LDS & Catholic Comparison

[dianaiad]

You have to understand, I am not bringing in theology here. In fact I am trying to avoid it. Overall, this strategy saves you some heartache, because you have adopted the teachings of Jesus Christ and have the "other Testament of Christ." It is easier for you and all interested parties to see that "another Testament" means more. More means different. Different means different faith, different religion, different name. Your name is Mormon.

The fact that we believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ is what MAKES us Christian. That is the definition of Christian.

No dictionary anywhere defines “Christian” as “someone who only believes in the bible.” It is not logical for any Christian denomination to define the word in a way that excludes any other group that claims to be Christian; that is a classic fallacy of composition. (or more accurately, a fallacy of division) It doesn’t MATTER whether someone believes in one set of books or another, It doesn’t matter whether a Christian throws out the Old Testament (many do…and MOST do when it is inconvenient) or whether they have more than one book in their bible–or translate it differently. It doesn’t matter whether their bible has the Johanine comma in it or not. This matter of the source of one’s belief in Christ isn’t even mentioned in any definition of “Christian” that I am aware of.

The fallacy of division states that if something is true of one part, it must then be true of all; this is also called a ‘true Scott…’ or ‘no true scott’ fallacy. You are claiming that because YOU, as a Christian, do not believe in the Book of Mormon, then no Christian can believe in the Book of Mormon. That is fallacious.

Yes. I am a Mormon. The hierarcy actually goes this way: I am a theist, a Christian, a Mormon and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (there ARE Mormons out there who are not LDS, y’know.)

YOUR hierarchy goes thusly: you are a theist, a Christian, a Baptist, and a member of whatever specific congregation you actually attend. The fact that you are a Baptist does NOT mean that you are not a Christian.

We both share that one qualification that makes us both Christian; we believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ–oh, and we both claim to BE Christians.

That doesn’t mean we are both RIGHT about Him. It doesn’t mean we are both saved. It doesn’t mean we are the same, any more than an army camp cot is the same as the King sized four poster bed with the $2000 mattress I saw in the store the other day. Nevertheless, both are beds.

It also does not matter what differences we have in our theology, ‘heartache’ or not. I am quite aware that you don’t agree with mine, as I don’t agree with much of yours. That is irrelevant. We are both Christian, because we both share the one thing that makes us that.

 

[dianaiad]

I watch EWTN all the time and I have never seen anything about Catholic charitable projects. The reason, of course, is because Catholic charitable giving is so ubiquitous that it is taken for granted and need not be publicized or displayed.

Apparently the LDS need constant convincing that their church is more than just a mind-control cult.

“We are the good guys. We really are. SEE HOW GOOD WE ARE?”

Sheesh indeed.

Really? Then would you explain that when I did a google image search on Catholic Charities, I got 762,000 results? Or when I narrowed that down to just Catholic charities disaster aid, I got 91,500 hits, every ONE of them ‘photo-ops’ of Catholic charities handing stuff out?

Or, when I google “Mormon disaster aid” I got 100,000 hits, almost every one of them ANTI-Mormon rhetoric featuring things like two gay men dressed like Mormon missionaries kissing each other at a gay rights protest, or pictures of manikins wearing Temple garments?

True, LDS disaster aid got the standard shots of people actually helping folks. 32000 results there.

Gee, I wonder which group is blowing its own horn the most, here?

 

[PaulDupre]

Really? Then would you explain that when I did a google image search on Catholic Charities, I got 762,000 results? Or when I narrowed that down to just Catholic charities disaster aid, I got 91,500 hits, every ONE of them ‘photo-ops’ of Catholic charities handing stuff out?

Or, when I google “Mormon disaster aid” I got 100,000 hits, almost every one of them ANTI-Mormon rhetoric featuring things like two gay men dressed like Mormon missionaries kissing each other at a gay rights protest, or pictures of manikins wearing Temple garments?

True, LDS disaster aid got the standard shots of people actually helping folks. 32000 results there.

Gee, I wonder which group is blowing its own horn the most, here?

The difference is that with Catholic Charities you had to search for it, and it was individuals, not the Church itself, that posted them. With the LDS org, they feed it to you non-stop, and saturate the net with it.

