R
RebeccaJ
Guest
To a point…Mormons find it necessary to add more after Jesus.
- Status
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Ok so how does this square with what you say about faith?
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Yes we all need to study !The Catholic Church has a clear teaching on this. When Christ descended into hell, he opened the gates of heaven.
You need to study.
And I am glad that you agree that Christ descending into hell opened the gates.
That’s why the “gates of hell” did not prevail against Him or his Church. That scripture has nothing to do with apostolic succession!
We agree more and more lately. So you could get rebaptized you know…
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Think on this one bukowski…study up on what words were used and we have translated as “hell”. Study up on the Jewish understanding of sin. And, study up on where Christ was standing when he said these words. Then start up a thread with what you think.Yes we all need to study !
And I am glad that you agree that Christ descending into hell opened the gates.
That’s why the “gates of hell” did not prevail against Him or his Church. That scripture has nothing to do with apostolic succession!
You should get your butt to confession.We agree more and more lately. So you could get rebaptized you know…
C
C2M2C
Guest
This is my first problem. I mentioned in the beginning that “to a certain extent, the doctrine is irrelevant…” because no matter how much I want to be married for all time and eternity, if Mormonism is not true, then marriage for all time and eternity is not ever going to happen. I am not looking for what “jives” with what I think. If Mormonism is true, then naturally you have to believe it’s doctrine is therefore true also.
I am not convinced of the truth yet, but I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mormonism is not true. Doctrinal differences aside, it boils down to two things:
- 7 unofficial versions of the “first vision”, of which the official version is not even the last one recorded by JS. Reading all of the versions you can see that they were not simple clarifications but an evolution of the story from angels visiting first all the way through JC by himself and then even God & JC together making the visit.
a. the official version was released 18 years after it happened with no written history or record of it occurring before then.
b. JS’s mom has recorded a very in depth history of JS and yet she wrote nothing of the first vision. A later published version by Orson Pratt contained exactly a version written by JS himself (word for word and not even the final version) which has been found to not even exist in the original manuscript that she wrote (actually dictated).
c. Brigham Young taught some of the earlier versions that stated JS was visited by an angel and told not to join any other church, abomination, etc, etc.
d. JS joined the Methodist church 16 years after he was supposedly told not to join join any of the other “abominations”
e. this list goes on regarding problems wit the first vision… but I think most people here already know what they are.
a. This is a big one. FAIR and FARMS talk in circles and end up making absolutely no sense as do the other apologists on this subject. As I have stated before, they do nothing other than speculate, assume, & suppose.
b. as you read the churches position on this it too is evolving as to what the possibilities are as technology improves and we are able to prove more things beyond the shadow of a doubt, like DNA. If you look at just the last few years the church is backpedling and even changing completely it’s position as science proves many of there claims improbable, or even impossible.
I appreciate your attempts to answer my questions but with all due respect they just don’t satisfy me.
I did believe at one time that simply “feeling” was the discerner between truth and error, but as I have studied and learned that Catholics believe that your senses and intellect are also an integral part of discerning truth from error, I have come to believe that to be true. As such I can non longer continue on the path that I was on
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I can understand quite well what Jesus is SAYING, which doesn’t square with Mormon doctrine at all. I believe what He said. I understood this, by reason, long before the Holy Spirit gave me a gift, of understanding how profound this doctrine is. How REAL Jesus’ words are.
Understanding the how, is where faith comes in. And there are many things that even you do not understand the how, even with your god that is nothing more than a man.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
M
mfbukowski
Guest
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Thanks for the link. I hadn’t read it myself til now
The dichotomy is only false if you buy the party line. I grew up believing in Chairman Mao, whom I rejected for similar reasons.
