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

[MelanieAnne]

You’re very gracious Rebecca.

 

[mfbukowski]

I’ve heard this before and really, I think your working definition of “prophet” is sloppy and uselessly imprecise.

In the times the Jews lived without active prophets, such as the (often cited) 400 year “silence” before Christ, did they not still have the Scriptures (the Law and the Prophets)? Did Jesus not still say that the Pharisees sat on Moses’ seat and people were to heed their teaching?

Something that has been revealed can always be repeated and studied. You don’t need to reveal it constantly over and over again. That is where your imprecision is. You seem to be saying that any reading or studying or understanding of God can come only through a direct prophecy, and then you extrapolate that to your “prophet”–despite the fact that even he does not do any such thing! Most of what your church leaders do is just repeat what has already been said, or explain it and study it in new ways, without new scripture-writing prophecy. So they do just what all other people of God have done–study and pass on that which has already been revealed. Your claim really makes no sense at all to me.

I am not following this. Do you mean essentially that our prophets don’t prophesy? But this is not true. We recently for example have the Proclamation on the Family which is not yet canonized, but doubtlessly will be, and contains all kinds of stuff that was not “doctrine” and is now about to be. New stuff. Most of our support of prop 8 was based on this document. The last canonized scripture became scripture in 1978. There was another added in 1918. That’s not exactly weekly, but we do receive guidance which is not doctrinal monthly in our magazine Ensign- not considered doctrinal, but current advice on what is happening in the world NOW. I mean NOW. Like how to avoid problems in economic slowdowns etc.

I think it is extraordinarily wonderful to be led by a prophet, and only makes sense to me that God would keep revelation current.

We have so many problems from day to day, why would he abandon us?

There is probably a parallel here with various papal informal messages giving direction. At least that is how I see it. I see very little difference here frankly.

 

[Stephen168]

It is remarkable to see the same question asked and answered over and over and yet somehow the answer never penetrates sufficiently to break the cycle.

Or is there something else in play?

When one’s position can not be defended one resorts to things like post #462. When I read things like that I know their position is lost. I think it is easy to see why it could never be the true church.

 

[mfbukowski]

I know the Articles of Faith. Is that all of your doctrine, then? Everything else is free game? That’s a big wide field left open, and it certainly explains the diversity of contradictory opinion that non-Mormons encounter among Mormons.

Yet, if it were just the Articles of Faith, why do the CoC, Remnant, and Restoration branches all hold to the same Articles of Faith, yet believe wildly different things and recognize that those beliefs cause schism between you?

The articles of faith are not that much frankly. They are from a letter JS wrote to a newspaper about what we believe.

Kids memorize them and they are like a little mini catechism. Because they are in the standard works they are doctrine. But in no way do they contain all doctrine. Perhaps they are analogous to a creed to you guys. It would be like quoting the apostles’ creed and saying it contained all of Catholic doctrine.

No way.

 

[jean8]

I don’t see what you are getting at.

I’m not Mormon, but I don’t see the problem. Scripture says that we humans will judge angels here:

We are made in the image of God. Although I’m not a fan of the D&C, I don’t take offense to that passage. It is referring to the fact that we humans in a glorified body will be eternal - as God is. We are and will be “gods”, by God’s design. And the angels will be subject to us.

Humans are the climax of creation. Angels can never participate in the sacrificial death of Jesus. Jesus died for us, not for the angels. I’m not bad-mouthing angels. They are wonderful friends that God has sent to help us.

Remember the passage in Hebrews:

If angels were sent to serve those who will inherit salvation (that is, us humans) then why is it hard to believe that we humans are greater than the angels? Again, I don’t say that to bad-mouth angels. They were wonderful creatures that I am very thankful for.

The teachings of Mormonisn are so wrong it would take to long to list them all.
Would you attend a church that teaches God was once a man on another planet? God has flesh and bones.
The Book of Mormon is more correct that the Bible? The book of Mormon was written first by Joseph Smith, and later added unto by Brigham Young.

That’s enough of that nonsense. Pray for them.

jean8

 

[RebeccaJ]

You’re very gracious Rebecca.

I just remember the readings at Mass from a couple of weeks ago. Jesus was a great believer in people. Look at Peter, Jesus proclaimed him the rock and the foundation of the Church. Yet there’s Peter, screwing up all the time. Yet Jesus knew his potential, and believed that Peter could conquer his weaknesses, doubt and sins. Jesus Himself makes this possible.

