Another Question for LDS

[Caprica]

God never defined any “pagan practices” as divinely inspired. Humans exist in culture, and as such, when a society is evangelized towards Christ, so is their culture.

JS took on Masonic practices as divinely inspired, needed to be restored. You have yet to show how this compares to culture, since Masonry was not a integral part of American culture, it was on the fringes of it.

See above. It is readily accepted by theologians and historians that elements of Platonic philosophy (i.e. not culture) were adopted into Trinitarian definitions. That is of course in addition to the baptizing of certain pagan practices in Christianity. If Joseph Smith said that Masonic practices needed to be “restored”, then they certainly were not seen as divinely inspired at that time, otherwise they wouldn’t need to be restored! That would be a contradiction.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mormonism had the “true” masonry

There is no such thing as true masonry. Sorry.

As to the Councils, you have been deceived by your church into rejecting the truth of the One Triune God, and instead you have chosen to accept a form of polytheism.

JS will have a lot to answer for, are my concluding thoughts on this.

 

[SirThomasMore]

And did I say that it was bad? The point is that you are criticizing Mormonism for borrowing certain things from Freemasonry, when Catholicism has done similar things with some pagan cultural practices.

Yes, I am. Because borrowing from masonry exposes Joseph as a liar. Again, you need to not use red herrings in your arguments.

If you have actually studied the history of the Endowment you would know that it is not just “from the Masons”. The portions “from the Masons” account for a small portion of the Endowment ceremony. Also, what does it mean that Joseph Smith said that “it was from God”? Provide the quote and then we can understand what he meant.

Not exactly true. I not only have studied the endowment, I received my endowments in the IF Temple. I have attended the IF Temple several times, the Guatemala Temple, the Provo Temple, The SLC Temple, The Jordon River Temple, The Chicago Temple and the Washington DC Temple. I have also read the transcripts of the Masonic Ceremony and the similarities are alarming, down to the secret handshakes and blood oaths

Sure, after you speak to all of the Latter-day Saints.

Another dodge. I made claims after speaking to people down there…you made claims after speaking to no one down there. See, the difference is, I can at least base my comments on facts. You can;t. Get some and get back to me

Please, that is not an “obscure” article.

Yeah? A New Era article from 39 years ago is not obscure? lol…you know better than that Why not explain top our reader what the NEw Era is and the target audience?/COLOR]

The point is that it has been discussed in official Church publications, including at the youth level, before you even served a mission. I also see the couplet in New Era and Liahona editions from January 2007, the Aaronic Priesthood manual, and even the March 2002 edition of the Friend (the children’s** magazine). My point was to show that you can’t say that it’s only now recently being brought up. So, I don’t know whether you were reading the Ensign, but it’s right in there. Try doing a search for MMM as well. These are not red herrings when we see that the things you brought up are discussed in official Church publications that you missed.

I was baptized in 1983. I left for my mission in 1984. I was 23 when I joined, 24 when I served my mission. So, the New Era from 1971 was very obscure and I did not subscribe to church mags because I was poor and just out of college. Try again

 

[SirThomasMore]

Response continued

This does remind me of the Athanasius quote about man becoming God that many Catholics on this forum seem to be unaware of, when it’s right in the Catechism. A quick search of this forum shows that many Catholics simply are not aware of this (I believe Basil the Great also said the same thing), and when they become aware, they don’t understand what to make of it.

Does it? He says God was once a sinful man? Wow. Can you post it?

Nice deflection, that doesn’t address the issue.

lol…truth is a deflection? How odd that you would be so condescending to people in a third-world country

You said that your ex Mother-in law is a long time Mormon and hadn’t heard about the plurality of gods. If she’s a long time Mormon, she hasn’t read the Book of Abraham or the Doctrine and Covenants?

I am saying that in Honduras, not everyone can afford everything. Why do you have a problem with that?

Does she not attend Sunday School? The people in Honduras don’t have Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society? Sorry, this doesn’t make sense, especially when exaltation is an important part of our theology, along with the distinctive understanding of the Godhead.

