Discourse with Mormons

[TOmNossor]

Andrew Larkoski:
No doctrinal proclaimation that a pope has made ex cathedra in the entire history of the Church has ever contradicted another, nor ever changed. The Catholic Church’s beliefs (doctrinal matters of faith and morals) today are the same as they were in Cardinal Newman’s time, in St. Francis of Assissi’s time, St. Augustine’s time, and yes, even in Jesus’ time. LDS CANNOT say that by any means.

TOm:

First, I have really looked at the concept of consistency. The most troubling thing for me was the universal subordinationism pre-Nicea that almost melted away. But the term “co-equal” to my knowledge is not canonized and thus a Catholic may (and prolly should) recognize a miniscule amount of subordination that may be on the extreme edge of the spectrum of pre-Nicea thought. This is troubling for me but not a fatal flaw. So I would say change occurred, but there is an ability to point to seeds that resulted in flowers (although not adolescents that resulted in adults because the development was to radical).

Second, Peter cannot say that he did not introduce anything NEW. So I enjoy being in his company when you say that LDS CANNOT say that they didn’t introduce anything new.
Andrew Larkoski:
Interesting to note, the original Bible documents (the Septuagint, New Testament writings) weren’t swept off to Heaven, and weren’t in Biblical form until the fifth century, yet the Book of Mormon came to Joe Smith “pre-packaged” and only to him.

Actually, we have no originals of the Biblical texts, not one, zero.
Andrew Larkoski:
“The Papacy is not evidence before 200AD, and Tertullian claims it is a usurpation.”

One must be careful when citing Tertullian, for in his later years (when he said this) he taught heresy, and broke away from the Church. Therefore, I must disregard this statement.

Actually, this was most like written before he left the church. And, we already have the very real problem that regularly documents in opposition to developing orthodoxy were burned/destroyed. If you disregard totally the witness of everyone who says something (and it actually survives) contrary to orthodoxy, you will ensure your conclusion before you even investigate. This is fine, but we are not talking about what you ignore rather about what data I use to come to my conclusions.

The history of the CoJCoLDS would look radically different if printing presses did not start rolling three years after its inception producing anti-Mormon works.
Andrew Larkoski:
Hmm, let’s see here. Since the beginning of time, there has been an authority chosen by God on Earth to teach and spread His Word. In the Old Testament, God connected with individuals (most notably, Abraham) and then led His Chosen People (the Jews). In the New Testament, when Jesus Christ was on Earth, He chose His Apostles as the SOLE AUTHORITY to teach in His Name and to spread His Church to all corners of the world.

But as I pointed out before, the witness is that the fullness was withheld from the Jews when Moses came down from the mountain. We have the apostate authority of Caiphas who continued to exercise his priesthood while Jesus Christ and/or the Apostles walked the earth.

Adam started by talking face to face with God. Abraham next speaks with God and is held up by 3 major religions as the man through whom monotheism came. The old testament witnesses to dispensations. Moses seems to be the only place were we see some evidence of the withholding of authority.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Andrew Larkoski:
With an apostasy, all that God had created to connect with humans would have been utterly lost. Who would have guided the people? Who would have taught the people? One is not just born with a knowledge of Jesus, Our Lord and Savior, nor of the immense love that God bestows on us. We are God’s flock and must be led by an authority appointed by Christ. Since His resurrection, that authority has been the office of the papacy. Christ said “I will be with you until the end of Time”. He didn’t say that His authority on Earth would leave for a while then return in direct contradiction of the Gospel He taught. Christ stays constant, and His love is eternal.

• Apostasy in the LDS paradigm is not what you describe here. I have in the past coined a term for Catholics to better understand. Apostasy in Authority Heresy in Doctrine (AIAHID). Heresy creeps in without the proper authority.
• God was with those who embrace the Bible and the teachings of the Catholic Church. He did not abandon his children. But like the Jews with Moses they could not bear/protect the fullness of the gospel. The Peterine authority was not past on and when the heresy of Baptism without authority was introduced (against St. Cyprian’s pleas) slowly the lesser authority vanished.
• It is interesting that we agree that he is with the Catholic Church through the apostasy. But when speaking about the Peterine authority He does not say He will be with you until the end of time, but rather He will prevail (in the end).

