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

[mfbukowski]

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.

Well, I suppose this post will turn into 14 more pages, but just between you and me and the lampost what I am getting to here, and what I think we almost agreed on before, was that the processes are actually pretty similar as well as where one “finds” doctrine vs beliefs. I am having as much trouble getting a straight answer out of you guys and you say you have getting one out of us. And I still don’t know of one source I can go to to get all the “doctrine” in one place, except the catechism. I mean where can I go to get the offical Catholic position on what scriptures refer to the Immaculate Conception? I can go to this guy’s website and another guy’s website, but where is the Official Catholic Doctrinal website. Forget website-- where is the book or the books or the library labeled “Offical Doctrine”? Ours would be the Standard Works, here:
scriptures.lds.org/

If it ain’t there, it ain’t doctrine, and I have already posted the offical statement of the church showing that.

Another mysterious thing to me is how EVERY Catholic is really into the “longer history” thing.

To me, a longer history is actually a liability. Ever played “telephone”? How many times can someone relay the same message before it gets garbled? Not many times. And yet we are to believe that the original message has come down ungarbled without benefit of further revelation, which theoretically was uneeded, for 2,000 years. That’s a long game of “telephone”.

To me, it makes more sense to have continuing ongoing revelation to keep the church on track.

But I guess you would say you have that too through encyclicals and occasional ex cathedra “clarifications” of doctrine.

Again, we may not be all that far apart here.

 

[mfbukowski]

I think we’ve been down this road before.

Look at your history. It is extremely obvious by the timelines that Tradition existed BEFORE the Bible, whether OT or NT. Scripture is an aid that supports Tradition and Authority. Because Scripture supports Tradition and all truth is interwoven, I don’t think that you will find any Tradition that is not supported by Scripture, but it is Tradition, the oral, physical, act-ual, and spiritual transmission of Truth that preceded scripture.

So “no” to both questions; the first because it has the time origin of the two mixed up (though, yes, some Traditions did grow greater due to Scripture–and vice versa); the second because it misunderstands how they are woven together.

I actually don’t have a problem with the idea that the bible grew out of tradition. To tell you the truth, I don’t have a problem with tradition modifying the bible! We call that “ongoing revelation”.

What happens then, though, is that you have a problem generated with knowing what “true doctrine” is, if all we really have is tradition.

If God wants us to do certain things to be “saved” he would let us know what those things are, or he would not be just.

So the question becomes, how does anyone know what tradition is correct?

Our answer is that we can know by personal revelation. And I think you would say, “well, we have history and we can study it out and see what is old and where the traditions come from etc”-- but ultimately it is still what is in your heart that tells you which church is true.

I would disagree with none of this. We also are told to “study it out in our minds” and then pray about it to receive our answer. The processes are quite similar.

 

[mfbukowski]

I’ve only put two people on ignore in the time I’ve been here. One no longer posts here. The other never stops with the same old same old. I don’t read his posts, here, or at MADB. A supreme waste of time.

I dunno why bukowski hangs about. Asking the same thing over and over and telling us he never gets answers. Maybe it’s his age. Did I say that out loud??? :curtsey:

I still want to know where you get those great smileys.

Hey seeking souls seek. What can I tell you? If you don’t have answers, you don’t have answers!

Besides the more I come here the more I know my church is true.

For the above mentioned reason. Hopefully the convoluted language will deter those who cannot read, who seem to be plentiful. I usta be a revolutionary now I am a convolutionary.

 

[mfbukowski]

I said “most of what [they] do.” They don’t need new revelation to teach what has already been revealed. Hence my point that new revelation is not necessary to know what has already been revealed. And, by extension, if everything that we must know in terms of salvation has been revealed, it is therefore sufficient for all time so long as it is transmitted.

God guides, of course, I agree with you. He guides Catholics in many ways.

It’s late, so let me have a little fun here. The difference between what you’re talking about in terms of “guidance” and what we are is that Catholics recognize that God speaks in a still small voice and we must carefully listen and discern His Will. We believe that He guides us, yes, but He doesn’t just tell us what to do; He expects us to learn to grow up and make our own decisions, to exercise our intellect and gifts and grow as His children.

