Catholic to Mormon to Catholic?

[C2M2C]

I am just quoting one small section of one of the “timelines” given to you earlier to justify the correctness of Catholic church doctrine. I think it is very instructive and will let it speak for itself.

I agree; this isn’t the straight line as I mentioned earlier that I was looking for.

But this doesn’t speak to any of the questions I have regarding Mormonism. I have touched on a few of them before and have yet to get an actual answer. Here they are in no particular order:

1- JS used the same seer stones to treasure hunt. This isn’t what the church tells us though
2- Of the witnesses, all of them agree that none of them actually physically saw the plates but that they saw them in a “spiritual” sense.
3- Archaeological evidence. I have yet to be satisfied by any response that has been given including on the Mormon apologetics web site or FAIR or FARMS. I will have to find it again but a BYU archaeologist stated " I fear that what is in the ground will never prove what is in the book". Cumorrah is a big one for me
4- JS became a Mason shortly before instituting the temple ordinances
5- Emma Smith left the church after JS died
6- The church teaches that secret combinations are of the devil yet the temple ceremony is secret. I know we’re told that it’s the sacred nature that should keep us from discussing it- semantics?
7- Temple ceremony changes. I have read your response to this but if the gospel is supposed to be everlasting and unchanging…
8- President Hinckley denying that we believe that we can become Gods
9- If God is unchanging then why is it professed that he was once man and is in an eternal progression?
10- Why are none of the Church’s main doctrines discussed in the bible or BoM? If the BoM contains the everlasting gospel where is the temple ceremony?
11- Profits changing earlier “revealed” doctrine or flat out denying earlier “revealed” doctrine (not just Pres Hinckley)
12- Milk before meat???
13- An Arizona stake sending out a questionnaire about what members thought about the temple ceremony. The object was to find out how people felt because temple attendance was low. Shortly thereafter the ceremony was changed in 1990.
14- why does the church hide it’s history and why do people get excommunicated because they talk about it i.e Sunstone Symposium
15- Solomon Spaulding
16- Mark Hoffman
17- View of the Hebrews

There is a ton more that I will go into later. And yes, none of this disproves Mormonism but it doesn’t help either. I can justify that prayers were answered and that may not have happened because I was LDS. I have read stories all over the internet of people who have miraculously had prayers answered. So it’s not about denying the source but questioning whether or not it happened because of the Priesthood.

And no the Catholics don’t get off clean either. There is so much information that makes me question it’s truthfulness as well.

Which Pope was the right one in all of these excommunications and schisms?

I’ll write more later.

Thanks

 

[mfbukowski]

How do Mormons reconcile the words of Jesus in Matthew 22:30?

Already answered it several times before

There is no “giving in marriage” because that ordinace must be done on this earth, and that ordinance was not yet instituted among the jews at this time.

If you look at the CONTEXT it is clear. Look at the first part of the chapter. It is talking about a wedding feast in which no one shows up, (Jews) and then the king goes out and asks everyone else into the feast (gentiles)

But among those who who are finally admitted, there is still one who fails to prepare properly for the wedding. (a gentile who still doesn’t accept the validity of the ceremony )

Matt 22
11 ¶ And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding agarment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

All are called to celestial marriage, AND to the “wedding of the lamb” but few are chosen because they do not prepare and do not accept the validity of the ceremony. They do not have the proper “garment”

It is only after THIS exchange that Jesus tells the jews that there is no “giving in marriage” among THEM in the afterlife. For them, the best they can hope for is being as the “angels”

If that’s all you prepare for and believe in and covenant for, that is all you get.

I’ll stick with my temple marriage, thank you

Weep and wail and gnash all you like

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So let me get this straight: your point is that the Mormon church is just as false as yours because both of our churches have had splinter groups? That’s an interesting way of looking at it.

The Church Christ created was not and is not false, even though you do your best to twist it to seem that way.

It’s just ironic to see your argument of schisms when you have the same going on in your own ‘house’. You claim because the Church is 2000 years old it cannot be trusted because everyone did not believe throughout the centuries. Less than 200 years behind the Mormon Church and you’ve got your own sects claiming apostasy of the restored gospel. You are the one with an interesting way of NOT looking at it, in my opinion.

You going to respond to what Christ said about marriage in heaven?