Have you ever attended Sunday School in Honduras? Have you? Have you ever even been to Honduras? I am truly amazed at your attitude about poor people. In Sunday School, they essentially repeat the missionary discussions. At least, they did back in 1984-1986. Our chapel in one area was an old house. In another, it was an old factory. We sometimes baptized in the river because there was no running water in the chapel. People had dirt floors and lived in huts made of old tin and wood. They brought their pigs and chickens, if they had any, into the hut at night so they would not get stolen. And you have a hard time believing they do not know all that the great and mighty Caprica knows? My prayer for you is that you learn compassion.

Sure. The syncretism in Latin America is just supposition. The extremes of Marian devotion is just supposition.

At least you finally admit to your red herrings

Wait, you were the one that brought up Mountain Meadows Massacre for one. So are we talking about doctrine, history, or both?

Since the MMM happened because of BY blood doctrine, I guess they go hand in hand

Please be consistent. And even on doctrinal issues, again, please tell us how the Latin American Catholics view syncretism for one.

Go ask

After that, ask them to explain why the filioque had to be added to the Nicene Creed and what it means about the ontological Trinity.

Go ask

What is really disingenuous is when you use arguments against something that can be used against yourself.

Not really. See, I speak from experience, you speak from anger and supposition. You make comments about things when you have no real clue about Latin America. You do it to throw red herrings. When you have facts, get back to me. I have given YOU facts, you respond with red herrings.

Your argument loses any credibility when the same thing can be said about your own religion. Something about pots, kettles, glass houses, and stones comes to mind. If Catholics, ex-Catholics, the Catholic Church, etc. do or say the same thing as LDS, ex-LDS, or the LDS Church, then what is the argument again?

It is this…you can never respond to a point without defelcting to the Catholic Church. You are incapable of discussing an issue without say, “Teacher, Billy did it first!” Your problem is, I KNOW about LDS. You cannot fool me. The God I believe in was never a sinful man. I do not have a prophet who claimed Adam was God, all blacks are bad, and people should be killed.

Now, are you able to address issues without deflection? This thread is about Mormons, not Catholics. If you would like to start a thread about Catholics, or an LDS Board where you can question Catholics, I encourage you to do so. I hope you do, in fact.

In the meantime, have a blessed day

 

[RebeccaJ]

See above. It is readily accepted by theologians and historians that elements of Platonic philosophy (i.e. not culture) were adopted into Trinitarian definitions. That is of course in addition to the baptizing of certain pagan practices in Christianity. If Joseph Smith said that Masonic practices needed to be “restored”, then they certainly were not seen as divinely inspired at that time, otherwise they wouldn’t need to be restored! That would be a contradiction.

Doctrines have not changed. All kinds of language can be used to describe a singular concept.

JS called his masonic-derived ritual as divinely inspired. You are really being illogical, and are wasting my time.

Have a good day.

 

[Caprica]

There is no such thing as true masonry. Sorry.

Nice deflection. The point is that in the same way that traditional Christians may claim that the Pagan philosophies were “corrupted” versions of the truth, the LDS authority claiming that Mormonism had the “true” masonry shows that the speculative freemasonry was a corrupted version of the truth.

As to the Councils, you have been deceived by your church into rejecting the truth of the One Triune God, and instead you have chosen to accept a form of polytheism.

Irrelevant. Platonic ideas were adopted into the Trinity, according to Pope Benedict XVI. I’ll trust his view of the matter. And I love when LDS theology is called polytheistic by Trinitarians, whose own theology is then called polytheistic by Jews (who scoff at the idea of the existence of three distinct divine Persons). Interesting circle.

JS will have a lot to answer for, are my concluding thoughts on this.

We will let God be the judge.

Have a great evening.

 

[SirThomasMore]

"We will let God be the judge.

I hope Joseph had really good fire insurance

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” Matt 7:15

 

[Caprica]

Yes, I am. Because borrowing from masonry exposes Joseph as a liar. Again, you need to not use red herrings in your arguments.

I am still waiting for your quote of Joseph Smith claiming that the Endowment script and actions are directly from God.