To simplify and exaggerate things, it seems like Mormons with your idea of a prophet to keep things current and NOW want a God that works like a vending machine. Pop in your coin, get out your answer. Scientology and televangelism are more extreme versions of these, but the principle is similar. Yet where in history did God consistently through the generations give a play by play of what the people were always supposed to do? Occasionally when the people were lost He sent prophets or supposedly the “magic 8 ball” of the urim and thummim (which Smith taught to do more than cast lots; he turned them into AltaVista and Babelfish!), but who could be better than Jesus?

I know I may have played fast and loose with your emotions here, but we’ve been chatting for long enough and its late enough tonight that hopefully you can take that in some manner of fun. I know I bore everyone with overly technical and wordy posts most of the time. Analogy is sometimes worthwhile for a point.

Dude (Did I really say that? I am 60 years old…) You are my favorite guy around here because you are a fellow convolutionary !!!

Cute post. I loved the “still small voice” and that is what we believe too, word for word. And honestly? I think our system of scriptural canonization and prophetic guidance parallels pretty closely the magesterium and encyclical and ex cathedra process.

Too bad the doctrinal results are different.

Honestly honestly, I think there is practically no difference between us in the revelatory “process”. Get yourselves a temple, and beef up your theosis, turn the pope into a prophet, do away with original sin and your version of the real presence, come up with a good explanation of why God made us and what he did before creation, figure out what happens to really good people in the afterlife, radically alter your Mariology, and I think you might have a convert.

See? I can be taught!

But wait. I already have that where I am. And I KNOW that it’s true.

Fergitaboutit.

 

[MelanieAnne]

A shorter way of saying it is “turn the Truth into a lie”

 

[mfbukowski]

But it’s not “disobedience” if God wanted Adam to do it.

It was forbidden, and he had a choice to do it or not. God told him that if he did it, he would surely die. And he did it, and died.

He knew the options and made the choice. God didn’t set him up at all. He chose to do what was forbidden knowing the consequences. It was a sacrifice for the greater good. In a sense, it was a forshadowing of the law of sacrifice and the savior.

But God doesn’t punish us for what our ancestors did. That is plain unjust.

God punishing me for what my great grandfather did? Maybe I reap the consequences of what he did, yes. Suppose he sold himself into slavery. The consequences of that might be inexcapable for many generations. Suppose he joined the wrong church, and raised his kids in it. Same thing. But punishing me for his sin? No way.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I still want to know where you get those great smileys.

Hey seeking souls seek. What can I tell you? If you don’t have answers, you don’t have answers!

Besides the more I come here the more I know my church is true.

For the above mentioned reason. Hopefully the convoluted language will deter those who cannot read, who seem to be plentiful. I usta be a revolutionary now I am a convolutionary.

You don’t want answers, as far as I can tell.

As for doctrine, the catechism outlines it all. The footnotes point to additional references, where, you get to read dogmatic constitutions, encyclicals, scriptures and ECF writings. I recommend beginning with Lumen Gentium and Spe Salvi.

 

[mfbukowski]

This gets complex. For one, it needn’t have actually been fruit. It could have been any act that was not in accord with God’s Will, any act of disobedience. The potential for such an act existed with the creation of a being with a will apart from God. The fruit represents that potential for choice apart from God’s will.

I agree. I agree, but this doesn’t answer the question. That choice was there for succeeding generations then right? So didn’t God know that some day someone would make that choice? So IF it was a “set up” (I don’t think it was) then it seems pretty inevitable that the choice would be made. In your theology, why did God put the choice there in the first place if it was such a terrible thing?

And I maintain that you haven’t looked very hard if you think this. I field all your questions and frankly, most of them I’ve read much deeper stuff about in Catholic sources. And I know it gets much deeper than that. Ratzinger/Benedict is almost out of my reach for comprehension he gets so deep.

Well sometimes “deep” means you better bring a shovel if you catch the subtilty there Linguistic clarity to me is a hallmark of intelligence. That’s why I am so bad at it! No, I haven’t looked at all really because frankly, I think I have a satisfactory answer where I am. But I really think that Mormonism gets a bad rap because we answer questions others don’t ask, and then get misunderstood for our answers. That is the whole reason people think we hide things, because we need to answer the question at the level the person is asking it. “Mommy, where did I come from”? – hour long discussion on the birds and bees-- “oh, because Johnny comes from Los Angeles, and I just wondered where I came from”. But no, I have not seen Catholic attempts at answering these questions. But I think that is what religion should do-- tell you who you are, where you came from, why you are here, and where you are going. Seems very very basic to me.