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Already answered it several times before

There is no “giving in marriage” because that ordinace must be done on this earth, and that ordinance was not yet instituted among the jews at this time.

If you look at the CONTEXT it is clear. Look at the first part of the chapter. It is talking about a wedding feast in which no one shows up, (Jews) and then the king goes out and asks everyone else into the feast (gentiles)

But among those who who are finally admitted, there is still one who fails to prepare properly for the wedding. (a gentile who still doesn’t accept the validity of the ceremony )

Matt 22
11 ¶ And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding agarment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

All are called to celestial marriage, AND to the “wedding of the lamb” but few are chosen because they do not prepare and do not accept the validity of the ceremony. They do not have the proper “garment”

It is only after THIS exchange that Jesus tells the jews that there is no “giving in marriage” among THEM in the afterlife. For them, the best they can hope for is being as the “angels”

If that’s all you prepare for and believe in and covenant for, that is all you get.

I’ll stick with my temple marriage, thank you

Weep and wail and gnash all you like

That makes no sense, but I’m sure you’re aware of that.

Mat 22:1 And Jesus answering, spoke again in parables to them, saying:
Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king who made a marriage for his son.
Mat 22:3 And he sent his servants to call them that were invited to the marriage: and they would not come.
Mat 22:4 Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my beeves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready. Come ye to the marriage.
Mat 22:5 But they neglected and went their ways, one to his farm and another to his merchandise.
Mat 22:6 And the rest laid hands on his servants and, having treated them contumeliously, put them to death.
Mat 22:7 But when the king had heard of it, he was angry: and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers and burnt their city.
Mat 22:8 Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they that were invited were not worthy.
Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage.
Mat 22:10 And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.
Mat 22:11 And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment.
Mat 22:12 And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding garment? But he was silent.
Mat 22:13 Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Now the parable is in context.

After the Lord spoke about that, he went on to another subject brought up by the Herodians.

Mat 22:16 And they sent to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that thou art a true speaker and teachest the way of God in truth. Neither carest thou for any man: for thou dost not regard the person of men.
Mat 22:17 Tell us therefore what dost thou think? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
Mat 22:18 But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites?
Mat 22:19 Shew me the coin of the tribute. And they offered him a penny.
Mat 22:20 And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this?
Mat 22:21 They say to him: Caesar’s. Then he saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.
Mat 22:22 And hearing this, they wondered and, leaving him, went their ways.

Let’s look further at Matthew 22:

Mat 22:23 That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him,
Mat 22:24 Saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up issue to his brother.
Mat 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother.
Mat 22:26 In like manner the second and the third and so on, to the seventh.
Mat 22:27 And last of all the woman died also.
Mat 22:28 At the resurrection therefore, whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her.
Mat 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

Seems you have tied the wrong story to the wrong verse to me. It was later that day and He wasn’t even talking to the same people. It was a completely different story than what you’re trying to tie it too.

As for your weeping and gnashing ad hominem statement, where is that form of charity taught in the Mormon Church?

 

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski;4201631:

I am just quoting one small section of one of the “timelines” given to you earlier to justify the correctness of Catholic church doctrine. I think it is very instructive and will let it speak for itself.

I agree; this isn’t the straight line as I mentioned earlier that I was looking for.

But this doesn’t speak to any of the questions I have regarding Mormonism. I have touched on a few of them before and have yet to get an actual answer. Here they are in no particular order:

1- JS used the same seer stones to treasure hunt. This isn’t what the church tells us though
2- Of the witnesses, all of them agree that none of them actually physically saw the plates but that they saw them in a “spiritual” sense.
3- Archaeological evidence. I have yet to be satisfied by any response that has been given including on the Mormon apologetics web site or FAIR or FARMS. I will have to find it again but a BYU archaeologist stated " I fear that what is in the ground will never prove what is in the book". Cumorrah is a big one for me
4- JS became a Mason shortly before instituting the temple ordinances
5- Emma Smith left the church after JS died
6- The church teaches that secret combinations are of the devil yet the temple ceremony is secret. I know we’re told that it’s the sacred nature that should keep us from discussing it- semantics?
7- Temple ceremony changes. I have read your response to this but if the gospel is supposed to be everlasting and unchanging…
8- President Hinckley denying that we believe that we can become Gods
9- If God is unchanging then why is it professed that he was once man and is in an eternal progression?
10- Why are none of the Church’s main doctrines discussed in the bible or BoM? If the BoM contains the everlasting gospel where is the temple ceremony?
11- Profits changing earlier “revealed” doctrine or flat out denying earlier “revealed” doctrine (not just Pres Hinckley)
12- Milk before meat???
13- An Arizona stake sending out a questionnaire about what members thought about the temple ceremony. The object was to find out how people felt because temple attendance was low. Shortly thereafter the ceremony was changed in 1990.
14- why does the church hide it’s history and why do people get excommunicated because they talk about it i.e Sunstone Symposium
15- Solomon Spaulding
16- Mark Hoffman
17- View of the Hebrews

