LDS & Catholic Comparison

[dianaiad]

I know. That’s why I stick around…and why I feel so bad about my post today.

 

[PaulDupre]

OK then, all Mormons or former Mormons who have been taught false doctrine by the LDS, raise their hands.

 

[mrparker]

Here I go again walking in a minefield. In Mormons’ theological world of our spiritual past and how it is reflected in our skin pigments (I hope I got this right) where do Asians fit in or the freckled for that matter? I would like to know more. Any references?
Please, in the interest of receiving a Mormon response, no pile ons.

The Asians - its actually just in the food they eat. As i turned colors too, when i served there for 2 years

 

[mrparker]

I understand where you are coming from, but God makes no error and is incapable of making error and … You can’t have it both ways; you can try but in the end it will not wash.

I have a question concerning your above statement, regarding my lack of ability to understand your two following statements:

DerekD:

I believe the Bible as infallible and without error; I have never met nor will I ever meet a Christian who believes otherwise, since the bible is the voice of God and He cannot lie nor contradict Himself.

So you believe it is without error. This seems clear.

… literally thousands and the errors are so minicle and the meaning is not changed. Themn you have to deal with translations from one language to another,

And here you seem to be admitting there are errors. Please clarify for my understanding where you stand. Thank you.

If I was at one corner and witnessed and accident where tweo people were thrown out of a car and one was killed and the other was lying flat on the middle of the road. you were there first and reported both the dead victim and the onservation of the other person lying in the road. I come along after the ambulence has removed the dead person and my report will be true as well as yours is.

In this [tragic] analogy you have used, wouldnt you say if the the first record of yours, seeing both the dead and lying flat individuals, was removed and lost, that the truth of the incident happening would not be a lie, but the explanation there of (including only the second) would be partially lacking in truth? - thats just how i see it. Share with me your thoughts.

 

[zaffiroborant]

It seems self evident to me, but then I’ve been raised with the idea. Ah, well…We are His Children, quite literally, because He is the Father of our spirits. Our progenitor. Our creator. Our Father. As such, we are His heirs, equally literally.

Just as my mortal father, M***** C**** is the DNA contributer to my mortal self, so exactly is God the Father to my spiritual self. NOT a creation, like a painting, or a statue…or the Universe, but His OFFSPRING.

Yep that’s the way I would take “literal children of” but like I said I hear otherwise from LDS believers such as ParkerD.

Also, to other readers since Paul brought up a subject he disparages but knows nothing about:

The LDS belief is that spirits are “organized” from a form of matter or energy that is described using the word "intelligence", and each intelligence has distinctive individuality. Each intelligence lived before being organized to a more advanced condition of being called a spirit being, and that advancement happened for each mortal person during a pre-mortal life where we became spirits and lived in the presence of Heavenly Father.

The idea that spirits were brought forth by the same process whereby children are born into mortality, with a “sperm spirit” and “spirit DNA” and an “egg spirit” and a union of those within a mother’s womb, is a notion that does not make sense and is not taught within Mormonism, though some few women or men might believe that if they have not really thought deeply about the whole subject.

Union of sperm and egg is a literal child of the parents, ParkerD seems to be saying spirit children are not the literal children of Heavenly Father and Mother and seems to be saying people who believe like you do haven’t thought it through.

 

[Xavierlives]

No…because simply having something other Christians do not have does NOT, in and of itself, prove that we are not Christians. After all, Catholics have something that other Christians do not: the Holy Tradition, (which is held to be equal to scripture in terms of Catholic policy and doctrine) and their system of celebate clergy. One may say that they are different from Protestant Christians by their veneration for Mary and canonized Saints.

Protestants are different from Catholics in that they do NOT venerate Mary and the Saints to the extent that Orthodox Chrisitans do, and they have things that other Christians do not have…such as specific rules for music, worship, snake handling, dress, behavior…every Christian sect has something that makes them different from every other Christian sect. If they did not, there would BE no different Christian sects.

But there are–so your argument falls flat. What makes us Christian is what we have in common with all other Christians, not that which makes us different. What we have in common with them is this: we put Jesus Christ at the center of our faith…and we claim to be Christian. As long as we do that, we ARE Christian. We aren’t your kind of Christian; that is, we are not Catholic or Evangelical Protestant or Eastern Orthodox or Baptists. We are Mormons…and we are Christians.

