Is Mormonism Christian ?

[Arandur]

You don’t get the point. Paul expected that there would be continuing revelation.

Please explain where you get this, why you conclude this.

Unfortunately, the church surpressed any there was and none survived.

What is so weak about God’s Word that it can be suppressed so thoroughly and destroyed? Does not the Word go out and not come back to God fruitless?

And while we are on the subject, “gospel” means “good news”. The gospel is a message, not a book. The message of the gospel is Jesus Christ’s life and atonement for us.

And that is the context I’ve always meant it in. It’s problematic at best to try to claim that a Catholic believes the Gospel is contained solely in books

We can argue all day about what you THINK we believe, but that is a waste of time. So the posts about how we use words are just wastes until we come to an understanding about how we both use words.

Hence why I ask for a definition from you, particularly one sanctioned by the LDS church, and why many here ask Mormons to explain their beliefs. Problem is, as I’ve found on mormonapologetics.org (where there are many, many more learned Mormons to gain answers from), it is really tough to pin down something that the LDS church has defined and that its members agree on.

And personally I think if we could just get past the semantics, we would all understand eachother much much better.

I agree. We should have worked at defining “revelation” and “Christian” much earlier. The Catholic definitions of “revelation” have been posted. I have proposed definitions (several pages back) of “Christian,” with the distinction between a cultural definition (which would include Mormons) and a Scriptural, baptism-based definition (which would not).

 

[Arandur]

You have come a long way from some Romans taking a step back before the crucifixion.

I apologize if I didn’t make myself clear enough. I did not propose the Romans-at-the-crucifixion explanation, nor did I say I agreed with it. Just that it was possible.

I don’t think that the scripture would even exist if what was meant was a “partially falling away” or even “several partial fallings away”. In that context, what is the purpose for the existence of this scripture? It really says nothing. It just says that some will fall away. Duh. Of course some will fall away. We don’t need a prophecy to say that.

Oh, this kind of warning is all over Scripture, and is so common as to almost be its primary purpose! There are all kinds of warnings not to sin, not to let practices fall away or profane the holy, not to let yourself be deceived away from truth! That is the purpose this serves. Can you really say that the Scriptures don’t do that, or that it doesn’t serve a purpose?

What it says is that the second coming would not happen until there had been a “falling away”.

"a" falling away. It does not follow that this is “total” in any way, and it does not follow that this “falling away” means a loss of all priesthood authority on earth. You simply cannot make that connection logically. Would you like me to list and define all of the argumentative fallacies committed in that assumption?

 

[mfbukowski]

Warning! Long Post! To be read only by those who want to know something!

Ski,
Love easily gained is easily lost. <—don’t know where that came from, but it seems to apply here. Ah well, through Christ, I love you always.
OK, so it’s not what you believe. PLEASE, PLEASE EXPLAIN!! I always ask and never get an answer. It’s like playing a game with my toddler who is crying:
“What’s wrong, Honey?”
“MMMWWWWAAAA!!!”
“Did you stub your toe?”
“NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!”
“Did you bite your tongue?”
“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!”
“Did the kitty hurt your feelings?”
“That’s silly, Mom!”
“What IS it then?”
MMMMMWWWWWAAAAA!!!"
When we are offered nothing, we are left to putting the pieces together from what the disenfranchised say, or from reading the BOM apparently without the correct Holy Spirit interpreting for us… SCHOOL ME!!! Not in how to defeat someone with verbal karate, but about about your *actual *beliefs.
Is it just too embarrassing to share with those of us who haven’t spent a lot of money for the temple card, and so probably don’t want to turn back just because we would have made it thus far? Prejudices are one thing, seeing something that concerns one based on something we were warned about by the most supreme teacher (Jesus Christ) or his prophets, is another story.

Congratulations, Jea9! You are so blessed to have been directed by God, and to have been open to His grace!
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.

Well calling someone’s faith “bull doo doo” doesn’t give one confidence in that person’s intentions.

