LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pahoran
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
All of the wind blowing by Mormons, is why I am no longer a Mormon. Change is not wholly a bad thing, but the ever changing doctrine of the LDS Church is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination. When you never know who to believe, what is solid doctrine, or when the strands of security are always quaking under you, and you can not even believe in what the Prophets of the Church say; what can your faith rely on?

As a Catholic, my faith has a safe harbour and it rests in the adoration of my Lord. I no longer stumble and wander in the wasteland of Mormonism.

I know that our Mormon contributers will just say that I am anti-Mormon and dismiss what I have said here, but I haven’t got anything against any of them, I truly love them and pray for them.

God bless.
 
Hosemonkey,
I don’t expect you to share our beliefs. But when you make dogmatic pronouncements about things you don’t understand, it only
My conclusions are the result of years of study and inquiry into mormonism, distilled into a short paragraph. Short does not mean incorrect. Other students of mormonism and similar cults have all arrived at the same conclusions. Catholicism and the truths that it teaches have two thousand years of evidence for it’s beliefs. mormonism has the testimony of a few dubious witnesses and the written evidence of “scriptures” of dubious provenence, most of which are the result of either plagiarism or outright fantasy. No proof exists for the BOM, which contains no provable facts and whose “plates” of origin have conviently disappeared. The burden of proof is not upon me, it is upon those who propose that mormonism is true. That you, who seem to be a fairly intelligent person, have pinned your hopes on such a flimsy construction, is a tribute to the cleverness of the deception. The Catholic Church has no need practice the obfuscation and semantic gymnastics practiced by mormonism, the truth alone is sufficient.
 
My conclusions are the result of years of study and inquiry into mormonism, distilled into a short paragraph. Short does not mean incorrect. Other students of mormonism and similar cults have all arrived at the same conclusions. Catholicism and the truths that it teaches have two thousand years of evidence for it’s beliefs. mormonism has the testimony of a few dubious witnesses and the written evidence of “scriptures” of dubious provenence, most of which are the result of either plagiarism or outright fantasy. No proof exists for the BOM, which contains no provable facts and whose “plates” of origin have conviently disappeared. The burden of proof is not upon me, it is upon those who propose that mormonism is true. That you, who seem to be a fairly intelligent person, have pinned your hopes on such a flimsy construction, is a tribute to the cleverness of the deception. The Catholic Church has no need practice the obfuscation and semantic gymnastics practiced by mormonism, the truth alone is sufficient.
Hosemonkey, with all due respect, your conclusions may be the result of 'years of study and inquiry into Mormonism," but your sources are pretty much all anti-Mormon; that’s fairly obvious by the claims you make about what we ‘really’ believe.

When making claims about what LDS doctrine actually is, if your claim is different from that of any LDS, then the burden of proof is not only on you—it is impossible. Why?

Because when a True Believer of any religious system says 'this is what we believe," that’s authoritative and trumps all things. You are a Catholic…if you say “I believe this or that, and here’s what the cathechism/Pope/scripture/Holy Tradition says about it,” then it doesn’t matter the tiniest bit what anybody else says, or how they choose to interpret what THEY think the catechism/Pope/scripture/Holy Tradition says. What you say goes, every time, for explaining Catholic doctrine to non-Catholics. Certainly no non-Catholic has a right to argue with you about what your beliefs actually ARE.

The problem here is that the reverse is also true, and you are having some difficulty with the concept that Mormons (like Pahoran, Parker and even me) understand what LDS doctrine actually is, and, well…what we say goes. We ARE the proof of what Mormons believe–at least as to what WE, as Mormons, believe, just as you are the proof of what you, an individual Catholic, believes.

You want to argue our beliefs? Fine----but first get out of that battle field of strawmen you are so fond of and talk to us about what our beliefs actually are.

…and, y’know, you might want to figure that we really do know what our beliefs actually are, better than you do. Shoot, even Murdock, whose beliefs run to the edge, is quite aware that his beliefs are not ‘mainstream Mormon,’ even though many of you gleefully claim that they are.

Just a thought.
 
My conclusions are the result of years of study and inquiry into mormonism,
Indeed? From what sources?
distilled into a short paragraph. Short does not mean incorrect.
I agree that it’s not incorrect because it is short. It is incorrect because it is wrong.
Other students of mormonism and similar cults
Oh dear.

Let’s put some definitions in place, shall we?

CULT: A small, unpopular religion.
RELIGION: A large, popular cult.

“Cult” is to interfaith relations as the “N” word is to race relations. It is a mere pejorative, the true value of which is to demonstrate the extent to which the speaker is ill-disposed towards the target group.
have all arrived at the same conclusions.
Of course they have. People who start with closed minds usually find that their conclusions validate their prejudices.
Catholicism and the truths that it teaches have two thousand years of evidence for it’s beliefs. mormonism has the testimony of a few dubious witnesses and the written evidence of “scriptures” of dubious provenence, most of which are the result of either plagiarism or outright fantasy. No proof exists for the BOM, which contains no provable facts and whose “plates” of origin have conviently disappeared.
I have quoted Karl Keating a number of times on the purpose of scatter-gun accusations. Must I do so again?

