False Prophesies of LDS Prophets

[twopekinguys]

I don’t know how much “original thought” you can expect. Are you suggesting that forum posters do not routinely check and reference resources they feel could assist them in proving a point or in defending their faith? I know I’ve done that. I’m not a scholar so there is a lot I’ve cross-referenced because I don’t know all the answers. I’d venture to say this is the case with a large number of our veteran posters too. Perhaps I’m worse because often times I don’t even cite a source!

Whether it’s against the forum rules I suppose is another question, but then again plenty of others have posted more than the “recommended” requested by forum administrators and I haven’t seen anything stated against them. Perhaps it’s only acceptable when it’s a Roman Catholic doing so? Of course you wouldn’t think that way but I find it peculiar that this is when the forum rules are suddenly invoked.

Additionally, when there are approximately 3-4 people asking him questions at the same time, with everyone expecting an answer, I don’t know how we could not expect him to use other sources to help defend his position. I mean we’re talking about questions on an internet forum, in which we participate in our spare time, not a doctoral dissertation where you need to bring in your own original research.

I’m not here to defend Evanfaust’s opinions, in fact I find his conclusions to be incorrect and I agree far more with you, TexanKnight, Livingwaters PaulDupre, and the other Catholic members who have participated in these discussions but on the other hand everyone seems to be piling questions and then adding the expectation that some kind of wonderful, “original” thinking should be provided.

The point I was trying to make was simply quoting/regurgitating quotes from sources is not what discussion/debate is about.

Yes, we all use quotes from sources, but, that should not be your entire response to a question that is asked. You should state your opinion/view as you see it, then use the quotes as your source. That is not what is happening here.

 

[TexanKnight]

I don’t know how much “original thought” you can expect. Are you suggesting that forum posters do not routinely check and reference resources they feel could assist them in proving a point or in defending their faith? I know I’ve done that. I’m not a scholar so there is a lot I’ve cross-referenced because I don’t know all the answers. I’d venture to say this is the case with a large number of our veteran posters too. Perhaps I’m worse because often times I don’t even cite a source!

I guess, for me…I expect a lot. I research, too, but then I put things in my own words and try to discuss. I do not find an iffy website, spend 30 seconds pasting it and call it a day. IF he knows as much as he claims, it should not be hard to put his findings in his own words. Instead, despite his claim to extensive research, all he does is look for anything that supports him and then cuts and pastes it here.

Whether it’s against the forum rules I suppose is another question, but then again plenty of others have posted more than the “recommended” requested by forum administrators and I haven’t seen anything stated against them. Perhaps it’s only acceptable when it’s a Roman Catholic doing so? Of course you wouldn’t think that way but I find it peculiar that this is when the forum rules are suddenly invoked.

Additionally, when there are approximately 3-4 people asking him questions at the same time, with everyone expecting an answer, I don’t know how we could not expect him to use other sources to help defend his position. I mean we’re talking about questions on an internet forum, in which we participate in our spare time, not a doctoral dissertation where you need to bring in your own original research.

Yes…but most of us are asking him the same questions…regarding the same facts. And IF he chooses to come to a Catholic Board to DEFEND his faith, he should be prepared to do so.

I’m not here to defend Evanfaust’s opinions, in fact I find his conclusions to be incorrect and I agree far more with you, TexanKnight, Livingwaters PaulDupre, and the other Catholic members who have participated in these discussions but on the other hand everyone seems to be piling questions and then adding the expectation that some kind of wonderful, “original” thinking should be provided.

The questions would not “pile on” if he would answer them instead of ignore them or act like he has answered when he hasn’t.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I guess, for me…I expect a lot. I research, too, but then I put things in my own words and try to discuss. I do not find an iffy website, spend 30 seconds pasting it and call it a day. IF he knows as much as he claims, it should not be hard to put his findings in his own words. Instead, despite his claim to extensive research, all he does is look for anything that supports him and then cuts and pastes it here.