Concerning the Bible. The CoJCoLDS does not consider it either inerrant nor complete. It is just the word of God and sufficient. We have 3 other volumes of scriptures. Had the Prophet Joseph Smith been left unmolested we would have complete and verified JST (Joseph Smith “Translates”) Biblical aids. The CoJCoLDS is not based on the Bible. We are based on the same thing the Bible is based on, Jesus Christ. The choice of the KJV of the Bible I believe was a missionary tool in many ways not a vote of total confidence in the ability of the apostate church to choose books for the Bible. You may use your inerrant Bible apologetic upon Protestants, but for me the Bible is sufficient. I would have liked to see Enoch and the Visions of Hermas included, but alas this is not the case.

St. Ignatius used the term before Catholic was a denomination. He said, “catholic.” (I think in Greek transliterated to *katholikos) *not “Catholic.”
I hope you do not mind me responding to you. I have enjoyed your last two posts and many others of yours. As I said in the beginning I have thought about this for a long time and do not envision myself moving. I would like for you to see that LDS have not “taken leave of their senses,” as some have suggested; but I do not have more grandiose aspirations than this.
*Charity, TOm *

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

Question Tom…

You guys believe that Christ was just a man who became a god?

You also believe that we are Gods spirit children?

You have 4 levels of heaven?

You Baptize after death?

You believe that huge battles went on in the Americas?

You believe that two tribes of the Jews came over and settled in the Americas?

You completely ingore the passage where Christ says that the Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Chruch he founded (the Catholic Church)?

When you die and go…where ever…you become like God and have little spirit children of your own?

You accept the Bible (compiled by the Catholic Church 200 years after the supposed apostacsy) but dont accept the teaching athority of the Church?

Sorry Tom I guess that was many Questions…

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

Good questions, Tyler.

 

[TOmNossor]

AugustineH354:

Number (1) Concerning the Bible and apostasy. Certainly the Bible speaks of apostasy. In fact, apostasy starts with the first human couple, and runs throughout the entire Bible. When it comes to the issue of apostasy and the NT Church, I like to use the OT Church as an example of what one might expect. We know from scripture and history that the OT Church underwent deep, gross periods of apostasy. But, we also know that Israel’s religious authority (i.e. priesthood) remained intact until they rejected the divine Messiah. Now, when we look at apostasy during the NT times, and post-NT times, I personally see nothing that comes close to some of the darker periods of the OT Church. This fact, and the strongly implied promises in the NT that the Church will not fail, sure seem to indicate that the type of apostasy needed for the CoJCoLDS to the restored Church is found wanting.

Today while I was reading McConkie another answer to this question came into my mind. My stair stepping was disrupted for a while as I thought about this.

Now for a Catholic this will be but a grain of sand (if that) in the pan on the other side of the balance beam. For me this is a grain of sand in the pan on my current side. I do not expect much movement of the balance beams and I think this is fine. For me the CoJCoLDS pan is lower than the Catholic pan, but I always strive to ensure my fulcrum is centered (yes, I am a geek). I hope one day I will have a centered fulcrum and a grain count similar to that of you, AugustineH354.

Anyway, here is your grain of sand.

The reason that the lesser priesthood may have never left the earth during the Old Testament was that the need of this authority and the principles upon which it was passed were never rejected (until the destruction of the temple and records in 70AD).

