1
1holycatholic
Guest
This is not the Christian understanding of God, and it’s why Mormons don’t have valid baptism.
You really should check out Faith of the Early Fathers: Three-Volume Set by William A. Jurgens.
- Status
You really should check out Faith of the Early Fathers: Three-Volume Set by William A. Jurgens.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
IIRC “Things received are received according to the mode of the receiver.” (I’m not sure who should be credited, or if I have it exactly right.)
D
dianaiad
Guest
It is not the Catholic understanding of God, certainly, and I am aware that the Catholic church does not accept LDS baptism. However, the CoJCoLDS doesn’t accept yours, either–but we certainly don’t deny you the right to be Christians because of that.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Prophets write scripture. They write scripture because a prophet receives revelation from God, and revelation from God is the Word of God–and by definition, scripture.
It’s not an ‘additional quality that some prophets have.’ It’s the definition of scripture; the word of God that someone writes down because God told him to…and that ‘telling’ makes him a prophet.
by definition.
Therefore, if there has been revelation since the last apostle died, then there has been scripture written. Where is it?
Conversely, if there has been no scripture written, then whatever WAS written doesn’t reach the level of scripture–and is then not revelation. By definition.
It is a problem.
P
Paul_G
Guest
That is what I was getting at. The current litmus test that Orthodox Christian used to exclude LDS for the appellation of Christian is not from scripture, but I believe is a man made list originating in the early councils of the church starting with the redefinition of who Jesus is.
Paul
J
Jea9
Guest
ok dianaiad…I know I’m behind and I couldn’t get through this whole thread to see if this was addressed again, sorry
. I just want to say that I am a former-Mormon and that there were some things that were left out during my lessons with the missionaries and the other 3-4 weeks of teaching I received. Along with the entire year that I was a FAITHFUL Mormon (read the BoM, Pearl of Great Price and D&C twice…always attended church, etc.). I was FLAT-OUT lied to by those that ‘cared about me’ and ‘taught me’ when I asked about the becoming like gods thing. By one person I was told that ‘no way, wow that would be neat…’ and the other I was told ‘it’s not EXACTLY like that…’. I was told that Mormons believe that Jesus was the archangel Michael and that this is his spirit name.And yes, if you want to know I WILL tell you my ward and who my bishop was. I never went to the Temple because God made some pretty amazing things happen to stop me (talking a MAJOR snow storm…twice…when I was meant to go).
Again, sorry if this was re-addressed later, I only made it to about page 11 and didn’t see it. I normally don’t respond because there are many more ex-Mormons that are more knowledgable than I…Rebecca for one
S
seekdatruth
Guest
Just because LDS has a loose interpretation of the word “Christian”, doesn’t mean we should. The lack of the Trinity is what invalidates LDS baptisms in the eyes of the Catholic Church, not out of spite for LDS, personally.
OK, so the advertising campaign from a few years back mentioned, “Another testament of Jesus Christ” it doesn’t mean I was quoting that, and doesn’t mean it hasn’t been called that by a Mormon in my presence. “Gospel” defines the words and actions of Jesus Christ in scripture. All Gospel is Scripture, not all Scripture is Gospel. When we use the word “Scripture” we are referring to what is known as The Bible. We do not add or subtract to that. We have teachings and stories which are not in the ancient scripture, but none of them are new testaments about Christ’s dealings on earth, because he is in Heaven now. Doesn’t the book of Mormon describe Jesus visiting people in early North America? This description would make it another gospel of Jesus Christ. And since we have been warned to avoid new gospels, waaaaay before any hint of Mormonism came along, we see this as a indicator that something just isn’t right here. Maybe some day we’ll have books about the visions of the saints added to what we call “Scripture”, who knows? The Church does move verrrrrry slowly and cautiously in everything. It doesn’t really matter if the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize modern day prophets, or does and just doesn’t call them that. What matters are the stark differences between what has long been defined as “Christian” by Christians, and how LDS uses it. I still don’t know why anyone who accepts teachings so different (eg. does not accept the Trinity, is polytheistic, believes that Heavenly Father came from another planet, that he has many “spirit wives”, became flesh and impregnated the Virgin Mary, and that Jesus is only his son, to name a few) would want to be called “Christians”? Especially since all Christendom is an apostasy. It seems misleading, it seems an under-handed attempt to gain new converts and to prevent any members from ever learning the truth. Much confusion is created in these forums alone, by two completely different definitions to many of the same words we have used traditionally for nearly 2000 years. Now being oldest and first, doesn’t do it for me personally, as an explanation for why the Catholic Church is the only correct church, but all of the above is enough to be concerned about the authenticity of LDS. There are obviously a lot of misconceptions from the LDS about what exactly the Catholic Church teaches and why. Admittedly, a lot of Catholics don’t even know, but to automatically determine we are wrong due to a lack of information or proper explanation, is a little hasty, and also narrow-minded–something Catholics are often accused of.
