How do the Mormons do it?

[Denise1957]

Actually, what Paul is explaining is that the Law of Moses is now fulfilled, and people need to turn their lives to Christ through the gospel, not through the old laws.
We believe that the prophets of the early Old Testament (pre-Moses) were taught the fulness of the gospel from God, understood His whole plan for His children from pre-earth to post-mortal existence, and lived according to the gospel, not the law of Moses. After the institution of the Law of Moses, many of the prophets were also taught the full gospel, but still lived according to the Law of Moses also.
Polygamy was normal amongst the early prophets, and instituted of God for the purpose to ‘raise up seed’.
It seems to me that Augustine very much understood this, his words are effecteviley identical to the LDS teaching on the matter.

Or, given that their only option is abstinence because even having children would be considered wrong in their situation, they can use contraception because it won’t prevent them from having children; they’re not going to have any anyway… The anti-contraception teaching is because it prevents having children: so does abstinence, so what would be the difference?

I’m not trying to nit-pick here, but you mentioned above that St. Paul taught that people need to turn their lives to Christ through the gospel, and not through the old laws. Could you point out where in scripture it is that St. Paul says that people are to turn their lives to Christ through the gospel? After all, the bible wasn’t written down at that time for people to turn to, if that’s what you mean by gospel.

 

[KathleenGee]

Miriam…

I did not intend to say the Church changed its position. It still condemns the use of condoms …but Africa is dying. When I was first there, what was most incredible was the deadly force of nature. I lived in the tropics, and had to curtail so many activities to watch out for diseases and reptiles. You would visit with someone…and then in a few days, they drop dead. The priest told me it was a miracle they could still survive. Life expectancy then was 45. Don’t know what it is now.

The people there are extremely tradition bound…‘this is how we have lived for a long time, and it works, so we are staying the same. I heard a story for someone who visited that part of the world’…a few years ago, --a man stirring blood to be used for IV’s, then stuck his finger in it to test it…contaminating the whole batch. I taught hygiene to some, over 30 years ago…and they were very incredulous to believe in the existence of bacteria. It took repeated exhortations to tell people to boil their water. Some people lived along the river. They were told to move as the new dam was opening. They refused to leave and were washed away.

But nature is finally catching up with polygamy and willful ignorance, the combination deadly…

 

[CopticChristian]

Actually, what Paul is explaining is that the Law of Moses is now fulfilled, and people need to turn their lives to Christ through the gospel, not through the old laws.
We believe that the prophets of the early Old Testament (pre-Moses) were taught the fulness of the gospel from God, understood His whole plan for His children from pre-earth to post-mortal existence, and lived according to the gospel, not the law of Moses. After the institution of the Law of Moses, many of the prophets were also taught the full gospel, but still lived according to the Law of Moses also.
Polygamy was normal amongst the early prophets, and instituted of God for the purpose to ‘raise up seed’.
It seems to me that Augustine very much understood this, his words are effecteviley identical to the LDS teaching on the matter.

Or, given that their only option is abstinence because even having children would be considered wrong in their situation, they can use contraception because it won’t prevent them from having children; they’re not going to have any anyway… The anti-contraception teaching is because it prevents having children: so does abstinence, so what would be the difference?

Actually you have no knowedge or understanding of Paul and I want to puke reading what you wrote. I am pounding my head on my desk, pulling my hair out, thinking how can one man be so ignorant and then have the audacity to try and teach me something they don’t know…For starters the letter to the Romans was written by Paul as an instruction for the “obedience of Faith”. The very first time and the very last time he uses the word Faith he says “obedience of Faith”. Paul kinda knew how to write a letter…Tell them what you are going to tell them…tell them and then remind them of what you told them. If you have trouble finding those two places let me know. Every real Christian knows where this occurs. Get back to me on this…

And then we get imbeciles and ignoramosus trying to instruct from a Bible they say they believe is Scripture without understanding any of it…

 

[mwok]

Misuse of drugs is harmful both physically and spiritually, leads to addictions which affect our ability to make correct choices (Anything harmful that people purposefully take into their bodies is not in harmony with the Word of Wisdom. This is especially true of illegal drugs, which can destroy those who become addicted to them. Stay entirely away from them. Do not experiment with them. The abuse of prescription drugs also leads to destructive addiction. - lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=true&locale=0&sourceId=56c6991a83d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD)

Except the Mormon church waffles on substances like caffiene. And what about oxygen? That drug has a mind altering effect.

