Is Mormonism Christian ?

[RebeccaJ]

That would be a perfectly acceptable answer if you weren’t so insistent upon following our ideas of Him to a conclusion you disagree with.

I followed Mormonism’s ideas to a false conclusion of God. Why in the hell do you think I was atheist? Your religion taught me about a false god.

Or would you accept “I trust that God is God, and thus, I do not need to worry over such questions” from a MORMON?

Mormons, always editing what I am saying. I said what I meant to say. If you want to have this little dialog inside of Diana’s head, go for it, but you can leave me out of your fantasy land.

 

[Stephen168]

Who is the ‘them’ you claim to have asked?

I asked ‘Snow’, ‘K0nod541, and mfbukowski :
Do mormons believe:
The Book of Mormon is a history of the American Aborigines translated by Joseph Smith?

-and-

The Book of Mormon a history dating from 600BC to about 421 AD claiming the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews?

Which actually breaks down to four questions:

1. Did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?
2. Is the Book of Mormon a history of the American Aborigines?
3. Does the history take place between 600BC and about 421AD?
4. Does it claim the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews?

I never received at straight answer.

 

[mfbukowski]

You have never given a coherent response to this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4023738&postcount=43

Just saying “I’m a post-Wittgensteinian, you wouldn’t understand.” is a cop out. You have never answered the question. If you think that Wittgenstein has something relevant to say, then state it.

Dang dude, that’s from August? So you have been after me for an answer to this since then? Wow-- you ARE serious

All I know is as usual, you made one of your 50 words or less crytpic posts without any backups

For something to be able to change it must exist in time.
Things that existing atemporally have no potential for change and, by necessity, must be fully actual (with no potential.)

It is not possible for two things to be fully actual. They would be indistinguishable and would be, in fact, the same thing.

Time (and the possibility of things existing with potential) is created by a prime mover.

Therefor a prime mover must exist atemporally, singularly and fully actual

This is fundamental philosophy stuff that has been discussed through the history of philosophy. The reason it is relevant that I am a Wittgensteinian is that W believes that language gets its meaning from a specific context.

The context for your undefended assertion of these statements is a logical system which began with the ancients, as represented by Aquinas, and which no one any longer takes seriously.

It is like you are discussing which leach removes the evil humours for the disease of consumption best.

Or maybe in a discussion of the nature of the substance of an angel, whether or not their substance can co-exist in the same time and space. This discussion is popularly characterized in the popular mind as “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”, or occupy the same space. Irrelevant to today’s theology.

The whole context is ancient and has no meaning in the modern world. Or like some discussion about astrology and whether Cancers really are like Saggitarians because when the moon is in Jupiter, or… whatever.

But if you actually want to discuss this, and promise to respond with more than 50 words, I will go at these questions for a Wittgensteinian perspective because I am a wonderful person.

It could be relevant to other Catholics who, from my perspective, are caught in a logical time warp.

You realize that this could be a 1000 post thread, right?

So let’s start with seeing if we can talk about it at all within your self-imposed cryptic 50 word limit style, and then take it to another thread if there’s anything there worth discussing.

Premise 1:
For something to be able to change it must exist in time.
Things that existing atemporally have no potential for change and, by necessity, must be fully actual (with no potential.)

I have no clue what this means, so we have to start at the very beginning. This is totally metaphysical and no way any of this can be proven anyway. This whole discussion will essentially be a matter of faith.

For something to be able to change …

Is time a thing? Or is change itself time? That is, how is time different from change itself? That is, could we measure time in a way that is different from how we measure “change”? If there is no way to measure a difference between the way we measure change and the way we measure time, there is no difference between time and change itself. And I think that that is the case.

So it seems to me that time IS change. So speaking of time as “something” other than change is misleading. What would that “something” be?

What things do not change? I do not know of any things which do not change. They are made of electrons protons and neutrons which are in constant state of flux. All things are always changing, so what is this strange “ability to change”?

Do the propositions of mathmatics exist in time? Are they created by humans? Are they immutable principles of the universe which do not change? But if the universe is constantly changing, how can it generate principles which do not change?

Do the principles of mathmatics exist outside of time? If so, are they co-eternal with God or did he create them?

What kind of things exist atemporally? You postulate that God does- but does he? Does it make sense (as I have asked before) to speak of a time “before” time? Can it even be conceived by the human mind?

