How do the Mormons do it?

[Naf623]

There WAS only ONE church that Jesus founded - obviously He meant His Spirit would stay with THAT church. You simply choose not to believe that.

What I mean is I don’t know any reference that He said His spirit would abide with the church and never leave. I’m aware He sent His spirit to His followers after He ascended…

To this sentence you add “according to Joseph Smith and taught to me”…

Only of you add “according to Catholic tradition” to everything you post.
My point being that is unnecessary as you know when something I say is different from your own beliefs, and where I know what I am saying is not necessarily church doctrine as such I make it clear that it is my own take.

We are not required to accept ‘another gospel’, in fact we have been strongly admonished against doing that, for very good reason. Apparently, that admonition was a prophecy that was unrecognized as such, at the time it was given, but it is quite obvious to us, now, in light of the creation of Joseph Smith’s BoM, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”. There is only one “Testament” of Jesus Christ, and that’s the New Testament of the Bible. Sorry, but that’s just another fact that we completely disagree on…

So which testimony? Matthew’s? Mark’s? Luke’s? John’s? (etc. etc. etc.)
The Bible is already a collection of testimonies from various authors, in addition there are others which were not included which still have value to us. And I think it’s clear we do not have every letter written by Paul: surely you would be interested and accept their content as doctrine. Why, then, are the testimonies of others regarding Christ’s dealings in their lives suddenly of no value to you whatsoever? Because they do not have the fame of Paul’s letters?

If there is no Trinity, what about The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? They are clearly distinguished in the New Testament and are all ‘parts’ of the same God. Like I said, your lack of understanding doesn’t change the Truth about God, as sad as that is for you. We won’t be judged on what we choose to believe, but by the Truth that God has revealed to us through Jesus Christ.

Where are they described as parts of the same God? I see descriptions that Jesus describes Himself and The Father as being ‘one’, but as He does not elaborate, how can the conclusion be assumed that He means they’re somehow completely intertwined and different facets of the same thing. Much simpler and more obvious is that they are simply one in their purposes and understand each other such that their actions would be the same on the same circumstances. One in purpose, one in teaching, three in personages.
A prime example is the Baptism of Jesus, where Christ is clearly in the water with John, the voice of The Father is heard from Heaven and the Holy Ghost seen descending. Three, separate and distinct.

And of course for me, I think in any case whatever I think or whoever think doesn’t matter since fortunately we were not put in the position to judge. The Lord will do it. And He knows our weakness and our heart .

To be honest, you’ve answered your own question here: it is not for us to judge.
And in any case, we do not have specific ‘guidelines’ on who will go where. God will judge each on their own experiences and choices. I would suggest, however, that someone who has come across teachings, but rejected them based on their own understanding, or based on the teachings they have received from another, without approaching God about them; if these turn out to be true then that would go worse against them than of they had not heard of those things at all. But that’s just my idea.

Ok. Lets start with basics. Do you agree with the following:

Polythiesim is another gospel.

Eternal Progression is another gospel.

Do you disagree with this?

I’m not sure what you mean by “another gospel”.
Possibly consider us Henotheists, but that’s again just my take (do consider, however, that The Bible never discounts the existence of other gods, merely states that their worship is not to be practised.
Also, we do not believe in prophetic infallibility, therefore we don’t automatically take every word of previously unknown doctrine stated by a prophet as immediate new doctrine. There has not been anything added to our canon that states such, and I stick to confirmed canonical truths.
At the end of the day, none of that is important to come to a knowledge of God as an individual and understand how He works in your life, and how He would like you to lead your life. And these things are the principles of the gospel. “seek he first the kingdom of God, and all,these things shall be added unto you”. One day I may know, until then I am satisfied that God exists, and my experiences show that He has nothing but my best interests at heart, that I can rely on Him and He is never far away when help is needed. What more do I need to know of Him?

I feel slighted. You glossed right over my post.:bighanky::sad_bye:

Not intentionally, don’t worry: I’m at work so very much doing this between customers. Boss doesn’t mind though

 

[mwok]

Possibly consider us Henotheists, but that’s again just my take (do consider, however, that The Bible never discounts the existence of other gods, merely states that their worship is not to be practised.
Also, we do not believe in prophetic infallibility, therefore we don’t automatically take every word of previously unknown doctrine stated by a prophet as immediate new doctrine. There has not been anything added to our canon that states such, and I stick to confirmed canonical truths.