"50. In the light of faith, therefore, the Church’s Magisterium can and must authoritatively exercise a critical discernment of opinions and philosophies which contradict Christian doctrine.55 It is the task of the Magisterium in the first place to indicate which philosophical presuppositions and conclusions are incompatible with revealed truth, thus articulating the demands which faith’s point of view makes of philosophy. Moreover, as philosophical learning has developed, different schools of thought have emerged. This pluralism also imposes upon the Magisterium the responsibility of expressing a judgement as to whether or not the basic tenets of these different schools are compatible with the demands of the word of God and theological enquiry."
This is immediately after a discussion of what a great philosopher Aquinas was. No argument about that, but what I have said before is that there have been genuine advances in logic in the last 800 years. No one would want us to use medicine or science from 800 years ago.
It is hard for me not to use the phrase “thought police”, so I guess I will. I find this scary.
I am supposed to trust these guys for what is correct about revealed truth? Why would I do that? Why would God give me a mind if I am not supposed to use it?
Why can’t I know for myself and think for myself about what revealed truth is? How could I ever decide that the Catholic church is true if I can’t figure it out for myself? It is ironic that you all want me to accept what you find “rational” when you don’t question “rationally” yourselves. No private interpretations now! Gotta follow the party line!
I am glad you don’t burn heretics anymore!
Mormonism takes no such position. Just the word “Magesterium” with a capital M feels like the evil emperor in Star Wars or something.
I am half kidding I guess, but I really do find it scary.
(I only bring this up because I know you are definitely informed about philosophy, 1holycatholic)
(Incidentally, I like the ambiguity of your name- are you really one holy catholic?
)Nothing is true because it is old, nor is in untrue because it is new.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Well God bless you. I think the more you really study catholicism, if you go by the same standards and look back far enough, the problems will only get bigger and bigger and bigger. Go ahead and REALLY study it. Go to some anti-catholic websites just as you have to the anti-mormon ones. If anything, it’s worse in my opinion. You have 2000 years to cover instead of 200. And they controlled the “history”.
People talk about athiesm. I am not an atheist because I know there is a God because I have felt His presence. There is no other proof for God than that.
So ultimately, to me, it is either rationality or the Spirit. And once you have felt the Spirit, you know it’s true.
Using rationality only, it is easy to deny God. I have done it in my life. But the spirit, I could never deny.
If God is just, he must allow us direct revelation to know that and to know what church is true, if He cares.
Then you have muddy “history” on all sides.
All the doctrines of Mormonism can be found in early christianity. It was funny - here 1holycatholic sent me a link and I found a condemnation by a council of the doctrine of pre-existence of the soul. Check it out yourself
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/__PC.HTM
“52. It is not only in recent times that the Magisterium of the Church has intervened to make its mind known with regard to particular philosophical teachings. It is enough to recall, by way of example, the pronouncements made through the centuries concerning theories which argued in favour of the pre-existence of the soul,56 or concerning the different forms of idolatry and esoteric superstition found in astrological speculations,57 without forgetting the more systematic pronouncements against certain claims of Latin Averroism which were incompatible with the Christian faith.58”
On the original page, you follow that link to footnote 56 and it says:
“56 Cf. Synod of Constantinople, DS 403.”
I mean I wasn’t even trying to find it, and there it pops out at you. It’s everywhere.
So when you start relying only on reason and ignore the revelations you have had, in my opinion, you are going down the wrong road.
Yes there are questions about Mormonism, but guess what? It doesn’t take much to find MAJOR questions about Catholicsm either.
So what do you do? Quit believing? Not me! I rely on the only thing that I really “know” and that is what I have “seen with my own eyes” or more precisely, “experienced with my own experience”. That is all a true skeptic can do I am convinced. Read your history, that’s my only advice, and keep clear of the “thought police”.
Oh and about being married forever? Even if Mormonism is not true, you two have covenanted with God that you want to be married forever. God honors covenants. Check out Swedenborgianism.
continued
M
mfbukowski
Guest
CONTINUED
But for me, the clincher is the temple. No way Joseph came up with that himself, and I have studied the masonry angle a LOT. There are a few similarities, no question but the temple is totally about Jesus Christ and Masonry is not at all. Masonry was lifted from Solomon’s temple, but the meaning was lost totally.
