How do the Mormons do it?

[Naf623]

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?

Moses received two sets of laws from God upon Mount Sinai. The first thing to realise about these, however, is that because the people were unified in their common beliefs, they were to live in a theocracy so the laws of the land and the laws of the church were one and the same.
The first time Moses went up the mount He was given the 10 Commandment, the ideal law by which the people should live, and then given the punishments that the ‘state’ would enact according to Those commandments. But the Israelites were impatient and began to worry what might have happened to Moses up there; because they knew they needed something to look to, they demanded of Aaron that he make them gods to go before them in the wilderness. When Moses came down and saw this, he broke the tablets containing this original law: realising the unpreparedness of the people to live such. When he returned to the presence of The Lord, he was given another set of laws, a much more in depth law that would permeate every action the people made in their daily lives. Far from superseding the previous instructions, this law was intended to be a constant reminder to the Israelites of their covenants with God, and to prepare them to live the original law at Jesus’ coming.
The law was very symbolic, with types and references all intended to keep the people in constant remembrance of the Lord in everything they did. This, then, was the ‘lesser’ or ‘preparatory’ law; not that it’s importance or it’s saving power was any less than the original, rather that it directed what to do in almost every circumstance and acted as a constant reminder, whereas the ‘higher’ law (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) relies on the individual to turn themselves and their lives around (not without help), and to put the effort in to keep it that way.
We teach the 10 commandments, and they are in The Book of Mormon also.

the Ten Commandments were not the Law of Moses, but the Law of God.

Precisely as I said.

Laws concerning diet and cleanliness were laws of Moses and they were a burden which no man could keep.

The Israelites had kept them for hundreds of years. Many of them we’re, in essence, arbitrary; but given for the express purpose to keep the people constantly in remembrance of The Lord.

Christ freed us from the law of Moses, but the laws of God are eternal.

the law of Moses is not a different law, rather a set of additional practises instituted with the express purpose to help the Israelites keep their lives focussed on The Lord. With Christ came the fulfillmemt of the Mosaic principles, but the gospel principles it was based on remain the same as they always were.

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

My issue is threefold:
Firstly there is the preparation of the individual. Scriptural record indicates that those showing faith were speedily baptised without delay. Examples include all those on the day of Pentecost, The Ethiopian by Philip, Paul’s jailor, and Cornelius and his family. As time went on this became that baptisms only occurred twice a year: on Pentecost and Whitsuntide (I don’t know if this is still the case?), and that lengthy preparation became necessary beforehand. Is there still a minimum time a person remains a catechumen?

Secondly there is the mode of baptism itself. The record clearly states that Jesus was immersed in the water by John the Baptist, and records state that this was also the mode employed by the church throughout the early centuries. It was not until later that this no longer appears to be deemed important, even though it is clearly symbolic.

Thirdly there is the baptism of children, a practise that also did not appear in the early church, but became confused with the timeline for circumcision. Christ himself said ‘of such is the kingdom of heaven’, not a word of condemnation.

 

[truthsave]

From your answer I start believing is the quantity of water that is important.
Christianity is not about magic rituals and ingredients.
But I guess mormons make like that. I know that magic has always been secret and for magicians even sacred.
Christianity is not about doing but about being.
You can do well and be wrong and do wrong and be right.
Again if you want to find this is everywhere in the NT.
Mormonism is about doing right to be right.
This is magic.

 

[Stephen168]

the law of Moses is not a different law, rather a set of additional practises instituted with the express purpose to help the Israelites keep their lives focussed on The Lord. With Christ came the fulfillmemt of the Mosaic principles, but the gospel principles it was based on remain the same as they always were.

Catholic
Law of Moses =/=Law of God
Christ fulfilled law of Moses. We still have Law of God

Mormon
Law of Moses=Law of god
Principles of Moses=/=principle of gospel
Christ fulfilled Principles of Moses; we still of Gospel Principle, Law of Moses, and Law of God

So Mormons still follow all the Laws of Moses

 

[zaffiroborant]

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…

So were quite a few others, King James I, Popes Innocent V and Urban VII, were all against tobacco use a couple of hundred years before JS. The first anti tobacco movement formed in 1830 and there were many who preached against tobacco use citing it’s use as dirty and unhealthy. Connections to cancer were made by English physicians as early as 1761. JS was simply a product of his time like the SDA’s and Grahamites.

We also taught against drinking tea and coffee before it was known they contained addictive nicoteine.

