For Mormons - How Much Do You Really Know About Joseph Smith?

[Stephen168]

Joseph wasn’t restoring Christianity.

Now you remember that he claimed we was restoring Christianity.

Joseph Smith is much closer and for actions no different than theirs, we attack him. His message is still clear: The gospel of Jesus Christ is restored in it’s fullness for the last time before His second coming.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ NEVER included polygamy.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ NEVER included eternal marriage
The Gospel of Jesus Christ never included water baptism on behalf of the dead
The Gospel of Jesus Christ never included the Melchizedek Priesthood
Jesus Christ NEVER excommunicating his Apostles.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ never included having a prophet lead church.

This are all inventions of Joseph Smith, not restorations of the Gospel.

Then you a add the fact the the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and the Kinderhook plates are not what Joseph Smith claimed they were, you don’t have a prophet restoring the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have a man that just made stuff up. History and science have caught up with Joseph Smith to show who he really was; and his church continues to distance itself from its founder for that reason.

 

[zaffiroborant]

“…many of whom were as young as 14…” Clearly emotive and misleading. Two were 14. He did marry young women, but then so did thousands of other men at the time. At that date and time, it was common for women to marry at a young age.

It was not “common” at that time for 30+ year old men to marry 14 year old girls, do a little research so you can quit spouting poor LDS apologetics. The average age of menarche in the mid 1800’s was 16 years old, it’s not likely that breastless non menstruating girls were commonly married.

 

[TOmNossor]

The authority of the Catholic Church has nothing to do with whether the Mormon Church is an invention of Joseph Smith or not. You have created a false dilemma. Joseph Smith’s claim he restored Christianity is clearly false by the historical evidence. He has made many false claims and invented practices and beliefs which have NEVER been held or taught by the ancient church; the Catholic Church.

You have also attempted to make claims against the Catholic Church and not one has held up under scrutiny.
Hello Stephen,
Before I respond to the above I want to re-iterate something and state something based on my reading of some of the recent comments.

I do believe that the average LDS knows far more solid historical facts about LDS history, Joseph Smith, and the CoJCoLDS than the average Catholic knows about Early Christian history, Pope Innocent III (or any Pope before or since), or the Catholic Church. I was familiar with the ins and outs of the OPs info in ways that this critic’s presentation does not offer. And so far every LDS who has posted on this thread has claimed to know about the OP info. This of course does not mean that the former LDS posting here knew this when they were LDS or that the average LDS knows all this stuff. But I am quite confident that the average LDS knows more about their faith than the average Catholic (a Catholic on this thread has denied Catholic dogma with me in online dialogue and theoretically they are more knowledgeable than the average Catholic just didn’t know this info about their faith - perhaps still spending too much time with their former faith, why?). All that being said, I support my LDS brothers and sisters when they use “ways of knowing” frowned upon by SOME Catholics and all secularists (Catholic Answers seeks to inoculate Catholics and tells them “you don’t need to pray about the Book of Mormon.”) I believe it is Biblical and rational to seek spiritual knowledge via prayer and pondering. I typically engage secular sounding Catholics here with secular arguments, but that does not mean that I think secular arguments are the only viable ways of weighing issues, just that the CoJCoLDS fairs well using these arguments.

Now, to your above statement.
First, I was responding to iepuras’ statement that she (I think) cannot fathom how I can know what I know and be a LDS. If I knew of a church that had no problems to be explained and had as much positive evidence as the CoJCoLDS or the Catholic Church, I would likely be exploring their truth claims rather than feeling very secure that I have found God’s truth. The fact that the CoJCoLDS on the balance makes a strong positive case exists beside the second best case of Catholicism. I devote attention to Catholicism rather than Branch Davidianism because I am trying to compare best to best. Perhaps I should view your focus on Mormonism as a positive, because my focus on Catholicism truly is a positive for your truth claims IMO.