From what I’ve seen though, you have no interest in truly understanding or converting anyone here, at least not out of tru concern for anyone’s soul or well-being. It’s more of a joke to you, playing on semantics and snarky sarcasm to try and strike doubt in others. I kind of get a chill reading some of the things you’ve written. Why *are *you here? Just to mock people and cause trouble? If so, well that’s very sad. It is sad too how some Catholics have little or no understanding at all about our faith and so can’t defend against those who come knocking with promises and misleading statements in a sales-pitch. We can all change though, just as Paul did, but as my pastor said today, “don’t wait to get knocked off your donkey to change for the better.” and also mentioned “We all have the ability to be a saint.”
I pray that we all seek and learn more about our faith and Jesus Christ, and that those of us who are sometimes lacking in knowledge and understanding find good teachers!
Peace be with you, Dianaiad! I don’t mean that to be sarcastic or spiteful. Christ loves us all and so we must all love each other. My LDS husband and I often differ, and argue a LOT, but we still love each other, well most of the time!
S
seekdatruth
Guest
Congratulations, Jea9! :clapping: You are so blessed to have been directed by God, and to have been open to His grace!ok dianaiad…I know I’m behind and I couldn’t get through this whole thread to see if this was addressed again, sorry
And yes, if you want to know I WILL tell you my ward and who my bishop was. I never went to the Temple because God made some pretty amazing things happen to stop me (talking a MAJOR snow storm…twice…when I was meant to go).
Again, sorry if this was re-addressed later, I only made it to about page 11 and didn’t see it. I normally don’t respond because there are many more ex-Mormons that are more knowledgable than I…Rebecca for one
What you are saying is not uncommon of a testimony among converts from LDS, that many things were not told up front or admitted about their beliefs. It seems as if it is because all of the major teachings are exactly what ancient scripture has warned us about as false religions and prophets, and they know it. If one says “God is an alien polygamist.” LDS will freak out. But if you wade through the distracting terminology and realize that God came from another planet and has many spirit wives, well, that is what one could conclude. Even the latter description just sounds “mean”, and so it is perceived as an attack, especially since LDS are taught that we are relentless attackers of the “truth” that they themselves are the only ones in possession of. In real truth, it is a blunt observation, just cutting through the bull doo doo.
S
seekdatruth
Guest
What “list” is this? I’d like to know.
We have shown you time and time again on here, excerpts from throughout Scripture, OT and NT; KJV, and NAB, that show where the Catholic Church gets it’s “litmus test”. If the people that wrote Scripture were prophets, and therefore had a legitimate revelation from God, and so God inspired their writing–or that of their scribes who documented them–then why would anything they write not hold true as a litmus test for a false religion?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Revelation dahling. Revelation. (Not man made.)
Jesus revealed, quite clearly, Who He Is. He is God’s Perfect Revelation. To say that Smith, or anyone else, has something to add to God’s Perfection, God the Son, is absurd.
The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, which is, revelation. This guidance is given, always, including if not especially the councils. That is the Truth, not this man made idea that God left us orphans.
A
Arandur
Guest
Where the argument of “continuing revelation” ending is circular (as a “proof” of apostasy) is that first you must establish that “continuing revelation” occurs, was meant to occur after Christ, and means (is defined as) what you think it means. Fact is, I have seen no other non-Smithian groups that agree with any of those three points as Smithians believe them. It is a Smithian innovation backed up in only in Smithian works–which, if they must rely on themselves to demonstrate it, rely on circular reasoning.
I call it circular because you cannot presume those three premises about “continuing revelation” and use them as evidence for any sort of apostasy. You must first prove your premises.
I don’t accept your premise. Did even the Apostles have to receive revelation after Christ in order to tell people about his life (in the Gospels, for instance) or write letters about his teachings? No, those things were revealed to them by Christ when he lived with them.
