Either Catholics or Mormons have it right...

  • Thread starter Thread starter SalesianSDB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stephe1987 said:
Don’t Protestants also believe in an apostasy of some sort? They left the Catholic Church because they say it no longer represents true Christianity, but there is no evidence to support this claim. The writings are there, and there is scriptural basis for the Church’s teachings.
Click to expand...
When referring to Protestants you are using a very broad term.
Which Protestant church are you referring to?

For example, Mormons call themselves Christians, which according to their doctrine, they
definitly are not, they are Mormons, which is considered one of the largest cults in the world.
i.e, “Mormons become gods and goddesses in heaven.”
Women will give birth to spirit babies forever in heaven. (doesn’t that sound like fun? 🙂
Men can have muliple wives. ?
( this surely was written by a man.) Sex in heaven?? (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young)
God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus? ( good grief!)
And, All of Christianity is an abomination to them, yet, they themselves want to be called Christians??
Lets pray for the Mormon church.

God bless,
bluelake
 
bluelake said:
When referring to Protestants you are using a very broad term.
Which Protestant church are you referring to?

For example, Mormons call themselves Christians, which according to their doctrine, they
definitly are not, they are Mormons, which is considered one of the largest cults in the world.
i.e, “Mormons become gods and goddesses in heaven.”
Women will give birth to spirit babies forever in heaven. (doesn’t that sound like fun? 🙂
Men can have muliple wives. ?
( this surely was written by a man.) Sex in heaven?? (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young)
God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus? ( good grief!)
And, All of Christianity is an abomination to them, yet, they themselves want to be called Christians??
Lets pray for the Mormon church.

God bless,
bluelake
Click to expand...
blue, with your jump from the question to your response, you appear to be foaming at the mouth. I urge you to go in for a check-up.

To answer your statements
  • It is both an old Catholic as well as LDS teaching that the more christlike we are here, the more like Christ we will be in heaven.
  • Spirit babies forever in heaven? Get your mind out of the gutter and stop trying to learn what LDS think from watching youtube cartoons.
  • Multiple wives? Nope that’s illegal and against doctrine
  • Sex with Mary? Again, get your mind out of the gutter and don’t watch cartoons to learn LDS doctrine.
  • Christianity is following Christ, and it can’t be an abomination. However, LDS certainly think Churches have gone apostate and lost key things.
You clearly have no clue on LDS doctrine.
STOP watching cartoons to learn theology
 
The Jews had reference to the presence of God, but considered His name so holy, they did not even say it. So you will see different names attributed to God.
 
KathleenGee said:
The Jews had reference to the presence of God, but considered His name so holy, they did not even say it. So you will see different names attributed to God.
Click to expand...
Kathleen,
Correct, and they as a general group of people, led by the scribes, Pharisees, and rabbis, could not accept the idea that Jehovah had come to earth and was God with us. So they rejected Him. But yet the fact remains that the Bible had talked about one Savior, one Rock, one Messiah, the Anointed One. So they missed all that because they weren’t looking for it, even though it was right in front of their eyes and had been prophesied so plainly.

I see the Nicene creed as being a compromise to allow converted Pharisees to continue with the belief in “one Savior” and yet acknowledge that Jesus prayed to Father in Heaven. They are One just like Jesus prayed in His intercessory prayer, but evidently some converts simply could not accept that kind of an idea of Oneness–hence the “one in substance” idea that is at heart a “mystery”.
 
The Nicene Creed evolved from the Apostles Creed because some groups were developing into heresy, loosing belief that Christ is also True Man.
 
ParkerD said:
JD,

It was JeanMichel who posted what you seem to have attributed to me. I wasn’t offended at all since why should I take offense from nonsense–but I thought JeanMichel made good points, and I had appreciated his sincerity in challenging your approach and your lack of knowledge.

Rather than tell you everything wrong with what you had posted above, I have just gone ahead and edited the section attributed to Mormon beliefs to save myself time.
Click to expand...
I apologize for my misattribution.
 
