Is Mormonism Christian ?

[mfbukowski]

Yea! I finally got to the last post at this moment.

I am going to now spend some time with seekdatruth who seems to be asking legitimate questions. There are only so many hours in a day.

 

[1holycatholic]

Context of entire body of scripture.
As above, I agree with all this. Word for word, with the understanding I am refering to a different church!

There is no different Church, there is only one Church, the Catholic Church.

 

[mfbukowski]

Reply

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

S:Yet when I read stuff from official sources and ask a question about it, someone always says something that totally contradicts what was in writing, or is found in the D&C, or again just doesn’t answer

I will try to remedy that and if I do it, tell me ok?

M:I think many of the misrepresentations I see and hear are from the fact that we answer questions others don’t even ask.
S:Yes, dodge my question and answer a question I didn’t even ask

HUH? Did I just do that? I am telling you the source of the misrepresentations. Did I miss a question you asked?

M: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?

S:That is a great mystery He has not yet revealed. Do YOU know the secret meaning of life? If so, tell me! [wringing hands eagerly]

OK but first I want you to understand that YOU don’t know the answers here, and you asked me, and some of this is speculative non- doctrine, and some of it is actual doctrine, and I will tell you which is which.

First the scriptures. All these are from the “standard works” which include the bible the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. If you want to read these quotes in context, the reference to this whole page of quotes is below, and you can click on each quote to read as much as you want of the context

scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=topics&last=Man+Antemortal+Existence&help=&to=checked&search=Man+Spirit+Child+Heavenly+Father&it=scriptures&hw=checked&st=checked&bt=1

This is going to take a few posts. You asked for it!
continued…

 

[MelanieAnne]

You are wrong.
We pray as Jesus himself taught us. “Our father who art in heaven”…
Jesus is not a subordinate of heavenly father. He is his son. The bible says that "in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word WAS GOD. " Did you know that we believe the bible? Jesus was YAWEH of the OT and is the creator of the universe. Hard to do that if you are not God!

You are right that Mormonism differs from the rest of Christianity which is apostate. We believe we are the “truest” of Christians so we find it ironic that you all have co-opted our word. But so be it.

You don’t appear to know much about Mormonism despite your protestations. Show me quotes that show that Jesus is “subordinate” to the Father.

I cannot stop you from saying anything you want to, but I will correct your errors.

1. The Our Father is not a prayer TO Jesus. You keep confirming the truth of what I say! I’ve yet to ever hear a Mormon pray TO Jesus. Most other Mormons don’t have a problem confirming that this is true, so I don’t know why you do.
2. There was no apostasy. That is a fantasy created to explain the creation of Mormonism.
3. Mormons are not Christian. The Mormon Jesus is not the same Jesus. Since we were the first Christians, you are the ones that need to find a new word to describe yourselves.

You have no idea what I know Bukowski. Perhaps pride causes you to continue to make these warrantless charges, who knows. You can’t correct my errors because I haven’t made any. Perhaps you don’t like the truths I bring to light, but that’s hardly the same thing.

 

[mfbukowski]

continued…

To: seekdatruth

Scriptures about where we come from, link was provided in earlier post.

Acts 17
28 For in him we alive, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Romans 8
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

Eph. 4: 6
6 One God and a Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Heb. 12: 9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the e Father of spirits, and live?
1 Ne. 17: 36
36 Behold, the Lord hath created the earth that it should be inhabited; and he hath created his children that they should possess it.
Moses 3: 5
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;
Moses 6: 51
51 And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh.
Abr. 3: 22
22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

So God is the father of our spirits, and we existed before we came here, as his spirit children.
He created the world for us, so that we could become “joint heirs” of all our father has with Christ (Romans 8 above)

This is the answer to your first question.

But unfortunately it’s late and it’s my turn to have to take off.

Until I am finished with your question in that earlier post, I will not respond to anyone else. I will respond to your further questions as we go along though if you want me to.

See you tomorrow-- to be continued!

 

[1holycatholic]

First the scriptures. All these are from the “standard works” which include the bible the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. If you want to read these quotes in context, the reference to this whole page of quotes is below, and you can click on each quote to read as much as you want of the context

The Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church established by Christ. It’s context is part of the deposit of faith given by Jesus to the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That is the context of the Bible. The other documents you listed are spurious.

