Help with debating a Mormon

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Because of the confusion of the word, we have many churches, especially protestant churches all giving their own interpretation of the word. And then we have the catholic church giving its own interpretation. Plus, we have the Jehovas Witnesseses and the SDA’s and the mormons giving their interpretations.

And then we have catholics, protestants and all others battling it out on boards such as this. Where does god fit in in this picture? It seems like more lost sheep than found sheep.

It seems to be much better to be happy go lucky, be a good person, have faith with works and hope for the best. And treat all people of faith with respect and those without faith with respect too.

It is because each of us follow God in the fullness of truth that we all, whether Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, etc., believe we have that leads us to have doctrinal discussions and debates. Hope for the best doesn’t cut it for those of us that believe in our Faiths. Again, if you don’t want to participate in such discussions…

 

[why_me]

We trust that God cares for our every need and heaven need to be for us nothing but being with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, forever. We TRUST that God is not going to prepare a place for us that we loathe and wish to leave.

Mormons have heaven laid out as a multilevel marketing scheme where all one needs is enough ambition to be at the top.

Actually we do know that heaven will be a place for work. We have the saints as examples of this. I kinda feel sorry for certain saints who are always being asked for help. They seem not to have a peaceful moment with the amount of work they have to do. And then we have the trinity who seem to be constantly on the move. No peace there either. And so being with the trinity does not seem to be that realistic since they are very busy keeping this world afloat.

And so what does that mean for us? Are we the loathers and slackers with nothing to do or will we be working too? Mormons believe that there is much work to do in heaven. Hardly a good marketing scheme.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Actually we do know that heaven will be a place for work. We have the saints as examples of this. I kinda feel sorry for certain saints who are always being asked for help. They seem not to have a peaceful moment with the amount of work they have to do. And then we have the trinity who seem to be constantly on the move. No peace there either. And so being with the trinity does not seem to be that realistic since they are very busy keeping this world afloat.

And so what does that mean for us? Are we the loathers and slackers with nothing to do or will we be working too? Mormons believe that there is much work to do in heaven. Hardly a good marketing scheme.

oh LOL you really don’t understand what the saints are actually doing do you? And what does it mean that the Trinity is “constantly on the move”? And the saints don’t keep the world afloat, LOL. Such blasphemy.

 

[why_me]

It is because each of us follow God in the fullness of truth that we all, whether Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, etc., believe we have that leads us to have doctrinal discussions and debates. Hope for the best doesn’t cut it for those of us that believe in our Faiths. Again, if you don’t want to participate in such discussions…

Well, I agree with this. But it is the mocking and the bashing by certain posters which leads to problems. Do you really think that certain catholic posters on the mormon threads are engaged with debate and discussion? I only see mocking and bashing.

Hope for the best does cut it if doctrinal debates lead to confrontation and anger. Eventually, we just need to learn to accept eachother and hope for the best. Sort of like a northern Ireland understanding. And if each of us follow god in the fullness of truth regardless of what that faith is, well, best to leave it at that.

But calling the mormon heaven a marketing scheme is not respectful nor is it correct. Can you understand that?

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
I find your position contradictory. Fervent, but contradictory. Well said, though.

I still don’t understand what Catholics think their “heaven” is going to be like, especially when I read a statement like you posted. But I doubt anyone will ever say. I doubt if any Catholic really wants to know. It seems they prefer the mystery of it all. Whatever…

What do you find contradictory?

And, when we’re talking about generalities anyway (your own visions of heaven don’t get into day-to-day detail), what is difficult to understand about the Catholic “vision of heaven?” It is a state where we will all live in the presence of God, with the angels. The Beatific Vision. As to details, we know there will be feasting, work, a place (“mansions”) for us, special roles that we still serve (the original Apostles have a particular role in Revelation), and a few other details. Beyond that, there is speculation, but it’s not much more agreed to in your own church, from what I’ve seen.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

What do you find contradictory?

And, when we’re talking about generalities anyway (your own visions of heaven don’t get into day-to-day detail), what is difficult to understand about the Catholic “vision of heaven?” It is a state where we will all live in the presence of God, with the angels. The Beatific Vision. As to details, we know there will be feasting, work, a place (“mansions”) for us, special roles that we still serve (the original Apostles have a particular role in Revelation), and a few other details. Beyond that, there is speculation, but it’s not much more agreed to in your own church, from what I’ve seen.

Except being Eternal Parents, having spirit children (both for those exalted), having worlds (again only for the exalted), three degrees of glory, spirit missionaries from Paradise to Spirit Prison (is this official doctrine?).