If you read Psalm 96 it states that all the “other” gods are idols and that it was Yahweh that is the creator. So, there actually are no other gods in existence, just figments of the imagination.

Another reason I do not believe the Mormon church to be the true church. If something is wrong (like abortion) then the Pillar of Truth has the authority to infallibly declare it as such, however, the Mormon church takes a fence-sitter aproach to such things.

 

[Telstar]

Given that we do not believe in a closed canon and accept continuing revelation from God through His appointed prophets, we don’t really need one, do we.
On the other hand my question to you still stands, because you believe in closed canon, you must have Biblical precedent for your beliefs.

No, you don’t need one because of the revolving door of LDS doctrine. Catholics prefer to have something a little more stable to stand on… like Rock.

We believe in a closed cannon that can’t be changed by anyone, but we don’t believe in ‘sola scriptura’. The New Testament is a collection of the most important writings of the Apostles that walked the earth with Jesus, who lived with Him and were personally taught by Him for 3 years. They teach us about His life and what He did while He was still walking the earth, as well as other things related to His Birth, Death and Resurrection. It includes some of the early actions of the Apostles as they began to preach and spread the true Gospel, while establishing His Church. The Old Testament is a collection of the Holy Scriptures of the Jews that lead up to the coming of Jesus Christ.

All of those documents were gathered together by the Church to form the Bible that the world knows today. But, those writings and Scriptures are just a small part of what Jesus taught to the Apostles, and of the early history of the Church. We also have a huge volume of other Doctrines and Dogmas from the earliest times that were not included in the Bible. They’re what’s referred to as Holy Tradition, that make up the remainder of Catholic belief that’s been passed down by the Church for 2000 years. The definition of angels is just one small part of that Tradition. They weren’t included in the Bible because the volume of information would have required an entire encyclopedia, and even then, some things would still have to be left out of it.

You seem to have things a little confused with regards our beliefs here.
While we agree with you that angels are messengers from heaven, they are not some different species or different type of entity from us essentially. They are either in spirit form (prior to having attained a mortal body as we have by coming to earth; or having been to earth and died, but are not yet resurrected), or (more usually) Have bodies of flesh and bone as God and Jesus Christ have; similar to ours, but perfected and no longer susceptible to death, illness etc.
lds.org/scriptures/bd/angels?lang=eng
Prior to our birth here on earth, we existed as spirit children of God; every single person ever born is literally a son or daughter of our Heavenly Father in this literal sense. Because we could see that God has a physical body, while we were merely spirits, we wanted to become like Him, and so in His great wisdom He formulated a plan (variously known as the Plan of Salvation, Plan of Redemption, Plan of Happiness) in hich we could come to earth, receive a physical body, learn and grow and prove ourselves that we can be obedient to His laws; if we are then we can ultimately return to live with Him and our families in Heaven. When this plan was presented to us (council in heaven) we shouted for joy. One part of this plan was that all of us would inevitably sin, and therefore a Saviour was necessary to pay the price for our sins that we could not pay ourselves. Two of our older siblings put themselves forward for the mission/job/role/; Jesus and Satan. Satan’s plan was that we would all be saved automatically, regardless of anything else, and for coming up with this idea and doing the job he selfishly wanted to claim all the glory of the plan (and our worship) for himself. Jesus’ plan accepted that we would sin, and that because of free choice there may be many problems; wars, conflict etc. but that by doing it this way we would be able to learn and grow from our experiences. Jesus wished to clim no glory for himself for doing tis, but that the glory remain with God.

OK… so I forgot about the term ‘spirit children’, but the descriptions are interchangeable. In LDS belief: angel = ‘spirit child’. Still, none of what you wrote is any different than what I described in a nutshell, just longer. The point that is the worst part of that entire scenario is that Joseph Smith has turned Jesus into just another ‘man’ like the rest of us, who only became ‘a god’ after the resurrection. That concept is complete blasphemy to any Catholic (and to God), because Jesus always was and always will be God. Satan was just one of His creatures that your church puts on an equal standing with Jesus. The truth is that, compared to Jesus, Satan isn’t even a speck of dust, worthy of clinging to His feet.

