K
KathleenGee
Guest
Yes, Tony quote mining…taking our sacred teachings to invalidate our teachings…
LDS: What do you know about your Heavenly Mother? Would you like to know more?
- Status
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Tony,
It is better you bring here the history of Mormon beliefs since you know a little about ours…and then compare.
It is better you bring here the history of Mormon beliefs since you know a little about ours…and then compare.
S
SteveVH
Guest
I believe I just asked you what you meant and in doing so gave you my interpretation of what you said, asking if it was correct.
In any event, how can you say that you do not believe in an infinite progression of Gods? You believe in a god who was once as we are now and who “became” a god. It logically follows, in any reasonable mind, that this god, who was once as we are now, is necessarily dependent upon another for his existence, just as are we. Please name a god in the Mormon faith who does not have a god that preceded him, who existed before all other things that exist, anywhere, in any universe? When you find that God you will have found the God of Christianity who has existed from eternity, without beginning or end, the Uncaused Cause, the Alpha and the Omega, the origin of all things.
Please explain the fallacy in my reasoning here.
Thanks
C
Crdl2Grv
Guest
Great post, SVH. Top notch.
T
Tony888
Guest
Again, it is your fantasy that I believe in an infinite progression of Gods, and you have yet to show me where this is LDS doctrine.
If the best you can do is provide footnotes that you use to **logically deduce **a doctrine, then you are corrupt and I must ask what you are doing here. All the references to God in the Quad are clear that he always was.
How did you feel when I deduced that **“all Catholics believe they will become Gods and live in posh mansions, near the throne of God”. **I was even able to create this RCC doctirne, without resorting to unoffical sources, hence my evidence is much stronger than yours
.I can create many more RCC doctrines through quote mining scripture and the CCC, if you are confirming those are the rules of your game.
I’ve added a new signature quote for people such as you.
You are free to speculate, just stop insisting that your specualtion must be LDS doctirne
P
Peter_John
Guest
Your response surprises none of us. Tony, we did not come knocking on your door. We understand that you are relatively new to Mormonism. I am sorry that you find the literal statements published by your Church on its current website so distasteful. Had you been raised Mormon, you would not have an issue with these teachings, as your LDS colleagues who grew up in the Church do not.
To infer is to impose a meaning on something not necessarily directly intended by the author. When the LDS Church publishes on its website and in its books, for all the world to see, “God is an exalted man” and the he “became God” that leaves nothing to infer. It only leaves the choice of accepting it, or rejecting the source.
Now, if you never looked in detail at the History of Catholicism from its own perspective – as you wish us to consider Mormonism from its own perspective – let us invite you to do so. It is 2,000 years of heritage, not 200, with a rich history of sacrifice, devotion, and continuing revelation. It tells how the Apostles Jesus sent forth succeeded in their mission, not that they failed. It tells of ongoing miracles for two millennia that continue today. It tells of a divine work realized through imperfect men and women. Sometimes they made terrible mistakes, but even these faults could not destroy the work the Savior created: True to Jesus’ words, the gates of hell have not prevailed against it. It established the very canon of scripture that all claiming Christianity acknowledge indisepensable, at least in part, based on practices it followed for Centuries before deciding what writings qualified. Affirmation of the Bible’s truth validates the practices that brought it forth.
More than that, it tells the story of Western Civilization. Catholicism did not create the Dark Ages. The fall of the Roman Empire did that, destroying an infrastructure on which people had become dependent. Countless Monks over hundreds of years preserved the recordds of the fallen Civilization, as the Church grew and re-established social infrastructure. Then the records were there so that society did not have to invent everything all over again. In the process Catholics discovered the scientific method, and created some of our greaest works of art and literature.
A growing school of thought even asserts that Shakespeare was Catholic. This not just because of inhernetly Catholic references in his work, but because it explains how his work reflects an Oxford education without a record of his enrollment. Catholics then could not go to Oxford, as they had to swear an oath to the King as the head of the Church of England. However, many did audit classes, as we would call it now. They attended the lectrures, they did the work, they just did not get credit.