Not exactly true. I not only have studied the endowment, I received my endowments in the IF Temple. I have attended the IF Temple several times, the Guatemala Temple, the Provo Temple, The SLC Temple, The Jordon River Temple, The Chicago Temple and the Washington DC Temple. I have also read the transcripts of the Masonic Ceremony and the similarities are alarming, down to the secret handshakes and blood oaths.

Wonderful, I’ve also attended multiple temples, read multiple Endowment scripts (including with the “blood oaths”), read a few books on the Endowment (including Mysteries of Godliness), and practically all of the “anti” material online. The Endowment is not entirely from Freemasonry, and the parts that are account for a small portion of it. Unless you’re saying that Freemasonry presents the LDS Plan of Salvation.

Another dodge. I made claims after speaking to people down there…you made claims after speaking to no one down there. See, the difference is, I can at least base my comments on facts. You can;t. Get some and get back to me

Which facts did you present? Your claims? Please get some and get back to me.

Yeah? A New Era article from 39 years ago is not obscure? lol…you know better than that Why not explain top our reader what the NEw Era is and the target audience?/COLOR]

Did I not already mention that the New Era is a youth magazine? Please go back and read my post. The point was that this was in a youth magazine, 39 years ago, so your claim that Mormons are unaware of the couplet is false, especially when youth are presented with it.

I was baptized in 1983. I left for my mission in 1984. I was 23 when I joined, 24 when I served my mission. So, the New Era from 1971 was very obscure and I did not subscribe to church mags because I was poor and just out of college. Try again

The fact again is that this information has been readily available in multiple Church publications, including the Aaronic Priesthood manual, which I assume you had. I was unaware of the time period that you were in the Church (though I did remember that your mission was in the 80s), hence why I showed a youth magazine form 1971 had the couplet, so that you would not turn around and say that it was only recently being brought up. Again, it is found in many more magazines and publications than just the 1971 New Era.

 

[why_me]

The murder of Smith is directly connected to one event: the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositior’s press. True, some may have used that as an excuse to go after him and the Mormons, but that’s what it all boils down to.

This is not exactly true. The nauvoo expositor was an excuse but his days were numbered anyway. Before the Nauvoo Expositor, mormon presses were often destroyed by mobs. No problem with mobs destroying mormon presses. No law bothered to arrest the people who destroyed mormon presses.

The destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was necessary and it wasn’t just Joseph’s decision. It was the decision of the town council and it had the approval of the mormon population who were afraid that the Nauvoo Expositor will stir up mobs against the mormons.

There were also antimormon presses in neighboring communities and these presses were spreading biased news to stir up people too. Words are powerful. We need to remember that many saints in Nauvoo did not speak english. To my knowledge welsh was widely spoken. And so, we were also dealing with immigrants who came to america to practice their faith freely and yet, they experienced what they experienced by protestant americans. They, the immigrants were fearful and the nauvoo expositor had to be shut down. Closing the paper was legal but unfortunately, destroying the press wasn’t. Joseph attempted to make restitution but it was rejected. End of story.

It wasn’t only Joseph who was murdered. Also his brother Hyrum. What did hyrum do to deserve his death? The mob wanted the mormon leadership and by killing them, they hoped to destroy mormonism. They failed.

 

[why_me]

So as a martyr, I assuming he was following Jesus’ example, right? I believe it is in Mark where Jesus shot and killed two men before being killed himself, right?

Of course, Joseph Smith could have made a stand in Nauvoo. But much bloodshed would follow and many saints would have been killed. So, he agreed to go to prison. His brother volunteered to go with him to jail because he loved his brother. And so, there was brother supporting brother along with two other mormons who volunteered too. Such love for someone is quite wonderful.

A hundred man mob painted with black faces stormed the prison killing Hyrum, his brother and Joseph Smith. He died for his faith and that is a martyr. Likewise the jews who died in the warsaw ghetto were martyrs too. They defended themselves and died because of their faith. To not defend oneself is the same as commiting suicide.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I find it fascinating that a Mormon says that they have the “true” masonry.

