As Todd Requested...LDS Teachings God was once a Man

[catholic-rcia]

Catholic-rcia, I feel compelled to bring out this quote to remind Catholic readers that there can be a difference between what Doctrine clearly says to an outsider, and what a believer actually believes as official doctrine.

Todd520:
My hope is that Catholics will become more aware and provide LDS the same courtesy in defining our beliefs. So many threads here are based on Catholics misquoting LDS leaders and doctrine, to their own purpose (mormon bashing)

I honestly beleive that most of the quotes presented here regarding the LDS faith are honest. The reasons they are brought up may be in question. Give me one that you claim is false and I will be honest with you. You can e-mail me if you like at utahmission@aol.com

I honesty do love the LDS. It was the LDS faith that led me to the Catholic Church. Without my LDS grandmother I may not have found it as both of my parents did not have religion in their lives.

I look at the LDS faith through a childs eyes. Its like the differenec between Disneyland and Yellow stone national park… Or a good movie about the indians or living among the real indians. For myself I would rather just concentrate on who is Jesus.

Now getting right down to it your Church is built on the notion that Christ’s church fell soon after He established it, even after He said he would be with us always, not leave us orphaned. That He would give us the Holy Spirit to lead us to all truth. Via our Confessions and Eucharist.

On the other hand your Church started with an angel that told a young man that Christianity had become an abomination, that all of their creeds were evil.

If this is not contention tell me what it? Your Church started here.

The Catholic Church on the other hand started with Jesus at Pentacost. When he breathed His spirit into them. Who but God can do this? Do you remember the other place where God breathed like this?

The Catholic Church was not built upon another Church that fell, it was established by our Lord and God Jesus because we are all fallen, all sinners in need of Him. Do you see the difference here? Maybe a bit of pride in one? Meditate on the tone here.

Meditate on this scripture, do you know where it is found? Jesus said:

Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion?

Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him

and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’

Does this sound familiar to you? Is this not where the Mormon Church comes in? Where Joseph Smith enters?

Here is our Church Todd
It has both good and bad in it. I myself have both good and bad in me, its reality. Its Jesus that makes me whole.

Our Church
*The Weeds in the Grain”: this is our Community *
(Matt 13:24-30)
He proposed another parable to them. “The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well. The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up? He replied, ‘No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters:

“First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”

 

[Todd520]

Yes, you have shown that when a 21st century American reads an 1800 year old translation from another language; the 21st century American may not understand what he just read. And the translation may have to be explained to him.
.

Hi Stephen,
I quoted direct from the Catechism, which was just upated and released less than 20 yrs ago. Meaning no disrespect, i see it as the Cliff Notes or FAQ for modern lay people to understand the Catholic faith. It is meant to solve the problem of interpreting 1800 yr old translations by providing explicit answers unerstandable to modern readers.

With that said, I repeat my above quote should stand on it’s own two feet. However, I accept Catholics do not believe it says what it says because of other passages in the Catechism or deep held beliefs that contradict the quote.

Same applies to specific quotes taken from LDS teachings and Doctrine. Depending on how they are taken and used, they don’t always mean what they say…

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Stephen,
I quoted direct from the Catechism, which was just upated and released less than 20 yrs ago. Meaning no disrespect, i see it as the Cliff Notes or FAQ for modern lay people to understand the Catholic faith. It is meant to solve the problem of interpreting 1800 yr old translations by providing explicit answers unerstandable to modern readers.

With that said, I repeat my above quote should stand on it’s own two feet. However, I accept Catholics do not believe it says what it says because of other passages in the Catechism or deep held beliefs that contradict the quote.

Same applies to specific quotes taken from LDS teachings and Doctrine. Depending on how they are taken and used, they don’t always mean what they say…

The catechism doesn’t exist on its own, in a vacuum. Please pay attention to the footnotes, follow them, and read.

Catholic belief is not found inside Todd520’s brain. For that matter, neither is Mormon.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Catholic-rcia, I feel compelled to bring out this quote to remind Catholic readers that there can be a difference between what Doctrine clearly says to an outsider, and what a believer actually believes as official doctrine.

My hope is that Catholics will become more aware and provide LDS the same courtesy in defining our beliefs. So many threads here are based on Catholics misquoting LDS leaders and doctrine, to their own purpose (mormon bashing)

And very often LDS refuse this courtesy to us.

 

[Stephen168]

I quoted direct from the Catechism, which was just upated and released less than 20 yrs ago.

