LDS and ancient record...

[Telstar]

Peter and Andrew (my proof-reading really stinks, doesn’t it?).

Yes, it does. I was actually beginning to wonder if LDS really thought Simon and Peter were 2 different people. It wouldn’t be the first time I found some strange interpretations from their readings of the Bible, so I was just making sure.

I’m not questioning the truth of the Bible, just the faulty logic of rejecting BOM witnesses simply on the basis of their familial relationships to Joseph Smith. That turns out to be a double-standard if you apply the same logic vis-a-vis the Bible. Sorry you missed the point.

My point was that none of the so-called “witnesses” ever actually set eyes on any of those ‘plates’, at all. Their testimonies are as questionable as Joseph Smith’s claims of having a vision of God, that he (or LDS historians) wrote 3 different versions of, that were all completely different. Being Catholic, I’ve seen or read about many, many claims from so-called Catholic “seers” that were just as bizarre, and as obviously fake. Over 20 centuries of having so many Catholic Saints that have had actual, authentic visions, there are certain criteria that the Catholic Church uses to assess whether the claims from these people should be believed, or if they’re just people that are either making the whole thing up, or they’re suffering from serious delusions from the devil or as a result of mental illness.

The jury is still out on which of those categories Joseph Smith falls into, but it doesn’t take a Catholic theologian to figure out that he certainly didn’t have an authentic vision from God, because all 3 versions miss several of the standard criteria by a country mile. The most obvious one is that authentic visions never contradict Bible/Church teachings. Joseph Smith’s claim to have seen the Father as a ‘man’ of ‘flesh and bone’, blatantly does just that on two points. This is something that I’ve always had a special interest in, all my life. I’m certainly not an ‘expert’ by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know a little bit about the subject of visionaries and their visions. Joseph Smith’s vision just doesn’t fit with the usual criteria. I wish I knew where to find a list of those criteria, but I’d have to do some searching to find it (not that it would really help in this situation).

Rejecting/disagreeing with the doctrines of my church does not make one an anti-Mormon. Mocking, demeaning, insulting is another matter. It always amazes me that Catholics, of all people, can’t make this distinction, given all the trashy anti-Catholic sites that caricature your faith.

I apologize for my lack of tact when discussing certain subjects, but I’ve been on the receiving end of insults and condescension from LDS members, here and elsewhere, too. That door swings both ways. LDS just tend to cover up their insults and condescension in ‘sweet talk’ and smiles, while I tend to shoot straight from the hip. I’ve never been very good at covering up how I really feel about things, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have an honest discussion of issues. We all know that we disagree on many things, so I really don’t see why we should try to candy coat it and pretend that we don’t. We also agree on some important issues, so I think there’s always a middle ground that we can share. It’s the same way between Catholics and any other religion, not just LDS.

I must also admit that I have a very irreverent sense of humor, along with a highly refined skill in the use of sarcasm that always manages to get me into trouble with some people. I’ve also been known to go a bit too far, at times. So, if I do make some offhand remarks and hit a nerve, please, don’t be offended, just give me a good swift kick. I might be as stubborn as a mule, but I can learn!

 

[PaulDupre]

And Catholics don’t study the Bible to find in it things that support their theology?

We don’t need to. We can read the bible with no filters because it is a Catholic book that came from the Catholic Church and we believe everything that the sacred authors assert. We don’t need to cherry-pick verses and impose extra-biblical “scripture” on them to make them fit our doctrines. The LDS do.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And Catholics don’t study the Bible to find in it things that support their theology? That doesn’t happen where I come from. And where I come from is earth!

We don’t need to. We can read the bible with no filters because it is a Catholic book that came from the Catholic Church and we believe everything that the sacred authors assert. We don’t need to cherry-pick verses and impose extra-biblical “scripture” on them to make them fit our doctrines. The LDS do.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)

Paul - thank you for your perspective! I find it interesting that all of the converts from Mormonism I know or have read about come to Catholicism. This of course could just be coincidence, but I am curious as to what drove you to embrace Catholicism after you left LDS (as opposed to some other Christian church or denomination).

 

[Miriam1947]

Title of this thread: LDS and ancient record…

There is no ancient record for LDS. They can say whatever they want but, it is an untruth from beginning to end. They circle around and bring some of their off wall teachings which have nothing to do with Christ.