 

[placido]

That’s corny. I said the Old Covenant was with the house of Israel, and the New Covenant was with the house of Israel and the Gentiles. I said Christ descended from the Jews, so that made Him born into the Old Covenant, but He fulfilled the Old Covenant and brought the New Covenant. I said the Jews received the New Covenant first, during the time Christ was alive.

Parker, you said nothing of that nature. That only shows that you are either forgetful or dishonest. You said the following:

Of course the New Covenant is for the Jews.

Those were your exact words in post # 268 of that other thread.

placido

 

[why_me]

oh LOL you really don’t understand what the saints are actually doing do you? And what does it mean that the Trinity is “constantly on the move”? And the saints don’t keep the world afloat, LOL. Such blasphemy.

Well, the holy ghost is within us, testifying to us. That is work my friend. And Christ is listening to prayers and answering them…that is work my friend. And heavenly faither…? He is working too. And the saints…when I pray to them are they also anwersing prayers…that is work my friend. And saint therese, showering the world with roses…that is work my friend. She herself admited when she were alive that she wanted to bring a piece of heaven to earth. And that helps keep the world afloat.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Well, the holy ghost is within us, testifying to us. That is work my friend. And Christ is listening to prayers and answering them…that is work my friend. And heavenly faither…? He is working too. And the saints…when I pray to them are they also anwersing prayers…that is work my friend. And saint therese, showering the world with roses…that is work my friend. She herself admited when she were alive that she wanted to bring a piece of heaven to earth. And that helps keep the world afloat.

You said that the Trinity is constantly on the move and that they have no peace. To say that the Trinity does not have peace (when God is perfect) is blasphemous. Also, you said that being with the Trinity is unrealistic because they are busy keeping the world afloat, which completely misses the point of who God is, and what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can do. Please read the Bible for more information. You’re making it seem like if they won’t be in Heaven with us, which again is blasphemous.

And if you think that the Heavenly saints answer prayers, you need to reassess your understanding of the doctrine.

You also said that the saints seem not to have a peaceful moment. That is also blasphemous. It’s Heaven! Eternal peace (among other things)! We can’t speculate on things we do not know about the afterlife, but it’s safe to assume that our souls do not function like our bodies, and therefore we are not limited in the same way as we are now.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Parker, you said nothing of that nature. That only shows that you are either forgetful or dishonest. You said the following:

Those were your exact words in post # 268 of that other thread.

placido

Sadly I think you misunderstood Parker. in post 268 on that other thread, he was saying that the New Covenant is for everyone, Jews and Gentiles, and then he said “of course the New Covenant is for the Jews”, since he said it’s for everyone, not excluding Jews.

 

[why_me]

You said that the Trinity is constantly on the move and that they have no peace. To say that the Trinity does not have peace (when God is perfect) is blasphemous. Also, you said that being with the Trinity is unrealistic because they are busy keeping the world afloat, which completely misses the point of who God is, and what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can do. Please read the Bible for more information. You’re making it seem like if they won’t be in Heaven with us, which again is blasphemous.

And if you think that the Heavenly saints answer prayers, you need to reassess your understanding of the doctrine.

You also said that the saints seem not to have a peaceful moment. That is also blasphemous. It’s Heaven! Eternal peace (among other things)! We can’t speculate on things we do not know about the afterlife, but it’s safe to assume that our souls do not function like our bodies, and therefore we are not limited in the same way as we are now.

Well, I can’t say that they don’t have inner peace. But with the world is such a state and the devil seemingly on the move, I can safely say, that they are far from resting. And the saints do answer prayers especially for intercession. Saint Therese is helping many people on this earth. And that takes work even if she has inner peace in heaven. It is not a playground…it is a place for work.

The trinity is not resting in the face of such evil that the world is experiencing. And regardless of what god can do, doing is work. What will you be doing in heaven…nothing?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Well, I can’t say that they don’t have inner peace. But with the world is such a state and the devil seemingly on the move, I can safely say, that they are far from resting. And the saints do answer prayers especially for intercession. Saint Therese is helping many people on this earth. And that takes work even if she has inner peace in heaven. It is not a playground…it is a place for work.

The trinity is not resting in the face of such evil that the world is experiencing. And regardless of what the god can do, doing is work. What will you be doing in heaven…nothing?

Okay, firstly you need to stop thinking about God like if He’s just a human. That’s where your problem is here, as you’re defining Him in human terms and limits. God, Heaven, and those in God in Heaven are not constrained by time and space.