And the Catechism is repeating a 4th century Greek quote (read the footnootes.)

With that said, I repeat my above quote should stand on it’s own two feet.

And you are wrong, but it is a popular way to avoid defending Mormonism.

What the non- Mormons assume is that reading a 50-150 year old quote in the same language from the same country would be self explanatory. If they are wrong in their assumption, I think it would be your job to explain the misunderstanding. Of course you also have to realize that many of the non-Mormons are also ex-Mormons and therefore, have a clear understanding of what they are reading.

As someone who has never been Mormon, I assume the ex-Mormons are correct in their understanding until a Mormon can explain a better more rational understanding. I don’t accept yelling “Mormon basher” as a rational counter explanation.

 

[Todd520]

And you are wrong, but it is a popular way to avoid defending Mormonism.

As someone who has never been Mormon, I assume the ex-Mormons are correct in their understanding until a Mormon can explain a better more rational understanding. I don’t accept yelling “Mormon basher” as a rational counter explanation.

No, I’m not wrong, and have never backed down from discussing what I know about my faith

**If you have a sincere question, please post it and I will respond **as I do with all reasonable threads.

If you have been here for the past several weeks, you will have noticed there have also been unreasonable threads where the same LDS quotes are repeatedly brought up out of context and refruted. I call them disengenuous because the same 1-2 CAF posters are repeating the same quotes and ignoring the explanations provided - they are broken records with no interest in the true meaning

 

[aquabatix]

I have been quietly reading this forum, as I do many without posting, but I can’t sit still any longer. The real issue is glaring EVERYONE in the face and no one has said it.

The real issue is the term “prophet”. Catholics and Mormons hold prophets to different standards. Catholics use the Biblical examples and stories to see that a prophet is the mouthpiece of God and proclaims His Word and intentions. Every prophet has done this and not one has gone astray and “speculated” about what he felt God “really meant” or proclaimed other things that were so glaringly opposite of what has been revealed to us.

Mormon prophets on the other hand, speak freely, and when their views are called upon, perhaps many years later, if it doesn’t mesh with what is Biblical or revealed, they were simply speculating or only speaking as a man at that time. The idea of a “sometimes prophet” is absurd. I have asked repeatedly for evidence that any prophet of the OT was a “sometimes prophet”. The most I have received from dianad and others is the examples of Jonah running away, Moses manslaughter of an Egyptian or others. Whether Jonah was trying to avoid his calling as prophet or Moses’ actions BEFORE seeing the burning bush are shown to not pose any problem and still prove that once they were proclaimed or called to be a prophet they acted like one, it makes no difference to LDS posters here.

There is no such thing as a “sometimes prophet.” If any of the quoted men were prophets, what they said counts and is applicable. Simple as that. If this is true, then they are accountable for them and may be shown to be false prophets from the start.

 

[RebeccaJ]

it makes no difference to LDS posters here.

That is because Mormons aren’t open to truth. They just use his forum to expound on everything false, hoping that it will stick.

I like your signature quote, especially on today.

 

[aquabatix]

The problem is that everything, I mean everything, depends upon if JS was a prophet or not. If he was a “sometimes prophet”, that is not a real prophet, hence no new revelation, no BoM, no discussion necessary.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The problem is that everything, I mean everything, depends upon if JS was a prophet or not. If he was a “sometimes prophet”, that is not a real prophet, hence no new revelation, no BoM, no discussion necessary.

I agree.

There is plenty of evidence that shows Smith was nothing more than a womanizing con man. LDS don’t seem to care any more about that than caring that there is plenty of evidence that shows he was not a prophet.

 

[Catholic20064]

That is because Mormons aren’t open to truth. They just use his forum to expound on everything false, hoping that it will stick.

I like your signature quote, especially on today.

I don’t know if Mormons are trying to convert people here, but they do want people to view them as fellow Christians. That will be a tough one for Christians as long as Mormons continue to reject the Trinity and creation Ex-Nihilo. Mormons can’t be accepted as Christian in the traditional sense just because they are nice folks.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t know if Mormons are trying to convert people here, but they do want people to view them as fellow Christians. That will be a tough one for Christians as long as Mormons continue to reject the Trinity and creation Ex-Nihilo. Mormons can’t be accepted as Christian in the traditional sense just because they are nice folks.

Doctrinally and sacramentally, no, they are not Christians.

