunity damages Christianity, and ought to be stopped. The Catholic Church is the only one with any hope to speak Christ to a dying world, so we all ought to get together within it and be unified. Jesus spoke of this unity as a sign to the world, so that, without the unity, the sign isn’t as brilliant as it should be.

However, it does bear remembering that, at the institutional level, and among many LDS believers, only LDS people have a possibility of going to the upper reaches of the best heaven. The rest of us are destined for a terrestrial kingdom which, while better than where we currently are, is nevertheless not the fullness of heaven that we believe in. Also, while their attitude towards other Christians may appear tolerant, and even huggy, they believe that most of us are apostates, which is a terrible accusation to level against Christians, but which they nevertheless do.

You may also find that they don’t like to “contend” in argument. Their attitude is that “Satan loves contention” and so they will often defer from entering in to apologetic types of arguments. This has a tendency to make them seem serene and centered. It is a way to keep them from noticing the striking contradictions in their religion. One Mormon I know heard me use the word “apologetics” once, and he asked me what the word means! The vast majority of Mormons are incapable of defending their faith. Some who can, appear here from time to time, but even they usually get very quickly to the wall, where they do the Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God, I believe in the Book of Mormon mantra.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Not wanting to “contend” because “contention is from Satan” or whatever is not the same as not being available to defend the faith. If the faith of a Mormon is “true” as they say it is, they should be able to defend it. That they decline to defend their faith is evidence that the faith is fundamentally false.

I have known many Mormons and had many deep discussions with some of them over the years. I have even talked to Missionaries. From those experiences, I have gained a lot of information that the average person may not have about Mormons.

The biggest problem I have with Mormons is that their Missionaries HIDE the facts of the faith when talking to potential converts. The missionaries don’t tell potential converts that their “Book of Mormon” scriptures are based on golden plates that no longer exist that were supposedly translated by Joseph Smith using magic rocks held in the bottom of a hat!
(I hope SOMEONE besides me thinks that the whole idea of the magic rocks in the hat, etc. seems silly & preposterous!) Oh sure, they will tell you part of that, but not all of it. They ESPECIALLY hide the “magic rocks” part, and they have diversionary tactics in the missionary training information in case someone does ask about the parts they hide, such as the “magic rocks”. (I have heard this from Mormon Missionaries, I’m not making it up!) Bottom line ~ THEY DON’T TELL THE TRUTH! Why do they need to hide the facts?

Mormon missionaries come into the homes of potential converts and speak the Christian “language” about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, etc., but they never tell anyone that their definition of those terms is at TOTAL variance with other Christian religions. Their definition of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from other Christians. Why do they have to hide the facts?

Yes, Mormons, individually, are often very nice people. But they don’t tell you that if you join their church and then leave and/or stop attending every week, that none of the people that you thought were your “friends” will speak to you. They may deny that “shunning” exists, but it does. Because if you stop going to church, you will find out that none of your so-called friends talk to you anymore. If that isn’t “shunning”, it’s pretty close. At the very least, it’s “cultish” behavior. Why do they have to hide the facts? Mormon friends, as is it turns out, are only friends if you are Mormon too. Otherwise, you are not their friend & they don’t have time for you. Why do they have to hide the facts?

The Mormons of today, and many of their predecessors, have been involved in a coverup of the facts of their “faith” on a very grand scale. If a religion is “true” as the Mormons say theirs is, they shouldn’t need to coverup anything. The fact that they need to coverup so much shows that their religion is false.

To paraphrase a common Mormon “testimony” I can definitely say “I KNOW the Mormon church is NOT TRUE, I KNOW that Joseph Smith is NOT a Prophet of God”.

Mormonism is, at the very least, a weird Protestant sect (so far as I know, the Protestants don’t claim them!) and at worst, a cult. I pray that no one joins that church after this day and that those that are currently members will wake up to the truth and come to the REAL church founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church.