Note that for a Church with 1.2 billion members and an equally large charity network, you got 91,000 hits, whereas with the puny LDS cult with 13 million claimed members you got 32.000 hits. That’s .0000078% hits for Catholics and .0025 % for Mormons.

That’s a 320% higher visibility for Mormons. Coincidence? I think not. The fact that Gordon B. Hinckley was a PR professional is not lost on this ex-Mormon.

 

[Xavierlives]

Of course you would…because you don’t think you ARE Jewish. However, that’s not what I asked you, is it? How about answering the question I actually, y’know, ASKED?

Well I thought I had answered it, but if you feel it hasn’t been answered in the spirit you intended it, please feel free to rephrase it so I can answer it to your satisfaction.

And you should embrace being a Baptist…something that is not Catholic. Does that mean you are not also Christian?

Well I’m pretty sure I have never classified myself anything other than “Protestant” or Christian. I label myself “Protestant” only because this is the Catholic Forums and it is the easiest way to note “I do not follow the Catholic Church.” It also means, “I do not follow the Mormon Church” I guess.

I see. Segregation; ‘nothing wrong’ with it—except for one teeny problem. It’s not true. Mormons are Christians because we put Jesus Christ at the center of our faith. That is what defines Christianity as something apart from anything else, including Judaism, from whence it sprang.

But from Christianity sprang Mormons. Sure, you follow “the other Testament” but that is “Another Testament”… SPRING … Another religion.

Nothing we believe in changes that one, defining fact, and you are correct, It IS about a name; a classification of belief. Jews are different from Christians because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior. Muslims, Hindus and Budhists are not Christians because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior. Christians believe in the teachings of Christ Jesus, the Man Who was born in Bethlehem of a virgin, taught for three years, was crucified and rose again. Many Christians might even quibble with one or more of the above things, but they ALL have one thing in common: they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and call themselves Christian.

I understand you believe in Jesus. Really, I do. I believe in Jehovah but I am not Jewish. I am not trying to be Jewish. James says, “You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” Belief does not make the faith. You can have Jesus as the core of your faith, that does not make you a Christian. Your faith includes “Another Testament of Christ.” It is that Other that makes you something other. That other is Mormon. Accept what you are.

Tell me; the Catholics believe in a few more books of scripture than Protestants do–are they, then, not Christian as a result? They also have Sacred Tradition, which they hold to be equal with scripture. Does that make them 'not Christian?" True, some evangelical Protestants would say they are not, but are you one of those?

Well, I am surpised it has taken you this long to get to that point (especially on the Catholic Forums). The problem with your analysis is the shared books of the Bible (and the ones not shared) were not added 179 years ago. Our common ancestry of text, was established 2000years ago at the time of Christ. The text that is not common to us was written (or translated) recently. Furthermore, the thread is not about Protestant & Catholic Comparison, it is about LDS & Catholic Comparison. I am trying to remain true to the subject as a non-Catholic observer.

We do not ‘desire to be called Christians’ and to be ‘considered a Christian denomination.’ as if we were aspiring to some grand and glorious BETTER thing than we have, and to be somehow accepted into a club. We desire to be called Christians for one reason and one reason only; because we are.

Well, I know you think you are. And I know that what I say here will not change your opinion. But, you need to go back and read. Just for a second lets suspend that “belief.” Lets look at core religious text. The Jews have the Tanakh. Christians have the Bible (a combination of the old Jewish Text and the New Testament). Mormons have the Bible and the Book of Mormon. It is this difference that sets you apart. It is fine. Embrace it.

 

[why_me]

The difference is that with Catholic Charities you had to search for it, and it was individuals, not the Church itself, that posted them. With the LDS org, they feed it to you non-stop, and saturate the net with it.

Note that for a Church with 1.2 billion members and an equally large charity network, you got 91,000 hits, whereas with the puny LDS cult with 13 million claimed members you got 32.000 hits. That’s .0000078% hits for Catholics and .0025 % for Mormons.

That’s a 320% higher visibility for Mormons. Coincidence? I think not. The fact that Gordon B. Hinckley was a PR professional is not lost on this ex-Mormon.