Check out Peter Kreeft. Peterkreeft.org. His stuff is quite good. Some free audio downloads. He gets very deep, and is among the Catholic thinkers that probably tower over you and me.

Well in my case it wouldn’t take too much “towering”. But I will check him out, thanks.

 

[wilsonpd]

I would disagree with none of this. We also are told to “study it out in our minds” and then pray about it to receive our answer. The processes are quite similar.

I lived the word of wisdom for a time to and prayed about it while I was living it and the Lord revealed to me that there is nothing wrong with drinking tea but Joseph Smith insists that I should not. Why does JS think one thing and the Lord revealed something else to me?

 

[mfbukowski]

I suppose it is somewhat similar to your “spirit of prophecy.” There is indeed a “priesthood of all believers.” This does not negate or lessen the ordained priesthood, which is what the Protestants misunderstand. There is really only one office ordained by Christ: the apostolic office. That position is held by the bishops (with their various titles/groupings). The bishops ordain other men to serve and share in a portion of their office: priests and deacons. Holy Orders is a special Sacrament that provides a charism by which Jesus leads his Church.

The baptism we all share as Priests, Prophets, and Kings, however, is the fulfillment of that which God had indicated he would give at Sinai (making all of Israel a nation of priests). Now, through Christ, we are the nation of priests, prophets, and kings. We all have share those roles and burdens to some degree, just as we all hope to share in his inheritance.

Well we need to explore this too, because I think that after you scratch the surface we again are pretty close. We also have two “divisions” of the priesthood,(But one priesthood in which all participate) one held by bishops, elders, and others which we the “melchizadek priesthood” (See Hebrews, etc) which is perhaps a parallel of the one held by your bishops, and another “division” or “priesthood” held by priests and deacons called the “Aaronic” priesthood which we believe parallels the Levitical priesthood of the OT. All worthy males at the appropriate age and worthiness level hold the priesthood – hence the quote about “a chosen generation and royal priesthood” (paraphrase) and through temple ordinances, women actually participate in the priesthood through their husbands.-- not generally known outside the church I think. So all worthy believers participate in the priesthood one way or another.

 

[mfbukowski]

I wish there were a forum where people were only interested in productive dialog.

The problem is only partially the forum, it’s mostly the people.

Notice that I get along fine with Arandur, though we often disagree.

Ok always disagree.

 

[mfbukowski]

:nope: Sorry to those of you who would like to believe this. I read the Pearl of Great Price. Read for yourself and you will find that their Jesus and ours are Totally different.
Challenge for those who believe in the Mormon Church-
Take a Bible (Any version will do) and then compare it to what the Mormon Church states who Jesus was. Please note- I did say was. Our Jesus is!!
CC

See what I mean?

 

[Arandur]

Well, I suppose this post will turn into 14 more pages, but just between you and me and the lampost what I am getting to here, and what I think we almost agreed on before, was that the processes are actually pretty similar as well as where one “finds” doctrine vs beliefs. I am having as much trouble getting a straight answer out of you guys and you say you have getting one out of us. And I still don’t know of one source I can go to to get all the “doctrine” in one place, except the catechism. I mean where can I go to get the offical Catholic position on what scriptures refer to the Immaculate Conception? I can go to this guy’s website and another guy’s website, but where is the Official Catholic Doctrinal website. Forget website-- where is the book or the books or the library labeled “Offical Doctrine”?

You’ve expanded your question. Now you’re asking for all the evidences of a doctrine? Why should that be limited and defined? God’s truth is much too deep to be limited by a list describing “all” things about a given doctrine. The Church defines doctrine, but it doesn’t limit the exploration of those doctrines (so long as they do not conflict with the doctrine itself or with other doctrines).

Ours would be the Standard Works, here:
scriptures.lds.org/

You haven’t answered my objection to just pointing to a collection of things held as scripture. From that collection you also get the CoC, Remnant and Restoration branches, who would all claim those works for themselves and call you and each other apostates.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, causes no such confusion. It contains and explains our doctrines, and those who agree are Catholic.

Another mysterious thing to me is how EVERY Catholic is really into the “longer history” thing.

