For the LDS / Mormons here on this forum

[tommiatkins]

I somehow doubt you actually know much about Ratzinger or Hitler Youth or a lot of other things for that matter.

In any event, Pope Benedict has far more to recommend him than Joseph Smith ever did, and that was the comparison. Any rational assessment of the two men would arrive at that conclusion.

But of course a rational assessment would have to include both detailed information and lack of bias, both of which appear to be lacking in your statements.

Ratzinger, not so much.
Hitler Youth, i know quite a bit about.

I’m not saying that every Hitler Youth wanted to support Hitler. Some did some diddnt.
I dont know Ratzingers thoughts at that time. Only he does.

Jo Smith was a despot a charletan a conman and a thug. He wasnt a member of Hitler Youth. I suspect he may have had a kick out of it, he certainly was into fighting.
Ratzinger says he never fired a shot in anger. As an antiaircraft gunner in 44/45, thats quite a claim!

 

[ibkc]

Hey tommiatkins,
Why don’t you start your own “I’m an atheist, and I am going to challenge you on all your silly beliefs” thread, instead of attempting to derail multiple threads like you’re doing now? Bringing our Pope’s background as a boy into a thread about the LDS church is waaaaaaay off-topic.

 

[Jash]

Well, 4 different Mormons, 4 different answers. It appears you guys need to get together and learn what you believe before sharing with the world.

1. The generation has not passed yet, 160+ years later.
2. It was a commandment not a prophesy.
3. Dedications are by mouth and not by hand.
4. He was dedicating the lot not the temple.

Pointing out the viewpoints of other Mormons does not address my response. The verse very clearly states:

Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot…

Additionally, the Temple Lot was dedicated by Joseph Smith. This is history. Again, I provide the reference for this.

The Mormons were driven out of Jackson County in 1833. As for the generation stretch, when a generation was spoken about in real scriptures, it was usually 40 years.

Please show me the place in the Bible or LDS scripture where the Lord defines a generation as 40 years. Yes common dictionaries refer to this time frames but there are also other widely accepted meanings for this word. This dictionary defines the word “generation” accordingly:

1. the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time: the postwar generation.
2. a form, type, class, etc., of objects existing at the same time and having many similarities or developed from a common model or ancestor: a new generation of computers.

The lord views time differently than we do. But I believe either definition easily provides for a time frame greater than “40 years.” simply replace war with apostasy in definition 1 or define the object coming from a common ancestor as members coming from the restoration of the church.

Joseph Smith prophesied he would be alive at the second coming. (Doctrines and Covenants, 112).

The exact wording in D&C 112:15 is:

rebel not against my servant Joseph; for verily I say unto you, I am with him, and my hand shall be over him; and the keys which I have given unto him, and also to youward, shall not be taken from him till I come.

Priesthood keys remain with an individual after death. Were this not so Peter, James, and John would not have had any authority to bestow to Joseph Smith during the restoration. This verse simply means that through death, Joseph smith will retain those keys until Christ returns to usher in the milennium.

In 1843, Smith predicted that if the US would not redress the wrongs suffered by the mormons in the state of Missouri, then “in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted” (History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.394).

Thank you for paraphrasing the first half of his statement. Would you mind providing the exact quote? Otherwise it is not Smith predicting but you saying “smith predicted.”

I have 4 simple questions to ask about a Mormon speculation concerning the Catholic Church. Mormons speculate that a “great” apostasy occured putting the Church in a position of total and complete corruption to the exent it lost all authority.

I think you are confused by what others may have said about our position. That is not our position at all. Here the LDS church provides the following two definitions of what we call apostacy:

1. A condition of spiritual withdrawal from our Father in Heaven.
2. A period of time when the priesthood and the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness were not on the earth.

1. Who started this great apostasy?
2. Where did this great apostasy take place?
3. When did this great apostasy happen?
4. Who defended against the great apostasy?

1. Father of all lies, enemy of all righteousness, lucifer Satan.
   Unless of course you meant to ask “With whom did the great Apostasy start?” In which case (following the priesthood definition) my best guess would be Matthias since he is the last apostle sustained by the apostles that we have biblical record of.
2. Apostasy as defined by the LDS Church does not occur in one place at one time. It has many ways of occuring and is well explained here.
3. See 2.
4. The only true defense against apostasy is a Prophet as understood by the LDS Church. One definition may be found here.

