Clarification on Mormon Belief

[spockrates]

Let me quote you another verse by John which might interest you:

1 John 2:

20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

---

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

“Unction” is the same as anointing. The anointing referred to here means the anointing of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is such a powerful revelator that if you have it, you don’t need to ask any questions. It will tell you all that you need to know.

Yes, that helps. That is that for which I’m looking! I want desperately to receive the anointing of the Holy Ghost and His confirmation of the truth.



But I’m confused. You see, you and Parker say that you have this anointing of the Holy Ghost, and that this anointing confirms that truth of the Book of Mormon. Marie says (and I suppose MT would say the same) that she has the Holy Ghost, too. However, the Holy Ghost confirms to her that the Catholic Church is the true Church. I’ve met many Evangelicals who say they are certain the Holy Ghost has anointed them, and that this Holy Ghost confirms to them that the Bible is true, and the Book of Mormon is false, and that the LDS and Catholic Churches are apostate!

Me, at the moment I don’t know who to believe any more. But I do know this: Logic tells me that if any one of the three kinds of people is correct, then there are two possibilities:

1. 
   *]Two of the three are deceived and have not really received confirmation from the Holy Ghost
   *]The Holy Ghost has anointed all three, but is deceiving at least two of them
   
   Which possibility do you think is the truth? or do you have a third possibility I have not considered?
   
   

 

[catholic-rcia]

I have written this to fast, have to go to Mass. Sorry for spelling, grammer etc…
If something is confusing I could take the time tonight to clear it up.

Saying that Communion is just a remembrance of Christ’s Last Supper has whispers of great deception. Jesus said “do this in remembrance of me’ But what is it we are remembering, what is the “this” that we are remembering, that we are doing?

Is it to remember that Jesus gave the twelve bread and water? What kind of miracle would that be? This daily bread we recieve? What is it that a priest does at Mass?
It is precisely what Jesus asked this Priest to do, it has been done for 2000 years. Again it is the very reason one from the LDS faith can even whisper the name of Jesus. Jesus gave us Himself body, blood soul and divinity to nourish us in the faith, into Him. Read the whole chapter of John…the miracles over nature herself.

For two thousand years thousand have died doing this in memory of Him. Willing to pick up their cross and follow risking “ALL”. For Him.

When I found the Catholic faith it was the account of the fall of mankind that really helped me see an important differenece between 2000 years of Apostolic succession compared to the almost 200 year old Mormon Church. As a child the LDS would not call themselves Christians, they wanted to be called Mormons as they knew of the differences and were not ashamed to say…we are not Christians. But this was not helping in the growth , in the numbers as time marched on.

There is no difference between changing the dates of the so called Apostacy or saying did God really say He would give you His blood and Body to eat?, no He really said this….then comes the changes

Did God really say Jesus was His only Son?

Or as I here here in Utah, did you not know that the Trinity was invented?

Or why Can’t God once have been a man just like you.

Or what Happened in the Garden of Eden was a good thing

This all comes out of thinking as God as if He were a part of His creation rather than being Creation itself. The catechism with the scriptures to back it up tell the story of the fall in great measure.

As a Catholic I see this fallen nature in me clearly, the Sacraments keep me close to Jesus.

As a Church, a community I see this fallen nature as well. Its why we all go…to be close to Jesus to help us with this dilemma.

The LDS Church is built upon
Did God really say you should not eat from the Tree in the Middle of the garden?
Don’t you know when you do you will be like Him…a god?

We all did eat from it and we all do die as a result because God told us the truth, but we were seduced by the devil into believing we could have Gods power in our own right.

The LDS will tell you that yes God did not mean what He was saying. And yes Satan was correct.

Salvation is all about coming to the realization that we will never be a God. All the stories are about Gods creation leaving Him in search of self, then when this seach proves futile like the Prodigal son we return to Him, through Jesus He brings us back to Him so that we can once again live in the garden without ever wanting to leave again. Being there giving all praise and Glory to God will sustain us forever. We will have more eternal joy than we could ever imagine. Its not about becoming a God…its all about returning to our sole creator. Jesus does this for us through His death and resurrection.

This is all about the fall
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm

[397](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/397.htm’) Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
[398](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/398.htm’) In that sin man *preferred *himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279 399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

 

[ParkerD]

Catholic-RCIA,
I am making a supposition that you have written the last post here in response to me, so I suppose I should answer. First, you have so many wrong ideas about LDS teachings but it’s OK with me that you have found what works for you in your life, even though you rejected a laundry list of things that do not represent LDS teachings at all. The idea that LDS wanted to be called “Mormons” rather than “Christians” is absurd, unless you’re speaking of a specific group somewhere where the community associated the word “Christian” with a specific “church” within that community.