My aside was partially motivated by the volume of time Catholics spend on Mormonism here. I actually believe that criticizing Mormonism is something that the Pope would ask you to stop were you to be granted an audience with him. “Though shalt not proselytize!” must mean something (and I do not think it means the Pope is not Catholic as many informed “Catholics” suggest).
In a “possible world” the Catholic Church could be true and Mormonism would be irrelevant. In this world (or if you are Catholic, a “possible world”), Mormonism is true, but this means there was an apostasy of some sort and the Catholic Church does not possess the authority it claims to possess. Investigations of a 2000 year old church with claims similar to the CoJCoLDS has merit for the LDS that investigation (or castigation as I see little investigation) of a 200 year old church (even one that claims to be a Restoration) lacks for Catholicism.
So, it is ironic when you, who criticize the CoJCoLDS, claim that the falsity of the Catholic Church has nothing to do with the truth of the CoJCoLDS. The apostasy of the Catholic Church is a necessary condition (which can be shown by demonstrating the restoration OR by demonstrating the apostasy) for the CoJCoLDS truth claims. But you who devote so much energy to tearing down the CoJCoLDS could just prove that the Catholic Church really is the successor of the apostles it claims to be and the there is no need for a restoration.

That being said, where I Catholic, I would not believe the evidence of apostolic succession was strong enough that all deniers of such need to be merely educated (and as a LDS I think the evidence here is really a point of weakness for Catholics). As such I might pursue avenues of exploration similar to those of LDS critics here, but in response to your comment I still see a certain amount of irony worth mentioning.
Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

Tom, have you read amazon.com/Restoring-Ancient-Church-Joseph-Christianity-ebook/dp/B00E87699M ? If so, and you agree with him, then we can agree to disagree. Mormonism is a Gnostic religion, copying many aspects of the early Gnostic cults.

However, you, and other LDS apologists continually harp on your belief that Catholicism is apostate, and therefore evil. If you didn’t, there would be no continual debate here. The JW’s and SDA’s don’t debate here. Why don’t you follow their example?

We acknowledge the imperfections of past Popes, but you find it impossible to acknowledge the sins and imperfections of JS and BY.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom, have you read amazon.com/Restoring-Ancient-Church-Joseph-Christianity-ebook/dp/B00E87699M

? If so, and you agree with him, then we can agree to disagree. Mormonism is a Gnostic religion, copying many aspects of the early Gnostic cults.
I have read that book and I think there is much of worth in it. I wouldn’t point to Origin’s teaching on pre-existence without additional qualifiers. I would hit much harder on deification and the restoration within LDS thought and the abandonment (in some Catholic circles), severe watering down (in some Catholic circles), and less severe watering down (in the most informed Catholic circles) of it. His book is a much more severe blow to Protestant anti-Mormons than it is to Cardinal Newman. See this review from a man who was a Catholic (and has never been a LDS) when he wrote it:
publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1452&index=13&keyword=bickmore

I am not a Gnostic and I do not follow them in all their teachings. They were apostate Christianity just like Catholicism is apostate Christianity. Clement of Alexandria and many early Christians spoke of secret teachings and secret traditions, the idea that this is all part of the Eucharist is weak IMO. So there are aspects of Gnosticism that are evident in early non-Gnostic Christianity, in ways that the anti-gnostic narrative neglects. So Gnostics and non-Gnostic Christians evidence different aspects of Christ’s church IMO. I do not believe Mormonism is a Gnostic religion.
All that being said I personally find difficulties with succession from Peter to the Pope to be more convincing AND more in-line with LDS thought and practice (from history and scripture) when looking for the apostasy. What I mean by this is that finding what is often called “unique” LDS teaching in the early church may be evidence for the CoJCoLDS and the loss of these teachings MAY be evidence of the apostasy, but not the cause IMO. Problems with apostolic succession are better evidence of the apostasy IMO.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

However, you, and other LDS apologists continually harp on your belief that Catholicism is apostate, and therefore evil. If you didn’t, there would be no continual debate here. The JW’s and SDA’s don’t debate here. Why don’t you follow their example?

I do not believe I have ever said Catholicism was “evil.” I merely say that Catholicism is not what Catholics claim it to be, and the restoration was led by God.

Catholicism has a history of declaring heretics NOT part of the body of Christ. When we say, “their creeds are an abomination” I think we mean the practice of creating creeds to divide the orthodox from the heterodox and then excluding all heterodox who do not profess to change their beliefs is an abomination. This Catholic practice IMO leads Catholics to believe that LDS claiming an apostasy equals LDS claiming Catholics are evil. I do not believe this is the best read of LDS thought and it is not the one I embrace.