We don’t believe that God is an alien polygamist.

Nor do we believe that God came from another planet and has many spirit wives either.

If you really want to know what we believe, I will be happy to tell you but chances are, you will not believe what I tell you because we have been so misrepresented.

Our doctrine is contained in the standard works of the church, and now where else. Should you want quotes showing that from official sources, I will be glad to give them to you.

I think many of the misrepresentations I see and hear are from the fact that we answer questions others don’t even ask.

I was discussing this personally with a noted anti-mormon last week, and I think that some personal understanding was reached about that.

We actually answer the following questions that I think you have never considered in detail. I know that the catechsim has some cursory answers to these, but the usual answer from Catholics is “it’s a mystery”.

What did God “do” for all eternity before he created this world? If God created time, does it even make sense to speak of a “time” “before” creation?

Why did God create us at all?

If our spirits are eternal going forward, wouldn’t they be eternal going “backward”?

If Jesus and Mary now have a body, they exist in space and time.
“Where” are their bodies? Is heaven a spatial place they exist in?

Why wouldn’t God want his children to become like him? Isn’t he capable of that?

Why is there a limit to the Catholic notion of “theosis”?

Is it fair that the Pope and a drug addict rapist murderer who genuinely converts on his death bed have the same reward in heaven?

What exactly is “being” and how can 3 persons have the same one? How many other people can have the same “being” as the 3? Could it include hundreds or thousands of persons? If so, would they also be “God”?

To a Muslim, Catholics are polytheists (all Christians are). Why are they not polytheists, if they believe God consists of 3 persons?

Mormons answer those questions NON-DOCTRINALLY. Some of these non-doctrines are highly speculative. Others were taught by some prophets, or believed by them. Many are believed by most members and perhaps even included in student manuals. That is rare but it happens. I was taught in Catholic school that Limbo was doctrine.

But all are speculative and non doctrinal, like Limbo, unless they are in the standard works.

If you could honestly answer these questions, I might be Catholic. But you and your church don’t even try.

We answer them, and you say we believe that God is a “polygamist alien”. In fact, our beliefs are very similar, but you won’t believe it.

I will respond only to those who show evidence of actually having read the post. All others will get “read the post”.

 

[MDK]

Since when is salvation a popularity contest? …

I understand… the Christian teaching about Jesus is not very popular with the Mormon church.

 

[Arandur]

Amos-- “God doeth nothing but he revealeth his secrets to the prophets”-- paraphrase.

You make too much of this. Does God tell “the prophets” how He acts in each person’s life? How He protects them in this little instance or guides them in that little “coincidence” each day? No? Then He does some things without revealing it to prophets. This is figurative language that is explained by the Catholic understanding of Revelation as concerning general Salvation and God’s acts related to general Salvation. Not specific Salvation, as pertains to what God does in each and every individual’s life. General Salvation was completed in Christ. Thus was general (public) Revelation fulfilled in its entirety; nothing else would come that was necessary for everyone to know or do concerning Salvation.

And for continuing revelation, see section 138 of D&C and the various Declarations found here:
scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/contents

I’ll check on this. Don’t have much more time here right now. Is it a definition?

And who is this other angel who is to appear in the last days with the everlasting gospel ot preach, if not Moroni? Who? Answer that one!

Much figurative language in Revelation. Much symbolism. Why was the book written “to the angel” of each locational church if we have the book? If it was written just to the angels, then we don’t need it. Odd thing, writing books to angels.

Read in the context of the rest of Scripture, let alone the Church, we know that we are not to accept “gospels” from angels. The “messenger of God” that spreads across the land can be many things; look at what he does. He represents the spreading of the Gospel. Is that not the Church’s task? Why yes, as in the Great Commission. This figurative language, like so much of Revelation, was indicating that the Gospel was, is, and would be spread throughout the earth. No group through history has done that better or more completely than the Catholic Church.