There is a ton more that I will go into later. And yes, none of this disproves Mormonism but it doesn’t help either. I can justify that prayers were answered and that may not have happened because I was LDS. I have read stories all over the internet of people who have miraculously had prayers answered. So it’s not about denying the source but questioning whether or not it happened because of the Priesthood.

And no the Catholics don’t get off clean either. There is so much information that makes me question it’s truthfulness as well.

Which Pope was the right one in all of these excommunications and schisms?

I’ll write more later.

Thanks

Some of these I have already answered to the best of my ability, including the one about president Hinckley, which I answered I thought at some length above where I discusssed the paradox involved in discussing what happened “before” time was created by God. There is no inconsistency in what the pres said.

I will dig out some of those old posts, but, I am going to be gone for a bit over a week, and am now preparing for sunday, so it will be a while before I get to it.

I guess your inquiries on the Mormon boards did not answer these questions. I will try when I get back, but I suspect that there are no answers you will accept to some of these. I have spoken to some who are considering divorce and there comes a time when they find that they are “fed up” and are just going to go through with it no matter what is said. I earnestly hope you are not there yet, in terms of divorce with the church.

I really honestly don’t think you are going to find the answers in catholicism either. If you want to find a perfect history in a human organization, you won’t find it. Catholics want you to believe that their church is not human, but with very little research, I think you will see it otherwise.

Anyway, I promise to do more research on your questions and discuss them further when I return.

Since I am now I think the only Mormon left on this thread, it will give you a good chance to let the catholics state their case unopposed. They really are good good people regardless of all the hassles I give them. You may be very happy in their church.

In the meantime, I wish you all the best, and will see you in about a week and a half or so.

 

[PaulDupre]

Adieu.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am just quoting one small section of one of the “timelines” given to you earlier to justify the correctness of Catholic church doctrine. I think it is very instructive and will let it speak for itself.

I agree; this isn’t the straight line as I mentioned earlier that I was looking for.

But this doesn’t speak to any of the questions I have regarding Mormonism. I have touched on a few of them before and have yet to get an actual answer. Here they are in no particular order:

1- JS used the same seer stones to treasure hunt. This isn’t what the church tells us though
2- Of the witnesses, all of them agree that none of them actually physically saw the plates but that they saw them in a “spiritual” sense.
3- Archaeological evidence. I have yet to be satisfied by any response that has been given including on the Mormon apologetics web site or FAIR or FARMS. I will have to find it again but a BYU archaeologist stated " I fear that what is in the ground will never prove what is in the book". Cumorrah is a big one for me
4- JS became a Mason shortly before instituting the temple ordinances
5- Emma Smith left the church after JS died
6- The church teaches that secret combinations are of the devil yet the temple ceremony is secret. I know we’re told that it’s the sacred nature that should keep us from discussing it- semantics?
7- Temple ceremony changes. I have read your response to this but if the gospel is supposed to be everlasting and unchanging…
8- President Hinckley denying that we believe that we can become Gods
9- If God is unchanging then why is it professed that he was once man and is in an eternal progression?
10- Why are none of the Church’s main doctrines discussed in the bible or BoM? If the BoM contains the everlasting gospel where is the temple ceremony?
11- Profits changing earlier “revealed” doctrine or flat out denying earlier “revealed” doctrine (not just Pres Hinckley)
12- Milk before meat???
13- An Arizona stake sending out a questionnaire about what members thought about the temple ceremony. The object was to find out how people felt because temple attendance was low. Shortly thereafter the ceremony was changed in 1990.
14- why does the church hide it’s history and why do people get excommunicated because they talk about it i.e Sunstone Symposium
15- Solomon Spaulding
16- Mark Hoffman
17- View of the Hebrews

There is a ton more that I will go into later. And yes, none of this disproves Mormonism but it doesn’t help either. I can justify that prayers were answered and that may not have happened because I was LDS. I have read stories all over the internet of people who have miraculously had prayers answered. So it’s not about denying the source but questioning whether or not it happened because of the Priesthood.