And we are back to where we were last week. You have “Another Testament.” Name one, any one, just one Christian demonination that has “Another Testament.” I’ll make it easy for you. There are none. Because the whole kit and kaboodle of Christianity solely puts it weight on The Testament of Christ, not “Another Testament.”

How about I try an analogy. Lets say Christians are represented by the color blue and Mormons are green. You might have blue in you, but guess what? You are still green because you have something different than me, you have Yellow. No one is trying to deminish you desire to point out you have blue. You do have blue, but you aren’t blue. You are green. Embrace it.

In this ENTIRE discussion, not once even talked about doctrine. In other threads I have talked about doctrine, but for the purpose of this singular argument, it is important for all to see (some may not accept because they are blind), but without even discussing theology, we should be able to recognize the importance of names, the importance of calling something what it is, because if we don’t, we create confusion. You should be an expert in your faith. You should be proud of it. You should learn everything you can about it. Likewise, I should be an expert in my faith. Because we are different, we are called different things.

 

[Anna_Scott]

No, Anna. You have changed that definition in order TO insult, expell and disparage. The point is, I’m not the one who has changed the definition of the word. You did. Unless you can find a dictionary that defines "Christian’ the way you have, then the change is indeed yours. Now you have the right to do that, but you don’t have the right to make me agree with you.

I’m not the one imposing, Anna. The definition is in every dictionary I have been able to search through…and that definition is the one I use. YOUR definition is one that is not found in any dictionary, anywhere. In other words, you changed it. I did not.

Of course you have that freedom. I have the freedom to believe that “chair” means “a animal of the canine family,” but that does not make a wolf a chair.

Dianaiad:

You missed the points of my posts entirely. You have falsely accused me saying, “You have changed that definition in order TO insult, expel and disparage.”

I did not give you a definition of “Christian.” And if I were to provide you with a definition of Christianity, I would go to the Bible, not a dictionary.

It is not my intention to insult , expel or disparage anyone.

Actually, I think these Mormon Topic Threads have gone out of control on all sides. There is so much anger and animosity thrown back and forth. This is not what Christ wants for any of us. We are called to love one another. Whatever this is–that we are doing on this Thread, is not love. All I can say is, God help us all.

Anna

 

[PaulDupre]

Yep that’s the way I would take “literal children of” but like I said I hear otherwise from LDS believers such as ParkerD.

Union of sperm and egg is a literal child of the parents, ParkerD seems to be saying spirit children are not the literal children of Heavenly Father and Mother and seems to be saying people who believe like you do haven’t thought it through.

I see an interesting trend in these new-style Mormons like ParkerD. They are doing exactly what prior generations of LDS criticized Christians for doing - reducing “plain and precious truths” like the literal paternity of heavenly father to mere symbolic language.

 

[Marie5890]

Actually, I think these Mormon Topic Threads have gone out of control on all sides. There is so much anger and animosity thrown back and forth. This is not what Christ wants for any of us. We are called to love one another. Whatever this is–that we are doing on this Thread, is not love. All I can say is, God help us all.

Anna

Anna, its been my experience both as a Mormon and now as a Catholic, that there is often little wisdom in getting involved with the compare/contrast type of discussions.

Mormonism by some of its most basic and core dogmas is dramatically different from what I would call traditional Christianity.

Its like calling apples, oranges and oranges, apples…They obvious are not the same thing …

But both are fruit…

Just my .02

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna, its been my experience both as a Mormon and now as a Catholic, that there is often little wisdom in getting involved with the compare/contrast type of discussions.

Mormonism by some of its most basic and core dogmas is dramatically different from what I would call traditional Christianity.

Its like calling apples, oranges and oranges, apples…They obvious are not the same thing …

But both are fruit…

Just my .02

I think you are right.

I think this will be my last post on a Mormon Topic Thread–for awhile, maybe altogether.

We are called to love one another–and we are failing on this Thread.

Anna

 

[dianaiad]

Yep that’s the way I would take “literal children of” but like I said I hear otherwise from LDS believers such as ParkerD.