Yes, Paul, the catholic church is wonderful and the mormon church is evil, filled with showboating and PR. Yes, Paul, the lds church is an evil entity on this planet but the catholic church is good and christ-driven. We get your constant antimormon message.

However, mormons and their church are known for their good works and faith in Christ. And they are known for their humanitarian aid. Not because they are showboating but because they are a giving church, as is the catholic church.

Your hatred for mormonism and mormons runs deep in your psyche. No one can wash that bitterness away. Your posts are filled with bitterness about the lds church. Can you say one thing positive about the lds church?

 

[Xavierlives]

Because we fit the definition. You seem to believe that “Christian” means 'he who believes the correct things about Christ." Well…I don’t agree with you. That’s not the definition. If it WERE, then–I would be the Christian and you wouldn’t. We don’t have any problems telling other Christians that they are wrong about their beliefs, y’know. That’s why we send missionaries out. We aren’t trying join your churches. We are simply Christians and accept you as such, even though you are incorrect about many of the things you believe. If we can accept y’all as fellow Christians who can and do have personal relationships with Him in spite of the fact that you follow the wrong doctrines and have gone off the rails, then we don’t see what your problem is. It’s not as if you have to suddenly believe we are RIGHT, just because you admit that we are, in fact, Christian.

Maybe you are missing the spirit of the original post. I am not passing judgment. I am not saying you are right or wrong about your theological belief. Being new to the forum and not having read every post about LDS here, I could be wrong, but I am guessing someone else has addressed the theological “wrongs.” I am addressing something more simple, a name. Something that everyone should be able to recognize and accept. Someone says they follow Allah, they are Muslim. Someone says they follow the Book of Mormon, they are Mormon.

As to accepting me as a Christian, I doubt it. You believe I am an apostate. But we aren’t arguing that. We are arguing whether you are better described as a Christian or a Mormon. Embrace what you are, you are a Mormon.

The fact that we believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ is what MAKES us Christian. That is the definition of Christian.

Your belief in Christ does not make you Christian. Your belief in “another Testament” makes you Mormon. Some Hindus believe in Christ and they are not Christian. The delineation is they believe in other text that make them Hindu.

No dictionary anywhere defines “Christian” as “someone who only believes in the bible.” It is not logical for any Christian denomination to define the word in a way that excludes any other group that claims to be Christian; that is a classic fallacy of composition. (or more accurately, a fallacy of division) It doesn’t MATTER whether someone believes in one set of books or another, It doesn’t matter whether a Christian throws out the Old Testament (many do…and MOST do when it is inconvenient) or whether they have more than one book in their bible–or translate it differently. It doesn’t matter whether their bible has the Johanine comma in it or not. This matter of the source of one’s belief in Christ isn’t even mentioned in any definition of “Christian” that I am aware of.

I am not trying to pigeonhole every denomination of Christianity. It would be easy to digress into that and hide from what is being discussed here. Lets stick to the point at hand. When Joseph Smith wrote (translated) the Book of Mormon, the entire collected works of the Book of Mormon, he added an entire new facet to his new religion. He (through inspiration) brought forth an additional text. That text and that text only is what distinguishes your faith from any other faith on the planet. That text is the Book of Mormon. You are Mormon. Accept it. Embrace it.

The fallacy of division states that if something is true of one part, it must then be true of all; this is also called a ‘true Scott…’ or ‘no true scott’ fallacy. You are claiming that because YOU, as a Christian, do not believe in the Book of Mormon, then no Christian can believe in the Book of Mormon. That is fallacious.

Hmm… I taught argumentation for 7 years. The bad news is, well you are wrong. Division is saying if something is true of the whole, then it is true of the parts AND the warrant is absent. But we’re not really here to talk about logical fallacies are we? You’re trying to find one, the only problem is they aren’t there.

Yes. I am a Mormon. The hierarcy actually goes this way: I am a theist, a Christian, a Mormon and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (there ARE Mormons out there who are not LDS, y’know.)

Yes. I know there are some Mormons who are not LDS. That’s not the point. The point is if you accept the Book of Mormon, you cease to classify yourself as Christian and you call yourself a Mormon.