Few JWs engage critical arguments online or otherwise. I know less about SDAs.
As a LDS I most often engage in criticisms of my church here. I think most people believe LDS are either on their way out of the CoJCoLDS or are ignorant of the issues. This IMO is a product of incestual thought. Most comments and thread on this board are Catholics agreeing with one another about how ridiculous it is to be a LDS. I look at this as an “uncontested slam dunk.” It has little to do with how good the LDS arguments are and a lot to do with the absence of players on the court.
I also explore real issues I have with the Catholic Church on occasion. I see the WEAKENING of Catholic truth claims. Post Vatican II there was a lot of CHANGE in Catholic teaching and I generally sided with Catholic Answers that this was wrong. I find it increasingly difficult to believe that Catholic Answers and the conservative Catholics who defend Pope Francis are right about the Catholic Church. We will see.

We acknowledge the imperfections of past Popes, but you find it impossible to acknowledge the sins and imperfections of JS and BY.

Now, I do not believe I have ever found it “impossible” to acknowledge the sins and imperfections of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. I know of a handful of imprudent things Joseph Smith said and did. I am not convinced that Polygamy was one. I strongly suspect his engagement with Emma on these questions SHOULD have been better than it was. But, I do not think he was engaged in sex for power or appetite as folks who do not believe God initiated polygamy seemingly MUST believe. I think the evidence for this sex or power motive is weak, and if not for sex/power then why?
I think Brigham Young was not only a racist, but a racist for his day (though being a racist for his day means he was only 1 standard deviation away from the norm not in the running for the head of the KKK). I believe it was his non-prophetic reaction to bad behavior by black members of the church that led to the priesthood ban. This is my personal opinion not official teaching. I think on balance he was a good man, but being more racist than your average man is a real blight.
LDS teachings and scriptures tell us to expect imperfections in our leaders. I do. That does not change the fact that I see my leaders (local and general) living lives that I wish I had the strength to lead. My Parish Priest and one Deacon belong in the group of numerous wonderful LDS Christian I encounter/encountered, but few a disappointingly few number of Catholics belong here. My dad is the Catholic counterpart to me as a LDS: deeply flawed, came to the faith late, becoming better because of it.
I do not believe Catholics ever taught the Papacy could only be held by impeccable folks so when I bring up Popes who are guilty IMO of much worse sex “crimes” than Joseph Smith it is not to prove the Catholic Church false, but to undermine the argument against the CoJCoLDS. It is possible that Joseph Smith was motivated by sex in ways that I think the historical record suggest against, and this would not change the fact that the BOM is an extraordinary book and numerous secular things align to show me that the CoJCoLDS is what I think it is. So bad popes is an easier argument to offer than to go through 1000’s of references (see Hales/Bradley - and Bradley started the project as an exMormon) showing that few in a position to know made the claims about Joseph Smith’s sexual appetites that are made on this board.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

All that being said, I support my LDS brothers and sisters when they use “ways of knowing” frowned upon by SOME Catholics and all secularists (Catholic Answers seeks to inoculate Catholics and tells them “you don’t need to pray about the Book of Mormon.”) I believe it is Biblical and rational to seek spiritual knowledge via prayer and pondering. I typically engage secular sounding Catholics here with secular arguments, but that does not mean that I think secular arguments are the only viable ways of weighing issues, just that the CoJCoLDS fairs well using these arguments.

It isn’t Catholic Answers that seeks to inoculate Catholics. It is reason. Reason requires using the correct tool for the job. Reason requires using history to answer historical questions and science to answer science questions. It is not biblical or rational to use prayer to answer questions which can be answered by science or history. The Mormon Church cannot stood up to historical or scientific scrutiny.

Now, to your above statement.
First, I was responding to iepuras’ statement that she (I think) cannot fathom how I can know what I know and be a LDS. If I knew of a church that had no problems to be explained and had as much positive evidence as the CoJCoLDS or the Catholic Church, I would likely be exploring their truth claims rather than feeling very secure that I have found God’s truth. The fact that the CoJCoLDS on the balance makes a strong positive case exists beside the second best case of Catholicism.