 

[mwok]

Or, given that their only option is abstinence because even having children would be considered wrong in their situation, they can use contraception because it won’t prevent them from having children; they’re not going to have any anyway… The anti-contraception teaching is because it prevents having children: so does abstinence, so what would be the difference?

Another point I might make in that the Mormon church is not the Pillar of Truth. Contraception is okay? Please, condoms are nowhere near effective as abstinence. And don’t go with the argument of abstinence doesn’t work. If two people are not having sex then they are not having children, whereas with any contraception there is a chance for the device to fail. Plus, oral and topical contraceptions increase the chances for a woman to get breast and/or cervical cancer. What’s the better choice? No children, sex when you want and a dead spouse? Or abstinence?

 

[Stephen168]

. The anti-contraception teaching is because it prevents having children:

Wrong!!

 

[Stephen168]

This is especially true of illegal drugs,…

This is the reason we know the Mormon Church is not the true church of Christ. They let the government decide their morality. Legal drugs good, illegal drug bad. Utah was one of the first states to ban the use of marijuana because returning missionaries grew to like the stuff.
1970 abortion is bad; 2000 abortion is OK. 1870 polygamy good; 1900 polygamy bad.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Except the Mormon church waffles on substances like caffiene. And what about oxygen? That drug has a mind altering effect.

LOL mwok, you crack me up, but what a great point.

:clapping:

 

[lily20]

I can’t say first-hand why people fall for any lie, including a spiritual one, except that the bible mentions that this will happen with the arrival of “anti-christs” and “false prophets.”

Why do we fall for a spiritual lie? Because it makes us “feel” safe. That’s why. Answers to life’s questions are comforting.

I dated a Mormon boy for a year, and he was a loving, caring, smart guy. I often wondered why he would believe someone like Joseph Smith. I came to realize it’s not just the beliefs. It’s the security, the culture, the planning-out of your life through discipleship, the intensity of the Mission which keeps them close, the attachment to a big family-- all these things are wrapped into the beliefs. It’s human nature. Also-- it’s not necessarily “bad,” like, 100% evil. Mormons are peaceable, polite, family-oriented, and I consider them to be pretty easy going. I don’t know why they think Jesus lives on another planet somewhere, and why they have to reproduce constantly to get to a higher heaven. But it makes them feel secure to think that way.

Falling for Mormonism is like falling for a really good advertisement. It promises something, and you believe it-- and… ta-da!!! It’s like a cult, I guess.

Also— I’ve recently noticed TV ads for “Mormon.org.” It depicts actors who are “real people” living cool, successful lives, and at the end of the ad, the guy or girl reveals with one of those super-confident tv grins: “I’m a mormon!” What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Stephen168]

Also— I’ve recently noticed TV ads for “Mormon.org.” It depicts actors who are “real people” living cool, successful lives, and at the end of the ad, the guy or girl reveals with one of those super-confident tv grins: “I’m a mormon!” What is that supposed to mean?

I think it means Mormonism is all hat and no cattle.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Colbert did a great spoof of the Mormonads.

colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394360/august-10-2011/yaweh-or-no-way----mormons—god-s-poll-numbers?xrs=synd_facebook

Skate boarding, guitar playing, falconing, high-fives to tigers…I’m a Catholic! Ad.

 

[Naf623]

This is based on the Bible and teachings Christians believe in. You say you believe yourself to be a Christian. I do not believe that based on the ignorance of this question.

And I find it hard to believe you Chistian, given you do not even follow His example in baptism, which is really one of the first steps. Get that wrong, and who knows what path you’re starting on.

I’m not trying to nit-pick here, but you mentioned above that St. Paul taught that people need to turn their lives to Christ through the gospel, and not through the old laws. Could you point out where in scripture it is that St. Paul says that people are to turn their lives to Christ through the gospel? After all, the bible wasn’t written down at that time for people to turn to, if that’s what you mean by gospel.

God has given two sets of rules for people to live by: His Everlasting Gospel, being the fullness of teaching including everything necessary to achieve salvation; and The Law of Moses, being only those instructions specific to the Children of Israel between their Exodus for Egypt, and the start of Jesus’ mortal ministry. Only one of these was known as ‘the law’, particularly to the Jews.
To start with Paul points out that he is speaking to people who know the law, meaning he is speaking to Jews who are aware of The Law of Moses. He then explains that since Christ’s teachings, the Law of Moses is no longer relevant to us (we are dead to the law) and we must be part of the body of Chist, living by His teachings, which teachings are the Gospel.