YOUR hierarchy goes thusly: you are a theist, a Christian, a Baptist, and a member of whatever specific congregation you actually attend. The fact that you are a Baptist does NOT mean that you are not a Christian.

I’m not sure where this Baptist thing came from. I am not Baptist.

We both share that one qualification that makes us both Christian; we believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ–oh, and we both claim to BE Christians.

Or. I follow the teaching of Jesus in the New Testament, and you follow the teachings from the Book of Mormon.

That doesn’t mean we are both RIGHT about Him. It doesn’t mean we are both saved. It doesn’t mean we are the same, any more than an army camp cot is the same as the King sized four poster bed with the $2000 mattress I saw in the store the other day. Nevertheless, both are beds.

Oh, I want to talk about this, but I will refrain, as I said I will not be drawn into fallacies.

It also does not matter what differences we have in our theology, ‘heartache’ or not. I am quite aware that you don’t agree with mine, as I don’t agree with much of yours. That is irrelevant. We are both Christian, because we both share the one thing that makes us that.

Wow… drop a bombshell at the end. You don’t believe in the Bible?

 

[why_me]

So using that logic, I can a stake in the Jewish faith, because I follow the God of the Old Testament.

Yes, you can and the christian faith takes a stake in the Jewish faith. The born again christians have a stake in Judaism and are very active in Isreal. And in some cases, the christian faith is described as Judeo-Christian. Christians can not separate themselves from the Jewish roots of their faith.

 

[Xavierlives]

Can you say one thing positive about the lds church?

I can. I truly admire their connection to the family. I also think their desire to serve others is a noble one.

 

[why_me]

Here is something nice about mormon and catholic cooperation:

ldsgenesisgroup.org/templetour.html

The Catholic visitors arrived a day after the Muslim group, but followed the same basic itinerary.

One of the highlights shared by the Catholic leaders was the discovery by the Rt. Rev. Alexei Smith of some of his Polish ancestors during a tour of the Family History Center. Tour guide Daniel Schlyter sat with him at the computer in his search. The Rev. Smith is the ecumenical and interfaith director of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles Roman Catholic Church and pastor of the Russian Greek Catholic Church in El Segundo, Calif.

After a visit to BYU, the Rev. Smith said, “We have never seen such a large group of modestly groomed and dressed young people. Not one person was scantily attired or wearing revealing clothing. They were all clean and well-groomed.”

The Rev. Alfred S. Baca is Episcopal Vicar for Ecumenism and Interreligion for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County, Calif., and is pastor of St. Cecilia Church and School in Tustin, Calif. After touring Church facilities and the Museum of Church History and Art, he said, “I learned that stories are very important for Latter-day Saints—stories of family, faith and practice. We can learn much better, from stories, who we are and where we are going.Stories are important for Catholics, too. We have this in common.”
Cambria Smith, parish life director for Holy Family Parish in South Pasadena, Calif., told the Gillilands after visiting Church Welfare facilities, “This experience deepened my understanding and appreciation of your charitable works. I learned so much about your organizational structure and practices. I was so impressed to learn about the sacrifices you make for your church and especially for other people.”

Father William Connor of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Long Beach summed up to the Gillilands, “I am so grateful to have been invited here to Salt Lake. I have been amazed at the things I have learned about the LDS people. You are so service-oriented and practice living the covenants you have made. You try to live the principles of Christ’s gospel in your daily lives.”

Amazing just how the lds church and the catholic church are doing fine, except for some antimormon catholics on this section of the forum. And how the two churches have things in common with each other.

Is the priest wrong?

 

[why_me]

I can. I truly admire their connection to the family. I also think their desire to serve others is a noble one.

Our friend Paul can’t.

 

[Xavierlives]

Yes, you can and the christian faith takes a stake in the Jewish faith. The born again christians have a stake in Judaism and are very active in Isreal. And in some cases, the christian faith is described as Judeo-Christian. Christians can not separate themselves from the Jewish roots of their faith.

But again. I am not Jewish. Christianity has its foundation in Judaism but there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian Faith. Moreover, Christians can, and do separate themselves from the Jews. One believes the Messiah is Jesus, the other denies. I cannot have both beliefs at the same time. I can believe that the Jews are somewhat faith-based related to me. I can believe that the covenant that God made with them will be constant. But he has made a new covenant and his name is Jesus.