Now, assuming they’re not talking about the construction of brick walls or something similar, that means that Mormonism is a club and not a faith.

Perhaps someone might want to walk that one back?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Of course, Joseph Smith could have made a stand in Nauvoo. But much bloodshed would follow and many saints would have been killed. So, he agreed to go to prison. His brother volunteered to go with him to jail because he loved his brother. And so, there was brother supporting brother along with two other mormons who volunteered too. Such love for someone is quite wonderful.

A hundred man mob painted with black faces stormed the prison killing Hyrum, his brother and Joseph Smith. He died for his faith and that is a martyr. Likewise the jews who died in the warsaw ghetto were martyrs too. They defended themselves and died because of their faith. To not defend oneself is the same as commiting suicide.

Actually, he agreed to go AFTER being shamed by people when he tried to run. He died because he broke the law and was sent to jail. That is not a martyr. Was he wrongfully murdered? Absolutely. But he was no martyr

 

[Caprica]

Does it? He says God was once a sinful man? Wow. Can you post it?

This is disingenuous. I did not say that Athanasius said that God was once a sinful man. I quite clearly stated that he said spoke on man becoming God.

Also, please provide the LDS quote that says that God the Father was once a sinful man.

lol…truth is a deflection? How odd that you would be so condescending to people in a third-world country

Seeing as how my parents come from a third-world country, your claim makes me laugh.

Your deflection is that you were talking about your ex-mother in law, but then applied my response to people in Honduras. Nice. So again, you claimed that your ex-mother in law was a long time Mormon. She never read the Book of Abraham or the Doctrine and Covenants? She never attended Sunday School? She never heard about exaltation? Sorry, that makes no sense, that she would never have heard about the plurality of gods.

I am saying that in Honduras, not everyone can afford everything. Why do you have a problem with that?

Please stop putting words in my mouth, it’s very disingenuous. What exactly are the bishops or branch presidents teaching that they don’t know about the plurality of gods?

Have you ever attended Sunday School in Honduras? Have you? Have you ever even been to Honduras? I am truly amazed at your attitude about poor people. In Sunday School, they essentially repeat the missionary discussions. At least, they did back in 1984-1986. Our chapel in one area was an old house. In another, it was an old factory. We sometimes baptized in the river because there was no running water in the chapel. People had dirt floors and lived in huts made of old tin and wood. They brought their pigs and chickens, if they had any, into the hut at night so they would not get stolen. And you have a hard time believing they do not know all that the great and mighty Caprica knows? My prayer for you is that you learn compassion.

Again, please stop with this or the moderators will be alerted. As I stated, my parents come from a third world country, which I have been to numerous times, and has an even smaller LDS population than Honduras. The fact of the matter is that if the Church is organized in Honduras, with Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society, then these things would be known. Exaltation is such a central teaching of the LDS faith that I find it hard to believe that these people have never heard of it, and hence do not know about the plurality of gods. Especially when, in my “mother country”, which is also third-world and a very small LDS population, it is known.

At least you finally admit to your red herrings

If you really believe that the syncretism in Latin America is just a supposition, I advise you to read more on the issue. Also try looking into Haiti and syncretism as well.

Since the MMM happened because of BY blood doctrine, I guess they go hand in hand

Great, so you’re talking about both history and doctrine.

Go ask

It’s very amusing that no matter how many times someone asks you for references, you never bring them. But it is to be expected now.

Go ask

See above. You cannot address it, so you deflect.

Not really. See, I speak from experience, you speak from anger and supposition. You make comments about things when you have no real clue about Latin America. You do it to throw red herrings. When you have facts, get back to me. I have given YOU facts, you respond with red herrings.

Sorry, everything I have said is based in facts, that you cannot address. I too speak from experience and historical reading. I am unsure if you are actually denying the syncretism that occurs in Catholicism in Latin America and Haiti (in addition to other places), however if one is actually well read on the history of Christianity, this is a well known fact. To claim that this is supposition tells me that you are simply not aware of this history.