I can’t think of a single claim made by the Mormon Church (see post #102) in reference to being the Church of Christ which is true. And only once have I observed you attempt to defend any of them. The classic Mormon tactic which you use with great regularity is to make a comparison to the Catholic Church to get Catholics correcting your claim, so you are relieved of the burden of defending any of the false claims of Mormonism. The only thing good about this tactic is it gives Catholics a chance to show that once more the Catholic Church is true in its claims to be the Church of Christ; and Mormonism is undefendable in its claim.

In this world (…), Mormonism is true, but this means there was an apostasy of some sort and the Catholic Church does not possess the authority it claims to possess. Investigations of a 2000 year old church with claims similar to the CoJCoLDS has merit for the LDS that investigation (…) of a 200 year old church (…) lacks for Catholicism.
So, it is ironic when you, who criticize the CoJCoLDS, claim that the falsity of the Catholic Church has nothing to do with the truth of the CoJCoLDS. The apostasy of the Catholic Church is a necessary condition (which can be shown by demonstrating the restoration OR by demonstrating the apostasy) for the CoJCoLDS truth claims.

The only claim I’ve made about the Catholic Church in relation to the Mormon Church is the same one you just made. The Mormon Church requires the Catholic Church to be false. The Catholic Church is true now, and it was true before the various 19th century religions, like Mormonism, were invented
If you really consider the Mormon claim, it isn’t the Catholic Church you need to condemn but the Former-Day-Saint church you need to find. After you find that church, compare it your church and the Catholic Church. The fact is; the Former-Day-Saint church has never existed. It was never a historical fact. It came from the mind of Joseph Smith in 19th century America.

 

[BrotherofJared]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ NEVER included polygamy.

Then Abraham and Jacob (Israel) are going to hell?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ NEVER included eternal marriage

That’s your loss. It’s funny that almost every Christian I’ve talked to doesn’t believe that God will separate them after death. Why would a loving God destroy a union between husband and wive and family? But that is what your religion teaches.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ never included water baptism on behalf of the dead

Since anyone not receiving this saving ordinance, according to many Christian religions, are damned to hell. I’d say your God is not able to save all of his creatures.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ never included the Melchizedek Priesthood

Hebrews 5:6

Jesus Christ NEVER excommunicating his Apostles.

Judas. I’m not really sure what you mean by this. A man is not set apart by his title. Even an Apostle can sin against his God.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ never included having a prophet lead church.

Then who was Moses, Abraham, Adam, Noah, Peter. Amos 3:7 says the Lord will do nothing except he reveal it to his servants the prophets. I suppose this could be interpreted, the Pope, but most Christian religions have no head and those that do claim that God doesn’t reveal anything today.

As far as the NEVER clauses, you are incorrect.

This are all inventions of Joseph Smith, not restorations of the Gospel.

I would suggest that considering how much Joseph has revealed about God and His plan, you should seriously consider what he has to say.

Then you a add the fact the the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and the Kinderhook plates are not what Joseph Smith claimed they were, you don’t have a prophet restoring the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have a man that just made stuff up. History and science have caught up with Joseph Smith to show who he really was; and his church continues to distance itself from its founder for that reason.

History and science. Are those your gods? Do they have the absolute truth? For a man who “Just made up stuff”, he did a pretty good job. Your “facts” are just what you choose to believe, but because you believe them, does not make them facts. The Book of Mormon has not been proven to be anything other that what Joseph said it was. The Book of Abraham has not been disproved. I will only give this about the Kinderhook plates: The discovery and submission to Joseph Smith was too close to the date of his death. I would think he would be too busy to undertake any serious attempt to translate the plates. Clayton, his personal secretary, stated that he was going to try to translate them without the seer stones or by revelation, but instead from the text books he had in his possession. The Kinderhook plates produced no scripture that I know of. If you ask me, what he produced from those plates were no different than any other common man using what little education he had to do the translation. One might wonder where the forgers got the engravings to etch into those plates.