Our deacon who gave the homily, said we always short change ourselves, when it is clear that Jesus believes in us all. To believe otherwise is to believe that His Sacrifice was for naught.

Mormonism gets on my nerves. It is one of those things that I hope to ask God why He allowed it to exist. But Mormons themselves have hope. The same hope we all have, which is found in our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[mfbukowski]

If a “sin” were “necessary” and according to God’s Will it would not be a “sin,” would it?

True. Yet it was not exactly a good thing to disobey God was it? We often call it a “transgression”.

 

[Arandur]

I said “begin with the Thirteen Articles of Faith.”

Once those are expanded, you pretty much have it.

And then go where? Expand how? How does your church teach that expansion? Why is it different from the other BoM-believing groups I mentioned, and can you define the differences to know with a surety where you hold truth and they do not?

 

[mfbukowski]

Joseph Smith wrote it up for Adam to actually say, in his version of the Bible, IIRC. That’s pretty institutionalizing.

That idea comes from our perspective never having known the state of Original Justice and reflecting back on what we do know. We would have had no need or feeling of lack had we always been an obedient people in constant communion with God.

If you want to look at the paradox of it, consider also that the terrible gravity of man’s sin was that God had to subject Himself to the death we caused to fix what we had done. Faithful children would have always known the intensity of God’s love and not have known the sorrow of separating themselves from God or of causing Him such sorrow.

We are infinitely blessed to have God sacrifice Himself to bring us to Him. We would have been infinitely blessed to have remained in His presence. Adam’s transgression was no point of honor.

Would someone else of Adam’s children partaken of the fruit if he did not? Was Adam the only one who got the choice? Would all generations live a blessed life?

Why was the fruit there in the first place?

There should be some firm doctrine about this don’t you think? What is it?

In my view, Catholicsm does not answer the hard questions, and doesn’t take on the great cosmological issues. My opinion.

 

[MelanieAnne]

When one’s position can not be defended one resorts to things like post #462. When I read things like that I know their position is lost. I think it is easy to see why it could never be the true church.

There are a lot of reasons why Mormonism cannot possibly be true. As for me, I cannot get past the entire Book of Mormon business ~ the origins of the book, the (lack of) character of Joseph Smith, the utter lack of substance to support the text ~ the list of problems is pretty long.

I agree with you that many times when a position is indefensible the result is the sort of post you are citing. There is a lot of misdirection, flippancy, etc. Perhaps there is some sort of training ~ tips for members who find themselves in such situations ~ as there often seems to be a lot of similarity from one poster to another.

One thing I can’t help but wonder about is why some will stick around and keep going through the same routine over and over? Is it some sort of game? Is there some value to doing so? Is someone expecting committed Catholics to convert? What?

Whatever the reason for constantly circulating the same old stuff, I think my “ignore” list is going to grow again as I find the repetitiveness very tedious at times.

Cheers!

 

[Arandur]

Except of course that we have nothing written about him by anybody who did NOT have an honest to goodness divine revelation from Him.

True, Josephus wrote about Him, but only as far as rumors go; he didn’t know Jesus at all. Every man who wrote in the NT had received revelation from Christ; not simply had known Him in life, but had received revelation from Him.

I addressed this already, but I’ll repeat it: we don’t have a single thing written in the NT by anybody who did NOT receive revelation from Christ after His death. That they did receive that revelation is the reason they DID write.

What are you calling revelation? You used a description of “prophet” that would include being in Christ’s presence “revelation.” I would agree. The people who wrote Scripture may or may not have been present with Christ. They wrote truly about his revelation, under Divine Inspiration. Why could they not have recorded something already known and taught by the Apostles? What was deficient in the Apostles’ teaching?

Does God speak to women? Sure…but of all the women you mention, do we have any writings from them? Did Anna write scripture?

See, this is where you need to be more precise. You throw all of the definitions of a term into the pot and use them interchangeably with no regard for what is being argued, and in so doing you muddle communication.

You are here talking about a specific definition of “prophet” as either an office or a role or an act of writing scripture. Your earlier, supposedly precise definition was more expansive and included the possibility for “prophets” who do not write scripture down.

Being a prophet is also a priesthood function. None of the women mentioned in the bible were given the sort of revelation that results in scripture.

We would easily call the women about whom books of the Bible are written “prophets” in the Catholic sense that I described. Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Judith, Baruch, Haggai, even Wisdom (which is often thought to have been written by a woman). Those women served prophetic roles.

 

[mfbukowski]

But all true vocations and roles played are directed in varying degrees by God, and all believers are properly baptized Priest, Prophet, and King, sharing in Christ’s perfected threefold roles.