Which I can understand, but I know that in my case, if I’m not knowledgeable about an aspect of my faith, I would have to make recourse to resources which provide a better explanation or a response. I can’t also fault him for consulting a Mormon website - after all, who else is going to defend the LDS Church if not the LDS? Why would a Catholic attempt to defend the inerrancy of the Book of Mormon? If he or she did that, then wouldn’t that person just convert? Regrettably, not all of us have had the immense experience you’ve had in both Churches.

Yes…but most of us are asking him the same questions…regarding the same facts. And IF he chooses to come to a Catholic Board to DEFEND his faith, he should be prepared to do so.

True but also, on the original thread of “Conversion to Mormonism” others began attacking Mormonism. I don’t recall him launching the opening salvo. He recounted his own experience in converting, and then was subsequently attacked. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be asking difficult questions, but maybe the foot can be taken off the accelerator just a tiny bit.

The point I was trying to make was simply quoting/regurgitating quotes from sources is not what discussion/debate is about.

Yes, we all use quotes from sources, but, that should not be your entire response to a question that is asked. You should state your opinion/view as you see it, then use the quotes as your source. That is not what is happening here.

I guess I just personally don’t have an issue with it since he already agrees with the article’s point of view. It doesn’t bother me, especially since he is explicitly* not* taking credit for it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, “testimony of Jesus” does not simply mean to speak about Christ, it is much more. Joseph said, “Salvation cannot come without revelation; it is in vain for anyone to minister without it. No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a Prophet. No man can be a minister of Jesus Christ except he has the testimony of Jesus; and this is the spirit of prophecy. Whenever salvation has been administered, it has been by testimony. Men of the present time testify of heaven and hell, and have never seen either; and I will say that no man knows these things without this” (TPJS p160).

We view the spirit of prophecy as a gift of the Holy Spirit, given to Christ’s Church, and to all baptized Christians. We share in the prophecy of Jesus Christ, by our very baptism, as each baptism is a witness of Christ and each baptism is a fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus Christ. Therefore, all the baptized are sharing in the prophecy of Jesus Christ. Living, breathing, in the spirit of prophecy.

All the baptized are called to witness for Christ, in our daily lives, in how we live, particularly in our interactions with the world and others. Which again, is sharing in the prophetic mission of Jesus.

Jesus fulfills all prophecy, and by sharing in His prophetic office, we are all prophets.

Smith was just making stuff up about himself, can’t you see that?

 

[RebeccaJ]

You accuse me of copy and paste…that only means that the answer is out there available for anyone to see. I read your question and I found the answer…the answer is ready. I don’t even have to add anything to it. It makes sense to me and I accept the answer…You may accept or reject it…and of course I doubt that any answer would please you. You are already pre determined to reject whatever anyone says to the contrary.

Here is one more answer to the so called prophecy…in this case it is just a mission call.

D & C 114 was not a prophecy, it was a mission call. Joseph Smith, under the inspiration of the Lord, issued a call for David Patten to go on a mission the following spring. This call by revelation is not a prophecy that David would serve a mission, but an admonition to set all his affairs in order so that he may perform a mission. Although Patten was killed, his affairs were in order when he died so that his family could endure his absence. This alone indicates the Lord’s foreknowledge of Patten’s death. And who knows but that Patten served that mission call on the other side of the veil?

Seriously? You think this explains it? Patten served several missions. Pretty much that was his life for years. Sending him on another mission is like you going to work tomorrow morning. You know it is going to happen because you do it all of the time. If you die today, therefore you don’t show up tomorrow, are you fulfilling your work obligation in heaven?

You’ve made the prophecy into a non prophecy. Anyone can say, “he will do X tomorrow”. And then turn around and say “oops, he died, therefore he is doing X in heaven”.

Not to mention, if you believe Smith was really prophesying of a man’s death, there arises the question of murder, ala, Lafferty style.

In any event, Patten’s death would not change the instructional nature of that call. Joseph Smith declared that: To the “great Jehovah . . . the past, present, and future were and are, with Him, one eternal ‘now’.”[2] The Savior does know all that will happen to us individually, but he still gives agency to us and to others who impact on our lives, which usage often precludes what would have happened if the Lord’s will were done on earth as it is in heaven.

