LDS and Catholic Differences

[Jerry_Parker]

Lax 16 and M.F. Bukowski,

**Lax, you wrote: ** *Jerry, I don’t think anyone is trying to evangelise Mormons using the JoD. It all started with a quote that exploded into a whole lot of back and forth as to what the JoD are and how they are perceived by Mormons today.

I have no idea why they keep bringing it up, but as long as mfbukowski keeps asking, I will respond.

You are right, Jerry, I should read the “Catholic Encyclopedia” and thanks for the info on it. I have never thought about using it as a reference, but I will. In fact, I didn’t even know there was a Catholic Encyclopedia!

And thanks, mfbukowski, because of your post I’ve learned something new today. *​

Lax, Thanks for your reply. I guess that so much attention to the “Journal of Discourses” on a site like C.A. that evangelises L.D.S. Mormons and other non- or wayward Catholics can seem ill-placed in emphasis, but, of course, you are right that cyber-fora are designed to facilitate discussion of what one person and others really wish to discuss.

While reading the “Catholic Encyclopedia” and what Catholic and Christian sources have to say about Mormonism (whether pagan L.D.S. and/or Christian R.L.D.S.), it is important to read what Mormons have to say themselves, in such a forum as this one and in their large literature of really intellectual approach to their own misguided faith. To read only one side of an argument implies contempt of the adversary, and that never is a good thing, and certainly can backfire with folks as well educated and intelligent as so many Mormons are.

Pax, Jerry

 

[lax16]

Lax 16 and M.F. Bukowski,

**Lax, you wrote: ** *Jerry, I don’t think anyone is trying to evangelise Mormons using the JoD. It all started with a quote that exploded into a whole lot of back and forth as to what the JoD are and how they are perceived by Mormons today.

I have no idea why they keep bringing it up, but as long as mfbukowski keeps asking, I will respond.

You are right, Jerry, I should read the “Catholic Encyclopedia” and thanks for the info on it. I have never thought about using it as a reference, but I will. In fact, I didn’t even know there was a Catholic Encyclopedia!

And thanks, mfbukowski, because of your post I’ve learned something new today. *​

Lax, Thanks for your reply. I guess that so much attention to the “Journal of Discourses” on a site like C.A. that evangelises L.D.S. Mormons and other non- or wayward Catholics can seem ill-placed in emphasis, but, of course, you are right that cyber-fora are designed to facilitate discussion of what one person and others really wish to discuss.

While reading the “Catholic Encyclopedia” and what Catholic and Christian sources have to say about Mormonism (whether pagan L.D.S. and/or Christian R.L.D.S.), it is important to read what Mormons have to say themselves, in such a forum as this one and in their large literature of really intellectual approach to their own misguided faith. To read only one side of an argument implies contempt of the adversary, and that never is a good thing, and certainly can backfire with folks as well educated and intelligent as so many Mormons are.

Pax, Jerry

Jerry, you are right. I have agreed that what the Mormons have told told me in their posts, regarding the JoD and the place they have in their religion, is to be respected. Like I said in one of my posts, I will proceed accordingly with the information they have provided.

I do like to read all sides of an argument/topic. You are so right in saying that by not doing so implies contempt of the other person’s position (or at least a blatant disregard).

Thanks for the insight!

 

[dianaiad]

Very interesting. Where would one read about what Mormons believe to “salvific” and “not salvific?”

Going right back to the standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. Concentrate on the words of Christ.

The twelve articles of faith are a very nice place to begin.

 

[lax16]

Going right back to the standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. Concentrate on the words of Christ.

The twelve articles of faith are a very nice place to begin.

Thanks!

 

[aspirant]

Is the “Catholic Encyclopedia” perfect in every detail of doctrine? Why or why not?

How is this relevant?

The Catholic Encyclopedias are collections of articles by some 20th century philosophers, theologians, historians, canonists, etc., not collections of Catholic magisterial teachings.

