Could The Mormon Church Be The "true Church" Of Christ

[mfbukowski]

I’ve never heard a Mormon describe that belief before. All I have heard has been distinctly more polytheistic, involved closer equality, endless progressions of “Gods,” or more general uncertainty about the matter.

That sounds similar to how we would describe it, except perhaps for some of this notion of “progression.” We were created “like” God. We become “as” gods in that we fulfill our original creation in His image and likeness. The actual amount of similarity is not really known, since “like” can imply many things. It is sufficient to say that when we are purified and welcomed into God’s presence, and particularly at the Second Resurrection when we inherit our glorified bodies, we will seem so much greater than our original mortal selves that we, in our current frame of reference, would describe the glorified man “as a god.” This leaves plenty of room, as you say, for all the infinite superiority of God (and the reason for the capital and lowercase letters to make the distinction in English).

I’m still not sure about your notion of “progression.” If you want to call “progression” our life, death, immediate judgment, purgation, entrance into the beatific vision/heaven, and final judgment/second resurrection, I think I could agree. The term implies to me some sort of mean gnostic or buddhist-like advancement that is in many ways rather focused on self-progression or self-enlightenment.

We were going well there until the last paragraph. Not sure what you mean there. Sounds like you are ending with resurrection. Not sure what “second resurrection” is.

We can get into this in a deeper way (put it on the list but yes, this is the idea. We add to the glory of our Father by becoming like him. So to me it is like “progressive theosis” where we all move “forward” eternally progressing, but our relative positions if you will stay the same. Of course all this makes only limited sense to us now, and it is in the realm of “speculation” and is in principle unknowable really. But this much of the notion is pretty clear – that any “glory” we could attain adds to His glory.

 

[mfbukowski]

Regarding the Eucharist

I just addressed this issue on MADB

mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=41144&st=60&gopid=1208591356&#entry1208591356
When you look at Cyril of Jerusalem, the difference is not all that clear.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So because some yayhoo posts something on some blog, that means that this is doctrine? Want me to show you some “catholic” sites? What about the “traditional catholic” movement that says that dead babies go to hell?

You will stop at nothing and have no objectivity or ethics whatsoever. You and Jack Chick are cut out of the same mold exactly. There is not even a pretense of fairness or honesty. Unbelievable.

I never said doctrine, and the conversation is not about doctrine.

BELIEF

I showed you what some, or many, Mormons believe.

You sure like to talk about Jack Chick. That is a LDS blog, with LDS who responded.

Amazing! Perhaps you should post a response to that blog about how all those Mormons are anti-Mormon.

Mormons talking about what they believe. = Jack Chick

Amazing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Regarding the Eucharist

I just addressed this issue on MADB

mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=41144&st=60&gopid=1208591356&#entry1208591356
When you look at Cyril of Jerusalem, the difference is not all that clear.

Keep stumbling around in the dark, you might eventually find the light switch.

 

[alanjeddy]

alanjeddy:

You are absolutely correct Ross. MEgus is a very weak child-like debater. He can not answer my Bread of Life arguments because they are scriptually correct. Jesus listeners were scandalized. They asked themselves in John 6 “How can He give us His flesh to eat?” Again, and Megus fails to realize, that they would not have left Jesus if He were speaking symbollically.Jesus also would have called them back! But what did our Lord do? He asked His own apostles if they were going to leave Him too!

Any other mormons out there who would like to debate John 6.
Without starting in Genesis? If MEgus is the best you’ve got you guys are in trouble. I based my defense of the Real Presence within John 6. Now one of you Mormons prove me wrong using only what I used, John 6. Bet you can’t do it?

How about it mfbukowski, can you pinch hit for MEgus, he’s in a slump…

 

[mfbukowski]

I never said doctrine, and the conversation is not about doctrine.

BELIEF

I showed you what some, or many, Mormons believe.

Unbelievable! So let’s do a thread on Catholics who believe in images of Mary on cheese sandwiches.

Who cares what “many” “Anythings” believe? Many people believe in bigfoot.

Many people can’t read and are ignorant. It seems like at least some of those people are right here. No, I guess most here can read. Spelling and grammar are other issues.

The whole point of this is to discuss Catholic doctrine and compare it to Mormon Doctrine!

