Help with debating a Mormon

[RebeccaJ]

Well, I understand that you believe this. I, however, do not think I am. I can understand and appreciate your faith, and that you believe differently than I do—why can’t you do the same?

Why would you think that I do not? I understand your faith, I don’t know that I can say I “appreciate” it.

The difference between us is that I understand that you have an equally deep faith in your own beliefs, and that in so doing, you aren’t, really, simply being rebellious, understanding, some how ‘deep down’ that you really know the truth and are just being stubborn.

I am quite aware that you disagree with my intepretation of scripture, because you believe your interpretation is the "true’ one. Of course you do; you are not a hypocrite.

Now, when you figure it out that I’m not one either, and that I honestly believe that my interpretation of scripture is the ‘true’ one, we can identify the real topic, and talk about that.

Really Diana, I know you are Mormon and believe what it teaches.

Interpretation of scripture, I would say, is not the topic.

 

[dianaiad]

Why would you think that I do not? I understand your faith, I don’t know that I can say I “appreciate” it.

You don’t do that because you just said you didn’t…and you just repeated yourself. You don’t seem to understand the possibility that others might have a different opinion, and that their faith might very well be as strong as yours is. The fact that you put ‘appreciate’ in quotes is ample evidence of that. After all, you aren’t being asked to approve of it, just appreciate that someone else does.

Really Diana, I know you are Mormon and believe what it teaches.

But you do not respect either the beliefs, or the believers, or understand how anybody could believe differently than do you. If you did, you would phrase your statements a bit differently. Fewer categorical assertions, for instance…

Interpretation of scripture, I would say, is not the topic.

Well, actually…it is, especially if the topic is 'debating a Mormon," because that is the difference between Mormons and Catholics, between Catholics and Protestants, and between the different Protestant sects; interpretation of scripture.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Thurifer Acolyte,
Hello there. I am a Mormon. I just wanted to let you know that I know that Christ is the rock, and both Peter and Christ knew that when Christ used the words “upon this rock I will build my church” He was referring to knowledge about Himself and His divine mission on earth. This Peter attests in 1 Peter 2:4-8.

Christ is the “stone which the builders disallowed,… made the head of the corner,”
“And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient…”

Peter had responded to Christ when Christ asked the twelve apostles Whom he said He was. Peter used the words “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”–meaning that Peter knew absolutely that Christ was the promised Messiah, the Anointed One, the Son of God, because the Father had revealed this knowledge to Peter.

When Peter said “Thou art the Christ,” he might just as well have been saying “Thou art the promised Messiah, the Anointed One, He of whom the Psalms prophesied and Isaiah prophesied–the Stone which the builders disallowed.”

So Christ is the rock, and not revelation? And yes, Peter’s revelation is important. That is agreed upon by Catholics.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

You realize that you have just put God in a secondary position to the Catholic Church; God’s word is subject to what the Catholic church says it is?

Who determines what is and isn’t the word of God? And who said that God is in a secondary position? How else would we determine what was to be part of the Bible and wasn’t? This goes back to Sacred Tradition.

 

[ParkerD]

So Christ is the rock, and not revelation? And yes, Peter’s revelation is important. That is agreed upon by Catholics.

Thurifer Acolyte,
Christ is the rock, yes. The revealed knowledge that Christ is the rock, the stone which the builders disallowed, must come from God and not from a human source. It is a communication from God that is sure knowledge which cannot be shaken.

That is what Christ was teaching to Peter and the other apostles. He had asked what other people were saying as to who Christ was, and what they were saying showed that they did not understand that He was the “stone which the builders disallowed” or in other words, the promised Messiah, the Anointed One. But Peter knew Whom He was, and he knew it because the Father had revealed to Peter that knowledge. That is the knowledge that every person needs in this world–revealed knowledge that Jesus is the Anointed One, the promised Messiah, the Redeemer. The gates of hell cannot prevail against that kind of unshakeable knowledge, nor can the gates of hell prevail against the rock Himself, Jesus Christ.