I challenge you to approach Catholicism the same way those of us former LDS approached Mormonism – my conversion to Catholicism came before my rejection of Mormonism. I still have several family members in the Church, and we have a clear understanding of what Mormonism teaches. If you really want to see how grand are the works of God among men, take a look at the only institution that has carried the banner, through good and bad decisions, for 2,000 years.
Most important – this I promise you – you will meet your true Heavenly Mother, and She will lead you to Her Divine Son as you have never imagined. Her entire mission is the revelation of Christ to the world, as much now as when she delivered Him in body.
To infer is to impose a meaning on something not necessarily directly intended by the author. When the LDS Church publishes on its website and in its books, for all the world to see, “God is an exalted man” and the he “became God” that leaves nothing to infer. It only leaves the choice of accepting it, or rejecting the source.
Now, if you never looked in detail at the History of Catholicism from its own perspective – as you wish us to consider Mormonism from its own perspective – let us invite you to do so. It is 2,000 years of heritage, not 200, with a rich history of sacrifice, devotion, and continuing revelation. It tells how the Apostles Jesus sent forth succeeded in their mission, not that they failed. It tells of ongoing miracles for two millennia that continue today. It tells of a divine work realized through imperfect men and women. Sometimes they made terrible mistakes, but even these faults could not destroy the work the Savior created: True to Jesus’ words, the gates of hell have not prevailed against it. It established the very canon of scripture that all claiming Christianity acknowledge indisepensable, at least in part, based on practices it followed for Centuries before deciding what writings qualified. Affirmation of the Bible’s truth validates the practices that brought it forth.
More than that, it tells the story of Western Civilization. Catholicism did not create the Dark Ages. The fall of the Roman Empire did that, destroying an infrastructure on which people had become dependent. Countless Monks over hundreds of years preserved the recordds of the fallen Civilization, as the Church grew and re-established social infrastructure. Then the records were there so that society did not have to invent everything all over again. In the process Catholics discovered the scientific method, and created some of our greaest works of art and literature.
A growing school of thought even asserts that Shakespeare was Catholic. This not just because of inhernetly Catholic references in his work, but because it explains how his work reflects an Oxford education without a record of his enrollment. Catholics then could not go to Oxford, as they had to swear an oath to the King as the head of the Church of England. However, many did audit classes, as we would call it now. They attended the lectrures, they did the work, they just did not get credit.
I challenge you to approach Catholicism the same way those of us former LDS approached Mormonism – my conversion to Catholicism came before my rejection of Mormonism. I still have several family members in the Church, and we have a clear understanding of what Mormonism teaches. If you really want to see how grand are the works of God among men, take a look at the only institution that has carried the banner, through good and bad decisions, for 2,000 years.
Most important – this I promise you – you will meet your true Heavenly Mother, and She will lead you to Her Divine Son as you have never imagined. Her entire mission is the revelation of Christ to the world, as much now as when she delivered Him in body.
C
catholic-rcia
Guest
Tony, they all beleive this, come on…
“I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person’s
religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently, on the
faults of other people’s religions, he is in a bad condition.”
Satan, created as a good angel became evil because he wanted what Jesus has always had, even His church. He can appear to be like Jesus, but pride always pops up. He became jeoluse of his Creator. Who would want to tell you that the Church Jesus started fell into apostacy? Who really hates the Catholic Church? Its all just satans spin in all of our lives. He hates the Church, he really hates confession, he desires earthly power, to be better than Jesus himself. Think about these things. Think about all his lies. When our world as we know it begins to fall apart, this is the best chance at getting to know Jesus. Only He can kleep us together. You need to come home and then help others come home.
Out of love for Jesus
Rich
www.utahmission.com
utahmission@aol.com
“I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person’s
religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently, on the
faults of other people’s religions, he is in a bad condition.”
- C.S. Lewis
Satan, created as a good angel became evil because he wanted what Jesus has always had, even His church. He can appear to be like Jesus, but pride always pops up. He became jeoluse of his Creator. Who would want to tell you that the Church Jesus started fell into apostacy? Who really hates the Catholic Church? Its all just satans spin in all of our lives. He hates the Church, he really hates confession, he desires earthly power, to be better than Jesus himself. Think about these things. Think about all his lies. When our world as we know it begins to fall apart, this is the best chance at getting to know Jesus. Only He can kleep us together. You need to come home and then help others come home.