It doesn’t matter what they say, it is not true at all. And Joseph Smith will not be there to say they will come into heaven even though they want all of their victims to believe that.

For those who have been born into the Mormon faith?, it’s different because they were raised without the Truth. But for J. Smith who started this un-biblical and un-Christian sect, there is not heaven but hell.

Of course I know that I don’t get to say who is in hell or heaven but, I’m thinking God will not be happy with those who lead “his children” astray.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Lefty

Could you please explain this:

LDS high school kids attend @ 6 am prior to high school classes something known as “seminary”. Recently my daughter’s friend came to school & told her what she had “learned” @ “seminary”. As per her “class”, wine in the Bible is known to LDS initiates as “GRAPE JUICE” lacking ALCOHOL CONTENT (in an attempt to “square” with LDS “words (?) of wisdom”).

How so? How does that compare with ancient Jewish history, customs? For example the 4 cups at the Passover meal: cups of Festival, Blessing, Little Hallel, Big Hallel, new wine in new wineskins and not old wine skins, St. Paul’s admonition to have some wine to benefit your stomach, Sirach: Does man really live who lacks the wine which was created for his joy"…

 

[ParkerD]

[55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
So, are you saying that Jesus was actually telling His disciples that they should eat His flesh and drink His blood when He first told them this, even though He was still very much alive at that point in time? Was He telling them that they should kill Him and eat Him without cooking, or that they should roast Him over a spit like a sacrificial lamb, first? (I apologize to everyone reading this for using such a graphic depiction, but it seems like that’s what was implied by Parker’s response, if that passage is to be taken, literally, in the “present tense”.) :bigyikes:

How else would you explain that whole passage, Parker? If the Holy Eucharist was never intended to be His actual Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity, then what good does it do to just eat ‘symbolic’ bread and water? How could that ever have any real physical or spiritual effect on us? Wouldn’t it be more meaningful to be His real Body & Blood, that can really nourish both, our bodies and our souls? Why would He ever say such an outrageous thing that He knew would cause such dissension amongst His followers, even causing many of them to desert Him?

Hi, Telstar,

I have not the slightest expectation of changing how you view the meaning of those verses, but perhaps someone reading this may find that there is a different meaning that some people (most probably non-Catholic) can find meaningful for them, such as:

Jesus planned to have a sifting process among those who were beginning to follow Him around. Some were listening to His teachings, and some were interested in seeing a miracle, or some might be mostly interested in the miracle of the loaves and fishes–to see it again and be able to eat some of the miraculous food.

He had already begun to proclaim to the Jews that He was the promised Messiah, the promised “Anointed One”–the Christ who had been prophesied by the prophets, especially by Isaiah and by Moses. So it should have come as no surprise when He announced that He is the living Bread come down from heaven. He is the living Manna–through both His doctrine (the doctrine of the atonement and of the gospel of repentance), and through the fact that He knew He would bring the promise of the resurrection to all mankind.

When a person “eats” the doctrine, it means they bring that doctrine into their soul and it changes their life. They start to apply the teachings of the beatitudes and keep the commandments with diligence and obedience, and receive atoning grace and feel the love of the Savior working in their life, and this changes their life.

It was more startling that He said they should “drink His blood”, and that His blood “is drink indeed”. But again, the Jews who had the knowledge of the law, would have been familiar that the blood of the sacrificed animals was sprinkled upon the altar and upon certain garments, and that this symbolized the “atonement” for the sins of the people. So to hear the word "blood’ should have brought into their minds, since He had already announced that He was the Savior–the Christ–that He was indeed the Holy One who was promised who would atone for the sins of the people.

When a person “drinks” the doctrine of atoning grace and of the power of His atoning grace, they bring that doctrine into their soul and it changes their life.

So these present tense actions were what Jesus was teaching the Jews of that very moment in time, that they should begin to do, and also teaching that all the Jews and later the Gentiles were to be invited to partake of His atoning grace and of the great gift of salvation (“everlasting life”), and of the resurrection freely given to all humankind by Him.

