Catholic to Mormon to Catholic?

[C2M2C]

…Continued

“We have no revelation on abortion”

Didn’t you assume Mormons were pro-life? That’s certainly the image their church attempts to broadcast, and most Mormons, in fact, mistakenly believe their church opposes abortion and regards it as an objective evil. But not so.

I’ve always known this was the church’s position and have never had a discussion on the subject with a church member that wasn’t aware of this. Frankly I too believe that abortion should be acceptable in cases of incest & rape. But that’s another discussion for another time. Either way, so what? The church believes it, I don’t see any reason why any members would be upset or have an issue with defending the position.

If Catholics believe that abortion is unaccptable in all circumsatnces then I think the debate is fair game between the two faiths.

 

[C2M2C]

…Continued

Something’s Wrong Here

1. In an early book of “Scripture” brought forth by Joseph Smith, the creation account consistently refers to the singular when speaking of God and creation: "I, God, caused . . . I, God, created . . . I, God, saw. . . . " The singular is used 50 times in the second and third chapters of the Book of Moses (1831).

1. In another of Smith’s earlier works, the Book of Mormon (1830), there are no references to a plurality of gods. At best, there is a confusion, at times, between the Father and the Son, leading at times to the extreme of modalism (one divine person who reveals himself sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son) or the other extreme of “binitarianism,” belief in two persons in God. The Book of Mormon also makes a strong point for God’s spiritual and eternal unity (see Alma 11:44 and 22:10-11, which proclaims that God is the “Great Spirit”).

1. Another early work of Smith is the Lectures on Faith (1834-35). There is continual evidence that the first Mormon leader taught a form of bitheism: the Father and the Son are separate gods. The Holy Spirit is merely the “mind” of the two.

1. At about the same time, we begin to see a doctrinal shift. Smith had acquired some mummies and Egyptian papyri. He proclaimed the writings to be those of the patriarch, Abraham, in his own hand, and set out to translate the text. His Book of Abraham records in chapters four and five that “the gods called . . . the gods ordered . . . the gods prepared” some 45 times. Smith thus introduces the notion of a plurality of gods.

1. The clearest exposition of this departure from traditional Christian doctrine is seen in Smith’s tale of a “vision” he had as a boy of 14. Both the Father and the Son appeared to him, he wrote; they were two separate “personages.” This story of two gods was not authorized and distributed by the church until 1838, after his Book of Abraham had paved the way for polytheism.

1. Readers will notice that the Father is said to have appeared, along with his resurrected Son. In his final doctrinal message, Smith showed how this was possible.

In the King Follett Discourse (a funeral talk he gave in 1844), Joseph Smith left his church with the clearest statement to date on the nature of God:

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.] That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man. The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, ‘As the Father hath power to himself, even so hath the Son power’—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.”

As the Mormon church has taught since that time, God the Father was once a man who was created by his God, was born and lived on another earth, learned and lived the “Mormon gospel,” died, and was eventually resurrected and made God over this universe. As such, he retains forever his flesh-and-bones body.

1. Aside from some temporary detours (Orson Pratt said the Holy Ghost was a spiritual fluid that filled the universe; Brigham Young taught that Adam is the god of this world), the Mormon church has constantly taught that God the Father is a perfected man with a physical body and parts. Right-living Mormon men may also progress, as did the Father, and eventually become gods themselves. In fact, fifth president, Lorenzo Snow, summed up the Mormon teaching thus: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” Snow frequently claimed this summary of the Mormon doctrine on God and man was revealed to him by inspiration. (See Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian?, 60, note 1.)

1. “Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.” What is stranger than a God who starts off as a single Spirit, eternal and all-powerful; who then becomes, perhaps, two gods in one, and then three; who never changes, yet was once born a man, lived, sinned, repented, and died; who was made God the Father of this world by his own God; and who will make his own children gods someday of their own worlds?

That all believing Christians are shocked and disturbed by this blasphemy may—just may—be nudging the Mormon leadership to soften their rhetoric (if not actually change their heresy). A case in point is an interview with current church prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, published in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 13, 1997. When asked: “[D]on’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?” Hinckley demurred. “I wouldn’t say that. There’s a little couplet coined, ‘As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.’ Now, that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about” (3/Z1).