And no the Catholics don’t get off clean either. There is so much information that makes me question it’s truthfulness as well.

Which Pope was the right one in all of these excommunications and schisms?

I’ll write more later.

Thanks

Surely, you realize there were excommunications in the Mormon Church? Some making the Doctrines and Covenants false by their prophetic statements.

Doctrines and Covenants 124.20-21

20 And again, verily I say unto you, my servant George Miller is without guile; he may be trusted because of the integrity of his heart; and for the love which he has to my testimony I, the Lord, love him.
21 I therefore say unto you, I seal upon his head the office of a bishopric, like unto my servant Edward Partridge, that he may receive the consecrations of mine house, that he may administer blessings upon the heads of the poor of my people, saith the Lord. Let no man despise my servant George, for he shall honor me.

In spite of this endorsement from “the Lord,” George Miller was excommunicated seven years later.

The Catholic Church had excommunications and still does when necessary.

Research the schisms. Those who broke away are in schism and not a part of the Church Christ created and promised to be with until the consummation of the world.

As for the rest of your list, I’ll let mfbukowski answer those for you. We’ve raised some of the very same issues with him, but as you might have noticed, it’s hard to get a straight answer out of him.

 

[mfbukowski]

Seems you have tied the wrong story to the wrong verse to me. It was later that day and He wasn’t even talking to the same people. It was a completely different story than what you’re trying to tie it too.

As for your weeping and gnashing ad hominem statement, where is that form of charity taught in the Mormon Church?

One for the road, for my old buddy who answered by first post on any thread with the immortal words “Are you ready to rumble?” Of course that thread was so contentious that it no longer exists due to moderator intervention.

The point is it’s the SAME CHAPTER and SAME SUBJECT. Why do you think the writer of Matthew put it there? They are teachings on marriage. The Sadducees did not believe in marriage and so they did not believe that the man would be ANYONE’s wife anyway.

Who was the writer of Matthew anyway, and what does that say about our spotless scriptural record? History gets a little dicey when we look into it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

C2M2C I would advise that you continue your research in this area and you may find that the bible itself is not all it is cracked up to be.

But the idea remains: History is not testimony. Most biblical historians are agnostics or very close to being so. Faith is the only answer.

 

[mfbukowski]

Adieu.

Thanks Paul. Be good now

 

[Ross09]

But the idea remains: History is not testimony. Most biblical historians are agnostics or very close to being so. Faith is the only answer.

It is not history that makes Catholicism true, but Apostolic succession.

Many Catholics have testimonies; many Catholics have faith. The same can be said of any belief system. People die in the name of faith all the time. How then do we discern truth? Because we believe in it does not make it true.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

One for the road, for my old buddy who answered by first post on any thread with the immortal words “Are you ready to rumble?” Of course that thread was so contentious that it no longer exists due to moderator intervention.

The point is it’s the SAME CHAPTER and SAME SUBJECT. Why do you think the writer of Matthew put it there? They are teachings on marriage. The Sadducees did not believe in marriage and so they did not believe that the man would be ANYONE’s wife anyway.

Again, with the stretching. Same Chapter, same subject, still two different stories all together.

Who was the writer of Matthew anyway, and what does that say about our spotless scriptural record? History gets a little dicey when we look into it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Barking up the wrong tree with that stretch. We believe the Bible to be God breathed or inspired. What you’re missing is the Church’s interpretation to understand it.

C2M2C I would advise that you continue your research in this area and you may find that the bible itself is not all it is cracked up to be.

I cannot believe you are saying that about the Bible. Remember the “contentious” thread? I asked you if Mormons believed the Bible to be inerrant. At the time you said yes. I guess that got “milked” down since then?

If the Bible is not all it is cracked up to be, what just happened to your interpretation of celestial marriage? It seems that statement makes Mormonism more ‘man’ made than we had originally thought.

But the idea remains: History is not testimony. Most biblical historians are agnostics or very close to being so. Faith is the only answer.

