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

[MelanieAnne]

CCC 675:

Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth."

(italics mine)

 

[MelanieAnne]

St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, Chapter 1

9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!
9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

Where the text reads “accursed”, the word is often interpreted/translated as “damned”.

The words of St. Paul are clear ~ any so-called “angel from heaven” bringing new “scripture” or a new “gospel” is not from heaven and is not of God. The receipt of new “scripture” by both Mohammad and Joseph Smith can be reviewed within the context of these two verses. Accordingly, since any new “scripture” or “gospel” is not of God, and since anyone preaching them is cursed according to the same scriptural citation, it is incumbent upon us to reject these false teachings.

 

[mfbukowski]

St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, Chapter 1

Where the text reads “accursed”, the word is often interpreted/translated as “damned”.

The words of St. Paul are clear ~ any so-called “angel from heaven” bringing new “scripture” or a new “gospel” is not from heaven and is not of God. The receipt of new “scripture” by both Mohammad and Joseph Smith can be reviewed within the context of these two verses. Accordingly, since any new “scripture” or “gospel” is not of God, and since anyone preaching them is cursed according to the same scriptural citation, it is incumbent upon us to reject these false teachings.

Poor St John was damned then I guess when he wrote the Book of Revelations. I didn’t know Catholics believed that.

Could it possibly mean something else? Nah. Not possible!

(We preach te same “gospel” Paul preached.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Poor St John was damned then I guess when he wrote the Book of Revelations. I didn’t know Catholics believed that.

Could it possibly mean something else? Nah. Not possible!

(We preach te same “gospel” Paul preached.)

I think with the discussion on Abraham, D&C 132 and polygamy, you most certainly do not.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Poor St John was damned then I guess when he wrote the Book of Revelations. I didn’t know Catholics believed that.

Could it possibly mean something else? Nah. Not possible!

(We preach te same “gospel” Paul preached.)

The new “Gospel” of the Book of Mormon (isn’t something like “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” part of the title?) was allegedly brought by an Angel on Golden Plates to Joseph Smith. It fits the warning Paul wrote about precisely.

It was not an angel from HEAVEN, hence it is not from God. It may have been a beautiful being, if the story JS told was even true, but that doesn’t make the being from God. Those that preach the new “gospel” are cursed/damned.

Somehow I doubt this 1st Century warning about future false gospels and heresies is part of the Missionary discussions.

 

[ricko]

Pardon me for asking this way, but how stupid do you think we are? Do you really think we just found this out and never thought of it before?

Joseph knew the bible well. He was comfortable with King James english and translated those sections according to the language he was already familiar with. This is not complex at all! When one translates any technical piece with complex abstract meanings, it just makes sense to use terms that the audience knows and is familiar with.

Well I don’t think Mormons are stupid friend in fact I find most of them to be very intelligent but it is a fact that they are most gullible and show that by willing to believe in a religion that has been proven time and again with facts that show it to be nothing more than a hoax. The BOM says “In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God”. So, why would God translate the BOM into the Kings English which is over 200 years old at that time and not into the modern English in use at that time. What a coincidence that the angel that wrote it and God who translated it happened to use the exact words that were in the KJV at that time and what a coincidence that the KJV was the bible that JS preferred?

Cor. 3:12: we use great plainness of speech
Enos 1:23: exceedingly great plainness of speech

“Great plainness of speech”

Rev. 19:6: the Lord God omnipotent reigneth
Mosiah 3:5: the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth

“Omnipotent and reigneth”? Why the exact words? And why was KJV “reigneth” used instead of “reign” or “reigns” the English of that day.

And why use phrases that were used by individuals in the bible (that of course were not written yet). These phrases are unique to the individual that said them. Could not the LDS angel come up with original phrases of his own instead of some others not written yet?

Sorry, but your average person using common sense and reasoning, both gifts of the Holy Spirit would not and could not believe such an obvious hoax.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Rick, by posting that we disagree with Mormon theology, some readers might think we somehow are criticizing people of the Mormon faith. Most particularly, the Mormons themselves may draw that conclusion. That’s not so.