The saints do not answer prayers. God answers all prayers. When someone asks me to pray for them, I don’t answer the prayer, God does. The same goes for the Heavenly saints. That’s why it’s called “intercession”. The Biblical imagery is also clear on this, as is the Church.

Who said that God is resting? The point is that God is perfect, and is perfectly at peace, among other attributes. God is the Creator of the universe, of all things in existence.

Try beginning with this:
newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm#VII
and then moving on to other theological works if you don’t know what Heaven will be like from a Catholic perspective. It’s this obsession with “doing” that is sad (Yes, there will be things to do, but that’s not the only thing that Heaven is about, nor is it the most important part of Heaven). Try thinking and comprehending as much as you can being in the eternal presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And note that none of this has to do with playing harps and eternally singing (though obviously we will praise God as we do on earth) like some Mormons and others like to caricature the traditional Heaven (based on fictional portrayals).

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur,
This is a two part response.

God revealed ALL Truth in His Son, who IS Truth. It is for us to learn and love what He gave and sacrificed. Jesus held NOTHING back. He certainly did not keep essential secrets only for those who were most privileged.

Yet He told the apostles, “This kind cometh not out except by fasting and prayer.” (They needed to learn more at that point, it seems to me He was saying.) He taught in parables that had various levels of meaning. God let Moses know more than the rest of the Israelites. Why didn’t He take them all up on the mountain and reveal everything to the whole group, based on your assertion of “holding nothing back”?

The gnostic and occult labels are accurate and are shorthand.

I absolutely agree that they are shorthand. They bring connotations that denote “fear” and “mistrust” and “mystery” and “heresy”. Of course you would use those words to foster the kind of fear you desire to foster.

Whereever did you get this idea? What even do you mean?
We have a great body of knowledge and depth of understanding gained and taught through the ages within the Church and kept, treasured, in the Deposit of Faith. We always and constantly seek ever more knowledge and understanding of God, greater depths of comprehension of what He has revealed to us, and we acknowledge that it is an infinite truth. We rightly yearn and thirst to understand more of that infinite truth, and thanks be to God He sent the Spirit to guide us into it, granting us even a check against error by that Divine promise and Institution.

If it is an “infinite truth”, then to me that implies there is more to understand than all the “Deposit of Faith” has to say. I think that is a contradictory statement.

What we reject is the idea that God did not reveal Himself to us in Christ. What we reject is the idea that we must buy our way, through word or deed or even rite of ordination, into some inner circle of secret knowledge.

So you think no prophet or apostle had any more knowledge than you have? Then you can be the perfect interpreter of every single verse of scripture in the Bible, right?

What we reject is the idea that some prophet would come along greater than God Himself who is Jesus Christ, or that God left something out that was essential to our salvation and has, therefore, damned us. What we reject is the idea that God’s love is conditional and limited, so that He would withhold Himself from us even after He Redeemed us, denying our own pursuit of Him.

I have not said any prophet is greater than Jesus Christ, of course. Nor have I said God’s love is conditional. Our desires lead us to different results. The results are based on our desires, and God assures that anyone can change their desires through Christ’s atonement.

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur,
In response to your question about what I meant:

Where do Adam and Eve fit in?

As I have understood the Catholic belief, Eve wanted knowledge of good and evil which meant she supposedly wanted to be like God (who knows all things) which was absolutely horrible so she and Adam were cast out of the wonderful free life they had where they were feasting all the time in God’s presence, and sent off to a place where they had to work but could learn from their mistakes and would have a difficult time communicating with God and learning from Him. That totally has to do with “learning.” Yet Catholics seemingly wish they had that wonderful free life in Eden with no difficulties to resolve in life, and a free lunch.

I fail to see how you addressed my points in the slightest. I said that all has been revealed, and yet we have the quest of all eternity to plumb the depths of that revelation and understand it (God) better, come to love it (God) better.

That is self-contradictory. What does it mean to “plumb the depths of that revelation” if it doesn’t mean there is more to learn?

Simple faith IS still “real” faith. You attempt to separate people of simple faith, like so many Jesus praises in the Gospels (while condemning the “learned” and the “wise,” which is quite a far cry from your praising of the search for secret knowledge, the opposite, in fact). You attempt to separate them from those who seek access to secret knowledge (the definition of “occult” by the way, which Scripture warns us away from, though with the Prostestant revivalism and Masonry of the time, Smith would have found fascinating).

