How do the Mormons do it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Captain_America
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So you’re starting from the standpoint that something can’t be true and correct until evidence is provided?
Generally yes, I find it sensible to wait for evidence that something is true, in the mean time it remains unproven. Some things unproven are more likely than others.
That’s like saying that gravity did nothing until Sir Isaac Newton noticed?
Or that matter was not composed of atoms until someone suggested it might be the case and investigated?
No it’s nothing like that, very bad analogy.
All truth is truth, regardless of what evidence is/isn’t available. And simple lack of evidence is never an argument against anything,
And an unsupported assertion that something is true is never evidence of it’s veracity.
 
Actually, initially I did not know that this was that type of forum; hence why I did not expect a barrage of comments on subjects I had not raised. As above, I found this thread itself, not the forum generally, in a Google search for something else entirely.
So, you signed up for a forum without even knowing what kind of forum it was? You’re certainly braver than I would ever be, in that regard. I don’t even like to visit forums listed in a google search, because you never know what you might find that you never wanted to see or know about! :eek:
When I came up against posts like this:

I did not feel the apparent hostility was justified.
I am more than happy to be disagreed with, and to have a discussion and debate. But there’s no need that it should have to be in any way hostile or un-necessarily argumentative.
Once again, LDS seem to perceive hostility from anyone that’s not LDS, especially when it comes to religious discussion, whether it’s really there or not. Many of us have a tendency to be very blunt in our posts, but that’s because we’re very confident that we’re speaking the truth. We don’t really think we should pussyfoot around the truth to make it more comfortable to another’s ears. Is it more charitable to speak the truth, honestly, hoping that it will hit a nerve? Or, should we avoid hurting someone’s ‘feelings’ at the risk of them losing their souls because we never told them what they believed was a grave error? Wouldn’t we also be partly responsible for their loss of salvation, in that case? Jesus certainly never softened the sting of truth when he spoke to the Pharisees. He didn’t just tell them they were wrong about what they believed, He came right out and called them a brood of vipers! He already knew that they would reject Him, because they really were vipers! :eek:
We shall see I guess. Now that I am better prepared for how to expect this works.
Just remember, Catholics are very adamant in their defense of the Church because we know that it is the original, and all others are mere shadows of it. We believe that many of them still have at least some portion of the truth, but not all of it. When we make our arguments, we are hoping that others may ponder what we say and at least better understand our Faith, even if they do not have a change of heart and fully embrace it as a result of what they learn from us. Either way, we love all who come here, whether they’re here out of curiosity about us, or to defend their own faith. 😉
You misinterpret; it is not based on things we just feel out of ourselves; it is that we come to recognise the workings of The Holy Ghost within us, and what He teaches us to be true, must be true because He is The Spirit of Truth and The Spirit of Revelation. he is our conduit to converse directly with deity and thus learn the will of our Father in Heaven for ourselves; both individually and communally.
This, to me, is one fundamental part of faith. The other is study, ponder and think it out for yourself. The two together are vital to prevent being blinded by crafty words and the cunningness of men and the devil.
No, I didn’t misinterpret anything. I know exactly what you meant. What you don’t understand is that most Catholics have a very deep understanding of the interior spiritual life. When we read in the Gospel of John 17:16 “They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world.”, we understand it to mean that as followers of Jesus, we are all called to be more like Him. That means that even while we still exist and live in this physical world, we are called to a much higher existence, to live even more so in the spiritual world. We see that as living our lives in the interior world of the soul. So, we’re certainly not strangers to the workings of the interior spiritual life. Quite the opposite is true.

