Discourse with Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew_Larkoski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
debi:
…my son’s friends family is Morman and I have been very impressed with their set of values…
This is a fascinating reference you make here. I had an opportunity to spend a lot of time with a good friend of mine who is Mormon. He was going to MIT at the time and I was visiting him for the summer. We both went to each-others Church services. We were both impressed with each others faith community.

One of the things I noticed when I was in Boston is that the Catholic community we visited was very charged spiritually. This was not the case with the Catholic parish I visited on a regular basis back home in Wisconsin. However, my friend said that even though his LDS Church community in Boston was also highly charged spiritually, he noticed that the spirituality was lacking in Salt Lake City when he visited there. His comment was that they seemed to be lacking the energy necessary for the faith.
 
40.png
Stylteralmaldo:
Thanks TOm for your responses.
It does seem clear that there is a common thread between Catholicism and LDS: They both claim to teach inerrant doctrine. This seems particularly true when you consider that LDS is bound to the teaching as it comes from the First Presidency.

I suspect it is not a selling point, especially for a Catholic, but I would not say that LDS demand that our church has inerrant doctrine. I would say that our doctrine is sufficient for salvation and our leaders are inspired in ways that aid in directing the members of the church towards salvation.
40.png
Stylteralmaldo:
Based on your comments regarding the priesthood ban, you seem to have yet to fully accept all of LDS teaching (your comment was “I do not know”). Perhaps you’re still searching in some regards.

I do not think that I am still searching to answer the question as to where God intends for me to worship. I do think that I am searching for greater light and knowledge and I think Brigham Young and others were pretty clear that I should make it mine wherever I find it.

I think I have fully accepted the LDS authority and those teaching that are part of LDS doctrine. This does not mean that there are not problems with the CoJCoLDS with which I must come to grips.

I have yet to find a religion that does not require some sort of explanation of problems. Much of the time when I find myself in dialogues such as this I allude in a very limited way to the analogous problems within the religion of those who point out the problems in mine. This is not an intent to employ the “Tu Quoque” fallacy but instead to suggest that in logically evaluating religion none of us are immune for the problems that require explanations.
40.png
Stylteralmaldo:
I suppose I am biased, but I pray you will see the truth of the Catholic Church someday. I don’t expect this to happen overnight, but someday I hope you will see this. I recken you feel the same way about the many Catholics you have encountered here.

Take care and may God bless you.

We are all BIASED. I pray that we can grow to understand and respect each other (something I think you are well on the way to doing), and that we can do God’s will in our lives.

As committed and fanatical as I consider myself about the CoJCoLDS, I still cannot bring myself to KNOW that YOU walk the wrong path. It is either a greater conviction, more spiritual or logical witness, or a lower standard that allows so many folks to KNOW that I am outside the Catholic Church and damned, not a Christian and damned, or … and damned. Perhaps my searching will one day convince me of the insufficiency of the path of others, but today I am just convinced of the inspiration of my path and its perfection for me.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
debi:
I have been reading over this and other threads concerning Mormans because one of my son’s friends family is Morman and I have been very impressed with their set of values. I wanted to learn more about what they believe. I live in a small town and there are few Mormans here.

I must admit I am also impressed with the knowledge that people have of their own faiths. I have studied my Catholic faith but could never get into such a deep apologetic discussion (sometimes arguement) and make any sense.

One of the things that seem to make many of us more adament about the errors of Mormanism is that they are so involved with their church and their families. This is very appealing to us as we struggle to raise our families. They LIVE their faith as we often float through ours. You may tell me to speak for myself, but it seems sometimes that I am like a salmon swimming upstream when it comes to finding others who are willing or trying to raise children and live in a Christ like manner. The real world is too tempting, and our egos and need to feed them too great.

I live near an Amish community and they, although also in my eyes misled, live the more ideal life when it comes to family and community. This is an extreme way of life, but it does have a certain appeal when one is searching for a way to get closer to God’s plan for us.

I hope that the discussions become more Christlike, and that everyone reading them will come closer to the Truth and learn to live out that Truth.
Blessings
Were you a LDS you would likely find many folks to swim past as well. Christ taught us that the wheat and the tares will grow together. We must balance this with another lesson that by their fruits ye shall know them. But I think we must look to the best in our traditions not the also-rans.

