M
Miriam1947
Guest
What, Jesus came and didn’t use his name? He was anonymous? He used an alias?
He didn’t explain to the ancient tribes that He was God?
Parker, even for you, this is a stretch. :juggle:
- Status
He didn’t explain to the ancient tribes that He was God?
Parker, even for you, this is a stretch. :juggle:
T
Tony888
Guest
hmmm, and I thought Catholics also had quite a few different names for God. Why is this not allowed for other faiths?What, Jesus came and didn’t use his name? He was anonymous? He used an alias?
He didn’t explain to the ancient tribes that He was God?
Parker, even for you, this is a stretch. :juggle:
Just to get our brains working, here a a few of the names from Christian scripture:
Advocate, Almighty, Alpha, Bishop of Souls, Chief Shepherd, Emmanuel, Gate for the Sheep, God, Shiloh, Second Adam, Word, El, Elohim, Yahwey, YHWH, Adonai, Hashem, Jesus, father, at the list goes on.
M
Miriam1947
Guest
So? What does your list have to do with Jesus in the Americas?
Jesus made it clear that He is God.
T
Tony888
Guest
Sorry, I thought my point was obvious.
God has been called many different names in many different languages. Because we may not have recorded he was called “Jesus” or “God” does not mean God never revealed himself to his children in the Americas.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Miriam,
You would be aware that there are different words for “God” and for “Jesus Christ” in different languages, and one who studies language also becomes aware that words within languages change sometimes down through multiple generations of time. Also, some sacred words such as within Hebrew, are not spoken or written they are so sacred within that language and set of beliefs. Those oral traditions had to do with something those people considered sacred within their beliefs. They are also sacred enough that they are not necessarily shared with the outside world, so it’s a case of whether the person can be trusted to have it shared with them personally. It would not be broadcast to the world at large–definitely not.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
This seems antithetical to “teach all nations” but I suppose that is understandable coming from people who are commanded not to talk about the most sacred things even with insiders.
On a side note commanding people not to share their experience (even parents are not allowed to discuss certain things with their children) undercuts “free will choice”. Where is the respect for this “free will choice” you go on about?
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
What is the “normal” contraceptive???
T
truthsave
Guest
By the way one thing that is clear, is that mormons take unconsciously or consciously a great risk to accept their doctrine. This is surely a point to their favour. The only thing to consider is if they are conscious about it.
Jesus said to the apostols go and spread my evangile and then He came again and left or inspired another one and other teaching that are contradictory with the first the simplest one that before nothing that was getting inside the mouth of a men could effect his soul but what it comes out became directly a “word of wisdom” not taking coffee, alchool.
Jesus was apparently against to a schematization and direct feeling of being - worthy - save you attitude, since at the most we just do our job, nothing is in our power. He advised us strongly against a being worthy equal direct saving attitude (the pharisean), or in the rich young men that surely was worthy for following all the commandements,
but then in His new revelation being-feeling worthy is a basic thing. Not just what your right does your left shoudn’t know but all the community should know since if you do your duties you have access to the temple.
Mormon must really take great risk in their faith since they consciously or unconsciously take the risk of sining against the Holy Ghost. Their leader can change the meaning of sin against the Holy Ghost but still the risk is there. (I think it they say it is extremely difficult to sin agains the Holy Ghost, you must have had a special revelation and not accepting it to do it. Sining against the Holy Gost for me is the rejection of truth revealed by the Holy Ghost to the apostols or directly by Jesus and prefer thinking it is a lie or wrongly translated)
They take a risk of accepting Joseph Smith against whatever is historically against him.
If Jesus said something in the “classic” evangile and if Joseph Smith say something different, they take the risk of accepting the wrongness (against any historical and scientific proof) in the old affirmation in favour of Joseph Smith “revelation” (and here against the risk of sining against the Holy Spirit)
They take a big risk. All the other Holy apparitions, revelation, miracles that never, never go against the “classical” doctrine in their message has to be devils way to misled the faithful to strentght his faith in the wrong, but if they stength their faith in the wrong they will be kept away from the truth revealed to Joseph Smith.
They take a big risk since after life if Jesus comes and ask them (of course if tey are wrong) why did you prefered to believe Joseph Smith was saying the truth? A part of answering since they know it was true and that was convenient to their emotional life I don’t really know what they could say.
And we can go on and on.
So at the end I have to recognize they take big risks in the name of Joseph Smith. In the name of only one person. They have put all their trust in one person. Joseph Smith.
They have not a differnt approch in the Christian theories (orthodox, catholic, protestant…) no, they have directly a different theory not interpretation.
So they take big risks and perfectly happy to take it. Why? because the material emotional results are good. Even this is a risk since Jesus was not too material oriented.
He came as a sword to separate, He said He wouldn’t give the men their peace but His peace.
So their are brave people in the name of Joseph Smith.
I always wonder what made Smith holy, but I guess you have to be mormon or as I like to call them “Smithonianns” to understand his kind of holyness.