To me, a longer history is actually a liability. Ever played “telephone”? How many times can someone relay the same message before it gets garbled? Not many times. And yet we are to believe that the original message has come down ungarbled without benefit of further revelation, which theoretically was uneeded, for 2,000 years. That’s a long game of “telephone”.

To me this shows very little faith in God and instead shows that you really think God’s message is corruptible by man, that the church is set up on men, not God.

How long do you expect your church to last?

We see this 2000 year history as evidence of God’s work, that He has maintained the largest, world-spanning organization of humans in consistent truth and organization for far longer than any other human insitution has managed. This is God’s work. It is not man’s. And it is certainly not Satan’s, whose works can only divide, destroy, and decay.

 

[mfbukowski]

I agree the Book of Mormon doesn’t seem to have a scientific leg to stand on. I look more to the religion started by Joseph Smith personally, and compare it to Christianity. When I read first and second century writings, I don’t see a Prophet (Mormon definition), Melchizedek Priesthood, or polygamy. What I do see is the Eucharist as understood by the Orthodox and Catholic Church.

Holy Cow dude-- read Hebrews chapter 7. Whole chapter please. Dang you guys gotta read your bibles. That’s the whole problem here. Whole chapter is about the Melchizedek priesthood.

And this:

1 Cor 12
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Ephesians 4

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Clearly talks about the office of prophet as being a part of the church.

And I guess they are still needed since we have not come to a “unity of the faith” have we? So prophets are still needed as a church office. Where are yours?

And polygamy of course is in the OT. Can you tell me why Abraham had many wives and was favored by the Lord? Can you tell me please why he wasn’t condemned as an adulterer? And David? And Solomon?

You guys definitely need to dust off those bibles. I think those qualifiy as “first century” for our purposes, though scholars may differ.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The problem is only partially the forum, it’s mostly the people.

Notice that I get along fine with Arandur, though we often disagree.

Ok always disagree.

Of course it’s always the people. It’s never the format, it’s that some people use the format one way and some use it another way.

It would just be nice to have some place to have a dialog where you don’t have to run into all the flippancy, the bipolar style shifts between seriousness and brattiness, the relentless single-minded agendas, etc. and just have some sort of productive, constructive dialog.

 

[mfbukowski]

Thanks. God bless you too.

I just love it that so many people are interested in ME. Now go away.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I just love it that so many people are interested in ME. Now go away.

Don’t worry, we’re not interested in you.

 

[Arandur]

If God wants us to do certain things to be “saved” he would let us know what those things are, or he would not be just.

Which is one reason that we say that all public revelation necessary for salvation was completed in Christ.

So the question becomes, how does anyone know what tradition is correct?

Our answer is that we can know by personal revelation.

That is what Protestants and evangelicals effectively use. Look where that has lead. Not to unity, but division. Not to truth, but to contradiction. The wisdom of men is as foolishness to God; to follow your own personal interpretation of what you think is revelation is really just to follow your own foolishness, not God.

And I think you would say, “well, we have history and we can study it out and see what is old and where the traditions come from etc”-- but ultimately it is still what is in your heart that tells you which church is true.

It takes the gift of faith to accept Truth ultimately, yes, but how you seek for truth affects whether you will find it. Trusting in your own personal interpretation of things is no way to find truth. Using objective external measures and being humble enough to admit when you’re wrong and when God is right, now that sounds much more like the Godly path to me. As I have said before, we have as external measures: Authority (God’s gift of the Church, which Christ as its head and body, the Spirit as its soul, preserved in truth to lead us into all truth), Tradition, Scripture, natural law, and Salvation History (of which God is Author).

We also are told to “study it out in our minds” and then pray about it to receive our answer. The processes are quite similar.

Still an internal and subjective process relying on one’s own “wisdom.”

 

[mfbukowski]

A shorter way of saying it is “turn the Truth into a lie”

Now see? What about that “honest dialogue” you wanted? Tsk tsk.

 

[mfbukowski]

I lived the word of wisdom for a time to and prayed about it while I was living it and the Lord revealed to me that there is nothing wrong with drinking tea but Joseph Smith insists that I should not. Why does JS think one thing and the Lord revealed something else to me?

Because he wanted you to be catholic? I don’t know-- ask him. He only gives me SOME of the answers!