Catholics vs Mormons vs Protestants on the "Gates of Hell"

  • Thread starter Thread starter mfbukowski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Can’t bring yourself to stop the condescending tone? I asked an honest question to avoid looking up the answers supplied by anti-Mormon websites. Seems I had read a couple of controversial explanations in the past, but never paid much attention to them. If you’d prefer Catholics seek answers through those sources, it’s on you. 🤷
Click to expand...
Previous Mormon prophets and apostles taught that Jesus was conceived in the same manner as every other person, just under an extraordinary circumstance that God the Father was the male partner of this union.

You will find that there are Mormons who still believe this, and teach it. And, you will find Mormons who will say Jesus conception was a miracle.

Outside of that, I think this is again another fruit of Mormonism. That is, that this sort of speculation would even arise, at all, in people’s minds. And not just laity, but the leadership of the LDS Church, as this is where the belief and teaching came from to begin with.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Can’t bring yourself to stop the condescending tone? I asked an honest question to avoid looking up the answers supplied by anti-Mormon websites. Seems I had read a couple of controversial explanations in the past, but never paid much attention to them. If you’d prefer Catholics seek answers through those sources, it’s on you. 🤷
Click to expand...
The condescending tone is part of the package and good luck getting answers to honest questions.

This Catholic got the following from the Wiki page on Mormonism.

“The nature of Jesus is also notably different in that the virgin birth has been denied in favor of the doctrinal teaching that Jesus was the result of a marriage and sexual union between Elohim and the Virgin Mary. These views were expressed most specifically by Orson Pratt and Brigham Young.”

Bukowski has specifically denied the alleged sexual union between Elohim and Mary and says Mormons believe what we do about the conception and birth of the Lord, so there’s a contradiction there.

Wiki also informs us that Adam and Eve had a copy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Garden; that the ‘great apostacy’ occurred right after the death of the last Apostle (and God, apparently waited until 1830 to get things going again); that this Elohim person was once an ordinary human being like you and became a god and required multiple wives to populate the various planets of his universe. Doesn’t say how he became a god. Wiki also says this god was not the real god, but had a father himself. They haven’t said how this father of god came to be and he has no name that I could discern. bukowski will probably condescent to all that as well, and I doubt we’ll get any substantive information from him.

It could well be, since he styles himself a former Catholic, that these fantacies are too much even for him and he’s created yet another sub-set of Mormonism for himself. There are lots of them. What’s one more, more or less?
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
The condescending tone is part of the package and good luck getting answers to honest questions.

This Catholic got the following from the Wiki page on Mormonism.

“The nature of Jesus is also notably different in that the virgin birth has been denied in favor of the doctrinal teaching that Jesus was the result of a marriage and sexual union between Elohim and the Virgin Mary. These views were expressed most specifically by Orson Pratt and Brigham Young.”

Bukowski has specifically denied the alleged sexual union between Elohim and Mary and says Mormons believe what we do about the conception and birth of the Lord, so there’s a contradiction there.

Wiki also informs us that Adam and Eve had a copy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Garden; that the ‘great apostacy’ occurred right after the death of the last Apostle (and God, apparently waited until 1830 to get things going again); that this Elohim person was once an ordinary human being like you and became a god and required multiple wives to populate the various planets of his universe. Doesn’t say how he became a god. Wiki also says this god was not the real god, but had a father himself. They haven’t said how this father of god came to be and he has no name that I could discern. bukowski will probably condescent to all that as well, and I doubt we’ll get any substantive information from him.

It could well be, since he styles himself a former Catholic, that these fantacies are too much even for him and he’s created yet another sub-set of Mormonism for himself. There are lots of them. What’s one more, more or less?
Click to expand...
It’s amazing how easily ill-educated people would believe absolutely anything. 0.0

The “Great Apostacy” should be called “The Great Disaster”. -.-;
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
The condescending tone is part of the package and good luck getting answers to honest questions.

This Catholic got the following from the Wiki page on Mormonism.

“The nature of Jesus is also notably different in that the virgin birth has been denied in favor of the doctrinal teaching that Jesus was the result of a marriage and sexual union between Elohim and the Virgin Mary. These views were expressed most specifically by Orson Pratt and Brigham Young.”