The argument that ensued (war in heaven) caused all the spirits to align themselves one way or the other, those who followed Satan were cast out from heaven down to the earth, without physical bodies, while the rest of us who followed Jesus Christ have been afforded the opportunity to attain our physical body (sometimes known as keeping the first estate).
when we die our spirit is once again sarated from our physical body and we go to the spirit world. Here those who have accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ enjoy a state of rest, while those who have not have some opportunity to do so and to learn (this is why we perform ordinances by proxy for those who have died: so all are afforded the same opportunity regardless of their position in life). After Jesus return in glory everybody will be resurrected (body and spirit rejoined and perfected: thus we all get a body of flesh and bone like God’s) and judged.
mormon.org/plan-of-happiness/

The war in Heaven still continues. The fall of the angels was just the beginning. It won’t be over until the Final Judgement.

Naturally

 

[RebeccaJ]

Naf623:

[BIBLEDRB]john 5:39-40[/BIBLEDRB]

First of all, Jesus is telling the Jews that they search the scriptures because they think they have eternal life through them, but they don’t, they have to come to Him for the life they are looking for.

But if we go with your idea, that Jesus is telling them to go and search the scriptures, how, exactly, do you think a Jew would do this in this time and place of history?

To your comments on the Church and the magisterium, Jesus established His Church during His ministry. The magisterium is comprised of Bishops, who are successors of the Apostles. Revelation is given to the Church by two modes, Scripture and Tradition. The NT being a product of Tradition, but not the end of all revelation given to the Church.

The Church is a living, breathing, Body, whose Head is Jesus Christ. He is our Prophet, High Priest and King. There is no other. He guides His Church through the Holy Spirit, and has never ceased doing so. To believe otherwise, is to believe that Jesus Christ has left the world as orphans, which He promised, He would not do.

It is the mission of Christ’s Church to bring people to Jesus Christ, because that is God’s desire, to bring people to Himself. The Catholic Church Christianizes people and societies. The LDS church does not Christianize, it Mormonizes, seeking to draw those who are already Christians to false teachings. Our scriptures, the NT, warn us multiple times about such groups as this. It is not the first, or the last group, that seeks to confuse people.

KathleenG is correct, that it is a great offense, to remove all that has gone on before from history. The obvious result is that Truth is replaced with innovations, and Mormonism is nothing but one of many innovations which rely on first, removing the memory of what has gone on before and creating a new narrative from bits and pieces of our own memory, that align to an innovation.

I don’t tell you this with the intent to insult you, but to inform you. You have been greatly deceived, and should pray that God leads you out of the fog that is Mormonism, and into the light.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

Not polite in the least, mocking is never polite.
By the way your temple attendance fits the definition of both secret and ritual to a tee. At least you can attend our rituals even if it is only to mock them.

And so we see the LDS canard “LDS don’t tear down others beliefs” taking damage yet again, how many HP are left?

 

[mwok]

I agree with zaff.

I was quite offended, Naf, with your description of the Mass. To me it is the most Holy event in our world today.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I agree with zaff.

I was quite offended, Naf, with your description of the Mass. To me it is the most Holy event in our world today.

That is because Mormons such as Naf623 attend Mass with the intent to criticize, overlaying everything they see and hear with what they have been taught by the Mormon church.

One of our deacons once said, it is Satan’s greatest desire to end the celebration of the mass, in order to remove the Real Presences of Jesus. Mormons are among those who work towards that end. It is not possible for them to win, but they are going to take as many away from the Eucharist as possible.

 

[Telstar]

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.

I agree on the nested quotes. It’s very annoying.