Remember this about the Bible, it has a traceable history, no matter who traces it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

.

As I’m reading your post I realized that maybe I have gone from one extreme, being told to look for a feeling, to the other end of the spectrum, needing to see it in writing… for better or for worse.

That is what I think I need, to see that the history leads to what is going on right now. I need to see the straight line from A (Christ) to B (the Catholic Church). I struggle with any obvious or possible deviations.

I haven’t had time to read everything written since I was last on, so if I repeat anything already said, that is why.

I understand, the breadth and depth of Catholicism is large. There is a balance to be had, between faith and reason. A good friend explained it this way. If you put faith and reason on a scale, with faith at one end and reason another, you want a balance somewhere in the middle. If you have faith with no reason, you make very poor decisions, such as suicide bombers and the like. If you have reason without faith, then you have no belief at all…secularism, atheism, etc.

You have faith, and you are searching for the right blend of reason, which, is not without the guidance of God. For who gave you this ability to reason but the One who made you?

Honestly, apostolic succession is very catholic, with a little ‘c’, ie universal. All catholic churches are sisters, we have the same roots…the Apostles and ultimately Jesus Christ. The claim of the Western church is the authority given to the Apostle Peter. We believe the office of Pope to be the successor to Peter. All other catholic communions reject, or diminish, this authority. So maybe that can narrow your research down to this claim?

 

[RebeccaJ]

To me this is weird logic.

“if the LDS church is not true, then I don’t have the Priesthood”
(putting words in your mouth):
But I apparantly DO have the priesthood, Therefore…

What would follow logically is “therefore the LDS church is true”

This is what Mormonism does to people.

Instead of what is logical, you go looking for other explanations of why God blessed your kids with miracles even though you believe that your priesthood was not valid. You are trying to rationalize and deny what you know through your own experience.

Miracles occur outside of the Mormon church… It is not your priesthood that magically makes a miracle happen, it is God, and God doesn’t favor heresy, but you can see by these miracles that He doesn’t abandon people either.

I’m surprised you didn’t tell C2M2C that all that God has will be withdrawn from them, as this is what your church teaches.

Regarding celestial marriage, remember again that God honors covenants. You have made a covenant before God that you and your wife would be together for time and eternity.

You will find no other church which will bless that covenant.

Look, this has been explained to you several times. I am beginning to think you are being obstinate on purpose, which puts you outside of invisible ignorance and into “repent and go to confession immediately”.

Shall I explain again? Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. His Sacrifice, His blood, is the New Covenant, His death the seal, his resurrection the promise. Repent and be baptized and enter the Kingdom of God, which is eternal life and sharing of the divine nature. If C2M2C is judged to be with God and his wife is judged to be with God and his children are judged to be with God, THEY WILL ALL BE TOGETHER WITH GOD. And you too, if you stop being in rebellion against God and repent of your sins.

What if our church really is true?

Are you really so sure that you can trust the “history” you believe you have found? Are you really so sure that what you are going to is not just as man made as what you think you are leaving?

It is not history that will bring clarity to C2M2C or anyone else, it is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. All we are doing here is answering questions. We have no belief that reading history brings people to God. That has somehow become your personal shield against returning to God’s Church, where you belong.

Somone will be happy to provide you that A-Z priesthood line you want so much. But will it be true? What if you start researching THAT and you find some shaky evidence? I promise you that you WILL find that shaky evidence everywhere if you look hard enough.

Only Mormons believe humans can perfect themselves. Christians, all, from Catholic to the newest non-denominational all know that it is Christ who perfects us. It is He who has justified us. If you find “iffy”, then you should also notice the Holy Spirit, intervening and correcting the “iffy”.

Even if you look at our church as nothing more than a man-made training ground for knowledge of Jesus Christ, to learn obedience and sacrifice and what is important in life, I believe you will find no church better. You will find no more committed members seeking Christ anywhere.

Oh please, I don’t doubt LDS commitment but this is just plain propaganda! There are devout and committed faithful of every religion. And there are lazy in every religion, including Mormonism.

And after 2000 years, 10 times the Mormon history, you will find in Catholic history, just as many reasons their succession is shaky at best.

With more history to look at there is more human failure to see. Where do you get this idea that the Catholic church is comprised of gods? The only perfect Person in the Catholic Church is the One who leads the Church, Jesus Christ.

