Z
zerinus
Guest
My advice to anyone who is interested in learning the truth of any religion is to go to the faithful adherents of that religion, and not to those who apostatized form it.
- Status
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
My advice is to talk to those of us who know the truth. Those of us God led away from the LDS Church are willing to discuss the truth.
B
barnesms
Guest
Marc, thank you for your faith in the Catholic Church. I respect your faith and may you continue to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit. There is so much that is true, holy, and beautiful in the Catholic Church that all people can learn from it.
The challenge is how do we deal with the faith of others that is just as strong, just as committed. I know by guidance of the Holy Spirit that the Church founded by Jesus Christ has been restored upon the earth and is known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know that Jesus is the head of our Church.
Neither of us believe that the Holy Spirit lies; it is simply impossible. My choice, based upon all my answers was to acknowledge this fact, acknowledge that we all have faith and are striving to follow Jesus. Lax demanded that I answer his question, Who did the Spirit lie to? Look back on all my answers; I tried by best to keep the conversation in a ecumenical spirit. How would you have answerd Lax?
I look forward to hearing from you. I may learn a better way.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
My answer is that the Sprit speaks to us, yes, all of us who seek Him, but we can fully understand Him with a properly formed faith. If we search on our own, the Holy Spirit may act as a guide, but ultimately we are a guide without a map. We may be led somewhere that appears to be right based on the guide’s description, but without the map we cannot know for sure; we only know that we’re somewhere that seems right.
The Catholic Church is that map. I believe that reason and objective analysis at historical documents as well as the Bible would lead us to believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Jesus, and that by listening to its interpretation of events we get the FULLNESS of truth.
Make sense? I think so.
The Catholic Church is that map. I believe that reason and objective analysis at historical documents as well as the Bible would lead us to believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Jesus, and that by listening to its interpretation of events we get the FULLNESS of truth.
Make sense? I think so.
B
barnesms
Guest
This is a much better, i.e. more ecumenical answer. Why did none of my previous answer satisfy you? I strive to say away from proclamations that condemn the faith of others. I strive to focus on that which is good, honest, and virtuous. Is my sister-in-law misguided for joining the Catholic Church? Of course not! I believe firmly that she follow the will of God for her life at this time. I know that I am following the Spirit today and for the last many decades. As I have said before, I have to believe that there is one sole source of truth in the world and that is God. In saying that I have to respect the truth that other people follow.
We each have so much further to go be to holy. Be an apologist for your wonderful faith, but find a way to bring the Spirit into your way of speaking. You are not blind to your actions and you know the Spirit. You also know when the Spirit has left the premises because of your actions. We all do. Promote peace among the children of God.
B
barnesms
Guest
Thomas you know better! Would you also counsel the Mormon interested in Mormonism to talk only to Catholics converts to the LDS Church about Catholicism? Yes or No?
B
barnesms
Guest
Your questions are rather common among critics of the LDS Church; however, I think they are also good ones. There is some leaps of logic and misunderstanding of terms. The apostasy refers to the absence of the kingdom (i.e, Church and the authority to act in the name of God) of Jesus Christ on the earth. This is not to say that there may not be some who hold the priesthood, but they have no authority or authorization to establish the Church or perform its ordinances.
Presidents J. Rueben Clark, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee went so far as to teach that the presence of such priesthood holders during periods of apostasy were, in their opinion, a necessity:
President [J. Reuben] Clark said something that startled some folks years ago. He said, “It is my faith that the gospel plan has always been here, that his priesthood has always been here on the earth, and that it will continue to be so until the end comes” (in Conference Report, October 1953, p. 39). When that conference session was over there were many who said, “My goodness, doesn’t President Clark realize that there have been periods of apostasy following each dispensation of the gospel?”
I walked over to the Church Office Building with President Joseph Fielding Smith and he said, “I believe there has never been a moment of time since the creation that God has abandoned the earth to Satan. There has always been someone holding the priesthood on the earth to hold Satan in check.” And then I thought of Enoch’s city with perhaps thousands who were taken into heaven and were translated. They must have been translated for a purpose and may have sojourned with those living on the earth ever since that time. I have thought of Elijah—and perhaps Moses; for all we know they were translated beings, as was John the Revelator. I have thought of the Three Nephites. Why were they translated and permitted to tarry? For what purpose? An answer was suggested when I heard President Smith make the above statement. Now, that doesn’t mean that the kingdom of God has always been present, because these men did not have the authority to administer the saving ordinances of the gospel to the world. But these individuals were translated for a purpose known to the Lord. There is no question but what they were here.
Critics fail to distinguish between someone holding the priesthood, and someone being authorized to exercise the priesthood in forming the Church, conferring blessings, ordinantions, and spiritual gifts.