You’re certainly free to believe whatever you like, even if it is gobbledygook made up by Joseph Smith and the rest of his band of brothers. God is a complete mystery that we humans can’t even begin to fathom. If you want to believe that you, or anyone else, has Him all ‘figured out’, then I wish you luck with that assumption. The sad part is that there is so much more to spirituality that you will never know about or even begin to understand. You speak of a ‘burning in the bosom’ that you think comes from the Holy Spirit, but you will never know about the depth of ‘feeling’ (a totally inadequate word) that many Catholics experience whenever we receive the true Holy Eucharist and our souls are fed directly by Jesus Christ. I truly feel sorry for anyone that has never had that amazing experience. I certainly will never understand how any Catholic can give that up to eat ‘bread and water’ and think that it’s anything remotely like it. You have no idea what you’re missing.

 

[CopticChristian]

ROFL
You are a closet athiest if you are asking for scientifc proof of God doing anything

I’ve called you on this before - it is only your fantasy that the LDS teach God had sex with Mary. Stop TROLLING on this subject

LDS have no more revelation than Catholics on the mystery of Christ’s conception through the Holy Spirit.

I called the local LDS Church after receiving an invitation to an activity. I asked politely.

Do you teach that God The Father, took human form, came down from heaven to copulate with Mary to produce Jesus. The first response I got was…I need to speak to a missionary…then I repeated the question. I just need a yes or no. The answer was…that is correct. Thank you I said and hung up. Were they wrong?

 

[Telstar]

What I mean is I don’t know any reference that He said His spirit would abide with the church and never leave. I’m aware He sent His spirit to His followers after He ascended…

John 14:[16] And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete,*** that he may abide with you for ever**.* [17] The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.[18] I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you.
~~
[26] But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,*** he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.***It looks pretty clear to me that the Holy Ghost would remain with the Church, forever.

So which testimony? Matthew’s? Mark’s? Luke’s? John’s? (etc. etc. etc.)
The Bible is already a collection of testimonies from various authors, in addition there are others which were not included which still have value to us. And I think it’s clear we do not have every letter written by Paul: surely you would be interested and accept their content as doctrine. Why, then, are the testimonies of others regarding Christ’s dealings in their lives suddenly of no value to you whatsoever? Because they do not have the fame of Paul’s letters?

Ummmm… the New Testament includes all of the Gospels, Epistles, Acts, etc., as well as the Apocalypse. Was it really that hard to figure out what I said? BTW… I don’t really see those as ‘testimonies’ in the same sense that most Protestants and Mormons seem to use it. That seems to be a term that’s widely used by non-Catholics, but isn’t something that we ever use very much at all. It’s seems to be a way for people to proudly proclaim their ‘faith’. We have a Creed that we use to do the same thing for us, at every Mass. Contrary to what non-Catholics tend to believe, we really do believe in everything it says (at least we should if we call ourselves Catholics).

Where are they described as parts of the same God? I see descriptions that Jesus describes Himself and The Father as being ‘one’, but as He does not elaborate, how can the conclusion be assumed that He means they’re somehow completely intertwined and different facets of the same thing. Much simpler and more obvious is that they are simply one in their purposes and understand each other such that their actions would be the same on the same circumstances. One in purpose, one in teaching, three in personages.
A prime example is the Baptism of Jesus, where Christ is clearly in the water with John, the voice of The Father is heard from Heaven and the Holy Ghost seen descending. Three, separate and distinct.

It’s a Doctrine of the Church, another part of Holy Tradition.

I’m not sure what you mean by “another gospel”.
Possibly consider us Henotheists, but that’s again just my take (do consider, however, that The Bible never discounts the existence of other gods, merely states that their worship is not to be practised.
Also, we do not believe in prophetic infallibility, therefore we don’t automatically take every word of previously unknown doctrine stated by a prophet as immediate new doctrine. There has not been anything added to our canon that states such, and I stick to confirmed canonical truths.
At the end of the day, none of that is important to come to a knowledge of God as an individual and understand how He works in your life, and how He would like you to lead your life. And these things are the principles of the gospel. “seek he first the kingdom of God, and all,these things shall be added unto you”. One day I may know, until then I am satisfied that God exists, and my experiences show that He has nothing but my best interests at heart, that I can rely on Him and He is never far away when help is needed. What more do I need to know of Him?

The real Truth?

 

[PaulDupre]

I called the local LDS Church after receiving an invitation to an activity. I asked politely.