I admit that just because I believe my facts doesn’t make them facts either. But this I know: It is a fact that I believe that Joseph Smith saw God and talked to him and received instructions from Him. After that, all your evidences are just the impetus for research through which I always come to the same conclusion… Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God to restore His gospel again in these last days.

 

[SteveVH]

Then Abraham and Jacob (Israel) are going to hell?

That’s your loss. It’s funny that almost every Christian I’ve talked to doesn’t believe that God will separate them after death. Why would a loving God destroy a union between husband and wive and family? But that is what your religion teaches.

Since anyone not receiving this saving ordinance, according to many Christian religions, are damned to hell. I’d say your God is not able to save all of his creatures.

Hebrews 5:6

Judas. I’m not really sure what you mean by this. A man is not set apart by his title. Even an Apostle can sin against his God.

Then who was Moses, Abraham, Adam, Noah, Peter. Amos 3:7 says the Lord will do nothing except he reveal it to his servants the prophets. I suppose this could be interpreted, the Pope, but most Christian religions have no head and those that do claim that God doesn’t reveal anything today.

As far as the NEVER clauses, you are incorrect.

I would suggest that considering how much Joseph has revealed about God and His plan, you should seriously consider what he has to say.

History and science. Are those your gods? Do they have the absolute truth? For a man who “Just made up stuff”, he did a pretty good job. Your “facts” are just what you choose to believe, but because you believe them, does not make them facts. The Book of Mormon has not been proven to be anything other that what Joseph said it was. The Book of Abraham has not been disproved. I will only give this about the Kinderhook plates: The discovery and submission to Joseph Smith was too close to the date of his death. I would think he would be too busy to undertake any serious attempt to translate the plates. Clayton, his personal secretary, stated that he was going to try to translate them without the seer stones or by revelation, but instead from the text books he had in his possession. The Kinderhook plates produced no scripture that I know of. If you ask me, what he produced from those plates were no different than any other common man using what little education he had to do the translation. One might wonder where the forgers got the engravings to etch into those plates.

I admit that just because I believe my facts doesn’t make them facts either. But this I know: It is a fact that I believe that Joseph Smith saw God and talked to him and received instructions from Him. After that, all your evidences are just the impetus for research through which I always come to the same conclusion… Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God to restore His gospel again in these last days.

Oh, yeah… Now I remember why I stopped posting on Mormon threads.

 

[BrotherofJared]

It was not “common” at that time for 30+ year old men to marry 14 year old girls, do a little research so you can quit spouting poor LDS apologetics. The average age of menarche in the mid 1800’s was 16 years old, it’s not likely that breastless non menstruating girls were commonly married.

Average age does not mean it wasn’t common. Why would states have laws that permitted women to marry as young as 10 years old? Get over it. It was legal. I get it you don’t like Joseph Smith. But that has no affect on his call as a prophet of God.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Then Abraham and Jacob (Israel) are going to hell?

That’s your loss. It’s funny that almost every Christian I’ve talked to doesn’t believe that God will separate them after death. Why would a loving God destroy a union between husband and wive and family? But that is what your religion teaches.

Why do you insist that we need our families right there with us after death? Why isn’t God alone enough for Mormons? It is a great way to manipulate people into forcing their families to convert. Why do you threaten people that their families will be separate if they do not become Mormon? Where do you get that in the bible? (Not the Mormon bible; the original bible).

Since anyone not receiving this saving ordinance, according to many Christian religions, are damned to hell. I’d say your God is not able to save all of his creatures.

Not according to Catholicism. We were instructed in regards to baptism but our ways are not God’s ways so we cannot know what He might do. We are not in charge of heaven.

Hebrews 5:6

Judas. I’m not really sure what you mean by this. A man is not set apart by his title. Even an Apostle can sin against his God.

Then who was Moses, Abraham, Adam, Noah, Peter. Amos 3:7 says the Lord will do nothing except he reveal it to his servants the prophets. I suppose this could be interpreted, the Pope, but most Christian religions have no head and those that do claim that God doesn’t reveal anything today.

What about the bible stating, quite clearly, that there will be no new prophets? How could Mormons claim modern day prophets in direct contradiction to this statement? In addition, we are warned about people claiming to be new prophets. How could that not be a warning against Mormon ideology?

