Answering Mormon Objections

  • Thread starter Thread starter Youngconvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is a joke.
Really the amount of converts in the United States is stagnant. They thrive on third world countries.
Plus there is evidence from a discrepancy in their “book of members” which shows literally millions of more members in Brazil than what a census in Brazil found. I question their claim to having 17 million members very much.
How many Mormons do you know? I know maybe one from college who only identified as such culturally. He didn’t practice and was critical of it.
To think there’s 14 million Jewish people in the world.
8 million Jehovah’s Witnesses.
20 million Seventh Day Adventists.
I know many Jews. I know a couple JW. I don’t know any SDA. So with that said if theres so many Mormons, 17 million is not huge considering theres 1.2 billion Catholics, 300 million Eastern Orthodox, 900 million Protestants and 75 million Oriental Orthodox; it is substantial worldwide. I wonder if they infuctuate how many members they really have. Classic thing Scientology does which claims it has 10 million members but really it’s only probably 50,000 tops. They consider a person a member if they took a class just out of curiosity and never thought a thing of it again.
 
Last edited:
cfernandomaciel said:
Finding out that God is All Powerful, Almight, and Omnipresent PRECISELY because He LITERALY IS EVERYWHERE, specially because He is NOT a Person, but a force, an everything, that has ever been here, EVER existed, EVER WAS and IS has made the ENTIRE difference in my understanding about God.
Click to expand...
How do you reconcile your belief that God is not a person with Catholic teaching that God is three persons?

CCC 253 The Trinity is One . We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.

Thanks in advance…
 
Because the “person” in that passage and the “person” in his comment mean two different things.

There’s better arguments to be made here, why zero in on that?
 
Last edited:
Idk go to one of your exmormon websites there’s thousands who will tell you exactly why.
People here are not here to defend our faith to what some 33rd degree Freemason said.
 
gazelam said:
How do you reconcile your belief that God is not a person with Catholic teaching that God is three persons?
Click to expand...
I do reconcile, specially and mainly when God is NOT the limited one, confined within this universe. That my friend, makes all the difference.
 
Precisely! By Person in that passage:
gazelam said:
CCC 253 The Trinity is One . We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity” .
Click to expand...
It’s not implying that God, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Ghost are necessarily 3 “guys”, but 3 beings. One of them is a Person, but all are one, all are the same being. Just different facets, different dimensions of The dimensionaly infinite being which is God.
 
They insist on keeping in their census all the already deceased people, inactive people whom do not want to have any relation with the Mormon church any longer, and EVEN people whom have formally requested to have their names withdrawn from its records.

I know it, I’m Brazilian, and I had requested my name to be formally removed from the Mormon church, mine, and my entire family’s name. I have signed my resignation, as well as my wife did. But the other day somebody called me telling me that our records were still being counted for census purposes.
 
gazelam said:
How do you reconcile your belief that God is not a person with Catholic teaching that God is three persons?
Click to expand...
As I said earlier in the thread, Mormons regularly take quotes out of context. You did it again.
The beauty of Catholicism is the use of reason and precise language. Mormons point out a word used by Catholics and the early church, and assume it has the meaning they want to give to it. I have seen it happen in this thread alone with person, Melchizedek Priesthood, gods, and necessary.

Catholics don’t have to resort to sophistry, we have history, and science on our side. Imaging believing that by saying, “I am glad you now agree that Augustine was the ECF who was the INNOVATOR who came up with the modern Catholic doctrine of “Original Sin,” you have proved that Augustine is not an early church father. Catholics don’t have to resort to this.

It was clear to any rational reader that the use of the word person meant human being; a dude that lives on the planet Kolob, a created being of flesh and bone, the god of Mormonism. With that meaning, God is not a person. It had a colloquial meaning. The word person was not being used in the precise language of the Catholic Church in the catechism.
 
I read it when I was at a dentist’s office as a child (I’ve been reading since I was four). And, I thought it felt like fiction then. My sisters used to have some copies of the Book of Mormon, so, I had access to it at home, growing up. My dad (who was Lutheran) used to debate the Mormon missionaries. I think, the biggest problem I have with the BoM is that it’s written like the KJV Bible, but was supposed to appeal to people from the 1800s United States. Why would God re-establish his Church using a dialect of English, that, by that time, was no longer in common use? The NT is written in Greek, I believe, because that was the common language of the Eastern Roman empire. It was something that most people understood. I mean, there are other problems too, but, that’s one that pops up.
 