I contrast this to the introduction of non-authoritative baptism. This was a change it seems. If the Council of Nicea could be said to have a position it was that only baptism by those with proper authority could be valid (of course it is very arguable that Nicea didn’t actually deal with this issues specifically). St Cyprian clearly taught that this was what he felt was the truth taught be the apostles. Pope St. Stephen argued (if I understand correctly) that the heretics do not rebaptize us and for this (and likely other) reasons Catholics do not need to rebaptize those baptized by heretics. If this position is an error as the CoJCoLDS would suggest, ultimately this would lead to a total apostasy of authority when everyone was either baptized without authority or ordained by one who was baptized by one without authority.

So the fullness of authority was not passed from Peter as can be argued also occurred with Moses. And the lesser authority become apostate as a result of the heretical acceptance of the baptism by those without authority. The Old Testament cannot be shown to have ever had the lesser authority absent and this is because they never compromised the practice of passing this authority through the house of Aaron.

Charity, TOm

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

“Actually, we have no originals of the Biblical texts, not one, zero.”

The fact is, that the original Septuagint and New Testament letters existed for several hundred (in the case of the Septuagint, probably closer to a thousand) years until an authoritative, infallible Bible could be compiled, and most likely existed for a while after that. The Catholic Church does not claim that the texts were mysteriously swept away to Heaven as Joe Smith claims is what happened to the BOM. Also, more than one person on Earth saw and read the original Biblical texts (“Septuagint” literally means seventy, as in the seventy Hebrew scholrs who compiled their sacred texts to put in Ptolemy’s library in Alexandria). Just one person being able to view these original BOM texts sounds a bit fishy. You said it your self that EVERYONE has the desire and priveledge to search for Jesus, so why would only one person be able to look at the texts? Another thing, the Dead Sea Scrolls are (I don’t think so, anyway) not original, but are ancient. The original BOM “existed” on Earth for, what, a couple months? Also, where did this “undiscovered language” that Joe Smith translated come from? If I’m not mistaken, it was an “ancient Egyptian” language, yet there IS ABSOLUTELY NO evidence anywhere of its existance. We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Romans spoke Latin, we know the language of the Mayans, the ancient Chinese, we know Sanskrit, Cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and Greek, but we don’t know a language that supposedly some “magic goggles” was able to interpret. Another thing, the original cross that Jesus died on doesn’t exist, but does that mean he wasn’t crucified? Nope, it existed for several hundred years after Christ bore it, for Helena, Constantine’s mother, excavated it and preserved it. Today, the remaining pieces (which would make a cube about 6 inches on a side) is guarded by the Catholic Church. I believe it is the College of Cardinals who actually protect them. Another thing, there are new interpretations of the Bible coming out every so often. What are these people interpreting? Something that came down from Heaven and was swept up in a flash of light? Nope, it was the Catholic Church who kept these records of the original text (for the scribes knew the original wouldn’t last forever). If Joe Smith translated the ONLY copy of the BOM in its original language into English, then how could anyone come after him and change the interpretation? It sounds like the BOM (and other “holy” Mormon texts) are protected, ad infinitum, because only Joe Smith was allowed to interpret them.

Case in point, the Catholic Church has protected and preserved the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE of the Bible Scriptures (not necessarily the original paper-or papyrus-on which the Bible texts were written), while Mormons cannot, for only Joe Smith was allowed to interpret the BOM.

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

Tom,

What exactly are you trying to say about baptism here? You have totally lost me. Are you asking why we rebaptize mormons who convert? The answer to that is that you believe things so different than what we belive, that a baptism is requried because of the severity of the differences.

 

[TOmNossor]

You guys believe that Christ was just a man who became a god?

I do not. This is not binding doctrine. I do believe that while Christ was God during his mortal ministry, there was some aspects of the Trinity that were “emptied” to care out the atonement.

You also believe that we are Gods spirit children?

Yes

You have 4 levels of heaven?
3 Heaven, One Outer Darkeness

You Baptize after death?

All will be Baptized in this life of for the dead.

You believe that huge battles went on in the Americas?

Yes. Prolly somewhere in the Americas.