The Journal of Discourses, on the other hand, is supposed to contain speeches and sermons by presidents of the LDS church, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, members of the seventy, etc.

I can understand the latter not being considered as authoritative as, say, the Book of Mormon. But comparing it to the Catholic Encyclopedias seems like comparing apples and oranges. The Catholic Encyclopedias would be more comparable, I would think, to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

 

[Michael_Vernon]

If you talk to a lot of LDS as I do, you will find paradoxically that they have a remarkable disinterest for most of what the GAs, especially GAs of previous generations have said. They cherry-pick according to their interests and tastes. And why not? After all, they know that those men are not really prophets, seers, and revelators, in spite of what they proclaim with up-lifted hands at every conference and in every temple recommend interview. No, they can’t think of the J of D as scripture, obviously. And they prefer not to think of the official, published words of the GAs as really binding on them unless they get added to the D and C. How could we not expect them to get defensive about this? I remember in the early 70s when birth control began to be a hot issue in the Mormon Church. When we told young LDS who only wanted 2 or 3 children that Joseph Fielding Smith had declared that those who artificially limited the size of their families would unequivocally not go to the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, what a hornet’s nest that stirred up! No GA would dare to say that now!

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Michael Vernon,

**You wrote, perceptively: ** *If you talk to a lot of LDS as I do, you will find paradoxically that they have a remarkable disinterest for most of what the GAs, especially GAs of previous generations have said. They cherry-pick according to their interests and tastes. And why not? After all, they know that those men are not really prophets, seers, and revelators, in spite of what they proclaim with up-lifted hands at every conference and in every temple recommend interview. No, they can’t think of the J of D as scripture, obviously. And they prefer not to think of the official, published words of the GAs as really binding on them unless they get added to the D[octrine] and C[ovenants]. How could we not expect them to get defensive about this?

I remember in the early 70s when birth control began to be a hot issue in the Mormon Church. When we told young LDS who only wanted 2 or 3 children that Joseph Fielding Smith had declared that those who artificially limited the size of their families would unequivocally not go to the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, what a hornet’s nest that stirred up! No GA would dare to say that now! *​

How true. One of the problems that the L.D.S. Mormons have is their view of inspiration and infallibility of their leaders, “general authorities” as well as their “presidents” past and present. They abandoned the practice of Joseph Smith’s time, one retained by the R.L.D.S. Mormons, of the now-called “Community of Christ”, of insisting upon a real and free “consent of the faithful” in solemn assemblies to approve of what their leaders propose as authoritative, then to be incorporated into the R.L.D.S. version of the Doctrine and Covenants, which has a more “open canon” than the L.D.S. version has, but which has gone less astray doctrinally. That has prevented R.L.D.S. leaders from spouting off a lot of bizarre nonsense with it being taken, because of their positions, as authoritative. If it IS authoritative for the R.L.D.S. Community of Christ, it is incorporated into the D. & C.

That does not mean that the R.L.D.S. Community of Christ is any true church, but at least it is not one that is downright weird and pagan, as the L.D.S. cult became! (It helps, too, of course, that the R.L.D.S. Mormons never accepted the Pearl of Great Price’s documents as scriptural.)

Vernon is a popular forename among the Mormon (almost all by now ex-Mormon) family on my mother’s side, but as a forename. It is a beautiful and dignified name to bear!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[rdscheirer]

How do I get my own planet to govern if( I’m not LDS) when I ascend to your “heaven”?

 

[dianaiad]

How do I get my own planet to govern if( I’m not LDS) when I ascend to your “heaven”?

You won’t. Sorry about that…you are flat out of luck there.

However, you will be in good company, because we don’t think WE will get ‘our own planet to govern,’ either.

Don’t you guys get a little tired of this old chestnut?

I sure am.

 

[AtticusFinch]

You won’t. Sorry about that…you are flat out of luck there.

