Is Mormonism Christian ?

[RebeccaJ]

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

So what’s the problem? A Catholic is not compelled to act or believe in any way that is against their conscience.

 

[look3467]

A Mormon, a Catholic and a ?, (me) talking about Jesus is like adding levean to the dough, will it rise from within?

Definiately, I see Jesus in all of you, but are as little children fighting to see who is closer to the father.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[1holycatholic]

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?

Truths about God like his existence can be known by reason. That doesn’t mean someone who is unable to understand what can be proven by reason can not accept it by faith.

Natural Theology seems to be an enormous stumbling block for Mormons.

 

[look3467]

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.>>>RebeccaJ

If I found things to be nonsense, why would you even consider being a Mormon.

Likewise, if I found things about the Catholic Church to be nonsense, why would I even consider being a Catholic?

Is it a matter of conscience?

Whose conscience are we trying win over by ours?

Is God limited?

If He were, then we would all have to be one or the other, thus Christ would have not being able to save to the uttermost?

Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[RebeccaJ]

If I found things to be nonsense, why would you even consider being a Mormon.

I was raised LDS.

 

[look3467]

Truths about God like his existence can be known by reason. That doesn’t mean someone who is unable to understand what can be proven by reason can not accept it by faith.

Natural Theology seems to be an enormous stumbling block for Mormons.

Worship to the unknown god was reasoned, until Paul came and gave them light to the real God of which willingly they believed.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[1holycatholic]

Absolutely!

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

Jesus isn’t the many, and the Church isn’t dependent on a majority vote. Jesus established one Church, the Catholic Church. You have free will to establish whatever religion you want. Unless you are in communion with the Catholic Church you are outside the Church established by Christ.

 

[look3467]

I was raised LDS.

But now a Catholic? Only goes to show that God is active in the hearts of Mormons as well as Catholics, for many Catholics convert to other denominations as well.

Also shows God is not limited except by mankind.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

Jesus isn’t the many, and the Church isn’t dependent on a majority vote. Jesus established one Church, the Catholic Church. You have free will to establish whatever religion you want. Unless you are in communion with the Catholic Church you are outside the Church established by Christ.

Underlined for emphasis.

I didn’t say Jesus is the many, but that in the many Jesus is.

I have free will, but not when it comes to the Catholic church?: then it is not free will.

Do I have free will to worship Christ anyway I chose and not be in danger of condemnation?

By the Catholic Church I am condemned but not by Christ? How does that work?

Peace>>>AJ

 

[RebeccaJ]

But now a Catholic? Only goes to show that God is active in the hearts of Mormons

Certainly, this is something that I believe.

For all my criticisms of Mormonism, one thing that I fail to point out that Mormonism changes. And sometimes I see the changes as more towards Truth. God does indeed work in mysterious ways.

If I say Mormons are not Christian, I do not mean it as in we should deny them all that God has to offer. Quite the opposite, God has more to give them, but unfortunately, they have been led astray by many lies.

as well as Catholics, for many Catholics convert to other denominations as well.

Also shows God is not limited except by mankind.

Peace>>>AJ

God is not limited. Recognizing that God has created a Church and provided leadership for the benefit of us humans is not limiting God. It is but another recognition of His many graces.

And yes, people are not static in their religious beliefs. The Pew research that was out about a year ago clearly showed that most of the population of the US changes their religious affiliation during their lifetime.

 

[mfbukowski]

To add on to that if I may, many of the other Smithian sects believe that there was some form of lineal descent from Smith that was supposed to occur to fill the presidency properly. As in, at least at some point the Prophet had to be descended from Smith. Given Brigham Young and future presidents, what is different about the Mormon belief and why does it differ?

This princple was also revealed. The quorum of the 12, per Joseph is equal in authority to the prophet. In the absence of the prophet therefore, the quorum of the 12 can select who is to be the succeeding prophet.