Your final paragraph brings in a completely wrong idea about the fall of Adam and Eve, and its wrongness can be easily detected from the Bible, but not by one who merely picks out a few verses and builds their major theology on the writings of others besides the apostles and prophets and the words of Christ. There have already been several threads on that topic, and at this point it feels like a waste of time to go into it again. But have a good and peaceful Sabbath Day, and a blessed Christmas season.

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM,
I suppose you may notice that following our brief discussion, a Catholic reader posted the specific reference from Ignatius, within a few posts. I had read it before, and read it again Saturday morning as I followed the link that Jay53 cited. I was gone all day after having posted my early-on comments. I think it is very significant that Ignatius made mention of the fact that some were “abstaining” and the reason why.

Thanks ParkerD for bringing it to my attention.

The important thing when reading any letter such as Ignatius’ “Letter to the Smyrnaeans” is to know who is being spoken to (who is this “they”?), and what that party believes. This will help us understand why “they abstain from from the Eucharist…because they do not profess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…”. Was it because they believed that the Eucharist was merely a symbol of some sort only/only a spiritual presence (which I assume is your position, as I assume you are trying to show this as a remnant faction of believers in the true doctrine, whereas the Real Presence is a corruption), or was it because of a wider divergent view on who Jesus Christ was/is?

When we actually learn about who Ignatius was addressing, we see that it’s the latter. Ignatius (and Tertullian, Irenaeus, Serapion, and others) addressed in this letter a Christological heresy held by the “Docetists”. Docetism (Greek meaning “appearance”) posits that Jesus Christ was not actually human and did not have a body when He incarnated on this earth, but that it was an “appearance” or illusion. They therefore denied the reality of the crucifixion of the Lord, and that Jesus only “seemed” to suffer (also addressed briefly in Ignatius’ letter). Docetism is associated with Gnosticism, both of which see matter as evil/corrupt, therefore they deny that God would actually take on human form.

From this, we can see that in Ignatius’ Letter to the Smyrnaeans (as well as his Letter to the Trallians), he is referencing a number of the beliefs of a group known as the Docetists. They denied that matter was good, and denied that the Son actually became human on earth, instead believing that it was just an illusion, therefore denying the reality of the suffering of Christ, as well as the crucifixion. They of course denied that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, because they denied that Christ had a body in the first place. Going back to my main point of wanting to know why “they” abstained from the Eucharist, it is because of their denial of the reality of the Incarnation.

With the Early Church Fathers, it is always best to go back to the context of the passage, and understand who is being addressed. This helps us understand the viewpoints being presented.

 

[spockrates]

The Lord some times likes to test us in those ways so see what kind of metal we are made of.

Yes, I suppose this might be a test. It has certainly open the door to other possibilities besides Evangelicalism.

 

[spockrates]

Give us some examples.

Well, I gave one example here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6004114&postcount=253

Another example:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

(Matthew 26:26)

Catholics tell me Christ meant this:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my [actual] body.

Evangelicals tell me He really meant this:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is [like] my body.

Again, Jesus words are sometimes ambiguous (they can be interpreted to have different and even contrary meanings). How do I know what meaning is the real meaning He intended?

…

But make sure you don’t fall into the trap that Paul described (prophecied!): “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth”
(2 Timothy 3:7).

Agreed!

I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

What about the prophecies (predictions of the future) Isaiah made of Christ (e.g., Isaiah, chapter 53)? The Dead Sea Scrolls were penned before Christ was born, so they could not possibly be written after the fact, could they?

I gave you one example in post #358. If you want more here is another:

Yes, I missed that one until today. But please see my reply here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6018829&postcount=379

 

[spockrates]

Zerinus:

Don’t feel as though you need to reply to every reply, if you don’t want to do so! (I don’t want to take too much of your time.)



Currently, I see three branches in our discussion:

1. 
   *]My answering your questions about why I trust the Bible
   *]Your answering my questions about why I should trust the Book of Mormon
   *]Your answering my questions about how one knows one is not deceived
   
   Regarding the latter, I’m most interested in your reply to this post:
   
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6018895&postcount=380
   
   As this is the question that I most want to answer for myself. The answer to (3) I think will help me see the answer to (2) too.
   
   

 

[zerinus]

Yes, I agree that both are prophecies! Thank you!



Regarding the second prediction of the future, was it not already in the Bible before Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon? Regarding the first, was it not a prediction of the future already known and experienced by Joseph Smith?