A wish of peace to you and all.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Parker

The Israelites ATE MANNA in the desert which kept them ALIVE - is an OT SIGN of a NT REALITY. What is hidden in the old (Testament/Covenant) is revealed in the new (NT). 1Cor 10:3-4 (Navarre footnote p.85) "St Paul explains that the manna and the other marvels which happened i the wilderness were a clear prefiguring of Jesus Christ… The disbelieving attitude of these Jews prevented them from accepting what Jesus revealed.

Parker, search “Mysterium fidei”

Navarre Bible, The book of John, page 84, John 6:26 Christ Jesus starts the discourse on the Bread of Life - “Christ reveals the mystery of the Eucharist: he is the Bread of Life who gives himself sacramentally as genuine food.”

This NT Manna, Eucharistia, Thank Offering (see passover meal), is one fulfillment of “I AM with you always.”

See the 7 Truly, truly’s of John (to seven yourself means to swear an oath & 7 is perfect # of God) Truly, truly is pretty much in your face.

v. 32 "Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to your, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.”

Greek 101
The Greek VERB “Trogos” means to GNAW, MUNCH or CHEW. This is a physical action. Unless you “gnaw” the bread and drink the cup, you shall have NO LIFE in you. Christ CLEARLY STATES “my flesh is REAL FOOD and my BLOOD is REAL DRINK”. Whole point is CHRIST LOVES US SO MUCH HE WANTS TO TAKE US INTO HIMSELF & in COMM-UNION, the DEAR CHRIST ENTERS IN. When I held up my baby girl years ago, I said: “I want to eat you up” as I LOVED my baby SO MUCH :heaven:

Navarre footnotes go on "Our Lord uses a stronger word than just “eating” (the original verb could be translated as “chewing”) which shows that Communion is a real meal. There is no room for saying that he was speaking only symbolically, which would mean that Communion was only a metaphor and not really eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ. Early Church Fathers discuss this in great detail as does The Dumb Ox; Again Navarre p. 89 -“St. Thomas Aquinas gives this explanation;“The Word gives life to our souls, but the Word made flesh nourishes our bodies. In this sacrament is contained the Word not only in his divinity but also in his humanity; therefore, it is the cause not only of the glorification of our souls but also that of our bodies.” from the Comm. on St. John, in loc.”

When a person “eats” the doctrine and “drinks the Doctrine of atoning grace” are very odd man-made concepts in light of what I just wrote.

The Apostles ATE ACTUAL BREAD and DRANK ACTUAL WINE, not “grape juice” as your “seminary” classes are taught. (see my post 2 posts back)

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Parker

Please explain. You eat and bring a doctrine into your soul that supposedly *changes your life *?

We eat the Bread of Life and Christ our life enters our souls.

Infinite difference.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Let’s face it. When all you have is the word of one man who was not the most honest of citizens, it is entirely possible that the whole thing is FAKE.

Amen!

 

[ParkerD]

Parker

Please explain. You eat and bring a doctrine into your soul that supposedly *changes your life *?

We eat the Bread of Life and Christ our life enters our souls.

Infinite difference.

Pepband Mom,

Hello to you. There is no “supposedly” about the doctrines of the gospel truly changing a person’s life.

Here, the same concept is taught beautifully about “eating” and “drinking” and how this very personal experience changes one’s life, of which thousands of people personally attest:

Isaiah 55:1-3

1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.

3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

The Jews were familiar with this prophetic teaching. There should have been no question that this prophetic teaching taught about Jesus’ coming, His atoning grace and mercy, and about His doctrine and its impact on a person’s life as they “hearken diligently unto me”.

 

[KathleenGee]

Note in Genesis…eat of the apple and you become as gods…

Christ said to eat of His body and blood at the Last Supper. He prepared the Apostles and all followers for this coming event, the Memorial, the new form of worship…communion with each other at the Lord’s table.

Catholics have been tasting God since Christ’s Last Supper. We enter into divine life through the sacraments given us by Christ through the priesthood.

It is the priesthood, who provides us life in Christ, that Mormonism rejects…without the Apostolic succession and the laying on of hands through the apostolic bishops–Catholic and Eastern Catholic Orthodox–sincere faith in Christ is in words, doctrines…but not entering one into eternal life.