And if you read the Book of Abraham facsimilies, which everyone “in the world” laughs at with their carnal mentality, the book of Breathings, you will visually see keys to the endowment ceremony. Many hypocephali have similar hierooglyphs, but not exactly like these. I frankly don’t care how Joseph came up with this stuff – it coheres too perfectly once you understand the puzzle. It’s like throwing out a dozen pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that once you see the whole puzzle, you know that the pieces that never made sense before, suddenly “fit”. And all that crazy stuff in the pieces make perfect sense.
We should meet in a temple sometime.
But for me, the clincher is the temple. No way Joseph came up with that himself, and I have studied the masonry angle a LOT. There are a few similarities, no question but the temple is totally about Jesus Christ and Masonry is not at all. Masonry was lifted from Solomon’s temple, but the meaning was lost totally.
And if you read the Book of Abraham facsimilies, which everyone “in the world” laughs at with their carnal mentality, the book of Breathings, you will visually see keys to the endowment ceremony. Many hypocephali have similar hierooglyphs, but not exactly like these. I frankly don’t care how Joseph came up with this stuff – it coheres too perfectly once you understand the puzzle. It’s like throwing out a dozen pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that once you see the whole puzzle, you know that the pieces that never made sense before, suddenly “fit”. And all that crazy stuff in the pieces make perfect sense.
We should meet in a temple sometime.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Ah well, I’ve said far worse. I promised I would be a good girl.You said a bad word!!!
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
drama queen
***This is talking about the process the Magisterium uses. Are you the Magisterium? Didn’t think so. Neither am I. But guess, what, I compare non-Catholic doctrines to Catholic doctrine quite often.
So you don’t like Aquinas, there are modern theologians and philosophers.
You have a funny idea about Catholics.
Sooo, you trust a 19th century con man instead?
You have a funny idea about Catholics.
You need to study.I am glad you don’t burn heretics anymore!
C.E.S.
September six.
You have created a monster under the bed…that is what you are afraid of.I am half kidding I guess, but I really do find it scary.
Nothing is true because it is new, nor is it untrue because it is old.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
M
mfbukowski
Guest
drama queen
Drama queens need love too
******This is talking about the process the Magisterium uses. Are you the Magisterium? Didn’t think so. Neither am I. But guess, what, I compare non-Catholic doctrines to Catholic doctrine quite often.
HUH?
So you don’t like Aquinas, there are modern theologians and philosophers.
Yeah, but the evil empire would not let me read them
You have a funny idea about Catholics.
Sooo, you trust a 19th century con man instead?
No, I trust the Holy Ghost
You have a funny idea about Catholics.
You need to study.
C.E.S.
Not even close!
September six.
Double HUH? No idea what you are talking about.
You have created a monster under the bed…that is what you are afraid of.
Just read that quote. It says they can tell you what philososphies are “correct” and which are not.
Nothing is true because it is new, nor is it untrue because it is old.
At last, something we can agree on.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
September six: when the LDS church leaders cleansed BYU of six professors who weren’t in line with the thought police. You can google it.
You have this idea that the Magisterium has setup shop in my brain. Do you really have this arrogant idea that Catholics don’t think? Is that your conclusion? Honestly? That the only way a person can be Catholic is to shut off their brains and plug into the Magisterium?
I hope you come to realize how incredibly ridiculous that is.
You have this idea that the Magisterium has setup shop in my brain. Do you really have this arrogant idea that Catholics don’t think? Is that your conclusion? Honestly? That the only way a person can be Catholic is to shut off their brains and plug into the Magisterium?
I hope you come to realize how incredibly ridiculous that is.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Rubbish. Anti-Catholics convinced me of the truth of Catholicism. I’ve been to many anti-Catholic sites. I have investigated their plethora of claims and they just don’t hold water. This investigation is what led me to discover the truth of Catholicism.