Do you teach that God The Father, took human form, came down from heaven to copulate with Mary to produce Jesus. The first response I got was…I need to speak to a missionary…then I repeated the question. I just need a yes or no. The answer was…that is correct. Thank you I said and hung up. Were they wrong?

When I was investigating the LDS church, I asked the missionaries “how did Mary get pregnant”? Jeff, the senior companion (who later married my sister, cheated on her and was divorced by her) said “God the eternal Father, a personage of flesh and bone, came to earth and had relations with the woman called Mary. She gave birth to his child Jesus”.

The junior companion, Ron, disagreed strongly with him and the two of them had a major argument right there in our living room. Jeff finally said that they would consult their mission president and get back to us.

A few days later they returned and Ron (humble and contrite) reported that the mission president said that God the Father indeed came to earth and had carnal relations with the virgin Mary, thereby producing the child Jesus.

But that was 1975, long before the LDS church desired to be considered “Christian”.

 

[Tony888]

I called the local LDS Church after receiving an invitation to an activity. I asked politely.

Do you teach that God The Father, took human form, came down from heaven to copulate with Mary to produce Jesus. The first response I got was…I need to speak to a missionary…then I repeated the question. I just need a yes or no. The answer was…that is correct. Thank you I said and hung up. Were they wrong?

CFR, please reference this doctrine in LDS cannon.

 

[Naf623]

If you read Psalm 96 it states that all the “other” gods are idols and that it was Yahweh that is the creator. So, there actually are no other gods in existence, just figments of the imagination.

Actually, Psalm 96 only says that the gods worshipped by the nations round about the Jews are idols. Still nothing that actually states that there are no other gods in existence. Even the Commandment says ‘have no other gods before me’, not there are no gods other than me.
Even if all that refers to is Yahweh and Jehovah… That’s still 2 Gods…

Another reason I do not believe the Mormon church to be the true church. If something is wrong (like abortion) then the Pillar of Truth has the authority to infallibly declare it as such, however, the Mormon church takes a fence-sitter aproach to such things.

You mean like our stance on homosexuality? On fidelity in marriage? On mind-altering (recreational) drugs?

All of those documents were gathered together by the Church to form the Bible that the world knows today. But, those writings and Scriptures are just a small part of what Jesus taught to the Apostles, and of the early history of the Church. We also have a huge volume of other Doctrines and Dogmas from the earliest times that were not included in the Bible. They’re what’s referred to as Holy Tradition, that make up the remainder of Catholic belief that’s been passed down by the Church for 2000 years. The definition of angels is just one small part of that Tradition. They weren’t included in the Bible because the volume of information would have required an entire encyclopedia, and even then, some things would still have to be left out of it.

So while your canon is closed, you still consider many other writings to be of benefit, and effectively treat them as scripture: but you don’t consider your ‘tradition’ to be canon despite, apparently, treating it as such? There are many quotes given on here that, I assume, are not canonical or part of the ‘tradition’ as written and stored by the church, but which are clearly considered beneficial for edification, for teaching and for better understanding Jesus Christ and your faith in Him?
This sounds very much like our view also, in that we seek out all good things, because anything that is good comes from God; Satan being incapable of producing anything fruitful or that is designed to bring men joy. The difference being that however good and true, and regardless of its source you will not include it into either your canon, or tradition; while when we have something that is of great worth to enlighten the mind and to encourage people to come into Christ, we are happy to include that into what we consider scripture.

OK… so I forgot about the term ‘spirit children’, but the descriptions are interchangeable. In LDS belief: angel = ‘spirit child’. Still, none of what you wrote is any different than what I described in a nutshell, just longer.

Still no…
An angel is any messenger sent from heaven: these may be spirits prior to entering a mortal existence; spirits following their mortal death, but prior to ressurection; or (more usually) resurrected beings - spirit and body together and perfected (physically). All of these are spirit children of God, just as each and every one of us are: ‘spirit child’ doesn’t imply some kind of immaturity, just that we are His offspring.