How do Catholic priests fit into this theologically if all are priests? That sounds like a protestant view of the priesthood

We believe that all can have the “spirit of prophecy” which is the testimony of Jesus Christ. But only one is chosen to be “prophet” for the entire church. And that selection method is very precise. More precise imo than selection of the pope.

 

[Arandur]

But you are not answering the question. Where is all the doctrine of the Catholic church written in one place?

It doesn’t exist! If so, tell me. The catechism is a description of doctrine, not a statement of doctrine. Otherwise, to speak ex cathedra, the pope would simple change the catechism. He does not.

The Catechism collects all dogmas and explains them. They are all contained within the Catechism. If you want to look up each one where it was defined, you would go to the documents of the Ecumenical Councils. The whole collection, explained to the best of the local bishops’ abilities, is in the Catechism. One place.

The resurrection was never technically made dogma. Am I incorrect or not?

It was, in the Creed, as I have said. That was defined as dogma in the Council of Nicea.

 

[mfbukowski]

The Bible came out of Sacred Tradition.

You make a distinction where there is none. Doctrine is all that is passed on, orally, written, liturgically, Sacramentally, etc. Sola scriptura is an error of the reformation.

I guess I am getting nowhere here. Where is it all written down?

There was a thread “doctrine vs dogma” recently in which there was a great deal of discussion of this topic, and now when I ask the question, the topic disappears. How does that happen?

 

[mfbukowski]

Mormonism makes it difficult to understand truth. That is my own personal experience anyway.

Catholicism makes it difficult to understand truth. That is my own personal experience anyway

 

[RebeccaJ]

I guess I am getting nowhere here. Where is it all written down?

There was a thread “doctrine vs dogma” recently in which there was a great deal of discussion of this topic, and now when I ask the question, the topic disappears. How does that happen?

The catechism explains all doctrines. Each doctrine has 2000 years of writings, teachings, theologies and philosophies. You can plumb these depths for a lifetime.

edit to add CAF links:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=122245
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=25053
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=242055
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11276

(I don’t know about you but the search function of the forums stopped working for me. I am using google to search CAF.)

 

[Arandur]

This is so permeated with “Catholic think” that it is hard to respond. The ark of the covenant was not empty, and why would the queen mother be going into battle?

The Ark was built as a container, but arks were thrones. No one sat on the Israelites’ throne. The queen mother of other tribes would be paraded ceremoniously in front of the tribe in battle to inspire the troops to valor–for the mother country and to protect the mother, etc.

See zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html
Especially the section halfway down the page, “What is the Ark of the Covenant:”

The Ark of the Covenant – what is it? Well, if you were here this morning, I mentioned some interesting facts that I will repeat right now for your sake, for those who weren’t here. In a recent study by a German scholar named Afmar Kiel, one of the most respected on the continent, he does a study and finds that this idea of an ark box is common throughout the ancient Near East. What it was is basically like a throne stand. And the idea of having the cherubim cover the ark, that also is found in many other cultures. He says, “The great popularity of cherubim thrones is demonstrated in Cana and Phoenicia during the late Bronze and early Iron Ages. Excavators describe it ‘as a female figure sitting on a square armchair.’”

Now what Professor Kiel has shown us is that throughout the ancient world, you have this kind of throne box with the cherubim angels or whatever over top and on the box normally sat a queen, a female figure enthroned in kind of an armchair. The only thing really strange about Israel’s Ark is that it was empty. There never sat anybody enthroned upon it. Other people might have carried these boxes off to battle with the Queen Mother inspiring all kinds of courageous feats of valor in battle. But not Israel. The Ark itself was enough, even though it was empty. It was almost a confession as though our Messiah has not come and everything is not what it will be.

Scott Hahn has backed that research up, but you don’t have to rely on him for it, since good Prof. Afmar Kiel figured it out.

See also these:
forthelife.org/a7.htm
iamonetruth.com/gebirah.htm
home.inreach.com/bstanley/queen.htm

Those all go much deeper into the nature of Mary than we have time for here, and they just scratch the surface of the books of scholarship supporting strongly and conclusively Mary’s role.

Since we don’t believe in original sin, I don’t think I was born with it either. Why would God give us someone else’s sin? The fall is an inherited condition of mankind, but is not a sin to those who inherit the condition. It is sort of like if your parents were alcoholics and you were born brain damaged, it would not be your sin but theirs, yet you would reap the consequences.