Coffee and tea do not contain “nicoteine” and again many people were against the use of coffee, tea Sylvester Graham of the Graham cracker comes to mind. These days tea has been shown to have many beneficial properties, green tea in particular. And now coffee is racking up impressive possibilities:

Coffee and diabetes
Coffee and heart disease
Coffee and colon cancer
Coffee and Parkinson’s disease
Coffee and breast cancer
Coffee and esophageal cancer

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…

As do most religions, a call for moderation in habit forming things is common in most religions and I can’t think of one that is okay with pornography or fornication.

 

[Denise1957]

So Mormons still follow all the Laws of Moses

So perhaps Mormons follow the laws of Moses first, and Jesus maybe second. I wonder if that’s where the condoning of polygamy came from, in that Moses allowed or tolerated polygamy at times.

 

[Denise1957]

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.

Do you think that maybe Mormons are bothered by aspects of the Mass which show reverence and humilty toward Our Lord because they believe that He is not God, but rather just a sort of spirit brother (or something like that) who also happens to be the Redeemer? Maybe my take on it isn’t quite accurate. Mormons have respect for Jesus, in that he was willing to give his life for us, but they don’t worship him at all, it seems.

 

[TheExorcist]

Do you think that maybe Mormons are bothered by aspects of the Mass which show reverence and humilty toward Our Lord because they believe that He is not God, but rather just a sort of spirit brother (or something like that) who also happens to be the Redeemer? Maybe my take on it isn’t quite accurate. Mormons have respect for Jesus, in that he was willing to give his life for us, but they don’t worship him at all, it seems.

Ah, you bring up a complex and contentious topic. They believe that Jesus is A god (little g) and some will tell you they worship him and others will tell you they do not, that they only worship the Father. This is where the seperability of the Mormon Godhead gets VERY confusing. You’ll get different answers from different Mormons depending on their views of church doctrine, how doctrine is determined and how their faith was formed. No standard answer.

 

[Denise1957]

Ah, you bring up a complex and contentious topic. They believe that Jesus is A god (little g) and some will tell you they worship him and others will tell you they do not, that they only worship the Father. This is where the seperability of the Mormon Godhead gets VERY confusing. You’ll get different answers from different Mormons depending on their views of church doctrine, how doctrine is determined and how their faith was formed. No standard answer.

Thanks, it’s useful to know that there’s no standard answer to my question. Yes, it does indeed seem confusing, which makes me appreciate Catholicism all the more in that we know who we are worshipping and why.

 

[Naf623]

From your answer I start believing is the quantity of water that is important.
Christianity is not about magic rituals and ingredients.
But I guess mormons make like that. I know that magic has always been secret and for magicians even sacred.
Christianity is not about doing but about being.
You can do well and be wrong and do wrong and be right.
Again if you want to find this is everywhere in the NT.
Mormonism is about doing right to be right.
This is magic.

Then why do you feel the need to relative someone who has already been baptised in a different church? If it is the being, not the doing that matters, then baptism, confirmation, the sacrament (/eucharist) etc. are entirely unnecessary?
There are certain things one must do, and other things one must strive to be like. It is what we do that shows God that we are truly converted. Faith, Works and Grace.

So Mormons still follow all the Laws of Moses

No, you might want to read what I wrote.

So perhaps Mormons follow the laws of Moses first, and Jesus maybe second.

No, as I pointed out the law of Moses is fulfilled through Christ, and it’s practises are no longer required of men.
Also to Stephen168 above: a study of The Law of Moses shows that it’s tenets, precepts and principles are exactly aligned with those laid out in the 10 commandments and in the fulness of the Gospel of Christ. The Mosaic Law was not a different rulebook from God, rather a more explicitly detailed way for the children of Israel to apply the law, such that they could hardly fail to have their lives turned towards Christ, and thus they would be prepared to receive the ‘higher law’ in due time. At least one of the inherent problems with this law (from an eternal perspective) is that it is very much all or nothing, leaving very little room for an individual’s free agency. The Gospel of Christ (perfectly summed up in the two Great commandments: Love the Lord thy God comprises the first 4 commandments, while Love they Neighbour covers the latter 6) gives us the understanding of the truths and precepts by which to live, and allows us the freedom to make our choices accordingly.

just a sort of spirit brother (or something like that) who also happens to be the Redeemer? Maybe my take on it isn’t quite accurate. Mormons have respect for Jesus, in that he was willing to give his life for us, but they don’t worship him at all, it seems.

