Another Question for LDS

[zerinus]

Not quite. I think we’ve already established that we believe that, through a combination of historical evidence and faith, we all believe here that Jesus is the Messiah and the son of God, which Jews do not.

You are being a bit illogical here. My point was not based on what you and we have in common, but what your argument and the Jewish one would have in common. The Jews don’t believe in Jesus because from their point of view Jesus was a false Messiah. But that is beside the point. The point I was making is that the argument you are bringing could be made more strongly by them in favor of their religion because they have been around longer. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong? The answer is that you are both wrong! That argument is essentially flawed, whether it is brought by a Catholic or a Jew. The fact that you have been around longer than us does not make you right, any more than the fact that the Jews have been around longer than either of us makes them right.

Since I believe the Catholic Church to be the one established by Jesus then yes, I do believe that it still being around is a good enough “arguement” to believe it.

That simply is not a logical argument, because as I said the Jews can make a stronger case for their religion by bringing that argument than you can. If that makes you right, then it would make them more right. The truth is that it doesn’t make either of you right.

Unlike you guys, I see no reason at all to believe that the Church underwent any sort of “Great Apostasy”.

Well we do; but that is not why we believe in Mormonism. I am a Mormon because I have read the Book of Mormon and the Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is true. The Apostasy is incidental to that testimony, not the opposite.

 

[SteveVH]

You are being a bit illogical here. My point was not based on what you and we have in common, but what your argument and the Jewish one would have in common. The Jews don’t believe in Jesus because from their point of view Jesus was a false Messiah. But that is beside the point. The point I was making is that the argument you are bringing could be made more strongly by them in favor of their religion because they have been around longer. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong? The answer is that you are both wrong! That argument is essentially flawed, whether it is brought by a Catholic or a Jew. The fact that you have been around longer than us does not make you right, any more than the fact that the Jews have been around longer than either of us makes them right.

That simply is not a logical argument, because as I said the Jews can make a stronger case for their religion by bringing that argument than you can. If that makes you right, then it would make them more right. The truth is that it doesn’t make either of you right.

Well we do; but that is not why we believe in Mormonism. I am a Mormon because I have read the Book of Mormon and the Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is true. The Apostasy is incidental to that testimony, not the opposite.

Sorry for butting in here, but is seems to me that the validity of the Catholic Church lies in the fact that it can be traced back to Peter and therefore to Jesus himself, regardless of how long it has been around. The LDS simply cannot claim that and so ask us to buy a completely different story.

As for the Jews, they are our elder brothers and sisters in the faith, the fulfillment of which is Jesus. We have canonized their sacred books. Yes, they have missed the coming of the Messiah, but we can hardly dismiss their role in salvation history. The Catholic Church is the realization of the promise the Jews have been waiting for throughout their history.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

What SteveVH said.

The problem with your arguement is in implying that I believe Judaism is false; I do not. NOW it is false, but at the time of Christ it was 100% true.

 

[SirThomasMore]

You are being a bit illogical here. My point was not based on what you and we have in common, but what your argument and the Jewish one would have in common. The Jews don’t believe in Jesus because from their point of view Jesus was a false Messiah. But that is beside the point. The point I was making is that the argument you are bringing could be made more strongly by them in favor of their religion because they have been around longer. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong? The answer is that you are both wrong! That argument is essentially flawed, whether it is brought by a Catholic or a Jew. The fact that you have been around longer than us does not make you right, any more than the fact that the Jews have been around longer than either of us makes them right.

What a horrible argument. Your comparison only works if we all believe Jesus in the Savior. Age makes no difference. Your comparison is like saying “10-year old cholcolate is much better meat than 1 year old steak”. It does not matter how old the choloclate is, it is not meat

That simply is not a logical argument, because as I said the Jews can make a stronger case for their religion by bringing that argument than you can. If that makes you right, then it would make them more right. The truth is that it doesn’t make either of you right.

I truly cannot believe you are sticking to this illogical comparison

Well we do; but that is not why we believe in Mormonism. I am a Mormon because I have read the Book of Mormon and the Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is true. The Apostasy is incidental to that testimony, not the opposite.

And? Millions believe in the Koran. And even the Koran has something you don;t have. We can go to the countries in the Koran…the Book of Mormon lands are no more real than Oz

 

[barnesms]

Then LDS should stop making the comparison, using terms such as “exaltation or theosis”, as though they are the same thing.

Theosis is the result of Salvation. They are not two separate things.The “or” doesn’t apply. In other words, there is not such thing as Salvation or Theosis. It is always, Salvation is Theosis.

Do you have any reference for that position? The Eastern Orthodox are very clear that Theosis is going beyond the requirements of Salvation alone. It is a process whereby the individual may gain a much greater reward.