 

[Allweather]

I believe there is an aspect of the door-to-door game that is about sales, and marketing. When a vaccuum cleaner salesman comes to the door, he’s going to present that equipment in its best light, and probably even exaggerate, and avoid talking about the things he doesn’t want you to know about until after you’ve written the check and he’s miles away.

I’m not so sure we Christians don’t do the same thing. When I was a Protestant, I got a few people to pray the sinner’s prayer with me, including my youngest brother. At that early moment, the main emphasis was establishing a connection with Jesus, rather than long discussions about the nature of the Trinity, the Sacraments, and whatnot.

Now, as a Catholic, when talking to someone, I almost always avoid discussing the divisions within Christianity, unless it can’t be avoided because the person asks about it. The divisions are embarrassing. The arguments we have with our separated brethren often have very little to do with the Jesus relationship, but rather with nuts and bolts of why our religion is so far superior, and I really think that inquirers are put-off by that type of information.

So, the Mormons don’t talk about the weird things taught by Joseph Smith and his successors, because they want people to get baptized and make some friendships first. These odd doctrines are sprinkled onto them later, if at all. I agree that, in the absence of a catechism, and well-organized catechesis, most Mormons are woefully ignorant of their own religion. But then, so are most Catholics.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’m sorry but the differences in Mormonism are too extreme to give them that “whitewash” excuse.

If we were talking about the differences between, say, Presbyterians and Methodist, I might buy it. But Mormons are completely different.

Mormons are OPPOSITE almost every other truly Christian faith on a very fundamental level. To my knowledge, NO OTHER Christian faith considers the “Mormon” baptism as valid even though many Christian faiths will accept the baptisms of other Christian faiths. Why? because the Mormon beliefs, including their baptism, are fundamentally oposite.

So again I will ask, WHY DO THE MORMON’s need to HIDE their beliefs? Why don’t they tell potential converts about the “magic rocks” for example? The only reason I can think of is that if they told potential converts the truth, they wouldn’t get any converts, because their doctrines, if examined honestly, are at the very least, PREPOSTEROUS, or worse.

 

[rmcmullan]

Okay, so sorry, I posted that original question just before Scout Camp and left the next day. Allweather, I have never heard of the Magistrum (or however its spelled) until I came to this forum. Keep in mind, I was a Catholic in grade school and most of the people here are pretty hard core.

So back to the original question: the difference between public and private revelation. I think what you’re saying is that personal revelation is a real thing, everyone can receive it but before it can become public revelation (for anyone other than the recipient), it must be reviewed by someone with judgement (Magistrum) to toss out all the looney claims and weighed against established truth.

Is that all? How about a father receiving revelation for his family, a priest for his parish?

 

[Allweather]

Okay, so sorry, I posted that original question just before Scout Camp and left the next day. Allweather, I have never heard of the Magistrum (or however its spelled) until I came to this forum. Keep in mind, I was a Catholic in grade school and most of the people here are pretty hard core.

Fair enough, and that is what was asserted in a thread long, long ago, in this forum not so far away: that you saying you WERE a Catholic and having become Mormon did so after carefully weighing evidence. It must be understood that a Catholic not knowing of the Magisterium or its purpose, could hardly claim to be properly catechised. Therefore, any conversions to another faith could likewise hardly be thought of as based upon careful consideration of evidence. Just something for you to think about. At various times, you’ve expressed your having “problems” with certain aspects of Mormonism, most recently about polygamy. Could it be that you would find fewer “problems” with faith if you were to actually learn the details of the faith into which you were originially born?

So back to the original question: the difference between public and private revelation. I think what you’re saying is that personal revelation is a real thing, everyone can receive it but before it can become public revelation (for anyone other than the recipient), it must be reviewed by someone with judgement (Magistrum) to toss out all the looney claims and weighed against established truth.

Is that all? How about a father receiving revelation for his family, a priest for his parish?