Charity, TOm
 
Andrew Larkoski:
I have a question about Mormon eternal marriage.
Here are the things that I have posted in the past about this:
  1. Code:
     The CoJCoLDS does not believe that the Eternal Marriage is something that can be preformed in heaven.  This is the reason that it is preformed by proxy in Temples.  The same is true of Baptism.
  2. Code:
     The men said the men “were with us” those married of men do not have eternal marriage.  See D&C 132:15-16.  As I alluded to in #1 the ordinances will be preformed by proxy, but this can only affect those who possessed the proper spirit and never had the chance to participate in the proper ordinance.  There is no second chance for the ordinance and all that occurs after death is predicated upon the earthly life.
  3. Code:
     Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees who denied the resurrection.  It was not critical to expound upon the much deeper truths associated with Eternal Marriage with a group of folks who are unable to accept the more basic truth of the resurrection.  This is the “pearls before swine.”  Jesus knew these men would only find additional things to ridicule God’s plan were he to attempt to explain more.
Ephesians 5:31-32

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

The above passage specifically calls this a great mystery. With the sacredness associated with Eternal Marriage in LDS thought this could be a parallel in the early church.
  1. Code:
     The CoJCoLDS believes that an eternal marriage is a choice.  It is inconsistent with our theology to suggest that those who are married (even sealed), but who are not united in a one flesh (much more than sexual) relationship will be eternal companions.  Sealed couples choose to continue their bond 100% free of compulsion or outside influences.  The marriages the Sadducees spoke of never seemed to be marriages of love or true uniting.  They where marriages of the law.  Jesus’ words also point to being “given in marriage,” further lending support to the arrangement or marriage of the law rather than the marriage of uniting.  So, together with the above this would explain why what Jesus said was completely true and answered the question.  In the environment in which the Sadducees lived arranged marriages were not something they would have to stretch to acknowledge.  This was just the way it was in many cases.  To us it seems foreign, but likely this was something all these men were very familiar with.
  2. Code:
     Some of the above comes from Bickmore.  This is Bickmore’s quote of Tvednes:
In the Apocrypha… we read of a young woman, Sarah, who had been married to seven husbands (all brothers), each of whom was killed on the wedding night by a demon. But in the story (Tobit 6:10-8:9), Sara ultimately marries an eighth husband, Tobias, son of Tobit, who, following instructions from the archangel Raphael, manages to chase the demon away and is therefore not slain. Of special interest is the fact that the archangel (who, according to Tobit 3:17, had been sent to arrange the marriage) tells the young man that his wife had been appointed to him “from the beginning” (Tobit 6:17). This implies that she had not been sealed to any of her earlier husbands, which would explain why none of them would claim her in the resurrection, as Jesus explained. But if she were sealed to Tobias, the situation changes. Assuming that the Sadducees (whose real issue was one of resurrection, not of eternal marriage) were alluding to this story but left off part of it, this would explain why Jesus told them, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”

In the next message I will include some more of Bickmore’s ideas from the link I will also include.
 
Some more positive points:

Genesis 2:18

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Matthew 19:6

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

TOm:

So in keeping with the idea of #2 above, earthly marriages are until death do us part, but heavenly marriages are forever.

In fact, in the Garden of Eden man an women where united. The fall lead to death. If death resulted in the separation of man and woman, and the atonement did not renew the original unity God called “good” in the Garden of Eden, then it was not an infinite atonement.

Another thing I might note. The unity associated with becoming one with God will result in a different type of closeness than that experience by earthly couples. In a sense this will be different than marriage, but Christendom generally recognizes that we will know each other in heaven. With this knowledge and the heavenly bond of marriage we formed upon this earth, the two will still be united. I know that LDS place a greater emphasis upon this than non-LDS, but I believe this common ground does not fail either of our theologies.

Barry Bickmore:fairlds.org/pubs/conf/1999BicB.html
Finally, many Jewish Christians did practice a form of celestial marriage, and this can be traced back to the first century. The Christian philosopher Origen complained in the third century about the Jewish Christians and others who believed in a literal millennial reign of Christ, and he added this:
Certain persons…are of the opinion that the fulfillment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury…. And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children…. Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises.

