Are Mormon Apostles the Real Thing?

[RebeccaJ]

I read the vatican newspaper. But many catholics do not. Mormons have their ways and catholics have their ways. And in the end, both ways make the world a better place.

Then, do you accept the teachings of the pope as modern guidance for how we live today?

I disagree with your view of mormonism.

 

[Religio71]

That does happen alot doesn’t it?

This is going to be off topic, but seeing that you were former LDS, possibly you can answer it.

How come none of the LDS doctrines can be found in the BofM? I’ve noticed from other threads, that some doctrines are in D&C, PoGP, etc. but none of them relate back to the BofM. The Catechism will refer back to the Bible chapter and verse for things, but I haven’t seen that with the LDS.

I would think that a relatively new religion, who their founder supposedly saw Jesus or God, would have something doctrinal to say, and would be contained in something that is supposed to be “another testament”.

Just wondering.

I agree. There is scriptural support for all beliefs in Catholicism. The Book of Mormon does not have all of the doctrines of LDS. In fact, the common claim by non-Mormons is that the Book of Mormon is many times more similar to the Bible and the theology found there than the other scriptures, leading one to look into the doctrinal progression found in Mormonism, including straying away from monotheism (or sometimes modalism) and moving on to a plurality of gods, eternal progression, temples, etc.

Also, the Journal of Discourses, despite whyme referring to them, is not “scripture”. in fact, many of these controversial theological statements come from it. But LDS will be quick to say that it is not scripture or official.

We can only wonder what will happen when the next scriptures are discovered, since the President, as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, can translate new scriptures.

 

[why_me]

Then, do you accept the teachings of the pope as modern guidance for how we live today?

I disagree with your view of mormonism.

I know. You can always preach to your mormon neighbors…you know the people who are friendly to you. Or you could move away from Utah with its ‘satanic’ influence found within mormonism. I am sure that you will find better people somewhere else.

Quite often I like what the pope says. He is on the ball in the social arena. And I see no hostility in his words towards mormons or toward any other faith. I read peace, harmony, prayer, vocation etc. I have no complaints about what he writes about.

 

[Religio71]

**Let’s try to keep this on topic, related to the apostles of the LDS Church, which can also include discussion of the President/Prophet, since he is also seen as an apostle, and how they relate to the apostles and prophets of the Bible. Let’s not fall into whyme’s trap of talking about Catholic sex scandals. **

 

[twopekinguys]

Mormons would probably claim that god is a living god and is in touch with his church. As such, the book of mormon and other scripture is not the end all. He continues to guide and speak to his church. In the lds church, the canon is writen in stone and for the catholics church the catechism is writen in stone. But for mormons, god will guide his church as it exists in the 21st century and this will include guidence on how to do life.

But that doesn’t explain why even the most basic lds doctrines are not found in what is supposedly another testament of Jesus.

The Catechism at least refers back to the Word of God, so we can see that is truly from God, and we can see it for ourselves.

I would be interested in Religio’s response on this as well.

 

[Religio71]

But that doesn’t explain why even the most basic lds doctrines are not found in what is supposedly another testament of Jesus.

The Catechism at least refers back to the Word of God, so we can see that is truly from God, and we can see it for ourselves.

I would be interested in Religio’s response on this as well.

Posted it above.

I agree. There is scriptural support for all beliefs in Catholicism. The Book of Mormon does not have all of the doctrines of LDS. In fact, the common claim by non-Mormons is that the Book of Mormon is many times more similar to the Bible and the theology found there than the other scriptures, leading one to look into the doctrinal progression found in Mormonism, including straying away from monotheism (or sometimes modalism) and moving on to a plurality of gods, eternal progression, temples, etc. This also mirrors the diversity found in the accounts of the First Vision, which range in the number of beings seen.

Also, the Journal of Discourses, despite whyme referring to them, is not “scripture”. in fact, many of these controversial theological statements come from it. But LDS will be quick to say that it is not scripture or official.

We can only wonder what will happen when the next scriptures are discovered, since the President, as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, can translate new scriptures.
Edit/Delete Message

 

[RebeccaJ]

I know. You can always preach to your mormon neighbors…you know the people who are friendly to you. Or you could move away from Utah with its ‘satanic’ influence found within mormonism. I am sure that you will find better people somewhere else.

What are you talking about whyme? You think I should move. lol. There are times I agree with you. My neighbors don’t talk to me, unless they are proselyting in some way.

Quite often I like what the pope says. He is on the ball in the social arena. And I see no hostility in his words towards mormons or toward any other faith. I read peace, harmony, prayer, vocation etc. I have no complaints about what he writes about.

Perhaps you should also notice what he, and every pope since Paul VI, have to say about relativism and pluralism.