I didn’t say anything about “simple faith”. I talked about the kind of faith that is able to move mountains. Christ talked about that, and the kind of faith of a grain of mustard seed. Mormons believe anyone can learn that kind of faith, through righteousness, obedience, and learning about how faith really works. But that requires desire, and it requires a process of learning–not something like a gift certificate. The “priviliged few” (billions of people who desire to learn and grow) access that opportunity to learn and grow through and only through Christ and His atonement.

This is one of the most disgusting and damnable of vile and heinous lies against God’s own Truth, one that has persisted unfortunately through most of human history.

So in your mind, everyone should be given the same access to all knowledge? Have you never heard that “knowledge is power”? Do you really think everyone can be trusted to that extent, to be able to move mountains? No, thank you. They can’t even be trusted with the amount of knowledge now available to the world. That is proven every single day in this world.

You Smithians like to turn the phrase “God is not a respecter of persons,” and yet you propose exactly that.

God is a respecter of the desires people have and show that they have by their attitudes and actions. He applies that respect to every single person who ever lives.

God’s Truth is given equally to ALL.

To ALL? To everyone, since Adam and Eve? Meaning everyone has God’s Truth in full?

We seek it and understand it by varying degrees and are even called to seek it in varying degrees.

I don’t see why that is not a contradictory statement. The word “called” seems to mean God did something to differentiate what people “should” do if they were “called” to do it, incuding receive “understanding”.

God does not call an illiterate peasant man struggling to provide for his wife and ten children to seek knowledge of Him in the same way that He might call a single man with more luxury and more education to use those gifts.

Why not let the “illiterate peasant man” gain knowledge? I think and “illiterate peasant man” can gain all the knowledge that a “single man” can gain.

He does not grant that single man access to “secret knowledge” of Him.

So, what kind of knowledge is it if it is not given to the “illiterate peasant man”?

And He absolutely does not grant greater value to that man with luxury than that man with poverty by virtue of the single man’s more expansive knowledge. What a shameful thought–and yet that seems very much to be what you are saying the LDS position is.

Nonsense. I never said that, at all. I said knowledge gained is based on the desires of the person, and whether they seek revealed knowledge. I said that was available to anyone, meaning truly anyone who has ever lived.

 

[placido]

Sadly I think you misunderstood Parker. in post 268 on that other thread, he was saying that the New Covenant is for everyone, Jews and Gentiles, and then he said “of course the New Covenant is for the Jews”, since he said it’s for everyone, not excluding Jews.

No. I repeat: NO!
Parker was denying and refuting what I said in my earlier posts, and what I said in my earlier posts (including post #266) was that "the New Covenant IS NOT for the Jews, it IS FOR ALL”.
So, in his refutation he argued that since all the apostles were Jews, and since some Jews became believers, his conclusion is that “the New Covenant is for the Jews”.
If he agreed with what I said (that the New Covenant is for all), he would not have tried to refute it.

Placido

 

[dianaiad]

I’m not sure what the bolded statistic has to do with divorce?
And Catholics can get divorced they just can’t get re-married unless the previous marriage is annulled.

Well, compare the stats. One cannot divorce if one is not married first, right?

The fact that a higher percentage of Mormons are married than are Catholics simply skews the divorce statistics a bit higher for Catholics, and lower for Mormons. I admit that my math skills are rusty and ill used, but…let’s translate those stats into people.

We have a 100 people; 100 Mormons and 100 Catholics.

3 Mormons are divorced. 7 Catholics are.
71 Mormons are married. 58 Catholics are.

Now, since Mormons may certainly remarry after a divorce, it is quite possible that some of those married Mormons are on their second tries. The same is true, of course, for the Catholics (they do remarry…they just can’t do it in the church or take communion, I understand, if they do.)

So, let’s divide the difference. Let us assume that in reality, as many Mormons actually got divorces at one time as Catholics did; seven of them. So we subtract four people from the Mormon ‘married’ section, leaving 69 married Mormons to 58 married Catholics.

So what, then, is the percentage of married people in either group that will (according to these statistics) end up divorced?

3 out of 58 =5% divorce rate for Catholics, and
3 out of 69 =4% divorce rate for Mormons.

In all honesty, both rates are incredibly good; almost neck and neck. Also, honestly, I don’t believe either one. I’m afraid that the divorce rate for both of us is a lot higher than that, and according to the Barna report, the divorce rates for Mormons is more like 24%, and the divorce rate for Catholics is 21%.

If it makes anybody feel better about it, the Baptists divorce at the rate of 29%, and ‘non-denominational’ faiths divorce at the rate of 34%. 30% of Jews divorce…and only 21% of atheists and agnostics divorce.