I reject all of the above paragraph as reflecting no truth, but only your own opinion. I am aware of facts that invalidate your opinion.
The burden of proof is not upon me, it is upon those who propose that mormonism is true.
Where accusations of “deception” are in play, the burden of proof lies solely with the accuser.

As Cardinal Newman pointed out, it is virtually impossible for someone to prove to another that he holds his position in good faith. If you wish to accuse any Latter-day Saint – as Charles Kingsley accused Cardinal Newman – of the “foul calumny” of lying in defense of their faith, then you need to be able to prove it.

People of good will start off by presuming that those with whom they have religious differences are genuine in their belief. If your polemic against Mormonism requires you to start by presuming “deception” on our part, then perhaps your case isn’t as strong as you’d like to think it is.
That you, who seem to be a fairly intelligent person, have pinned your hopes on such a flimsy construction, is a tribute to the cleverness of the deception.
I thank you for the compliment for my part, but I have investigated the calumny in question.

I find it wanting.
The Catholic Church has no need practice the obfuscation and semantic gymnastics practiced by mormonism, the truth alone is sufficient.
I don’t see any more “obfuscation and semantic gymnastics” in LDS apologetics than you do in Catholic apologetics. I see considerably more in anti-Mormon polemics.

Regards,
Pahoran
 
Putting your hand on the Book of Mormon and asking if it is true is a kind of sorcery / magic is it not? I once did this on a slot machine and it paid me $420. It gave me a burning feeling around the heart area. I then proceeded to loose it all. When you gamble you get to see truth in life at a much faster pace.

Would you place your hand on pretty women that you just met a day ago and ask “is this the women I should marry?”

You have to get to know her, fall in love with her. How long should this really take?

It took the Apostles three years to fall in love with Jesus their God to the extent that they did. It is about falling in love with Him. When you fall in love with Jesus you can’t miss His Church. You may avoid it but you really cannot miss it. If Jesus was to go away all would disappear. Even all matter as this to was created for Him and through Him.

He is not just an important figure in our lives. He is what sustains us, that which is life giving. Is this Christian truth?

Rich
 
Shoot, even Murdock, whose beliefs run to the edge, is quite aware that his beliefs are not ‘mainstream Mormon,’ even though many of you gleefully claim that they are.
Perhaps if there were more LDS like him, your faith would have a better image in this country. They wouldn’t have to run commercials that say " I am a Mormon and a human being." And there would be very few, and very civilized Mormon-related threads on this board, And our Mods would not have to trim threads and posts and send people rebuking messages. I have friends on other boards who are very much like him.
 
Putting your hand on the Book of Mormon and asking if it is true is a kind of sorcery / magic is it not?
I’ve got no idea, having never tried anything like that.

I gained a testimony of the Book of Mormon by reading it, pondering its message, and praying to know if it was true. The answer came from God.
I once did this on a slot machine and it paid me $420. It gave me a burning feeling around the heart area. I then proceeded to loose it all. When you gamble you get to see truth in life at a much faster pace.
I woudn’t know. That has no relevance to Latter-day Saint life and teaching.
Would you place your hand on pretty women that you just met a day ago and ask “is this the women I should marry?”

You have to get to know her, fall in love with her. How long should this really take?

It took the Apostles three years to fall in love with Jesus their God to the extent that they did. It is about falling in love with Him. When you fall in love with Jesus you can’t miss His Church. You may avoid it but you really cannot miss it. If Jesus was to go away all would disappear. Even all matter as this to was created for Him and through Him.

He is not just an important figure in our lives. He is what sustains us, that which is life giving. Is this Christian truth?

Rich
OTOH, those who were converted on the Day of Pentecost accepted the Gospel after one sermon and accepted Peter’s invitation to be baptised that same day.

Regards,
Pahoran
 
Did not need your correction. First, you are nowhere near intelligent enough to correct my writing, second, your correction made my post dishonest.
No. You made your post dishonest, all by yourself and without my help when you accused me of saying that I said God was once a sinful man. I said no such thing. You made that up.
I am sorry that truth provokes you
Your deliberately inflammatory misrepresentations are clearly intended to provoke.
Once? lol…Joe was a conman who TOLD people he could find buried find buried treasure. He knew he couldn;t. That makes him a a very dishonest person
You keep repeating this accusation. When I ask you to support it, you refer to the bare fact that Joseph (his name was not “Joe”) once worked for someone who was looking for treasure, which, as you perfectly well know, does not answer the question. When I try to nail you down on the specifics of the accusation, you try to slither out from under your burden of proof with a dismissive quip about “collect calls.”