 

[rmcmullan]

Well if that were the choice, I’d take our Pope over Joseph Smith too. Joseph Smith doesn’t have a lot to recommend him. Pope Benedict does.

But that’s not actually the issue. That’s a distraction, and not a particularly novel or clever one at that. Jesus founded our Church. Joseph Smith founded the Mormon church. There’s no contest, the Church founded by Jesus, which remains standing to this day because He promised it would, is a better choice than any church founded by a man.

There was no pope in the church that Jesus started. The pope is a man. You just have a man at the head of your church. Any claim otherwise is the same claim that all Christian churches make.

 

[ibkc]

There was no pope in the church that Jesus started. The pope is a man. You just have a man at the head of your church. Any claim otherwise is the same claim that all Christian churches make.

Show me where the Catholic Church has claimed that the Pope isn’t a man.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There was no pope in the church that Jesus started. The pope is a man. You just have a man at the head of your church. Any claim otherwise is the same claim that all Christian churches make.

Actually Jesus Christ was the founder and continues to be the “head” of the Catholic Church.

It was man that founded the Mormon Church.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[rmcmullan]

Actually Jesus Christ was the founder and continues to be the “head” of the Catholic Church.

It was man that founded the Mormon Church.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

There’s a man at the head of every church. And they all claim to be founded by Jesus Christ. What arrogance!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There’s a man at the head of every church. And they all claim to be founded by Jesus Christ. What arrogance!

The Catholic Church claims come from scriptures. Please see the words of the Lord below:

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[MelanieAnne]

There’s a man at the head of every church. And they all claim to be founded by Jesus Christ. What arrogance!

If it is actually TRUE that the church was founded by Jesus Christ, then it is not arrogance to say so, it is merely factual.

For an example of genuine arrogance, here’s a great example and it’s already part of this thread:

I have more to boast of than any man ever had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a church together since the days of Adam.…Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I.

That was Joseph Smith setting himself above God. Now THAT’s arrogance.

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

There’s a man at the head of every church. And they all claim to be founded by Jesus Christ. What arrogance!

Hi rmcmullan,

Arrogance ??? = an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptous claims or assertions.

Given the above definition, I would respectfully suggest that Joseph Smith is a much better candidate for that label.

In addition, to " restore " ( or in my humble opinion, " change " ) the very teachings of Jesus as well as the Church that he built and left us broken people, is indeed the height of arrogance.

God bless,
Carl

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Pointing out the viewpoints of other Mormons does not address my response. The verse very clearly states:

Additionally, the Temple Lot was dedicated by Joseph Smith. This is history. Again, I provide the reference for this.

It clearly states, Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot…

Please show me the place in the Bible or LDS scripture where the Lord defines a generation as 40 years. Yes common dictionaries refer to this time frames but there are also other widely accepted meanings for this word. This dictionary defines the word “generation” accordingly:

The lord views time differently than we do. But I believe either definition easily provides for a time frame greater than “40 years.” simply replace war with apostasy in definition 1 or define the object coming from a common ancestor as members coming from the restoration of the church.

How long did the Israelites wander the desert before being allowed into the promised land? Christ prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem to take place before that generation passed. Christ died in 33AD. The destruction of Jerusalem took place in 70AD.

The exact wording in D&C 112:15 is:

Priesthood keys remain with an individual after death. Were this not so Peter, James, and John would not have had any authority to bestow to Joseph Smith during the restoration. This verse simply means that through death, Joseph smith will retain those keys until Christ returns to usher in the milennium.

I posted the exact wording myself. Peter passed the keys to his successors, not Joseph Smith 1800 years later.

Thank you for paraphrasing the first half of his statement. Would you mind providing the exact quote? Otherwise it is not Smith predicting but you saying “smith predicted.”

Joseph Smith said: I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left,

There I didn’t say predicted. He said what he said.

I think you are confused by what others may have said about our position. That is not our position at all. Here the LDS church provides the following two definitions of what we call apostacy:

1. A condition of spiritual withdrawal from our Father in Heaven.
2. A period of time when the priesthood and the gospel of Jesus Christ in its fulness were not on the earth.

By these vague definitions, there seems to be a problem then, because it appears the Mormon Church is having problems with it’s priesthood according to the news.

Seriously, do you really believe Christ was like the wise man who built his house on rock or the foolish man who built his house on sand?

Do you doubt Christ’s promises to be with His Church until the end of the age?

Do you doubt Christ’s words to have the Father send the Paraclete to be with His Church FOREVER?