That you fail to see His hand, correcting, guiding, sometimes even slapping us upside the head, is because Mormonism has blinded you.

A just God MUST be able to communicate his will if he has one and cares about what church you join.

This is a rather random statement. Of course God guides. Are you inferring that God does not guide Catholics or the Catholic Church. Do you have proof of this?

How could he expect you to find his church unless He communicates his will? Directly to the individual. Rationality enters in, but when God tells me something, I am not going to second guess because it seems irrational. Look at Abraham and Issac. Sacrifice my son? Are you kidding me? What kind of God would do that? He could have rationalized and denied his experience all day long. But did he rationalize? No, he believed and obeyed. He knew God’s voice because he had heard it before and he obeyed.

Yes and let’s look and JS response to “join no other churches”. He joined the Methodist church…not so much listening to God by a self-claimed prophet who compared himself to the prophets of the OT and even Jesus Himself.

I think also, this is the height of arrogance and second guessing God. Did you ever stop to think that God is leading C2M2C to where God wants Him to be?

And what was his reward? All the nations of the earth call him blessed and the savior was born through his lineage. He did it to obey God, not for the reward, but nevertheless, the reward was there.

We never know when we are being tested. We never know what God has in his plan for us.

Abraham didn’t doubt his priesthood or the revelations God had given him. Don’t doubt yours.

But there is much reason to doubt. Reasons that have nothing to do with Catholic history, and everything to do with Mormon lies.

 

[RebeccaJ]

C2M2C, I was thinking of something that was very striking to me as I was doing what you are doing…checking out Roman Catholicism, comparing, struggling, getting very frustrated.

I don’t remember where I read this or who taught it to me but here goes:

When you look at how God has Revealed Himself to us, it starts small. First, two one couple, Adam and Eve. Then to a tribe (Abraham). Then to a people (the 12 tribes of Israel). Then to a kingdom (David). Then to the world (Jesus Christ).

What struck me is that Mormonism tries to reverse engineer this Revelation of God to us. First, they claim to be adopted to the 12 tribes, and they claim they are the restored kingdom. And then they claim they are the chosen people to spread a “restored” church to the world.

They doctrinally follow…the time of Abraham was still very fraught with paganism, and so, Mormonism incorporates paganism into their religion. Instead of seeing the reality of the matter, that as God revealed Himself more and more, the pagan ideas of His people diminished and diminished. In essence, Mormonism “restored” things that had long been corrected. By God Himself.

God revealing Himself to the world is the time that He established His kingdom. He entrusted all to the Apostles and they in turn taught more people and passed on their authority to the Bishops. This is what makes an apostolic church, a careful following of what the Apostles taught because they, themselves, learned from Jesus. It is the whole reason the Bible exists, it contains the teachings of the Apostles, as close to the time of Jesus living that you can get.

The really twisted thing about Mormonism, is that Joseph Smith EDITED these writings, to match his ever changing theology.

St. Clement was an early Pope, a successor to Peter. Irenaeus wrote that he still had the “teachings of the Apostles ringing in his ears”, as he was a contemporary of the Apostles and learned the Gospel of Christ from them, directly. There are several writings credited to St. Clement. One letter is considered authentic (Epistle to the Corinthians), the others scholars go back and forth on whether or not he was the author. Two letters were considered by the Church for canonization. I recommend you read at least the Epistle to the Corinthians.

It is in this block of writings from CCEL. Do a find text for Clement and you’ll get to it quickly.

 

[Contrabass101]

The Sadducees did not believe in marriage and so they did not believe that the man would be ANYONE’s wife anyway.

Ehm… the Sadducees didn’t believe in the RESURRECTION.

As to the development of doctrine, and naturally following excommunication of heretics, it is true, that doctrine developed. We do not in a strict sense believe the same as they did in year 50. But the reason for that is clear: The Revelation of God, which is Jesus, is so great and profound, that even the early church was not yet fully ready for it. But Christ didn’t leave us as orphans, he sent his Spirit to lead us in all truth. That is first and foremost a promise given to the apostles.

And indeed, we see at the Council of Jerusalem the first time that the bishops of the Church sit together to find out what implications this New Revelation has for the Gentiles. The seed of the Gospel has been sown, but it is not yet fully developed.