 

[dianaiad]

Maybe you are missing the spirit of the original post. I am not passing judgment. I am not saying you are right or wrong about your theological belief. Being new to the forum and not having read every post about LDS here, I could be wrong, but I am guessing someone else has addressed the theological “wrongs.” I am addressing something more simple, a name. Something that everyone should be able to recognize and accept. Someone says they follow Allah, they are Muslim. Someone says they follow the Book of Mormon, they are Mormon.

As to accepting me as a Christian, I doubt it. You believe I am an apostate. But we aren’t arguing that. We are arguing whether you are better described as a Christian or a Mormon. Embrace what you are, you are a Mormon.

I see. You believe I am lying when I say that you are a Christian and I accept you as such?

Your belief in Christ does not make you Christian.

Actually, it does. That’s what DOES make me a Christian.

Your belief in “another Testament” makes you Mormon. Some Hindus believe in Christ and they are not Christian.

I don’t know of any Hindus that believe in Christ.

The delineation is they believe in other text that make them Hindu.

I am not trying to pigeonhole every denomination of Christianity. It would be easy to digress into that and hide from what is being discussed here. Lets stick to the point at hand. When Joseph Smith wrote (translated) the Book of Mormon, the entire collected works of the Book of Mormon, he added an entire new facet to his new religion. He (through inspiration) brought forth an additional text. That text and that text only is what distinguishes your faith from any other faith on the planet. That text is the Book of Mormon. You are Mormon. Accept it. Embrace it.

Hmm… I taught argumentation for 7 years. The bad news is, well you are wrong. Division is saying if something is true of the whole, then it is true of the parts AND the warrant is absent.

Oops. you’re right. You were guilty of the fallacy of composition.

But we’re not really here to talk about logical fallacies are we? You’re trying to find one, the only problem is they aren’t there.

Yes. I know there are some Mormons who are not LDS. That’s not the point. The point is if you accept the Book of Mormon, you cease to classify yourself as Christian and you call yourself a Mormon.

Only by the same logic that says once you qualify yourself as a Catholic, you cease to classify yourself as a Christian (and by the same reasoning you are using with me; extra stuff.) of course, if that’s true, we have a whole 'nuther conversation.

I’m not sure where this Baptist thing came from. I am not Baptist.

Sorry about that…I thought that was how you catagorized yourself for some reason.

Or. I follow the teaching of Jesus in the New Testament, and you follow the teachings from the Book of Mormon.

Oh, I want to talk about this, but I will refrain, as I said I will not be drawn into fallacies.

What was fallacious about that analogy? I usually use cars…would you care for that? Ok…a mini-Cooper is not a Lexus, .but they are both still automobiles. How about that one?

Mormons are not Catholics. We are not orthodox. We are not Protestants. We are, however, Christians, because we believe in Jesus Christ, and He is the center of our belief system.

Wow… drop a bombshell at the end. You don’t believe in the Bible?

Wow, drop a non sequitur at the end…what has belief in the bible got to do with my saying that we share the one thing that makes us Christian? I gave that earlier in my post; we believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ as we believe them to be, and we both claim to be Christian. As it happens, I do believe in the bible…more importantly, I believe the bible.

 

[Xavierlives]

I see. You believe I am lying when I say that you are a Christian and I accept you as such?

Lying, probably not. If you want we can ferret this out. What is my status as a Christian?
Oh, nevermind. My status has no bearing, it’s nothing but a red herring. (I’ve always loved that one.)

Actually, it does. That’s what DOES make me a Christian.

If you did not also believe in the teachings from the Book of Mormon. If you are willing to distance yourself from that Book, I’ll agree you are a Christian.

I don’t know of any Hindus that believe in Christ.

I don’t know how to respond. How about: they are out there.

Oops. you’re right. You were guilty of the fallacy of composition.

Err… again. I think you would do better to just not try to throw around fallacies. Composition is closer to “fallacy claim” you are trying to make, but you fail to recognize that this fallacy requires the absence of a warrant. The warrant exists therefore the fallacy does not.