Out of love for Jesus
Rich
www.utahmission.com
utahmission@aol.com
T
Tony888
Guest
Peter,
Since you are stuck in your rut, please respond to my creation of RCC doctrine by tying together two bits of explicit RCC doctrine to tell you what you believe.
You should know faith in God is not a logical construct, nor is the doctrine of the RCC logical. Yet you insiste in creating LDS doctrine through your logic.
I will give you one more challenge
Imortant and legitimate teachings are repeated, poked and prodded, and expanded upon
Thus, this extremely significant and importiant ‘doctrine of infindinte progression’ should have several dozen General Conference talks that delve into the mystery of this supposed doctrine
The complete lack of material on it should tell a smart person that you are barking up the wrong tree.
There are plenty of things the LDS do teach, and repeat, that are in conflict with the RCC teaching. Why don’t you spend your effort on the real teachings? To give you a hint, our teachings are the priesthood are an obvious divide between our faiths, that is legitimate and not fantasy
Since you are stuck in your rut, please respond to my creation of RCC doctrine by tying together two bits of explicit RCC doctrine to tell you what you believe.
You should know faith in God is not a logical construct, nor is the doctrine of the RCC logical. Yet you insiste in creating LDS doctrine through your logic.
I will give you one more challenge
Imortant and legitimate teachings are repeated, poked and prodded, and expanded upon
Thus, this extremely significant and importiant ‘doctrine of infindinte progression’ should have several dozen General Conference talks that delve into the mystery of this supposed doctrine
The complete lack of material on it should tell a smart person that you are barking up the wrong tree.
There are plenty of things the LDS do teach, and repeat, that are in conflict with the RCC teaching. Why don’t you spend your effort on the real teachings? To give you a hint, our teachings are the priesthood are an obvious divide between our faiths, that is legitimate and not fantasy
S
SteveVH
Guest
Why don’t you just read what I wrote and answer the question I asked? Please explain the fallacy in my reasoning? Are you really trying to tell me that you don’t believe that God was once a man like us, who, through exaltation, became a God? I’m sorry, but I didn’t create the necessary implications of that belief, I simply recognize them and am pointing them out to you.Again, it is your fantasy that I believe in an infinite progression of Gods, and you have yet to show me where this is LDS doctrine.
If the best you can do is provide footnotes that you use to **logically deduce **a doctrine, then you are corrupt and I must ask what you are doing here. All the references to God in the Quad are clear that he always was.
How did you feel when I deduced that **“all Catholics believe they will become Gods and live in posh mansions, near the throne of God”. **I was even able to create this RCC doctirne, without resorting to unoffical sources, hence my evidence is much stronger than yours
I can create many more RCC doctrines through quote mining scripture and the CCC, if you are confirming those are the rules of your game.
I’ve added a new signature quote for people such as you.
You are free to speculate, just stop insisting that your specualtion must be LDS doctirne
By the way, your insults toward me don’t help your argument so why don’t you just keep them to yourself in the future.
S
SteveVH
Guest
I thought it was rather foolish and really didn’t give it a second thought, to be honest.How did you feel when I deduced that **“all Catholics believe they will become Gods and live in posh mansions, near the throne of God”. **I was even able to create this RCC doctirne, without resorting to unoffical sources, hence my evidence is much stronger than yours
So you are after official sources. Would you consider your current Gospel Principles manual a credible source? How about the words of your founding prophet which are found there? Are they official enough for you?
"This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).
We don’t have to make stuff up about the LDS church. What comes from the horses mouth is way beyond what most of us could muster.
P
Peter_John
Guest
I did respond. I said none of us are surprised. More personally, I spent most of my life with people claiming my Faith (Mormonism) taught things that really were not valid. I also spent most of my life with Mormonism teaching me things about Catholicism I now know are not true, among these, Catholics do not believe in revelation (false, big time) Catholics believe God forgives you just for confessing without repentance (false) Catholics believe that children who die unbaptized can’t go to heaven (most false of all).