Cardinal Daniélou infers a similar interpretation from an enigmatic passage in the Didache, a first-century Jewish Christian document, where prophets are mentioned as performing something called “the cosmic mystery of the Church”. Daniélou links this mystery to the type of “spiritual marriages” some Gnostic groups practiced:

The expression “cosmic mystery of the Church” seems to stand in opposition to a “heavenly mystery of the church”. This heavenly mystery is the celestial marriage of Christ to the Church, which also finds its expression in this world. The allusion in this passage would therefore seem to be to those spiritual unions which existed in Jewish Christianity between prophet-apostles and a sister. . . The relation of these unions to their heavenly ideal is explicitly stated by the Gnostics: “Some of them prepare a nuptial couch and perform a sort of mystic rite (mystagogia)…affirming that what is performed by them is a spiritual marriage after the likeness of the unions…above” (Adv. haer. I, 21:3).

The Gnostic rite is described in the Gospel of Philip as being performed in “the mirrored bridal chamber”, and “those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated.” Stuart George Hall writes that Melito, Bishop of Sardis in the late second century, may have preserved a fragment of the ancient bridal chamber ceremony in his writings, as well.

Charity, TOm
 
rod of iron:
Fact? These alleged wives are documented? Are you saying that you have found 49 official marriage licenses linking these 49 women to Joseph Smith? I hardly think so.
Official marriage licenses are not the only available evidence for Joseph Smith’s plural marriages. Polygynous Mormons still today have “wedding ceremonies” for which no license is obtained from the Clerk of the Court, since such unions are illegal, and were in Smith’s day also.

Subject to be continued on a separate thread.
 
40.png
Katholikos:
Official marriage licenses are not the only available evidence for Joseph Smith’s plural marriages. Polygynous Mormons still today have “wedding ceremonies” for which no license is obtained from the Clerk of the Court, since such unions are illegal, and were in Smith’s day also.

Subject to be continued on a separate thread.
All right, Katholikos, I am waiting for this other evidence you speak of. I hope that you can convince we beyond reasonable doubt that Joseph Smith was married to more than one wife, namely his wife Emma. Good luck!
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
POINT 1: I suspect it is not a selling point…but I would not say that LDS demand that our church has inerrant doctrine…

POINT 2: I do not think that I am still searching to answer the question as to where God intends for me to worship…This does not mean that there are not problems with the CoJCoLDS with which I must come to grips.

POINT 3: …I have yet to find a religion that does not require some sort of explanation of problems…I find myself in dialogues such as this I allude in a very limited way to the analogous problems within the religion of those who point out the problems in mine.

POINT 4: …I pray that we can grow to understand and respect each other (something I think you are well on the way to doing), and that we can do God’s will in our lives.

POINT 5: …It is either a greater conviction, more spiritual or logical witness, or a lower standard that allows so many folks to KNOW that I am outside the Catholic Church and damned…I am just convinced of the inspiration of my path and its perfection for me.
Point 1: Not a selling point, just an observation from what I’ve read that LDS are bound to follow what the First Presidency issues on matters of faith. When the Pope speaks "from the chair of St. Peter " it is in regards to faith and morals. All Catholics are bound to follow the teachings. An example would be the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion. All good-standing Catholics are bound to this stance. If not, a Catholic should not receive Eucharist if in opposition to a key matter of faith like this. Perhaps you could clarify what it means to be bound by the teachings of the First Presidency. Thanks.🙂

Point 2: Fair enough.

Point 3: I’m not certain if you were referring to me or not. I do not intend to attack anyone’s faith. I admit I that I like to challenge others faith systems and I don’t mind others challenging mine. It allows me to take a step back and look deeper at my own faith. For me, this approach has helped me grow spiritually.

Point 4: I have never lost any respect for you. If I had, I would have walked out on this conversation a long time ago because it would have been counter-productive. I would agree that we are “well on our way” to understanding each-other. I’ll continue to ask you questions on your faith (if you don’t mind). It would help me understand you even more.🙂

Point 5: “so many folks” are wrong when they say this because this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church does not teach that if you are LDS you are damned. The Catholic Church has never deemed anyone as being in hell.
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
By this logic I could add a third loss to the Jesus column. A bunch of men killed him. Sure he rose again, but he was killed, conquered, …

You will respond that this was foreordained. It was part of the plan. I say the same of the apostasy.