I have read Augustine, seems to me like original sin was already widely believed. I think, what Augustine was trying to do was articulate it better. I believe the idea was already there. With regards to Kolob, why Kolob? What is the etymology of that word? Is it a real word? My problem with their Mormon conception of God is that he’s a lesser god, since he was created, in what way do I owe him my adoration?
 
Exactly. If it was written about the same time as M ark Twain was writing why does it use the language of the King James Bible? That has intrigued me since I read it many years ago.
 
Well technically it was written on those golden plates that noone conveniently ever saw except Smith’s family, friends, and people who had money on their mind. Most fell away. The fact that they never " took back what they said " means nothing to me. Missionaries love pointing that out. What strikes me as more bizarre is that having seen such an amazing phenomena, these golden plates with this language never seen before( which never existed by the way but besides the point) and then leaving and being indifferent? Sorry but if you saw these plates and were so sure they were real theres no way you would leave the movement.
 
That’s a typical human reasoning. It comes from our reason of being able to grasp.
However if one realizes God exists beyond time and space, he would not in turn need a creator. Mankind is limited to those but God is not.
We tend to think to small of what God is.

Mormons false prophet tried to understand it as well. He came up with classic NRM view that God was once a man and we can all become gods. That is blasphemy and polytheism but that’s a whole other story.
 
Exactly.
Plus they spend so much time attacking the early Church and slapping the faces of all of the early Church martyrs who died gladly for Christs name.
They do this so well but then forget that the Mormonism of today is NOT the same as in the beginning. Many beliefs are completely different. They seem to get by this by saying they have a prophet. “Oh thank God we have a prophet on earth today!” Hes an elected prophet but that’s besides the point. Basically everytime something needs to be changed for moral or legal issues their “prophet” will get this big revelation from God.
Really grasp that and realize this has been happening since the beginning.
In fact there are some splinter Mormon groups who claim to practice the original faith of the Mormons.
So why not turn the page and stop criticizing the early Church to make the case for your ridiculous apostasy narrative and start learning to defend the apostasy that happened within 50 years of your own churches history?
 
I think you are right, but my point is that whatever Augustine thought, and when, has no bearing on my claim that the early church fathers were Catholic, and were never Mormon.

It is sophistry; the use of rhetoric with the intent to deceive. It is a tangent to avoid having to actually make a factual case. Augustine IS an early church father who solidified and taught Catholic beliefs. It is sophistry to try and refute that fact by rambling on about when Augustine lived, and what he believed or how he may have worded his beliefs. He is still an early church father who held Catholic beliefs and Tom can never change that.

I firmly believe that if a Mormon made the opposite claim that the early church was never Catholic, Catholics would start quoting the ECFs to prove them wrong. It would be easy, there are many, many, books on the subject. All Mormons can provide is sophistry against the Catholic Church. In some ways it is sad to watch. In other ways it is amusing to watch him prove my claim while attempting to refute it.
 
Last edited:
That’s for legal purposes.
There is no other “Church”. Ecclesiastical communities or some thing but it isn’t like the Vatican is saying “Oh yes the CJCLDS are the real deal and they are the truth”. How ridiculous. Hey where are all of the things the BOM talks about anyways? I’ve been to the Holy Land, saw most of the things depicted in the New Testament and many from the Old.
Was curious where all the events in the BOM are? Surely there must be something.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
I think, the biggest problem I have with the BoM is that it’s written like the KJV Bible, but was supposed to appeal to people from the 1800s United States.
Click to expand...
… and the Garden of Eden was where the Missouri river is now. In The USA!
 
Theprodigalson84j said:
…then forget that the Mormonism of today is NOT the same as in the beginning…
Click to expand...
The Cult Joseph Smith created was something. A pack of crazy people whom believed in a crazy, pedofile, molester man. The thing that Brigham Young created, out of that small pack of crazy ones, is a complete different thing. Brigham Young IS the real founder of Mormon Church, he was the one who managed to make a church out of a cult. If it wasn’t for him, Joseph Smith would never have gone from crazy molester to “martyr”, and his story would never have gone from rants to “doctrine”.

One has to separate what happened during Joseph Smith’s days to what happened during Brigham Young’s days. It does not make this Church any more credible, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top