It’s all old hat to me, and pretty much what I expect. However, you are not doing the same thing we have done. You took one sentence intentionally out of context, affirming it means something different than what it means in context. We cited referencesin context, or provided links for the whole context, and it is clear that we did not take it out of context. If it leans heavily on one significant quote of Joseph Smith’s it is because the LDS publication of the doctrine leans heavily on that quote. Every time the LDS Church republishes the quote with the same clear message, they revalidate it. AS I will soon show you, it has been so strongly advanced that the only way to say that Mormonism does not teach it is for them to make a an unambiguous and unequivocal denial of the teaching.
I will answer the middle part of your question in a post immediately following.
Actually most elements of Catholicism share much in common with Mormonism. They are like two different sides of the same tapestry – that is not just my opinion. Several other LDS converts (not all) on this site agree with my analogy.
I am not trying to argue with you. I started this thread to talk about our Heavenly Mother, which seems to be something LDS do not want to consider.Perhaps that is because the Catholic perception of a Heavenly Mother has much more to speak of.
You do not care about Catholicism, you claim, so I make no effort to persuade you of anything Catholic – I am trying to help you understand your own faith, believe it or not. If you do not believe that my intent, read my next post.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
You know it doesn’t matter to me whether or not the LDS church teaches this or whether or not members accept it as doctrine. The fact that Joseph Smith, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, who supposedly talked with God the Father and His Son (depending on which version of the story you read) who was supposedly hand picked by God to “restore” the original church established by Christ (or Adam if you look into it more) could be so very wrong about the Father that Joseph’s very words need the appellation “it’s not doctine” proves that Smith is not what he claimed. He is not what he claimed, it is clearly evident from the denial of his teachings that he didn’t know what he was talking about, he didn’t know God.
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
There is really no point in trying to reason with Mormons. Their faith is completely emotionally based.
P
Peter_John
Guest
No logic is needed when we only have to quote.
I would call several dozen a small number considering the scope of LDS history. I expect that if you count the general conference addresses while Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow were was President you have that many in a couple of years. The fact that it most often now gets used as support of other less “significant and important” doctrines evidences how ubiquitous it is: Leaders take the doctrine for granted, as do endowed members.
So are you on a mission to generate backlinks toi the LDS.org website?
Before I contradict that remark, I ask one thing: Consider the references already cited, from the Teachings of Joseph Smith manual and the Gospel Principles manual. Consider the references that follow. Decide if you believe what they seem to say. Pray and ask God to confirm your decision. If you decide they are not, and God confirms this to you, then you have a responsibility to ask your Bishop why it is not more clear when you know the doctrine is not true LDS doctrine. See what he says. I would be interested in knowing.
***All sources from the LDS official Website unless otherwise specified. ***
From teaching of the Presidents series: Brigham Young. This is not a quote of Brigham Young’s, but a statement as part of the lesson comprehension section, a didactice doctrinal exposition:
While Joseph Smith’s quote from his eulogy for Elder King Follett is most often quoted, he was not the only one who voiced this. Before “Brother Joseph” disclosed this doctrine Lorenzo Snow expressed it as “As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be.” He shared this only with a few, one of them being Brigham Young, before Joseph made it a formal doctrine. He has also been extensively quoted in manuals and discourses:
Lorenzo Snow’s Quote:
From the Feb. 1982 Ensign, Gerald N. Lund:
*is **doctrine … *
[emphasis added] Scroll down at the link. Granted the column includes a disclaimer, but it also quotes LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith proclaiming the doctrine valid.
From the June, 1982 *New Era *(my first publisher!). This is intentionally intended for teenagers:
http://lds.org/new-era/1982/06/mormonad?lang=eng
N. Eldon Tanner, 1978 Ensign:
http://lds.org/ensign/1978/05/ye-shall-know-the-truth?lang=eng
L. Tom Perry, 1996 *Ensign *& 2002 Liahona:
http://lds.org/liahona/2002/05/learning-to-serve?lang=eng
I confused authors of “If You Could Hie to Kolob”, It was actually W. W. Phelps: “do you think that you could ever … find out the generation when gods began to be.” LDS hymns must support LDS doctrine. That is why some words in common Christian hymns are changed, others not included though popular among members.
These are just a few. If you want I will cite some hard copy publications, too – but that won’t help you get backlinks
Until then–“Don’t worry, Little Brother, there are more!” The 13th Warrior – continued in next post.