Jesus said to the apostols go and spread my evangile and then He came again and left or inspired another one and other teaching that are contradictory with the first the simplest one that before nothing that was getting inside the mouth of a men could effect his soul but what it comes out became directly a “word of wisdom” not taking coffee, alchool.
Jesus was apparently against to a schematization and direct feeling of being - worthy - save you attitude, since at the most we just do our job, nothing is in our power. He advised us strongly against a being worthy equal direct saving attitude (the pharisean), or in the rich young men that surely was worthy for following all the commandements,
but then in His new revelation being-feeling worthy is a basic thing. Not just what your right does your left shoudn’t know but all the community should know since if you do your duties you have access to the temple.
Mormon must really take great risk in their faith since they consciously or unconsciously take the risk of sining against the Holy Ghost. Their leader can change the meaning of sin against the Holy Ghost but still the risk is there. (I think it they say it is extremely difficult to sin agains the Holy Ghost, you must have had a special revelation and not accepting it to do it. Sining against the Holy Gost for me is the rejection of truth revealed by the Holy Ghost to the apostols or directly by Jesus and prefer thinking it is a lie or wrongly translated)
They take a risk of accepting Joseph Smith against whatever is historically against him.
If Jesus said something in the “classic” evangile and if Joseph Smith say something different, they take the risk of accepting the wrongness (against any historical and scientific proof) in the old affirmation in favour of Joseph Smith “revelation” (and here against the risk of sining against the Holy Spirit)
They take a big risk. All the other Holy apparitions, revelation, miracles that never, never go against the “classical” doctrine in their message has to be devils way to misled the faithful to strentght his faith in the wrong, but if they stength their faith in the wrong they will be kept away from the truth revealed to Joseph Smith.
They take a big risk since after life if Jesus comes and ask them (of course if tey are wrong) why did you prefered to believe Joseph Smith was saying the truth? A part of answering since they know it was true and that was convenient to their emotional life I don’t really know what they could say.
And we can go on and on.
So at the end I have to recognize they take big risks in the name of Joseph Smith. In the name of only one person. They have put all their trust in one person. Joseph Smith.
They have not a differnt approch in the Christian theories (orthodox, catholic, protestant…) no, they have directly a different theory not interpretation.
So they take big risks and perfectly happy to take it. Why? because the material emotional results are good. Even this is a risk since Jesus was not too material oriented.
He came as a sword to separate, He said He wouldn’t give the men their peace but His peace.
So their are brave people in the name of Joseph Smith.
I always wonder what made Smith holy, but I guess you have to be mormon or as I like to call them “Smithonianns” to understand his kind of holyness.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Z,
The subject and context had to do with whether Christ visited ancient America, and whether there is oral tradition of a visitor who came to the ancestors of ancient Americans who taught them and was holy and good.
That oral tradition was passed down from generation to generation, so that means it was indeed shared from a parent to a child, or from the leader of a group to the succeeding leader of a group (tribe), but it was kept sacred meaning it was kept that it not be shared with people who would not respect the sacredness of the original experience.
There are settings where sacred things are shared by a father talking to their son or daughter or by a mother talking to their son or daughter, where they make them aware that this was a sacred moment and should not be discussed generally in public settings.
Stephen168
New member
Because as the OP suggested, Mormons do not require any historical and scientific proof for their beliefs. It seems the Mormon answer to your question is: there were accounts but the American Indians kept them a secret. Some how Mormons know the secret. Christ in Jerusalem asked us to spread the good news, but in America it was a secret. If you don’t believe it, see post #9
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
The statements below made by affluent Mormons is at the heart and soul of Mormonism. I want to ad that we as Catholics have no secrets at all. Everything that you may think is hidden is found at the foot of the cross. (Love)
There is a certain hatred for Christians in the same sense that some would hate Jews or Germans, Muslims etc…Even us Catholics can get caught up in this in various ways. It is sin and often passed down to the children. One of the great differences between the LDS Church and the Catholic is that the Catholic Church was not built on the fall of another Church. It was built by Christ because we are all fallen. When we get caught up in this type of sin discussed above and below we have the Crucifix in our Churches and homes to gaze upon. We as Catholics should have a great love for the Captain of the Cross. This love is for all. Its for Joseph Smith, B.H. Roberts, Orsen Pratt, Bruce McConkie, you and I alike. When you have a love for Jesus it is He who you want to speak about. The devil spins us all. We should continue to bring truth and love and be careful not to get caught up in the spin. The Catholic Church is the reason anyone of us can even mention the name of Jesus. It has the Crucifix front and center. Its at the foot of the Crucifix that our Church is found. Its found in pain and suffering that makes way for peace and joy. We should all look up!
The below quotes are in a tone of contention that comes from Satan, not those saying such things. As you read them instead of getting angry think of love. When do we have this same tone in our own lives? How do we defend against it?