The apostasy refers to a lack of the latter, not the former.
Though I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the LDS Church, I know that what I have shared with you is the position of the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe it answers both questions 1 & 2.
Next, please.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
It was the same answer I gave on the other thread. Your other answers did not satisfy because you did not give an answer. And when you did, you called me a liar. You could have answered like I did, you chose to say I was lying. I feel the Spirit now. I was gojung to suggest the same to you. You come across as condescending and rude. You act like you know everything and you don’t. Let God fill your life.
Z
zerinus
Guest
What you are saying basically is that the Catholic Church must be right because it is there. Well, if that is a valid argument, then the Jews can make an even stronger case for their religion than you can, because they have “been there” much longer. They have a much longer ecclesiastical history and tradition. If that is a valid argument, then why don’t you give up Catholicism and become a Jew? A Jew can bring exactly the same argument against Catholicism that you are bringing against Mormonism. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong?
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Thank you, Melanie! I attend two different RC churches, one old that far away and one that’s much newer, but a lot closer. The older one reminds me a lot of the one I attended as a kid, complete with a school attached to it.Hi,
I’m glad you’re returning home!
As for my statement that the Mormons can seldom define the so-called “Great Apostasy”, that’s just based on my experience on these boards. It’s like calling the IRS and asking a tax question ~ you get a different answer every time. And there’s never a shred of evidence to support it.
It stretches credulity when one person after another gives yet a different account of the “Great Apostasy” and yet no one can provide a scintilla of evidence to support their position.
You are 110% correct about the receiving different answers to questions posed of the LDS; the church has perfected the art of saying one thing and meaning something different. The public only gets what position they want us to have, whereas the actual congregation gets the real article. The best way to overcome this, I find, is by using their own works.
For example, they’ll tell you that Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus as separate and distinct individuals but what they won’t tell you (either because they don’t want you to know or because they don’t know themselves) is that it took at least four other versions of this miraculous event to get to that point, and it was almost 20 years afterwards that said account was made known.
I jumped ahead a bit because I couldn’t find my own posts right away, but I see that he Mormons here are trying to redefine the apostacy, but their own works make it clear that the earth was devoid of the Word of God, of his true church between the death of the apostles and Joseph Smith’s Furst Vision. That’s the reason that they baptise the dead, because those people supposedly were alive at a time without the Gospel being on earth.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Unfortunately, this is not true for Mormons; that’s the reason they send out missionaries by the thousands, the reason that they seek to keep the faithful in the fold, and the reason that the church spends millions to keep its image squeaky clean.
In fact, doctrine is everything to Mormonism because it defines them and sets them apart from Christians.
Yes, they are good people who happen to have accepted the lies of Joseph Smith and the church he created as fact. The BOM makes is clear that the Bible is missing many 'plain and precious things (it says so seven times so there can be no mistake)" so only their interpretation can be correct.
.Now I am happy go lucky. Happy and lucky to have both mormon and catholic friends who do not judge. .
This is nonsense; 1 Nephi 14 chapter heading clearly says that there’s only two churches: that of the Lamb and that founded by Satan. If the LDS is the former, where does that leave everyone one else? Not only that, but the missionaries come to my house and ask me to read a book that tells me Bible’s missing many ‘plain and precious things.’
Who’s judging who here?
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Not so because of their tax-exempt status. Were they to lose it, however, they would then have to report all of it because it would then be considered income. To protect its tax status, the church was even forced to resign certain policies, specifically allowing blacks to attain the priesthood. Through the late 1960s, the church maintained that blacks would not be permitted to hold the priesthood until after Jesus returned to earth ( the church reaffirmed its position in The Church and the Negro, published in 1967). In the wake of protests by the NAACP, boycotts of BYU teams, and the potential loss of its tax-exempt status, the church finally reversed its position in 1978, conveniently after the one opposing apostle died.
A good read is Time magazine’s “Mormons, Inc.” It alludes to the potential income of the church and notes its holdings.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
And don’t forget that we have the church lying about polygamy throughout the history of the practice.
W
why_me
Guest
I can do better: both in the mormon church and in the catholic church doctrine is everything. But not for me.
The catholic church had also sent out missionaries to convert the pagans. And many catholic missionaries followed the colonializing boats from Portugal, spain and france. How do you think South and Central America became catholic? Every church wants to keep the faithful in the fold. This is one goal of EWTN and catholic answers. And one reason why it is a sin not to attend Mass on Sunday and on days of obligation.
All churches want to keep their faithful. The bible is missing epistles from Paul.
Two churches…? Well, that is simple:
en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Great_and_abominable_church
Much better to go to mormon souces.
And if you look at the beginning of your post, does it sound a little biased about the mormon church. And judgemental? The mormon church is not an evil church and yet, I always read on these mormon threads that it is. There is always something diabolical going on with the mormon church according to many catholics on the mormon threads.