A tradition however has arisen giving the senior member of the quorum of the 12 the succession, but theoretically the quorum could select anyone it wished. The tradition however ensures that the Lord has the opportunity to select whomever he wishes. In order to become a prophet using this tradition, one basically has to survive as a member of the quorum while 11 preceeding members have passed on. This gives the Lord 11 opportunities if you will, to make the selection himself by calling home those who He does not want to be the prophet.

I want to make it clear that this description of the tradition I have given is not doctrinal but my personal belief. The doctrinal part is that the quorum of 12 makes the decision, nothing more.

 

[look3467]

RebeccaJ,

You are more tolerant having seen both sides than one who has not.
Having said that, we can see God more clearly because we’ve been there.

Does that not tell you something?

It tells me that God is not limited to what I think, but is loving of all souls.

Hence, I promote Jesus only and let Him decide what hearts to change.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Arandur]

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

No, obviously.
What relation does this comment have to what I said?
Perhaps I should rephrase my original comment. Are you supposed to live your life apart from the LDS church? Are you supposed to live your life apart from Christ? Or should you let Christ be your guide and discipline yourself to live every action and indeed “capture every thought and make it obedient to Christ?”
That is what I meant. Once we’re in the Church, which is the Body of Christ, why would it be right for us to act apart from it, or to discard its teachings rather than consider everything in the context of the Church?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hence, I promote Jesus only and let Him decide what hearts to change.

Peace>>>AJ

A very charitable and peaceful approach. One that is supported and encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Me, I enjoy the dialog. I work at being more charitable. Of course, I think I get better at it. Mormons keep telling me otherwise.

 

[Arandur]

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.

Perhaps I should rephrase again, or use an example. John the Baptist was a prophet, right? Did his gift of prophecy make him the head of the faith? Did he exercise an LDS-style “Prophet” office?

What about his father, or righteous Simeon and Anna the Prophetess, who were given confirmations of who Jesus was not just for themselves, but for all people to know? Did that make them the head of the church at the time? Why wasn’t it the High Priest?

We could go through these kind of examples from the Scripture (public revelation given to someone who did not hold some singular office of “prophet”), but I’m more interested in knowing who you think was the official “Prophet” Christ appointed, why, and then what happened after.

 

[mfbukowski]

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

Ok I am repasting the quote, this time in context so everybody knows what we are talking about. We need to tidy this up or there is no point in continuing.

Galatians 1:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon aremoved from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

We learn a few things from this quote.
1- “Gospel” means message- no one was preaching from a different book- they were preaching different messages
2- Paul is shocked that the Galatians were already going astray- a symptom of the apostasy which later took over after Paul was not around to correct them any more. There are many more evidences of quotes like this.
3- That if anyone preached another message than the one Paul taught, they should be accursed. The implication is that if they preached the SAME message Paul preached, they should not be cursed. Paul must have wondered what would happen when he was not around any more to correct all these wayward churches. Yet I think he had an expectation that others would preach the true gospel after he was gone. But he knew there would be a falling away eventually, as he mentions in Thessalonians.
4- We should not be trying to “please men” by following their doctrines and traditions, but following Jesus Christ, who gives us the truth by
5- Revelation. Paul says he wasn’t taught by anyone but the revelations of Jesus Christ. No magesterium no tradition no pope. In fact he says NOT to follow those things.

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?

Ask Paul. I think he would say that it cannot be destroyed, but needed to be restored by revelation since that is how he found it himself.

 

[Arandur]

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

It was the first half of that message #263 that was more relevant. Starting with "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."

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

First, I don’t need to, because your own assertion of continuing revelation is incorrect and so far unsupported.
Second, I gave at least one reference, though I did not quote the verse: John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” “Remembrance” is a past tense reference. It is done.
Third, I have you the logical arguments from the reality of the Incarnation and the Divine Institution of the Church as Christ’s Body, ensouled with the Holy Spirit, that means that God has revealed Himself to us fully, and that we have all the guide we need unto Salvation.
Fourth, I explained there, in opposition to the idea expressed by you or Dianaiad that “continuing revelation” was needed to teach, how everything can be taught that was already revealed.
Fifth, we have talked about how revelation is properly defined, and the difference between public and private revelation.

