Is Mormonism Pagan?

[majick275]

paul barlow:

show me scripture preferably from the saviour that he is without body parts or passions. then explain to me how if he has no body what were the marks that he got thomas to touch. explain christs baptism. and does not god the father have passions you had better ask the sons of aaron if god has passion. god sent his son not his left arm to save us. and i thought that you accepted that the scriptures were the word of god. god made man in his image.

Of course Christ had a body. He was God made man. The Catholic catechism is clear on this.

What do you want explained about Christs baptism?

God acts in our best interests always, he doesn’t “lash out” in emotional outbursts or fits of rage. when he has been stern it’s because we needed it.

God saved us.

Yes, God made man in his image. not an exact copy but an image.
paul barlow:

Rubbish and you know it

I don’t think it’s rubbish. i believe very strongly in the Catholic teaching on the nature of God.
paul barlow:

Oh please we all know the answer to that .that overcomes death and we do not make a big deal of it because every one is getting it thanks to the saviour. we are more concerned about getting people ready to accept the second part of christs sacrifice

What exactly do you mean by the “second part” of Christs sacrifice?

Again are you arguing this from a catholic point or what. as far as i can understand your church teaches that a child is born sinful and damned if they die before baptism which clearly ignores the purpose of the saviour coming to the earth.

I am trying my best to communicate the Catholic position on this. We are all born into sin. None are righteous and ALL require the blood of Christ to be saved. Catholics do teach baptism of desire and do not presume to limit Gods saving grace. We believe that we don’t know every name recorded in the “book of life”. I think we are VERY focused on the saviors purpose.

If you are arguing this point your teaching wrong catholic doctrine or dogma

I wasn’t "arguing"anything there. I was stating the LDS position on this from LDS sources for purposes of discussion.

**Of course we pray through jesus christ as our saviour and mediator to the Lord god. you know we do or is your memory very poor. who then witnesses to us in our prayers if its not the holy ghost. **

Once again, I have a problem with NOT praying TO Jesus.(note the difference) I also have a problem with not praying TO the Holy Spirit. They are ALL God.

you were a member for 42 years in all that time you never felt the spirit or bore testomony of jesus christ.

I felt a lot of things. Many of which had less to do with God and more with emotions and psychology. Ever been to a pentecostal service? Talk about burning in the bosom. I don’t recognize “feelings” as proof of God’s one , true church. I still bear testimony of Jesus Christ. I just know more about him now and can understand him better. How can people testify to “know” that something is true without even knowing what it is? yet this seen every testimony meeting in LDS churches. I would have less problem if folks said that they “beleived” it was true. But then that would be a much less effective tactic in controlling group dynamics.

I believe in the Nicene creed. ( won’t repost it for time sake) but that accurately describes my testimony. What I professed, taught, etc. in the past was mistaken and I have repented of those false doctrines.

God bless you.

 

[majick275]

paul barlow:

A bible we need no more that then means your church is dead or are you saying that during the middle ages when you had two popes selling church indulgences and selling the truth for earthly power and not fogetting the odd murderer scatted in there. did the authority dwell in a corupt man. no i don’t seem to remember a scripture saying that it would i see scriptures warning of this advent the priesthood of god can not dwell in filth. so there was a break in the line of authority. who restored the true and holy catholic church or has it not been done yet. and i find your claims worse.

Not sure what you are proposing here. In spite of the many wicked men who tried to hijack it, the church that God created and claimed would be with us always has survived. No restoration needed. Jesus spoke the truth, the gates of hell did not prevail against it.

yes your church did and would it not have been nice to have had all of the bible including the missing books in corinthians and the one in ephesians and the epistle to laodicea. maybe there is a need for more scripture. and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, god shall take away his part of the book of life and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book. so you had them what have you done with these words of god. i think you will find your church did.

Once again you need to read the history of the bible. Where are these “missing books” in your scriptures? We have tried our best to publish the words of God. Some writings simply couldn’t be verified as to divine origin.

this is addressing your church not ours the great apostacy was your church false teachings at least we are allowed to read the bible. who was it untill the reformation who stopped the common man from reading holy scripture burning people as heritics for printing the bible. and if your priesthood authority survived those evil men who bought the see of rome then you have just admitted that your church is fallen so well argued. you must have been a good sunday school teacher.

I disagree with you here. We stopped people from reading and publishing their own “homemade” scriptures to prevent errors from being spread. The RCC is what we have handed down from the Apostles. I was okay as a SS teacher. Classes were always full, got lots of compliments. Means nothing. I repent for teaching false doctrines.

God bless you.

 

[paul_barlow]

I disagree with you here. We stopped people from reading and publishing their own “homemade” scriptures to prevent errors from being spread. The RCC is what we have handed down from the Apostles. I was okay as a SS teacher. Classes were always full, got lots of compliments. Means nothing. I repent for teaching false doctrines.

God bless you.