If we ever get to it, we are really going to have problems with “fully actual”. What on earth does that mean? Is my concept of a unicorn fully actual? Or is it potential? Does that concept exist in time?

So much for half of premise one. Fifty words won’t do it I am afraid.
PS I lied. This post that you have been waiting since August for me to answer is 80 words. Congratulations! your longest ever!

 

[mfbukowski]

I asked ‘Snow’, ‘K0nod541, and mfbukowski :
Do mormons believe:
The Book of Mormon is a history of the American Aborigines translated by Joseph Smith?

-and-

The Book of Mormon a history dating from 600BC to about 421 AD claiming the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews?

Which actually breaks down to four questions:

1. Did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?
2. Is the Book of Mormon a history of the American Aborigines?
3. Does the history take place between 600BC and about 421AD?
4. Does it claim the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews?

I never received at straight answer.

I am now 4 pages behind and this thread is going so fast— but I spotted this one and I will bite.

Which actually breaks down to four questions:

1. Did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?

Yes.

1. Is the Book of Mormon a history of the American Aborigines?

It is a fragmented spiritual history of the descendents of one family who came here from Jerusalem (what- maybe 20 people? I have never counted) and then who’s descendents mixed with people who were here before, during and after they arrived.(the Nephites) It also includes an account of the Jaredites which were a larger group who were from the mideast as well, who arrived well before the Nephites. It is certainly not a “history” of all the zillions of people who lived on two continents during this time period.

1. Does the history take place between 600BC and about 421AD?

Unless I forgot something, that sounds about right. The traditionally accepted dates are listed page by page in the notes, but without looking it up, that sounds about right.

1. Does it claim the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews?

No. The BOM doesn’t say that anywhere.

 

[truthsilence]

mfbukowski,

I was told that time is a measure of change, which makes sense to me. I believe God is unchanging (He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow - since we’re measuring); and so it stands to reason that He does exist ‘outside’ of time.

 

[mfbukowski]

It is not all of what a prophet is. What you have said here suggests that anyone can be a prophet, not necessarily just one with a titular office, and so mski should not have been upset about the children at Fatima receiving revelation when it was not their place.

Nope. never said that. Everyone can receive revelation. What I found inconsistent was that the children at Fatima received revelation which the magesterium decided was “public revelation”.

But when you demonstrated that the magesterium can do whatever it wants with making private revelation into public revelation, the seeming conflict I thought was in your system of theology was shown not to be a conflict within that system.

I still disagree theologically however with the notion that any children could receive true revelation for the whole church. But if that is your system, that is your system

 

[Bill_Pick]

I am now 4 pages behind and this thread is going so fast— but I spotted this one and I will bite.

Yes.

It is a fragmented spiritual history of the descendents of one family who came here from Jerusalem (what- maybe 20 people? I have never counted) and then who’s descendents mixed with people who were here before, during and after they arrived.(the Nephites) It also includes an account of the Jaredites which were a larger group who were from the mideast as well, who arrived well before the Nephites. It is certainly not a “history” of all the zillions of people who lived on two continents during this time period.

Unless I forgot something, that sounds about right. The traditionally accepted dates are listed page by page in the notes, but without looking it up, that sounds about right.

No. The BOM doesn’t say that anywhere.

Book of Mormon
The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461.)
Devil, the
The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,” (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.)
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
God
God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans…” (D&C 130:22).
God, becoming a god
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.)
“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them,” (DC 132:20).
God, many gods
There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
"And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light (Book of Abraham 4:3)
God, mother goddess
There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443.)
God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine p. 516.)
God, Trinity
The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man.” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)
Heaven
There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, Mormon Doctrine, p. 348.
Holy Ghost, the
The Holy Ghost is a male personage, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, (Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, page 118; Journal of Discources, Vol. 5, page 179.)

 

[truthsilence]

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.

Hi Diana,

I still say there is really no way you can *guarantee *that a particular teaching wasn’t given, since you weren’t there to know. I was never personally taught that ‘Jesus was Michael’, but I was taught a myriad of other things that I believe are just as absurd.

And yes, you would have thought my teacher would have been corrected on the Virgin Birth, since, as I mentioned, there was a member of the bishopric in attendance. If he’d told the class “this isn’t Church doctrine, this is an instructors speculation”, it would have helped. I found out later that what was taught to us that day is a commonly held belief in the Church, although as you said, not doctrine. I do think its one of those things that is getting ‘weeded out’ over time. Thanks be to God.

