Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons

[Jerusha]

I have no problem with doctrinal change. We believe in ongoing revelation. You have the right to believe that. Given the changes that are required to keep the LDS church alive in today’s society, you can change doctrine every time you breathe. Such constant changes will only convince many that there just might be something bogus about the whole thing.

Anytime the pope speaks ex cathedra, it is changed doctrine, or there would be no purpose in him ever using that as a possibility.

Not changed doctrine, but clarification of existing doctrine. Each time there is a confrontation with a heresy, there is an opportunity to learn. (Even the apostasy of worship of race.)

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Neither of those were ever doctrine. Neither are in the standard works. But I have no problem with doctrinal change. We believe in ongoing revelation. Catholics do too but won’t admit it. Anytime the pope speaks ex cathedra, it is changed doctrine, or there would be no purpose in him ever using that as a possibility.

You’re wrong, but don’t let that stop you.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Neither of those were ever doctrine. Neither are in the standard works. But I have no problem with doctrinal change. We believe in ongoing revelation. Catholics do too but won’t admit it. Anytime the pope speaks ex cathedra, it is changed doctrine, or there would be no purpose in him ever using that as a possibility.

So you say just as Catholics say limbo was never doctrine.

 

[valient_Lucy]

So, although Protestants and Catholics are mortal rivals, when the Mormons get into the picture, it’s Protestants & Catholics vs. Mormons. It’s like politics: Dems vs. Reps to Dems & Reps vs. the Third Party.

Umm, there was already a Third Party before Joseph Smith, the Eastern Orthodox Church. If anything, the Mormon Church represents a Fourth Party.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Something I’ve wondered about lately is the apparent change in the Mormon relationship to other faiths. Initially, Mormons wanted nothing to do with other faiths, they didn’t seek to be included in the description of “Christian” and they reject the symbol of the cross to this very day. They set themselves apart.

But now it’s all about inclusion, whether its insisting that “Christian” also applies to them, seeking to be included in a visit with the Pope, local interfaith activities ~ today it’s all about cozying up to Christians. What changed?

 

[Mannyfit75]

So you say just as Catholics say limbo was never doctrine.

The Catholic Church has never defined the doctrine of Limbo. It was only an theory that theologians debated and concluded it is not part of the deposit of faith.

 

[zaffiroborant]

**The Catholic Church has never defined the doctrine of Limbo. **It was only an theory that theologians debated and concluded it is not part of the deposit of faith.

I know that ,my point wasn’t really about Limbo but about Mfbukowski taking the liberty to define Catholic doctrine and refusing to believe what people have told him about Limbo.

We’re supposed to believe him when he says the issues I mentioned were never LDS doctrine but he won’t return the courtesy.

 

[mfbukowski]

I know that ,my point wasn’t really about Limbo but about Mfbukowski taking the liberty to define Catholic doctrine and refusing to believe what people have told him about Limbo.

We’re supposed to believe him when he says the issues I mentioned were never LDS doctrine but he won’t return the courtesy.

Gee I don’t know where I got that idea. I will be happy to return the favor.

romancatholicism.org/jansenism/popes-limbo.htm

 

[zaffiroborant]

Gee I don’t know where I got that idea. I will be happy to return the favor.

romancatholicism.org/jansenism/popes-limbo.htm

And your Prophet Seer and Revelater preached this

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal”

And so Adam-God is doctrine in the same fashion as Limbo.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Umm, there was already a Third Party before Joseph Smith, the Eastern Orthodox Church. If anything, the Mormon Church represents a Fourth Party.

Or perhaps, a straight out throw away vote.

Is that being too mean?

 

[mfbukowski]

And your Prophet Seer and Revelater preached this

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal”

And so Adam-God is doctrine in the same fashion as Limbo.

First, this is incorrect. Second, it’s relevance to the apostasy of the Catholic church is…what?

Are you saying “we are just as apostate as you are”? We believe in ongoing revelation, and you don’t.

 

[RebeccaJ]

First, this is incorrect. Second, it’s relevance to the apostasy of the Catholic church is…what?

Are you saying “we are just as apostate as you are”? We believe in ongoing revelation, and you don’t.

Yes, and why is this incorrect? Brigham Young taught it as doctrine. Was your ongoing revelation not really revealed? How do you tell the difference? What if your prophet today is telling you something that is a revelation, but nope, not really. “Just kidding.”

And are you sure that the Catholic Church does not believe in ongoing revelation? What do you call the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

 

[zaffiroborant]

First, this is incorrect. Second, it’s relevance to the apostasy of the Catholic church is…what?

Are you saying “we are just as apostate as you are”? We believe in ongoing revelation, and you don’t.

What’s incorrect?

You brought up limbo. I’m saying you cannot say limbo was Catholic doctrine in spite of corrections from Catholics any more that I can say Adam-God was LDS doctrine in spite of your corrections.

LDS say Adam-God was never doctrine according to their rules of defining doctrine. OK fine. But Catholics say the same thing about limbo.
If we have to accept your rules about defining your own doctrine why don’t ;you have to take ours?

 

[Snowy]

First, this is incorrect. Second, it’s relevance to the apostasy of the Catholic church is…what?

Are you saying “we are just as apostate as you are”? We believe in ongoing revelation, and you don’t.

I had to look up apostasy in the Reformed Egytian-English dictionary to figure that one out:

Apostasy: What Christians commit when they don’t believe that a narcissistic, messianic, lazy, shameless and adulterous crook more worthy of tar and feathers than a heretic’s stake is the prophet sent by God to reveal a fairy tale neccesary for our salvation that Jesus forgot to mention to the apostles.