 

[mfbukowski]

1. The Our Father is not a prayer TO Jesus. You keep confirming the truth of what I say! I’ve yet to ever hear a Mormon pray TO Jesus. Most other Mormons don’t have a problem confirming that this is true, so I don’t know why you do.

quick reply: technically you are correct. We pray as we were instructed by Jesus – to our father in Jesus’ name. Praying directly to Jesus is incorrect per his own instructions.
No more responses to you until I am finished with seekdatruth. But Jesus is also the father of our salvation and is referred to as the Father in many Mormon scriptures. So the line of demarcation is not that clear. But prayers are addressed to the Father by name. Some pray “Dear Lord…” and then the line is not clear at all. Or just “Dear Father…”-- again unclear.

 

[MelanieAnne]

quick reply: technically you are correct. We pray as we were instructed by Jesus – to our father in Jesus’ name. Praying directly to Jesus is incorrect per his own instructions.
No more responses to you until I am finished with seekdatruth

Don’t worry Bukowski, I’m not clamoring for your attention!

 

[mfbukowski]

Don’t worry Bukowski, I’m not clamoring for your attention!

No one else is either-- I just felt that I needed to answer honest questions. I edited the post – check the new reply

 

[RebeccaJ]

CFR please. What section? I’m tired of doing all the work

Here.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So the “clarification” about Limbo – revelation or not? Yes or no?

Yes. Doctrinal? No.

 

[RebeccaJ]

"Arundur:

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.

I have no clue what you are talking about here.

The Catholic Church is the mystical Body of Christ. I have told you before that by your Catholic baptism you are a part of this Body. Have you not understood what I have been telling you?

I am NOT saying, a congregation, or group. I mean, by your Catholic baptism you are joined to Christ, and are partaking of the Divine Nature of God.

The Church is alive with the Spirit of God, which is the Holy Spirit.

All of this is Revelation, with a capital ‘R’. The type that God Reveals about Himself. The type that He has been revealing to the Prophets in the OT. To bring about the Salvation of mankind.

Jesus Christ Revealed, perfectly, completely, in HIMSELF, of HIMSELF, God’s Salvation.

This is the type of Revelation that both I and Arundur are telling you the same thing: there is no more. How could there be? To believe there has to be more, or is more, is to claim that the God’s Revelation of the Son, which includes our Salvation, is incomplete. Or worse, ineffective.

The Church exists for one reason, to bring people to Jesus Christ and their Salvation. There is no other purpose that Jesus revealed. To believe that there is more, is to believe that Jesus Himself is an incomplete Revelation.

We are in agreement on this, Arundur, I and every Catholic. God has no more Revelation to give us. He has given us the Final, Ultimate, Truth in His Son, Jesus Christ.

mfbukowski:

But the bolded portion sure seems to conflict with this:

Arundur:

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.

revelation, with a little ‘r’. Not because it is less important, but because it is not the type of Revelation that pertains to our Salvation.

The type of revelation provided by the Holy Spirit, which bestows God’s graces in many ways. Giving us the knowledge of God Himself, His Will and His Guidance.

Revelation given to us by the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life (private). As compared to Revelation given to us by Jesus Christ (public).

mfbukowski:

And this:

Arundur:

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.

Stating the same thing is all. The Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church. We recognize that this is necessary and also that the Church contains this gift.

mfbukowski:

I wish you and RebeccaJ would talk and get the story straight here.

Actually let Rebecca translate for you. She speaks Mormon. If you agree with her post on the subject I will believe that you two both believe the same thing, but right now it appears that half the time you are diametrically opposed. Half the time because you seem to contradict yourself and I don’t know what half to respond to.

Do you understand now?

 

[dianaiad]

Revelation: Public and Private

Thank you for posting that link. It was very interesting.

There is one question, however, that intrigues me, and I’ve never been able, quite, to get past it:

If ‘public revelation’ ceased with Christ, then how come we know anything about Him?

Indeed, everything we know about His divine nature is a direct result of the very sort of public revelation that Cardinal Z claims ceased.

In fact, Paul is absolute proof that it did not cease when Christ was crucified, or resurrected, or Ascended; he didn’t know Christ personally. He never met Him, except on that road to Damascus—and that, sir, is REVELATION with a capital R.E.V.E.L.A.T.I.O.N, as is everything Paul wrote down as scripture, by it’s very nature and definition.

In fact, the apostle Paul causes a few problems for those who claim that the bible says there would be no more revelation after Christ was crucified/resurrected/ascended.

