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

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski;4754649:

When I came back to the Catholic Church there was much I disagreed with. Being a student of History, the Fact that Jesus founded ONE Church and that Church Is in Fact the Catholic Church is Undisputed.

Depends on who’s history you read. You should know better than to accept one source which is biased.

 

[mfbukowski]

Believing in stories like Limbo? I suppose believing other things is fine, as long as those other things present no conflict with doctrine. If the story of Limbo made some people comfortable at some point in time in history, fine. More recently (in the 70’s I think it was, but maybe the late 60’s) it was declared not to have ever truly existed. .

I learned about it in the 50’s. And you prove my point.

“It was declared not to have ever truly existed”

Poof. Limbo’s gone. Sounds like a “change” to me, call it what you will.

 

[mfbukowski]

Forgot to say ~ the essentials of the Immaculate Conception are pretty easy. The Church pondered it for a very long time before announcing it as doctrine. This is not to say it was “new”. But at the announcement it was formalized.

In its essence, the Immaculate Conception acknowledges that in preparation for the Incarnation, God made Mary sinless, without the stain of Original Sin and she remained sinless thereafter during her life. It makes perfect sense that God could only inhabit a Holy place, including Mary’s womb. Hence, Mary was made that way, without sin.

Is she divine? No. God made her sinless, but she is still human. She is not sinless by her own power but only through the grace and power of God. She is not worshiped but she is obviously revered as the Mother of Jesus.

Others have quoted scriptural references that point to the Immaculate Conception, mine is just the every-day explanation.

Essentially, it puts Mary on the same level as Christ – not in divinity, but as another being who never sinned and was conceived without original sin.

And where is this found in the bible? I mean just since you believe that all truth is found in the bible and just “grew” out of biblical doctrines. What biblical doctrine did this grow out of? Without changing the doctrine of course.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I learned about it in the 50’s. And you prove my point.

“It was declared not to have ever truly existed”

Poof. Limbo’s gone. Sounds like a “change” to me, call it what you will.

Since it wasn’t a change in doctrine, it doesn’t prove any point you’ve attempted to make. So maybe NOW you’re just being contrary?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Essentially, it puts Mary on the same level as Christ – not in divinity, but as another being who never sinned and was conceived without original sin.

And where is this found in the bible? I mean just since you believe that all truth is found in the bible and just “grew” out of biblical doctrines. What biblical doctrine did this grow out of? Without changing the doctrine of course.

The Biblical cites are within this thread. Scroll up.

I don’t know where you get the idea of “since you believe that all truth is found in the bible”. That’s simply not true and you have no basis for asserting it. Catholics have much more than the Bible to rely on for truth and you know this.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception doesn’t put Mary on the same level as Christ because, as I said in the previous post, she was not sinless on her own but by the grace and power of God.

It’s tiresome having to make these corrections over and over Bukowski, especially when we all know that you know better.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I learned about it in the 50’s. And you prove my point.

“It was declared not to have ever truly existed”

Poof. Limbo’s gone. Sounds like a “change” to me, call it what you will.

getting back on tread LDS authorities went to the Christian Bible in an attempt to prove their theory. Here are the texts they have chosen:

Matthew 24: 4-5
“Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ: and shall deceive MANY.”
II Thessalonians 2:3
“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there be a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (This text has absolutely nothing to do with apostasy a la LDS which supposedly took place centuries ago. Here Paul writes of the second coming of Christ at the end time, something that has not occurred as yet.)

I Tim. 1 19
“Holding faith, and a good conscience; which SOME having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck.”

II Peter 2: 1-3
“But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their perncious ways.”

II Peter 3:6
“…in which are some things hard to be understood, which they THAT ARE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE wrest as they do also the other scriptures unto their own destruction.”

. Now it does not take a great deal of perception to see that these texts refer to persons, individual members of the Church who will, for one reason or another, leave Christ’s Church. In no way do they even hint of the total collapse of the Church itself, the organization, and its disappearance from this earth. The organization is one thing; the people who join it another.

. There were apostasies from Christ during His own life time. A well-known incident of this occurred right after His teaching on the Eucharist. John 6: 66 tells us what happened:

“From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.”
Then there was the apostasy of Judas. Did all this spell the end of Christ and the remainder of His little band of followers? By no means.

. Thus the texts quoted by the LDS simply refer to one fact: there were already members falling away from Christ during His own life time and that of the Apostles. Knowing human nature He predicted that scandals among His followers would come, indeed had to come! (Matthew 18:8)

There was then no “Total Apostasy.” There could not have been as the Bible so clearly points out in our answer to the next question as to what Jesus had to say about the durability of His Church.