You believe that two tribes of the Jews came over and settled in the Americas?
Two (three I think) groups of settlers that had been culturally associated with Jews came to the Americas.

You completely ingore the passage where Christ says that the Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Chruch he founded (the Catholic Church)?

I have answered this many times see post #47 this thread.

When you die and go…where ever…you become like God and have little spirit children of your own?

We may become gods. We may partake of eternal increase. What eternal increase is we do not definitively know.

Catholic believe that men may become gods as I read Catholic theology. See this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1624

You accept the Bible (compiled by the Catholic Church 200 years after the supposed apostacsy) but dont accept the teaching athority of the Church?

Post #81 this thread.

And what I said about Baptism was that when Pope St. Stephen ruled against the position of St Cyprian that Baptism was valid when performed by those without authority. I suggest as did Martin Luther, that if this is an error that it would ultimately result in no authority of validly baptized person.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

“Actually, we have no originals of the Biblical texts, not one, zero.”

The fact is, that the original Septuagint and New Testament letters existed for several hundred (in the case of the Septuagint, probably closer to a thousand) years until an authoritative, infallible Bible could be compiled, and most likely existed for a while after that. The Catholic Church does not claim that the texts were mysteriously swept away to Heaven as Joe Smith claims is what happened to the BOM. Also, more than one person on Earth saw and read the original Biblical texts (“Septuagint” literally means seventy, as in the seventy Hebrew scholrs who compiled their sacred texts to put in Ptolemy’s library in Alexandria). Just one person being able to view these original BOM texts sounds a bit fishy. You said it your self that EVERYONE has the desire and priveledge to search for Jesus, so why would only one person be able to look at the texts? Another thing, the Dead Sea Scrolls are (I don’t think so, anyway) not original, but are ancient. The original BOM “existed” on Earth for, what, a couple months? Also, where did this “undiscovered language” that Joe Smith translated come from? If I’m not mistaken, it was an “ancient Egyptian” language, yet there IS ABSOLUTELY NO evidence anywhere of its existance. We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Romans spoke Latin, we know the language of the Mayans, the ancient Chinese, we know Sanskrit, Cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and Greek, but we don’t know a language that supposedly some “magic goggles” was able to interpret. Another thing, the original cross that Jesus died on doesn’t exist, but does that mean he wasn’t crucified? Nope, it existed for several hundred years after Christ bore it, for Helena, Constantine’s mother, excavated it and preserved it. Today, the remaining pieces (which would make a cube about 6 inches on a side) is guarded by the Catholic Church. I believe it is the College of Cardinals who actually protect them. Another thing, there are new interpretations of the Bible coming out every so often. What are these people interpreting? Something that came down from Heaven and was swept up in a flash of light? Nope, it was the Catholic Church who kept these records of the original text (for the scribes knew the original wouldn’t last forever). If Joe Smith translated the ONLY copy of the BOM in its original language into English, then how could anyone come after him and change the interpretation? It sounds like the BOM (and other “holy” Mormon texts) are protected, ad infinitum, because only Joe Smith was allowed to interpret them.

Case in point, the Catholic Church has protected and preserved the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE of the Bible Scriptures (not necessarily the original paper-or papyrus-on which the Bible texts were written), while Mormons cannot, for only Joe Smith was allowed to interpret the BOM.

I agree that there is no claim that Bible texts were swept to the Heaven.

The Dead Sea scrolls do not seem to be originals, but they also do not perfectly support the Bible as being inerrant.

Charity, TOm

 

[SPH1]

I remember being baptised Mormon in Utah at the age of 8, but little else. Introduced to Catholicism not long after.

Some time back, at CARM’s Mormon board, I participated in some discussion…and found some distant relatives!

Anyway, I did believe that the anti-Mormonism was similar to the anti-Catholicism.