 

[Stephen168]

What is Scripture?
Stephen168;5681218:

The word of God as defined by the Catholic Church passed down by Sacred Tradition.

You realize that you have just put God in a secondary position to the Catholic Church; God’s word is subject to what the Catholic church says it is?

Who determines what is and isn’t the word of God?

The Catholic Church

And who said that God is in a secondary position?

Only an irrational person could come to that conclusion

How else would we determine what was to be part of the Bible and wasn’t?

Historically, the only way has been through the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Thurifer Acolyte,
Christ is the rock, yes. The revealed knowledge that Christ is the rock, the stone which the builders disallowed, must come from God and not from a human source. It is a communication from God that is sure knowledge which cannot be shaken.

That is what Christ was teaching to Peter and the other apostles. He had asked what other people were saying as to who Christ was, and what they were saying showed that they did not understand that He was the “stone which the builders disallowed” or in other words, the promised Messiah, the Anointed One. But Peter knew Whom He was, and he knew it because the Father had revealed to Peter that knowledge. That is the knowledge that every person needs in this world–revealed knowledge that Jesus is the Anointed One, the promised Messiah, the Redeemer. The gates of hell cannot prevail against that kind of unshakeable knowledge, nor can the gates of hell prevail against the rock Himself, Jesus Christ.

Yes, Catholics would agree that Jesus is the rock, as the Bible does says that Jesus is the rock. However what I’m specifically wondering is if it is Mormon thought that Matt 16:18 is saying that the rock is Jesus, or the rock is revelation. We would all agree that knowledge of Jesus is very important, and that everyone has revelation (trying to somehow tie it into the OP). So going back to Matt 16:18, we all agree that Jesus is rock and without Him salvation is not possible. But in Matt 16:18, is the rock Jesus, or is it revelation? Every LDS source that I have read (and LDS that I have spoken to elsewhere) has said that the rock in Matt 16:18 is revelation. So again, we all agree that Jesus is rock, however I’m wondering specifically about Matt 16:18.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The Catholic Church
Only an irrational person could come to that conclusion
Historically, the only way has been through the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church

Agreed. I had a similar argument with an Evangelical who said that we know that the Bible is God-breathed because it says so in 2 Timothy 3:16, and that for Sacred Tradition to be the same, it has to say that it is God-breathed. I then asked where does the OT say that it is God-breathed, and that the Jews would love to know that their Scripture wasn’t God breathed until 2 Timothy 3:16 came along to say that it was.

 

[Kdesiel]

Debate is a fruitless endevour, it is fueld by a mutal contempt for what the other person believes. A disscussion may be the better option. I grew up in the LDS faith, I served a “Full and Honorable” Mission when I turned 19. Up until a few years ago I was active in the Mormon church. It was a discussion with a close Catholic freind where I began my conversion.
My soul(Spirit as the LDS members would say) felt a need, a closeness to the things I was learning of the Catholic faith. I felt deep inside that what I was being taught and it was the truth. It not only made spiritual sense but logical sense as well.
I’m still young in the faith, but I love it, I love what it has taught me. I can’t say anythig negetive about the Mormon faith, it is responsible for my faith in Jesus Christ with out exposure to Chirst through the Mormon church I may have never found my home in the Catholic Church.
My advise don’t debate, discuss, when someone is ready to not just hear the truth but listen too it then they’ll see.
Hope my rambling can be of service.
God Bless.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You don’t do that because you just said you didn’t…and you just repeated yourself. You don’t seem to understand the possibility that others might have a different opinion, and that their faith might very well be as strong as yours is. The fact that you put ‘appreciate’ in quotes is ample evidence of that. After all, you aren’t being asked to approve of it, just appreciate that someone else does.

But you do not respect either the beliefs, or the believers, or understand how anybody could believe differently than do you. If you did, you would phrase your statements a bit differently. Fewer categorical assertions, for instance…

You have changed the subject to me again.

You would like it if I don’t assert my beliefs and my faith? What sort of nonsense is that?