What respect do you owe to the memory of Charles Manson? Will that change if one day 100 million people belong to the Manson Family and hail him as the messiah?

 

[k0nod541]

I’m not sure whether I was amused or shocked as I read the dialog from the last few days. Out of necessity, I am forced to spend most of my time working to support my family, so my ability to respond immediately to any of you is limited.

What I see so far seems to be, for the most part, a lot of folks who have read a great deal of “Anti-Mormon” literature. If that is true, I am forced to ask whether anyone has considered the wealth of material from scholarly sources that has adequately answered many of the “objections” stated in the posts. References to such ideas as “Adam-God,” or the veracity and integrity of Joseph Smith, suggest that those who post such have not considered all of the source material available.

In the meantime, I will need to spend some time reviewing specific responses to my initial posts, then answering them as time permits.

May I suggest two excellent sources on LDS subjects? The first is jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml#WhatBM

The second is a weekly call-in radio program called “Mormon Miscellaneous.” It airs on both broadcast radio and the Internet at www.k-talk.com at 5:00pm MST on Sundays. Please feel free to listen in and call up with questions and comments. Occasionally I fill in for the regular program host. If you do call in, please mention hearing about the program on “Catholic Answers.”

So, if you wish to correspond with me, please have patience and understand my time restraints. I am happy to respond when I can.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Speaking only for myself, I have never read any “anti-Mormon” literature in my life and do not intend to start. I have many friends and acquaintances that are Mormons and have had some of these friendships since childhood. In connection with those friends and acquaintances I have had the opportunity to become familiar with Mormon theology and teachings. I’ve also read the Book of Mormon cover to cover. But no “anti-Mormon” literature.

I also have a brain and can recognize nonsense when I see it.

 

[k0nod541]

okay now as you know we are taught not to interpret the bible. We are taught to keep with the teachings of the Church and you must have the power of the Holy Spirit to define scripture. Now do you agree with that. Also LDS don’t use scripture alone, Now being a Catholic I can relate to that. But who do you follow. As for RCC we follow the teachings of the RCC Oral and written scripture. I guess what I am asking who guides you in your faith. Like in my faith it is the Church. We believe that the RCC is the Living Christ. The Church is led by the succession of the Apostles.

Rinnie: Thank you for your response! I believe that your question, “I guess what I am asking who guides you in your faith” is the crux of your response. My reply is, I am guided in my faith by the Holy Spirit, as He reveals to me the truth of scripture and the words of God’s appointed prophets. I respect your concept of apostolic succession in the RCC, but believe that the succession was broken early in church history. It is the testimony of the Latter-day Saints that God has called prophets in our day to lead and direct the affairs of His kingdom.

 

[k0nod541]

Speaking only for myself, I have never read any “anti-Mormon” literature in my life and do not intend to start. I have many friends and acquaintances that are Mormons and have had some of these friendships since childhood. In connection with those friends and acquaintances I have had the opportunity to become familiar with Mormon theology and teachings. I’ve also read the Book of Mormon cover to cover. But no “anti-Mormon” literature.

I also have a brain and can recognize nonsense when I see it.

MelanieAnne: Thank you. I am pleased that you have read The Book of Mormon and become acquainted with LDS teachings. I am sure that there are many who consider both sides of the issues. As to the “nonsense” your refer to, I’d be happy to hear from you about whatever “nonsense” you consider to be a part of LDS thought.

 

[MelanieAnne]

MelanieAnne: Thank you. I am pleased that you have read The Book of Mormon and become acquainted with LDS teachings. I am sure that there are many who consider both sides of the issues. As to the “nonsense” your refer to, I’d be happy to hear from you about whatever “nonsense” you consider to be a part of LDS thought.

Just about all of it is nonsense in my opinion. Starting with the nature of God and proceeding from there. Wherever Mormons depart from real Christianity is an issue for me. I don’t believe Joseph Smith “restored” anything. I believe he was a fraud.

This does not mean that I believe Mormons are bad people, most of them are very good people, at least the ones I personally know. Many Mormons that post to this board appear to have some sort of agenda and some fall far short of the “nice” description. But, good or not, I believe that have been deceived. I believe that an objective study of the origins of Mormonism is enough to show that it is not credible, but there are many many other things that have been pointed to as well. Taken as a whole, it’s just not credible in any way.

 

[paul_c]

Rinnie: Thank you for your response! I believe that your question, “I guess what I am asking who guides you in your faith” is the crux of your response. My reply is, I am guided in my faith by the Holy Spirit, as He reveals to me the truth of scripture and the words of God’s appointed prophets. I respect your concept of apostolic succession in the RCC, but believe that the succession was broken early in church history. It is the testimony of the Latter-day Saints that God has called prophets in our day to lead and direct the affairs of His kingdom.

I need to jump in here. I continually hear from Mormons on this board that they believe the Apostolic succession in the Catholic Church as broken early in church history. Despite numerous attempts, I have yet to hear one reason that you Mormon’s believe this, other than that Joseph Smith said it was true. I have not seen one example of how this succession was broken or when it occurred. The most we’ve ever gotten on this board is that it must have happened because the apostles warned of heresies.

Frankly, I fully appreciate the family values that Mormons maintain. However, I can not understand how people who have those values could have been so easily be convinced of basic Christian doctrinal changes (such as heavenly marriage, polygamy and the apostasy of the Catholic Church) by someone that lived a life of such seeming exploitation of his followers.
Can you explain this?

Can you give a rationale answer to the question of why the “prophet” who you believe brought back Christianity from the Apostasy would have such a messy personal life? To be tarred and feathered by his followers over property and then after seducing his second in command’s wife (and at least 33 others) , to be murdered in jail? .