My Denominations page lists four Mormon branches (even the “true Church” of Mormonism has schisms.) Anyway, in reading material on their sites, I discovered that they have Sacraments somewhat similar to our Catholic sacraments. A list of their Sacraments can be found on this link, from a Mormon spin-off:

cofchrist.org/seek/sacraments.asp

I had thought of doing an article for my site on Mormon and Catholic similarities, but never got around to it. I know there are vast differences, especially regarding the Trinity, but maybe tossing out some similarities might be a way to approach discussion?

(I remember reading something in their canon somewhere that would lead me to believe they hold (or at least once held) to a “real presence” in their Communion.)

BTW, on that old discussion board with Mormons, they agreed that the choice basically comes down to either the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church. Protestantism is just wrong; either going down as daughters of the Catholic Church, or as falling from the true (Catholic) Church.

 

[petra]

SPH1:

I had thought of doing an article for my site on Mormon and Catholic similarities, but never got around to it. I know there are vast differences, especially regarding the Trinity, but maybe tossing out some similarities might be a way to approach discussion?

Catholics and Protestants have MUCH more in common than do Catholics and Mormons. See my post in the Are Mormons Considered Christains? thread.

 

[TOmNossor]

Well, Mormons are much closer to Catholics than to Protestants (despite the fact that Joseph Smith grew up in a Protestant environment). Here are the 7 sacrament parallels as I saw them 10 months ago.

Baptism – LDS Baptism (always be full emersion)

Confirmation – LDS Baptize at the age of 8 or upon joining our church. Immediately after this or the next day in Sacrament meeting (the first hour block of our 3 hour Sunday worship), the Gift of the Holy Ghost is given by the laying on of hands from one who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Acts 8:14-17
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
We teach that Philip at this time had the lesser Priesthood and could Baptize but not give the “Gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands.”

Holy Eucharist – What we usually refer to as the Sacrament.

Penance – This I think is the least accurate of the parallels. We believe in the need for repentance. We believe in the case of more serious sins it is very important that you work with your Bishop to assist in this repentance. Sometimes the Bishop will ask you that you forgo partaking of the Sacrament (bread and water) for a period of time. On very rare occasions and only in the most serious of situations, excommunication can result. One who has been excommunicated for serious and almost always repeated sin, sometimes begins immediately to try to return to the Church. This person would continue to attend Sunday services, participate in ward activities, and in addition to this meet with the Bishop to work through any issues. After one year the excommunicated person can be re-Baptized and regain all previous blessings and a remission of sins.

Extreme Unction – Post Vatican II part of the sacrament of Extreme Unction is the healing of the sick or otherwise afflicted. The clarified DEFINITION expresses the ability of the sacrament to be used for PHYSICAL not just Spiritual healing, and that it might be administered to those who are sick but not in danger of dying. So post Vatican II I would say the Catholic Church moved closer to the CoJCoLDS.
A valid Mechizedek Priesthood holder may consecrate oil (virgin olive oil) for the blessing and healing of the sick. Then a valid Mechizedek Priesthood holder may anoint one with this oil (a drop on the head usually), and pronounce a blessing upon one who is afflicted. Most often this is for those who are sick. Occasionally this is for those who have great troubles in their life. The blessing does not always state that the person will be healed. In some instances a dying person may be blessed with comfort. The Priest is to allow the Holy Spirit to speak through them.

Holy Orders – In the CoJCoLDS all worthy adult males may receive the Priesthood. This is done by ordination and the laying on of hands by one who has the conferred Priesthood.

Matrimony – LDS may be married in two ways. One is a religious and legal ceremony preformed in a chapel. Those who elect to be married this way are usually either marrying a non-member or are not Spiritually ready to attend the Temple. This might be called a sacrament, but is less like that then the following. The second way to be married is to be “Sealed for time and all eternity” in the Temple. This is most definitely a sacrament.

And that would be the Seven parallels I see. The only one that I think is a slight stretch is associated with Penance.

Charity, TOm

 

[SPH1]

petra:

Catholics and Protestants have MUCH more in common than do Catholics and Mormons.

Thanks. But that wasn’t my point.