I think you are in error your chuch did not stop people from making there own bibles to stop mistakes. They stopped its spread to maintain control of the common people. it was not untill the reformation that the bible was published to the common people. why did your church worry about the common man reading it. So to stop mistakes being made why did you not publish it. power money riches. i will use my country as an example. by the time of the sprit with rome. the abbeys ect own vast estates. I wonder if they would have if the lay members had a true understanding of the gospels.

 

[majick275]

The reason it wasn’t “published” back then was because they didn’t have printing presses. Each copy was handmade of costly materials.
That is why some people tried creating “homemade” bibles. They would end up with all kinds of copyist errors. The common man needs to have the real bible not some novices sloppy copy.

If England would have had more widely available scriptures that doesn’t mean that they would have been more literate. Please consider as well that at the time of Henry 8 the “common man” was pretty easily controlled already by the nobility through force of arms.

I wont presume to try and tell you British history but that’s pretty much how feudalism works anywhere.

 

[paul_barlow]

majick275:

The reason it wasn’t “published” back then was because they didn’t have printing presses. Each copy was handmade of costly materials.
That is why some people tried creating “homemade” bibles. They would end up with all kinds of copyist errors. The common man needs to have the real bible not some novices sloppy copy.

If England would have had more widely available scriptures that doesn’t mean that they would have been more literate. Please consider as well that at the time of Henry 8 the “common man” was pretty easily controlled already by the nobility through force of arms.

I wont presume to try and tell you British history but that’s pretty much how feudalism works anywhere.

the printing press had been invented you would not allow it to be printed on it.

 

[majick275]

Johan Gutenberg invented the FIRST printing press in the mid 1400s.
The FIRST mass produced book made with this?
The Bible.(Latin Vulgate 1455)

Before the printing press few outside of the clergy could read. The printing press allowed inexpensive books to be made for the first time ever. Until that time the “common man” simply couldn’t afford books and thus seldom learned to read.

 

[arieh0310]

majick275:

Johan Gutenberg invented the FIRST printing press in the mid 1400s.

And he did it with the permission of the Church for the explicit purpose of making the Bible more readily available.

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

Johan Gutenberg invented the FIRST printing press in the mid 1400s.
The FIRST mass produced book made with this?
The Bible.(Latin Vulgate 1455)

Before the printing press few outside of the clergy could read. The printing press allowed inexpensive books to be made for the first time ever. Until that time the “common man” simply couldn’t afford books and thus seldom learned to read.

Actually - Gutenberg didn’t invent the printing press: he did modify a press or two but his great contribution to printing was moveable type - block printing had been around in the West for some time (and in the East for much longer).

However - even though printed books were less expensive than those produced by copyists, the printed book was not something that the common man could afford (and if you’ve seen the sizes of the various Gutenberg Bible’s you know that they weren’t exactly made for an evening of sitting back and reading scripture by the fire).

Within an hundred years or so, the price of printed books did fall but, as you indicate, the economic systems at the time did not promote literacy among the masses: even in that great country of shopkeepers (!) the middle class might have been quick at sums, as necessary for business, but literacy was not as common.

Yet the myth persists that for thousands of years the Catholic Church fought to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common man… conspiracy theories are always more interesting than the truth.

 

[paul_barlow]

ben_dy:

Actually - Gutenberg didn’t invent the printing press: he did modify a press or two but his great contribution to printing was moveable type - block printing had been around in the West for some time (and in the East for much longer).

However - even though printed books were less expensive than those produced by copyists, the printed book was not something that the common man could afford (and if you’ve seen the sizes of the various Gutenberg Bible’s you know that they weren’t exactly made for an evening of sitting back and reading scripture by the fire).

Within an hundred years or so, the price of printed books did fall but, as you indicate, the economic systems at the time did not promote literacy among the masses: even in that great country of shopkeepers (!) the middle class might have been quick at sums, as necessary for business, but literacy was not as common.

Yet the myth persists that for thousands of years the Catholic Church fought to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common man… conspiracy theories are always more interesting than the truth.

what langauge were they in what happened to the people who published the bible in say english. i assume you know latin is a dead language even then. and who apart from the parish priest could read it. good discussion keep it up.

 

[PaulDupre]

paul barlow:

i assume you know latin is a dead language even then. and who apart from the parish priest could read it. good discussion keep it up.

Not true. Every educated person in the 1500’s could speak, read and write Latin. It was the lingua franca of the time. Most scientific and historical writings and other important works were composed in Latin at that time and for long afterwards.

Did you know that Henry VIII’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon, was the daughter of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain? When Catherine first arrived in England in 1509, it was to marry Henry’s older brother Arthur. Arthur died only 6 months into their marriage. After that she married Henry.

The interesting thing is that Catherine spoke no English and Arthur spoke no Spanish. But they were able to communicate easily, because they were both well educated, and therefore were fluent in Latin. Latin was the language they spoke and wrote to one another, and was the language she used with Henry VIII when she first married him, until she was eventually able to learn English.

God bless,
Paul