It is this…you can never respond to a point without defelcting to the Catholic Church. You are incapable of discussing an issue without say, “Teacher, Billy did it first!” Your problem is, I KNOW about LDS. You cannot fool me. The God I believe in was never a sinful man. I do not have a prophet who claimed Adam was God, all blacks are bad, and people should be killed.

The fact is is that you (and a few other critics here) use arguments against Mormonism that equally apply to Catholicism. Those of us that are more read and have more experience in this are not deceived by such arguments. Your credibility disappears when you use such arguments, especially when I have seen them used against Catholics in such hate-filled forums as CARM. It is the same thing when Catholics descend into sola scriptura arguments against Mormonism when we all know that neither religion claims to believe that all beliefs must be found within the Bible.

So again, please refine your arguments so that they do not also apply to your own religion.

 

[Caprica]

Now, are you able to address issues without deflection? This thread is about Mormons, not Catholics. If you would like to start a thread about Catholics, or an LDS Board where you can question Catholics, I encourage you to do so. I hope you do, in fact.

Sorry, if we are to discuss Mormonism and you are coming from the Catholic paradigm, then naturally Catholicism will also come into the arguments, since it not only shapes your questions on Mormonism (for example, I would expect a Protestant to criticize the LDS belief of a “one true church” organization, as opposed to an “invisible” church, while I would not expect a Catholic to criticize that belief, so they wouldn’t agree that the LDS Church is that one true church), but it also affects how I see the validity of the arguments that you use. Again, it makes no sense to use arguments against Mormonism, or create premises such as sola scriptura, that can be (and have been) used against Catholicism.

You have a good day as well.

 

[Caprica]

I find it fascinating that a Mormon says that they have the “true” masonry.

Now, assuming they’re not talking about the construction of brick walls or something similar, that means that Mormonism is a club and not a faith.

Perhaps someone might want to walk that one back?

I assume that he was speaking about speculative freemasonry and not operative freemasonry.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I am still waiting for your quote of Joseph Smith claiming that the Endowment script and actions are directly from God.

I am satisfied with your admission that the temple ceremony are not from God. That makes me feel better knowing God did not have anything to do with those violent and sick blood oaths

Wonderful, I’ve also attended multiple temples, read multiple Endowment scripts (including with the “blood oaths”), read a few books on the Endowment (including Mysteries of Godliness), and practically all of the “anti” material online. The Endowment is not entirely from Freemasonry, and the parts that are account for a small portion of it. Unless you’re saying that Freemasonry presents the LDS Plan of Salvation.

I have always maintained that Joseph did with the temple as he did with his first vision and book of Mormon. He took stuff from others and embellished

Which facts did you present? Your claims? Please get some and get back to me.

Eyewitness reports. So, I have some. Don;t confuse your lack of evidece with the fact I have actually lived there (twice) and spoken to people. That is evidence. Nice try. Nice deflection. Did not work

Did I not already mention that the New Era is a youth magazine?

I knew what it was. I wanted YOU to show how a youth article wrtten 39 years was not obscure. You have failed to do so

The fact again is that this information has been readily available in multiple Church publications, including the Aaronic Priesthood manual, which I assume you had. I was unaware of the time period that you were in the Church (though I did remember that your mission was in the 80s), hence why I showed a youth magazine form 1971 had the couplet, so that you would not turn around and say that it was only recently being brought up. Again, it is found in many more magazines and publications than just the 1971 New Era.

Like I said…obscure

 

[Caprica]

The fact again is that this information has been readily available in multiple Church publications, including the Aaronic Priesthood manual, which I assume you had. I was unaware of the time period that you were in the Church (though I did remember that your mission was in the 80s), hence why I showed a youth magazine form 1971 had the couplet, so that you would not turn around and say that it was only recently being brought up. Again, it is found in many more magazines and publications than just the 1971 New Era.

Like I said…obscure

Wait, so the Ensign, New Era, Liahona and the Aaronic Priesthood manual are obscure? References from 1971 onwards are obscure? Sorry, I’m laughing right now. Please try again.

 

[SirThomasMore]

This is disingenuous. I did not say that Athanasius said that God was once a sinful man. I quite clearly stated that he said spoke on man becoming God.

