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

[BartBurk]

does the mormon church still teach polygamy ?

It doesn’t practice polygamy. It still believes polygamy will exist in the next life. A man can be sealed for all eternity to more than one woman and many are. I don’t think the Mormon Church would ever dare to practice polygamy again.

 

[jw2lds2catholic]

I’m just going to jump in here - haven’t read all the posts.

One thing that seems to escape most people and is quite revelant is not only did Jesus fail to keep one Church together, but according to Mormon Scripture – 2 Churches feel. In the Book of Mormon, the resurrected Christ did the whole select 12 apsotles and started a Chruch thing here in the Americas. That one is gone, too.

As I have mentioned in other posts, I would LOVE for the LDS chruch to be the True church - I tried to convince myself of it for years, but rationality, history and grace showed me otherwise and led me kickin’ and scream’ to Rome. Boy am I glad I’m here - Thanks for not giving up on me, God!

 

[RebeccaJ]

does the mormon church still teach polygamy ?

It doesn’t practice polygamy. It still believes polygamy will exist in the next life. A man can be sealed for all eternity to more than one woman and many are. I don’t think the Mormon Church would ever dare to practice polygamy again.

I agree with Bart and add. In the multiple discussions on this topic that I have had with Mormons, you will find two views coming from Mormons:

a) polygamy was not a Mormon doctrine, it was only a practice
b) polygamy is still a Mormon doctrine, which once was practiced

Both views conclude, of course, that Mormon polygamy is no longer a practice today. And all Mormons will defend the practice of polygamy. Which to me, is the more problematic side of things. Especially when asking, if Mormonism the “true church” of Christ.

No.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Can anybody here tell me if Joseph smith was antiCatholic?

:bowdown: :byzsoc:

 

[JRKH]

I’m just going to jump in here - haven’t read all the posts.

One thing that seems to escape most people and is quite revelant is not only did Jesus fail to keep one Church together, but according to Mormon Scripture – 2 Churches feel. In the Book of Mormon, the resurrected Christ did the whole select 12 apsotles and started a Chruch thing here in the Americas. That one is gone, too.

As I have mentioned in other posts, I would LOVE for the LDS chruch to be the True church - I tried to convince myself of it for years, but rationality, history and grace showed me otherwise and led me kickin’ and scream’ to Rome. Boy am I glad I’m here - Thanks for not giving up on me, God!

Thanks for jumping in.
I am hoping that someone from the LDS can answer my questions in Post #11, so far I guess dianna hasn’t been back.
I’ve been looking over a page of the Doctrines and Covenents cause I’m interested in something I heard - that the LDS teaches that a man can become a god.
IN fairness to the LDS Church I want to find the accuracy of that in their own documents. Can you help?

Peace
James

 

[majick275]

Can anybody here tell me if Joseph smith was antiCatholic?

:bowdown: :byzsoc:

not to the extent of BY, Orson Pratt or Mconkie but his writings certainly seem to indicate that. the BoM calls practitioners of infant baptism wicked:
moroni 8
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect clove casteth out all fear.

he also called the creeds abominations in the sight of God and all who profess them corrupt:

JS-H 1:19

 

[JRKH]

Can anybody here tell me if Joseph smith was antiCatholic?

:bowdown: :byzsoc:

I cannot speak difinitively but given the time and place in which he was raised my guess is that he had no love for the church.
We have to remember that when JS was born and raised, there was still abroad in the world a very strong anti-catholic sentament among Most if not ALL protestant Churches.
Ecumenism wouldn’t come along for some time yet.

Peace
James

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks for jumping in.
I am hoping that someone from the LDS can answer my questions in Post #11, so far I guess dianna hasn’t been back.
I’ve been looking over a page of the Doctrines and Covenents cause I’m interested in something I heard - that the LDS teaches that a man can become a god.
IN fairness to the LDS Church I want to find the accuracy of that in their own documents. Can you help?

Peace
James

JRKH, the LDS website has some information. For the basics,
“Preach My Gospel”, which is the manual used to teach prospective converts. And “Gospel Principles”, which is used to teach new converts, after their baptism.

The terms Mormons use for becoming a god is “exaltation” or “eternal progression”.