There is a certain hatred for Christians in the same sense that some would hate Jews or Germans, Muslims etc…Even us Catholics can get caught up in this in various ways. It is sin and often passed down to the children. One of the great differences between the LDS Church and the Catholic is that the Catholic Church was not built on the fall of another Church. It was built by Christ because we are all fallen. When we get caught up in this type of sin discussed above and below we have the Crucifix in our Churches and homes to gaze upon. We as Catholics should have a great love for the Captain of the Cross. This love is for all. Its for Joseph Smith, B.H. Roberts, Orsen Pratt, Bruce McConkie, you and I alike. When you have a love for Jesus it is He who you want to speak about. The devil spins us all. We should continue to bring truth and love and be careful not to get caught up in the spin. The Catholic Church is the reason anyone of us can even mention the name of Jesus. It has the Crucifix front and center. Its at the foot of the Crucifix that our Church is found. Its found in pain and suffering that makes way for peace and joy. We should all look up!
The below quotes are in a tone of contention that comes from Satan, not those saying such things. As you read them instead of getting angry think of love. When do we have this same tone in our own lives? How do we defend against it?
- “I was answered that I must join none of them (Christian churches), for they were all wrong…their creeds were an abomination in [God’s] sight; that those professors were all corrupt” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19).
- “Orthodox Christian views of God are pagan rather than Christian” (Mormon Doctrine of Deity, B. H. Roberts [General Authority], 116).
- “Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast” (Journal of Discourses, John Taylor [3rd Mormon President], 13:225).
- “The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon” (Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, Orson Pratt, n. 6, 84).
- “All the priests who adhere to the sectarian [Christian] religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels” (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith, ed. Vol. 1, n. 4, 60).
- [Under the heading, “Church of the Devil,” Apostle Bruce R. McConkie lists:] “The Roman Catholic Church specifically—singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being ‘most abominable above all other churches’ (I Ne. 13:5)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 129).
- “Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls (Morm. 8; Moro. 8)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, Bruce R. McConkie, 177).
R
rainman10
Guest
Of course, you do realize that the Mormon response will be that these were just their personal opinions or that the quotes are taken out of context.
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
For me it does not matter. I was raised LDS and I know how they feel about the Catholic Church. My heart was changed towards the Catholic Church so its not impossible.Of course, you do realize that the Mormon response will be that these were just their personal opinions or that the quotes are taken out of context.
Do you love those of the LDS faith? In the way that God loves you and I? If you are going to say I love Jesus than you have to love those of the LDS faith. Of course I know what they will say about those quotes. But I also know what is in their heart. What else are they going to say? The truth? We have no control over this and again I am good with it.
T
Tony888
Guest
What does personal wealth have to do with this?
What point are you trying to make?f course, you do realize that the Mormon response will be that these were just their personal opinions or that the quotes are taken out of context.
- I think everyone agrees your quotes are not LDS doctrine but they do reflect the beliefs and opinions of the writers (this assumes they were recorded accurately)
- full context naturally helps us understand what said person was thinking
T
tskrobacz
Guest
The Catholic church has recognized prophets and Saints for 2000 years. Mr. Smith does not stand among them. That any group could decide that he is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy without the endorsement of a wisdom tradition with more than 1B members is beyond me. The Spirit of truth is not dualistic.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Tskrobacz,
Thanks for being kind in your post. It was Moroni who had fulfilled the prophecy in Revelation 14:6, but of course it wouldn’t be expected by anyone that the church you noted would have recognized that fulfillment, or recognized the calling of modern-day prophets. There would be other explanations in place, including “wisdom tradition” and so forth.
Wishing you peace, and a good day where you are.
R
rainman10
Guest
I know how they feel about the Catholic Church, too. I was raised a Mormon. Yes, I do love the Mormon people, most are wonderful people, such as Parker, who is almost always here with us in these discussions and some of his fellow Mormons who, also, join in from time to time. They have their good people and bad people, just like everywhere else, they are no different in that respect. They are, also, devout people in search of Truth, but (no offense intended) I think they are very misguided and misinformed. I had some wonderful experiences growing up and some terrific friends as a Mormon, but somehow I always felt like something was missing.
Stephen168
New member
“This book” is Revelation, so Mormons have not added to it. Science has proven the Book of Mormon to be 19th century American work of fiction.
R
rainman10
Guest
Tony888, first of all you have me confused with someone else’s comment, I never commented about affluent people.
Again, I just don’t understand how you can know when a statement made by one of the Mormon prophets is opinion or doctrine. Regardless, if these comments are mere opinion or official doctrine, it seems to me that it is the responsibility of each prophet to always speak truth, in order to not confuse his followers. Why in the world would a prophet not always speak the truth?? It doesn’t make any sense to me. 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.
P
pablope
Guest
Yes, I am amazed at how the LDS posters here say something said before as not truth by their leaders…but what their past leaders say is based on what was passed on to them previously.
Just mulling about the latter part of your statement…it means there is no guarantee of truth in matters of faith and morals when any LDS church head speaks…means the gate of hell is prevailing…
- Status