As far as the NEVER clauses, you are incorrect.

I would suggest that considering how much Joseph has revealed about God and His plan, you should seriously consider what he has to say.

How much YOU believe he has revealed. His writings hold nothing for Catholics. The bible was decided upon by the early Church fathers and we accept it in it’s entirety. We cannot add or take away from the original writings of the Old Testament or the writings of the apostles.

History and science. Are those your gods? Do they have the absolute truth? For a man who “Just made up stuff”, he did a pretty good job. Your “facts” are just what you choose to believe, but because you believe them, does not make them facts. The Book of Mormon has not been proven to be anything other that what Joseph said it was. The Book of Abraham has not been disproved. I will only give this about the Kinderhook plates: The discovery and submission to Joseph Smith was too close to the date of his death. I would think he would be too busy to undertake any serious attempt to translate the plates. Clayton, his personal secretary, stated that he was going to try to translate them without the seer stones or by revelation, but instead from the text books he had in his possession. The Kinderhook plates produced no scripture that I know of. If you ask me, what he produced from those plates were no different than any other common man using what little education he had to do the translation. One might wonder where the forgers got the engravings to etch into those plates.

We have sufficient proof in the gospels for our beliefs. We have multiple eyewitnesses.

I admit that just because I believe my facts doesn’t make them facts either. But this I know: It is a fact that I believe that Joseph Smith saw God and talked to him and received instructions from Him. After that, all your evidences are just the impetus for research through which I always come to the same conclusion… Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God to restore His gospel again in these last days.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

As far as baptism of the dead, why do you think you must do God’s work? What gives you the idea that you can do God’s work? Do you not trust in His grace?

I went out, once, with a Mormon kid in college. He and I argued because he insisted that George Washington (an Episcopalian, who lived and died before the Mormon religion even existed) was Mormon due to baptism of the dead. I find this teaching not only repugnant, but ignorant of free will. I don’t believe that it has any effect, but to the descendants of millions of people supposedly baptized and called Mormon, it’s very disrespectful.

I refrain from using Ancestry. com because I do not want my relatives’ names added on any Mormon lists. If I found out their names were on Mormon lists, I would sue the Mormon church.

Has your church removed the Holocaust victims from it’s lists? I believe Jewish leaders insisted on it. I do hope the names of Catholics murdered, such as the priests who died for their faith, were also removed. How can you not see that as disrespectful?

 

[LivingWaters7]

That’s your loss. It’s funny that almost every Christian I’ve talked to doesn’t believe that God will separate them after death. Why would a loving God destroy a union between husband and wive and family? But that is what your religion teaches.

No, that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. Catholics do not believe that a loving God destroys the union between husband, wife, and family. Catholics believe that in Heaven, we live in the eternal presence of God (the “beatific vision”), and that we become like Him (“deification” or “theosis”). In Heaven, we are one family, united in Jesus Christ (indeed, we actually believe that is true of the Church on earth as well). While we are one large family in Heaven, we don’t forget our spouses, children, etc, nor are we separated from them (if they are saved along with ourselves). In Heaven, we love as God loves, and we aren’t divided up into family units as we are here on earth.

What we don’t see anciently (whether in the New Testament or other ancient Christian writings) is that eternal marriage is required for eternal life. Such an idea is not found anywhere (nor is the idea that priesthood ordination is similarly necessary for eternal life for men). Nor do we see the idea that eternal life involves “eternal increase”, or begetting of spirit children (purportedly as the Father did with the Heavenly Mother deity).

Since anyone not receiving this saving ordinance, according to many Christian religions, are damned to hell. I’d say your God is not able to save all of his creatures.

Perhaps you should talk to those that believe such a thing. Catholics believe that God is not bound by the sacraments, and that it is possible for those who, through no fault of their own, did not hear the Truth and receive saving baptism to still be saved, through God’s justice, mercy, and grace.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Please also speak to the fact that Joseph Smith was a Mason and incorporated much of what he gleamed from Masonic rituals into the Mormon church.

 

[LivingWaters7]

That’s a new Roman Catholic belief, one I’ve never heard of. As far as I know, the Catholics have been notorious for separating families because a person wasn’t baptized. You may believe what you said, but your church doesn’t teach it. But I guess that really depends one who is included in “all His people.” Perhaps the non-baptized are not his people?