Not exactly. The fulfillment of that prophecy came after the publication of the Book of Mormon. But I suppose you could argue that it is something that he could have easily predicted—in the same way that Moses’ prophecy of the future rebelliousness of the Israelites is something that he could have easily predicted!—

I find a third prophecy:

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.
13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.

I’m guessing that the Nephites are those Jewish people who crossed the Atlantic and landed in the Americas, and that these people were visited by Jesus Christ (please correct me if I’m wrong).

That is right—except that the Nephites were mainly of the tribe of Manasseh rather than of Judah.

Are there any surviving copies of these writings of the Nephites? Such evidence would do as much to boost my faith in the Book of Mormon as the Dead Sea Scrolls did to boost my faith in the Book of Isaiah, I believe.

Let me ask you a question first: Are you saying that if the dead sea scrolls had not been discovered, that you would have had no faith in the book of Isaiah?

 

[Marie5890]

You see, you and Parker say that you have this anointing of the Holy Ghost, and that this anointing confirms that truth of the Book of Mormon. Marie says (and I suppose MT would say the same) that she has the Holy Ghost, too. However, the Holy Ghost confirms to her that the Catholic Church is the true Church.

I need to make a very distinct clarification here. (something I have alluded to in the past)

I have faith that the Catholic Church is founded and was founded by Jesus Christ.

“Truth” is concept that falls in the domain of my doubts. How is “truth” defined? I certainly dont know if it lacks factual data.

Like I have said…My faith and doubts go hand in hand…

I dont toss around the word “truth” easily. I find it misleading.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, that helps. That is that for which I’m looking! I want desperately to receive the anointing of the Holy Ghost and His confirmation of the truth.



But I’m confused. You see, you and Parker say that you have this anointing of the Holy Ghost, and that this anointing confirms that truth of the Book of Mormon. Marie says (and I suppose MT would say the same) that she has the Holy Ghost, too. However, the Holy Ghost confirms to her that the Catholic Church is the true Church. I’ve met many Evangelicals who say they are certain the Holy Ghost has anointed them, and that this Holy Ghost confirms to them that the Bible is true, and the Book of Mormon is false, and that the LDS and Catholic Churches are apostate!

Me, at the moment I don’t know who to believe any more. But I do know this: Logic tells me that if any one of the three kinds of people is correct, then there are two possibilities:

1. *]Two of the three are deceived and have not really received confirmation from the Holy Ghost
   *]The Holy Ghost has anointed all three, but is deceiving at least two of them
   
   Which possibility do you think is the truth? or do you have a third possibility I have not considered?
   
   

1. 
   I think a third possibility is that one or two of the three are lying, and are out to deceive. But I think that the Holy Ghost only reveals the truth, and cannot deceive anyone.

 

[Marie5890]

I think a third possibility is that one or two of the three are lying, and are out to deceive. But I think that the Holy Ghost only reveals the truth, and cannot deceive anyone.

Wouldnt it be helpful if the Holy Spirit, besides revealing “truth” would reveal facts as well… LOL

 

[zerinus]

Yes, I suppose this might be a test. It has certainly open the door to other possibilities besides Evangelicalism.

Evangelicalism is a fake religion; I don’t recommend it!

 

[spockrates]

I think a third possibility is that one or two of the three are lying, and are out to deceive. But I think that the Holy Ghost only reveals the truth, and cannot deceive anyone.

Regarding the former, that is true! However, I’m speaking of those who are sincere, yet sincerely wrong, or deceived, but deceived into thinking they are not.

Regarding the latter, I completely agree! As the writer of Hebrews puts it:

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.

(Hebrews 6:18)

Since it is impossible for God to lie (and deceive), and since God is omniscient (and cannot be self-deceived), do you think that those who do not know they are deceiving are deceived into thinking they are not deceived?

 

[spockrates]

Evangelicalism is a fake religion; I don’t recommend it!

LOL! Agreed!

Having spent years as an Evangelical, I would not recommend it, either.



There is much good in Evangelicalism, but what most convinced me they were in error is their shared idea that people are condemned to hell if they are deceived. You, Parker, Marie, MT, and others here are all hell-bent, they’d tell me, even though you don’t know it. To condemn someone to outer darkness (to use a Mormon term, I think) forever seems to me cruel and unusual punishment, and out of character for a just and merciful God. Don’t you think?

 

[zerinus]

Well, I gave one example here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6004114&postcount=253

I think I showed that the Mormon interpretation of that passage agrees largely with the historical Christian as well as the Orthodox interpretation. It is the Catholics who are out on a limb on that one.

Another example:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

(Matthew 26:26)

Catholics tell me Christ meant this:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my [actual] body.