To me, personal revelation is along the lines of this: I have committed a mortal sin during the past week. It has weighed heavily upon me, and I anticipate the confessional this afternoon after work, with a mixture of dread and longing. So, all morning I’ve been mulling over Psalm 50 (or 51 depending on which version you’re accustomed to), and receiving a flood of “revelation” from the Holy Spirit. None of this “revelation” is of any interest to anyone but me, and none of it has anything whatever to do with doctrine. It has to do with God reminding me of the depth of His lovingkindness, and of my need for it.

Could a father receive revelation for his family? Surely. But it should be along those same lines as I described above. It should never be along the lines of: son, you’re going to preach the Gospel to the moon men someday. The former is perfectly in line with a fatherly duty to be priest and teacher to his family. The other is doctrinally ridiculous, and therefore not to be taken seriously. At least, that is my layman’s understanding of this. There is undoubedly a lot more to it, and hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in here with more info. Understand that I have come to greatly mistrust my “feelings” because I have always been an emotional person, given to wild swings of mood. These moods have led me hither and yon over the years, and helped me make a complete mess of my life. Others have not had this type of emotional rollercoaster ride, and maybe they’re more trusting of their “feelings.”

 

[PaulDupre]

So back to the original question: the difference between public and private revelation. I think what you’re saying is that personal revelation is a real thing, everyone can receive it but before it can become public revelation (for anyone other than the recipient), it must be reviewed by someone with judgement (Magistrum) to toss out all the looney claims and weighed against established truth.

Private revelation can never become public revelation. All public revelation was completed in the person of Jesus. At the most, a private revelation can be approved as “okay to believe if you want to”, that is, there’s nothing about it that is contrary to what was already revealed publicly.
Hope this helps,
Paul

 

[majick275]

private revelation can assist in showing how to apply existing public revelation in specific times/places.it can reinforce or explain public revelation. it CANNOT contradict or change or even modify any public revelation. that would imply that Jesus came with an “intermediate” gospel that must give way to a new improved “advanced” gospel much like the Mosaic covenant was completed and superseded by Christ’s teachings. such a concept appears blasphemous to me. God knew what he was doing and Jesus came to earth at the right time. his message is the complete and ultimate divine word to and for man. the church he established would not and did not fail. it has continued as one would expect of a church that God himself came to earth to found.That’s how we know which revelations are true. those private revelations that agree with Jesus teachings and those of his church are true. those that contradict are false.

 

[rmcmullan]

That’s how we know which revelations are true. Those private revelations that agree with Jesus teachings and those of His church are true. Those that contradict are false.

Isn’t that almost the Protestant argument? If it isn’t, then all that doctrine does is set up the Magisterium as the one and only interpreter of scripture. Sort of a self proclaimed authority. The problem is, those are about the only two choices you have. You’ve painted yourself into a corner.

I’d also like to take issue with your concept that Jesus revealed everything we could possibly need to know. As in Moses day, it’s very credible that He only revealed as much as we were ready for. I think that’s a big issue. Why did he preach in parables?

Matt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

 

[Allweather]

Isn’t that almost the Protestant argument? If it isn’t, then all that doctrine does is set up the Magisterium as the one and only interpreter of scripture. Sort of a self proclaimed authority. The problem is, those are about the only two choices you have. You’ve painted yourself into a corner.

First, it depends on what you mean by Protestant. Various Protestants have various thoughts on revelation. Some believe very similarly to Catholics, that revelation ended with Jesus. Others live lives full of revelation. And everything in between. But one thing that seems to unite most Protestants is a rejection of the teaching authority of the Magisterium. Most of them will claim some personal authority to interpret Scripture, but do not submit to an institutional authority to “help” them out with it. And even those who claim to be lead personally by the Holy Ghost, are actually submitting to the teachings of some individual, or set of persons, or books, or whatnot, but not grasping that they’re actually having their own little Protestant magisterium. Anyways, with Protestants, it gets complicated, so your question “Isn’t that the Protestant argument” is too simplified to give a good answer.