Why? There is a break of communion and condemnation of Christ’s order of Melchizedek found in our abiding priesthood. Jesus said we find Him in relationship of two’s and three’s…this communion of the Holy Trinity that is transcended to the altar at daily Mass…the perpetual sacrifice Melchizedek prophesized.

A religion that is based on one man giving us new lights…but no Eucharist…and condemning our priesthood and assuming sainthood for himself and his followers…cannot be from the Lord…

The fruit of Catholicism is communion with God, with neighbor and life around us. I am thankful for the faith personified in the seat of Peter, our Holy Father, who is Christ’s visible head of His church. The world will listen to Peter…not of his own accord, but of Christ working and speaking through him. You hear the words of Peter in today’s Holy Father…and you hear the gifts of brotherly love, justice, compassion and unity…nothing of cult or suppression.

I don’t go anywhere else for God but in my own Church. Other religions may try to copy and glean from her but the Shepherd knows His flock and His flock knows Him.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Parker

Sadly, LDS have fallen hard for a “different gospel” spread by “an angel”. My former LDS boss told me to my face his incredible belief one day: “There are only 2 true Churches: the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church. All the Protestants have fallen away. But the Catholic Church fell into apostasy and the Mormon Church is the restored Church.” This man was a LDS recruiting machine extraordinaire. I was immediately stunned but responded simply, “There cannot be 2 Truths as there is only ONE TRUTH and your “restoration” is a wee bit late on the scene” of humanity.

We cannot judge souls, that is correct, and I am sorry if I implied that as that is not what I meant. But a different gospel is a different gospel and you and the LDS family honor a different gospel: impending godhood, a pompous egotistical gun toting leader inventor of a “sacred” book, a Christ Jesus who is spirit brother of Satan, a changing/evolving God the Father, “plates” that no one has ever seen, a fantastic, colorful path of carnage proceeding especially from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young & friends and don’t forget grape juice & the tragic list drags on.

What LDS believe about WHO Jesus Christ and God the Father are is a different “truth” to be sure. Your steady, NUMEROUS attempts to assure the gentle readers of this post of your faith in Jesus prompts a question: Parker, if Jesus where to ask you: “who do you say that I AM”, I’m afraid & sad at the same time as I suspect what your answer would be.

Theological speaking you are correct: you and your confrere’s lives are evidently changed as you say if you believe these things. How do you & Tony888 & Lefty feel about your impending “godhood”? A WORD OF WISDOM for your consideration in case no one has ever told you: The bottom line is You and Tony and Lefty are NOT going to become a “god”. Deep down, Parker, in the core of you, can you honestly tell us that you are all going to become a god, do you actually believe that? Inquiring minds want to know.

Kathleen pointed out the scripture a lie designed to foil Adam and Eve. People are tragically still falling for it.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Parker

I forgot to mention these points:

What is the goal of your belief in Jesus Christ whoever you believe him to be, what will that do for you when you are dead and judged?

At the end of the day, what your entire non-christian world belief system boils down to GODHOOD isn’t it - no matter how much you post (what, over 5000 - is that your priesthood job?) in attempts to persuade the gentle post readers.

Is this not the eschatological end for LDS - Godhood, the #1 choice?:
Godhood
Eternal Servitude
Outer Darkness for the wicked or strong willed people like me who have studied Mormonism for years and obstinately reject it

So no matter what you hold re: Christ Jesus, you’re still going to become a god, the pie-in the-sky glorious LDS FINALE is GODHOOD.

That, my friend, pure and simple is not Christianity.

 

[Telstar]

Hi, Telstar,

I have not the slightest expectation of changing how you view the meaning of those verses, but perhaps someone reading this may find that there is a different meaning that some people (most probably non-Catholic) can find meaningful for them, such as:

Jesus planned to have a sifting process among those who were beginning to follow Him around. Some were listening to His teachings, and some were interested in seeing a miracle, or some might be mostly interested in the miracle of the loaves and fishes–to see it again and be able to eat some of the miraculous food.