 

[mfbukowski]

How about it mfbukowski, can you pinch hit for MEgus, he’s in a slump…

I have already done it-- look up the thread on John 6 from about a month ago. Maybe less. I think there is one going right now.

 

[mfbukowski]

Regarding my views on the eucharist:

forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=2551103&pp=50&page=5

Jan 23rd 2009-- starts the first post, toward the bottom of the page

Or if you want to read the whole thread, here it is:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=303024

 

[Arandur]

We were going well there until the last paragraph. Not sure what you mean there. Sounds like you are ending with resurrection. Not sure what “second resurrection” is.

“Second resurrection” may not be the best term for it. I’m referring to the resurrection of the body at Christ’s second coming. “First” resurrection being our entrance into eternal life after our physical death here on earth.

We can get into this in a deeper way (put it on the list but yes, this is the idea. We add to the glory of our Father by becoming like him. So to me it is like “progressive theosis” where we all move “forward” eternally progressing, but our relative positions if you will stay the same. Of course all this makes only limited sense to us now, and it is in the realm of “speculation” and is in principle unknowable really. But this much of the notion is pretty clear – that any “glory” we could attain adds to His glory.

I think I agree, except I would quibble over the idea of “adding” to God’s glory, for it is infinite and can’t be added to. I would prefer the term “sharing in” His glory. As a king appoints a servant to some position of power, a power that the king already had but is sharing with the servant. Except in this case, the king is fully able to exercise that office that He is giving away because of His omniscience and omnipotence; He still gives the office to share His glory.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Unbelievable! So let’s do a thread on Catholics who believe in images of Mary on cheese sandwiches.

Who cares what “many” “Anythings” believe? Many people believe in bigfoot.

Many people can’t read and are ignorant. It seems like at least some of those people are right here. No, I guess most here can read. Spelling and grammar are other issues.

The whole point of this is to discuss Catholic doctrine and compare it to Mormon Doctrine!

I know it is hard for you to keep up bukowski.

alanjeddy,

How about a better approach. You go to www.mormon.org or www.lds.org and do some research on **what we actually believe **and come back and let us know what you quoted that was wrong. Then I will know your serious and we’ll talk about what you quoted that is right if you disagree with our beliefs.

MEgus

Bold emphasis mine. This is how this conversation started.

This has been followed by citings of numerous of your prophets and apostles explaining how God had sex with Mary. As well as, Mormons themselves talking about this amongst themselves.

As for doctrine, yes, your prophets claimed what they were teaching was doctrine.

You have yet to address this. Telling me about Catholics who see visions in toast is not comparable. The Pope never proclaimed that God is in toast, and that it is a doctrine that PEOPLE HAVE TO BELIEVE. And you won’t find people teaching about visions of toast in Catholic religious education, as though it were a great sacred secret that we “like the idea of” amongst ourselves while telling every non-Catholic “it isn’t doctrine”.

Not to mention, on the level of importance, visions in toast compared to the blasphemy of God having sexual intercourse with Mary!!! Are you BLIND?

So your church doesn’t have it at it’s website and you claim it isn’t doctrine. It does not change the facts. Mormons believe this, your prophets and apostles have taught it, and Mormons today teach it to each other. HOW ELSE DO YOU THINK THESE BELIEFS CAME ABOUT and remain circulating in your wards?

Ad hominems, avoiding what people actually post and talking about toast, doesn’t change the facts of what Mormons actually BELIEVE. Which is entirely based on what your church has TAUGHT.

 

[mfbukowski]

“Second resurrection” may not be the best term for it. I’m referring to the resurrection of the body at Christ’s second coming. “First” resurrection being our entrance into eternal life after our physical death here on earth.

I think I agree, except I would quibble over the idea of “adding” to God’s glory, for it is infinite and can’t be added to. I would prefer the term “sharing in” His glory. As a king appoints a servant to some position of power, a power that the king already had but is sharing with the servant. Except in this case, the king is fully able to exercise that office that He is giving away because of His omniscience and omnipotence; He still gives the office to share His glory.

Perhaps it is not an accident that God is seen as a feudal lord in a church that was so strong in the middle ages.

I think the analogy of children is better than servents. Imagine a “dynasty” where no one dies and all the members are perfectly devoted to being perfect parents and all who see their work and their glory to bring to pass the glory of their children. Who would not want their children to have all that they have, and have no other purpose in existence than sharing with their children?