Union of sperm and egg is a literal child of the parents, ParkerD seems to be saying spirit children are not the literal children of Heavenly Father and Mother and seems to be saying people who believe like you do haven’t thought it through.

I don’t see a disconnect here.Earthly parents give birth to us physically, but we need our spirits to animate the bodies they produce for us. So did God ‘organize’ those intelligences in order for us to become His spirit children. The process may have been different, but the results are the same; we are His Children, not His creations.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad:

You missed the points of my posts entirely. You have falsely accused me saying, “You have changed that definition in order TO insult, expel and disparage.”

Your intent to exclude me from Christianity is to make me ‘other.’ as in ‘not Christian,’ not ‘one of us,’ and thus “lesser.” Including me in the definition of “Christian” does not make you LESS Christian or mean that I am more correct. It simply means that we do have something in common, even if that one thing is JUST that we have Jesus Christ at the center of our faiths. To acknowledge this would not hurt you in any way, or hurt your position in attempting to disprove our claims. It is soley and only a means of expulsion from any consideration of community.

I did not give you a definition of “Christian.” And if I were to provide you with a definition of Christianity, I would go to the Bible, not a dictionary.

1. “Christian” is an English word. English words are defined by English dictionaries.
2. the Bible does not define “Christian…” and if you DID use the bible to define it, (as in, describing the organization of the church at the time, and the beliefs of the people of the time,) then we would DEFINATELY fit the description, and you…wouldn’t.

It is not my intention to insult , expel or disparage anyone.

Then don’t expect me to agree with you that I am not a Christian…and knowing that I firmly believe that I AM, don’t declare that I’m not…for doing that IS an insult…since of course you know that I, and other Mormons, WILL respond with the reasons why we are, too, Christians. We aren’t YOUR kind of Christian. We are, however, Christian.

Actually, I think these Mormon Topic Threads have gone out of control on all sides. There is so much anger and animosity thrown back and forth. This is not what Christ wants for any of us. We are called to love one another. Whatever this is–that we are doing on this Thread, is not love. All I can say is, God help us all.

Anna

 

[zaffiroborant]

I don’t see a disconnect here.Earthly parents give birth to us physically, but we need our spirits to animate the bodies they produce for us. So did God ‘organize’ those intelligences in order for us to become His spirit children. The process may have been different, but the results are the same; we are His Children, not His creations.

Well I suppose if you think of a man and a woman contributing their respective reproductive material, and a woman gestating that material as “organizing” a baby…

But I do not see how an already existing being can be called the offspring of two other beings. Best I can see they build/organize/make a shell for a symbiote. Nor do I see how one can be a “literal child” of 2 beings unless they both contribute of themselves to the offspring.

Is a glorified uterus a vestigial organ?

 

[Xavierlives]

There is a major hole in your logic here. If I write you 4 letters, and while you are not looking, someone takes the 3rd and burns it up and throws it away. You would be able to tell from the context of my letter that something was missing. Would you then be forced not to accept those letters as mine?

That’s great, but nothing is missing. Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

I don’t know what is more problematic with your reasoning, that God has allowed “someone” to remove his “letter to us” for 30% of dated time or that the three letter’s God’s wrote never make any mention of a coming fourth letter, or that the three letters make perfect sense without trying to add another letter.

Nor does the Bible claim to the clarity and specification of words you request regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, but in fact in more places contradicts it. Yet you believe it. I do not bring this up to tear down your belief but merely to prove to you that the Bible is not clear on many subjects and because of the imperfections within, it results in so many thousands of ways of interpreting it.

But with the stoke of a pen, Joseph Smith answered the Trinity question, by saying, what God meant to say is, we are all going to be gods.

Moreover, I do not have a problem understanding the Trinity.

And just the same as the Old Testmant and New Testament provide a witness to support one another, (as i believe very strongly that if you had not the New Testament teachings, you, nor i would be able to understand the teachings of the Old Testament, and would be lost as were the Pharisees and other Jews)

But the Old Testiment points to Jesus. Jesus does not point to the Book of Mormon.

Likewise, The continued necessity of public revelation through a prophet becomes evident.

And that is why we have the Holy Spirit. We do not need another man. We need only the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reveals these things to each of us.