 

[SPH1]

TN:

Here are the 7 sacrament parallels as I saw them 10 months ago.

I wonder how many Catholics - and Mormons - realize there are some parallels.

 

[AugustineH354]

Before I begin to list some of the more important Bahai evidences, I would first like to convey what may be called a Bahai standard in approaching such evidences. The Bahai standard is very similar to that of the New Testament. Jesus said:

But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. (Matthew 12:39)

And Paul wrote:

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles… (Matthew 12:39)

Like the NT, Bahais believe that it is the person/s and message/s of God’s divine messenger/s that provides the real evidence/proof/test.

Now, with that said, the hierarchy of Bahai evidences are as follows:

1.) The person and life of the Bab, Baha’u’llah, and Baha’u’llah, and Abdu’l-Baha.
2.) The teachings and writings of the Bab, Baha’u’llah, and Abdu’l-Baha.
3.) Fulfilled OT, NT, Quranic and Hadith prophecies concerning the advent of the Bab and Baha’u’llah, and Abdu’l-Baha.
4.) Changed lives of the followers of the Bab, and Baha’u’llah.
5.) The worldwide progress/expansion of the Bahai Faith.
6.) Miraculous deeds of the Bab, Baha’u’llah, and Baha’u’llah, and Abdu’l-Baha.

Numbers 1 and 2: Bahais believe that the highest class of divine messengers from God (called “universal Manifestations”) are much more than mere men. These Manifestations have two stations (i.e. natures), the human and the divine. Baha’u’llah in his The Kitab-i-Iqan states:

…the attribute of sovereignty and all other names and attributes of God have been and will ever be vouchsafed unto all the Manifestations of God, before and after Him, inasmuch as these Manifestations, as it hath already been explained, are the Embodiments of the attributes of God, the Invisible, and the Revealers of the divine mysteries. (p. 107.)

They are “the Presence of God”; the “Face of God”; the
“Word of God”; and such is their station that:

Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God!” He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.” (The Kitab-i-Iqan

, p. 178.)

Because of their divine station, the universal Manifestations of God are impeccable (i.e. holy, sinless), and they are infallible, for their words, and writings are THE WORD OF GOD.
So, in Bahai teaching, just as Jesus was the incarnation of the Word of God, so too the Bab and Baha’u’llah. This implies a very important test, so to speak: all their words and writings must be infallible (i.e. without error). This is one of the reasons why Bahais stress the importance of the persons and writings of the Bab and Baha-u’llah.

To be continued…

 

[AugustineH354]

Number 3:

With the appearance of each new universal Manifestation of God, grace and new life is poured out upon mankind—especially upon those who accept and recognize the new Manifestation. Through God’s grace, one can become “born again”; “resurrected” from death to life (spiritual).

Praise be unto Thee, O my God! Thou art He Who by a word of His mouth hath revolutionized the entire creation, and by a stroke of His pen hath divided Thy servants one from another. I bear witness, O my God, that through a word spoken by Thee in this Revelation all created things were made to expire, and through yet another word all such as Thou didst wish were, by Thy grace and bounty, endued with new life. I render Thee thanks, therefore, and extol Thee, in the name of all them that are dear to Thee, for that Thou hast caused them to be born again, by reason of the living waters which have flowed down out of the mouth of Thy will. Since Thou didst quicken them by Thy bounteousness, O my God, make them steadfastly inclined, through Thy graciousness, towards Thy will; and since Thou didst suffer them to enter into the Tabernacle of Thy Cause, grant by Thy grace that they may not be kept back from Thee. (Prayers and Meditations, prayer XXXIII, p. 42)>>

Thus it is that through the rise of these Luminaries of God the world is made new, the waters of everlasting life stream forth, the billows of loving-kindness surge, the clouds of grace are gathered, and the breeze of bounty bloweth upon all created things. It is the warmth that these Luminaries of God generate, and the undying fires they kindle, which cause the light of the love of God to burn fiercely in the heart of humanity. It is through the abundant grace of these Symbols of Detachment that the Spirit of life everlasting is breathed into the bodies of the dead. (The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 34)>>