Now, as to the “self-proclaimed” claim you make for the Magisterium’s teaching authority, I would direct you to New Testament instructions from Jesus, our highest authority, to the Apostles, giving them the same authority that HE has, and commanding them to go into the world, teaching all that HE commanded (and instructed them in detail for three years). This isn’t "self-proclaimed, this is JESUS PROCLAIMED.

At the same time, the LDS have instituted their own imitation apostle organization which makes a spurious claim to this authority, yet without any hint of historical connection to the Apostles spoken of in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, or the Epistles of the New Testament. Yet, they seem to make this claim of Apostolic authority, so why would you have a problem with the concept?

I’d also like to take issue with your concept that Jesus revealed everything we could possibly need to know. As in Moses day, it’s very credible that He only revealed as much as we were ready for. I think that’s a big issue. Why did he preach in parables?

What else do we need to know? That the Magisterium which Jesus instituted could not deal with very nicely? The Magisterium continues to deal with very current application of Christian doctrine to the modern world. Right up to the minute. Your continuing “revelation” has led you down polygamous roads nearly to destruction. Think about the difference, and you surely will see the superiority of the position that Jesus gave all that we need to know, he gave us a Magisterium for interpretive purposes, and that institution is still alive and well in the world, despite all attempts to destroy it over 2,000 years. That’s because Jesus stands in protection over it!

 

[DianJo]

Isn’t that almost the Protestant argument? If it isn’t, then all that doctrine does is set up the Magisterium as the one and only interpreter of scripture. Sort of a self proclaimed authority. The problem is, those are about the only two choices you have. You’ve painted yourself into a corner.

I’d also like to take issue with your concept that Jesus revealed everything we could possibly need to know. As in Moses day, it’s very credible that He only revealed as much as we were ready for. I think that’s a big issue. Why did he preach in parables?

How do you figure? Doctrine/dogma has been set for centuries, by Jesus and the Apostles, no one can change it. If someone comes along and says they had a revelation from God that contradicted established divinely revealed truths, then we would say this “revelation from God” is NOT from God and is not credible. Where’s the problem? Do we just let the faithful wander around and believe anything that comes along? I don’t think so.
**
*You can take issue with our “concept” of Jesus revealing everything we need. Jesus was the fulfillment of all of salvation history. Of course, in Moses time, the people couldn’t handle all of it. That’s why God revealed Himself step by step, little by little. He was preparing us for the final bit of information - Jesus. *
**
You can’t look at salvation history in a vacuum like all there is is Jesus. Jesus is the final reveation. You have to take all of it - the OT and the NT together to get the whole of the picture to see how God revealed Himself to us over the millenia.
**
God has revealed Himself to us in the form of Jesus - my goodness, what more do you want? How much more complete could He be? There is and will be NO MORE NEW PUBLIC REVELATION. As Jesus said, “It is finished.”
The Magesterium is here to help us understand all that God revealed to us from the beginning and to teach that revelation, that deposit of faith, to all the nations as commanded
**
**

 

[rmcmullan]

Again, I don’t really find the claim that Jesus established the Magisterium to be very credible, only self serving. We’ve been through the apostacy and the disappearance of the apostles before, let’s not rehash. But I do find the argument that the Magisterium was left to help guide us through modern issues (birth control, euthanasia, etc.) very sensible. But I am suspicious that you claim that it’s interpretive and not new. It’s like the public/private distinction, an arbitrary distinction.

Revelation from God is based on eternal principles, applied to situations that arise. Thous shalt not kill is the eternal principle but the battle of Jericho is the situation where that principle either did not apply or was subordinate guidance.

 

[Allweather]

Again, I don’t really find the claim that Jesus established the Magisterium to be very credible, only self serving… But I do find the argument that the Magisterium was left to help guide us through modern issues (birth control, euthanasia, etc.) very sensible. But I am suspicious that you claim that it’s interpretive and not new. It’s like the public/private distinction, an arbitrary distinction.

Well, if it is “sensible” then why do you not submit to its authority? God is very sensible, you know.