 

[mfbukowski]

Yet:
a: there are some (make that quite a few) Catholics who believe in Limbo. (for example.)
b. I am aware that there are no “Mormon Catholics” or “Catholic Mormons” and that the Catholic church does not accept LDS baptisms. We don’t accept yours, either. I don’t know what this has to do with the topic, but I am aware…though…
c. I thought that once a Catholic is baptized, that baptism is not ‘removable?’ So I guess I’ll have to amend that: there might be Catholic Mormons, since “once a Catholic, always a Catholic,” but Mormons don’t see it that way–you can’t be a Mormon Catholic. …

It’s very much a double standard…and if Bro. Bukowski isn’t using Limbo to point that out, then ***I ***sure am.

Sister D
FYI there are at least two here that I know of that call themselves “Catholic Mormons” or vice versa, both of whom attend mass and LDS meetings. I think at least one is trying to get a recommend.

Fun idea for both sides isn’t it? Taking the Catholic eucharist and then going to the Mormon temple afterwards???

And as always, you are right on the money and that was my purpose in bringing up Limbo – it is one of several doctrines which have been changed or “grown” – in this case, “un-grown”-- along with the Immaculate Conception-- ex nihilo out of the bible.

Just putting the shoe on the other foot if you get my drift!

 

[MelanieAnne]

Except, Brother Bukowski, for that niggling little detail that Limbo was never doctrine.

You don’t get points for being wrong!

 

[mfbukowski]

It would help if Mormons could come up with something similar. And please don’t say the Bible, BoM, D&C, or PoGP. As seen on MADB and even among non-Mormon sects that believe in these works, there is much disagreement of theology. Just as Protestants don’t agree on the Bible and thus can’t just point to it to tell people what they believe, neither can anyone else do the same with other scriptures.

We don’t feel a need to do so, and I would disagree with you that there is a difference in theology among believing LDS about the scriptures. It might be interesting to find specific examples where believing LDS differ over scriptural doctrine. I am not saying it isn’t true, and I am sure that there are probably differences, but I certainly doubt that there is a significant portion of believing LDS that disagree on any given doctrine.

 

[mfbukowski]

The Biblical cites are within this thread. Scroll up.

I don’t know where you get the idea of “since you believe that all truth is found in the bible”. That’s simply not true and you have no basis for asserting it. Catholics have much more than the Bible to rely on for truth and you know this.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception doesn’t put Mary on the same level as Christ because, as I said in the previous post, she was not sinless on her own but by the grace and power of God.

It’s tiresome having to make these corrections over and over Bukowski, especially when we all know that you know better.

I stated it too strongly. But I think you do believe that all that was necessary for salvation is found in the bible and that tradition is simply an outgrowth and clarification of what is found therein, right?

So the question is at what point does an “outgrowth” become a “new plant”? Maybe a bad analogy, but my point is that gradual “evolution” of a doctrine is really a change in doctrine.

 

[majick275]

Sister D
FYI there are at least two here that I know of that call themselves “Catholic Mormons” or vice versa, both of whom attend mass and LDS meetings. I think at least one is trying to get a recommend.

Fun idea for both sides isn’t it? Taking the Catholic eucharist and then going to the Mormon temple afterwards???

And as always, you are right on the money and that was my purpose in bringing up Limbo – it is one of several doctrines which have been changed or “grown” – in this case, “un-grown”-- along with the Immaculate Conception-- ex nihilo out of the bible.

Just putting the shoe on the other foot if you get my drift!

not exactly…the Catholic church has always made a distinction between dogma and lesser teachings. It also hasn’t had truly polar opposite type reversals either. the actual teachings that developed into limbo are that : we humans aren’t given to know who specifically goes to heaven but we do know that baptism is required to wash away sin since no unclean thing can enter into Gods presence. so when asked what about babies? the church truly did not know the fate of individuals but tried to find a theological position that fit with the already defined dogma. The church never made that teaching dogmatic but DID teach it openly for years. the clarification or development or whatever you want to call it that is currently defined is merely that we don’t know what happens specifically but we trust in God and his mercy.

There is also a fundamental difference in catholic doctrinal development which has always been conducted by men using their god given reason, scripture and tradition meeting in councils and the LDS position of having “oracles of the lord” just ask direct questions and get specific answers to proclaim to the people.

we certainly are NOT a sola scriptura church either and do not need ALL dogma to be clearly defined in the Bible.