So, come to think of it, do the apostles Luke, John, Matthew, Peter and Mark. Perhaps, especially, John the Beloved and Paul…

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think we are closer than you think.

Let me change a few words.

"The confusion is no on the part of us Mormons. We are in agreement. You seem to not be grasping that we define revelation in two ways. Which, we have discussed before.

Also, the scriptures are quite clear about revelation.

Yes, this is what we believe about the conferences. Same thing for when a prophet is selected. I had never checked out the whole goings on for selecting a prophet. I read about it recently. Very prayer and sacrament centered.

Authority given to the Apostles who gave that authority to the Bishops by the laying on of hands. Apostolic succession, every Bishop has it.

Catholics lack this authority

You should work on those listening skills.

 

[1holycatholic]

Thank you for posting that link. It was very interesting.

There is one question, however, that intrigues me, and I’ve never been able, quite, to get past it:

If ‘public revelation’ ceased with Christ, then how come we know anything about Him?

Indeed, everything we know about His divine nature is a direct result of the very sort of public revelation that Cardinal Z claims ceased.

In fact, Paul is absolute proof that it did not cease when Christ was crucified, or resurrected, or Ascended; he didn’t know Christ personally. He never met Him, except on that road to Damascus—and that, sir, is REVELATION with a capital R.E.V.E.L.A.T.I.O.N, as is everything Paul wrote down as scripture, by it’s very nature and definition.

In fact, the apostle Paul causes a few problems for those who claim that the bible says there would be no more revelation after Christ was crucified/resurrected/ascended.

So, come to think of it, do the apostles Luke, John, Matthew, Peter and Mark. Perhaps, especially, John the Beloved and Paul…

The article doesn’t state what you are claiming. Go back and read the linked article.

 

[seekdatruth]

Thank you for posting that link. It was very interesting.

There is one question, however, that intrigues me, and I’ve never been able, quite, to get past it:

If ‘public revelation’ ceased with Christ, then how come we know anything about Him?

Indeed, everything we know about His divine nature is a direct result of the very sort of public revelation that Cardinal Z claims ceased.

In fact, Paul is absolute proof that it did not cease when Christ was crucified, or resurrected, or Ascended; he didn’t know Christ personally. He never met Him, except on that road to Damascus—and that, sir, is REVELATION with a capital R.E.V.E.L.A.T.I.O.N, as is everything Paul wrote down as scripture, by it’s very nature and definition.

In fact, the apostle Paul causes a few problems for those who claim that the bible says there would be no more revelation after Christ was crucified/resurrected/ascended.

So, come to think of it, do the apostles Luke, John, Matthew, Peter and Mark. Perhaps, especially, John the Beloved and Paul…

Have we still not given up on the “Catholic Church doesn’t receive revelation anymore” assertion? What gives? I think this is just an attempt to wear people down so that you can “win”. I’m indeed worn-out(woo-hoo, chalk one up for the other team, whatever) and have things to do, but I just gotta cut through the doo doo one last time before I go night night:

1. The Catholic Church does not define anyone who receives a modern-day revelation, public or private, a “prophet”. Revelations do still occur. People who receive public revelations are called “saints”. Anyone who God chooses can receive a revelation. You don’t need a card or to have won a popularity contest, it doesn’t matter what age you are or gender, you don’t have to be the Pope. The Catholic stories of revelations are not in the collection of ancient biblical texts we refer to as the “Holy Bible” or “Scripture”. Are stories of modern day LDS prophets carried around as part of what you would call “scripture”? This could be a point of confusion here.
   The Catholic Church does not have an office or “calling” that is defined as “prophet”.
   Nighty-night! :yawn:

 

[seekdatruth]

Someone just alerted me to your posts, mfbukowski.
Thanks for responding, I will try to read them tomorrow when I have more time to take it in and respond if necessary.
PEACE

 

[dianaiad]

Have we still not given up on the “Catholic Church doesn’t receive revelation anymore” assertion? What gives? I think this is just an attempt to wear people down so that you can “win”. I’m indeed worn-out(woo-hoo, chalk one up for the other team, whatever) and have things to do, but I just gotta cut through the doo doo one last time before I go night night:

1. The Catholic Church does not define anyone who receives a modern-day revelation, public or private, a “prophet”. Revelations do still occur. People who receive public revelations are called “saints”. Anyone who God chooses can receive a revelation. You don’t need a card or to have won a popularity contest, it doesn’t matter what age you are or gender, you don’t have to be the Pope. The Catholic stories of revelations are not in the collection of ancient biblical texts we refer to as the “Holy Bible” or “Scripture”. Are stories of modern day LDS prophets carried around as part of what you would call “scripture”? This could be a point of confusion here.
   The Catholic Church does not have an office or “calling” that is defined as “prophet”.
   Nighty-night! :yawn:

I hope you had a good night’s sleep.