Except the Mormon church waffles on substances like caffiene. And what about oxygen? That drug has a mind altering effect.

And if you were using it to achieve a euphoric effect then it would become addictive and would be contrary to the laws of God.

Another point I might make in that the Mormon church is not the Pillar of Truth. Contraception is okay? Please, condoms are nowhere near effective as abstinence. And don’t go with the argument of abstinence doesn’t work. If two people are not having sex then they are not having children, whereas with any contraception there is a chance for the device to fail. Plus, oral and topical contraceptions increase the chances for a woman to get breast and/or cervical cancer. What’s the better choice? No children, sex when you want and a dead spouse? Or abstinence?

Speed bumps and cameras are nowhere near as effective to prevent road colissions as not allowing people to drive in the first place; you advocate this also for the protection of life? After all, if people are not driving, they are not colliding with other people and harming/killing them. By the same argument, all safety devices (anti-lock brakes, side impact protection, seat belts, crumple zones) are unnecessary, because none of them are as effective as not driving to start with.
What about safety clothing: after all, if people didn’t do the job to begin with this would be much more effective.
Abstinence is just another way to prevent conception, and therefore by definition is contra-(con)ception.
That’s the most ridiculously extremist opinion on contraception I have ever heard. Using minuscule risks (which are present in all medicines and medical procedures) as a reason to argue against it, just makes you sound paranoid.
Intimacy between man and wife is not solely for the purpose of procreation, it is an expression of love and commitment and a way to become more unified together (therefore shalt a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh).

This is the reason we know the Mormon Church is not the true church of Christ. They let the government decide their morality. Legal drugs good, illegal drug bad. Utah was one of the first states to ban the use of marijuana because returning missionaries grew to like the stuff.
1970 abortion is bad; 2000 abortion is OK. 1870 polygamy good; 1900 polygamy bad.

No properly prescribed and applied drugs, good. Misuse of drugs of any sort, bad.
I would note that we taught against the consumption of alcohol long before the health risks were realised, and against tobacco before smoking the stuff was linked with any detrimental effects whatsoever. We also taught against drinking tea and coffee before it was known they contained addictive nicoteine.
Whilst there are great health benefits to the avoidance of these substances, another major aspect is the addiction itself. We teach against the use of anything taken to the point at which it becomes habit forming/addictive. These things (which go further than just substances and can include thrill seeking, pornography and other fornications, computer games, shopping, gambling etc.) inhibit our ability to think clearly and make reasoned correct decisions, and this makes it difficult for the Holy Spirit to work with us…

 

[Naf623]

why they have to reproduce constantly to get to a higher heaven.

Utter nonsense.
Firstly we look into the Old Testament, at The Patriarchs. These righteous men, understanding the purposes of God for His children, found great joy in their family and posterity. Consider the promise made to Abraham: he was not promised riches, fame or glory; rather that his posterity would be as innumerable as the stars of heaven or the sand at the sea shore. It is clear from reading the Old Testament that these men did not consider their earthy riches (of which many did have a great deal) to be of greatest importance, as these things are rarely commented on; it was their family, it’s size and the righteousness of their generations which they considered important enough to write about.
The eternal perspective is two fold;
Firstly that there are many more spirit children of our Father in Heaven awaiting ther opportunity to attain a physical body and the experiences of mortal life. We feel it a great privilege (as I’m sure did the Patriarchs of old) that God should grant us such a great responsibility of caring for even one of His precious children.
Secondly, in the eternities to come, if we are faithful in this mortal probation, we have the opportunity to live as families, and have all those we love around us. I have seen no greater joy on church members faces, than when they talk about ther families. How great a blessing, then, will it be to have these families with us forever

 

[Denise1957]

And I find it hard to believe you Chistian, given you do not even follow His example in baptism, which is really one of the first steps. Get that wrong, and who knows what path you’re starting on.

God has given two sets of rules for people to live by: His Everlasting Gospel, being the fullness of teaching including everything necessary to achieve salvation; and The Law of Moses, being only those instructions specific to the Children of Israel between their Exodus for Egypt, and the start of Jesus’ mortal ministry. Only one of these was known as ‘the law’, particularly to the Jews.
To start with Paul points out that he is speaking to people who know the law, meaning he is speaking to Jews who are aware of The Law of Moses. He then explains that since Christ’s teachings, the Law of Moses is no longer relevant to us (we are dead to the law) and we must be part of the body of Chist, living by His teachings, which teachings are the Gospel.