Well, actually…it is, especially if the topic is 'debating a Mormon," because that is the difference between Mormons and Catholics, between Catholics and Protestants, and between the different Protestant sects; interpretation of scripture.

Don’t you mean misinterpretation?

The topic is debating a Mormon assertion (an erroneous one at that) from a Catholic POV.

 

[Murdock]

John was a priest after the order of Aaron, and had the keys of that priesthood, and came forth preaching repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, but at the same time cries out, “There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose,” and Christ came according to the words of John, and He was greater than John, because He held the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood and kingdom of God, and had before revealed the priesthood of Moses, yet Christ was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness; and Jesus in His teachings says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” What rock? Revelation.

The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Five p .273 (1842-43).

 

[RebeccaJ]

John was a priest after the order of Aaron, and had the keys of that priesthood, and came forth preaching repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, but at the same time cries out, “There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose,” and Christ came according to the words of John, and He was greater than John, because He held the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood and kingdom of God, and had before revealed the priesthood of Moses, yet Christ was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness; and Jesus in His teachings says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” What rock? Revelation.

The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Five p .273 (1842-43).

Jesus is greater than St. John the Baptist, and everyone, because He is God.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, Catholics would agree that Jesus is the rock, as the Bible does says that Jesus is the rock. However what I’m specifically wondering is if it is Mormon thought that Matt 16:18 is saying that the rock is Jesus, or the rock is revelation. We would all agree that knowledge of Jesus is very important, and that everyone has revelation (trying to somehow tie it into the OP). So going back to Matt 16:18, we all agree that Jesus is rock and without Him salvation is not possible. But in Matt 16:18, is the rock Jesus, or is it revelation? Every LDS source that I have read (and LDS that I have spoken to elsewhere) has said that the rock in Matt 16:18 is revelation. So again, we all agree that Jesus is rock, however I’m wondering specifically about Matt 16:18.

Thurifer Acolyte,
It would be an incomplete statement if what you read or heard said that the rock in Matt 16:18 is revelation. Revelation about what?

In 1 Corinthians 12:3 Paul says,
3 “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”

“By the Holy Ghost” means “by revelation”. A person can say the words, but to really mean what they say when they say the words, and to have unshakeable testimony such as described by John in the book of Revelation, one must have had revealed knowledge by the Holy Ghost–revelation.

So in answer to your question, a person can say “Jesus is the rock” but not have had revelation from the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the rock. If a person says “Jesus is the rock” knowing full well by revelation that God has revealed this knowledge to them personally, then such a person has testified of Christ by revelation. Their knowledge is unshakeable if they continue to keep the Holy Ghost with them by staying worthy. That is why the LDS teachings emphasize that Peter received revealed knowledge that Jesus is the very Christ, the rock. The revelatory nature of that knowledge is absolutely essential for every person, not just for Peter. To say “Jesus is the rock” without having had revealed knowledge, is not the same thing at all.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Debate is a fruitless endevour, it is fueld by a mutal contempt for what the other person believes. A disscussion may be the better option. I grew up in the LDS faith, I served a “Full and Honorable” Mission when I turned 19. Up until a few years ago I was active in the Mormon church. It was a discussion with a close Catholic freind where I began my conversion.
My soul(Spirit as the LDS members would say) felt a need, a closeness to the things I was learning of the Catholic faith. I felt deep inside that what I was being taught and it was the truth. It not only made spiritual sense but logical sense as well.
I’m still young in the faith, but I love it, I love what it has taught me. I can’t say anythig negetive about the Mormon faith, it is responsible for my faith in Jesus Christ with out exposure to Chirst through the Mormon church I may have never found my home in the Catholic Church.
My advise don’t debate, discuss, when someone is ready to not just hear the truth but listen too it then they’ll see.
Hope my rambling can be of service.
God Bless.

Debate is a fruitless endeavor for those that consider it that. Debate is found in all areas of human life, including religion, both within a religion and without it. As a new Catholic, you should read about the Ecumenical Councils.