No “new” things are revealed. The Bishops interpret Christian teaching from all ages and apply it to the current situation, such as you mention, birth control, euthanasia, and many others, such as the current brouhaha over embryonic stem-cell research. We don’t need new revelations to tell us how to act. The ancient knowledge about the sanctity of life as read and interpreted by the Bishops, is very sufficient to address these issues.

The word Magisterium, to my understanding, is simply a name for the Bishops who lead the Church, but in a wider sense that it includes all the Bishops of the past, and include the Bishops of the present. So I don’t think it needs getting hung up on a word that isn’t found in the Bible. Lots of words that describe Biblical realities aren’t found in the Bible. The fact that Jesus called 12 men forth, spent 3 years training them, ordained them at the Last Supper, appeared to them repeatedly (as well as many others) after his resurrection, and gave them parting instructions as he was ascending, means that these were the ones He intended to carry forward the mission. He endowed them with all of His own authority. He said, he who accepts you accepts me, and he who rejects you rejects me, as he sent them forth on an earlier mission. Since Jesus did not return in the lifetimes of these men, it is obvious that a succession was in order. The first of these is described in Acts when a successor to Judas Iscariot is chosen by the 11. The Bishops are these successors today. This is the Magisterium.

I realize that LDS have a different take on Apostolic authority. For instance, I’ve been told by an LDS leader that Mt 16 doesn’t mean what Christians generally interpret it to mean, that Jesus was establishing his authority upon the Apostles. In that sense you are Protestant, because you reject the authority of the Bishops, which is a necessary first step in separating yourselves from the authority of Christ.

Revelation from God is based on eternal principles, applied to situations that arise.

Such as polygamy? What situation had arisen in the early Mormon church that caused a need for polygamy? I mean, apart from the fact that JS, Jr was practicing it in secret for many years and needed a divine authorization in order to avoid a complete meltdown of his organization, rather than the mere partial meltdown that actually took place?

Thous shalt not kill is the eternal principle but the battle of Jericho is the situation where that principle either did not apply or was subordinate guidance.

This I can’t speak to because I don’t know enough about moral theology. There are certainly many instances in the OT of God instructing his people to kill men, women, children, and even livestock. Some people find this shocking, but after all, God is God, and he can do what he pleases to do.

 

[rmcmullan]

Allweather, what I am saying in that example of the battle of Jericho is that it takes more than just the correct principles of the gospel, it also takes Godly judgement. 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.

The LDS teaching is actually very close to the Catholic except for two points: we look to the First Presidency instead of the Magisterium and we believe that you can and should receive revelation for people whom you are responsible for. A father for his family, a bishop for ward, a Scoutmaster for his troop! That’s a heck of a lot more liberal interpretation. But you need to struggle with the Lord in prayer for this privilege and keep yourself unspotted from the world to be worthy to receive it. As in any church, there are other people to discuss your responsibilities with but ulitmately we are to work out our salvation with God.

Hmm, I forgot how this subject came up in the first place. I need to review the thread!

 

[rmcmullan]

The KEY for me in this entire question, is the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I am just “guessing” here, but my thinking is that when Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come to us, to teach us, to guide us, Jesus was only talking about “ONE” Holy Spirit, not a PANTHEON of Holy Spirits. So, going with that assumption, most of us Christians, regardless of how they worship, understand what the Holy Spirit has taught us about the Trinity ONE WAY, and the Mormons seem to have had a Holy Spirit that taught them ANOTHER WAY.

Obviously, if there is only ONE Holy Spirit, one of the above-mentioned teachings of the Holy Spirit is correct and one is not. Because the REAL Holy Spirit would not give one set of information to one group and another set of information to another group. The Holy Spirit is NOT about confusion.
.

Oh yeah, I think this was the quote that started me off. I dunno how you can expect to receive the book of Mormon when you’ve set up your church to reject any new teaching. Did you expect the Angel Moroni to appear to the Magisterium?