Perhaps that is the difference. Our concept of God is that he shares with us. Your concept is that we share with him. Two sides of the same coin, but a small difference.

I know you are into physics. What does it mean that the universe is expanding? Into what? Does it have an end? How can it expand?

What if something that is big as it can be gets bigger? Organic growth is perhaps a model. What is a “perfect” oak tree? One that has stopped growing?

Greek philosophy sees “perfect” as complete and unchanging. But processes can also be perfect. The idea that a human being with all that potential can grow from two cells is a pretty perfect process to me.

What is a perfect river? One that does not flow?

To really understand it requires a major paradigm shift. But the reality is, there is nothing unchanging in the universe.

 

[mfbukowski]

I know it is hard for you to keep up bukowski.

Bold emphasis mine. This is how this conversation started.

This has been followed by citings of numerous of your prophets and apostles explaining how God had sex with Mary. As well as, Mormons themselves talking about this amongst themselves.

As for doctrine, yes, your prophets claimed what they were teaching was doctrine.

You have yet to address this. Telling me about Catholics who see visions in toast is not comparable. The Pope never proclaimed that God is in toast, and that it is a doctrine that PEOPLE HAVE TO BELIEVE. And you won’t find people teaching about visions of toast in Catholic religious education, as though it were a great sacred secret that we “like the idea of” amongst ourselves while telling every non-Catholic “it isn’t doctrine”.

Not to mention, on the level of importance, visions in toast compared to the blasphemy of God having sexual intercourse with Mary!!! Are you BLIND?

So your church doesn’t have it at it’s website and you claim it isn’t doctrine. It does not change the facts. Mormons believe this, your prophets and apostles have taught it, and Mormons today teach it to each other. HOW ELSE DO YOU THINK THESE BELIEFS CAME ABOUT and remain circulating in your wards?

Ad hominems, avoiding what people actually post and talking about toast, doesn’t change the facts of what Mormons actually BELIEVE. Which is entirely based on what your church has TAUGHT.

There is no end of this with you. This discussion is not progressing, in fact if anything it is deteriorating to an even lower point than the beginning.

 

[Just_Returned]

Your opinion is noted.

You are incorrect about when the 'church was started." It was officially organized on April 6, 1830. If the rest of the information you gleaned from wherever you looked this up is as sloppy about facts as that, you might want to go to a different source to find out about the church.

lds.org, for instance.

Up to you, of course.

As well, our claim isn’t that Jesus 'waited that long to start he church" (sic). It is that He organized HIs church while He was on the earth in mortal life; that there was an apostasy and the priesthood authority was lost, and He 'waited that long" to RESTORE IT.

Now you are quite welcome to your opinion about whether or not you think He would have ‘waited that long,’ but that’s irrelevant. He either did, or didn’t. I’m not going to dictate to Him what he should have done instead.

Diana

First I want to say that I have a few Friends that are Mormon. In general I have found that Mormons are very nice people, devoted to one and other, devoted to good works and Charity. I find them devout and committed as opposed to the Apathetic Catholic Parrish that I go to every Sunday. Although The People of The Parrish are Very Charitable.

However.
In the NT Jesus founds his Church on Simon and changes his Name to Peter the Rock.
Jesus PRAYS to the Father that his Apostles would Remain ONE as he and the Father are One.
Jesus also PROMISES that he will be with HIS Church Until the end of time.

So either the Catholic Church, who can trace back the Papacy and it’s Apostolic Authority 2000 years, IS the Church Founded by Jesus,
OR Jesus’s prayer to the Father was worthless and not answered, and Jesus was a Liar when he promised to be with the Church He formed until the end of time?

Just like the question of Jesus’s Divinity? Either he was In FACT The Incarnation of the Living God, or he was a Madman and the Greatest deceiver ever? God left no room for Jesus to be described as a only a Teacher, only a Rabbi, only a Prophet, only a Philosopher, etc.

The Choice IS One or the Other. not you have this opinion and I have that opinion???

I say Jesus is the Incarnation and the Ressurection, and the Fullness of Christianity is Found in HIS Church founded on the Rock, Our first Pope, Peter. He IS who he said he was and he DID and always DOES what he said he is going to do.