And if you were using it to achieve a euphoric effect then it would become addictive and would be contrary to the laws of God.

Speed bumps and cameras are nowhere near as effective to prevent road colissions as not allowing people to drive in the first place; you advocate this also for the protection of life? After all, if people are not driving, they are not colliding with other people and harming/killing them. By the same argument, all safety devices (anti-lock brakes, side impact protection, seat belts, crumple zones) are unnecessary, because none of them are as effective as not driving to start with.
What about safety clothing: after all, if people didn’t do the job to begin with this would be much more effective.
Abstinence is just another way to prevent conception, and therefore by definition is contra-(con)ception.
That’s the most ridiculously extremist opinion on contraception I have ever heard. Using minuscule risks (which are present in all medicines and medical procedures) as a reason to argue against it, just makes you sound paranoid.
Intimacy between man and wife is not solely for the purpose of procreation, it is an expression of love and commitment and a way to become more unified together (therefore shalt a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh).

No properly prescribed and applied drugs, good. Misuse of drugs of any sort, bad.
I would note that we taught against the consumption of alcohol long before the health risks were realised, and against tobacco before smoking the stuff was linked with any detrimental effects whatsoever. We also taught against drinking tea and coffee before it was known they contained addictive nicoteine.
Whilst there are great health benefits to the avoidance of these substances, another major aspect is the addiction itself. We teach against the use of anything taken to the point at which it becomes habit forming/addictive. These things (which go further than just substances and can include thrill seeking, pornography and other fornications, computer games, shopping, gambling etc.) inhibit our ability to think clearly and make reasoned correct decisions, and this makes it difficult for the Holy Spirit to work with us…

You wrote above that the law of Moses is no longer relevant to us (we are dead to the law) and we must be part of the body of Christ, living by his teachings, which teachings are the gospel. So you believe that the verbal tradition as taught by Our Lord and his Apostles at that time is what is considered the ‘gospel.’ Alright, but why do you say that the law of Moses is no longer relevant? I don’t understand why that enters in, and besides, the Ten Commandments are definately still relevant, at least to Catholics and other Christians. Are the Ten Commandments not relevant to Mormons?

 

[SteveVH]

You wrote above that the law of Moses is no longer relevant to us (we are dead to the law) and we must be part of the body of Christ, living by his teachings, which teachings are the gospel. So you believe that the verbal tradition as taught by Our Lord and his Apostles at that time is what is considered the ‘gospel.’ Alright, but why do you say that the law of Moses is no longer relevant? I don’t understand why that enters in, and besides, the Ten Commandments are definately still relevant, at least to Catholics and other Christians. Are the Ten Commandments not relevant to Mormons?

It is Christ himself who is the Gospel. He is the “Good News”. Christ did not do away with the Law, he fulfilled it. He summed up the Ten Commandments in two: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:29-31) By keeping these two commands we have fulfilled the others. But the Ten Commandments were not the Law of Moses, but the Law of God. Laws concerning diet and cleanliness were laws of Moses and they were a burden which no man could keep. Christ freed us from the law of Moses, but the laws of God are eternal.

 

[Denise1957]

It is Christ himself who is the Gospel. He is the “Good News”. Christ did not do away with the Law, he fulfilled it. He summed up the Ten Commandments in two: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:29-31) By keeping these two commands we have fulfilled the others. But the Ten Commandments were not the Law of Moses, but the Law of God. Laws concerning diet and cleanliness were laws of Moses and they were a burden which no man could keep. Christ freed us from the law of Moses, but the laws of God are eternal.

Thanks for the explanation - I see the difference now between the Law of Moses and the Laws of God. Still, I don’t see that Mormons refer to the Ten Commandments. Maybe the subect just hasn’t been brought up, though. But that’s a side issue, maybe.

 

[Stephen168]

I would note that we taught against the consumption of alcohol long before the health risks were realised, and against tobacco before smoking the stuff was linked with any detrimental effects whatsoever.

Drinking and smoking have been frowned upon before Joseph Smith invented Mormonism. The American temperance movement started in 1825. The Catholic Church started banning smoking in churches in the 16th century; Muslims in the 17th century. Mormonism is a product of its times; then as it is now. No eternal truths in Mormonism.