Hello again, Parker,
I’m glad you realize that you’ll never change my view on the true meaning of the Eucharist. It doesn’t matter how many people want to believe in different interpretations of what Jesus meant, because there is only one true meaning that has any relevance whatsoever to God. He really doesn’t care how anyone else interprets His Word because there is only one Truth. That one Truth is revealed in Jesus Christ and His True Church. All others are mislead by the desires of their own ambitions, and by their own worldly minded hearts. The Bread of Life (God) came down from Heaven and was made man (Jesus Christ in the Flesh). If we do not eat that Bread of Life, there will be no eternal Life in any of us.

He had already begun to proclaim to the Jews that He was the promised Messiah, the promised “Anointed One”–the Christ who had been prophesied by the prophets, especially by Isaiah and by Moses. So it should have come as no surprise when He announced that He is the living Bread come down from heaven. He is the living Manna–through both His doctrine (the doctrine of the atonement and of the gospel of repentance), and through the fact that He knew He would bring the promise of the resurrection to all mankind.

Exactly. He was speaking the Truth about His Body being the true Bread of Life that He would give to the whole world, that would sustain them, both physically and spiritually, while they remained on this earth, and give His eternal Life (His Glory) to their bodies for all eternity, at the time of the resurrection.

When a person “eats” the doctrine, it means they bring that doctrine into their soul and it changes their life. They start to apply the teachings of the beatitudes and keep the commandments with diligence and obedience, and receive atoning grace and feel the love of the Savior working in their life, and this changes their life.

Jesus always taught them to listen to His doctrine, but He didn’t tell them to eat His doctrine. He told them to eat His Flesh, which He said was “meat, indeed”.

It was more startling that He said they should “drink His blood”, and that His blood “is drink indeed”. But again, the Jews who had the knowledge of the law, would have been familiar that the blood of the sacrificed animals was sprinkled upon the altar and upon certain garments, and that this symbolized the “atonement” for the sins of the people. So to hear the word "blood’ should have brought into their minds, since He had already announced that He was the Savior–the Christ–that He was indeed the Holy One who was promised who would atone for the sins of the people.

If you know anything about Jewish dietary laws, you know that Jews were always forbidden to eat or drink the blood of any kind of animal, whether it was approved to eat its flesh or not. When He told them that they were to drink His Blood, it was absolutely abhorrent for the Jews to even think about it. They were beyond ‘startled’, they were scandalized by the mere thought of it, because He didn’t just tell them that they should “sprinkle” it. He told them that they must drink it.

When a person “drinks” the doctrine of atoning grace and of the power of His atoning grace, they bring that doctrine into their soul and it changes their life.

Once again, He never told them to drink His doctrine, but to drink His very Blood. He was speaking of reality, but they didn’t understand the gift of His Body & Blood, Soul & Divinity that He would give them in the Holy Eucharist, the Bread and Wine, just as many people today still don’t understand what an amazing gift it truly is because they try to explain it in strictly human terms. You cannot explain any true Gift from God in human terms without losing the deeper spiritual meaning of it. (I’m always amazed at LDS focusing on receiving some kind of “power” from God, instead of appreciating God’s free gift of eternal life with Him.)

So these present tense actions were what Jesus was teaching the Jews of that very moment in time, that they should begin to do, and also teaching that all the Jews and later the Gentiles were to be invited to partake of His atoning grace and of the great gift of salvation (“everlasting life”), and of the resurrection freely given to all humankind by Him.

A wish of peace to you and all.

Jesus wasn’t just teaching the ‘Jews’ of His own time. He was teaching all of humanity that would hear His words, exactly what they needed to do in order to have eternal life in the resurrection. All who partake of His Gift worthily will have that life, but all who reject it will suffer eternal death, forever separated from God.

I hope you can find the true peace of Jesus Christ, Parker.

 

[Lefty0908]

My point was that none of the so-called “witnesses” ever actually set eyes on any of those ‘plates’, at all. Their testimonies are as questionable as Joseph Smith’s claims of having a vision of God, that he (or LDS historians) wrote 3 different versions of, that were all completely different. Being Catholic, I’ve seen or read about many, many claims from so-called Catholic “seers” that were just as bizarre, and as obviously fake. Over 20 centuries of having so many Catholic Saints that have had actual, authentic visions, there are certain criteria that the Catholic Church uses to assess whether the claims from these people should be believed, or if they’re just people that are either making the whole thing up, or they’re suffering from serious delusions from the devil or as a result of mental illness.