I’m NOT saying this becuase I want to pound my chest with vain Pride saying I’m right you’re wrong. I’m just using reason and logic, based on the Truths of Sacred Scripture to foster an atmosphere of truth.

My Mormon friends have never tried to convert me, nor I convert them. I Know I can’t force a person to believe as I believe. But I can plant the seeds of truth and let the Holy Spirit do the rest and lead by example.

 

[alanjeddy]

Unbelievable! So let’s do a thread on Catholics who believe in images of Mary on cheese sandwiches.

Who cares what “many” “Anythings” believe? Many people believe in bigfoot.

Many people can’t read and are ignorant. It seems like at least some of those people are right here. No, I guess most here can read. Spelling and grammar are other issues.

The whole point of this is to discuss Catholic doctrine and compare it to Mormon Doctrine!

If I were you I would be careful of what I am saying about Jesus 'mother. I see like MEgus you too are leaving John 6. Not surprising.

 

[alanjeddy]

I have already done it-- look up the thread on John 6 from about a month ago. Maybe less. I think there is one going right now.

Come on we all know you are hiding I dare you right now take the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 and give us all a compelling, persuasive, apologetic reply to why you feel that Jesus was speaking metaphorically or symbolically. There are over 3,000 people reading this thread. Here’s your opportunity.

 

[alanjeddy]

John 6 Unless you eat the flesh (original Greek text uses the word TORGO= to eat or gnaw on flesh) and drink the blood of the son of man you have no life in you. Mormons and most Protestants believe that Christ was talking metaphorically. A symbolic presence. The question is then why did His listening Jewish audience leave him. Would they even have left Him if He were talking symbolically? Jesus never called them back.He could read their minds and He knew what they were thinking. Instead He asked his Apostles: “Are you going to leave me too?”

Then for the 3rd time He repeated; " He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will not die… Jesus said what He meant and He meant what He said…

Another call to any mormon to stay in John 6 and refute Jesus real Presence in the Eucharist. To all our readers I am telling you that our mormon friends will rationalize and come up with myriad excuses. A sad commentary.

 

[Stephen168]

After reviewing Posts 299-301, 304, 308, and 309, it is clear Rebecca is correct.

There is no end of this with you. This discussion is not progressing, in fact if anything it is deteriorating to an even lower point than the beginning.

If what you mean is you have been unable to hide the truth about what Mormon authority has taught, then yes you are correct.

I think Paul Dupre summarized the Mormon position well in posts 304 & 309.

I’m not sure what this has to do with the topic of the thread. To answer that question we should compare the Church Christ established with the organization Joseph Smith started

 

[mfbukowski]

Come on we all know you are hiding I dare you right now take the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6 and give us all a compelling, persuasive, apologetic reply to why you feel that Jesus was speaking metaphorically or symbolically. There are over 3,000 people reading this thread. Here’s your opportunity.

What’s your problem? Do you want me to repaste a whole thread?

Look at post 407. If you’re not going to read the thread dont respond.

 

[mfbukowski]

I have already shown that Mormons believe in the virgin birth.
A virgin is one who has not had sexual intercourse.

The very people whom you have accused of this belief have said that they believe in the virgin birth, which is referenced repeatedly in the Book of Mormon.

I have given you the references, I have posted all that is necessary for an honest person to read what we believe and come to their own conclusions. There is no point in carrying this on. I have posted what I believe about the Eucharist by way of links to a thread from just a few weeks ago.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing else here to discuss.

 

[alanjeddy]

I have already shown that Mormons believe in the virgin birth.
A virgin is one who has not had sexual intercourse.

The very people whom you have accused of this belief have said that they believe in the virgin birth, which is referenced repeatedly in the Book of Mormon.

I have given you the references, I have posted all that is necessary for an honest person to read what we believe and come to their own conclusions. There is no point in carrying this on. I have posted what I believe about the Eucharist by way of links to a thread from just a few weeks ago.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing else here to discuss.

To the readers of this thread I rest my case. MEgus and then Bukowski were given a chance to respond, side by side, with my post #337 and #380.  They refused. I asked them both to prove me wrong staying in John 6.  I go on Mormon chat rooms and they can't even respond. They grasp at straws and take something out of the Book of Mormon in a failed attempt to corroberate their interpretation. With this post I am moving on.

My work is done here. God Bless you, God love you and goodbye.