Could you explain how in Catholicism one becomes a god as explained in CC #470 and those who are simply given salvation. Having studied this point in some depth, I think you are confused about the Catholic Church’s doctrine about become a god.

I don’t use the terms interchangably, but only a way to present similarities and help those who are unaccustomed to one, gaining a better understanding of its meaning.

 

[barnesms]

Please don’t confuse the mormon teaching of exaltation with theosis. They are not the same thing.

Jesus never made a distinction between salvation and living with Him in Heaven. The two go together and are never taught as separate ideas, by Jesus or the Apostles.

Do you have any references for that position? Please explain the difference from the CC #470 about becoming a god and the LDS concept of becoming god. I think you will find that the CC version, as the LDS version, is a difference is reward and is not open to everyone. However, if you have some different references, I would appreciate reading them.

 

[barnesms]

Doesn’t matter, they are not the same thing. Not parallel either. Mormons have something other going on.

Just a reference would help. On doctrines of this kind it if very difficult to make sure a member understands what their church teaches. Most of them are not even familiar with the Catechism’s teaching in #470. It is funny where so many Cathlics repeatedly attack LDS doctrine on becoming a god, when they believe it themselves. Strange. To claim there is no parrallel when the words are identical…much stranger. Please expain that with a reference also.

 

[barnesms]

Perhaps you should explain how you are using the word “parallel”.

“something identical or similar in essential respects” is my understanding.

The dictionary explains it as follows:

parallel -

1. resembling each other: relating to two things that are comparable because they are similar and share many characteristics.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Just a reference would help. On doctrines of this kind it if very difficult to make sure a member understands what their church teaches. Most of them are not even familiar with the Catechism’s teaching in #470. It is funny where so many Cathlics repeatedly attack LDS doctrine on becoming a god, when they believe it themselves. Strange. To claim there is no parrallel when the words are identical…much stranger. Please expain that with a reference also.

Are you saying that you, a Mormon, know Catholic teaching better than a Catholic?

Mormons use many of the same terms as Christianity, but have put entirely different meaning behind those words and phrases.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Do you have any references for that position? Please explain the difference from the CC #470 about becoming a god and the LDS concept of becoming god. I think you will find that the CC version, as the LDS version, is a difference is reward and is not open to everyone. However, if you have some different references, I would appreciate reading them.

barnesms, there are multiple threads where this has been gone over and over and over. You can search for them. The biggest difference begins with how Mormons define God.

God is not not an exalted man, is your first clue.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Do you have any reference for that position? The Eastern Orthodox are very clear that Theosis is going beyond the requirements of Salvation alone. It is a process whereby the individual may gain a much greater reward.

You would need to provide a reference for this, yourself.

The Orthodox wiki has an excellent article on the basics of theosis.

" For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation." (Bold emphasis mine.)

Could you explain how in Catholicism one becomes a god as explained in CC #470 and those who are simply given salvation. Having studied this point in some depth, I think you are confused about the Catholic Church’s doctrine about become a god.

barnesms, I can guarantee that you have studied through a mormon lense. Applied mormon teaching to Catholic statements, which, in no way is indicative of Catholic understanding.

We become partakers of the divine nature. We do not become that nature.

I don’t use the terms interchangably, but only a way to present similarities and help those who are unaccustomed to one, gaining a better understanding of its meaning.

I understand, and do believe that your intentions are good. But, you do not know catholic teaching (little ‘c’ catholic, ie, the universal belief of the entire Church, East and West).

 

[Marc_Anthony]

RebeccaJ has an excellent nature.

Bottom line, we believe two things Mormons don’t:

1. God is unchanging.
2. We will never become equal to God.

Mormons believe they will nevver become equal to God, but only because God has a “head start” and they can’t catch up when they start trying to attain Godhood.

Catholics believe that we’ll never be equal to God because he is perfect and we are not, and no matter what we do we can never become perfect. We’re in Heaven because of his mercy. Even though we don’t deserve it He lets us share in His divine nature. It is in this extremely limited way we become “gods”.

 

[why_me]

Are you saying that you, a Mormon, know Catholic teaching better than a Catholic?

.

This is quite common on this forum. I have seen many posts by catholics, attempting to educate mormons about the mormon faith. Why shouldn’t mormons educated catholics about the catholic faith?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This is quite common on this forum. I have seen many posts by catholics, attempting to educate mormons about the mormon faith. Why shouldn’t mormons educate catholics about the catholic faith?

You have a point there, no doubt about it. So my suggestion to both sides is to ask the person of the other faith exactly what their faith teaches on a subject first. Once they have answered you, then you could try and refute them.

Sounds fair to me.

EDIT: Er…on my previous post, I meant to say RebeccaJ has an excellent post, not nature. Not sure why I messed that one up.

