R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I was taught the same.
- Status
T
truthsilence
Guest
Diana,
You can guarantee no such thing. Will you try to guarantee me that I was never taught that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary (but he married her first)? I guarantee you that I WAS. In the Gospel Essentials Class, I can give you the ward, (Highland 2nd). The instructor, (Brother Polias). The 2nd Cnslr in attendance, (Brother Davidson). I can probably dig up a few more details if you like, maybe give you the teachers phone number since he lives right around the corner from me. Would that suffice?
Prayers,
Tami
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Are you serious? And you accuse me of mushy thinking?
You’re kidding right?
I don’t even know what that means
What is “christian faith?” Notice this whole thread cannot decide that one term
Revelations? we can’t even define that one word in this whole thread
claim to surpass? What does that mean? or correct?
The revelation of which christ is the fufillment? What is that? Isaiah and the OT?
It is a waste time. If I really thought you wanted to understand Mormonism it would be worth it, but you don’t. Go talk to your local mormon stake president if you want the answers. It will take you years to learn.
No one here is interesed in dialogue, just winning debates.
Fergetaboutit
Incidentally, I am now convinced that the Mormon position on revelation and the Catholic one are identical when you remove all the posturing and definitional contrivances. No doubt in my mind.
We would not accept any changes to the central core teaching of Jesus Christ any more than you do. Everything else if you really understand it, fits within your good old catechism number 67, or is biblical misunderstanding in different interpretations.
The trinity for example is not biblical. So if you take the bible plus section 67 of the catechsim, I honestly think that Mormonism = Catholicsim.
Bye for now. PS RebeccaJ- you were right!
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Gee if we’re getting into teaching details then I can too. I know the family. The teacher that told the story about the magic rocks held in the bottom of a hat was one of the most learned in the area, so I was told. His name was Brad Kelly. He passed away a number of years ago leaving 5 children as orphans. The youngest of these orphans was, at the time, not yet old enough to go to school. He’s in the army now. I know this because he used to board with a friend of mine.
I’m not so sure, however, that giving all this detail will convince the Mormons that doubt we were told these things. Some people like their own reality. They’re happier there.
I’m not so sure, however, that giving all this detail will convince the Mormons that doubt we were told these things. Some people like their own reality. They’re happier there.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Let me help you.
- Catholicism is the fullness of Christian faith.
- Mormonism is not Christianity, and Mormons are not Christians.
Now that wasn’t so hard, was it?
M
mfbukowski
Guest
This is exactly the attitude I was talking about. This thread is a waste.
All of you should go out and get some exercise. You are getting fat sitting on the computer all day. What is not happening in your lives that you do this to yourselves? You are wasting your lives!
Go do something productive, because this is not productive.
Your life will be over, you will look back and say
“Boy I really gave it to those__________” (insert favorite target here)
You think you are great apologists, but you are wasting your lives.
God Bless you all.
T
Tonks40
Guest
Ok, then, you tell us…what do the Mormons think who God and Christ is, then we’ll go from there.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
For what it’s worth, Dianaiad is always right on the money. I don’t know what you were taught or by whom but this is without any doubt not Mormon doctrine.
Listen to D for as long as she can hang in there. She is more experienced at taking this s…tuff than I am. I get too riled up!
But D is right on the money 100% of the time so if you need another voice to verify that, I will do that now.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Precisely correct. It is the same. If the spirit acts through the prophet, it is “anything God wants” same thing
S
seekdatruth
Guest
Arandur, you’re “feeding the troll” as someone else said on another thread. lol
Seriously, this guy has no interest in engaging in discussion that actually progresses to understanding or real knowledge of anything. He can pick on weak, or seemingly weak, points all day long. No mater how well a thing is explained to him, he will pretend he doesn’t know or try to twist it to work out in his favor. The other (out of two) good thing that guy who couldn’t spell said was it’s pointless. Ski even said it himself: “This thread is a waste.”
Don’t let him get under your skin. He’s just setting traps.
Seriously, this guy has no interest in engaging in discussion that actually progresses to understanding or real knowledge of anything. He can pick on weak, or seemingly weak, points all day long. No mater how well a thing is explained to him, he will pretend he doesn’t know or try to twist it to work out in his favor. The other (out of two) good thing that guy who couldn’t spell said was it’s pointless. Ski even said it himself: “This thread is a waste.”
Don’t let him get under your skin. He’s just setting traps.
A
Arandur
Guest
No, this thread was originally about the appellation “Christian,” not about “Christian faith.”
And the implicit definition used in the Catechism’s statement is really quite clear: “Christian faith” is that which accepts Christ as the fulfillment of Revelation. The Catechism’s argument, because it’s term is implicitly clear, is internally coherent. It doesn’t matter what other “definitions” or senses of the words “Christian faith” might be. The one being used here is clear and part of the teaching given. You can argue against it, but you can’t claim that it’s unclear or meaningless.