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks for the explanation - I see the difference now between the Law of Moses and the Laws of God. Still, I don’t see that Mormons refer to the Ten Commandments. Maybe the subect just hasn’t been brought up, though. But that’s a side issue, maybe.

I was actually trying to support what you said, but yes, the laws of Moses are separate. Remember when Jesus spoke of divorce? He said Moses allowed it do to the hardness of the hearts of the Jews, and then he promptly forbade it. Jesus never changed a law given to us by God.

 

[CopticChristian]

And I find it hard to believe you Chistian, given you do not even follow His example in baptism, which is really one of the first steps. Get that wrong, and who knows what path you’re starting on.

God has given two sets of rules for people to live by: His Everlasting Gospel, being the fullness of teaching including everything necessary to achieve salvation; and The Law of Moses, being only those instructions specific to the Children of Israel between their Exodus for Egypt, and the start of Jesus’ mortal ministry. Only one of these was known as ‘the law’, particularly to the Jews.
To start with Paul points out that he is speaking to people who know the law, meaning he is speaking to Jews who are aware of The Law of Moses. He then explains that since Christ’s teachings, the Law of Moses is no longer relevant to us (we are dead to the law) and we must be part of the body of Chist, living by His teachings, which teachings are the Gospel.

And if you were using it to achieve a euphoric effect then it would become addictive and would be contrary to the laws of God.

Speed bumps and cameras are nowhere near as effective to prevent road colissions as not allowing people to drive in the first place; you advocate this also for the protection of life? After all, if people are not driving, they are not colliding with other people and harming/killing them. By the same argument, all safety devices (anti-lock brakes, side impact protection, seat belts, crumple zones) are unnecessary, because none of them are as effective as not driving to start with.
What about safety clothing: after all, if people didn’t do the job to begin with this would be much more effective.
Abstinence is just another way to prevent conception, and therefore by definition is contra-(con)ception.
That’s the most ridiculously extremist opinion on contraception I have ever heard. Using minuscule risks (which are present in all medicines and medical procedures) as a reason to argue against it, just makes you sound paranoid.
Intimacy between man and wife is not solely for the purpose of procreation, it is an expression of love and commitment and a way to become more unified together (therefore shalt a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh).

No properly prescribed and applied drugs, good. Misuse of drugs of any sort, bad.
I would note that we taught against the consumption of alcohol long before the health risks were realised, and against tobacco before smoking the stuff was linked with any detrimental effects whatsoever. We also taught against drinking tea and coffee before it was known they contained addictive nicoteine.
Whilst there are great health benefits to the avoidance of these substances, another major aspect is the addiction itself. We teach against the use of anything taken to the point at which it becomes habit forming/addictive. These things (which go further than just substances and can include thrill seeking, pornography and other fornications, computer games, shopping, gambling etc.) inhibit our ability to think clearly and make reasoned correct decisions, and this makes it difficult for the Holy Spirit to work with us…

Oh brilliant one, what are you talking about with Baptism.

There is the Old Covenant works of the law and the Moral Law…this is the dilema…you do not understand.

 

[SteveVH]

So when I attend a Catholic Mass (yes, I have attended many many of these), I see many things that do not fit the simple template I understand as being God’s way; I see methodology reminiscent of mystical incantation and grandeur in place of humble prayer and petition. Set prayers replace those guided by the spirit on the spot (and to some extend unrelated, I felt a bit like I was doing the ‘hokey cokey’ kids dance with all the standing, sitting, turning…). It almost felt contrived to make individuals feel small and insignificant; an excellent thing ‘for keeping common people quiet’ (Bonaparte).

I know others have commented previously on your description of the holy Mass and have moved on. I had refrained until now. Last night, while attending the the Mass for “All Souls”, I thought about your words, mocking this most holy of events. I prayed for you and decided that the only thing I could attribute to your comments was that you are acting out of absolute ignorance. At least that is my hope for you.

Everything we do at Mass has a very deep and penetrating purpose, including the various postures of sitting, standing and kneeling. As someone said a long time ago on a different thread, Mormons never experience falling on their knees and worshipping the God that made them. This is the most sacred event known to man, and you choose, on a Catholic site, to demean it. If there was another word besides “offensive” that I could think of right now I would use it. Instead I will just say that you should be ashamed of yourself and you owe every Catholic on this forum an apology.