Isa 9:6 For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Dan 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never by destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people: and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms: and itself shall stand for ever.

Dan 7:14 And he gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
Luk 1:33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Mat 7:24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock,

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

1. Father of all lies, enemy of all righteousness, lucifer Satan.
   Unless of course you meant to ask “With whom did the great Apostasy start?” In which case (following the priesthood definition) my best guess would be Matthias since he is the last apostle sustained by the apostles that we have biblical record of.

Biblical record? You of course are speaking of the Bible, that was written by the Apostles, the very first of the early Church fathers, and canonized by the Catholic Church almost 400 years later, 200 years after this apostasy you claim that happened. How do Mormons reconcile this?

The Church and faith was present before the Bible. The Church taught through oral traditions and sacred traditions. The faithful were taught through those traditions until the individual letters and epistles came together to make the complete Bible. You cannot separate the Church, traditions and the Bible, to receive the fullness of truth.

Which version of the Bible do Mormons prefer? I’ve heard the King James Version:

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. The Great Bible was the first “authorized version” issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII. In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans. The Puritans were a faction within the Church of England.

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.

1. Apostasy as defined by the LDS Church does not occur in one place at one time. It has many ways of occuring and is well explained here.

Since the Mormon Church began, they have not had a 100% retention of members. Members have strayed from your Church like all Churches. Mormons on these forums call ex-Mormons, apostates. Does this mean the Mormon Church is suffering an apostasy?

1. The only true defense against apostasy is a Prophet as understood by the LDS Church. One definition may be found here.

No, I’m not going to read something from a Church started in the 1800s about an apostasy. I want to see real evidence.

The Catholic Church has documentation against heresies and schisms throughout it’s history, yet there is nothing defending against an apostasy as Mormons claim.

In fact, you’ve answered none of the questions.

The Jewish people were accused of killing the Messiah. Wouldn’t they have documented an apostasy that would have vindicated them by proving that Jesus was not who He said He was.

The Romans studied Christianity to combat it more effectively. Surely they would not have overlooked an apostasy. Julian the apostate misunderstood Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of temple to mean the temple would never be rebuilt. Jesus never said that. Julian tried unsuccessfully to rebuild the temple.

With all the pagans through all the lands, no one recorded the event that would have had Church shattering impact. No historian anywhere.

The only evidence Mormons can offer comes from the speculation of Joseph Smith who created the apostasy to justify his Church.

The Catholic Church has documentation of the successors to Peter asserting their authority from the very beginning. To say it’s not in scriptures is because scriptures were no longer written beyond the fullness of truth which was eyewitnessed or taught by eyewitnesses directly. The fullness of truth was Jesus Christ.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Jerusha]

Perhaps this link will explain the situation:

chiff.com/pop-culture/news-people/pope-benedict-xvi.htm

He was forced into Hitler Youth, and went AWOL because he couldn’t stomach what he had been forced into.

Joseph Smith would have gladly served, and BY would have quickly advanced into Nazi high ranks.

Furthermore, there is evidence in Mein Kampf that Hitler was familiar with Mormonism and agreed with much of it.

 

[Jerusha]

Does this remind you of the plot of the BOM?

…In the end, however, the conquerors transgress against the principle of blood purity, to which they had first adhered; they begin to mix with the subjugated inhabitants and thus end their own existence; for the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion.
After a thousand years and more, the last visible trace of the former master people is often seen in the lighter skin color which its blood left behind in the subjugated race, and in a petrified culture which it had originally created. For, once the actual and spiritual conqueror lost himself in the blood of the subjugated people, the fire for the torch of human progress was lost! Just as, through the blood of the former masters, the color preserved a feeble gleam in their memory, likewise the night of cultural life is gently illumined by the remaining creations of the former light-bringers. They shine through all the returned barbarism and too often inspire the thoughtless observer of the moment with the opinion that he beholds the picture of the present people before him, whereas he is only gazing into the mirror of the past. (Hitler, 1925, p. 292)

What about this?

It is then possible that such a people will a second time, or even more often in the course of its history, come into contact with the race of those who once brought it culture, and the memory of former encounters will not necessarily be present. Unconsciously the remnant of the former master blood will turn toward the new arrival, and what was first possible only by compulsion can now succeed through the people’s own will. A new cultural wave makes its entrance and continues until those who have brought it are again submerged in the blood of foreign peoples.
It will be the task of a future cultural and world history to carry on researches in this light and not to stifle in the rendition of external facts, as is so often, unfortunately, the case with our present historical science. (p.292)

Or this?