Only by the same logic that says once you qualify yourself as a Catholic, you cease to classify yourself as a Christian (and by the same reasoning you are using with me; extra stuff.) of course, if that’s true, we have a whole 'nuther conversation.

Maybe we are reading and responding to different posts. I never qualify myself as a Catholic or a Baptist or anything other than “protestant” and Christian.

What was fallacious about that analogy? I usually use cars…would you care for that? Ok…a mini-Cooper is not a Lexus, .but they are both still automobiles. How about that one?

I am not going to point out the error of your ways. It is not my place. It is not my purpose. I’m not going to get entangled by these snares. We were having a conversation about something worth discussing, lets stay the course.

Mormons are not Catholics. We are not orthodox. We are not Protestants. We are, however, Christians, because we believe in Jesus Christ, and He is the center of our belief system.

But you are Mormon because you have “another Testament.”

Wow, drop a non sequitur at the end…what has belief in the bible got to do with my saying that we share the one thing that makes us Christian? I gave that earlier in my post; we believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ as we believe them to be, and we both claim to be Christian. As it happens, I do believe in the bible…more importantly, I believe the bible.

LOL. Drop a non sequitur? Not really, but if you need me to connect the dots, I will. You stated:

It also does not matter what differences we have in our theology, ‘heartache’ or not. I am quite aware that you don’t agree with mine, as I don’t agree with much of yours. That is irrelevant. We are both Christian, because we both share the one thing that makes us that.

You don’t agree with much of my theology. I’m pretty sure I have yet to discuss any of my theology other than to acknowledge that I do not believe in the Catholic Theology. With one broad stroke, you disassociated yourself with my theology without knowing what I believe. I responded. I believe the Bible. Quid pro quo, you must not. The so called non sequitur was the response in brief to what was actually your fallacy (which again, I did not want to point out).

The irony coming full circle is that I answered your non sequitur with what you viewed as a non sequitur which really answered yours while trying to not point out your fallacy. Alas this brought us to this discussion about fallacies again, which I said I really didn’t want to discuss, because it diminishes our main focus. So in a way you won because I had to address it now and then and probably yet again when you respond. I have been entangled.

I will again go on the record, I would rather discuss the topic than the argumentation.

 

[Stephen168]

Why is the recognition of a Christian Church important to a Mormon Church?

In America being considered Christian establishes some level of acceptance; like homosexuals who want to call themselves married.

The problem is, most “protestant” Christians believe in at least 66 books, and the Catholic Church believes in (help me out here… 7 more?). These were canonized nearly 2,000 years ago.

A small point: the books of the Christian bible were not canonized until the 4th century, so there really was no ‘bible’ until 300 years after the start of Christianity.

So, you added “we believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.” That is your own demarcation.

I have been told that the theology contained in the Book of Mormon is Christian, but not what the Mormons believe. Yes, it seems odd to me, too. So, I would not say that the Mormon acceptance of the Book of Mormon is want excludes them from Christianity. Joseph Smith turned the triune God of Christianity into a pantheon.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, perhaps someday you will realize that simply because you label something fallacious, it doesn’t become fallacious–nor does it answer the question.

I can’t make your eyes open. You seem to dig yourself further and further into blindness. Only God can help you now.

When you claim that our policy towards people of black African descent proves that our religion is untrue, then you have proven Catholicism equally untrue–for precisely the same reason. Thus, discussion of Catholic history becomes pertinent.

I have explained differences. You can’t see them.

Yes, I agree. However, we are speaking about a bull that is not infallible. So your point?

And we do NOT claim that everything that comes out of a prophet’s mouth is the WORD OF GOD. That is a claim that the anti’s make for us, for their own purposes. WE claim that in order for a prophet’s words to be accepted as the WORD OF GOD they must be canonized; made scripture. Everything else may be important, but NOT ‘the WORD OF GOD.’ If it is not the word of God, then it could be NOT the word of God.

This is a new definition, one that is not backed up by what your church teaches, now, and certainly not 150 years ago. We’ve had this discussion before. You ignore what your own church teaches. I guess I do need to dig it up again for you.

Just as the Papal Bulls and “Instructions” of the Popes can cavalierly be ignored by you when you want to.