I’ve just realised: that’s why you suddenly disappeared from MA&DB, isn’t it? Because they make you answer calls for references over there, you knew you wouldn’t be able to keep getting away with scurrilous accusations.
“He is a three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah” If Director and Head are different, fine. But I like your admission that the LDS Church puts people as directors of LDS Institutes of Religion, people who are stupid.
I didn’t say he’s stupid; he’s actually rather cunning. You’ve relied upon his self-flattering description. Here are some facts:
Palmer began his CES career teaching at the Church College of New Zealand, which is the Latter-day Saint high school in Templeview (1967—70). He was hired to teach British Empire history but was eventually shifted to teaching religion classes. For health reasons, he did not complete his four-year contract. Palmer was then made the CES coordinator, his official title, for the Whittier Stake in California (1970—73), where he also taught some college-age students at Rio Hondo Jr. College and Whittier College. He then worked one year on a Ph.D. at Brigham Young University before being again assigned as CES coordinator for the Chico Stake (1975—80), where he also taught college-age students at Butte College in Oroville, California. These assignments, where he was the sole CES employee, came at the beginning of his career. He had nothing to do with LDS Institutes of Religion, as that label is commonly understood, for the last two decades of his CES career. Why? In 1980 he relocated to the Salt Lake Valley, where he taught seminary first at East High School (1980—81) and then at Brighton High School (1981—87). He ended his CES career not teaching but counseling in a jail. What the word “primarily” means is that for nine of the thirty-four years of his CES career, while supervising local seminary teachers, he was also an institute “director.” Even if one were inclined to count his counseling work at a jail as being an institute director, which I am not willing to do, his career seems to have taken a downward spiral, but neither this fact nor any of the reasons for it is mentioned by Palmer or in the Signature hype for An Insider’s View.
He could conceivably call himself an “institute director” just twice, and then only because he was the sole CES employee in the program, and for a total of 9 out of 34 years.
It [Seminary teacher] was [a calling from the Bishop] when I was LDS. Guess God is no longer interested who teaches his kids.,
It was not at any time in your lifetime. Seminary teachers work for the Church Educational System, either as full-time paid employees, or as part-time volunteers. They do have to be recommended by their bishops, but it is not a ward calling and does not come from the Bishop.

You are simply misinformed.
Wow…case in point.
Ah. A cheap shot. How surprising.

Or something.

Regards,
Pahoran
 
and how exactly does that page refute Mormonism?
[quote=lds.org]"Explain that the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the following:

“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (History of the Church, 6:474)."
[/quote]

The existence of more or less than one god is logically impossible. It’s elementary natural theology.
 
No, the existence of more than one God is not “logically impossible”. If it is, then please demonstrate it.
I’ll skip a proof of the impossibility of the non-existence of God since we agree that at least one god exists.

God is pure act with no potential (potential is a privation of act.)

If there were more than one god there would be distinctions among them (obviously.)

Distinctions entail limitations and limitations mean potentiality.

God is pure actuality, with no limitations. Distinctions cannot exist in God. Therefore the existence of more than one god is impossible.
 
I’ll skip a proof of the impossibility of the non-existence of God since we agree that at least one god exists.

God is pure act with no potential (potential is a privation of act.)

If there were more than one god there would be distinctions among them (obviously.)

Distinctions entail limitations and limitations mean potentiality.

God is pure actuality, with no limitations. Distinctions cannot exist in God. Therefore the existence of more than one god is impossible.
The existence of distinct divine Persons, as the Trinity doctrine posits, shows that each Person has qualities that the others do not (they are one in “substance”, while being “three” in Personhood). For example, Trinitarians believe that the Father is unbegotten (as is the Holy Ghost), while the Son is [eternally] begotten. The Holy Ghost proceeds, while the Father and the Son do not. Etc.

Therefore, your above quote not only applies to LDS theology, but Trinitarian theology as well, since the Trinity by definition involves distinctions between the three divine Persons (to not acknowledge the existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct Persons leads one to Modalism), which means that there are distinctions “in God”.
 
I’ve got no idea, having never tried anything like that.

I gained a testimony of the Book of Mormon by reading it, pondering its message, and praying to know if it was true. The answer came from God.
The Book of Mormon has no basis in fact, it is a fabrication,a falsehood. If anyone told you that it was true, it had to have been some other entity than God. That, or you are extraordinarily gullible. Does the multitude of errors,anomalies, impossibilities and outright lies of the BOM not disturb you?

I woudn’t know. That has no relevance to Latter-day Saint life and teaching.
Really?

OTOH, those who were converted on the Day of Pentecost accepted the Gospel after one sermon and accepted Peter’s invitation to be baptised that same day.
But then again, we are talking about the God of Christianity, not the “god” of mormonism (one of many). They are not the same, are they?

Regards,
Pahoran
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top