The fall of Carthage is the most horrible picture of such a slow execution of a people through its own deserts.
That is why Clausewitz in his Drei Bekenntnisse incomparably singles out this idea and nails it fast for all time, when he says:
‘That the stain of a cowardly submission can never be effaced; that this drop of poison in the blood of a people is passed on to posterity and will paralyze and undermine the strength of later generations’; that, on the other hand, ‘even the loss of this freedom after a bloody and honorable struggle assures the rebirth of a people and is the seed of life from which some day a new tree will strike fast roots.’
Of course, a people that has lost all honor and character will not concern itself with such teachings. For no one who takes them to heart can sink so low; only he who forgets them, or no longer wants to know them, collapses. Therefore, we must not expect those who embody a spineless submission suddenly to look into their hearts and, on the basis of reason and all human experience, begin to act differently than before. On the contrary, it is these men in particular who will dismiss all such teachings until either the nation is definitely accustomed to its yoke of slavery or until better forces push to the surface, to wrest the power from the hands of the infamous spoilers.( P. 668)

A pile of ****, indeed!!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Furthermore, there is evidence in Mein Kampf that Hitler was familiar with Mormonism and agreed with much of it.

While I have read the same thing, it should be noted that Hitler read a lot and cherry picked many beliefs from many different places, including occultism and the philosophies of Nietzche and of course eugenics. He seems to have been drawn to everything evil. ie, of all the good in science, he went for the evils. Even Nietzche had good philosophies, just seems, Hitler cherry picked out the worst of what he had come with. Most likely he did the same with Mormonism, that is, was attracted to the very worst of what he could find within Mormonism. He did the same with Christianity.

 

[Jerusha]

Even Nietzche had good philosophies, just seems, Hitler cherry picked out the worst of what he had come with. Most likely he did the same with Mormonism, that is, was attracted to the very worst of what he could find within Mormonism. He did the same with Christianity.

Agreed.

 

[why_me]

If it is actually TRUE that the church was founded by Jesus Christ, then it is not arrogance to say so, it is merely factual.

For an example of genuine arrogance, here’s a great example and it’s already part of this thread:

That was Joseph Smith setting himself above God. Now THAT’s arrogance.

A wayward quotation does not prove the man. We all say many things in life. It is also interesting to know just where this quotation comes from. For example, the lds church has published books with the words of JS jotted down by those who were listening to him speak. If so, these people just may have gotten it wrong. JS also claimed in all humbleness that he was not righteous but was only doing what he needed to do to be saved.

We humans say many things throughout our lives and I can assue you that many of the things that we have said are far from perfection or holiness. Such is he meaning of being a human being.

 

[Jerusha]

Until the LDS Church starts ex’ing their members on the far right, I refuse to have anything to do with them, except for those who agree that their church needs a purge of those people.

thefreedictionary.com/purge

 

[rmcmullan]

Hi rmcmullan,

Arrogance ??? = an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptous claims or assertions.

Given the above definition, I would respectfully suggest that Joseph Smith is a much better candidate for that label.

In addition, to " restore " ( or in my humble opinion, " change " ) the very teachings of Jesus as well as the Church that he built and left us broken people, is indeed the height of arrogance.

God bless,
Carl

You and many other posters are very eager indeed to demonize the men at the head of other churches. I can’t go there. I have way too much respect for the Catholic church to do that to your popes.

I know you (as a church) are very devoted to the teachings and gospel of Christ but it’s no good trying to shield yourself from criticism by claiming that God is at the head of your church when everybody believes that about their own. Especially when it’s a pope. A man.

 

[RebeccaJ]

A wayward quotation does not prove the man. We all say many things in life. It is also interesting to know just where this quotation comes from. For example, the lds church has published books with the words of JS jotted down by those who were listening to him speak. If so, these people just may have gotten it wrong. JS also claimed in all humbleness that he was not righteous but was only doing what he needed to do to be saved.

We humans say many things throughout our lives and I can assue you that many of the things that we have said are far from perfection or holiness. Such is he meaning of being a human being.

Ironic whyme, here is the entire paragraph, from the History of the Church, Vol 1 pg 408-409

“God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil—all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go. For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me. They have got wonderful things in the land of Ham. I think the grand jury have strained at a gnat and swallowed the camel.”

Are you saying the “faithful and efficient” clerks got it wrong?