Chapter 47 of the gospel principles manual is on exaltation. It includes the references you are looking for.

 

[Arandur]

Truth is never painful. Truth is joy, or it should be.

Truth can be quite painful, until we come to recognize it and appreciate it and cope with it. The truth that someone learns they have made a mistake can be painful. Many converts, to Mormonism, Catholicism, or elsewhere, often feel that the truth is quite painful at first, until they become obedient to it.

In that quote, you imply that a standard by which to gauge truth is whether it causes you joy rather than pain. I encourage you to discard that standard, because it will not serve you well. In fact, that would be a tool very attractive to those who wish to deceive; many have used just such a tool to lead many astray, even intentionally.

I agree that some attacks can be quite barbed and that’s not good, but it’s actually not always bad. Sometimes it takes bluntness and harshness to teach a lesson. Can you not remember your parents or teachers teaching that way? Jesus was blunt and harsh at times to show how wrong people (particularly Pharisees) were, to shake them out of their entrenched belief in their own rightness.

Many Catholics don’t like to dodge around an issue by trying to be exceedingly careful because that can often leave the impression of either being wishy-washy or that the matter really isn’t that important.

As for civil posts, on the other thread we’ve talked on, I have several times thanked you and mski for information I did not know, about info on how the 12 work and the prophet is selected; about BY’s believe in a spiritual real presence; about the points that we agree on with regard to revelation; when questions are answered and when points are admitted. I even apologized several times if I missed things or if I mis-stated things, and tried to take responsibility for when you didn’t understand what I was trying to say, that it was my fault for not explaining well enough.

And that was just me. Rebecca had been uncivil at times at first (largely, I believe, as a result of conviction and bitterness from a Mormon upbringing), but she got much, much better and was quite polite. Others were also positive, including particularly “Look.”

Please don’t let your feelings of being under attack create a wall through which these positive things can’t penetrate.

 

[Diane_CC]

And exactly what belief system are you referring to with the above list?

Because I don’t recognize it.

Are you saying that Mormons don’t believe that God is a perfected man and that Jesus was conceived out a sexual relationship between this perfected man and Mary?

 

[wisdomseeker]

not to the extent of BY, Orson Pratt or Mconkie but his writings certainly seem to indicate that. the BoM calls practitioners of infant baptism wicked:
moroni 8
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect clove casteth out all fear.

he also called the creeds abominations in the sight of God and all who profess them corrupt:

JS-H 1:19

oh my. very interesting. so he claimed authority from God to undo what God did and commanded His Church to do.

of course he reject the Creed. the Creed is the afirmation of the True Christian and the True Church. so he had to attack the Creed.

:byzsoc:

 

[dianaiad]

You don’t have any evidence at all that any Native Americans came from Israel. When you consider how large the civilizations described in the BOM were, you should have evidence of Middle Eastern influence in the Americas.

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence, linguistically. However, you are going to have to find the quotes that illustrate just how large those populations actually were.

There is none. All of the research shows that Native Americans came from Siberia. See my thread on DNA. Mormonism has been demonstrated to be false not just by DNA, but in almost every field of scientific study. It’s over and the Mormons need to get used to it. The Book of Mormon is fantasy.

To those who believe, no evidence is necessary. To those who do not, no amount of evidence is sufficient.

That applies to both sides of this issue.

 

[dianaiad]

Are you saying that Mormons don’t believe that God is a perfected man and that Jesus was conceived out a sexual relationship between this perfected man and Mary?

Yep, I’m saying that.

At least I’m saying ‘that’ to the part about God having sex with Mary.

Honestly, it boggles my mind here; it’s as if you guys are actually disappointed to find out that we don’t believe that God had sex with Mary. What is THAT all about?

 

[dianaiad]

Mine was the second post in this thread. I made several predictions about where it was going to go.

Please note:

I TOLD you so.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mine was the second post in this thread. I made several predictions about where it was going to go.

Please note:

I TOLD you so.

You must be a prophetess.

 

[dianaiad]

You must be a prophetess.

(grin)

Not so much…experience talking. I think it’s a Matt; 16:2-3 sort of thing.

You know: 2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring, O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

In this case, it was more like standing in a whiteout and predicting snow than calling foul weather from a red sunset.