Your response contained no argument against any of these.

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

No. I compared and contrasted the two. I made an observation about how the pope is often vilified for the “arrogance” of infallibility, while the LDS “prophet” claims more. I also tried to explain how the process through which the Holy Spirit guides and protects truth within the Church (through the gift of infallibility where it applies), as well as the continuing teaching authority of the Church, should satisfy this need the LDS observe for Spirit-guided teaching.

That is what it comes down to, is it not? You want God’s continued guidance in the Church, recognize that it is necessary? Well, the Catholic Church recognizes that as well, and contains that gift.

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

That’s not what I was saying, though if I didn’t explain it well, I’m sorry.

I think we are using two different senses of “revelation.” You should know what I’m going off of, since the Catholic definitions have been posted. I still am not entirely sure what you’re using, since you’ve applied several different senses of the world.

In the sense that you seem to primarily be using “revelation,” as inerrant guidance of the Spirit, then yes, the Church exercises that form of revelation.

It’s Spirit-led and confirmed guidance that the Church exercises and experiences. Thus God still speaks to and through His Church.

What is different is that our God keeps no secrets, but has revealed Himself to us fully through Christ and the Holy Spirit. The glorious truth is that He has already come down to our level and holds nothing back. He still guides and leads, as well, through the Church.

How can that reality somehow not satisfy you? It is far greater than the idea that God is secretive and distant, that He occasionally tosses scraps of truth to some specific man, scraps that we need but that He’s been holding back. No, the Smithian sects show their gnostic origins with this idea of secret knowledge, and this model of revelation denies the intended universality of Christ’s Church and his saving act. It makes little of Christ’s sacrifice to say that he did not finish his work, but that more needs to be revealed yet for us to have salvation.

If that doesn’t sound like what you believe, please clarify, and please define “revelation” and its types and purposes. If you believe that all that is needed for Salvation has been revealed, then I wonder what we’re arguing about.

 

[mfbukowski]

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.

Ah yes the old reductio ad absurdam
Of course I don’t mean that. But a little help on burning heretics and the crusades and how to handle the reformation might haved helped, don’t you think?

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.

Pardon a mechanical analogy. Inductively, if you have a system where the parts are always going haywire and malfunctioning, needed to be altered and rebuilt, you would conclude that the system is not reliable. There would come a point after 2000 years of tinkering with that system where one could clearly say that the system itself was malfunctioning and no longer the same system it was. All I am saying is that after 2000 years of heresies reformations crusades apologetics for all of the above, political intrigue and doctrinal tweaks to justify this and that, the church is not the same as it was.

Yes it is an analogy and no I cannot prove it, especially if you don’t want to believe it. I never said I could.

But to me, the preponderance of evidence is clear.

 

[mfbukowski]

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.”

Too familiar. It’s broken 800 year old philosophy that was disproven long ago. As I said elsewhere: Newsflash: the earth now goes around the sun.

The only place they teach that stuff is in Catholic universities. Prove me wrong. Try to find one contemporary philosopher who is not catholic who believes that.

 

[Arandur]

This princple was also revealed. The quorum of the 12, per Joseph is equal in authority to the prophet. In the absence of the prophet therefore, the quorum of the 12 can select who is to be the succeeding prophet.

Thanks for the explanation. I didn’t know about the tradition.

The first part (which I quoted here) seems to be responding directly to what I said about there being some requirement for descent from Joseph Smith. If there is any such requirement or predestination, would you mind illuminating?

I have experience with CoC and Restorationists who seem to place more stock in the whole descendants of Joseph Smith thing, and I’m wondering what the differences are.

I have wondered about any requirement for relation because I don’t see much precedent in it in Salvation History.