ParkerD said:
JAVL,

I suppose that you realize that when Moses received the Ten Commandments, he received them from Jehovah, but the Jews thought (and still do) that he received them from Elohim, so the “One God” of the Jews is Elohim, not Jehovah, and that is why they rejected Christ–because they absolutely would not accept that there could be a Messiah who was God with us.
Click to expand...
Google “names of God” and you’ll find a long list of names used for God, since, as Kathleen pointed out, “God” was unmentionable in Judaism.

“Jehovah” was a translation error. Joseph Smith copied the error. Very amusing, since he was allegedly translating from “Reformed Egyptian” – into Elizabethan English? Yep. The Nephites and Laminites, ancestors of the American Indians, spoke Elizabethan English in 600
B.C. A large part of the Book of Mormon is almost word-for-word out of the KJV.

–quote from the Preface to the Revised Standard Version –

The form “Jehovah” is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of
the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an
entirely different word.

…]

(1)…[T]he word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use for any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other Gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.

End quote

Source: The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha
Revised Standard Version
Oxford University Press
New York, 1973, 1977
So, the Catholics have taken their belief in One God from the Jews, and kept that belief which is to be expected since they have taken several other traditions from the Jews also, and since it is evident to some of us that converted Pharisees or other “knowledgeable” Jews insisted on keeping their old traditions in their new church after they joined it.
Click to expand...
Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. The Old Testament is a precurser to the New Testament. So, of course, Jewish beliefs carried over into Christianity. The Apostles attended the synagogue and Temple on Saturday and celebrated Mass (called the breaking of the bread) on Sunday for a long time, until the painful break between synagogue and Church was completed.
The idea of “other gods” has to do with either pagan gods or with other objects of worship or modes of worship–whether idols, other items made of wood or stone, or even other activities or possessions in life that dominate and consume one’s time, energy, and “devotion.”
Click to expand...
According to Joseph Smith:

“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people in it.” (pages 349-50)

“I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one. . .” [the God of earth] (p. 317)

“I have it from God and get over it if you can . . . I have a witness of the Holy Ghost . . . I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can.”

Smith goes on to say that it isn’t in the original, but was added by an old Jew. He then translates Genesis as “The head of the Gods called the Gods together” and adds “I want to show a little learning as well as other fools.” (pages 370-71)

There are a plethora of other teachings about plural Gods.

Source: *Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith *

Peace, y’all, Jim Dandy
 
Jim_Dandy said:
Google “names of God” and you’ll find a long list of names used for God, since, as Kathleen pointed out, “God” was unmentionable in Judaism.

“Jehovah” was a translation error. …
Peace, y’all, Jim Dandy
Click to expand...
JD,
So let’s see. If you were translating a text from an ancient language into a modern language, you wouldn’t use the modern language word that was commonly accepted? I think I would, particularly since the Bible is one of the primary foundations of the modern English language (as compared with Old English or Middle English–not the modern English of America today). I think the inspiration that led to doing that was correct inspiration for the purpose at hand. (Of course, I am one who delights in the excellent use of the English language by those who speak or write it well.)
 
ParkerD said:
JD,
So let’s see. If you were translating a text from an ancient language into a modern language, you wouldn’t use the modern language word that was commonly accepted? I think I would, particularly since the Bible is one of the primary foundations of the modern English language (as compared with Old English or Middle English–not the modern English of America today). I think the inspiration that led to doing that was correct inspiration for the purpose at hand. (Of course, I am one who delights in the excellent use of the English language by those who speak or write it well.)
Click to expand...
I would be very careful in doing that, Parker. For instance, there is a vast difference between the Greek of Christ’s day, classical Greek, and modern day Greek. The same with the idiomatic variations in the “English” language from Old English to Modern American. Expressions used then may have an all together different meaning today, and vice versa.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom haMeshiac
 
Javl said:
I would be very careful in doing that, Parker. For instance, there is a vast difference between the Greek of Christ’s day, classical Greek, and modern day Greek. The same with the idiomatic variations in the “English” language from Old English to Modern American. Expressions used then may have an all together different meaning today, and vice versa.