Bukowski has specifically denied the alleged sexual union between Elohim and Mary and says Mormons believe what we do about the conception and birth of the Lord, so there’s a contradiction there.

Wiki also informs us that Adam and Eve had a copy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Garden; that the ‘great apostacy’ occurred right after the death of the last Apostle (and God, apparently waited until 1830 to get things going again); that this Elohim person was once an ordinary human being like you and became a god and required multiple wives to populate the various planets of his universe. Doesn’t say how he became a god. Wiki also says this god was not the real god, but had a father himself. They haven’t said how this father of god came to be and he has no name that I could discern. bukowski will probably condescent to all that as well, and I doubt we’ll get any substantive information from him.

It could well be, since he styles himself a former Catholic, that these fantacies are too much even for him and he’s created yet another sub-set of Mormonism for himself. There are lots of them. What’s one more, more or less?
Click to expand...
You should know that wikipedia is not a reliable source and none of these are mormon doctrines.

Mormon doctrines can be found only in our standard works which are completely searchable here:

scriptures.lds.org/

The rest of the “gospel library” section is the major true resource for facts about what we believe. If there are any who are actually earnest about knowing what Mormons believe, you should go there.

There are many wacky catholics as well. How about crucifying yourself? Is that your doctrine? How about if I go to anti-catholic sites to find what you believe?

youtube.com/watch?v=P27AKEonIWs

Oh and thanks to the catholic bishops for their praise and defense of our church for what we did with Prop 8. You guys should listen to your own bishops.

usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-187.shtml

Have fun putting up straw men and skillfully demolishing them while your people convert to Mormonism.
 
mfbukowski said:
You should know that wikipedia is not a reliable source and none of these are mormon doctrines.
Click to expand...
wikipedia is an open site where anyone can edit or add to the topic. You should know that. If there’s anything there that is false Mormon doctrine, you owe it to yourself to go on there and correct it. It’s been there for a while and no one has questioned yet.

^ “The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully . . . Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity.” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

Do you deny Orson Pratt taught that as a tenet of LDS doctrine?

^ “The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:268)

Do you deny that was the teaching of Brigham Young AND the LDS?

There are many wacky catholics as well. How about crucifying yourself? Is that your doctrine? How about if I go to anti-catholic sites to find what you believe?

You lost me there, bukowski. Do you believe the crucification of the Lord is Catholic doctrine?? wiki is not an ant-LDS site. Do you allege it is?

Oh and thanks to the catholic bishops for their praise and defense of our church for what we did with Prop 8. You guys should listen to your own bishops.

About what? Acknowledging support of traditional moral values? What’s to listen to? We’re talking about valid religious beliefs here. Our bishops think you’re not a Christian. Maybe you should listen to them.

Have fun putting up straw men and skillfully demolishing them while your people convert to Mormonism.

When you have nothing to say, it’s best to say nothing.
 
mfbukowski said:
You should know that wikipedia is not a reliable source and none of these are Mormon doctrines.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen references to a “MormonWiki” or similar name, is this site accurate, does it even exist or am I remembering incorrectly?
mfbukowski said:
Mormon doctrines can be found only in our standard works which are completely search-able here:
Click to expand...
I also read the above a lot but I also see people saying that things like “The Family a Proclamation to the World” is doctrine. Many are quite adamant about the proclamation being doctrine?
 
zaffiroborant said:
I’ve seen references to a “MormonWiki” or similar name, is this site accurate, does it even exist or am I remembering incorrectly?

I also read the above a lot but I also see people saying that things like “The Family a Proclamation to the World” is doctrine. Many are quite adamant about the proclamation being doctrine?
Click to expand...
I think mfb is a bit mistaken. LDS doctrine entails much more than just the standard works and yes there was a time when the Journal of Discourses was considered doctrine (though the LDS now distance themselves from it).

The fact of the matter is, Adam-God doctrine, Blood Atonement (amongst others) are some doctrines that the LDS have abandoned and today chalk up to “personal opinion of the revelator”.

Unfortunately the LDS do not have any objective criteria to determine what’s official doctrine and what isn’t, except for the fact that current prophets can negate and even repudiate doctrines taught by former prophets.
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
I think mfb is a bit mistaken. LDS doctrine entails much more than just the standard works and yes there was a time when the Journal of Discourses was considered doctrine (though the LDS now distance themselves from it).