Welcome to the original Church founded by Christ!

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Thurifer Acolyte,
It would be an incomplete statement if what you read or heard said that the rock in Matt 16:18 is revelation. Revelation about what?

In 1 Corinthians 12:3 Paul says,
3 “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”

“By the Holy Ghost” means “by revelation”. A person can say the words, but to really mean what they say when they say the words, and to have unshakeable testimony such as described by John in the book of Revelation, one must have had revealed knowledge by the Holy Ghost–revelation.

So in answer to your question, a person can say “Jesus is the rock” but not have had revelation from the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the rock. If a person says “Jesus is the rock” knowing full well by revelation that God has revealed this knowledge to them personally, then such a person has testified of Christ by revelation. Their knowledge is unshakeable if they continue to keep the Holy Ghost with them by staying worthy. That is why the LDS teachings emphasize that Peter received revealed knowledge that Jesus is the very Christ, the rock. The revelatory nature of that knowledge is absolutely essential for every person, not just for Peter. To say “Jesus is the rock” without having had revealed knowledge, is not the same thing at all.

Thanks for explaining. Catholics have nothing wrong with any of that. God continues to reveal himself to us.

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=66ae1f26d596b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/r/26

 

[dianaiad]

The Catholic Church

So…God must pass the Catholic test before what He gives us can be considered His word.

Only an irrational person could come to that conclusion

Appeal to ridicule/ and ad hominem. succinctly done.

Historically, the only way has been through the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church

I believe that the proper term for that is 'the winners write the history," Stephen.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

how do we know what is Scripture and what is not?

 

[why_me]

Debate is a fruitless endeavor for those that consider it that. Debate is found in all areas of human life, including religion, both within a religion and without it. As a new Catholic, you should read about the Ecumenical Councils.

Welcome to the original Church founded by Christ!

Debating religion is fruitless. Usually it depends on who is more knowledgeable and really on truth. And in the end, no one wins. All religion depends on the faith of the believer. But debating is useless and it can hurt someone. However, discussion can lead to knowledge and actually help someone.

 

[dianaiad]

Debate is a fruitless endevour, it is fueld by a mutal contempt for what the other person believes. A disscussion may be the better option. I grew up in the LDS faith, I served a “Full and Honorable” Mission when I turned 19. Up until a few years ago I was active in the Mormon church. It was a discussion with a close Catholic freind where I began my conversion.
My soul(Spirit as the LDS members would say) felt a need, a closeness to the things I was learning of the Catholic faith. I felt deep inside that what I was being taught and it was the truth. It not only made spiritual sense but logical sense as well.
I’m still young in the faith, but I love it, I love what it has taught me. I can’t say anythig negetive about the Mormon faith, it is responsible for my faith in Jesus Christ with out exposure to Chirst through the Mormon church I may have never found my home in the Catholic Church.
My advise don’t debate, discuss, when someone is ready to not just hear the truth but listen too it then they’ll see.
Hope my rambling can be of service.
God Bless.

Please don’t take this the wrong way…I’ve tried to write and rewrite my response several times and it still comes out not quite right, so…the heck with it. I’ll just say it.

This post is the way all ex-members of any belief should be. Perhaps your experience in your old faith was not what you would have preferred, but nevertheless, if you were not where you were then, you would not be where you are now. If “now” is a better place for you, then say ‘thank you.’ to the faith (all of it) that brought you here.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Debating religion is fruitless. Usually it depends on who is more knowledgeable and really on truth. And in the end, no one wins. All religion depends on the faith of the believer. But debating is useless and it can hurt someone. However, discussion can lead to knowledge and actually help someone.

according to you, thanks for your opinion.

To the rest of us, debate is “fun”. People debate many things, including religion. It isn’t just about “showing” the other side, but it also helps one come to know more about their own stance, including religion if that is the topic. Hardly fruitless, I’m sure the participants of the Ecumenical Councils would love to hear that.

So, if one doesn’t like debate, they don’t have to do it. Bye!