I don’t see why Mormon history, or Catholic history can’t be discussed or even debated. There are facts and then there’s speculation. If there is speculation then both sides should own up to it. On the other hand facts are facts. i.e President Hinckley flat out denied that Mormons believe that men can become Gods. That’s a fact and open to debate and even criticism.

 

[C2M2C]

…Continued

These are an example of what my concerns are based on; changes in doctrine, changes in church position, and later leaders blatantly denying the teachings of previous leaders.

I mentioned in an earlier post that when trying to discuss the issues, the Mormon reposnses are conjecture, circular, and speculation, or completely ignored. Case in point; in an earlier post I raised several questions regarding church history and the responses I recieved had absolutely nothing to do with the questions.

 

[C2M2C]

C2M2C,
I hope you are getting good information from the discussion here.

One thing I note in the discussion going back and forth is how in Christianity and the Catholic Church, so much of the information is out there and available. In addition so much of it is backed up by historical evidence. It appears that in Mormonism, some things that could be made public aren’t and other things that could be proven, aren’t.
It just keeps sounding more and more fishy.

Peace
James

I am, thank you. As I have mentioned several times, it’s the history of Mormonism that doesn’t add up and what brought me here. I think it’s fair game to discuss and debate, and even sometimes criticize. I keep beating the dead horse; I am very comfortable in Mormon Utah and really want to believe. But I know things now that I didn;t know before and I cannot ignore them and continue as though everything is fine. My wife is very upset. Al of her family is very active in the LDS church, all married in the temple and doing all of the things that Mormons are “supposed” to do. But she recognizes the problems as well and just as I cannot igonore them, neither can she.

Please, if you are LDS, help me believe, help me to understand, talk me through the changes (not about BoM grammar, I don’t care abut that). Help me with Joseph Smith changing stories, later prophets denying or changing earlier taught doctrine, changes to the temple ceremony. Why? because changes in the tempe ceremony matter and do speak to where they originated.

 

[1holycatholic]

…Continued

“We have no revelation on abortion”

I’ve always known this was the church’s position and have never had a discussion on the subject with a church member that wasn’t aware of this. Frankly I too believe that abortion should be acceptable in cases of incest & rape. But that’s another discussion for another time. Either way, so what? The church believes it, I don’t see any reason why any members would be upset or have an issue with defending the position.

If Catholics believe that abortion is unaccptable in all circumsatnces then I think the debate is fair game between the two faiths.

The Church teaches that direct abortion is unacceptable in all cases. Not every abortion is a direct abortion. The resolution of an ectopic pregnancy is a case in point. The link is worth reading.

Abortion is a human rights issue, not just a religious issue.

 

[JRKH]

I am, thank you. As I have mentioned several times, it’s the history of Mormonism that doesn’t add up and what brought me here. I think it’s fair game to discuss and debate, and even sometimes criticize. I keep beating the dead horse; I am very comfortable in Mormon Utah and really want to believe. But I know things now that I didn;t know before and I cannot ignore them and continue as though everything is fine. My wife is very upset. Al of her family is very active in the LDS church, all married in the temple and doing all of the things that Mormons are “supposed” to do. But she recognizes the problems as well and just as I cannot igonore them, neither can she.

Please, if you are LDS, help me believe, help me to understand, talk me through the changes (not about BoM grammar, I don’t care abut that). Help me with Joseph Smith changing stories, later prophets denying or changing earlier taught doctrine, changes to the temple ceremony. Why? because changes in the tempe ceremony matter and do speak to where they originated.

Here is a link to a website fro people considering Catholicism. It is call the Journey Home Network and it was founded by a Covert to Catholicism. Perhaps you can get in touch with ormer Mormons here.

Peace
James

 

[PaulDupre]

Precisely my point. Those quotes in 1 Nephi about steel weapons were IMPORTED with the immigrants when they came over. Those were middle eastern weapons which came with them on the boat.

There were NO COINS in the americas, no steel artifacts to be found.

This is absolutely not true. The BoM reports steel-making and other metallurgy practiced by the Nephites in the New World:

2 Ne. 5: 15
15 And I [Nephi] did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of** iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores**, which were in great abundance [in the New World].