The Kingdom has developed as a child develops to become and adult. It is the same, yet not the same. It is like, but not quite like.

There is not to my knowledge a single Catholic dogma, apart from the extent and definition of Canon, which is not (at least) implied in Scripture. The words have been there all the time, but it took some time to find out what they fully and truly meant.

• CB

 

[C2M2C]

There is not to my knowledge a single Catholic dogma, apart from the extent and definition of Canon, which is not (at least) implied in Scripture. The words have been there all the time, but it took some time to find out what they fully and truly meant.

I don’t doubt this. My confusion comes from everyone believeing that they can find scriptural references confirming the truth of there faith. As Mormons we are taught that confusion is of the devil. Therefore if something confuses you it is “wrong”.

C2M2C

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t doubt this. My confusion comes from everyone believeing that they can find scriptural references confirming the truth of there faith. As Mormons we are taught that confusion is of the devil. Therefore if something confuses you it is “wrong”.

C2M2C

My experience is, that it is Mormonism that causes the confusion. It causes you, even trains you, to look through the wrong end of the telescope. And here you are, trying to turn the telescope around.

Don’t give up. Pray. Be patient Study. I can’t tell you how many times I hit the point you are, but I could not believe Mormonism had any truth to it. It was not possible. And I couldn’t believe that the world had Nothing.

And to “feeling”. Sometimes, God takes us to places where the choices are hard, and the feelings even harder. What Mormonism has taught you about our own feelings, is false.

 

[RebeccaJ]

C2M2C, Are you attending a worship service anywhere? If not, I recommend you do. Even if you choose a different denom a week.

Also, I get to thinking that you might be feeling you’re getting pushed, one direction or another. I know this feelings. At one point I felt like I were at the top of a high dive and there were various people behind me, trying to get me to jump and wouldn’t let me just walk down the ladder. Or just sit there at the top and think for a while.

This is your pace. Your life. Your decision. If ever you feel like I am pushing, just tell me to back off. Honestly, I just hope to answer your questions and give you the perspective of someone who has been where you are. But, whatever knowledge you come to about God, needs to come from God. Not from me or anyone else.

This isn’t a 6 week program where you’re wife is baptized by Halloween. I know a former Mormon who studied Catholicism for 3 years before getting baptized. He went to RCIA and Mass during that time. I studied it for about a year and a half. The first year I studied on my own, and went to Mass, and other churches, some you listed, because I had the same questions as you. I looked very seriousy at the Episcopal church at one point. Attened mass there, alternating between St Vincent (Roman Catholic) and St James (Episcopal) services. I couldn’t bring myself to accept that the King’s Church was truly God’s church. Then after about a year of this, I joined RCIA, as I said with no intention of getting baptized. I just felt like I needed to learn from some real people, as well as my own private study.

Everyone is different. Do what you have to do. But at the very least, pray, read the Bible, and go to church (somewhere) on Sunday.

 

[Contrabass101]

Indeed, the diversity of denominations *is *evil. Joseph Smith was right about that. He witnessed a post-reformation Christianity that had lost its original innocence: the naïve belief in the simplicity of exegesis.

And rightly he objected. Rightly he argued, that there should neccessarily be an ecclessiastic authority.

Diversity and schism is evil, but the Catholic Church is not part of the problem (some Catholic individuals may have been… renaissance popes obviously), rather it is the solution.

The Church can never talk about herself, or look upon herself as merely one sect among many… the moment She does, She becomes part of the problem. The Church is Catholic, every other Church is ultimately schismatic (willing or unwilling).

• CB

 

[BRB]

It is talking about a wedding feast in which no one shows up, (Jews) and then the king goes out and asks everyone else into the feast (gentiles)

All are called to celestial marriage, AND to the “wedding of the lamb” but few are chosen because they do not prepare and do not accept the validity of the ceremony. They do not have the proper “garment”

It is only after THIS exchange that Jesus tells the jews that there is no “giving in marriage” among THEM in the afterlife. For them, the best they can hope for is being as the “angels”

I’ll stick with my temple marriage, thank you

So … is this the official LDS interpretation of that Parable ?

What happens to those w/o temple marriage in SLC ?

Why do Mormon give the singles in their faith such a hard time ?

Why did Paul advise new single Christians to remain as they are … not to seek marriage, unless they can’t control their sexual appetites ?