The point that is the worst part of that entire scenario is that Joseph Smith has turned Jesus into just another ‘man’ like the rest of us, who only became ‘a god’ after the resurrection. That concept is complete blasphemy to any Catholic (and to God), because Jesus always was and always will be God. Satan was just one of His creatures that your church puts on an equal standing with Jesus. The truth is that, compared to Jesus, Satan isn’t even a speck of dust, worthy of clinging to His feet.

Wrong again: we affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Lord and God of the Old Testament.
lds.org/library/display/0,4945,90-1-10-1,00.html
If you really want to learn of the fullness of Jesus Christ, His premortal, mortal and ante mortal missions: I would very much reccomend reading ‘Jesus The Christ’ (gutenberg.org/files/22542/22542-h/22542-h.htm) it’s quite comprehensive.

First of all, Jesus is telling the Jews that they search the scriptures because they think they have eternal life through them, but they don’t, they have to come to Him for the life they are looking for.

He is telling that that searching the scriptures is important, but that through them alone nobody attains eternal life. That the purpose of the scriptures is to teach people about Jesus Christ and encourage them to learn of Him and come unto Him for salvation.

I don’t tell you this with the intent to insult you, but to inform you. You have been greatly deceived, and should pray that God leads you out of the fog that is Mormonism, and into the light.

Right back at you.
As I pointed out previously to Telstar, everything you think about my beliefs, I probably believe exactly the same about yours.
We’re none of us going to convince the other(s), so the only purpose of discussion is for greater understanding on both sides.

 

[Naf623]

your temple attendance fits the definition of both secret and ritual to a tee.

It is certainly not secret: everyone is welcome to attend, but God has some constraints on who He allows into His holy house. Just the same as if you visited my house, I would expect you to refrain from swearing, smoking, dress appropriately (modestly) and not bring anything innapropriate with you: and if I was not confident that you would abide by these rules, I would not invite you in.
Just the same, The Lord wants to be confident that we will show the proper respect and have the correct attitude to visit His house (not really any different to the fact that even heaven has what could be described as ‘entry requirements’, but all are still welcome and invited to come).

That is because Mormons such as Naf623 attend Mass with the intent to criticize, overlaying everything they see and hear with what they have been taught by the Mormon church.

I attended an RC school, as pointed out previously, and had no option but to attend. But because I was there anyway, I attended with an interest to see how things differed and how it worked, because the difference between different Christian practises is something that genuinely interests me. It’s not like I attended with a notepad to make notes on everything to be able to denounce it.

I agree on the nested quotes. It’s very annoying.

Especially on my iPad it’s a nightmare the way I like to split up quotes to respond more clearly (I hope ). Copy and paste are nowhere near as simple as just ‘ctrl-C’.

You speak of a ‘burning in the bosom’ that you think comes from the Holy Spirit, but you will never know about the depth of ‘feeling’ (a totally inadequate word) that many Catholics experience whenever we receive the true Holy Eucharist and our souls are fed directly by Jesus Christ. I truly feel sorry for anyone that has never had that amazing experience. I certainly will never understand how any Catholic can give that up to eat ‘bread and water’ and think that it’s anything remotely like it. You have no idea what you’re missing.

Believe me, I understand the amazing feelings, perspective and depth of understanding conveyed by The Holy Ghost. I have experienced it time and time again in my life when studying the scriptures, when sincerely praying, when ordaining a friend to office in the priesthood, when baptising my sister, when I was married in the temple…

I called the local LDS Church after receiving an invitation to an activity. I asked politely.

Do you teach that God The Father, took human form, came down from heaven to copulate with Mary to produce Jesus. The first response I got was…I need to speak to a missionary…then I repeated the question. I just need a yes or no. The answer was…that is correct. Thank you I said and hung up. Were they wrong?

When I was investigating the LDS church, I asked the missionaries “how did Mary get pregnant”? Jeff, the senior companion (who later married my sister, cheated on her and was divorced by her) said “God the eternal Father, a personage of flesh and bone, came to earth and had relations with the woman called Mary. She gave birth to his child Jesus”.

Well then I expect you have some references from either LDS.org or Mormon.org to backup your claim that we teach this as doctrine? I have heard people (including my father if I understood him right) that seem to hold this belief, but it’s not something that is taught, or even (so far as I am aware) widely held or understood.
There are statements made by prophets which we simply do not have enough information to understand, and have received no further clarification. And really, these things are unimportant when it comes to living the gospel and doing the things that God wants us to do.