Jarom 1: 8
8 And we [the Nephites] multiplied exceedingly [in the New World], and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war—yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war.

Do you really not know of these BoM passages, or are you being deliberately dishonest?

I will not allow you to practice deception on these forums.

 

[1holycatholic]

Please, if you are LDS, help me believe, help me to understand, talk me through the changes (not about BoM grammar, I don’t care abut that). Help me with Joseph Smith changing stories, later prophets denying or changing earlier taught doctrine, changes to the temple ceremony. Why? because changes in the tempe ceremony matter and do speak to where they originated.

Ongoing revelation is a key tenet of LDS faith. uch:

If the LDS faith isn’t true what significance is there to a change in a temple ceremony?

 

[1holycatholic]

This is absolutely not true. The BoM reports steel-making and other metallurgy practiced by the Nephites in the New World:

It wouldn’t make sense to box up some steel swords and bring them with you while leaving behind the knowledge and practice of steelmaking.

Just sayin’.

 

[PaulDupre]

It wouldn’t make sense to box up some steel swords and bring them with you while leaving behind the knowledge and practice of steelmaking.

Just sayin’.

Not only doesn’t it make sense, the BoM states clearly that they had metallurgy and practiced it. If the Mormons are now trying to claim that they did not, then they no longer believe in the BoM. That can only be a good thing.

It is only a matter of time before the Brighamites adopt the position of the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS) that the BoM is “inspired fiction” and that belief in the BoM is not to be used as a test of faithfulness.

 

[C2M2C]

Ongoing revelation is a key tenet of LDS faith. uch:

If the LDS faith isn’t true what significance is there to a change in a temple ceremony?

That’s sort of my point. If the church was true, then I beleive there wouldn’t have been any changes to the temple ceremony. The reasons being many, and obvious. I think there wouldn’t been a lot of changes for that matter.

 

[Kristine1957]

C2M2C First relax and dont stress your self out about this. I’m from Utah (Provo) in fact and have been Catholic for 15 years now. I was raised just like the typical mormon family, church, primary,mutual, etc. and found that every time I questioned something I would do the research and find the TRUE answers and not what I had been told all my life.

My advice to you is GO to the RCIA classes and its OKAY to question and dont be afraid…trust in the Lord and he will guide you.

For myself the first step was to compare the Book of Mormon and the Bible.It didn’t take me very long to relize that Joseph Smith was using parts of the bible and putting it in the Book of Mormon which ment he didnt recieve it from revelation. Once I found out more about Joseph Smith and just couldnt believe the doctrine of the church since Joseph was the founder of it.

 

[mfbukowski]

…Continued

I don’t see why Mormon history, or Catholic history can’t be discussed or even debated. There are facts and then there’s speculation. If there is speculation then both sides should own up to it. On the other hand facts are facts. i.e President Hinckley flat out denied that Mormons believe that men can become Gods. That’s a fact and open to debate and even criticism.

Where was this?

 

[mfbukowski]

…Continued

These are an example of what my concerns are based on; changes in doctrine, changes in church position, and later leaders blatantly denying the teachings of previous leaders.

I mentioned in an earlier post that when trying to discuss the issues, the Mormon reposnses are conjecture, circular, and speculation, or completely ignored. Case in point; in an earlier post I raised several questions regarding church history and the responses I recieved had absolutely nothing to do with the questions.

Would you refer me to the post # please?

 

[mfbukowski]

I am, thank you. As I have mentioned several times, it’s the history of Mormonism that doesn’t add up and what brought me here. I think it’s fair game to discuss and debate, and even sometimes criticize. I keep beating the dead horse; I am very comfortable in Mormon Utah and really want to believe. But I know things now that I didn;t know before and I cannot ignore them and continue as though everything is fine. My wife is very upset. Al of her family is very active in the LDS church, all married in the temple and doing all of the things that Mormons are “supposed” to do. But she recognizes the problems as well and just as I cannot igonore them, neither can she.

Please, if you are LDS, help me believe, help me to understand, talk me through the changes (not about BoM grammar, I don’t care abut that). Help me with Joseph Smith changing stories, later prophets denying or changing earlier taught doctrine, changes to the temple ceremony. Why? because changes in the tempe ceremony matter and do speak to where they originated.