Ah…so it WAS a red herring. Because I was specifically talking about your teaching that God was once a sinful man

Also, please provide the LDS quote that says that God the Father was once a sinful man.

“As man is, God once was…as man is, Man may become”

Seeing as how my parents come from a third-world country, your claim makes me laugh.

My dad came from Florida, I have never lived there. So, laugh away, but my point is still valid. Your parents living somewhere is still a rewd herring

Your deflection is that you were talking about your ex-mother in law, but then applied my response to people in Honduras.

She is Honduran. I married a Honduran. So yes, she is part of the people in Honduras.

Nice. So again, you claimed that your ex-mother in law was a long time Mormon. She never read the Book of Abraham or the Doctrine and Covenants? She never attended Sunday School? She never heard about exaltation? Sorry, that makes no sense, that she would never have heard about the plurality of gods.

Geez… am saying that in Honduras, not everyone can afford everything. Why do you have a problem with that?

Please stop putting words in my mouth, it’s very disingenuous. What exactly are the bishops or branch presidents teaching that they don’t know about the plurality of gods?

They teach what missionaries taught them. At least, they did back then. In Talanga, Honduras, they had no real Church publications. They had what the missionaries left behind. Please don;t be so critical of poor people

Again, please stop with this or the moderators will be alerted.

For what? I am totally amazed that you cannot comprehend that not everyone in poor countries have access to all the books you are talking about. This is even more amazing when you say you have lived there. I feel as if you have mocked my ex-mother-in-law. So, maybe I will report as well.

If you really believe that the syncretism in Latin America is just a supposition, I advise you to read more on the issue. Also try looking into Haiti and syncretism as well.

You did not ask about thetopic. You asked specific questions about it. If you want to know how they feel about it, go ask

Great, so you’re talking about both history and doctrine.

Nice deflection

It’s very amusing that no matter how many times someone asks you for references, you never bring them. But it is to be expected now.

Nice deflection. YOU were asking for how people feel about things, etc. If you want to know, go ask. I told you about what I knew…about the LDS Church down there in 1984-1986 and 1992-1993

Sorry, everything I have said is based in facts, that you cannot address. I too speak from experience and historical reading. I am unsure if you are actually denying the syncretism that occurs in Catholicism in Latin America and Haiti (in addition to other places), however if one is actually well read on the history of Christianity, this is a well known fact. To claim that this is supposition tells me that you are simply not aware of this history.

No, what I claimed was supposition was how you believe they feel. You have not given facts. You have given what certain writers told you. You have no personal experience on your topic. I had personal experience on mine.

The fact is is that you (and a few other critics here) use arguments against Mormonism that equally apply to Catholicism.

Red Herring

So again, please refine your arguments so that they do not also apply to your own religion

Red Herring and dodge

.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Like I said…obscure

Wait, so the Ensign, New Era, Liahona and the Aaronic Priesthood manual are obscure? References from 1971 onwards are obscure? Sorry, I’m laughing right now. Please try again.

That’s ok…I have been laughing at your comments for two days. See how fun this is?

 

[why_me]

I agree. As a Mormon, I was never taught many of the things I now know. I never knew about the Temple Ceremony mirroring the masonic one. I never knew Joseph had 9 very different versions of the First Vision. I never knew about MMM. I never knew about “As man is, God once was…”

Mormonism and masonry is very interesting. But it is really not that difficult to understand. Many mormons were masons at the time of Joseph Smith. And these people were not stupid. If something were fishy they would have noticed it. And so what is the story with masonry?

One can read what a mason who is also a mormon has to say about it here:

fairlds.org/Misc/Similarities_between_Masonic_and_Mormon_Temple_Ritual.html

Also, I have already stated that many of the mormons were immigrants whose knowledge of english was limited. Joseph, who was a mason was impressed with how the masons did their ceremonies and he borrowed the structure but not the meaning to teach the people the temple endowments through symbolism.

Here is an interview with Greg Kearney about mormonism and masonry. It is very interesting and refutes the claims of the critics.

mormonstories.org/?p=14