The confusion lies in this: yes, anyone can receive private revelation. The problem is in the word ‘public.’ “public” revelation is, according to the article, ‘for the world.’

Where is the world going to get access to that revelation? Why, someone (hopefully the prophet) wrote it down. If he didn’t, it’s not exactly ‘public,’ is it?

What DO you call public revelation for the world that is written down?

Scripture.The word of God.

And your question about whether we have the revelation of modern prophets written down as scripture and that we carry around? The answer is…yep. We do. We do not believe that the canon is closed.

 

[dianaiad]

T

We are in agreement on this, Arundur, I and every Catholic. God has no more Revelation to give us. He has given us the Final, Ultimate, Truth in His Son, Jesus Christ.

Then why did He talk to Paul?

Paul never knew Jesus in life. He never saw Jesus resurrected. He did not see Him ascend. In that he was no different from you or me; all he had to go on was the testimony of those who did know Him, and…

revelation.

Yet because he received that revelation (and many others, obviously) his words and his letters are scripture.

One of the scriptures most quoted to me is from Hebrews; Paul wrote, in Hebrews 1:1-2:
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

This is used as a proof text that there would be no more prophets after Christ. Yet, if one interprets them in THAT way, Paul is utterly condemning—himself.

 

[seekdatruth]

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.
They use that term"infallability" loosely, (Personally, I don’t like anything used “loosely”, but that’s me.) and even when something is “excathedra”, it must still be consistent with Scripture. The Pope still calls a council and discusses any changes he believes appropriate, from what I understand. Christians, including the Catholic Church, have looked at the BOM and determined it is inconsistent with Scripture and traditional interpretations of it. Even if a Pope had announced that he had witnessed what Joseph Smith says he witnessed, there would be a serious investigation during which they would compare the current revelation to ancient Scripture. The severe contradictions found between the modern revelation and what we learned 2000+years ago (OT would be the +) would throw up many red flags and likely this would be disregarded or interpreted differently than to say, “GOSH! WE’RE ALL WORKING FOR THE DEVIL AND SHOULD THROW OUT ALL WE EVER KNEW!” You could say, “Well maybe that’s why it wasn’t revealed to the Catholic Church. AH HA!!!” Maybe it was and regarded as baloney, who knows? **The real question is then why did Christ go through all the trouble to be born, die, resurrect, and then leave the keys to apostles? ** Also giving our North American buddies a whole different take on things and then they get wiped out and nothing left but some plates only one guy saw?

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!
Sorry, but it was someone who was being quite feisty and he said he was LDS. It was a couple of months ago, I don’t know if I can find it. I remember you being on that thread, so hence the confusion on my part.

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”
It’s good to know that this seems to be universal and included in what Mormons believe too.

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.
I believe that is also very true about the Catholic Church OF TODAY. Yeah, in the Middle Ages and not too distant past, the Pope was regarded like that. Some Catholics still think that way, but when it came down to it, they’d never actually jump in any lake, they’d go start a religion of their own. I cut the rest off because it’s explained above.
Thanks for trusting that I am indeed looking for the truth about things and not just trying to set a trap and wait for you to “screw up” I believe that most Mormons mean well and are usually not aware of any difference between them and other “Christians”<–used loosely :doh2: I did it! Outer differences they seem to have an edge on such as fewer alcoholics and more family-oriented, etc make it appear they are “more Christian” than anyone else. This is all good Godly stuff and I wish my fellow Catholics kept house and cared for their kids like a lot of Mormons do, BUT it stops there. The contradiction is between two very different understandings and revelations <–the big one of God. And further the culture of the LDS is such that those who are not LDS are separated from them, even family. Shunning loved ones because they refuse to convert or choose another religion is ridiculous, but I see it all the time, and I dread the day when my in-laws finally convince my children that they belong with them and to turn their backs on me. I will be very sad.