There are several Biblical parallels to David Patten’s mission call, such as the calling of Judas as an Apostle. As one of the Twelve Apostles, Judas was promised by the Lord that he would sit on twelve thrones with the others and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). Judas, of his own choice (unlike David Patten) never fulfilled this promise of the Lord. This doesn’t make the Lord a false prophet in the case of Judas. Nor were the Lord and His prophet, Joseph Smith, mistaken in the case of David Patten.

Patten died leading Joseph’s Mormon Militia, during a gunfight with a group of men who we’re holding three Mormon men. Are you saying the prophecy of Patten going on a mission is made void by Pattens’s defiance to the will of God (a mission), but rather Patten chose to exercise his free will and lead a militia instead? Therefore, he doomed himself to death?

The Lord knocks at the door and gives the promise or opportunity. Whether we open the door and respond in a way to reap the potential blessing is up to us, and in many cases, up to the righteousness of others. In David Pallen’s case, extenuating circumstances prevented him from serving an earthly mission: a mob killed him. To understand the case of David Patten, one might study DC 124:49, which states if “their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.”

So, when Smith prophesied that Patten would go on another mission, God didn’t know that he would be killed in a military skirmish? By the way, he wasn’t killed by a mob, he was killed in a military operation, while leading Smith’s Mormon Militia.

Some critics have pointed to the “thus saith the Lord” phrase at the beginning of D&C 114 (verses 1 and 2) as proof that this was a prophecy. A quick examination of other sections where “thus saith the Lord” was part of the revelation demonstrates that the phrase was not used exclusively for prophecies (as in D&C 87) but is also used in revelations where instructions (D&C 21, 44, 49, 50, 52, 75, 89, 91, etc.) callings (D&C 36, 55, 66, 69, 99, 100, 108, etc.), and reproof (D&C 61, 95) are given. More than half the time the phrase was used in the first verse of the section. When used in the first verse, it appears to be an indication that it is being given as a revelation. But callings in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are considered callings from God given by revelation. (See Ex. 28:1; Heb. 5:4; Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 1, Callings)

en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies/David_Patten_to_serve_mission

Just face it, it is a failed prophecy, or no prophecy at all. A prophet who does not prophesy is not a prophet. No?

 

[TexanKnight]

Which I can understand, but I know that in my case, if I’m not knowledgeable about an aspect of my faith, I would have to make recourse to resources which provide a better explanation or a response. I can’t also fault him for consulting a Mormon website - after all, who else is going to defend the LDS Church if not the LDS? Why would a Catholic attempt to defend the inerrancy of the Book of Mormon? If he or she did that, then wouldn’t that person just convert? Regrettably, not all of us have had the immense experience you’ve had in both Churches.

Well, when someone claims extensive research, I expect them to to be able to make an argument or point without cutting and pasting. I am discussing with HIM, not all the authors he quotes. Makes it hard to have a discussion with quotes.

T

 

[RebeccaJ]

Evanfaust,

I think I ought to say, at this juncture, that you have been very polite and have done your best to answer honestly the questions we have put to you.

Don’t be discouraged. It is the way it is.

You have my respect. I prefer clarity to agreement, and you have provided much clarity.

I thank you for that.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

I agree.

 

[LivingWaters7]

We view the spirit of prophecy as a gift of the Holy Spirit, given to Christ’s Church, and to all baptized Christians. We share in the prophecy of Jesus Christ, by our very baptism, as each baptism is a witness of Christ and each baptism is a fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus Christ. Therefore, all the baptized are sharing in the prophecy of Jesus Christ. Living, breathing, in the spirit of prophecy.

All the baptized are called to witness for Christ, in our daily lives, in how we live, particularly in our interactions with the world and others. Which again, is sharing in the prophetic mission of Jesus.

Jesus fulfills all prophecy, and by sharing in His prophetic office, we are all prophets.

Smith was just making stuff up about himself, can’t you see that?

It’s somewhat amusing that Smith said, as quoted by Janderich, "Men of the present time testify of heaven and hell, and have never seen either; and I will say that no man knows these things without this". Clearly Joseph Smith never heard of the many Catholic canonized saints that have had visions of both Heaven and Hell.