And many many others in all the epistles which indicate apostasy was already happening.
…
All through the epistles, there are constant references to “falling away” and misdirections that the saints are taking. You see those as partial apostasies, we see those as indicatins that the apostasy was already taking place.

If I understand correctly, you are using the argument that Scriptures talk of “falling away” to generalize to a complete “falling away.” This is the argument (rife with argumentative fallacies) that Dianaiad said Mormons didn’t make, IIRC.

Tell me though, what is the difference between “partial apostasies” and “indications that apostasy was already taking place?” Of course it was. There are always heresies. There were among Smith’s followers even while he was alive, let alone after he died.

On the other hand, you cannot prove me wrong either, and there are many many scriptures to quote indicating by my interpretation that it was already in progress.

We can’t prove in the sense of scientific, observable, physical fact. But we can prove logically and immaterially, which is what all theology can do. It ultimately does require trust in the unseen, faith.

And again, I don’t see where “it was already in progress” supports your argument or your church in any way, or that it is different than the Catholic position recognizing many heresies.

 

[Arandur]

We actually answer the following questions that I think you have never considered in detail. I know that the catechsim has some cursory answers to these, but the usual answer from Catholics is “it’s a mystery”.

What did God “do” for all eternity before he created this world? If God created time, does it even make sense to speak of a “time” “before” creation?

Why did God create us at all?

If our spirits are eternal going forward, wouldn’t they be eternal going “backward”?

If Jesus and Mary now have a body, they exist in space and time.
“Where” are their bodies? Is heaven a spatial place they exist in?

Why wouldn’t God want his children to become like him? Isn’t he capable of that?

Why is there a limit to the Catholic notion of “theosis”?

Is it fair that the Pope and a drug addict rapist murderer who genuinely converts on his death bed have the same reward in heaven?

What exactly is “being” and how can 3 persons have the same one? How many other people can have the same “being” as the 3? Could it include hundreds or thousands of persons? If so, would they also be “God”?

To a Muslim, Catholics are polytheists (all Christians are). Why are they not polytheists, if they believe God consists of 3 persons?

…
If you could honestly answer these questions, I might be Catholic. But you and your church don’t even try.

Wow, you really haven’t looked into what the Catholic Church teaches! “Doesn’t even try?” That’s funniest thing I’ve heard all day.

We’d get really off topic if we were to start discussing all of those questions, but I suggest you do some searches for those topics on Catholic Answers and on the CAF boards, then start threads if you wish.

One of those questions (containing an inherent assumption) that really stuck out I’d like to respond to.
"If our spirits are eternal going forward, wouldn’t they be eternal going “backward”? "
If they were, then we would always have been equal to God and God would not be God. Are you familiar with the Catholic concept of God as the “Necessary Being?” The only Necessary Being? He is by definition just that. He is also by definition Creator. If there are things that exist that were uncreated and are not Himself, then He cannot exist. If God created us, then we had a definitive origin, whether in time or outside of time. Nothing except God can be “eternal going backward.”

 

[mfbukowski]

This probably isn’t a good defense for the Pope, but doesn’t God choose his prophets and not a church? Maybe wrongly, but I’ve never heard the Pope was required to be a prophet or else his authority is invalid.

If you had the ability to speak infallibly, excathedra, do you think you had better be a “prophet?” I know popes don’t do this often, but perhaps it is because they are not comfortable doing so. Personally, I would like to know that anyone telling me what I should believe would be receiving revelation. That’s why I think that all “public revelation” is really “private revelation” made public, and that we all have the right to private revelation

Maybe children are the only ones listening sometimes, because none of us are “coming unto me like a child”. One time, on another thread, you (or Snow, maybe) commented that my prayers weren’t legitimate because I was “nobody”.

Holy Cow that sure doesn’t sound like anything I would say. I would say that that is definitely wrong and I can’t think of ANY Mormon who believes anything like that even remotely. I would have to say that was a big misunderstanding somehow. No, God loves us and hears and answers prayers. Everyone’s prayers. Of course he doesn’t always answer them the way we want or when we want, but that is another story!