The fact of the matter is, Adam-God doctrine, Blood Atonement (amongst others) are some doctrines that the LDS have abandoned and today chalk up to “personal opinion of the revelator”.

Unfortunately the LDS do not have any objective criteria to determine what’s official doctrine and what isn’t, except for the fact that current prophets can negate and even repudiate doctrines taught by former prophets.
Click to expand...
I am replying to you because this may be a loose end that I have not clarified before. All the others I am not replying to have only brought up old arguments that I have discussed ad infinitum already.

LDS have an “open cannon” of scripture. This is because we believe in on going revelation. When the first presidency makes a proclamation, or some other official pronouncement, this is regarded as the same as scripture and at some point will become “canonized scripture” which means it will eventually be physically included in the Doctrine and Covenants. If you look at the back of the D&C you will see, with dates, when that has occurred in the past. So the proclamation on the family is in this category-- it is an official pronouncement over the signatures of the first presidency, and is “regarded as” canonized scripture though technically it has not been yet included in the D&C.

But because the canon is open, that does not mean it does not exist.

Statements and pronouncements by church leaders may be instructive in our beliefs, but are not official church doctrine unless they are official pronouncements of the church presidency.

Some are more speculative than others.

The Journal of discourses never was canonized scripture and I defy you to prove your assertion.

And yes, we do have criteria to determine doctrine, which I have just explained to you.

An example of how this happens might be the Articles of Faith
“Let us review for a moment how the Articles of Faith came to be. The Prophet was often asked to explain the teachings and practices of Mormonism. “John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat, asked Joseph Smith to provide him with a sketch of ‘the rise, progress, persecution, and faith of the Latter-Day Saints.’ ” Mr. Wentworth, originally from New Hampshire, desired this information to help a friend compile a history of his native state. “Joseph complied with this request and sent Wentworth a multi-page document containing an account of many of the early events in the history of the Restoration, including the First Vision and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. The document also contained thirteen statements outlining Latter-day Saint beliefs, which have come to be known as the Articles of Faith.” The information sent to Wentworth was not published in the Chicago Democrat, but in the Church newspaper, Times and Seasons, published in March of 1842. “In 1851 the Articles of Faith were included in the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price published in the British Mission. After the Pearl of Great Price was revised in 1878 and canonized in 1880, the Articles of Faith became official doctrine of the Church” (see Church History in the Fulness of Times [Church Educational System Manual, 1993], 256–57).”
Click to expand...
lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5f4a605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

And this gives a direct answer to what consitutes church “doctrine”:
Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
Click to expand...
newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

I don’t know how it could be more clear.

So quit speculating and look it up. It’s easy. If it’s in the standard works, it’s doctrine
 
And for your other questions about all the bizarre stuff you bring up, just go here:

en.fairmormon.org/Main_Page

There.

Now if there is anyone who actually wants to know what we believe, you have your resources.

Oh one more, at least a second time

scriptures.lds.org/

These are the searchable standard works.

Now you have it all

Don’t bother me with your silliness.

If you ask reasonable questions, I will respond.
 
Mfb: That was just my point. Any LDS prophet can reiterate, reinterpret, reaffirm, or even rebuke a former prophet’s teaching, and that indeed there is much more to LDS doctrine than just “the Standard Works”.

Until a doctrine is added to the D&C, it is still doctrine, and most “Molly Mormons” adhere to it faithfully and unfortunately until such is added officially to the D&C, such a doctrine will be in an almost Mormon “limbo”. It could be here today but gone tomorrow and the LDS are instructed to just believe the status quo. This fluctuation is something that bothered me a lot as I got older in the LDS Church and what ultimately made me deny my mission call.

Mormons have every right to alter, change, delete, and develop their doctrine however its disingenuous to state that the LDS church flat out did not teach certain doctrines simply because such doctrines never made it into the standard works.
 
mfbukowski said:
LDS have an “open cannon” of scripture. This is because we believe in on going revelation.
Click to expand...
In the Catholic Church ‘on-going revelation’ means the clarification of existing doctrine or the revelation of new doctrine. What it does not mean is a supression of doctrine to be replaced by a contradicting doctrine. What does it mean to Mormons?