 

[RebeccaJ]

(grin)

Not so much…experience talking. I think it’s a Matt; 16:2-3 sort of thing.

You know: 2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring, O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

In this case, it was more like standing in a whiteout and predicting snow than calling foul weather from a red sunset.

I realized this when I posted.

 

[dzheremi]

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence, linguistically. However, you are going to have to find the quotes that illustrate just how large those populations actually were.

Is there? Please present it here, from LSA-recognized Linguistics Journals, not LDS publications that look for “evidence” that no other Linguist in the field has found.

I have address the linguistic side of the Mormon argument in many, many posts at this point, and always found it to be utterly lacking. If there is some new, sound, replicable evidence, I would like to know about it.

To those who believe, no evidence is necessary. To those who do not, no amount of evidence is sufficient.

That applies to both sides of this issue.

The practice of Linguistics does not vary by individual researchers’ religious beliefs. One of the largest organizations conducting fieldwork all over the world on indigenous languages (including many of the areas that the BoM purports to cover) is the SIL, which publishes the “Ethnologue”, a very comprehensive resource for facts and figures on the world’s languages. They are the “linguistic research” wing of a Protestant missionary organization (linguistic research and religious expansion/conversion/pacification being intimately tied together throughout history for obvious reasons; just look at the many, many grammars published in the past by Catholic priests and Protestant preachers working in situ in various “exotic” places). If there is a Catholic equivalent, I don’t know about it, but Catholic linguists that I do know both own and use SIL publications, as well as drawing from the many centuries of Muslim/Arab linguistic tradition, and Hindu linguistic tradition (probably the first detailed grammar on any language ever was Panani’s exhaustive grammar of Sanskrit c. 4th century BC).

Point being, NO, it does not matter what anyone believes, because Linguistics is Linguistics and faith is faith. My atheistically-minded professors gathered valuable data working with SIL in Brazil and Suriname, just as their Protestant counterparts did.

If you want to appeal to the supposed “linguistic evidence” in support of your position, then you are implicitly recognizing that evidence is necessary, regardless of your belief or non-belief. Quit fooling yourself and present whatever evidence you have, from appropriately scholarly sources.

 

[BartBurk]

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence, linguistically. However, you are going to have to find the quotes that illustrate just how large those populations actually were.



To those who believe, no evidence is necessary. To those who do not, no amount of evidence is sufficient.

That applies to both sides of this issue.

The populations had to be in the millions based on the number of people killed in battle. There is no evidence linguistically at all. If you’ve read something different you’re dreaming. Actually, faith is important, but I can’t just place my eternal salvation in jeopardy on the basis of a fairy tale. It will always take faith to be a Christian even with the evidence we have regarding the historicity of the New Testament. That’s important, but God doesn’t expect people to believe in fairy tales without any evidence whatsoever like we have with the Book of Mormon.

 

[JRKH]

JRKH, the LDS website has some information. For the basics,
“Preach My Gospel”, which is the manual used to teach prospective converts. And “Gospel Principles”, which is used to teach new converts, after their baptism.

The terms Mormons use for becoming a god is “exaltation” or “eternal progression”.

Chapter 47 of the gospel principles manual is on exaltation. It includes the references you are looking for.

Thanks for the links.
I did find the passage I was looking for in an LDS site.

NOW HEAR THIS – THE FOLLOWING IS NOT AN ACCUSATION.

It is however an observation that I could not avoid when I first heard this and now that I see it from an Official LDS website, it just makes me very uncomfortable.
I welcome explanation of this reveleation from a member, or former member of the LDS.

The following Came from:
THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

Mormon Doctrines and Covenants Number 132

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection;
and shall inherit thrones kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
**20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. **

Compare this passage from the Mormon Church Doctrines and covenants to this one from Genesis ch 3 (KJV)

1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Again I Declare I am not accusing ANY Mormon of being a worshiper of the devil. I just could not miss making this connection between the Mormon Teaching and Genesis. I will grant that. in the Mormon text they use small “g” rather than Capital “G”.
I am asking if, as a Mormon this connection doesn’t make you a bit uncomfortable too.

Peace
James