Revelation was never lost, contrary to LDS teaching.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s somewhat amusing that Smith said, as quoted by Janderich, "Men of the present time testify of heaven and hell, and have never seen either; and I will say that no man knows these things without this". Clearly Joseph Smith never heard of the many Catholic canonized saints that have had visions of both Heaven and Hell.

Revelation was never lost, contrary to LDS teaching.

Even if Smith did know, his followers did not, and his followers today still do not. He knew his audience.

LDS are not taught Christian history, I think that is purposeful. Smith’s schtick works best in the darkness of half truths and obfuscations.

 

[evanfaust]

You said that if Adam and Eve had not sinned, they could not have felt desire for one another and had children.

This implies that a man and a woman in paradise could not feel attraction to one another; so a husband and wife’s desire for one another is a result of sin.

Ah, those Mormon family values…

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Paul…If you want to call the partaking of the forbidden fruit “sin”, it will not make much difference. The only reason Mormons use the word transgression is because Adam and Eve figured out that partaking of the fruit was the only way to acquire knowledge, wisdom and procreate. As I recall there is only one verse that tells us that Adam and Eve realized they were naked, which was **after **partaking of the fruit. Can you tell me why they did not notice they were naked before the transgression?

My point is that the “eating of the fruit”, transformed their bodies, because they became mortal…that is the inheritance all mortals get. We behave in a certain way, we have the seeds of good and evil inside of us, and it is up to us to choose good over evil. But, we cannot deny our desires, that is something that we all have and if we are honest we all admit it. It is genetic to feel an attraction between opposite sex. It is not bad, as long there is love, respect and loyalty within the covenants of marriage, which was the case between Adam and Eve.

Before partaking the fruit Adam and Eve were similar to children…very innocent, they liked each other and felt attraction to each other in a different way, but they didn’t think about procreation or desires of the flesh. The structure of their bodies before the fruit was an innocent and eternal. I have not seen you demonstrate to me that they could have children before the fall.

As far as Mormon values…I think it is well recognized that Mormons have great values, including moral values. Now, I don’t think you want to open a can or worms about moral values. As you know I have much ammunition on the subject about the Catholic Church. But, we don’t need to go there…it is not necessary. Let’s limit the topics, so we don’t deviate too much from it.

 

[TexanKnight]

Paul…If you want to call the partaking of the forbidden fruit “sin”, it will not make much difference. The only reason Mormons use the word transgression is because Adam and Eve figured out that partaking of the fruit was the only way to acquire knowledge, wisdom and procreate. As I recall there is only one verse that tells us that Adam and Eve realized they were naked, which was **after **partaking of the fruit. Can you tell me why they did not notice they were naked before the transgression?

My point is that the “eating of the fruit”, transformed their bodies, because they became mortal…that is the inheritance all mortals get. We behave in a certain way, we have the seeds of good and evil inside of us, and it is up to us to choose good over evil. But, we cannot deny our desires, that is something that we all have and if we are honest we all admit it. It is genetic to feel an attraction between opposite sex. It is not bad, as long there is love, respect and loyalty within the covenants of marriage, which was the case between Adam and Eve.

Point is, you rejoice that they DISOBEYED God. You rejoice in the fact the refused to follow God’s command. This is not surprising knowing what I know about js and his desire to violate the Ten Commandments at will

As far as Mormon values…I think it is well recognized that Mormons have great values, including moral values. Now, I don’t think you want to open a can or worms about moral values. As you know I have much ammunition on the subject about the Catholic Church. But, we don’t need to go there…it is not necessary. Let’s limit the topics, so we don’t deviate too much from it.

Seriously? You want to try to hold the Priest Sex Scandal over our heads as a sign of low morality? I suggest you not make that veiled threat. You speak for a church whose prophet committed adultery with minors then built the law of polygamy to make it all ok. You make threats from a position of prophets and leaders who broke the law and committed adultery in having multiple wives, most of which were stolen. And your church lost all moral authority when it tried to kidnap my children. So, yes…lets not go there.

But on a different note: thank you for DISCUSSING instead of cutting and pasting

 

[Stephen168]

As you know I have much ammunition on the subject about the Catholic Church. But, we don’t need to go there…it is not necessary. Let’s limit the topics, so we don’t deviate too much from it.