Mormon conspiracy theories don’t stand up to scrutiny.
C
cazayoux
Guest
Hehehe … Every black eye of individuals within the Catholic Church is very well accounted for and on display.
If the Catholic Church ‘controlled’ or ‘hid’ history, why would they have kept any of the bad actions of individuals?
The fact is the Catholic Church has preserved it all.
We can see every heresy, including the ones that were throughout the majority of the church (i think 80% of the church believed in Arianism at one point).
If the Catholic Church wanted to ‘control’ history, we would see a lot less information.
The Catholic Church simply is not the ‘information shaping’ Big Brother that you want it to be.
michel
B
BRB
Guest
Yes, those are major problems. We also have words of Christ with regards to latterday prophets who would come and make erroneous claims. We are also told in Bible how to test the teachings / claims of the false prophets.
You have taken those words of Christ to heart. You are doing your part to expose the heresy of J.S.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
80% of the church believed in Arianism because it is VERY close both to the original doctrine of the church, and to Mormon doctrine today. In fact, the Arians cited the same scriptures you see on these posts to justify Mormonism
Have you ever heard of a little thing called the Inquisition?
No I guess you are right. Killing heretics is not “information shaping”. The church didn’t “spin” or “shape” doctrine, it just killed those it disagreed with.
It’s information ELIMINATION. Unnatural selection. Suddenly everyone agrees that apostolic succession is true.
I wonder why. The fear of death can be a great unifying factor.
Regarding Arianism, from Wikipedia:
*"Arius posed the question, “Is Jesus unbegotten?” In other words, he taught that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally. Further, Arius taught that the pre-incarnate Jesus was a divine being created by (and possibly inferior to) the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist. In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a “creature”; in this context, the word is being used in its original sense of “created being.” That doctrine that Arius wrote was the main theology of the first century Christians. Scriptures such as John 14:28 where Jesus says that the father is “greater than I” to John 17:20-26 where Jesus asks that the Apostles become “one as we are one” so that all of them including Jesus and God become one, thus demonstrating that the oneness refers to thought and will, and not a physical Trinity.
…Because most written material on Arianism was written by its opponents, the nature of Arian teachings is difficult to define precisely today. The letter of Auxentius,[1] a 4th century Arian bishop of Milan, regarding the missionary Ulfilas, gives the clearest picture of Arian beliefs on the nature of the Trinity: God the Father (“unbegotten”), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ (“only-begotten”), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as “the only true God.” 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 was cited as proof text:
“Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God (Gk. theos - θεος), the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord (kyrios - κυριος), Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (NRSV)
A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
“Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.” (Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41) "*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
It is fairly obvious how this can be seen as very close to the Mormon position today.
Mormons believe that Jesus is begotten, and yet co-eternal with the Father, but yet that Jesus is the “spirit son” of the father. The Father was the Father “before” Jesus was the “Son”, and all of this occured outside of our current temporal references. In some sense, He is subservient, which is obvious from his acknowledgement that the Father is, well, the Father.
So this position is VERY close to the Mormon position, at least in the relationship between the Father and the Son.
Mormons would totally disagree with them in relation to the Holy Ghost however.
So in the last two days, without any real research,except what you guys have handed me on a silver platter, I have shown how 2 major points of LDS doctrine existed in the early church and were condemned by councils of the church. (“Pre-existence” and Jesus and the Father being two distinct beings, one the Son of the other)
And you have admitted that 80% of the church believed at least one of these doctrines.
Boy that Joe Smith was pretty clever to research all those church councils and take on the doctrines seen as “heretical”. Very clever indeed. I guess it was that Catholic university education he received.
But his mom didn’t write about the first vision. Oh well I guess that proves he was a fake. I better get to confession before the Inquistion gets me.
- Status