The jury is still out on which of those categories Joseph Smith falls into, but it doesn’t take a Catholic theologian to figure out that he certainly didn’t have an authentic vision from God, because all 3 versions miss several of the standard criteria by a country mile. The most obvious one is that authentic visions never contradict Bible/Church teachings. Joseph Smith’s claim to have seen the Father as a ‘man’ of ‘flesh and bone’, blatantly does just that on two points. This is something that I’ve always had a special interest in, all my life. I’m certainly not an ‘expert’ by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know a little bit about the subject of visionaries and their visions. Joseph Smith’s vision just doesn’t fit with the usual criteria. I wish I knew where to find a list of those criteria, but I’d have to do some searching to find it (not that it would really help in this situation).

I apologize for my lack of tact when discussing certain subjects, but I’ve been on the receiving end of insults and condescension from LDS members, here and elsewhere, too. That door swings both ways. LDS just tend to cover up their insults and condescension in ‘sweet talk’ and smiles, while I tend to shoot straight from the hip. I’ve never been very good at covering up how I really feel about things, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have an honest discussion of issues. We all know that we disagree on many things, so I really don’t see why we should try to candy coat it and pretend that we don’t. We also agree on some important issues, so I think there’s always a middle ground that we can share. It’s the same way between Catholics and any other religion, not just LDS.

Not to worry about offending me with your confessed “lack of tact.” It’s not lost on me that this is a Catholic site and that I post here at the pleasure of its owners, which pleasure could end at any time. As a Latter-day Saint, I know I’m “in the kitchen” here, and am aware of where I should go if I dislike the heat. So on topics that interest me, I’ll try to give as good as I get from you knuckleheads (my brother and his family are devout Catholics, so just don’t tell them I’m arguing here! ).

As to the plates and the witnesses who saw them, I realize that you reject their testimonies. But to say that they “never set eyes on any of those plates at all” is ludicrous.

In addition to the 11 witnesses whose written testimonies appear in every copy of the BOM, there were many informal witnesses who also saw the plates, and in some instances, the angel. For the sake of argument, discard them. Go ahead and also toss the formal, written testimony of the three witnesses (Harris, Cowdery, and D. Whitmer) because you are incredulous about the accompanying visionary manifestations. I’ll spot you that.

But the eight witnesses simply saw the plates, handled them with their hands, turned their pages, and saw the characters written on them. They testified of nothing more. No supernatural aspects whatsoever. Their words:

“… and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings theron, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship … we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken.”

I’d say they set eyes on the plates. Of course you disagree, but you’ve done nothing to dissuade me from thinking that I have a reason to believe the accounts of the witnesses.

Let me update you on the number of accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision. The direct, primary historical sources now total ten accounts in thirteen documents – eight produced or reported in the first person by Joseph Smith himself, and five contemporary reports by others who heard him relate his experience and recorded what he said. It’s always best to sound as credible as possible when cracking on the Mormons!

You are correct. We do not accept the Trinity. It is a construct of 4th century Christianity at the earliest, so we don’t feel the need to be bound by it.

And I truly am curious about what criteria the RCC uses to distinguish real visions from those that are bogus (I’m not trying to set you up here – I really am interested). What distinguishes an approved Marian apparition from one that is not? And is there a purpose in these visions – is anything communicated?

 

[Lefty0908]

Lefty

Could you please explain this:

LDS high school kids attend @ 6 am prior to high school classes something known as “seminary”. Recently my daughter’s friend came to school & told her what she had “learned” @ “seminary”. As per her “class”, wine in the Bible is known to LDS initiates as “GRAPE JUICE” lacking ALCOHOL CONTENT (in an attempt to “square” with LDS “words (?) of wisdom”).

How so? How does that compare with ancient Jewish history, customs? For example the 4 cups at the Passover meal: cups of Festival, Blessing, Little Hallel, Big Hallel, new wine in new wineskins and not old wine skins, St. Paul’s admonition to have some wine to benefit your stomach, Sirach: Does man really live who lacks the wine which was created for his joy"…

I wouldn’t base my understanding of all Mormons on second-hand stories told by adolescent girls. In most areas, early-morning seminary is taught by lay members of my church, who may or may not know what they’re talking about on every gospel-related topic.