At the same time, we are also well aware that the devil can play tricks on us and try to fool us into believing that his inspirations come from God. Because of that fact, we are always very careful about what we accept as true inspiration. For those saintly Catholics that have a very deep interior life, they will always subject their inner thoughts and inspirations to the scrutiny and guidance of an experienced spiritual director. If you read about the lives of any contemplative Catholic Saints, you will see many examples of this type of spiritual action in their daily lives. The devil also has the power to put evil thoughts into our minds, that he will suggest to us are really good thoughts. He can also appear to us in disguise, in visions, for the same evil purpose. We have to be extremely cautious in determining whether any of these things are good or not, because he can be very persuasive if we’re not careful.
Ever heard of the game Chinese Whispers… I’ll assume you have and understand the concept I’m getting at here.
I’ve never heard the game called that, but thanks to another poster, I do know of “Telephone”. If you think Catholic Tradition is only passed down orally, then you might be able to make that kind of argument, but there are thousands of volumes of writings in the Vatican Library that would prove otherwise. Among them are many of the writings of the early Church Fathers, that are carefully preserved to this day. Our Traditions are certainly not just passed down verbally. All of the Catholic Church’s beliefs are very well documented in our Doctrines and Dogmas (which are open to the public), that have always been kept in written form, ever since the beginning of the Church. 😉
I’ll do my best 👍
Very good! 😃
Thanks very much :eek: lol
LOL… it might be a rough ride at times, but I’m sure we can all learn something from our exchange of ideas. 👍
 
You mean it doesn’t follow the way you would like it to.
Like I said, as a fact of history Mormon teaching on this does not follow what Christ taught. Many have come to the Catholic Church after making this discovery. But this is just a tangent from the subject of this thread
 
But when it’s not just a single statement, but a system of teaching and belief, then people have different opinions of the interpretation. Over so much time, it would be astonishing for anything to still be in it’s original form if no (name removed by moderator)ut and conversing with the author and source is sought.
But with the Holy Spirit it is not that astonishing. The Catholic Church still hold onto the original teachings of Christ. But this is just a tangent from the subject of this thread
 
No, because having seen that the bread is not there you have evidence of absence. Only before opening do you have an absence of evidence; and this bolsters neither parties claim. The entire argument that no evidence=evidence is a non-argument from the outset.
You are wrong but the argument you think you are avoiding does not apply to the Book of Mormon. There is evidence that proves it to be fiction. How you rationalize that as a Mormon is the point of this thread.
 
But Christ Himself stated: “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself”. A very personal suggestion to ‘any’ (/every) man (/person) to do his will, and discover for themselves; personally.
Jesus is talking about Himself, not about Mormon doctrine. reference John 6:29
*
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”*

Besides that, I already said, Christ died for you, but not you alone, He died for all.

Mormonism is very individualistic, yet, Jesus Christ came to save all of mankind. There is no you, without Him, and there is no one who speaks for God alone. It takes a communion, where three or more are gathered in His name.

This does not mean that God does not search the heart of all, but it isn’t in order to set you apart, alone and special above all others. It is to bring you into communion with Himself, the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You can’t stand alone in a testimony that is separate from Jesus Christ, what He established during His ministry (His Church), and the Saving action of the Cross. It just isn’t possible. God the Son cannot be divided from what is His.

The Church Jesus Christ established, is His. It belongs to no other.
 
mwok,

If we are talking about the normal contraceptive, and if the couple have sincerely prayed about it and are in agreement with each other, then yes, an answer for one couple could be OK for a limited time, and for another “you shouldn’t postpone this blessing in your lives.”
And that’s one of the points I am trying to make. If God says something is wrong, it is wrong under ALL circumstances. You can’t just pray to get permission to change God’s mind. The difference between Humanae Vitae and Continuing Revelation is that in HV the Catholic Church reaffirmed its stand against contraception whereas in CR all that apparently needs to happen is strong opposition from the govt or spouse for a stance to become a doctrine that was all of a sudden in the workings of changing “once we were ready for it”.

Like the Catholic Church has stated before and always: Contraception is an evil, no matter how many times you pray to change God’s mind/will.
 
Ok then, lets test the spirit!

Humanae Vitae(HV) VS. Continuing Revelation(CR)


HV:
Declared in 1968 when most of Pope Paul VI’s advisors said the Church should change its teachings on contraceptives in marriage

Infidelity and moral decline- I think most of us can agree that this statement is true, just watch tv or look through a magazine.

Lost respect for women- again just watch tv or look through a magazine. Also, men using women as a means to an end.

Abuse of power- Forced sterilization in 3rd world countries and the “One Child” policy in China

Unlimited Dominion- Some are so convinced that they have complete control over their bodies that the sterilize themselves, have abortions, change genders, etc,etc,etc.

And this was just ONE encyclical by ONE Pope.
The evils of contraception were true then and they are true now, why?
Because Peter led by the Holy Spirit said so!
mwok,

I wasn’t looking forward to discussing this particular subject in detail, but if you’re going to make such a big deal about it, then I suppose we would need to really examine it in more detail.