I have to get to bed here and won’t be back for a while–can I ask others to bring up the verses on original sin? It’s God you have to take it up with. Genesis is really pretty clear, though.

Dianaiad seems to have said that Christ saved us from original sin and we aren’t subject to it anymore–with the implication that before he came people were…is that right?

Some questions for you: 1. If not for original sin, why is Christ needed at all?

Sounds like we’re back to square one with Adam, with Christ’s action making no difference whatsoever–he sinned personally, we sin personally, and particularly if you think Adam’s transgression was paid for for him in his (Adam’s) time, then they’re both paid for, with no point in time being important for the Incarnation.

1. If it was God’s Will that Adam sin, then Adam would be doing God’s Will and not sinning now would he?

I agree with the chiasmus reference, and am totally personally theologically “into” the “second Adam” pov.

There is no chiasm without the New Eve as well, and the New Creation after. You don’t want a New Eve, and you don’t want a New Creation (where original sin is washed away)? Then you don’t have a New Adam.

Adam’s “transgression” as we term it, was necessary for us to live in an earth with choice and freedom, so that sin would be possible. If you were standing in God’s presence, how likely would it be that you would choose to do something wrong?

This goes to our fundamental difference about the nature of good. You see, we Catholics believe Good and Love is ultimate freedom. You seem to think that it is slavery. Let me show you:

You would not have freedom to choose the wrong in such a state.

Thus we have no free will when we are in God’s presence? We are slaves?

No, choosing God’s Will is the ultimate freedom and the ultimate good. Choosing against God’s will is sin, which begets death and slavery to sin. If God exists in the sense that we define Him (Necessary/self-existent, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient), then evil does not HAVE to exist. Sin did not HAVE to be. For there are times and places where it does not exist, but God does (who is all good).

I don’t know what “created angels” are. All spirits will have an opportunity to have a body if they have not already had one. For us angels are either pre-existent spirits or people who have died and are either spirits or resurrected beings. Another option is a “translated” being.

I know and I think those concepts are an “It’s a Wonderful Life” fairy tale. If you look at the context in which angels appear in the Bible they are almost always described as other, not human, beings. Same with demons. Trying to read into those passages other definitions renders them nonsensical. Not everything need be physical.

 

[mfbukowski]

One thing I can’t help but wonder about is why some will stick around and keep going through the same routine over and over? Is it some sort of game? Is there some value to doing so? Is someone expecting committed Catholics to convert? What?

Whatever the reason for constantly circulating the same old stuff, I think my “ignore” list is going to grow again as I find the repetitiveness very tedious at times.

Cheers!

I agree. Why do you do it?

 

[mfbukowski]

What are you calling revelation? You used a description of “prophet” that would include being in Christ’s presence “revelation.” I would agree. The people who wrote Scripture may or may not have been present with Christ. They wrote truly about his revelation, under Divine Inspiration. Why could they not have recorded something already known and taught by the Apostles? What was deficient in the Apostles’ teaching?

See, this is where you need to be more precise. You throw all of the definitions of a term into the pot and use them interchangeably with no regard for what is being argued, and in so doing you muddle communication.

You are here talking about a specific definition of “prophet” as either an office or a role or an act of writing scripture. Your earlier, supposedly precise definition was more expansive and included the possibility for “prophets” who do not write scripture down.

We would easily call the women about whom books of the Bible are written “prophets” in the Catholic sense that I described. Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Judith, Baruch, Haggai, even Wisdom (which is often thought to have been written by a woman). Those women served prophetic roles.

The only confusion is in your understanding.

 

[Arandur]

If it’s not in the standard works, it’s not doctrine. If it is, it is. So the way that doctrine gets into the standard works is that it becomes “canonized scripture” by being introduced and accepted by a general conference of the church. That’s it.

That doesn’t solve much. We’ve all seen how much church groups make of different scriptures. From sola scriptura we got thousands of denominations. From Joseph Smith’s 4+ writings (man, was he insecure or what, having to try to doubly outdo the Bible in his lifetime? I’m sorry, but sometimes you guys need to hear how much of a sham that guy is), you’ve got 4 new sets of scriptures and at least 4 branches of the faith, disagreeing more strongly than Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and Methodists disagree.

They all hold those scriptures to be true, as well as the Articles of Faith, and some of the other works spoken of (“official declarations and proclamations” sure sounds similar to what we’re getting at with the Magisterium).

We Catholics have at least as much to point to as doctrine–you should be able to admit that–plus a Catechism, a liturgy, tradition, longer history, patristic writings, and writings of the Saints.