Shalom haMeshiac
Click to expand...
JAVL,
Please be aware that I wasn’t talking about “Modern American.” I was talking about the English that became the standard, for example, for the Noah Webster dictionary. Any idea what he used as the standard? (Answer is found in the following link.)

cbtministries.org/resources/webster1828.htm

Have a fine and lovely day, JAVL.👍
 
I think Jospeh Smith was a very creative man. I don’t think he should have invented the story of the golden plates of the indians which proclaim that Jesus got on a boat and sailed to America. All other theories that come forth from this story are not to be taken for serious. It’s like drawing a moral lesson from SpongeBob.
 
ParkerD said:
JAVL,
Please be aware that I wasn’t talking about “Modern American.” I was talking about the English that became the standard, for example, for the Noah Webster dictionary. Any idea what he used as the standard? (Answer is found in the following link.)

cbtministries.org/resources/webster1828.htm

Have a fine and lovely day, JAVL.👍
Click to expand...
I understand what you were/are talking about, Parker. Do you undestand what I have said and am talking about? Language and its history was a second major of mine in College. I am fluent in five languages and am at present studying two more.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom haMeshiach
 
ParkerD said:
JD,
So let’s see. If you were translating a text from an ancient language into a modern language, you wouldn’t use the modern language word that was commonly accepted? I think I would, particularly since the Bible is one of the primary foundations of the modern English language (as compared with Old English or Middle English–not the modern English of America today). I think the inspiration that led to doing that was correct inspiration for the purpose at hand. (Of course, I am one who delights in the excellent use of the English language by those who speak or write it well.)
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the “Reformed Egyptian” on the “golden plates” – a language unknown to linguists or Egyptologists or anyone else – in large segments of the Book of Mormon is, or almost, word for word the same as it is in King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. And the plates were so, uh, um, valuable or sacred or somethin’ that folks were assured by Smith that God would strike them dead if they dared to look at them, so they were never been examined by anyone other than Smith. In fact, an angel took the “golden plates” to heaven for safekeeping. :hmmm: :dts:

BTW, were the magic peepstones that Joseph Smith looked through that enabled him to make the “translation” preserved? Are they on display somewhere?

Jim Dandy
 
Todd520 said:
  • Multiple wives? Nope that’s illegal and against doctrine
You clearly have no clue on LDS doctrine.
STOP watching cartoons to learn theology
Click to expand...
Taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy

"Polygamy (called plural marriage or the Principle within Mormonism) was a defining characteristic of early Mormonism, and continues to be the defining characteristic of Mormon fundamentalism. The practice of polygamy was instituted in the 1830s by founder Joseph Smith, Jr. It was also a factor in the 1857 invasion of Utah by the United States Army, and was the cause of an intense legal conflict during the late 19th century, culminating in the temporary legal dissolution of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and its institutions.citation needed] The LDS Church officially abandoned the practice in 1890. Since the Second Manifesto in 1904, a policy of excommunication was adopted for members of the LDS Church found practicing or promoting new polygamous marriages—marriages performed before the Manifesto were allowed to continue until all parties had died*citation needed*].
Today, the practice of plural marriage continues among tens of thousands of Mormon fundamentalists, mostly in the western United States, Canada, and Mexico, where it is generally illegal. However, practitioners are almost never prosecuted unless there is evidence of abuse, statutory rape, welfare fraud, or tax evasion."
 
…also…
Todd520 said:
  • Sex with Mary? Again, get your mind out of the gutter and don’t watch cartoons to learn LDS doctrine.
Click to expand...
Taken from exmormon.org/mormon/mormon385.htm

Here is the statement of BY’s that JFS supports:
“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in
his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the
Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a
tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as
the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”
(JoD 1:50-51, also “Answers”, vol. 5, p. 121).