Actual you have no ‘ammunition’ at all when comparing the teachings of the Catholic Curch to the Mormon Church.

 

[evanfaust]

I don’t need to investigate it; I lived it.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Paul…I also lived it and still live it! I know you have investigated the Mormon Church and doctrines, and for this reason you left it …But, intellectual investigation alone does not necessarily make someone truly understand something. There is the element of wisdom, meditation, sensing, feeling, perceiving, resentment, anger, jealousy along with bias, connecting the dots and the pondering of the material being exposed to. What I mean is “seeing the light” versus “seeing the dark”.

The standard or methodology of an analysis of Joseph Smith’s prophecies should be applied in the same measurement to the prophecies we find in the Bible, which are similar in nature. That is why I posted some “false prophecies” from the Bible to compare to the same “false prophecies” from Joseph. Bible’s prophecies should be exposed to the same scrutiny as the prophecies of Joseph Smith. Don’t you think?

Some people in this site are the opinion that “feelings” or “senses” are weak tools to recognize truths. I disagree with that…the element of knowledge, and research are important ones, however, people in the old times did not have internet, libraries, tablets, etc. They mainly relied on their feelings, senses, traditions and perception of recognizing the truth when they heard it or saw it.

Many critics of the Mormon Church ridicule the missionaries or anyone who says they know certain things to be true because they prayed to God and received an answer. Some critics even insist that this is not a Biblical method of determining the truth. If that is the case then should we say that the promise in James 1:5 is false? "If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.” How about Jesus words in Mat 7:7? “"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you…” or Mat 21:22 “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”

Well, the Book of Mormon is very clear and specific to the point of asking for revelation from God

“And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." Mor 10:4

I have learned the truth about Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon and Mormon Church from the Holly Ghost…but that is my personal experience and it is only validated for me. I cannot transfer what I learned to anyone else. Nobody can! Each one of us will have to validate it by the Holly Ghost on an individual basis, but they have to pay the price…by the way, that is the best way to know if something is true or false.

But, I have to admit that I always had a curious mind and wanted to know deeper and deeper and for this reason sometimes I come into a Catholic, Jewish or Protestant website to learn the way they see the world. I am honest to say that I learn from each experience, even though I get treated in a rude an unfair manner most of the time. The questioning and their reasoning make me do more research and think of ways I have not thought before. I see this exposure as a way to expand my knowledge and to validate what I believe…but I always keep an open mind…to the point of leaving the Mormon Church, but this never happened.

 

[Stephen168]

Paul…I also lived it and still live it! I know you have investigated the Mormon Church and doctrines, and for this reason you left it …But, intellectual investigation alone does not necessarily make someone truly understand something. There is the element of wisdom, meditation, sensing, feeling, perceiving, resentment, anger, jealousy along with bias, connecting the dots and the pondering of the material being exposed to. What I mean is “seeing the light” versus “seeing the dark”.

The standard or methodology of an analysis of Joseph Smith’s prophecies should be applied in the same measurement to the prophecies we find in the Bible, which are similar in nature. That is why I posted some “false prophecies” from the Bible to compare to the same “false prophecies” from Joseph. Bible’s prophecies should be exposed to the same scrutiny as the prophecies of Joseph Smith. Don’t you think?

Some people in this site are the opinion that “feelings” or “senses” are weak tools to recognize truths. I disagree with that…the element of knowledge, and research are important ones, however, people in the old times did not have internet, libraries, tablets, etc. They mainly relied on their feelings, senses, traditions and perception of recognizing the truth when they heard it or saw it.

Many critics of the Mormon Church ridicule the missionaries or anyone who says they know certain things to be true because they prayed to God and received an answer. Some critics even insist that this is not a Biblical method of determining the truth. If that is the case then should we say that the promise in James 1:5 is false? "If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.” How about Jesus words in Mat 7:7? “"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you…” or Mat 21:22 “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”

Well, the Book of Mormon is very clear and specific to the point of asking for revelation from God

“And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." Mor 10:4

I have learned the truth about Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon and Mormon Church from the Holly Ghost…but that is my personal experience and it is only validated for me. I cannot transfer what I learned to anyone else. Nobody can! Each one of us will have to validate it by the Holly Ghost on an individual basis, but they have to pay the price…by the way, that is the best way to know if something is true or false.