However, you will be in good company, because we don’t think WE will get ‘our own planet to govern,’ either.

Don’t you guys get a little tired of this old chestnut?

I sure am.

maybe you do not believe it now, but it used to be taught. It was taught just like the teaching that Adam is God, and that God was once a sinful man

 

[mfbukowski]

How do I get my own planet to govern if( I’m not LDS) when I ascend to your “heaven”?

Gorsh, that’s a good one, yuk yuk

 

[Answersplease]

You have been watching too many Vincent Price movies. I hope the vampires don’t get you.

Answersplease:

You attempt to belittle me.

I’m not surprised.

 

[Answersplease]

This notion is very foreign to Mormonism.

We believe that evil cannot bother you unless you let it in.

"Answersplease:

The following is RebeccaJ showing a quote from Joseph Smith which says that he was “bothered”/attacked by an evil spirit.

“I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction” (JS—H 1:15

).

I guess you are saying Smith “let it in”.

I have to agree with you there.

mfbukowski;6334740:

This notion is very foreign to Mormonism.

We believe that evil cannot bother you unless you let it in

.
And so the fact that Joseph Smith claimed he was attacked by an evil spirit, by your own reasoning shows that he let the evil spirit in.

 

[mfbukowski]

This is absurd of course, That’s why I ridiculed the position earlier- I did not mean to make it personal.

You should read the Joseph Smith story.

The entire point of the story is that he did NOT “let it in”, was NOT overcome by evil but at that very instant had a vision of the Father and the Son.

You should at least have some acquaintance with the story before you attempt to present something 180 degrees from what is presented.

It would be like me saying that the Crucifixion was a failure and evil triumphed because Jesus died, or that during Jesus’ temptations Jesus fell because he was confronted by Satan.

The entire point is that in all three cases evil did NOT triumph.

Absurd.

 

[hosemonkey]

I just want you to realize that Joseph did not make this stuff up. There is plenty of evidence for many Mormon beliefs in the ECF’s.

 

[mfbukowski]

Well, I see that mfbukowski is still beating his ol’ flaccid mormon drum. Remember what I said last time, Ski. False prophet, false doctrine, false religion and you sold your birthright for a mess of pottage when you left the True Church for the mish-mosh that is mormonism. I’m just here to keep you honest, not that anyone believes your blarney. There is plenty of evidence for mormon beliefs in the funny papers.

 

[Answersplease]

That’s why I ridiculed the position earlier- I did not mean to make it personal.

"Answersplease:

You can try to sugar coat it, but you can’t change what you actually posted.

You directed your comment at ME not the position.

You have been watching too many Vincent Price movies. I hope the vampires don’t get you.

Clearly this is an attempt to belittle me, because you couldn’t defend your original statement.

You should at least have some acquaintance with the story before you attempt to present something 180 degrees from what is presented.

"Answersplease:

I’m not talking about the story, I’m talking about what you yourself said in YOUR post.

You said “evil cannott bother you UNLESS you let it in”.

Combine your statement with Joseph Smith’s account of being “bothered”/attacked by an evil spirit, then it is clear that by YOUR reasoning, Joseph Smith let the evil spirit in. Otherwise he wouln’t have been “bothered” by it in the first place.

This notion is very foreign to Mormonism.

We believe that evil cannot bother you unless you let it in

.
YOU CAN DENY WHAT YOU POSTED,

BUT EVERYONE CAN SEE YOUR POST FOR THEMSLEVES.

The entire point is that in all three cases evil did NOT triumph.

"Answersplease:

So what.

I am NOT talking about the outcome of the story.

I’m talking about the beginning where Joseph Smith gets “bothered”/attacked by the evil spirit in the first place.

How many times do I have to say this:
You SAID “evil cannot bother you unless you let it in”, SO HOW COME Joseph Smith WAS “BOTHERED” by the evil spirit IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Absurd.

Answersplease:

(Shakes head.)