 

[Naf623]

John 14:[16] And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete,*** that he may abide with you for ever***. [17] The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.[18] I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you.
~~
[26] But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,*** he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.***It looks pretty clear to me that the Holy Ghost would remain with the Church, forever.

Looks like He promised that the spirit would be with those faithful individuals; I don’t see Him promising anything regarding His church?

Ummmm… the New Testament includes all of the Gospels, Epistles, Acts, etc., as well as the Apocalypse. Was it really that hard to figure out what I said? BTW… I don’t really see those as ‘testimonies’ in the same sense that most Protestants and Mormons seem to use it. That seems to be a term that’s widely used by non-Catholics, but isn’t something that we ever use very much at all. It’s seems to be a way for people to proudly proclaim their ‘faith’. We have a Creed that we use to do the same thing for us, at every Mass. Contrary to what non-Catholics tend to believe, we really do believe in everything it says (at least we should if we call ourselves Catholics).

but the point is that the ‘gospels’ as in MMLJ are simply different individuals bearing witness (or testimony) of Jesus’ life, divinity, teaching, deeds etc. Why are these testimonies of value, and any others aren’t?

 

[Denise1957]

The Mormon concept of God is not the same as the Catholic or Protestant concept. The Mormon concept cannot be accepted as Christian. The reason why they are different has already been discussed, so I’m not going to go into why this is the case.

I was listening to EWTN the other day, and a caller phoned into the program to ask a question about Mormonism, and the show’s host stated that Mormonism isn’t Christian. I already knew that, but it was good to hear it from a Catholic radio program.

Anyone can supposedly dictate or channel what they consider to be legitimate revelation from God or angels. Joseph Smith wasn’t the first or only one. Helena Blavatsky, the Theosophist, dictated from she thought was true spiritual revelation given to her by an "ascended master.’ Theosophists are convinced that it is truth, even though they can’t understand a lot of it. Most Theosophists are convinced that Jesus was an ascended master, too, and nothing else. People can convince themselves of just about anything if they trust the source, and if it resonates with them on a personal level. Here in the U.S., people can start just about any kind of religion they want to, and they often will find followers.

LDS folks are usually really nice people, and I really liked the LDS church that I attended for a couple of years as a child in Sacramento, CA. My mom was even baptized there. When she found out what they REALLY taught, we left the church, though I was allowed to attend the youth group there for a few years after that. My mom wishes that they had told her the truth before she was baptized.

 

[Stephen168]

Believe it or not, I do know what sign language is. I’m studying it at present, thanks.

Then you didn’t read the link.

 

[Stephen168]

We have nothing to defend; others’ refusal to accept our beliefs, and attempts to belittle them do not diminish our faith. There is zero evidence that contradicts anything about the Book of Mormon, and so nothing to defend.

There is no reason to accept Mormonism. It is a fabrication of Joseph Smith. There is no more reason to believe in the Mormon god than there is to believe in leprechauns. I’m sure there are people who do but it is unreasonable to do so. Mormonism has to invent it’s own history to justify its claims; cherry picking quotes and events to try to prove Joseph Smith was right. The Book of Mormon has been shown by science not to be what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. The Book of Abraham has been proved to be something other than what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. To be Mormon you have to ignore history, science, and reason. Mormonism is a 19th century American invention based on the anti-Catholic belief of that time. Of course it was just the year before Joseph Smith invented Mormonism that England allowed the Catholic Church to return to England. I had a nice time in England visiting all the destruction and thief of the Catholic Church by the England crown. This is the root of Mormonism.

 

[CopticChristian]

CFR, please reference this doctrine in LDS cannon.

What is CFR?

Provide the LDS Canon.

Simple question. Yes or No. Was the answer I was given right or wrong. Just clear the air for me and I will call the local LDS church again.

 

[Stephen168]

Justin Martyr 155AD:

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,** is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.** For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.

The sign of the true Apostolic Church. Mormons do not have the priesthood authority to make it happen even if they believed it.