This gets into the nature of revelation however. You see, the reason that Catholics say that revelation was complete with Christ is because of the logical absolute necessity of that fact. It’s really pretty simple. The infinite God incarnates as one of us, fully divine, fully human. Humans experience each other on an equal level. Thus the entirety of God was revealed in the incarnation of Christ; He was fully present in Christ. No further revelation is possible after this has happened.
God took it a step further, however. He Divinely Instituted the Church as Christ’s own Body and ensouled it with the Holy Spirit. So the Church itself contains the completeness of the infinite God. All of infinite revelation has thus been revealed to the level of man.
Now, of course, finite man cannot comprehend the entirety of God, and so we humans within the Church still must grow in our understanding of the Truth. But that is why Christ is the cornerstone and Head, why he sent the Spirit to guide us into all truth, remembrance of all things (“remembrance” by the way, confirms that “all things” were revealed–it’s done, no more necessary). He does this through the apostolic office and the hearts of the faithful (sensis fidelis, Tradition). All has been revealed (past tense); all that remains is for us to be guided into full understanding (which will take forever).
I referred to a couple of places above, in paraphrase. I could look up the verses, but hopefully you will recognize the references.
Let me ask you, where in the Scriptures does it say that public revelation will continue at all times through all ages? Where does it state who was “Prophet”–who did Christ appoint as first “Prophet?” And, tangentially, where did prophets (“scorned in their own lands,” as Smithians are quick to apply to JS) lead the Church continually as head?
Here I will note the interesting similarity yet difference between the LDS “Prophet” and the popes. Your prophets occasionally write new sections of the D&C, which some of you regard as highly as Scripture, some regard in a lesser fashion as guidance for the times (not for all times, like true Scripture).
The popes issue encyclicals (much like the letters of the NT), and the ecumenical councils also produce documents. We hold those documents as very weighty indeed; some of them (if they meet the conditions) are infallible, like Scripture. This is the Spirit guiding us into all Truth; it really ought to satisfy your proper need to see God continuing at work among His Church.
I find it interesting, however, that I often hear Smithians attacking Catholics for the “arrogance” or “idolatry” (among other things) of daring to believe that the Church has, under special conditions, sufficient guidance from the Spirit to prevent it from erring in matters of faith and morals (which is what infallibility means). Note that infallibility does not ensure the best possible teachings, and is often considered slightly less than “divinely inspired” (as that latter would attest to not just no error, but well-taught). It is similar to Scripture in this sense, but also dissimilar.
Yet the Smithian prophets presume to say that they speak as if God dictates through them (which He rarely, if ever, did in the OT or NT). This is a more arrogant claim by far, and one depending much more on a single individual than the method of direction the Spirit actually uses in the Church.
A
Arandur
Guest
Why would man stop disobeying God? Satan continues to deceive, and man needs little help to follow the pride of his own foolish thought. Nothing changed with JS, by the way.
Which is all the more interesting to me. Mormon arguments to support the doctrinal purity of your sect actually often would support the Catholic Church first.
Some of you do. I have heard it from the mouths and keyboards of many Mormons. There is confusion and dissent in your own ranks. On mormonapologetics.org, it has actually been observed many times (even by Mormons) that even “learned” Mormons have a tremendously hard time pegging down what the LDS church actually teaches. There is less unity of belief among serious Mormons about many central things than there is among serious Catholics.
I didn’t say that. I know that you believe some truth remained, but that it was lost among the weeds so that people had no pure, authoritative church.
Looking at JS’s convoluted additions to his own version of the Bible, I think you can hardly claim that what was “lost” was “plain.” Just look at the intro to John, which is really quite clear, to see how Smith muddled it, or all the additions early in the OT before he lost steam and started to make fewer edits and tell fewer tall tales.
Sorry, I don’t mean to insult you. I must confess I find myself pretty disgusted with Joseph Smith, though. Please accept my criticism as being directed at him and not you.
If Jesus is the eternal High Priest, after the Incarnation, how could priesthood authority be lost?
See above for the Church’s constant and inerrant guides in matters of faith and morals, and the written documents of the ecumenical councils. This actually pretty closely fits the bill of what you’re asking for. The important difference is that we believe all of that was revealed with Christ and in him, in his Body, as it is ever-living and existent in his Church today. It was revealed once and for all; we’re just learning how to understand it better, to explain it, confirming what we have come to understand.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
My answer ~ having not read one of the previous posts ~ just answering the OP
No, Mormonism is not Christian Mormonism borrows familiar words and concepts from Christianity to make it more familiar to converts but there is nothing new here.