But yes, I can see that individual Mormons have the desire to follow Christ. They don’t know who He is, and follow a shadow of an idea of Him. He has so much more to give them, but as we can see, they prefer the shadows.

Of course they are trying to convert others away from Truth.

 

[Catholic20064]

Doctrinally and sacramentally, no, they are not Christians.

But yes, I can see that individual Mormons have the desire to follow Christ. They don’t know who He is, and follow a shadow of an idea of Him. He has so much more to give them, but as we can see, they prefer the shadows.

Of course they are trying to convert others away from Truth.

I believe they at least have a baptism of desire since they know baptism is necessary based on their understanding of Christ. So they’re trying anyway.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I believe they at least have a baptism of desire since they know baptism is necessary based on their understanding of Christ. So they’re trying anyway.

Unfortunately, no they don’t. The reasons go hand in hand with why they’re baptisms are not considered valid.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Unfortunately, no they don’t. The reasons go hand in hand with why they’re baptisms are not considered valid.

Actually, I think that many Mormons can “qualify” for a baptism of desire. Mormons know the necessity of baptism, however they don’t know (from our perspective) that they do not have valid baptisms in the LDS church. The invalid nature of their baptisms has nothing to do with the possibility of baptism of desire.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, I think that many Mormons can “qualify” for a baptism of desire. Mormons know the necessity of baptism, however they don’t know (from our perspective) that they do not have valid baptisms in the LDS church. The invalid nature of their baptisms has nothing to do with the possibility of baptism of desire.

The desire can be implicit or explicit. For it to be implicit, the person must accept God. LDS without question reject the One True God of Christianity.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The desire can be implicit or explicit. For it to be implicit, the person must accept God. LDS without question reject the One True God of Christianity.

Right, however accepting the One True God of Christianity is not a prerequisite for baptism of desire. This is even more clear when we see that the Church teaches the possibility of the salvation of Muslims.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Right, however accepting the One True God of Christianity is not a prerequisite for baptism of desire. This is even more clear when we see that the Church teaches the possibility of the salvation of Muslims.

The implicit desire is based on the idea that a person who is seeking truth would ultimately accept the Catholic Church, if they were not ignorant of the truth she possesses.

However:

It is possible for a person to have a stronger desire not to be a Catholic than to come to the truth. This would be the case when people resist evidence for the truth of Catholicism out of a desire to remain non Catholic. In this case their primary desire would not be for the truth but for remaining a non-Catholic. Thus their ignorance of the truth would not be innocent (because they desired something else more than the truth), and it would constitute mortal sin. (“The Necessity of Being Catholic”

Of course, God is the judge of every individual’s intent and heart. But I think it is an error to put a blanket statement over each individual Mormon, and proclaim they have all been saved by the baptism of desire.

Most who come here, I’d question their intent, by what they say, and find it hard to see that they have a desire for truth.

 

[Returning_Home]

No, I’m not wrong, and have never backed down from discussing what I know about my faith

Untrue; you simply put people on ignore when you can’t con them into believing what you want them to see Mormonism as being.

**If you have a sincere question, please post it and I will respond **as I do with all reasonable threads.

If you have been here for the past several weeks, you will have noticed there have also been unreasonable threads where the same LDS quotes are repeatedly brought up out of context and refruted. I call them disengenuous because the same 1-2 CAF posters are repeating the same quotes and ignoring the explanations provided - they are broken records with no interest in the true meaning

By ‘sincere,’ you mean people who are asking questions about Mormonism without knowng the facts about it, people who might be converted. This is where Mormons’ perception of people comes into play; we all fall into one of three catagories: members, potential converts, and anti-Mormons.

You talk about ‘true meanings’ when your church has taken Biblical passages out of context and built entire doctrines arond them, such as men becoming gods, something that even the BOM shows not to be true. Strange, that relationship Mormons have with facts.

We repeat the same quotes because the answers you give don’t make sense, given the larger context and your own literature. Not only that, but the answers are just your opinion anyway because the church has never bothered to answer those charges for itself.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The implicit desire is based on the idea that a person who is seeking truth would ultimately accept the Catholic Church, if they were not ignorant of the truth she possesses.

However:

Of course, God is the judge of every individual’s intent and heart. But I think it is an error to put a blanket statement over each individual Mormon, and proclaim they have all been saved by the baptism of desire.

Most who come here, I’d question their intent, by what they say, and find it hard to see that they have a desire for truth.

Oh yes, I agree, hence why I said “many Mormons” in my original statement.