Charity, TOm
Tom,
I’ve heard some Mormon non-sequitors before, but this one takes the cake! Jesus and all the prophets before Him foretold that he would be slain for the sins of mankind. In fact, he was “slain before the foundations of the world”. His death was the fulfillment of those prophecies and the lynchpin in the plan of salvation. It was therefore a victory, not a defeat.

Your great apostacy, on the other hand flies in the face of Jesus’ express promises that:
  1. The gates of hell (or death) would not prevail against His Church
  2. He would be with us ALWAYS, even until the end of the world
  3. The Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth.
  4. Those who are unsuccessful in turning a wayward brother from his wickedness could “take him to the Church” for correction. If there was no Church for 1800 years, where would someone go to fulfilll this commandment?
Your understanding of the bible is very weak. But then, Mormons don’t really believe the bible do they? It is so corrupt and untrustworthy after all, with all the plain and precious parts taken out.
Paul
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
,

Your understanding of the bible is very weak. But then, Mormons don’t really believe the bible do they? It is so corrupt and untrustworthy after all, with all the plain and precious parts taken out.
Paul
You got it Paul,

Mormons don’t really believe in the Bible. But they believe totally in a book (the book of Mormon) that says the Bible contains “the fullness of the everlasting gospel”. Another bold-faced flip-flop by Mormonism.
 
As an evangelical pastor, I have spent months in dialogue with LDS missionaries and have read nearly all of their “Scripture”. I found that the Book of Mormon does not teach anything like current LDS doctrine - when I confronted them with this fact it became evident that the believe in the concept of “changable truth”. Christians believe that* “Christ is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow.”*

In addition it became evident that their ultimate faith is in their “living prophet” - who can change doctrine at any time, even if it contradicts previous revealed truth.

Their is no real parallel here with the authority of the Pope, or the Church, because Mormons are expected to accept whatever he may say as the sole and final authority - ABOVE SCRIPTURE AND THEIR TRADITION.

Their past radical changes in doctrine have resulted in the many splinter groups we see today and the fact that not one of the “witnesses” to the Book of Mormon died as a member in good standing of the Utah church.

That’s my 2 cents worth!

Vince Warde
 
40.png
PastorVW:
I found that the Book of Mormon does not teach anything like current LDS doctrine -

Yes, Pastor Warde, how true. As a matter of fact the Book of Mormon also flat-out contradicts much of what Mormons believe. The Book of Mormon is used strictly as a marketing tool.
 
That is one thing that has always fascinated me. LDS members are told that their current prophet is more important than any other prophet from the past. This makes it very easy for the LDS church to change doctrines whenever their prophet sees fit. For a general look at what the LDS faith currently believes take a look at Gospel Principles. I’m not sure even this is complete, however. I have been told that there are many beliefs that the LDS hierarchy still hold, but the LDS faithful have been told is no longer binding. My example for this would be plural marriages. I have HEARD that the LDS hierarchy still holds that in order to reach the highest level of heaven and become a god, the person must have more than one wife. I have HEARD that they bind high level LDS officials to a 2nd and sometimes more wives in a special, secret ceremony in the temple. If anyone knows, or has literature that backs this up, that would be much appreciated!
 
“It is not literally true that is has been said of us: “You are gods,” and that we are to become “sons of God”? Let us give to these expressions their full Christian meaning. First and foremost, the baptized must learn to appreciate the incomparable privileges they have received by the sacrament which, in making them Christians, has brought the Blessed Trinity to dwell in their souls, and given them power to live the divine life, if only they will, and so long as they will. Let us lift up our heads and bear proudly the proud dignity of our Baptism.”
 
When I was just twenty it gave me great satisfaction that I managed to read, and understand, the Ten Categories of Aristotle without a teacher. I would mention the book at every opportunity, slipping the title in with a touch of awe, smiling to myself when lecturers would comment how difficult it had been for them to answer it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top