To illustrate more clearly that BY meant that Christ’s conception was actual
physical sex, here is another of his statements:
“The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD–was begotten
of his father, as we were of our fathers.” (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).

Here are a few more quotes from the 1962 Gospel Doctrine Sunday School Lesson
Manual “Gospel Living in the Home,” p. 16-17:
“Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily OFFSPRING; that
is to say, Elohim is LITERALLY the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and
also of the BODY in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh…”
(as quoted from ‘The Articles of Faith’ by James E. Talmage, p. 466).

Much more on this topic here: exmormon.org/mormon/mormon385.htm
 
E.E.N.S said:
…also…

Taken from exmormon.org/mormon/mormon385.htm

Here is the statement of BY’s that JFS supports:

“Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily OFFSPRING; that
is to say, Elohim is LITERALLY the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and
also of the BODY in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh…”
(as quoted from ‘The Articles of Faith’ by James E. Talmage, p. 466).

Much more on this topic here: exmormon.org/mormon/mormon385.htm
Click to expand...
I read some of it…here is some more…which is quite maddening to me…some emphasis is mine…

"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore,
the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been
associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have
been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term
lawful wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that
He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully…He had a lawful right
to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a
Son…Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the
wife of Joseph while in this
mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as
one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity."
Apostle Orson Pratt, “The Seer,” Oct. 1853, p. 158).

Pratt’s statement is supported by one from Brigham Young: “The man Joseph, the
husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary
the wife of Joseph had another husband.” (Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866).
 
Jim_Dandy said:
Hmmmm. Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the “Reformed Egyptian” on the “golden plates” – a language unknown to linguists or Egyptologists or anyone else – in large segments of the Book of Mormon is, or almost, word for word the same as it is in King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. And the plates were so, uh, um, valuable or sacred or somethin’ that folks were assured by Smith that God would strike them dead if they dared to look at them, so they were never been examined by anyone other than Smith. In fact, an angel took the “golden plates” to heaven for safekeeping. :hmmm: :dts:

BTW, were the magic peepstones that Joseph Smith looked through that enabled him to make the “translation” preserved? Are they on display somewhere?

Jim Dandy
Click to expand...
You state there were no witnesses; I seem to recall reading in the Book of several witnesses. Am I not remembering correctly?

I wonder how you would perceive a Mormon that talked in the same degrading manner about Catholicism as you do about Mormonism? I have a suspicion that you would be the first to want to burn someone at the stake and call for holy war. It makes me more than sad when I see this type of behavior from someone that calls themself a Christian. And they will call to me Lord, Lord and I will say to them, depart from me for I have never known you. You cannot act this way and say you know Christ; I am sorry but they do not go hand in hand; it is impossible. The Holy Spirit guides in humility, patience, and love. This is not present in any of your words. Why?
 
JeanMichael,

The difference between Catholicism vs Protestantism, Mormonism, Islam is that we have 12 apostles who are witnesses to the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ.

Luther was a very authoritarian person in his own right, wrote texts as prefaces before every gospel, his brushing off of ethics and morals contradicted that of Christ’s sermon on the Mount…you begin the breakdown of marriage with the consent to divorce, you have Mohammed who came out from a cave having had a visitation from St Gabriel…

You either believe them, and the further fragmentation of universal faith and the subsequent and oftentimes adversarial relationships among people of different creeds to the point of killing each other, or you look to Christ and His witnesses. The Bible was the work of many apostolic Christians and took many years. Every one of us should be held accountable for the basis of our creed.

We Catholics believe in absolute and concrete truths. And true Christianity has to be the leader in drawing people together. If your construct is fragmentation and condemnation of Catholicism like you see of the Mormons and some Bible fundamentalists, it is that much harder to draw greater unity in Christ. Islam is historically very difficult to develop dialogue, but there are a number of world wide enlightened imams who are communicating with the Vatican and rejecting violence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top