When you learn to measure your own beliefs and doctrines by the same standard you apply to the LDS Faith, you will learn that you are merely proving your own beliefs invalid.

Well crud. Where is Diana when I need her? This is circular. If I am proving my own beliefs invalid then I am also proving yours invalid, because you have everything I have plus a little bit more.

 

[dianaiad]

And we are back to where we were last week. You have “Another Testament.” Name one, any one, just one Christian demonination that has “Another Testament.” I’ll make it easy for you. There are none. Because the whole kit and kaboodle of Christianity solely puts it weight on The Testament of Christ, not “Another Testament.” [/qiuote]

Irrelevant. Your position is that the Book of Mormon disqualifies us from ‘Christian’ status because…it’s something new, something different, and something that other Christian churches do not have. Ergo, in order to be Christian, NO church can have something that other Christian churches don’t have…and that means, come to think of it, that no Christian church is actually…Christian. It is not about WHAT is different…it’s about why the difference matters.

QUOTE=Xavierlives;5927040][/How about I try an analogy. Lets say Christians are represented by the color blue and Mormons are green. You might have blue in you, but guess what? You are still green because you have something different than me, you have Yellow. No one is trying to deminish you desire to point out you have blue. You do have blue, but you aren’t blue. You are green. Embrace it.

Bad analogy. Try…Christianity is represented by the color wheel. Catholics are blue. Protestants are yellow…they mix with each other in various shades of green, but WE…are red. We all still belong to the color wheel.

Xavierlives:

[/In this ENTIRE discussion, not once even talked about doctrine. In other threads I have talked about doctrine, but for the purpose of this singular argument, it is important for all to see (some may not accept because they are blind), but without even discussing theology, we should be able to recognize the importance of names, the importance of calling something what it is, because if we don’t, we create confusion. You should be an expert in your faith. You should be proud of it. You should learn everything you can about it. Likewise, I should be an expert in my faith. Because we are different, we are called different things.[/COLOR]

Indeed. I am a Mormon. You are…whatever you are. We are both, ALSO, Christians.
[/QUOTE]

 

[dianaiad]

Well I suppose if you think of a man and a woman contributing their respective reproductive material, and a woman gestating that material as “organizing” a baby…

But I do not see how an already existing being can be called the offspring of two other beings.

Then how can you call yourself the offspring of your mortal mother and father? Because although they manufactured your body physically be combining DNA, it was the spirit God contributed that made you more than a dead body.

Best I can see they build/organize/make a shell for a symbiote. Nor do I see how one can be a “literal child” of 2 beings unless they both contribute of themselves to the offspring.

Is a glorified uterus a vestigial organ?

Well, my own opinion, which is merely my own opinion, is that there IS a Mother in Heaven (well, that’s doctrine.) but why anybody with two synapses to rub together would figure that a woman with a physical body (even a glorified one) would swell, take months and then give birth to a SPIRITUAL infant. Whatever the process is, THAT doesn’t make much sense.

It is a mystery.

Catholics should understand that concept.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s great, but nothing is missing. Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

I don’t know what is more problematic with your reasoning, that God has allowed “someone” to remove his “letter to us” for 30% of dated time or that the three letter’s God’s wrote never make any mention of a coming fourth letter, or that the three letters make perfect sense without trying to add another letter.

But with the stoke of a pen, Joseph Smith answered the Trinity question, by saying, what God meant to say is, we are all going to be gods.

Here’s a question…for everybody. What ARE we going to be? What are we going to DO with eternity?

It is, after all, a very long time.

Moreover, I do not have a problem understanding the Trinity.

I understand it. I don’t agree with it.

But the Old Testiment points to Jesus. Jesus does not point to the Book of Mormon.

And that is why we have the Holy Spirit. We do not need another man. We need only the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reveals these things to each of us.

If that were true, we wouldn’t have needed any of the apostles and prophets who wrote the books and letters of the New Testament.

Well crud. Where is Diana when I need her? This is circular. If I am proving my own beliefs invalid then I am also proving yours invalid, because you have everything I have plus a little bit more.