I’d be willing to bet, Diana, that if you went to mass tomorrow you wouldn’t hear anything there, that would grieve your spirit. I dunno, it’s just a hunch.

 

[jim1130]

I know that Mary is not part of the Trinity and that she is “created” etc etc. But this is an analogy. Really I just wanted to bring in that both had bodies and that Catholics have no problem with that. So if they can have bodies, and if Jesus has a body, why can the Father NOT have a body?

Why is that?

God is pure spirit. He is not made in our likeness, but we in His.

God revealed Himself as a burning bush to Moses. Why?

Think of Is 6:5 “Woe is me! I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips.”

“for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst” Hos 11:9

St. Augustine said “If you understood him, it would not be God.”

Christ is God, the Word made Flesh.

“No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” [Jn 1:18].

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; [Jn 1:1]

CCC 234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the “hierarchy of the truths of faith”. The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men “and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin”.

 

[jim1130]

Hi Diana,

I still say there is really no way you can *guarantee *that a particular teaching wasn’t given, since you weren’t there to know. I was never personally taught that ‘Jesus was Michael’,

I thought that Adam was St. Michael the Archangel?

Chapter 6 – The Fall of Adam and Eve

In the spirit world Adam was called Michael the Archangel (see D&C 27:11; Jude 1:9).

 

[1holycatholic]

Now, strange gods are defined as, images, worldly lusts: greed, power, sensual desires, hate, love of money and to take what is not ours.

I don’t dispute that people make gods out of avarice etc…

Has it ever occurred to you that “strange gods” means “strange gods”???

Mormons believe in many gods. There is only one God, all others are strange gods.

 

[1holycatholic]

The question is, will we place ourselves first above the one true God is to worship ourselves as gods and not surrender ourselves to the one true God which is His desire.

In rejecting the Catholic Church established by Christ, how have you not elevated yourself above God?

 

[truthsilence]

I thought that Adam was St. Michael the Archangel?

Chapter 6 – The Fall of Adam and Eve

In the spirit world Adam was called Michael the Archangel (see D&C 27:11; Jude 1:9).

Well, I suppose if we want to open up a can of Brigham Young worms, with that Adam/God theory…nah lets not go there.

 

[dianaiad]

I asked ‘Snow’, ‘K0nod541, and mfbukowski :
Do mormons believe:
The Book of Mormon is a history of the American Aborigines translated by Joseph Smith?

-and-

The Book of Mormon a history dating from 600BC to about 421 AD claiming the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews?

Which actually breaks down to four questions:

1. Did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?
2. Is the Book of Mormon a history of the American Aborigines?
3. Does the history take place between 600BC and about 421AD?
4. Does it claim the principal ancestors of the American Indians are Hebrews?

I never received at straight answer.

I think you probably did. You just didn’t like it. However, I will attempt simple and straight answers.

We believe that the answers to your four questions are:
1 yes
2. Some, but by no means all, of them. After all, the Book of Mormon speaks of two groups of people who migrated from the middle east, and both sets found people ALREADY THERE. A lot of them, as a matter of fact.
3.No. It actually covers a timeline from about 2200 BC to about 421 AD, give or take.
4. No, actually, it doesn’t. Some of the first members of the church seemed to think so, but there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that claims this for itself. Please refer to answer #2.

 

[jake23]

Mormons proudly say there are 14 million followers of there faith, but they neglect to aknowledge that over 30% are still on the books of members but have left the accult after joining. There is also a huge decrease in conversions to the mormon faith thanks to christian outreach educating people about the accult. Majority of the converts today are uneducated people in other countries. Utah itseld is decreasing in its percentage of Mormons residing in the state. If you know any mormons or people considering making the mistake of joining please introduce them to the DVD’s “The Book of Mormon vs. The Bible” and “The Book of Mormon vs DNA” they are educated videos about archeology, science,DNA, and scripture that show that Jospeh Smith was merely a false prophet looking to make some money and take on some little girls as wives along the way. Also read the book by one of Brigham Youngs wife called the 25th wife that exposes some of the darker sides of a mormon leader and sucessor of Joseph Smith. Also watch the movie “September Falls” a movie about the Mormons massercre of defendless christian pioneers.
PS dina the Catholic church is 2000 years old not 14 or 1500 years old!