We worship God the Father, as did Jesus, and He gave us the example to.
Jesus is our saviour, redeemer, prophet, priest and king. We have respect and gratitude to Him more than any other save God the Father. But, as per the council in heaven and the plans put forward by Jesus and Satan, the glory (and therefore our worship) is entirely that of God the Father. He alone is our God, and He alone receives our devotion.
This does not diminish in the slightest the Divinity of Jesus Christ, or His pivotal role as saviour and redeemer of the world; but He took on that role entirely out of love for us and for our Father, and it was His express wish that the glory for such be to Elohim.

Ah, you bring up a complex and contentious topic. They believe that Jesus is A god (little g) and some will tell you they worship him and others will tell you they do not, that they only worship the Father. This is where the seperability of the Mormon Godhead gets VERY confusing. You’ll get different answers from different Mormons depending on their views of church doctrine, how doctrine is determined and how their faith was formed. No standard answer.

Any who answer anything but what I have said above (perhaps in different words of course ) do not understand the doctrine of the pre-existence or the war/council in heaven.

 

[KathleenGee]

Naf…your religion came after the true Church…Mormonism wants to invalidate the truth of the Church and the truth of Who Jesus Christ is.

Jesus Christ gave us His sacraments, the foundation of liturgy, and within 70 years, there was already a uniformity of belief and practice through the then known Christian world.

I do not see logic …Jesus Christ’s teachings and practice…that of Christianity is very different than that of Mormonism’s…Mormonism’s long running beliefs were a different belief system…if it is true…then we did not hear all of the truth until 1800, America.

That is a pretty big gap of information from God Who claims to be Truth before Pilate…

You cannot reduce Truth to philosophy or beliefs or practice…because you will get so much diversity…only Jesus, True Man and True God…called Himself ‘Truth’.

Why didn’t the Jews know as much as the Mormons know about the Jews? … and to what purpose is the Book of Mormon? There is all that we need in Scripture and in the Church for holiness and morality.

What new addition to the moral life and the knowledge of God does Mormonism provide?

 

[Denise1957]

Any who answer anything but what I have said above (perhaps in different words of course ) do not understand the doctrine of the pre-existence or the war/council in heaven.

I need no further explanation of the supposed Mormon doctrine of pre-existence or the Mormon war/council in heaven idea to know that these ideas are not Christian, but rather an invention by man. But thank you anyway for answering the questions.

 

[KathleenGee]

What we are dealing with is integrity of faith and witness.

 

[mwok]

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).

Except you need to research artificial contraceptions before you attempt to blast abstinence. The pill kills babies, it is its last effort to prevent a pregnancy. The methods are as follows:

1. Tricks the brain into thinking the body is already carrying a baby so the ovaries are less likely to release an egg; however, eggs are still released from time to time.
2. Thickens the cervical mucus so sperm has a harder time reaching the fallopian tubes; however, sperm occasionally reaches its destination and on occasion fertilizes an egg.
3. Hardens the utural lining so that a fertilized egg cannot implant itself; THIS KILLS THE BABY!.

So for you to say that the pill is preferrable is shocking.

In the words of Mother Teresa:

It is a poverty that a child should die so that you may live as you wish.

Once again, proof to me that the Mormon church is not the Pillar of Truth, it prefers killing babies so that a husband may continue to have sexual relations with his wife, with little regard to the mothers health.

 

[Stephen168]

So perhaps Mormons follow the laws of Moses first, and Jesus maybe second. I wonder if that’s where the condoning of polygamy came from, in that Moses allowed or tolerated polygamy at times.

In 19th century America there seemed to be an obsession with the Jews and the Lost Tribes. Lewis and Clark were asked to see if the American Indians exhibited any Jewish traits during their exploration west. A number of religions invented in 19th century America seemed to have an Old Testament orientation. Seventh Day Adventist worship on Saturday for example.

Many cult leaders practice polygamy to show their power over the other males in the group.

I think the Mormon practice of polygamy is a combination of the above. Joseph Smith was on a power trip and used his “revelations” to justify it, and later Mormons tried to rationalize the practice with the Old Testament.

 

[Stephen168]

At least one of the inherent problems with this law (from an eternal perspective) is that it is very much all or nothing, leaving very little room for an individual’s free agency.

Any who answer anything but what I have said above (perhaps in different words of course ) do not understand the doctrine of the pre-existence or the war/council in heaven.

 

[KathleenGee]

Male domination…polygamy…yes…very insightful.