First, please identify where “Peter said so”, specifically about contraception.

Second, identify the cause and effect suppositions you have going on, and how they tie to the knowledge The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has about the opportunity of continuing revelation on the problems of our day.

Third, show that you are familiar enough with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on all the topics your post brought up, that you have any idea what the prophet and other Latter-day Saint leaders have taught and are continuing to teach on all the kinds of subjects you brought up, and also show that you are familiar with the results in the lives of youth living today and how they are able to resist the temptations prevalent in the world today that impact them from media sources and outside peer pressure in universities and high schools they may attend. Their resistance to those temptations is not “in a corner”–it is statistically significant and I know many, many youth including my own children who have been and are morally clean with a continuing firm resolve to be so.

Fourth, just as a for instance, Latter-day Saints are very involved internationally in places such as China on helping governments understand that such policies as a “one child policy” are impacting their countries in a significantly negative way, and those involved are doing so through international Family conferences as well as through seeking to influence legislative decision-makers–sometimes at their own expense or through donations to non-profit organizations that have been set up by people interested in strengthening the Natural Family in the world. (By the way, I have a brother-in-law who has this kind of involvement, so I certainly am aware about that particular topic. “Demographic Winter” is a subject he has studied thoroughly and they are being successful in helping governments understand. He and his wife have eight children, as do I.)

Show that you are aware of these kinds of involvements and positive results in real lives of Latter-day Saints, if you want to show a thoroughly studied approach to the kinds of supposed connect-the-dots assertions you made.
 
. . . how do Mormons keep together all these disparate, anti-factual aspects of their faith? I mean the notions about American geography, etc., long disproved by archaeology? And the big Race War in History concept?

I’m not knocking Mormons. I just see the potential for a great deal of internal cognitive dissonance, and wonder how it’s all reconciled.
Do you think that the Earth was created in six days? There are many people who don’t, but this does not affect their belief in the Bible.
 
mwok,

I wasn’t looking forward to discussing this particular subject in detail, but if you’re going to make such a big deal about it, then I suppose we would need to really examine it in more detail.

First, please identify where “Peter said so”, specifically about contraception.

Second, identify the cause and effect suppositions you have going on, and how they tie to the knowledge The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has about the opportunity of continuing revelation on the problems of our day.

Third, show that you are familiar enough with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on all the topics your post brought up, that you have any idea what the prophet and other Latter-day Saint leaders have taught and are continuing to teach on all the kinds of subjects you brought up, and also show that you are familiar with the results in the lives of youth living today and how they are able to resist the temptations prevalent in the world today that impact them from media sources and outside peer pressure in universities and high schools they may attend. Their resistance to those temptations is not “in a corner”–it is statistically significant and I know many, many youth including my own children who have been and are morally clean with a continuing firm resolve to be so.

Fourth, just as a for instance, Latter-day Saints are very involved internationally in places such as China on helping governments understand that such policies as a “one child policy” are impacting their countries in a significantly negative way, and those involved are doing so through international Family conferences as well as through seeking to influence legislative decision-makers–sometimes at their own expense or through donations to non-profit organizations that have been set up by people interested in strengthening the Natural Family in the world. (By the way, I have a brother-in-law who has this kind of involvement, so I certainly am aware about that particular topic. “Demographic Winter” is a subject he has studied thoroughly and they are being successful in helping governments understand. He and his wife have eight children, as do I.)

Show that you are aware of these kinds of involvements and positive results in real lives of Latter-day Saints, if you want to show a thoroughly studied approach to the kinds of supposed connect-the-dots assertions you made.
  1. Peter said so, because his successor at the time(Pope Paul VI) said so.
  2. Just an example, since 1960 the national average divorce rate has inclined
    nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce
  3. Why bother, since it would not matter what proof I brought to the table. Any doctrine I discussed would be tossed aside as “not being doctrine”. Secondly, as a “doctrine” the Holy Spirit protects you from any heresy I speak.
  4. As do most Christians, what sets the Catholic Church apart is that it has ALWAYS taught contraception to be evil.
 
