https://www.quora.com/What-do-Protestants-and-Catholics-think-of-Mormons/answer/James-Hough-1

  • Thread starter Thread starter lokisuperfan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We both agree that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism.

Do you believe that the God of the Jewish people is the God of the Christian people?

———

No, historical continuity is not the law of non-contradiction.

The best definition I found for historical continuity is this:

Historical Continuity is a way of looking at history that allows us to examine any historical event in context, rather than treating it as a distant object to be studied as an anomaly.

Personally, I would also add: historical continuity begs the question; what events preceded and succeeded the historical event as I know it did not happen in a vacuum.
 
Last edited:
SunshineGrandma said:
Do you believe that the God of the Jewish people is the God of the Christian people?
Click to expand...
Of course.
SunshineGrandma said:
Personally, I would also add: historical continuity begs the question; what events preceded and succeeded the historical event as I know it did not happen in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
I do believe that, but I don’t think it needs to be included in the scripture. We can do research on our own.
 
Last edited:
The official definition of God according to Judaism:

http://www.jewfaq.org/m/g-d.htm

G-d is Incorporeal

Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d’s body (the Hand of G-d, G-d’s wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc… Any reference to G-d’s body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d’s actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d’s body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d’s actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. [(http://www.jewfaq.org/m/defs/rambam.htm)'s Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.

We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.

This is the official definition of God according to LDS:

https://www.lds.org/topics/god-the-father?lang=eng
God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22).

Which definition of God do you accept- the God of Judaism or the God of Mormonism?
 
Last edited:
We both agree that we accept the definition of the God of Judaism.

The LDS definition of God rejects the definition of the God of Judaism.

How can the LDS have the true teaching on the Trinity?

Here is the LDS definition of the Trinity or Godhead:

The Mormon view of the members of the Godhead corresponds in a number of ways with the views of others in the Christian world, but with significant differences. Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being.

https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng
 
Last edited:
When I was 14 or 15 years old, I looked around at my Mormon male peers, my own dad, my brothers, and thought, If God is just some guy like this, then there is no god. I left Mormonism for atheism, in my heart, by the time I was 17. By my 20s I was out of religion altogether.

Mormonsim will warp your view of God. It will place you in a fog that will hold you in darkness and from which the stuggle to emerge is not something I wish on anyone. I recommend that you protect your soul and your heart from its deviations. It’s a path to nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Just a reminder.

Sarah has been upfront with her personal reality of having a social disorder. What does that mean? It means she is going to relate to people differently. She is going to process information differently. Her brain is hardwired differently, and that is part of her contextual journey, spiritually speaking, socially speaking etc.

I am hoping that she has the support system in her life that are specific to her needs. Clearly, she is an intelligent young lady.

She may find our journeys helpful, or not.

Sarah, you are in my prayers. I know God knows you personally, knows of your situation personally. Keep close to Him and you will be guided. Hopefully you have a mentor who understands your personal situation and yours disorder that can help you with whatever comes in your path.

A sister in Christ.
Angela
 
Thank you Angela. The homily today at church reminded me of when I started my religious journey. The priest talked about the story of the three Wise Men and King Herod, and how on our journey to Christ there would be Herods who would try to turn us away from the path, but there would also be other Wise Men traveling the path with us and helping us along the way.

When I first started to research religion, I prayed to God and asked Him to let me know when I would find what I was looking for. I won’t go into depth about how the rest of the journey plays out because I don’t want to clog the thread, but I’d be happy to explain in a PM if you’re curious.
 
I thought of our conversation @lokisuperfan during the gospel.

Sunday, January 6, 2019
The Epiphany of the Lord
Gospel

Matthew 2:1-12

1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, 2"Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him." 3When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; 4and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet: 6`And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.’” …

This scripture perfectly illustrates the importance of historical continuity and the prophecy that Jesus was the long-awaited King of the Jews. The promised Messiah.

How can Mormonism be true, the teaching of who God is in particular, if it does not have historical continuity and is not the fulfillment of Judaism?
 
Last edited:
Can I PM you with my thoughts on that? I’d prefer to keep my current stance private.
 
If your parents are okay with you sending me a PM, then I am as well.
 
SunshineGrandma said:
Please refute where CARM gets it wrong about Mormonism in the link I provided.

Like Dr. Phil says “If you are so sure of your position (on whatever it is you are claiming) then you should have no problem putting it up for others to question”
Click to expand...
CARM gets the whole thing wrong by providing erroneous definitions of who’s a Christian. Christ clearly stated:

Matthew 7:16 By their fruits you will know them.