Again, it is internally sufficient for what the Catechism is saying. We don’t need to know every single definition of something or understand a concept fully in all its dimensions and be in full agreement about those things in order to even use it as a reference. You couldn’t have any sort of argument in the first place if that were the case. All that we need is to be clear about what we are referring to when we make an argument.
Well, anything that claims that Christ wasn’t finished, for one. That’s easily gleaned from the text. Anything that claims that it is superior to Christ’s revelation (like Muhammed and Joseph Smith). Anything that claims that what Christ said and did and gave us is not correct and needs to be changed, obviously.
If you’re asking for all that Christ revealed, you’d have to look at the rest of the context. The Catechism goes into more detail on those things. So does Scripture.
I know more than you probably realize, having spent 9 years already consistently in dialogue and research with Mormons and other Smithians, including some well-known LDS scholars.
Then why do you believe that your church is necessary?
Do you believe that revelation ceased? What form ceased?
Or do you just disagree with our teachings from that revelation? In this case, you don’t have a contention about continuing revelation, but about individual Catholic beliefs. Now that’s some progress!
Then it looks like your contention is about beliefs. Hop on the threads where they are discussed and discard everything produced by your church in those discussions–for if you believe that Smith and successors never tried to “surpass” or “correct” anything that Christ revealed, then you should be able to prove all of your beliefs without the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham, JST “Bible,” etc. If you need those works to prove your point, you have just claimed to have surpassed or corrected Christ. Good luck doing it without them.
A
Arandur
Guest
So what’s your problem with the Magisterium?
A
Arandur
Guest
I like trying to exercise the virtue of patience, and exercising my mind and faith. I honestly consider what points he makes, and have indeed amended a few things I’ve said as he’s helped me make some more precise points. Argument is like teaching in that you learn something more about things the more you have to explain it and address the challenge of trying to convey a message that someone else will understand.
I agree that there are likely more fruitful places for my attention, though.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
:newidea: How about providing us with coherent answer to the impossibility of the existence of more or less than one God? You’ve dodged that one so many times my counter has rolled over.
http://www.office365.co.uk/im/pim/321754.jpg
D
dianaiad
Guest
Yeah. I can.
That’s possible. However, it is NOT doctrine, and those who teach it are mistaken; they have been corrected when it is discovered. What you are talking about is what Catholics would term ‘heresy.’ Individuals might want to teach/believe it, but it is not a believe that they would be encouraged in, because, hello, that’s not true.
I CAN guarantee that you were not taught that Jesus was Michael. That idea is strictly a Jehovah’s Witness idea.
I don’t think he would appreciate it if you did that, y’know…and I rather imagine that he’s been corrected (hopefully gently) by now.
L
look3467
Guest
If the love of God can not unite us, then nothing else will.You are promoting syncretism, not Christianity.
You profile indicates you are a Catholic ad aeternum. A good confession is all it takes to heal your ruptured relationship with Christ. Please avail yourself of Christ’s Sacrament of Reconciliation. You can’t go wrong in accepting Christ’s mercy.
You and I can go out into the desert, a thousand miles from no where and we can both kneel down and pray to the same God.
Which one of us would you say God will listen to?
If you can say both, then there is your synergism.
I promote the love of God amongst all of the different religions first above all else, because all else is nothing but blinders on our eyes, that blind us from the true love of God.
Peace>>>AJ
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Is your God the same as the Gods of Mormonism?
L
look3467
Guest
The God of all creation is the God of all.
The gods whom we wish to worship are the gods of money, lust, power and greed.
Jesus made one sacrifice for all, and for all time, making salvation
a free gift.
The Mormons, the catholics, the Protestants, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the JW’s, the Atheists all know and understand that there is one creator.
Note: Atheists don’t admit but they to can excercise the same Godly loves as we can.
They worship Him in how they happen to know Him.
Being born an Indian from the remote tribes of Africa was not by choice, and being born a Muslim either.
Therefore, if God is to be a God over all, then He is a God to them also regardless of what they were made to be born into.
Now, it just so happens that you were born into a family that knew about God via church or the bible, therefore you think you have an advantage over them?
There is no advantage for the souls sake for Jesus took care of that.
However, there is and advantage of having access to knowledge of God and understanding over others who may be less fortunate.
So, the God of Mormonism is the God of creation whether they want to address Him as such or not, just as Allah is the name of the creator by which the Muslims want to address Him by.
You see, dear brother or sister, Jesus changed the our dead souls into live souls before any of us had any knowledge of it.
Since we now have knowledge of it, then it behooves us to spread the word by mouth and by our actions.
Translated, love of God in action in us.
If you are a Catholic, a protestant, Muslim or other and demonstrate none of the God like qualities, then they are missing the mark.
It really comes down to one word, LOVE.
If we don’t have it within, will a religion make us have it?
We get so busy swatting at nats we miss the big one.
Peace>>>AJ
1
1holycatholic
Guest
S
seekdatruth
Guest
LOOK who hasn’t been paying any attention, whatsoever.
- Status