No, they cannot, but neither do I need to pay attention to a papal letter that is not addressed to the entire Church. The Pope communicates with many people. If he says to someone in a Papal bull go to Africa, do I pack up and go to Africa?

Yes, we believe they are prophets…but not everything out of their mouths are scripture. What is so hard to figure out about that? I have news for you, Rebecca; the dogma of Papal Infallibility, except for the WORD, makes your Popes the equivalent of prophets when they decide to be. You must accept what they say as such, and what they say is taken as the word of God.

Yes Diana, and we know when a Pope is speaking infallibly because we are informed he is. You have to guess at when your prophet is speaking as a prophet. Again, you have not addressed, mormons believed Young and Snow were speaking as prophets, why don’t you?

Or do you think that every word that Peter and Paul said, every instant of their lives, was to be revered as prophecy?

Are you projecting your beliefs onto Catholicism?

Then you need to throw the idea of Papal infallibility away, sweetie, because that is EXACTLY what that is.

How about you drop the condescending tone and act like an adult?

He is when he claims infallibility…it’s the duck principle. You know, 'walk like a duck, quack like a duck…" When a Pope claims that he is speaking ex cathedra and is infallible, that’s pretty du…prophet like.

You are wiggling. The ONLY way that a Pope can be infallible, that is, that GOD WILL NOT ALLOW HIM TO GO ASTRAY, is if God is specifically interfering with what is BEING said. And that, m’friend, is called "revelation,’ and that makes the Pope a prophet by definition.

The Immaculate Conception? That was sorta doctrine before young Bernadette had her encounter at Lourdes, but nobody HAD to believe it. However, once Pope Pius IX got through with it, it was no longer “hey, it’s a nice idea but you don’t have to believe it…” and became dogma–which I understand is a ‘do or leave’ sort of proposition.

So…a Pope can’t proclaim new doctrine, just…new DOGMA?

The difference is that the anti’s want to portray our view of our leaders as being infallible and impeccable in order to criticize us, even as they get all bent out of shape because non-Catholics are confused about the doctrine of Papal infallibility, claiming that it is something that it is not.

It’s all of a piece, though; It MUST be different, because, well…you say so.

But…it’s not.

 

[vickimonica]

Hi everyone!! You need to google “Hot Mormon Muffins, and Men on a Mission”. They are calanders that a group of Mormons made. Obviously, these folks were NOT wearing their Jesus Jammies!!!

 

[thecourt]

Hmmmm good question. All I can do is give you my point of view.
I was born and raised Mormon, served a full time mission to South Africa, married in the Temple. My Seven sisters and my Two Brothers are Mormon, my Mother is Mormon, and my Father no longer is. All of my sisters Husbands converted to the LDS faith.

As a Mormon Missionary I viewed Catholics as people who didn’t have a full understanding of the Gospel. I saw the Catholic Church as the Church of Christ in apostasy, mostly because this is what was taught to me from a young age. I should note that ALL other Churches were in a state of apostasy not just the Catholic Church. Growing up my Mother was a big fan of Bruce R. McKonckie (sp?) and in his 1st edition of Mormon Doctrine he stated the Catholic Church was the Church of the devil, so even though I had held that all other religions were apostate the Catholic Church throughout a lot of Mormon communities gets special attention due to the early teachings that it is the Church of the Devil. I held a certain arrogant view that people outside the LDS church were not very well versed in scripture and didn’t fully understand what God had in store for them. I was taught through obedience of the Gospel and partaking in “life saving” ordinances I was to one day enter the Celestial Kingdom or highest degree of Glory to live with Both God and Jesus Christ. Through time and Progression I would one day become a God and have my own creations to exercise dominion over. I was taught that God was once a man like me, that like me he lived on a world somewhere and through time and intellectual progression he became God like his God before him. Later I learned that there are many Gods and many creations, but I should focus my heart and mind on the God of this world and his Son Jesus Christ. I was taught that J.Smith was not only a Prophet but the head of this dispensation. That save Christ himself J.Smith has done more for the Salvation of Mankind than anyone else. Through J.Smith the Gospel was restored, and the precious and simple parts of the Gospel have returned to the earth through his works, translating the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.
I view Catholics with a certain degree of pity because they did not have the fullness of the “Everlasting Gospel”.
I went on a Mission to South Africa, I studied the Bible, I fell in Love with the Old Testament, and the New Testament. While on my mission through study with the Bible and the Book of Mormon I began to see some disturbing evidence that suggested the Book of Mormon was not what I had initially believed it to be. I did research on the early Church Leaders and the way they lived their lives, and what doctrines they taught as “Divine Truth” from the Pulpit. Needless to say it wasn’t long after my Mission I left the Mormon Church.