 

[SteveVH]

Do you think that maybe Mormons are bothered by aspects of the Mass which show reverence and humilty toward Our Lord because they believe that He is not God, but rather just a sort of spirit brother (or something like that) who also happens to be the Redeemer? Maybe my take on it isn’t quite accurate. Mormons have respect for Jesus, in that he was willing to give his life for us, but they don’t worship him at all, it seems.

It’s hard for me to determine what they think about Jesus and varies according to who you are speaking. What bothers me is that they hold their temple rights so sacred (and secret) and bristle at the thought of anyone speaking negatively about them, and then turn around mock the most sacred thing in Catholicism, the holy Mass. It really burns me. It seems that he/she also refuses to apologize. I’m not surprised, but I am dissapointed.

 

[zaffiroborant]

It’s hard for me to determine what they think about Jesus and varies according to who you are speaking. What bothers me is that they hold their temple rights so sacred (and secret) and bristle at the thought of anyone speaking negatively about them, and then turn around mock the most sacred thing in Catholicism, the holy Mass. It really burns me. It seems that he/she also refuses to apologize. I’m not surprised, but I am dissapointed.

No apology was to be expected, he started his mocking out by saying he was being polite. I found nothing polite in it what so ever, it struck me as loutish, though I don’t recall his “previous outburst”. I’m sure Naf would be all shades of offended if their endowment or marriage ordinances were treated in a like manner and yet remain totally unable to see his behavior for what it is.

Could really use automated nesting quotes here.
We’re obviously going to disagree, but let me explain in a little more detail (and more politely then my previous outburst) something of why I say this.
To Latter Day Saints the gospel,is simple, there is nothing mystical, nothing intended to confuse, and nothing secret (sacred is a different matter entirely, so don’t start).
And this is the gospel as taught by Christ and spread by His apostles, simple and accessible to all. Similarly the ordinances do not hang on ceremony and mysticism, rather the important things are to follow the simple principles involved.
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).
Probable reasons for this, as I see it; and the reason I picked 3rd century, is that the early church was populated by ex Jews (by religion, not birth obviously ) and Pagans. Both of these employed much more elaborate, mystical and secret ordinances and services than Christianity was offering, and they maynwell have felt (understandably) disappointed that it did not seem (to their mind) like it had as much meaning as their former practises. Given this feeling, it would not be difficult for those teachers with ‘itching ears’ (and other descriptions from the Apostles of those lying in wait already within the confregations) to slowly and carefully introduce more familiar practises; making the members feel more at ease with the transition.
Another reason I pick the 3rd century is because until this point the church faced major persecution from all sides, and even much confusion within; but from around this time onward things began to get much easier, despite them continuing to practise, and still not (overall) being wholly accepted across a wide base (yes, the Romans in theory adopted it as their religion, but this made it more of a fashion to be seen to be Christian for Roman citizens particularly, and shame on anyone who wasn’t; especially as the Roman legions now marched under the emblem of the cross: the emperor Comstantine himself was not baptised until on his deathbed, remaining a catechumen his entire life). The persecutions faced by the church to me clearly indicate the work of Satan in attempt to destroy the works of God; the sudden (in historical terms) abatement of the church’s suffering suggests that Satan was comfortable with what remained as no longer wielding the power and authority of the Priesthood that he fears so much.

 

[mwok]

One of the experiences I have had with a co-worker/friend of mine who is Mormon, is that whenever we get into a debate I am always left with the feeling that he feels justified in agreeing with most of what I would say even though it went against what he said he believed. When I thought about his attitude towards scripture and God it was almost as if, for hypothetical reasons, say he was the only Mormon left on earth then he would receive the revelations necessary to carry on Mormonism, and it would be the same for all priesthood holding members.

 

[truthsave]

Then why do you feel the need to relative someone who has already been baptised in a different church? If it is the being, not the doing that matters, then baptism, confirmation, the sacrament (/eucharist) etc. are entirely unnecessary?
There are certain things one must do, and other things one must strive to be like. It is what we do that shows God that we are truly converted. Faith, Works and Grace.

Faith in what? Works of which kind? Whose grace?
That’s why.
Sacraments are necessary as consciously accepting and wishing the leading presence of Christ in the most important events of our lives. Eucharist is Christians’s soul food.
They are not magic rituals.
They don’t mean anything, except maybe blasphemy, if you have them with the wrong heart.
Jesus Christ has in us the power we let Him to have. And we should desire, as Christinas, to have enough faith to have the corouge and the strenght to allow him to take all the power on our lives.