P
Peter_John
Guest
PART II
Notice how the quotes in the prior passages present the ideas as if there is nothing unusual about it.
*The Encyclopedia of Mormonism *is linked to from the official LDS website, hosted by BYU. It was published with the consultation and approval of the Church under Gordon B. Hinckley.
And there is more
Notice how the quotes in the prior passages present the ideas as if there is nothing unusual about it.
*The Encyclopedia of Mormonism *is linked to from the official LDS website, hosted by BYU. It was published with the consultation and approval of the Church under Gordon B. Hinckley.
… Latter-day Saints also attribute omnipotence and omniscience to the Father.*** He knows all things relative to the universe in which mortals live*** and is himself the source and possessor of all true power manifest in it. [emphasis added: It clearly states that Mormonism teaches God’s power is relative, not absolute.] I can’t keep that quote from splitting.
And there is more
P
Peter_John
Guest
PART III
Regarding the King Follett Discourse, it also makes these other statements, as reprinted in its entirety in two parts in 1971:
The sequence seems a bit scattered but he often spoke that way. The wriers mix-up spirits with intelligences near the end, which Smith likely would not. It also prints “co-equal” as the word Joseph as the Church showss the intended meaning was co-eternal. The [brackets] mean the Brethren responsible for editing it (The LDS President is the editor and publisher of the Ensign) validate through clarification. This was among the most cherished and reveiwed teachings of Joseph Smith as such a clear affirmation of the doctrines within it, so close to his death. The LDS perception has long been ever since that his feet may have been on the ground, but his head was already in the Celestial Kingdom, and this may have been – in their view – the closest to God he ever was while preaching.
Doubt me if you wish. Do what I suggest, for the benefit of your own Faith. If you pray about it and still doubt it as valid LDS doctrine, talk to your Bishop and ask why the Church does not refute it.
Regarding the King Follett Discourse, it also makes these other statements, as reprinted in its entirety in two parts in 1971:
Four authors agreed it accurately represented the speech (three more than normal for his teachings). I think you can see he expresses each idea multiple times. In addition, anyone there could have disputed the account’s accuracy, and none ever did. I do not present that as reasoning accuracy of the doctrine, but the validity of the account. Its continual reprinting and referenceing for 150 years establishes its content as doctrinal. It would be scripture had they had a formal transcription to verify its word for word accuracy (equivalent to The Didache not getting into the Bible - we still hold to it greatly)-- though Smith himself often redacted what his scribes took down.
The sequence seems a bit scattered but he often spoke that way. The wriers mix-up spirits with intelligences near the end, which Smith likely would not. It also prints “co-equal” as the word Joseph as the Church showss the intended meaning was co-eternal. The [brackets] mean the Brethren responsible for editing it (The LDS President is the editor and publisher of the Ensign) validate through clarification. This was among the most cherished and reveiwed teachings of Joseph Smith as such a clear affirmation of the doctrines within it, so close to his death. The LDS perception has long been ever since that his feet may have been on the ground, but his head was already in the Celestial Kingdom, and this may have been – in their view – the closest to God he ever was while preaching.
Woof-woof.
Doubt me if you wish. Do what I suggest, for the benefit of your own Faith. If you pray about it and still doubt it as valid LDS doctrine, talk to your Bishop and ask why the Church does not refute it.
P
Peter_John
Guest
I have to dispute that. It is logical within its framework and according to its definitions.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I have to dispute that.
Mormons go through mental gymnastics in order to maintain belief. Compartmentalizing conflicting beliefs, for example, is very common. This is not employing logic. When it finally comes to a point where it all falls apart, as it always will, Mormons will employ the “feelings” card…it has to be true because it feels true, regardless of the evidence contrary to that feeling.
P
Peter_John
Guest
That argument has merit! I concede the point.I have to dispute that.
S
SteveVH
Guest
I couldn’t agree more. Using JS’s foundational comments concerning the nature of God (once a man like us who became God) has had unintended consequences that have placed them in a precarious position. It must be difficult to conclude that your founding prophet was in error on this foundationl principle of theology, and yet still claim that he is a credible prophet.
- Status