I wonder what the criteria are for becoming an LDS prophet. What are the requirements for becoming someone who can at least pray for others? Does it have to do with one’s religion? Is this discrimination? I thought Catholics were the only ones capable of that! <—A bit of sarcasm.

You don’t need anyone to pray for you.
And anybody can pray for anybody. I think I can pray for you as a catholic and would hope that you pray for me as a Mormon. Nothing to do with religion. I will take Buddhist prayers all day long. The idea that you need a priest to pray for you is a more Catholic pov than Mormon, and a misconception I have not heard before. We believe that all who have a testimony of Jesus (all who believe that Jesus is the Christ- ie: the son of God, and God himself, who died for us all) have “the spirit of prophecy”. In fact, we believe that all who live have the “light of Christ” even if you do not believe in Christ – the light of Christ is your conscience that tells you instictively that, for example, that murder is wrong. So everyone has the right to some level of inspiration and “revelation”

But only one on the earth at a given time has the “keys” (divine authority) to receive inspiration for the church. You can have inspiration for your personal concerns like what church to join, what your kids need, if they should go to this school or that one, what job to take on, who to marry etc etc, but we do not receive revelation for the church.

A Mormon bishop for example has the right to revelation for the members of his ward, in keeping within the doctrinal confines of the church. So he could give advice on questions like the above much as you might go to a parish priest to discuss things that are troubling you. So he has the “keys” for the local congregation. If he thinks he has gotten a revelation that pigs can fly or that it’s time for everyone to drink the cool aid, that is obviously not in keeping with his defined role, and such “revelation” would not be valid. So we all get revelation that we need within our own sphere as is appropriate. And in each case, your personal revelation takes prescedence. So if your bishop tells you that you should jump in the lake, and you think that is wrong, you are not required to jump in the lake.

So the prophet is the only one who can speak “ex cathedra” as it were, for the church.

Incidentally let me give another principle here, is that we believe that one must be called by the spirit of revelation to be a leader of any kind in the church. Other christians believe that God can tell them that they should be a minister or that they have a “calling”. We believe, as Paul says, that we must be “called of God as was Aaron”. The OT shows that Aaron did not take on the responsibility to be God’s spokesman by himself, but was called by Moses by the spirit of prophecy. Moses selected Aaron-- he did not select himself.

Prophets do not select themselves either.

But I will stop here. I am reminded of the story of a little boy who says to his mommy – “Mommy, where did I come from?” and she gives him the whole birds and bees in lenghty detail, then asks “does that answer your question?” and the little boy replies: “Well I guess so, but Bobby says he came from Cincinnatti, so I was just wondering where I came from”

Does that answer your question?

 

[mfbukowski]

LOL! I sure get tired of repeating myself!
I’ve got kiddos to tend to.
PEACE!

That’s the most important job in the world- shaping the next generation!

I’ll be around!

 

[mfbukowski]

OK, both the NT and the BOM contain “gospels”, why should they contradict each other?

CFR. They don’t. Maybe your interpretation of the NT conflicts with your interpretation of the BOM but we see no conflicts whatsoever.

 

[mfbukowski]

The context of the Bible is the Catholic Church.

So you still sacrifice bulls and lambs? I didn’t know that.

You know, you always throw out this silly one-liners. Beef up your posts and say something if you want me to answer. Otherwise keep it up, and I won’t. Deal?

 

[mfbukowski]

That God exists is known by natural reason and is a preamble to faith.

My point is that your fundamental assumptions are that the foundation of truth is the Bible, and it alone is sufficient. These assumptions are not found in the Bible, in fact the Bible contradicts your assertions.

I believe none of this. I certainly don’t believe that the bible is the foundation of truth, or that God is known by reason. Any kind of reason.
Ever hear of faith?