Though I’m sure her nature is quite nice too.

 

[MelanieAnne]

RebeccaJ has an excellent nature.

She does indeed!

 

[RebeccaJ]

thanks.

 

[Returning_Home]

You are almost there. But not quite. Mormons were in the frontier surrounded by frontier mentality. These people on the frontier were often not the smartest people. In fact, they had their prejudices and bigotry. Catholics would not fair well on the frontier also. The mormons were different and they did make mistakes. But because of difference they expeienced persecution. They also moved like swarms of bees into an area. This threatened the balance of power of local communities. Thus, the persecution.

It is easy to blame Joseph Smith if one thinks he is a conman. But…if one thinks that he is not a conman, how can he be blamed?

The indians were also forced out and as the frontier moved westward, the indians were also burned out and killed. Such was american frontier mentality. And I must say, that the protestant churches that existed at that time did nothing about it.

You’re trying to make nice with history and excuse major problems here. My problem is not and never has been with garden-variety Mormons; my problem is with the prophets, apostles, quorums, and other high ranking members who know it’s wrong and play along anyway.

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.

Were Mormons persecuted before that? Of course they were, for which there’s no excuse, but pretending that they were victims who were minding their own business is a fantasy; when you tell someone that their faith is a sham, people tend to take that seriously and in the lawless frontier, it was more likely to be acted upon with guns than mere words on a forum.

Another problem non-Mormons had was jealousy because early Mormons displayed ingenuity in the face of formitable odds. I give credit where credit is due and assign blame the same way.

Dismantling the BOM, it’s apparent that Smith was a con man and his lies are still accepted as fact today. This doesn’t make Mormons bad people; I have relatives who are Mormon, too, and have almost always known them to be hardworking, honest, and forthright. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason, however, is still wrong.

 

[Returning_Home]

Joseph Smith received many revelations that are recorded in the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants, and there were other witness to some of these revelations, but not to all of them. The Book of Mormon for example comes with the testimonies of three, and later eight witness who saw the plates from which it was translated, and recorded their testimonies in the book. Some of the revelations published in the D&C also were attested by other witnesses. But ultimately, it is the testimony of the Holy Ghost to each of us individually that convinces us that they are true.

And thus we call into question the character of those witnesses. David Whitmer wrote that the church had fallen into error as early as 1838, coincidentally the same year as when the current accepted version of the Furst Vision became known. Martin Harris is known to have changed religions as many as seven times in his life, and Oliver Cowdery had at least one warrant for theft to his credit.

Are these the men you trust? And other than Hirum Page, the other seven witnesses were all Smith and Whitmer family members, a curious coincidence there as well.

 

[Returning_Home]

My ex-wife’s mom told us a story about how her grandparents moved from Utah to Mexico so they can still practice polygamy. If I remember correctly, they didn’t agree with the church changing their stance on polygamy just because the US Govt made them.

There were two major schisms in Mormonism: the first was over who would lead the church after the murder of Joseph Smith. Most followed Brigham Young to Utah and who would form what we commonly know as mainstream Mormons today, but others stayed in Illinois and either fell away altogether or became the RLDS (Reformed Latter-Day Saints, now known as Community of Christ).

The second split was over polygamy; D&C 132:4 clearly says that polygamy is part of the ‘new and everlasting covenant,’ and while most were able to simply gloss over the major contradictions that came with renouncing the practice, others took it at face value and headed south (they call themselves Mormon fundamentalists) to southern Utah and northern Arizona.

Neither the Mormon fundamentalists nor the Community of Christ has anything to do with the Utah Mormons other than using some of the Mormon texts. Both groups have their own prophets and apostles and claim that the others are actually the apostates. At one point in time, there were at least 10 different types of Mormons, though those have dwindled to only a handful now.

After the church ‘renounced’ polygamy to adhere to the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, the church simply sent members to Mexico to get married (sometimes on boats in the Rio Grande River), thus circumventing the law.

Today, the modern church denies the practice of polygamy, though on occasion, a case surfaces and the members are usually excommunicated.

The government knows about the practice of polygamy among the fundamentalists, but the group is almost impossible to infiltrate so there’s a stalemate of sorts there. Warren Jeffs was part of that clan.

Did that make it a little more clear?

 

[Returning_Home]

No, you misapply responsibility. Joseph Smith did not die for himself, but he died on behalf of his relationship with Jesus Christ. He was a martyr along with thousands of other LDS men that were killed by “good Christian men” that felt a holy war was justified because another people believed differently than they. Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God was embraced completely by Joseph Smith and for his faith he paid the ultimate price. This is not a new or unique story; Christianity has the unfortunate distinction of killing those who believe differently than they do whether they be fellow Christians or anyone else.

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?