And that’s one of the points I am trying to make. If God says something is wrong, it is wrong under ALL circumstances. You can’t just pray to get permission to change God’s mind. The difference between Humanae Vitae and Continuing Revelation is that in HV the Catholic Church reaffirmed its stand against contraception whereas in CR all that apparently needs to happen is strong opposition from the govt or spouse for a stance to become a doctrine that was all of a sudden in the workings of changing “once we were ready for it”.

Like the Catholic Church has stated before and always: Contraception is an evil, no matter how many times you pray to change God’s mind/will.
The same with abortion. It has always been wrong in Catholic Christianity, but it is becoming OK for Mormons. In this case the Mormon Church is following the governments lead.
 
  1. Peter said so, because his successor at the time(Pope Paul VI) said so.
  2. Just an example, since 1960 the national average divorce rate has inclined
    nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce
  3. Why bother, since it would not matter what proof I brought to the table. Any doctrine I discussed would be tossed aside as “not being doctrine”. Secondly, as a “doctrine” the Holy Spirit protects you from any heresy I speak.
  4. As do most Christians, what sets the Catholic Church apart is that it has ALWAYS taught contraception to be evil.
mwok,

Once more I am seeing a reason that, whereas I began being a participant in these threads with 100% assurance and conviction that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true and is led by living prophets and apostles with continuing revelation and that there is 100% truth in the concept of personal revelation, that personal conviction and knowledge has increased seven-fold by reading some of the comments such as yours here and the strange connect-the-dots assertions about what impact an HV had in the world.

When my wife decided that for reasons of health and for our families’ well-being through her need for good health, to accept a doctor’s suggestion for an IUD after we had eight children, then she was not being “evil”. That is a notion that would be scoffed at by certainly most doctors, by most mothers and women who have adopted children, and by husbands who are familiar with the complexities of the health of their wife as relates to a very complex health area of their everyday lives.
 
The same with abortion. It has always been wrong in Catholic Christianity, but it is becoming OK for Mormons. In this case the Mormon Church is following the governments lead.
“We have no revelation on abortion”
Didn’t you assume Mormons were pro-life? That’s certainly the image their church attempts to broadcast, and most Mormons, in fact, mistakenly believe their church opposes abortion and regards it as an objective evil. But not so.

Indeed, the Mormon church accepts abortion for a number of reasons. The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive God’s approval in prayer (156).

This same Handbook, the official policies of the Mormon church to be followed by all local church leaders throughout the world, also claims: “It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body” (156). Previous teachings by former Mormon prophets referred to the unborn child as “a child,” “a baby,” a “human being,” and decried abortion as “killing,” “a grievous sin,” “a damnable practice.” Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985, taught, “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).

It appears that this “unalterable” position, constantly “affirmed,” is just another in a series of doctrinal and moral teachings that Mormons have reworded, reworked, rescinded, or reneged—though never officially renounced. Such is the quality of the Mormon belief in “continuing revelation.” Don’t expect dogmatic or ethical consistency. Rather, look for expediency and conformity with “the times.”

A further statement in the Handbook says: “The church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion (156).” While the Mormon prophet claims to speak the mind and will of God, he can neither figure out when the unborn child becomes human or if it is God’s desire that we protect the unborn unconditionally.

Your Mormon friend will offer the excuse that his church leaves many decisions to the free agency (free will) of its people, and that abortion is one such concern. You might point out the irony in the fact that the Mormon church has no hesitation or uncertainty in making the following declarations:
  1. “The church opposes gambling in any form” (including lotteries). Members are also urged to oppose legislation and government sponsorship of any form of gambling (Handbook, 150).
  2. The church also opposes [correctly, of course] pornography in any form (158).
  3. Church members are to reject all efforts to legally authorize or support same-sex unions (158).
There is no need for a member to pray for divine guidance or seek church approval for such activities, for there will be no divine or ecclesiastical finessing of morality to permit even an occasional bingo game. A prayerful game of poker, unrepented, will bar the member from the temple and ultimate salvation; a prayerful, by-the-book abortion, unrepented, won’t.

catholic.com/tracts/mormon-stumpers
 
Rainman:
“I can only imagine how confusing it would be if we were to have to figure out if Jesus, when He spoke, was just giving His opinion or speaking Truth.”
What a bizarre thing to imagine. Jesus was perfect. Abraham, Jacob, Jonah, Moses, Peter, and Joseph Smith were not perfect.