 

[mfbukowski]

Except, Brother Bukowski, for that niggling little detail that Limbo was never doctrine.

You don’t get points for being wrong!

OK let’s go there-- what exactly defines what is and what is not Catholic doctrine? You guys seem to be all over the place – same thing you accuse us of.

Where is the resurrection in Catholic doctrine? Pretty basic stuff?

Has that been declared dogma? Where can I find that written?

 

[MelanieAnne]

I stated it too strongly. But I think you do believe that all that was necessary for salvation is found in the bible and that tradition is simply an outgrowth and clarification of what is found therein, right?

So the question is at what point does an “outgrowth” become a “new plant”? Maybe a bad analogy, but my point is that gradual “evolution” of a doctrine is really a change in doctrine.

No, that’s not correct. Especially since a lot of Catholic Tradition dates back to before the Bible was compiled. Gosh Bukowski, this is something you should know already.

If you were speaking to a Protestant, your statement might be more pertinent. But you’re not.

Since your premise is not valid, the rest makes no sense so there is no point in replying to it.

 

[MelanieAnne]

OK let’s go there-- what exactly defines what is and what is not Catholic doctrine? You guys seem to be all over the place – same thing you accuse us of.

Where is the resurrection in Catholic doctrine? Pretty basic stuff?

Has that been declared dogma? Where can I find that written?

We’re SO NOT “all over the place”. We have a definite doctrine. It’s been Mormon Doctrine that has been hard to pin down. That’s where the “nailing jello to the wall” reference came into play. It would be inaccurate to view Catholic doctrine through the chaotic prism of Mormon doctrine.

If you’re interested in Catholic doctrine, start with the Catechism. Have fun!

 

[PaulDupre]

And I’d like to know why it is so important to you, anyway? Seems to me that it would be GOOD news to you to find out that we do not believe that God had sex with Mary.

(shrug)

But hey. I’ve been noticing that facts are in the road when one has a good titillating story to tell.

It is important to us because your church is still teaching it:

I can also state that the missionaries have told me that they don’t use the word “virgin” in the same way as Catholics do. They DO believe that God had sex with Mary to concieve Jesus but their definition of virgin still allows that Mary was a virgin because she was untouched by a mortal man.

Gee, that sounds familiar. Oh yeah, it was apostle Bruce R. McConkie I quoted in a previous post who wrote the same thing. And your missionaries (the official embassadors of the LDS church) are still out there teaching it as we speak.

But no, it’s not LDS doctrine.

Darn that Jello, it just won’t stay put.

BTW, the missionaries who taught me back in 1975 also taught me the same thing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Been at the births of 4 of mine, and I think it would be possible. But maybe I am just being contrary for the fun of it

Hey, take it up with dianaiad…it’s her claim not mine.

 

[Bill_Pick]

We’re SO NOT “all over the place”. We have a definite doctrine. It’s been Mormon Doctrine that has been hard to pin down. That’s where the “nailing jello to the wall” reference came into play. It would be inaccurate to view Catholic doctrine through the chaotic prism of Mormon doctrine.

If you’re interested in Catholic doctrine, start with the Catechism. Have fun!

LIMBO was not a Dogma or a doctrine of the Church it was a teaching and thats it, Cathloic can believe it or not.

 

[MelanieAnne]

LIMBO was not a Dogma or a doctrine of the Church it was a teaching and thats it, Cathloic can believe it or not.

Bill, you need to convince Bukowski, not me!

 

[RebeccaJ]

OK let’s go there-- what exactly defines what is and what is not Catholic doctrine? You guys seem to be all over the place – same thing you accuse us of.

Where is the resurrection in Catholic doctrine? Pretty basic stuff?

Has that been declared dogma? Where can I find that written?

Doctrine is based entirely on a Person, Jesus Christ. What He Wills, the Church Wills. What He taught, the Church teaches. This is what the Church has taught through the ages. The Resurrection is a central teaching of Jesus’, and thus, it is doctrine.

Doctrine cannot change. The Perfect Revelation of Jesus Christ cannot be added to, or taken from.

There is no teaching from Jesus on the fate of unbaptized infants. There is a lot of meditation, discussion and even argument around the subject, but no doctrine.

 

[dianaiad]

I also believe they are irrational and illogical.
The two examples I have come across are their understanding of Baptism and ‘the Fall’ of Adam. Of course I don’t think their understanding of Baptism is unique to them but ‘the Fall’ seems to be.

Actually…

You might want to look up the idea of “the fortunate fall” in Catholic dialogue and writings.