 

[Stephen168]

First, most of what BY and Joseph Smith said was recorded down by notetakers. What to do? This is the way it was back then. I have no idea what was accurate and what isn’t accurate. However, what was recorded was put into book forms such as the Journal of Discourses which was published by the lds church.

We have no idea what the original apostles said on their journeys. I am sure that they said much that if recorded would be shocking. And what we have of Paul is very small indeed. I am sure that he said and did more. We just don’t know what he said or did because it was not all recorded.

None of this defends why the theology of Mormonism is an irrational mess, today.
But it does seem that everytime you try to defend Mormonism you lash out. In this case you take a shot at Paul and the true Apostles of the first century.

 

[why_me]

But that doesn’t explain why even the most basic lds doctrines are not found in what is supposedly another testament of Jesus.

The Catechism at least refers back to the Word of God, so we can see that is truly from God, and we can see it for ourselves.

I would be interested in Religio’s response on this as well.

Would you agree with the Pope here:

vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/text.html#4

First, Catholic Social Teaching. Priests and other ministers would be unwise to take for granted that even faithful Catholics are aware of even the most basic ideas concerning Catholic Social Teaching. Even fewer would be aware that that an entire compendium has been published on Catholic Social Thought that chronicles decades of statements and ideas. The publication of this Encyclical is a good excuse to offer a re-introduction.
Second, the tension that exists between “pro-lifers” and the peace and justice activists. In article 28, Benedict obliges “us to broaden our concept of poverty and underdevelopment to include questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways”. In fact, through this Encyclical there are great strides to bridge the ideologies that often separate the pro-life agenda from other social justice related concerns.
Third, globalization. "“Globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it’. We should not be its victims, but rather its protagonists…” (42). Benedict directly confronts this ideology and offers communities the potential for rich dialogue about the benefits and challenges of living in an increasingly pluralized world.

Quite often the Pope expresses views that would be directly opposed to the american ideology of market capitalism. Do you agree with him?

 

[Religio71]

Would you agree with the Pope here:

vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/text.html#4

First, Catholic Social Teaching. Priests and other ministers would be unwise to take for granted that even faithful Catholics are aware of even the most basic ideas concerning Catholic Social Teaching. Even fewer would be aware that that an entire compendium has been published on Catholic Social Thought that chronicles decades of statements and ideas. The publication of this Encyclical is a good excuse to offer a re-introduction.
Second, the tension that exists between “pro-lifers” and the peace and justice activists. In article 28, Benedict obliges “us to broaden our concept of poverty and underdevelopment to include questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways”. In fact, through this Encyclical there are great strides to bridge the ideologies that often separate the pro-life agenda from other social justice related concerns.
Third, globalization. "“Globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it’. We should not be its victims, but rather its protagonists…” (42). Benedict directly confronts this ideology and offers communities the potential for rich dialogue about the benefits and challenges of living in an increasingly pluralized world.

Quite often the Pope expresses views that would be directly opposed to the american ideology of market capitalism. Do you agree with him?

We are talking about the Mormon Apostles and whether they are in the same office as the original Twelve. NOT the Pope.

 

[why_me]

None of this defends why the theology of Mormonism is an irrational mess, today.
But it does seem that everytime you try to defend Mormonism you lash out. In this case you take a shot at Paul and the true Apostles of the first century.

Hardly, I am only stating a fact. We have no idea what the early apostles said or did. Certainly they did more than what has been recorded in the new testament. And I do think that we would all be shocked if a notetaker was following them around jotting down what they were saying.

 

[why_me]

What are you talking about whyme? You think I should move. lol. There are times I agree with you. My neighbors don’t talk to me, unless they are proselyting in some way.

Perhaps you should also notice what he, and every pope since Paul VI, have to say about relativism and pluralism.

Hopefully you don’t talk to them like you communicate here about their faith. My suggestion to move was for your own soul. To be with mormons must be a problem for you. After all, they are ‘brainwashed’ and follow a ‘false’ prophet. They belong to a dangerous ‘cult’. Why live among such people…a people whose church you dispise. Much better to be with christians…a group of people who can add to purifying your soul. But to be with mormons…must be hell for you. Such a ‘misled’ people must be frustrating for you and your soul.

Or maybe they are not so bad. Maybe they are nice people…and friendly. Maybe they attempt to choose the right and that would not be so bad. Maybe it is not soooooo hellish.

 

[twopekinguys]

Ok, correct me if I’m wrong here, but the way I understand it, the LDS have

The First Presidency, which includes the head guy and basically two assistants.
The Quorum of the 12, which is supposed to represent the 12 Apostles.
The Quorum of the 70,not sure what they are there for.

Then it would break down into the regular laity, with Bishops, High Priests etc., not necessarily in that order.

If the head guy receives a “revelation” from God to do X, at what point does that become doctrinal?