John 13:34, 35 I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

This is how Christ defines His disciples.

I’m not sure why Matt Slick and CARM merit attention.
 
gazelam said:
Matthew 7:16 By their fruits you will know them.

John 13:34, 35 I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples , if you have love for one another.
Click to expand...
But these are not the only qualifiers to be Christian. I know the LDS really hang on the “By their fruits you will know them.” Sure good people do good things, however that doesn’t mean all good people are Christians. Good people can love others but that doesn’t mean all good people are Christian.

Jesus Christ was sent by God the Father for a very specific mission, a mission that had been foretold by the prophets in the Old Testament. Even today in Mass the priest spoke of this in his homily of how the magi knew to look for Jesus Christ in Bethlehem. How a pagan prophet foretold of the birth of a king from the people of Israel.

Jesus Christ defines his disciples in many ways. Jesus Christ knows his followers and Christ’s followers know him. I consider myself a devout faithful Catholic. I live my life as a faithful Catholic. I follow all Church teachings, even the ones I may not agree with. But what makes me Catholic is my relationship with Jesus Christ, it is my faith and trust in Him that defines my faith. I love the Catholic Church with all my heart, but it is Jesus Christ who owns my heart & soul.

This is something I don’t think the LDS really understand, really can’t understand as they don’t believe in the Jesus Christ we do. It seems all the love, faith, and reverence is for the church and Joseph Smith (or whatever prophet) rather than a true pure relationship with Jesus.
 
SunshineGrandma said:
Please define the difference between approval and acceptance.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of internet dictionaries available at your fingertips.
SunshineGrandma said:
Was common consent used by the LDS during the time of B. Young?
Click to expand...
Did you read the link I posted in comment #658?
SunshineGrandma said:
If God is speaking, why would his message first need to be accepted by church members before…what?.. believing what God said?

Should Moses have allowed the People of Israel to decide whether or not to accept the Ten Commandments? I’m sure they, and we, would have liked to throw out the ones we didn’t like.
Click to expand...
What about 1 Samuel 8 where the ancient Israelites wanted a king against the counsel of God?

verse 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

verse 22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.

The Lord deferred to the wishes of the people against His will. The people obviously paid a price later.

And also Exodus 24:3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.

The people consented here.

Also in Exodus 20 when Moses attempted to bring the Israelites into the presence of God, they refused.

verse 19 and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, or we shall die.”

verse 20 Moses answered the people, “Do not be afraid, for God has come only to test you and put the fear of him upon you so you do not sin.”

verse 21_So the people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the dark cloud where God was._

These are examples of “common consent” in the Old Testament. I hope this helps…
SunshineGrandma said:
Please define saint.
Is sainthood a goal or have LDS already achieved sainthood just by being a member of the LDS Church?
Click to expand...
The Latter-day Saint concept of sainthood is not the Catholic version (i.e., those believed to be already in Heaven.) Again, the members of our Church are collectively called saints.
 
(Just so Matt 7: 16 is not taking out of context, I am posting the surrounding verses. It’s referring to false prophets as per vs 15. It’s not a definition of what it means to be Christian. I would recommend reading the rest of the chapter as well. It’s about discipleship)

15“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.

16 By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

17Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.

19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

20 So by their fruits you will know them
 
gazelam said:
The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. (William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.)
Click to expand...
Why don’t you quote the rest of the paragraph of Mr. Hill where he affirms the trinity and it’s acceptance by very early Catholics?
gazelam said:
There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44
Click to expand...
This is the whole of the paragraph Fortman wrote. If you read carefully you can find the words picked out to form the sentence used above.

"_The doctrine of the Triune God has had an amazing history. Convinced that this doctrine is a Christian doctrine that did and could originate only from divine revelation. I start the study from the authentic record of divine revelation that is found in the sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments. What does the Old Testament tell us of God? It tells us there is one God, a wonderful God of life and love and righteousness and power and glory and mystery, who is the creator and lord of the whole universe, who is intensely concerned with the tiny people of Israel. It tells us of His Word, Wisdom. Spirit, of the Messiah He will send, of a Son of Man and a Suffering Servant to come. But it tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated. To study the gradual transition from an unformulated Biblical witness to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to a dogmatic formulation of a doctrine of the Triune God, we look first to the Eastern Church where most of this development took place.
 
Whether or not you agree with everything or nothing CARM says, just refute each of the claims made in the link if they are wrong.

(Oh no- not the by the fruits you will know them comment!!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top