 

[dianaiad]

I am now 4 pages behind and this thread is going so fast— but I spotted this one and I will bite.

Yes.

It is a fragmented spiritual history of the descendents of one family who came here from Jerusalem (what- maybe 20 people? I have never counted) and then who’s descendents mixed with people who were here before, during and after they arrived.(the Nephites) It also includes an account of the Jaredites which were a larger group who were from the mideast as well, who arrived well before the Nephites. It is certainly not a “history” of all the zillions of people who lived on two continents during this time period.

Unless I forgot something, that sounds about right. The traditionally accepted dates are listed page by page in the notes, but without looking it up, that sounds about right.

No. The BOM doesn’t say that anywhere.

(pssst…you forgot the Jaredites…)

 

[dianaiad]

Book of Mormon
The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461.)
Devil, the
The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,” (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.)
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
God
God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans…” (D&C 130:22).
God, becoming a god
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.)
“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them,” (DC 132:20).
God, many gods
There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)
"And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light (Book of Abraham 4:3)
God, mother goddess
There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443.)
God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine p. 516.)
God, Trinity
The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man.” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.)
Heaven
There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, Mormon Doctrine, p. 348.
Holy Ghost, the
The Holy Ghost is a male personage, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, (Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, page 118; Journal of Discources, Vol. 5, page 179.)

Very nice picking and choosing.

Now would you care to share with us those quotes, IN CONTEXT, so that we can see what they all actually DO say?

Because, Bill, your credibility and research skills are not…

well, just give us the quotes.

 

[dianaiad]

Hi Diana,

I still say there is really no way you can *guarantee *that a particular teaching wasn’t given, since you weren’t there to know. I was never personally taught that ‘Jesus was Michael’, but I was taught a myriad of other things that I believe are just as absurd.

I can guarantee that because 1: the idea that Jesus is Michael is a Jehovah’s Witness idea and 2: because we believe that ADAM was Michael. Whether you consider that idea as equally strange or not is irrelevant; it matters only that you would not have been taught this when our own beliefs regarding Michael are very clear–and very different from your claim.

It would be like a Catholic being able to GUARANTEE that no Catholic was ever taught that Mary had other children, or that Jesus got married. It is too antithetical to your beliefs.

And yes, you would have thought my teacher would have been corrected on the Virgin Birth, since, as I mentioned, there was a member of the bishopric in attendance. If he’d told the class “this isn’t Church doctrine, this is an instructors speculation”, it would have helped. I found out later that what was taught to us that day is a commonly held belief in the Church, although as you said, not doctrine. I do think its one of those things that is getting ‘weeded out’ over time. Thanks be to God.

I’d be willing to bet, Diana, that if you went to mass tomorrow you wouldn’t hear anything there, that would grieve your spirit. I dunno, it’s just a hunch.

I doubt very much that anything in a Mass would grieve my spirit. Why would it? Those who celebrate it, and those who attend it in faith, are exercising their heartfelt faith in Christ.

That’s never a bad thing.

I would, I think, have to be coached through stuff, and my knee might give me grief in the kneeling bits, but hey; that’s just…stuff.

 

[jake23]

Bill those versus still mean the same if you ad the other versus. Poeple liek diana and other accult members are brainwashed to defend and react that way by there accult leaders. If they did not then how could they go on believeing what they believe. That is the difference between them and ex-mormons like me who actualy find it more important to find God than to be accepted in a group. They cannot never give you a straight answer of agree with anything a christian presents because the accult would nolonger ba able to exist. There is too much proving that Joseph Smith was a false prophet but they refuse to see it and will not be convinced by anyone. There are however a large number of mormons are opening there eyes and leaving the faith. You would enjoy watching the DVD “The Book of Mormon vs. The Bible” and “The Book of Mormon vs. DNA” if those two alone doesnt open the eyes of a mormon nothing will!

 

[Bill_Pick]

Very nice picking and choosing.

Now would you care to share with us those quotes, IN CONTEXT, so that we can see what they all actually DO say?

Because, Bill, your credibility and research skills are not…

well, just give us the quotes.

if you look you will see the pages what more are you looking for and talking lets talk about our lord being married to several women and the marrage fest at cana was his wedding reception.