You are not going to get these answers on a Catholic site - I think I am the only LDS person responding on this thread at least and you seem less than happy with my answers.

I will post some links to LDS sites in a little while…

 

[Rolltide]

**mfbukowski **wrote:

This is why faith is so important in these issues. You really cannot “prove” any religion true or false. No one can. Catholics can’t Buddhists can’t Mormons can’t. And historic evidence is always subject to interpretation. So where does that leave us?

Well, that’s not necessarily true. Although I might not be able to prove a religion true, I can definitely prove a religion false with the right facts. If I uncover a document written by Joseph Smith that could be proven beyond a doubt to be authentic that stated something like, “I admit it, I made up the entire religion”, (which I agree is an INCREDIBLY far-fetched idea and in no way is meant here as demeaning the Mormon faith), it might disprove Mormonism. Similarly, if I could archeologically find the actual bones of Jesus, or find documentary proof that the followers of Jesus stole his body to only make it appear that he resurrected from the dead, it would prove that he didn’t rise from the dead, and that there is a fundamental flaw in Christianity. Now, that said, a so-called “smoking gun” fact would be hard to find, even if it existed and was true. This also becomes more difficult as we become more removed from the age of the events in question.

 

[mfbukowski]

C2M2C

Ok I guess I am not answering your questions satisfactorily.

I would suggest you do posts similar to the ones you have done on this site here instead:

mormonapologetics.org/

At least give it a shot. And if they can’t answer you, be sure to check out the Greek Orthodox church. I think you would be more at home there with their doctrine than the Catholics

 

[mfbukowski]

Well, that’s not necessarily true. Although I might not be able to prove a religion true, I can definitely prove a religion false with the right facts. If I uncover a document written by Joseph Smith that could be proven beyond a doubt to be authentic that stated something like, “I admit it, I made up the entire religion”, (which I agree is an INCREDIBLY far-fetched idea and in no way is meant here as demeaning the Mormon faith), it might disprove Mormonism. Similarly, if I could archeologically find the actual bones of Jesus, or find documentary proof that the followers of Jesus stole his body to only make it appear that he resurrected from the dead, it would prove that he didn’t rise from the dead, and that there is a fundamental flaw in Christianity. Now, that said, a so-called “smoking gun” fact would be hard to find, even if it existed and was true. This also becomes more difficult as we become more removed from the age of the events in question.

I agree I guess in principle. But the problem is that the evidence would never be absolutely absolutely certain. It never can be. Someone would always debate the way the tests were done etc.

 

[mfbukowski]

This is absolutely not true. The BoM reports steel-making and other metallurgy practiced by the Nephites in the New World:

Do you really not know of these BoM passages, or are you being deliberately dishonest?

I will not allow you to practice deception on these forums.

No deception. The core of my argument is from this paper, links to which I have posted at least twice before

fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Steel_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

As I have said, I do not pretend to be an expert in this area

The essence of their argument as I understand it is that there are NO references to steel after about 400BC and even that one is a “literary topo”. (read the article)

All the other references are to early imported items.

This makes sense to me since to my knowledge, there are no steel finds archaeologically in the Americas, and the above is a satisfactory explanation.

The technology was imported at first, then lost.

 

[truthsilence]

No deception. The core of my argument is from this paper, links to which I have posted at least twice before

fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Steel_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html

As I have said, I do not pretend to be an expert in this area

The essence of their argument as I understand it is that there are NO references to steel after about 400BC and even that one is a “literary topo”. (read the article)

All the other references are to early imported items.

This makes sense to me since to my knowledge, there are no steel finds archaeologically in the Americas, and the above is a satisfactory explanation.

The technology was imported at first, then lost.

Just like everything else in Mormonism. Christs church, lost. All evidence of civilizations to support the BOM as a historical record, lost. Papyrus that, translated correctly, say what the Book of Abraham tells you they say, lost.

Lost, lost, lost.

In Mormonism, its as though nothing we can find in archeology or verifiable history is real, and everything that supposedly* is *real, is impossible to prove (such as a total apostasy, and everything else that came from Joseph Smith).