I beleive on another thread a long time ago, someone said that if a “revelation” is received, the other 2 in the First Presidency have to agree with or sustain it? Is that right? Don’t they trust the president?

I have also heard people say that there have been cases where a “revelation” has been received, sustained etc., only to be overturned or changed later. Is that possible.

I know thats alot of questions, but I’m just trying to figure out how this works.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hopefully you don’t talk to them like you communicate here about their faith. My suggestion to move was for your own soul. To be with mormons must be a problem for you. After all, they are ‘brainwashed’ and follow a ‘false’ prophet. They belong to a dangerous ‘cult’. Why live among such people…a people whose church you dispise. Much better to be with christians…a group of people who can add to purifying your soul. But to be with mormons…must be hell for you. Such a ‘misled’ people must be frustrating for you and your soul.

Or maybe they are not so bad. Maybe they are nice people…and friendly. Maybe they attempt to choose the right and that would not be so bad. Maybe it is not soooooo hellish.

You have this fantasy about me going. I have to say, it’s kind of weird.

You ignored…pluralism…relativism…

 

[amontoya]

That does happen alot doesn’t it?

This is going to be off topic, but seeing that you were former LDS, possibly you can answer it.

How come none of the LDS doctrines can be found in the BofM? I’ve noticed from other threads, that some doctrines are in D&C, PoGP, etc. but none of them relate back to the BofM. The Catechism will refer back to the Bible chapter and verse for things, but I haven’t seen that with the LDS.

I would think that a relatively new religion, who their founder supposedly saw Jesus or God, would have something doctrinal to say, and would be contained in something that is supposed to be “another testament”.

Just wondering.

I heard a radio program today called “Mormon Identity” and the host said that the BOM is about the “gospel” but not doctrine. He said there is a difference between the gospel and doctrine. The BOM is for preaching and teaching the “gospel,” and the other books are for doctrine.

 

[Religio71]

I heard a radio program today called “Mormon Identity” and the host said that the BOM is about the “gospel” but not doctrine. He said there is a difference between the gospel and doctrine. The BOM is for preaching and teaching the “gospel,” and the other books are for doctrine.

no, the BOM is also for doctrine. When Mormons are asked where their doctrines come from (usually after they say that something an apostle or prophet said isn’t doctrine) or are found, they reply “the Standard Works” which includes the Book of Mormon.

This includes revelations made by the Prophets/Presidents, who are also apostles.

 

[ricko]

You were going good until the last paragraph. What is the real thing? Are Cardinals the real thing? On the thread there has been much criticism of Bruce R. McConkie. However, McConkie was first a human being with human imperfections. Likewise for other Mormon leaders. Now the same can be said for catholic leaders. Heck, the child abuse scandals that rocked the world testify to that. And the silence by catholic cardinals was very detrimental to the catholic church. One thing I do know is that catholics have no right in criticising Mormon leaders. There own leaders have made tremendous blunders.

I’m really tired of people bringing up the child abuse thing as though it was restricted to Catholics only.

Sex Abuse Lawsuit Is Settled By Mormons for $3 Million

By Gustav Niebuhr
New York Times Sep. 5, 2001, A-14

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints disclosed yesterday that it would pay $3 million to settle a suit by an Oregon man who said he was sexually abused as a child by a church member. The suit said Mormon officials had known well in advance of that abuse that the accused man had also faced child molesting allegations before.

And of course there are more but I post this in hope that some will relize the problem is everywhere, more so in the homes and schools.

 

[Stephen168]

Hardly, I am only stating a fact. We have no idea what the early apostles said or did. Certainly they did more than what has been recorded in the new testament. And I do think that we would all be shocked** if **a notetaker was following them around jotting down what they were saying.

You don’t know what Paul or the Apostles said beyond what they wrote. Your attack on them is speculation not fact. You have to attack because Mormonism has no defense.

Hardly, I am only stating a fact. We have no idea…

You are stating a fact that you have no idea of. This would only make sense in Mormonism.

 

[ricko]

Hopefully you don’t talk to them like you communicate here about their faith. My suggestion to move was for your own soul. To be with mormons must be a problem for you. After all, they are ‘brainwashed’ and follow a ‘false’ prophet. They belong to a dangerous ‘cult’. Why live among such people…a people whose church you dispise. Much better to be with christians…a group of people who can add to purifying your soul. But to be with mormons…must be hell for you. Such a ‘misled’ people must be frustrating for you and your soul.

Or maybe they are not so bad. Maybe they are nice people…and friendly. Maybe they attempt to choose the right and that would not be so bad. Maybe it is not soooooo hellish.

You should have your mouth washed out with soap.

 

[twopekinguys]

You should have your mouth washed out with soap.

I second the motion.