I think you need to familiarize yourself with actual Catholic teachings. Start here:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

The Catholic Church teaches that it is possible for non-Catholics to be saved by God (perhaps you should look into what the Church teaches about things like “invincible ignorance” and “baptism of desire”), though the normative means of eternal life is through Jesus Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church and her sacraments.

There’s so much I could say about this, but I’ve already started down a bad path. I am not here to put down another religion. I only wish to defend mine. Mormons believe Jesus to be the way, the truth and the life. He is our Savior and without him, no one can be saved. Was Jesus low when he talked to prophets of old? To Isaiah and Daniel and Moses? Was he low when He made himself flesh and organized his gospel among men? Then why would He be low to speak from the heavens again and give commandments and lead his people in a time when we really need him?

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ leads His Church from Heaven, and that the Church is guided by the Spirit into all Truth, to this day. Catholic history is literally filled with various Heavenly visions, visitations, miracles, etc, many on a grand scale. We believe that our leaders are guided by the Holy Spirit in declaring and defining dogmas, that our Ecumenical Councils are guided by the Spirit in their declarations, that the Pope by virtue of his office and authority can formally define and declare dogmas through the Spirit, and that we all can receive Heavenly inspiration and guidance in our lives.

The inventions of Joseph Smith (and various other persons claiming to have the “truth” since Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church 2000 years ago) are simply not necessary.

Speaking of God and heaven, Didn’t Jesus say that he was going to prepare mansions for his disciples? What kind of mansion would he prepare for you? Would it be the same as Peter’s or John’s or Paul’s? Let’s say that it was. Let’s say we’re all God’s children and will come into his heaven. Will we all have the same mansion? Will those that knew Christ and yet didn’t follow him have the same mansion as Peter or James or John or you? And how do you answer to the Bible’s teachings of three heavens or three glories?

The true church, the one lead by Jesus Christ, would know. Wouldn’t it?

Yes, and the true Church, the Catholic Church, led by Jesus Christ, does know. Catholicism teaches that there are many mansions in Heaven, and we all receive rewards in Heaven based on our merits. What we don’t teach is that Heaven is somehow divided up where some in one level will be in the presence of one member of the Godhead while others won’t. For Catholics, Heaven is living in the eternal presence of God. Ideas like the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms are not Heaven, since they are not in the presence of the Father (or the Son in the case of the latter). For us, all of the mansions are in the eternal presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Oh, yeah… Now I remember why I stopped posting on Mormon threads.

Amen.

 

[Stephen168]

Then Abraham and Jacob (Israel) are going to hell?

That’s your loss. It’s funny that almost every Christian I’ve talked to doesn’t believe that God will separate them after death. Why would a loving God destroy a union between husband and wive and family? But that is what your religion teaches.

Since anyone not receiving this saving ordinance, according to many Christian religions, are damned to hell. I’d say your God is not able to save all of his creatures.

Hebrews 5:6

Judas. I’m not really sure what you mean by this. A man is not set apart by his title. Even an Apostle can sin against his God.

Then who was Moses, Abraham, Adam, Noah, Peter. Amos 3:7 says the Lord will do nothing except he reveal it to his servants the prophets. I suppose this could be interpreted, the Pope, but most Christian religions have no head and those that do claim that God doesn’t reveal anything today.

As far as the NEVER clauses, you are incorrect.

I would suggest that considering how much Joseph has revealed about God and His plan, you should seriously consider what he has to say.

History and science. Are those your gods? Do they have the absolute truth? For a man who “Just made up stuff”, he did a pretty good job. Your “facts” are just what you choose to believe, but because you believe them, does not make them facts. The Book of Mormon has not been proven to be anything other that what Joseph said it was. The Book of Abraham has not been disproved. I will only give this about the Kinderhook plates: The discovery and submission to Joseph Smith was too close to the date of his death. I would think he would be too busy to undertake any serious attempt to translate the plates. Clayton, his personal secretary, stated that he was going to try to translate them without the seer stones or by revelation, but instead from the text books he had in his possession. The Kinderhook plates produced no scripture that I know of. If you ask me, what he produced from those plates were no different than any other common man using what little education he had to do the translation. One might wonder where the forgers got the engravings to etch into those plates.