I have no doubt that the wine referred to in Bible was alcoholic. It makes no difference to me. The Word of Wisdom (Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants) is a modern revelation, so it has nothing to do with the New Testament.

Could you please explain this:

Every Catholic I met in two years in South Texas knew nothing about his/her church. Not wrong things – nothing. Should I mold my opinion of Catholicism based on that?

 

[Lefty0908]

We don’t need to. We can read the bible with no filters because it is a Catholic book that came from the Catholic Church and we believe everything that the sacred authors assert. We don’t need to cherry-pick verses and impose extra-biblical “scripture” on them to make them fit our doctrines. The LDS do.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)

You believe everything in the Bible and don’t engage in “cherry-picking” verses. What nonsense!

If the Bible is so completely and clearly self-interpreting what purpose is there in the Magisterium and the episcopacy (I guess I should write “Magisterium” and “episcopacy” to be as snarky as you)?

I get beat on with this same tortured logic by Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, non-denominational crack-pots – everybody but Bill Maher. They all say the same thing you do, which is that they simply follow the Bible without imposing any interpretations upon it.

If that were that true, we’d all be of the same faith with no doctrinal divisions among us at all.

And your Catholic-Church-protector-of-the-Bible schtick has some warts on it as well (not entirely the Katy-Perry-on-Proactiv version you want me to believe).

But before I launch into that, let me be clear about something. I don’t doubt that the Bible we have today is due to the careful protection of manuscripts that were in the charge of the Catholic Church. Were it not for you, we would have no Bible. Period. In my opinion, your people were instruments in the hand of God in this thing. I have no doubt of that.

But your church is comprised of fallen, failed, sinful people just like mine. Many of whom were in positions to fundamentally affect the practices and procedures of the entire institution.

So the Catholic church protected the Bible – as long as it could be in complete control of it. To be sure, we Mormons have our problems in history. But Mormons didn’t persecute the Lollards. That burner of English Bibles, St. Thomas More (my favorite flagellant), wasn’t a Mormon. The Mormons didn’t kill William Tyndale, Thomas Bilney, or any of the nearly 5000 others during the period of the reformation who promulgated to the people translations of the Bible in their own languages. I am grateful, however, that finally, in 1962 (Vatican II) the RCC offically began to encourage translation of the Bible into languages other than Latin. You got that going for you!

 

[PaulDupre]

You believe everything in the Bible and don’t engage in “cherry-picking” verses. What nonsense!

If the Bible is so completely and clearly self-interpreting what purpose is there in the Magisterium and the episcopacy (I guess I should write “Magisterium” and “episcopacy” to be as snarky as you)?

Where did I ever state that the bible is self-interpreting? I never did. You must be getting desparate to make things up like that. I just said that we believe everything the sacred authors assert.

We do not need to rip verses out of context as you do (think: two sticks). And yes, we have the magisterium of the church, guided as they are by the Holy Spirit (as Jesus promised) to solve any squabbles about interpretation or any questions of faith and morals.

You should really learn at least a little bit about Catholicism. Try reading the Catechism.

Paul (formerly LDS, now gratefully Catholic)

 

[zaffiroborant]

Every Catholic I met in two years in South Texas knew nothing about his/her church. Not wrong things – nothing. Should I mold my opinion of Catholicism based on that?

How do you know they know nothing about their church?

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Lefty

Nice try; the girl announced what she had just learned in “SEMINARY”. Maybe the local ward has a problem. Funny, 20 years ago, another LDS girl working with us, had just announced the same exact thing about grape juice being used. I never forgot that! 2 different stakes in same state teaching same thing - I remember too. My daughter’s friend is very sharp & no airhead.

Your prohibition on wine is man-made. Smith & Company who had written much about starting up a winery/distillery to supply their needs tossed around the idea. St Paul said have some for the benefit of your stomach.

God is not a flip-flopper, ah, I would say, He is solid as a ROCK!

The VERY FIRST MIRACLE of CHRIST JESUS involved WINE

My Fav re: wine in Sirach: Does man really live who lacks the wine that was created for his joy?