We can acknowledge that many Mormons are very good people. We can acknowledge that Mormons often do a lot of good helping people ~ not just other Mormons, but other PEOPLE. I was recently reminded of a Catholic/Mormon joint venture for service to a particular community. Differences in faith doesn’t mean we can’t work together for a common goal of assistance. Mormons are often very generous with their time and resources to help others less fortunate. All of this is admirable and we can’t lose sight of that.

Mormons also have some of the scripture and a lot of the terms that we use, they just use those same terms to mean different things. This can be confusing because two people can have a conversation about matters of faith and each come away with an entirely different understanding of what just transpired because the terms are defined so differently. We can view this in a variety of ways. It’s important to understand, when having discourse with a Mormon, what the words actually MEAN.

Catholic doctrine defines a Christian as someone who has a valid Baptism. By that definition, Mormons are not Christian because their baptisms are not considered valid by any other Christian faith. This is due to the variant understanding of the Godhead by Mormons. Of course, Mormons will reject the definition that they are not Christian, but since we’re Catholics that’s the definition we work with. Mormons that convert to the Catholic faith are baptized. The baptism isn’t even “conditional”. (Why do I mention this? Because that’s what some other Christian faiths do. When I was an Episcopalian and a friend who was Mormon converted to Episcopal, they gave her a “conditional” baptism ~ the opening words of the baptism were "If you have not already been baptized, then… then the baptism proceeded as usual.) We don’t do that. When a Mormon converts, they are baptized just like everyone else ~ as if they had never been baptized in any way before.

In the end, the best thing we can be is good Catholics, pray for those who have swallowed the poison of heresy, and hold fast to the Truth which is the Word of God. Some people probably think when we say the “Word of God” we’re talking about a book, but we know we’re not, at least, we know that that’s not ALL of it. We need to start defining the terms. When the meaning of the words are clearly understood, more productive dialog has a chance of following. Otherwise, I’m beginning to believe that all we will succeed in doing is talking past each other, which has no value.

 

[ricko]

Melaine, I agree with your post however I don’t agree that it applies to what I posted. As you can see from my post I even said that they were very intelligent though gullible. I do not engage in personal attacks. However I do deal with truth and facts and will continue to post as such.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Melaine, I agree with your post however I don’t agree that it applies to what I posted. As you can see from my post I even said that they were very intelligent though gullible. I do not engage in personal attacks. However I do deal with truth and facts and will continue to post as such.

Hi Rick,

I’m not suggesting anything untoward in your posts. I agree that we have to hold to the truth. I am sorry if there was any inference otherwise. I believe we can disagree with another theology, and speak the truth, without resorting to personal attacks on anyone.

Unfortunately, there are those who interpret any disagreement with their thinking as a personal attack. My purpose in following up on your post was to distinguish between disavowing incorrect theology, on one hand and the people who subscribe to such things, on the other. There should be no misunderstanding that the two things are somehow intertwined because they are not.

 

[mfbukowski]

Rick, by posting that we disagree with Mormon theology, some readers might think we somehow are criticizing people of the Mormon faith. Most particularly, the Mormons themselves may draw that conclusion. That’s not so.

We can acknowledge that many Mormons are very good people. We can acknowledge that Mormons often do a lot of good helping people ~ not just other Mormons, but other PEOPLE. I was recently reminded of a Catholic/Mormon joint venture for service to a particular community. Differences in faith doesn’t mean we can’t work together for a common goal of assistance. Mormons are often very generous with their time and resources to help others less fortunate. All of this is admirable and we can’t lose sight of that.

Mormons also have some of the scripture and a lot of the terms that we use, they just use those same terms to mean different things. This can be confusing because two people can have a conversation about matters of faith and each come away with an entirely different understanding of what just transpired because the terms are defined so differently. We can view this in a variety of ways. It’s important to understand, when having discourse with a Mormon, what the words actually MEAN.