You seem to be inferring that no Mormon doctrine has ever been revised or contradicted. Is that what you mean?
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Mfb: That was just my point. Any LDS prophet can reiterate, reinterpret, reaffirm, or even rebuke a former prophet’s teaching, and that indeed there is much more to LDS doctrine than just “the Standard Works”.

Until a doctrine is added to the D&C, it is still doctrine, and most “Molly Mormons” adhere to it faithfully and unfortunately until such is added officially to the D&C, such a doctrine will be in an almost Mormon “limbo”. It could be here today but gone tomorrow and the LDS are instructed to just believe the status quo. This fluctuation is something that bothered me a lot as I got older in the LDS Church and what ultimately made me deny my mission call.

Mormons have every right to alter, change, delete, and develop their doctrine however its disingenuous to state that the LDS church flat out did not teach certain doctrines simply because such doctrines never made it into the standard works.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you are talking about. This makes no sense whatsoever. Nothing has ever been deleted from the standard works. If it is in the standard works it is doctrine. If it is not, it is not doctrine. Period.
 
First off I never stated in that post that the Doctrine & Covenants was altered. What I stated was that until some kind of doctrine is added to it, it has the possibility of being repealed (eg. Adam-God, Blood Atonement, perpetuity of polygamy, etc).

BUT now that you bring it up, the D&C HAS been altered numerous times. Some not so significant, and others including the deletion of entire sections (See the 1835 version of Sections 101 and 103).

And you keep asserting that anything outside the standard works is not doctrine even though any preliminary study of early LDS history would demonstrate that this was not the case. LDS doctrine includes much more than just what’s found in the standard works (including other church publications, Ensign, the “living oracles of God” and yes the Journal of Discourses prior to the LDS shying away from them).
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
First off I never stated in that post that the Doctrine & Covenants was altered. What I stated was that until some kind of doctrine is added to it, it has the possibility of being repealed (eg. Adam-God, Blood Atonement, perpetuity of polygamy, etc).

BUT now that you bring it up, the D&C HAS been altered numerous times. Some not so significant, and others including the deletion of entire sections (See the 1835 version of Sections 101 and 103).

And you keep asserting that anything outside the standard works is not doctrine even though any preliminary study of early LDS history would demonstrate that this was not the case. LDS doctrine includes much more than just what’s found in the standard works (including other church publications, Ensign, the “living oracles of God” and yes the Journal of Discourses prior to the LDS shying away from them).
Click to expand...
I have given you a quote and a link directly to statements to the contrary of what you have posted from the church itself.

If you want to keep asserting this stuff contrary to what the church has said, what can I do? What is the purpose of such an utterance? It, and consequently you, have no credibility whatsoever.

It would be like you posting something from the catechism and then me saying “oh-- no, Catholics don’t believe that.”

Great argument

I am not replying to you any more, it is a waste of time. Literally.
 
mfbukowski said:
I have given you a quote and a link directly to statements to the contrary of what you have posted from the church itself.

If you want to keep asserting this stuff contrary to what the church has said, what can I do? What is the purpose of such an utterance? It, and consequently you, have no credibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Just because the contemporary church has created this standard doesn’t mean the historical church followed it. In Brigham’s day you would be hard-pressed to find an LDS that didn’t believe in the “Cain curse”, “Blood Atonement” or “Adam-God”.

It seems, to me, that this standard of “Standard Works Only = Doctrine” is a reaction by the LDS church to itself having to prune doctrines that even today’s members don’t find palpable (but this of course is merely my personal speculation).
It would be like you posting something from the catechism and then me saying “oh-- no, Catholics don’t believe that.”
Click to expand...
It seems we’re talking past each other. I’m speaking about historical doctrines of the historical LDS church. I readily admit that you will not find any Mormons (except for maybe of the fundamentalist variety) that currently hold to these doctrines.

If I were to cite the catechism in order to, say, demonstrate what was taught in the 11th century Catholic Church, then you’d be right to question a 20th century document (the Catechism) with respect what was taught in the 11th century.
I am not replying to you any more, it is a waste of time. Literally.
Click to expand...
You promise? 😛

I’ve heard you threaten to leave CAF numerous times now in the last week. Something tells me its an idle threat and I’ll be happily hearing from you soon 😉

~Bryan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top