Evangelicals tell me He really meant this:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is [like] my body.

I think a lot of those ambiguities get resolved when you conduct a deeper study of the scriptures, and especially when you receive the Holy Spirit as promised by the Savior, which will then “led you to all truth”. Believe it or not, one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon and other LDS revelations is to clarify many of those ambiguities. After becoming acquainted with the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures, you won’t have any ambiguities left in your mind about the meaning of the Lord about eating His flesh and blood.

Again, Jesus words are sometimes ambiguous (they can be interpreted to have different and even contrary meanings). How do I know what meaning is the real meaning He intended?

See above.

What about the prophecies (predictions of the future) Isaiah made of Christ (e.g., Isaiah, chapter 53)? The Dead Sea Scrolls were penned before Christ was born, so they could not possibly be written after the fact, could they?

Those prophecies are sufficiently ambiguous that they can be understood in different ways—by those who do not want to believe in the New Testament interpretations of them.

 

[Jerusha]

LOL!.. To condemn someone to outer darkness (to use a Mormon term, I think) forever seems to me cruel and unusual punishment, and out of character for a just and merciful God. Don’t you think?

Those who dichotomize God’s reward into heaven and hell truly do believe in a cruel God.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

Don’t feel as though you need to reply to every reply, if you don’t want to do so! (I don’t want to take too much of your time.)

Have no fears about me. I find discussing the gospel a good way of spending one’s time. I think it is better entertainment than watching television!

Currently, I see three branches in our discussion:

1. 
   *]My answering your questions about why I trust the Bible
   *]Your answering my questions about why I should trust the Book of Mormon
   *]Your answering my questions about how one knows one is not deceived

1. 
   

   Regarding the latter, I’m most interested in your reply to this post:

   forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6018895&postcount=380

   As this is the question that I most want to answer for myself. The answer to (3) I think will help me see the answer to (2) too.

   

   Thank you. I agree. I again remind you of the promise that the Lord himself made to his disciples, that after His death He would send them the Holy Ghost, who would lead them to all truth. That is the most reliable way of ensuring that one is not deceived.

 

[zerinus]

Regarding the former, that is true! However, I’m speaking of those who are sincere, yet sincerely wrong, or deceived, but deceived into thinking they are not.

Regarding the latter, I completely agree! As the writer of Hebrews puts it:

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.

(Hebrews 6:18)
Since it is impossible for God to lie (and deceive), and since God is omniscient (and cannot be self-deceived), do you think that those who do not know they are deceiving are deceived into thinking they are not deceived?

I suppose that is one way of putting it. However, I believe that when someone is deceived, he only has himself to blame for being deceived, otherwise there would be no condemnation for being deceived. I suppose I should qualify that by saying—after the truth has been presented to them in an authoritative way. There are many people whose beliefs are incorrect because they have been born into a certain tradition, and they don’t know any better, or the truth has not been presented to them. They are not condemned. The condemnation arises when they have the truth preached to them by the power of the Holy Ghost, and they reject it. Then they have no excuse.

 

[zerinus]

LOL! Agreed!

Having spent years as an Evangelical, I would not recommend it, either.



There is much good in Evangelicalism, but what most convinced me they were in error is their shared idea that people are condemned to hell if they are deceived. You, Parker, Marie, MT, and others here are all hell-bent, they’d tell me, even though you don’t know it. To condemn someone to outer darkness (to use a Mormon term, I think) forever seems to me cruel and unusual punishment, and out of character for a just and merciful God. Don’t you think?

I entirely agree; and that is not the only thing that is wrong with Evangelicalism.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Your final paragraph brings in a completely wrong idea about the fall of Adam and Eve, and its wrongness can be easily detected from the Bible.

Where am I wrong?
Man was in / created in Gods perfect Grace (Love). Deceived by the devil mankind wants this grace in his own right. Chord is severed, mankind dies, looses mortality.

Jesus dies in the place of man in order to save /redeem mankind. As only God / Creator can do this. Mankind dies in Jesus (Baptism) with Jesus in order to be raised back into perfect grace, perfect communion with the Father.

Why does this have to happen this way? Because man is not God and God does not make mankind His puppet or His slave. He gives us free choice to choose Him or ourselves. Because man has to find out his creaturely stasis, where his or her life comes from and then desire to completely submit to it, to perfect love forever.

Because Jesus is God the eternal Son He is the only one that can save us, get us back to the garden. (By His Cross)
http://utahmission.com/pages/Cross_scripture.html

He is the Tree of Life. We are given this life, we are not this life…He is

Where am I wrong here?
What more do you have to offer me than the desire to be with Jesus forever? I received this desire through His Church.