Mormonism contains the “trappings” of the Christian faith ~ they have the vocabulary, they have the words, even though when they SAY the words they mean something else. But after they start talking, they DO NOT have the faith because their understadning of the words and the faith is incorrect.
I know that it is convenient, recently, for Mormons to cozy up to other Christian faiths. That wasn’t always so (and maybe we should ask WHY?) but it is true now.
No, Mormonism is not Christian Mormonism borrows familiar words and concepts from Christianity to make it more familiar to converts but there is nothing new here.
Mormonism contains the “trappings” of the Christian faith ~ they have the vocabulary, they have the words, even though when they SAY the words they mean something else. But after they start talking, they DO NOT have the faith because their understadning of the words and the faith is incorrect.
I know that it is convenient, recently, for Mormons to cozy up to other Christian faiths. That wasn’t always so (and maybe we should ask WHY?) but it is true now.
A
Arandur
Guest
Sometimes Scripture is recursive, referring to things in the past; often this is a method of verifying something that happened or is just a warning of a pattern. His explanation was therefore possible. This is the first I’ve heard of it, so I won’t vouch for it, however.
As for what else “a falling away” could mean, I did offer that answer. Just about any “falling away” will do. It says nothing of a loss of priesthood, death of the Church/death of the Body of Christ. It is an exhortation and warning to be alert and hold fast to the truth, like so many others will. It is a warning not to become complacent, for Satan will always attempt to deceive–whether you believe the “man of perdition” is to be related directly to Satan or just a great confounder of Christ’s message through his own pride and foolishness, this was a warning that such people would come. We must be on our guard for deceptions and be true to the Church. Such warnings require no loss of priesthood. Indeed, if I recall correctly, much of the D&C has similar exhortations to hold fast and beware of fallings away, apostasies, and so forth. Which means that if the LDS sect can hold together despite that (as you obviously believe it has), so can have the Catholic Church. An instance right here where by trying to justify your own church’s continued existence, you actually defeat your own argument against the Catholic Church.
S
seekdatruth
Guest
Careful…they believe ALL are wrong but themselves. A consensus of all those whom they see as wrong does nothing to convince them. All are considered part of the apostasy.
You do have some very nice other points!
S
seekdatruth
Guest
YOU GOT ME! I’M CONVERTING!!! WAIT…oh yeah, I’m already Catholic. lol
P
Paul_G
Guest
You know the one that would say to be a Christian you must believe that the persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost are somehow wrapped up into one being.
You may have shown others these scriptures, but as far as I am concerned there is nothing in scripture that validates the exclusive right for anyone to decide who can or cannot be called a Christian, Certainly you can use the interpretation of the scriptures you refer to in deciding who is or isn’t and Catholic, but nothing more.
Paul
P
Paul_G
Guest
No we don’t need to cozy up to anyone. We have, all along, distanced ourselves from the main stream so called Orthodoxy, and in response to the type of misinformation (similar to that found in this post) that is spread sounding authoritative, we claim that by definition we are Christian, not your brand of Christianity to be sure, but Christian none the less.
Paul
T
Tonks40
Guest
Wouldn’t you think that this would be an essential truth of not only defining who is Christian, but to go even further, who CHRIST is??? Coz saying that you believe in Christ is fine and dandy, but which Christ are you talking about? The Christ as revealed in John 1 (“I AM”) or the one that Mormon’s believe is Christ?
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
So you say.
But if so, you believe in a different God than the rest of “Christianity” as well as a different Jesus.
Mormons use the same “language” to speak of entirely different things. Some might consider the use of the same terms to mean something else DECEPTIVE. At the very least, once the definition of the Godhead is changed, as it has been in Mormonism, the Mormon faith has clearly abandoned any claim to Christianity. Indeed, since Mormons neither worship nor pray to Jesus Christ, it is a mystery as to WHY they would fuss over the term “Christian”. Mormonism is not a Christ-centered faith. Why fuss over the term “Christian”?
Mormons are NOT Christian. They can claim the are so as much as they want. It does not change the reality.
It is a fact that for a very long time, starting with the beginning of the sect, Mormons sought to distance themselves from other faiths. It is only recently that they have tried to appear more “mainstream”. If you cannot recognize this, it does not change the facts. Mormons are not Christian. Their doctrine is not Christian.
- Status