I can only imagine how confusing it would be if we had to figure out if Peter, when he denied Christ three times, was giving his opinion or speaking Truth.

SallyButler: " This may be off topic, but why does LDS insist on calling St John "John the Revelator? "
Are you familiar with the book of Revelations?

“I find it rather distracting every time there is a quote in this post from the books of John by a member of the Mormon church, he is not given the title of saint.”

Because mormons use the word “Saint” in the same sense that the New Testament uses the phrase, which encompasses the common members of the church. And to disginguish him from John the Baptist. But within the church, I’ve more often heard him referred to as John the Beloved. Does that title offend you?

“But I think others have pointed out that LDS use language and the Bible differently than Christans do”

It seems wrong to make mormons an offender for a word, particularly for the words of the Holy Bible.

Naf [to Stephen168]: “…extremely disappointed at the very UN-Christain attitude you have attacked my personal beliefs with.”
Many of the more Christian Catholics on this forum tend to avoid this “Non-Christian Religions” sub-forum, and at least two of them have publicly described it as an embarrassment. You might have an easier time on this forum if you deal with Stephen168 in the same manner that the Lord dealt with Herod: don’t reply to him. I was given the same warning, by a good Catholic on this forum, and I wish I had heeded it.

[Miriam] Didn’t you assume Mormons were pro-life?
Not all mormons are pro-life; not all Catholics are pro-life either. Any poll will show you that a greater proportion of Mormons than Catholics are pro-life. But you are correct that the Mormon church doesn’t officially tell us how to vote on the issue. A number of church leaders have strongly pushed their pro-life views, but those are also the ones who tend to go out on a limb with doctrinal opinions that aren’t canon.
A prayerful game of poker, unrepented, will bar the member from the temple
LOL! I gambled a lot more than one game of poker without having it affect my temple recommend; it was the booze that turned me into a jackmormon. The mormon church frowns on gambling, but I’ve never heard of anyone losing a temple recommend over gambling alone. More like some guy gambling away everything he had to the point of not being able to support his family. Remember the scripture that he who doesn’t provide for his own household is worse than an infidel? Mormons take that seriously, and the temple recommend interview asks if you’re fulfilling child support obligations, etc.
 
Rainman:

What a bizarre thing to imagine. Jesus was perfect. Abraham, Jacob, Jonah, Moses, Peter, and Joseph Smith were not perfect.

I can only imagine how confusing it would be if we had to figure out if Peter, when he denied Christ three times, was giving his opinion or speaking Truth.

Peter was speaking truth at that time, but he was not teaching anyone anything at the time, especially not doctrine.​

“But I think others have pointed out that LDS use language and the Bible differently than Christans do”

It seems wrong to make mormons an offender for a word, particularly for the words of the Holy Bible.

When one interprets a word or words from the Bible in order to make it fit their unbiblical beliefs, it is wrong, whether it is from Mormons or any one else.

Many of the more Christian Catholics on this forum tend to avoid this “Non-Christian Religions” sub-forum, and at least two of them have publicly described it as an embarrassment. You might have an easier time on this forum if you deal with Stephen168 in the same manner that the Lord dealt with Herod: don’t reply to him. I was given the same warning, by a good Catholic on this forum, and I wish I had heeded it.

I can see why you would be afraid to communicate with Stephen168. He knows his Bible and religion very well and can very easily show where Mormon teachings are wrong. It is difficult for many to admit defeat even in the face of proof.​

Not all mormons are pro-life; not all Catholics are pro-life either. Any poll will show you that a greater proportion of Mormons than Catholics are pro-life. But you are correct that the Mormon church doesn’t officially tell us how to vote on the issue. A number of church leaders have strongly pushed their pro-life views, but those are also the ones who tend to go out on a limb with doctrinal opinions that aren’t canon.

This may be true. BUT the Catholic Church itself is not pro-choice and never will be. We know where we stand, we have it in writing. You have no clue where the Mormon church stands on this subject, because it can change by the minute.
 
This may be true. BUT the Catholic Church itself is not pro-choice and never will be. We know where we stand, we have it in writing. You have no clue where the Mormon church stands on this subject, because it can change by the minute.
True. It was very clear that Miriam was quoting Mormon Church teaching, so the word Mormons meant Mormon Church. Clearly the Mormon Church has changed its teaching to the irrational.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top