I admit that just because I believe my facts doesn’t make them facts either. But this I know: It is a fact that I believe that Joseph Smith saw God and talked to him and received instructions from Him. After that, all your evidences are just the impetus for research through which I always come to the same conclusion… Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God to restore His gospel again in these last days.

You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the Bible. You don’t seem to know the difference between Jews and Christians or who’s the subject of Hebrews Chapter five,or the story of the thief on the cross. You are clear about why you haven’t learned any of these facts we have told you; facts don’t matter to Mormons. You just ignore science, history, the New Testament and believe whatever feels good. It is clear now how a Mormon can know the truth of Joseph Smith and continue to be Mormon; you just pray the facts away.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Why do you insist that we need our families right there with us after death? Why isn’t God alone enough for Mormons? It is a great way to manipulate people into forcing their families to convert. Why do you threaten people that their families will be separate if they do not become Mormon? Where do you get that in the bible? (Not the Mormon bible; the original bible).

It is difficult to respond to this because in the first part, I am saying that you claim that families will be separated. My comment was to a statement to the effect “In the Gospel of Jesus marriage was NEVER eternal.” But now you say in the latter part of your comment that it is the Mormons that say that families will be separated. Round and round we go and where we stop, nobody knows.

We don’t “threaten” anyone, but you can say it’s implied when in order to obtain any blessing from god, “it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” Just like getting into heaven. If you want to live with God, one must live by God’s commandments. You could say that it is a threat that if you don’t live God’s commandments, you can’t live with Him. Most people who don’t live God’s commandments, don’t want to live with God either. So it’s no big threat. Most Christian religions teach that we won’t be married or have family in heaven (if you ask me, this is the choir version “sing praises for eternity”), so this is no threat to them either. However, as I stated, almost no Christian believes that. All the ones I’ve talked to think it’s a moot argument because a loving god would not separate them. The problem is, that’s not what their religion teaches. That’s not what Catholics teach. They teach “until death do you part.” Why would anyone align with an overseer that teaches you are condemned to part at death when they don’t believe that part. Join a church, and pick what you want to believe. Seems like a great plan, believe what ever you want. God will not punish you. There is no sin. Eat, drink and be merry. Oh joy.

Here’s a good one: Keep the Sabbath day holy. Mega church, too many congregants to house under one roof on the Sabbath day, so pick any day you want for a Sabbath, keep it holy until the services are over. Go shopping, or pick Saturday so you can do your shopping on Sunday. Pick your truth, believe what you want, but I would suggest that you don’t get upset when you don’t get what you want out of your religion.

“Isn’t God alone enough for Mormons?” What does that mean? Are you suggesting that God might replace my wife? That he might replace my parents or my kids? How much is enough? You probably can’t answer that question. I think it’s a question that can’t be answered.

I have some questions for you… Is there a difference between exaltation and salvation? If so, what’s the difference? If so, how does one obtain each one or if one obtains one, does one automatically obtain the other and why?

BTW, it’s isn’t “need our families” it’s “want our families.” And I can only insist on the things I want. I can’t determine for you what’s important. Why can’t I have both, my family and my God? Especially since, I hope, I brought my family to God or tried to. (Tree of Life, Lehi’s vision. Not your Bible, but my Book of Mormon).

 

[BrotherofJared]

You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the Bible. You don’t seem to know the difference between Jews and Christians or who’s the subject of Hebrews Chapter five,or the story of the thief on the cross. You are clear about why you haven’t learned any of these facts we have told you; facts don’t matter to Mormons. You just ignore science, history, the New Testament and believe whatever feels good. It is clear now how a Mormon can know the truth of Joseph Smith and continue to be Mormon; you just pray the facts away.

Yes. Prayer is such a dangerous thing to false religions.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes. Prayer is such a dangerous thing to false religions.

Yes, because they ignore the facts a rational person would use to know they are false.

Catholics have faith and reason. The Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ and it does not have to ignore the facts of history and science to know it is true. This is not true for the Mormon Church.