Catholic doctrine defines a Christian as someone who has a valid Baptism. By that definition, Mormons are not Christian because their baptisms are not considered valid by any other Christian faith. This is due to the variant understanding of the Godhead by Mormons. Of course, Mormons will reject the definition that they are not Christian, but since we’re Catholics that’s the definition we work with. Mormons that convert to the Catholic faith are baptized. The baptism isn’t even “conditional”. (Why do I mention this? Because that’s what some other Christian faiths do. When I was an Episcopalian and a friend who was Mormon converted to Episcopal, they gave her a “conditional” baptism ~ the opening words of the baptism were "If you have not already been baptized, then… then the baptism proceeded as usual.) We don’t do that. When a Mormon converts, they are baptized just like everyone else ~ as if they had never been baptized in any way before.

In the end, the best thing we can be is good Catholics, **pray for those who have swallowed the poison of heresy, **and hold fast to the Truth which is the Word of God. Some people probably think when we say the “Word of God” we’re talking about a book, but we know we’re not, at least, we know that that’s not ALL of it. We need to start defining the terms. When the meaning of the words are clearly understood, more productive dialog has a chance of following. Otherwise, I’m beginning to believe that all we will succeed in doing is talking past each other, which has no value.

Chug a lug chug a lug. Dang, and you were doing so well until you got to this part you apostate you. Adorable, but apostate nevertheless. Smootch.

 

[mfbukowski]

Unfortunately, there are those who interpret any disagreement with their thinking as a personal attack. .

Could it have something to do with calling us cult members or saying we are drinking the poison of heresy?

This is the way you talk to your best friends, right?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Bukowski., the things you feel impelled to criticize are often teachings of the Church. Telling the truth is not often pretty.

I’m not calling you names, despite your twisting of my words to make it appear so. However you persist in needing to call me names. It doesn’t strengthen your position to use these tactics.

We’re done here. Have a nice life Bukowski. CLICK.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Rick, by posting that we disagree with Mormon theology, some readers might think we somehow are criticizing people of the Mormon faith. Most particularly, the Mormons themselves may draw that conclusion. That’s not so.

We can acknowledge that many Mormons are very good people. We can acknowledge that Mormons often do a lot of good helping people ~ not just other Mormons, but other PEOPLE. I was recently reminded of a Catholic/Mormon joint venture for service to a particular community. Differences in faith doesn’t mean we can’t work together for a common goal of assistance. Mormons are often very generous with their time and resources to help others less fortunate. All of this is admirable and we can’t lose sight of that.

Mormons also have some of the scripture and a lot of the terms that we use, they just use those same terms to mean different things. This can be confusing because two people can have a conversation about matters of faith and each come away with an entirely different understanding of what just transpired because the terms are defined so differently. We can view this in a variety of ways. It’s important to understand, when having discourse with a Mormon, what the words actually MEAN.

Catholic doctrine defines a Christian as someone who has a valid Baptism. By that definition, Mormons are not Christian because their baptisms are not considered valid by any other Christian faith. This is due to the variant understanding of the Godhead by Mormons. Of course, Mormons will reject the definition that they are not Christian, but since we’re Catholics that’s the definition we work with. Mormons that convert to the Catholic faith are baptized. The baptism isn’t even “conditional”. (Why do I mention this? Because that’s what some other Christian faiths do. When I was an Episcopalian and a friend who was Mormon converted to Episcopal, they gave her a “conditional” baptism ~ the opening words of the baptism were "If you have not already been baptized, then… then the baptism proceeded as usual.) We don’t do that. When a Mormon converts, they are baptized just like everyone else ~ as if they had never been baptized in any way before.

In the end, the best thing we can be is good Catholics, pray for those who have swallowed the poison of heresy, and hold fast to the Truth which is the Word of God. Some people probably think when we say the “Word of God” we’re talking about a book, but we know we’re not, at least, we know that that’s not ALL of it. We need to start defining the terms. When the meaning of the words are clearly understood, more productive dialog has a chance of following. Otherwise, I’m beginning to believe that all we will succeed in doing is talking past each other, which has no value.