However, when you add 'partnership breakups" to the atheist divorce rate (since atheists and agnostics are far more likely not to get married in the first place) the rate doubles for them.

 

[dianaiad]

You’re right, I got caught up in the moment, and was “gleeful” and having “fun” like others were. Obviously we were joking (making fun of my skin color), but I apologize if I offended you.

Yes, Jesus was born Jewish, definitely. I was alluding to a speculation I have about the implications of the Father being an exalted man (as well as portrayals of the First Vision). But that’s neither here nor there.

Too true it’s ‘neither here nor there.’

The point I was making, though, is that the ‘white and delightsome’ quote was changed to ‘pure and delightsome’ waaaaay back in 1837 when Joseph caught the transcription error (check the second edition of the Book of Mormon) and even though further editions used ‘white’ rather than ‘pure,’ the current edition, which was rather carefully gone through to match with the corrections made by Joseph, reads ‘pure,’ not ‘white.’

Not that it makes any difference anyway. The word ‘white,’ has commonly been used to exemplify purity; white light versus darn night. Night is scary.

Melanin-deficient races have been associating themselves with ‘white,’, not because they ARE (now I’m about as ‘white’ as it’s possible to get; red hair, blue eyes, freckles…the-closest-thing-to-a-tan-I’ve-ever-had-is-liver-spots Celtic type), but because they wanted to steal the concept for themselves. The problem is…I am wearing a pure white lace top. Believe me, when I look at my skin against that white top, I ain’t WHITE. Pale orangey-pink with brown specks, perhaps, but not white.

So even if the wording had been left ‘white and delightsome’ rather than ‘pure and delightsome’ I don’t think that the meaning is as the anti’s claim it is. At least, I never thought it was–“pure” is the synonym, not 'light skinned superior race."

 

[StLawrenceFan]

“And if He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scriptures cannot be broken…”

"1. The Hebrew plural Elohim is derived from the singular form Eloah (used 226 times both of the one true God as well as false deities). Although it is a plural noun, it does not always denote more than one. The Hebrew plural can mean more than one, but it is also used to indicate intensity, or a multiplicity of attributes. The word for “face” and “water” are always in the plural form because the face shows so many aspects of a person, and water because it flows. In like manner, our English, “God,” is from the plural Hebrew form of El because of God’s majestic plurality of attributes. When the context is talking about the true God the Hebrew always uses a singular verb with Elohim, whereas when it is speaking of false gods it uses a plural verb with Elohim. Whenever a verse from the Old Testament, which uses Elohim in reference to the one true God, is translated by the authors of the New Testament, it is translated as the singular theos instead of the plural theoi. This shows that the Elohim whose name was “Yahweh” in the Old Testament was one, not many."

 

[StLawrenceFan]

It seems to be much better to be happy go lucky, be a good person, have faith with works and hope for the best. And treat all people of faith with respect and those without faith with respect too.

Sure thing. Let’s avoid all history of the One True Church and all become confused limp rags. Let’s all just start our own religion. Got it. (/S.)

“Beware of false prophets,” He had said, “who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15), and again “there will rise up false Christs and false prophets and they shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect” (Mark 13:22),

 

[ricko]

Too true it’s ‘neither here nor there.’

The point I was making, though, is that the ‘white and delightsome’ quote was changed to ‘pure and delightsome’ waaaaay back in 1837 when Joseph caught the transcription error (check the second edition of the Book of Mormon) and even though further editions used ‘white’ rather than ‘pure,’ the current edition, which was rather carefully gone through to match with the corrections made by Joseph, reads ‘pure,’ not ‘white.’

Not that it makes any difference anyway. The word ‘white,’ has commonly been used to exemplify purity; white light versus darn night. Night is scary.

So even if the wording had been left ‘white and delightsome’ rather than ‘pure and delightsome’ I don’t think that the meaning is as the anti’s claim it is. At least, I never thought it was–“pure” is the synonym, not 'light skinned superior race."

it is claimed that the change referred to a cleaner state of heart. This assumption fails to explain (or counter) other passages in the Book of Mormon that still make a connection with “iniquity” and skin color. For example, 2 Nephi 5:21 still says:

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball utilized 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians “are fast becoming a **white and delightsome people.” **He said, “The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation” (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3).

During the same message Kimball referred to a 16-year-old Indian girl who was both LDS and “several shades lighter than her parents…” He went on to say, "These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.
mrm.org/white-and-delightsome

The “Anti’s” seem to have it correct. The LDS are still caught up in their own false gospel concerning race.