I see the Mormon Church as the Church established by a man for his own selfish reasons. I see the teachings, some if not most are good, but then I see the other things snuck in with the good teachings, Plural Marriage, Blood Atonement, as I studied more and more of the Bible the concept of God and the plurality of Gods the more I realized this was a religion developed through the mind of J.Smith and not something divine.

I found truth in the Catholic Church. Now I look at Mormons a group being led astray and in many cases not facing the reality of their beliefs due to fear, fear of reprisals from their families and the Mormon communities in which they live. I find they are for the most part unwilling to look at the inconsistancies of what is being taught to them, and they are more than willing to blindly follow the Word of a Church leader as opposed to their own study and intellect. Harsh sounding I know, but the truth is harsh sometimes.
I respect my Family in their beliefs, I respect the beliefs of my LDS friends, but I pray one day they’ll see the LDS chruch for what it trully is.

The last thing you said is sad in that your relatives have the truth in their lives and you chose to walk away from it as many have, based on what I have learned is mainly history or doctrinal issues. The history or the doctrine is not going to change — I recognize some choose not to accept the reality of the doctrine or the history. Now I am not here to convince to come back to the church since your claim you have the truth in life now, from Catholicism.

 

[Xavierlives]

In America being considered Christian establishes some level of acceptance; like homosexuals who want to call themselves married.

I understand the comparison, but a majority of homosexuals are not asking for the spiritual recognition of marriage, they are asking for the legal recognition. Mormon are seeking for the spiritual recognition. They are asking for this recognition from the core body that they are esteeming to be a part. Therefore, the correlation (as I’ve said in other posts) would be, like early Christians asking to be considered a Jew. As I understand it, quite the opposite happened, the world considered them a sect of Judaism.

A small point: the books of the Christian bible were not canonized until the 4th century, so there really was no ‘bible’ until 300 years after the start of Christianity.

Sorry I was really referring to entire process from writing to canonization. I wasn’t attempting to add 400 years to the time the Bible has been canonized.

I have been told that the theology contained in the Book of Mormon is Christian, but not what the Mormons believe. Yes, it seems odd to me, too. So, I would not say that the Mormon acceptance of the Book of Mormon is want excludes them from Christianity. Joseph Smith turned the triune God of Christianity into a pantheon.

And again, I acknowledge that Christ is a crucial part of their faith. The problem is, they have added text. This text is “Another Testament.” This would be equivalent to someone unearthing and translating the Gospel of Lazarus, “Another Testament.” I would expect they should be called Lazarites (or some derivative of the name). We could generate all kinds of interesting things from here, but the main point is the addition to the text is what separates. They aren’t included because of Christ is included in their faith, they are excluded because they have “Another Testament.” It is not an attempt to diminish their faith, only denote that their additional of text has set them apart from Christians.

 

[Kdesiel]

The last thing you said is sad in that your relatives have the truth in their lives and you chose to walk away from it as many have, based on what I have learned is mainly history or doctrinal issues. The history or the doctrine is not going to change — I recognize some choose not to accept the reality of the doctrine or the history. Now I am not here to convince to come back to the church since your claim you have the truth in life now, from Catholicism.

With your actions in regards to this forum I find it sad you could muster the strength to mention TRUTH and spew it out of your lying mouth.

You sir/madam have only established yourself as a liar, two faced fraud. This is the only response you are worth of.
Good Day to you.

 

[Stephen168]

The history or the doctrine is not going to change — I recognize some choose not to accept the reality of the doctrine or the history.

When science, history, and reason are applied to Mormon history and its ever changing doctrine, it is shown not to be true. The latter day saint movement with its many splinter groups is a 19th century American invention