But, I have to admit that I always had a curious mind and wanted to know deeper and deeper and for this reason sometimes I come into a Catholic, Jewish or Protestant website to learn the way they see the world. I am honest to say that I learn from each experience, even though I get treated in a rude an unfair manner most of the time. The questioning and their reasoning make me do more research and think of ways I have not thought before. I see this exposure as a way to expand my knowledge and to validate what I believe…but I always keep an open mind…to the point of leaving the Mormon Church, but this never happened.

the beauty of Catholicism is that our feelings never conflict with history, science and reason. Mormons have to ignore history, science and reason to have their ‘feeling’

The Catholic Church doesn’t have to be anti-Mormon to justify itself, while the Mormon Church has to be anti-Catholic.

 

[evanfaust]

Evanfaust,

I think I ought to say, at this juncture, that you have been very polite and have done your best to answer honestly the questions we have put to you.

Don’t be discouraged. It is the way it is.

You have my respect. I prefer clarity to agreement, and you have provided much clarity.

I thank you for that.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

Well…thank you for revealing that side of yours that I did not know. It feels better than being beat in the head! hehe.

I appreciate the good comments.

 

[TexanKnight]

Paul…I also lived it and still live it! I know you have investigated the Mormon Church and doctrines, and for this reason you left it …But, intellectual investigation alone does not necessarily make someone truly understand something. There is the element of wisdom, meditation, sensing, feeling, perceiving, resentment, anger, jealousy along with bias, connecting the dots and the pondering of the material being exposed to. What I mean is “seeing the light” versus “seeing the dark”.

Perhaps. But accepting a religion should not mean ignoring all reason and intellect. I researched it too. A lot. It is the attorney in me. I needed to know. The fact is, there is no truth to the LDS Church. none.

The standard or methodology of an analysis of Joseph Smith’s prophecies should be applied in the same measurement to the prophecies we find in the Bible, which are similar in nature. That is why I posted some “false prophecies” from the Bible to compare to the same “false prophecies” from Joseph. Bible’s prophecies should be exposed to the same scrutiny as the prophecies of Joseph Smith. Don’t you think?

No. Especially since you handliy have ignored, for several days, my question as how can compare what and how something happened, thousands of years ago, in a different culture and language, that has been translated countless times, with something said in this country, less than 200 years ago, in English, with ZERO translations. You ignore it because to deal with this issue shows you how silly your comparison is.

Many critics of the Mormon Church ridicule the missionaries or anyone who says they know certain things to be true because they prayed to God and received an answer. Some critics even insist that this is not a Biblical method of determining the truth. If that is the case then should we say that the promise in James 1:5 is false? "If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.” How about Jesus words in Mat 7:7? “"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you…” or Mat 21:22 “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.”

I don’t. I prayed and God told me the LDS Church is false. God told me to use my rain and my heart. God told me to try to find evidence to the Book of Mormon and the lack of evidence was all the proof God needed to give me.

.

 

[evanfaust]

the beauty of Catholicism is that our feelings never conflict with history, science and reason. Mormons have to ignore history, science and reason to have their ‘feeling’

The Catholic Church doesn’t have to be anti-Mormon to justify itself, while the Mormon Church has to be anti-Catholic.

That is an interesting comment. I have been Mormon for many years, but never noticed that Mormons were anti-Catholics. You probably know that many good Mormon converts come from the Catholic Church. I don’t see Mormons passing anti Catholic literature anywhere, nor do I remember seeing anti Catholic literature in all the literature I have read in the Mormon Church. For example, in all Church manuals that I know I don’t see the denigration or bashing of any religion. Mormon authors may mention a point here and there about certain religion, but that is done in research or to illustrate a point.

In Salt Lake City there is a real friendships with the Catholic authorities and Mormon authorities…they even exchange gifts, for example, one of statues in the Salt Lake Temple was donated by the Catholic Church. The Mormon Church has donated some land to the Catholics in Salt lake,.