I just find it all amazing.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
To Barnesms, Zerinus, and/or Whyme:
If Mormonism is legitimately the true church of God, why can’t we find any evidence of it in history or the Bible? Why is it that no one even knows where the Hill Cumorah is? How is it that some 2.5 million people died there and left no evidence whatsoever?
Why can’t the church reconcile polygamy with its own teachings, instead having to reinvent and revise history to make it work?
And why hasn’t there been one single correct prophesy or revelation ever given by one single Mormon prophet?
Wouldn’t these things prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that your view is indeed the correct one?
If Mormonism is legitimately the true church of God, why can’t we find any evidence of it in history or the Bible? Why is it that no one even knows where the Hill Cumorah is? How is it that some 2.5 million people died there and left no evidence whatsoever?
Why can’t the church reconcile polygamy with its own teachings, instead having to reinvent and revise history to make it work?
And why hasn’t there been one single correct prophesy or revelation ever given by one single Mormon prophet?
Wouldn’t these things prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that your view is indeed the correct one?
D
Dancelittleewok
Guest
In the Mormons’ defense, the case for polygamy can made from the Bible as seen with Abraham, David, Jacob and King Solomon.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
This is nonsense; 1 Nephi 14 chapter heading clearly says that there’s only two churches: that of the Lamb and that founded by Satan. If the LDS is the former, where does that leave everyone one else? Not only that, but the missionaries come to my house and ask me to read a book that tells me Bible’s missing many ‘plain and precious things.’
Who’s judging who here?
I can do better: both in the mormon church and in the catholic church doctrine is everything. But not for me.
The catholic church had also sent out missionaries to convert the pagans. And many catholic missionaries followed the colonializing boats from Portugal, spain and france. How do you think South and Central America became catholic? Every church wants to keep the faithful in the fold. This is one goal of EWTN and catholic answers. And one reason why it is a sin not to attend Mass on Sunday and on days of obligation.
All churches want to keep their faithful. The bible is missing epistles from Paul.
Two churches…? Well, that is simple:
en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Great_and_abominable_church
Much better to go to mormon souces.
And if you look at the beginning of your post, does it sound a little biased about the mormon church. And judgemental? The mormon church is not an evil church and yet, I always read on these mormon threads that it is. There is always something diabolical going on with the mormon church according to many catholics on the mormon threads.
I just find it all amazing.
I only use Mormon sources. I also subscribe to FAIR, FARMS, and the Nephi Project.
But you’re right on one account: if there’s two churches, both can’t be correct. And since we know what the LDS opinion is of itself, we thus establish your position about everyone else.
But I see you’ve dodged the question by trying to turn it back on me. If Smith wrote the BOM by himself, and Mormons generations later build upon it and believe in it, how can you worship the same God that Christians do?
W
why_me
Guest
I think that there are pieces of evidence but nothing conclusive. Likewise for the bible. I don’t see any evidence for Jesus being the son of god outside the bible. I hope that someday that something will be found that would collaborate the biblical new testament about the life of Jesus. But so far, there is none.
I think that the lds church has reconciled itself with polygamy. It was a practice that had its moment and it is moment is not for today.
Here is one example of a true prophecy that happened:
en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Prophecies/Civil_War
And here is something more general:
lightplanet.com/mormons/people/joseph_smith/prophesies.html
W
why_me
Guest
This is true. And also in momon understanding, polygamy was a test of obedience. It was very difficult for both men and for women. But they looked at it as a commandment from god. And not all mormons were polygamists. It was something that a person was called to do.
R
Returning_Home
Guest
Incorrect; Solomon’s polygamy bears exactly no resemblence to Smith’s. D&C 132:4 clearly states that polygamy and temple marriage (two parts of ‘celestial marriage’) are a ‘new and everlasting covenant.’ In Mormonism, ‘new and everlasting’ actually only means 47 years because the church gave up polygamy in light of the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, yet still continued to practice it until 1904.
In fact, the church was actively practicing polygamy when the old D&C 101 was current, and continued to do so although it wasn’t actually permitted until D&C 132 was added in 1876. At that point, the old section 101 denouncing polygamy was quietly dropped.
The Edmunds-Tucker Act gave the government the ability to seize the church property and put polygamous members in prison, both of which it did. On the eve of the temples being seized, Wilford Woodruff had a convenient revelation that God suddenly didn’t want the church to be polygamous and wrote the Manifesto, which discountinued the practice.
Curiously, the next prophet, Joseph F. Smith, was plead guilty to polygamy in 1904 as he’d fathered at least 11 children after the 1890 Manifesto. If the rules don’t apply to even the prophet of the church, to whom do they apply?
- Status