 

[mfbukowski]

We are to do nothing apart from the Church of Christ, once we are Members of the Body. The approach that you illustrate is exactly what has lead to the thousands of schisms, sects, and contradictory doctrines. It has demonstrably failed, and so is obviously not what God intended.

So God intended blind obedience to the magesterium and that all should be compelled to follow what they do not believe, right?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I believe none of this. I certainly don’t believe that the bible is the foundation of truth, or that God is known by reason. Any kind of reason.
Ever hear of faith?

Getting tired bukowski? Seriously, I sometimes wonder if we wear out our Mormon friends.

1holycatholic was responding to look3467, who did indeed say the Bible was the final word of God.

 

[mfbukowski]

Ah, but then God would be a “respecter of persons,” would He not? And that is something LDS rail against.

The very fact that you have a pope who can speak “ex cathedra” denies this principle even in your own church.

Every person who sees Mary on a cheese sandwich is not a prophet, even to you.

So then I guess God IS a respecter of persons. I thought you did not believe that either.

Either you have chosen this analogy erroneously or you do not believe the bible. Our beliefs in this regard are precisely parallel.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So God intended blind obedience to the magesterium and that all should be compelled to follow what they do not believe, right?

The Church is not the magesterium and the magesterium is not the Church.

And compelled to follow what you don’t believe? That’s funny bukowski. I suppose if I were Mormon I’d have to be compelled to believe a lot of things that I find to be absolute nonsense.

 

[mfbukowski]

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.**
(emphasis added)

Ok this is the wonderful post from the middle of page 18. I looked it up. What a waste.

You don’t even provide the references to the NT that revelation will end.

Then you say that your pope is better than our prophet because you call your revelations “encyclicals”.

Bottom line: either these are revelations or they are not.

You have contradicted yourself by saying “there is no revelation, but our encyclicals are”.

Yawn. No wonder I passed it up the first time.

 

[mfbukowski]

The Church is not the magesterium and the magesterium is not the Church.

And compelled to follow what you don’t believe? That’s funny bukowski. I suppose if I were Mormon I’d have to be compelled to believe a lot of things that I find to be absolute nonsense.

And obviously you were not compelled to be Mormon. My point precisely. No one is compelled to believe anything.

 

[mfbukowski]

Getting tired bukowski? Seriously, I sometimes wonder if we wear out our Mormon friends.

1holycatholic was responding to look3467, who did indeed say the Bible was the final word of God.

oops!!! I guess so-- I caught up on this whole thread this AM!

 

[look3467]

That God exists is known by natural reason and is a preamble to faith.>>>1holycatholic

Absolutely!

My point is that you’re fundamental assumptions are that the foundation of truth is the Bible, and it alone is sufficient. These assumptions are not found in the Bible, in fact the Bible contradicts your assertions.>>>1holycatholic

Dear brother in Christ, our foundation is Christ, hence brothers?

The bible teaches us about that foundation because it points us to Christ.

Now apart from that, we can make any kind of religion we want, as is noted by the many.

If the love of Christ which the bible speaks of is not in us, we are like clouds without rain.

We both love the Lord, you your way and I my way, yet still siblings in the family of God.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[RebeccaJ]

Then you say that your pope is better than our prophet because you call your revelations “encyclicals”.

Bottom line: either these are revelations or they are not.

Yes, they are revelations…think back a couple of hours…Revelation that pertains to the Salvation of all mankind. These are doctrine. And revelation that pertains to actions and guidance, these are the statements that the Pope makes, ex cathedra. Most often, if not always, the clarifications given ex cathedra are in regards to doctrine, and particular circumstances. For example, Humanae Vitae covers contraceptive use. It is not doctrine but an explanation of how doctrines are applied to a modern issue.

This is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. To guide. Guidance is given to individuals and to the bishops of the Church. This is in fact is revelation.

The pope does not act alone. The pope is one bishop among many. The bishops, acting together as one in councils, provide the leadership of the Catholic Church. If/when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is speaking on behalf of all of the bishops.