They are the Treasuries of divine knowledge, and the Repositories of celestial wisdom. Through them is transmitted a grace that is infinite, and by them is revealed the light that can never fade. (The Kitab-i-Iqan, p.100.)>>

Even as Jesus said: “Ye must be born again.” Again He saith: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The purport of these words is that whosoever in every dispensation is born of the Spirit and is quickened by the breath of the Manifestation of Holiness, he verily is of those that have attained unto “life” and “resurrection” and have entered into the “paradise” of the love of God. (The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 118.)>>

Inasmuch as it hath been clearly shown that only those who are initiated into the divine mysteries can comprehend the melodies uttered by the Bird of Heaven, it is therefore incumbent upon every one to seek enlightenment from the illumined in heart and from the Treasuries of divine mysteries regarding the intricacies of God’s Faith and the abstruse allusions in the utterances of the Day-springs of Holiness. Thus will these mysteries be unravelled, not by the aid of acquired learning, but solely through the assistance of God and the outpourings of His grace. (The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 191-192.>>

Now, what can a true seeker expect when touched by the infinite grace of God? Baha’u’llah expounded the following:

[See: http://bahai-library.com/?file=bahaullah_kitab_iqan.html - page 192, section 213 thru page 200, section 219.]

To be continued…

 

[Katholikos]

SPH1:

I wonder how many Catholics - and Mormons - realize there are some parallels.

The reason for a new “church” (1830) having parallels with an old Church (Pentecost, c. A.D. 30) is elementary. It’s called “imitation.”
Or, to be blunt about it, “copycat.”

Any parallels – real or imaginary – are purely intentional.

 

[Katholikos]

TOmNossor:

I agree that there is no claim that Bible texts were swept to the Heaven.

The Dead Sea scrolls do not seem to be originals, but they also do not perfectly support the Bible as being inerrant.

Charity, TOm

Define inerrant, from your POV, please.

 

[Katholikos]

TOmNossor:

Well, Mormons are much closer to Catholics than to Protestants (despite the fact that Joseph Smith grew up in a Protestant environment). Here are the 7 sacrament parallels as I saw them 10 months ago.
Charity, TOm

Sacrament: (succinct definition) A sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.

Your seven examples fall short – none of them were instituted by Christ and none of them give grace. They are therefore mere signs.

I’m sure you do not agree, but that’s the objective reality.

And you’re the first Mornon I ever encountered who “saw” these seven parallels.

Have you looked into Masonry? There are your parallels for the Mormon ceremonies.

 

[Katholikos]

" . . . but some of the comments or rather the “tone” of some of these posts to Tom are just not nice! -Mfaustina1"

I’m sure I’m one of those you describe, Mfaustina. But what I know of Mormonism tends to make me edgy. It deliberately targets not the unchurched, not non-Christians, but Catholics. You won’t find any Mormon missionaries in the jungles of Papua, New Guinea, but you’ll find them by the thousands in Spain, Mexico, and South America. They even send missionaries to my door in Arizona.

They disallow any translation of the Bible but the KJV. Joseph Smith “corrected” the text of the KJV to make it agree with his new religion. His version is on sale at LDS bookstores. And Mormons consider three other books to be Scripture.

1 Nephi 13: V.4 "And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the foundation of a great church. And the angel said unto me: Behold the foundation of a church which is the most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth (sic) them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

V. 6 "And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the foundation of it.

V. 26 And . . . thou seest the foundation of a great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches, for behold they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

V28. Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

Now, which “book of the Lamb of God” do you suppose the Book of Mormon is referring to, and which church is the “great and abominable church” that caused the removal of these “plain and precious things” that they “might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men?” (see V. 27) Oh, here’s a clue. Did I mention harlots?

Pax et bonum, Jay