…and how was I supposed to help you with THIS one, Xavier? I mean, do we REALLY have 'everything that you have plus a little bit more?" That’s IT? That’s a little like saying that the Christians who only had a gospel or two were Christians, but that the ones who ALSO had the rest of the gospels plus the letters are no longer Christians, but something else…even though the addition of the letters (especially the Pauline letters) made a pretty big impact on the faith…even changed it a bit…

 

[zaffiroborant]

Then how can you call yourself the offspring of your mortal mother and father? Because although they manufactured your body physically be combining DNA, it was the spirit God contributed that made you more than a dead body.

Well, my own opinion, which is merely my own opinion, is that there IS a Mother in Heaven (well, that’s doctrine.) but why anybody with two synapses to rub together would figure that a woman with a physical body (even a glorified one) would swell, take months and then give birth to a SPIRITUAL infant. Whatever the process is, THAT doesn’t make much sense.

It is a mystery.

Catholics should understand that concept.

Kittens are the “literal” offspring of their parents without any “contribution” of spirit. It’s the “manufacture” by combing of DNA that makes one “literal” offspring of parents. No mutual contribution of material to the “child” from each of the the respective heavenly parents then no “literal” offspring. Heavenly Father and Mother seem to be making matroyshkas, take an “intelligence” give it a “spirit body” then send it along for a mortal body then if they do well they get a glorified body.

 

[Rocket_Man]

“While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

I’m still wondering how Jesus could keep the eleven (none of them is lost) that were chosen to follow him while in the world but could not do so any longer while out the world?

So after he left, the church was all up to the man’s agency?

What about Lazarus, being 4 days dead stinking rotten, did he have a choice when Jesus cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

How am I to trust this Mormon’s belief that after Jesus left this earth that He couldn’t hold His church from apostatizing?

 

[mrparker]

That’s great, but nothing is missing. Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

I don’t know what is more problematic with your reasoning, that God has allowed “someone” to remove his “letter to us” for 30% of dated time or that the three letter’s God’s wrote never make any mention of a coming fourth letter, or that the three letters make perfect sense without trying to add another letter.

You have misinterpreted my analogy/parable (as many also do when interpreting the meaning of Christ’s teachings)

But the 3rd letter removed was not a representation of the Book of Mormon, but of the precious parts of the Bible that i believe are missing because of man’s flaws, not God’s flaws, for He has none.

And we may disagree in the reasoning that God has allowed “someone” to remove parts of his “letters” to us. God did not write the Bible Himself, but inspired the authors of the books to write it. God at no time, forces any man to do anything, but gives us our agency. For if he did, he would cease to be God, having violated His own Laws.

Although one may(and has already) said that this doesnt make sense because then our salvation depends upon and is lost because of those who caused the parts of the Bible to be lost or removed. This would be true, if the only place to lean upon for belief and knowledge regarding salvation and God was the Bible. However, as to my faith, I believe God has, does, and will always reveal His Truth to his people through and by the mouth of His prophets. If you do not share the belief regarding prophets, there is no way you can agree with me regarding the Bible…thus resulting in you having a different faith.

(Edited)
But with the -]stoke of a pen/-] appearance of God by the power of the Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith -]answered/-] was able to answer the Trinity question, by saying, what God meant to say is,-] we are all going to be gods./-], God and Christ are two separate beings of flesh and bone, in an exalted and perfected state. Christ having submitted his will to the Fathers, and having overcome all, in life and in death, fulfilled his right to be heir to all the Father has, and has made it possible that through his grace we too may receive of the same - becoming exalted beings of flesh and bone like God.

Moreover, I do not have a problem understanding the Trinity.

I never doubted that you do.

But the Old Testiment points to Jesus. Jesus does not point to the Book of Mormon.

The Old Testament points to Jesus.
The New Testament points to Jesus.
The Book of Mormon points to Jesus.
2 Nephi 33:10-11 reads:
10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.
11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.

If I am proving my own beliefs invalid then I am also proving yours invalid, because you have everything I have plus a little bit more.

You just repeated what i said to you, but backwards…i think you’re the one spinning in circles here

I will try (and may fail again) to clarify:
If the standard by which you use to try and prove that LDS Faith is false, AND are right, you prove your own faith false. HOWEVER, your methods and standards in attempt to prove the LDS Faith false, are false, therefore, feel free to hang on to your faith and hope of your own.

Bless you my brother. Nothing but love.