I have learned much of the Mormon history and I still have the good feelings. I have read many anti Mormon material and still have the good feelings. Nothing changed for me.

What you are saying about Mormons ignoring Science, history is some kind of stereotype …Mormons are counseled to attend university and get as much education as possible. Anti Mormons have learned much about the Mormon church because their history is open for research. Look at much details we know about Joseph and the history of the Mormon Church.

You talk about science…well, have you thought that the Catholic Church and all other churches are in the same boat? How about the theory of evolution? How about the age of man on the earth? How about Noah’s story or many other stories in the Bible? There is a long list about these conflicts between science and religion. Some things in the Bible have not yet been validated by archeology or history. Time and technology will help to sort these things out.

Another thing is that many people just look at one side of the explanation or one side of the story…they just accept it and it becomes popular knowledge and acceptable, but few people really look at the other side before they form an opinion.

I say that if you are happy in the Catholic Church…then you should stay and feel great about it. I recognize Catholics as a good force in society and have the best wishes and feelings towards Catholics.

I don’t judge a person by label…or by religion or even political party, but mainly the character of that person.

 

[TexanKnight]

That is an interesting comment. I have been Mormon for many years, but never noticed that Mormons were anti-Catholics.

Again, an incredibly impressive lack of knowledge of your church. Ever read LDS Bruce R. McKonkie saying the Catholic Church is the Great and Abominable Church? Ever notice that, in the old temple ceremonies, a Catholic Priest was shown as the agent of Satan?

Y.

 

[evanfaust]

The point is, you rejoice that they DISOBEYED God. You rejoice in the fact the refused to follow God’s command. This is not surprising knowing what I know about js and his desire to violate the Ten Commandments at will

Texan,

You have a way of going to the extreme! Your comments in general seem to be full of anger and resentment. You should let it go! I understand you had a bad experience in the Mormon Church, but ask God to forgive whoever offended you and let it go!

God did not abandon Adam and Eve after the fall. We know that Adam had communion with God even after the fall. The rules changed after they lived in a mortal world with work, pain, and hardship. If you research pre mortal existence the fall will make a lot more sense. You will find much material about Pre mortal existence even in Jewish literature, the early fathers of the church, the apocrypha, and other ancient books and even in the Bible.

Much of this material explains why God had to create this world and why we had to come here and go through this. The fall makes a lot more sense when we acknowledge the doctrine of Pre mortal existence.

As far as Joseph Smith there is history, there is stories, there is anti Mormon stories, poorly documented history, etc. Please take all that into consideration when judging Joseph Smith.

 

[iepuras]

Paul…If you want to call the partaking of the forbidden fruit “sin”, it will not make much difference. The only reason Mormons use the word transgression is because Adam and Eve figured out that partaking of the fruit was the only way to acquire knowledge, wisdom and procreate. As I recall there is only one verse that tells us that Adam and Eve realized they were naked, which was **after **partaking of the fruit. Can you tell me why they did not notice they were naked before the transgression?

My point is that the “eating of the fruit”, transformed their bodies, because they became mortal…that is the inheritance all mortals get. We behave in a certain way, we have the seeds of good and evil inside of us, and it is up to us to choose good over evil. But, we cannot deny our desires, that is something that we all have and if we are honest we all admit it. It is genetic to feel an attraction between opposite sex. It is not bad, as long there is love, respect and loyalty within the covenants of marriage, which was the case between Adam and Eve.

Before partaking the fruit Adam and Eve were similar to children…very innocent, they liked each other and felt attraction to each other in a different way, but they didn’t think about procreation or desires of the flesh. The structure of their bodies before the fruit was an innocent and eternal. I have not seen you demonstrate to me that they could have children before the fall.

As far as Mormon values…I think it is well recognized that Mormons have great values, including moral values. Now, I don’t think you want to open a can or worms about moral values. As you know I have much ammunition on the subject about the Catholic Church. But, we don’t need to go there…it is not necessary. Let’s limit the topics, so we don’t deviate too much from it.

Please do not insinuate that Mormons are more moral than others. Mormons are no more and no less moral than anyone else.