LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[lax16]

Sure. I will stay on as long as I perceive there is a real desire to understand. I frankly grow weary quickly of constant innuendo. Yes, it is true. The unfortunate position the Catholic Leadership has subjected Her flock to with regards to corrupt priests would qualify as a challenge to one’s faith. My sincere and deepest sorrow is extended to you who must undergo this. It is a horrible and lamentable situation. I have to go grind some wheat (work) I will return.

wussup - You didn’t answer my question - Are you taking the place of Parker and Diana?

How will you decide if a person shows a real desire to understand? What criteria will you use to determine this?

Frankly, many of us have grown weary of chasing down posters trying to get our questions answered.

Will you be answering questions from prior posts that have gone unanswered?

Are you aware that there will possibly be disagreement and debate on this thread?

Yes, Catholics worldwide are saddened by the events that have recently come to light in the media. However, this is not the thread to discuss it. As I have mentioned to whyme, there are several threads on CAF dedicated to this subject. I know, for some reason, it seems to keep coming up on the LDS related threads:shrug:. It is not necessary to bring it up - Catholics everywhere are reading, debating, discussing etc this situation. My guess is if people visit a thread regarding LDS questions, they are not looking to discuss the sex abuse scandal, but rather the distinct beliefs of the Mormons.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Yeah, it’s a 180 year old conspiracy.

nope. Just an effort to slowly look more mainstream. For example, early temple ceremonies used a collared preacher/priest as a toolk of Satan. Now they don’t. Early temple ceremonies made women pledge to obey husbands, now it doesn’t. And the list is long

Again, tripe.

No need to call your beliefs tripe

99% of what is discussed here as ‘doctrine’ is conjecture. Conjecture by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Michael (me) is still just conjecture.

lol…so, if you like what they said, then it is doctrine or revelation. If you don’t, it is conjecture. Joseph said he spoke directly with Jesus. If that was true, why would there be need for conjecture?

What you suggest is the equivalent of suggesting the current Pope should be tried on the basis of his protecting Pedophiles, and then saying that what he did is Catholic Theology.

Very poor analogy. Is that the best you can do? No, the equivalant would be ther Pope getting caught having sex with women and in defense saying he had a revelation that Priests could now have sex with women

Joseph Smith was revealed that God lives in all time simultaneously. It is my opinion that what he actually was revealed he did not have words for. Even today we cannot discuss the physics of Time in an academic setting without controversy. Time is a dimension of our reality. Mortal humans perceive our existence in a linear fashion, i.e., the ‘infinite’ yesterday, the infinitesimal moment, and the ‘infinite’ tomorrow. We developed calculus because of our issue with determining the position and velocity of the moment (amoungst lots of other applications). Time is such a conundrum. Think for a moment…see, you can’t. Even the most basic act we do, thinking, is impossible to isolate the zero point of the moment. Can you freeze a moment in your mind? Nope. Each infinitesimal small moment of time is gone as soon as it arrives. And you think we can define God? No. Time is not a creation. Time as you and I experience it is defined by us. Like mass, temperature, etc., there is no such thing as a physical ‘time’. It is an artifact of our existence. The Gospel of Wussup suggests that while there is truth in the revelation that God exists past, present, and future simultaneously, I believe the actuality of this attribute of God is beyond human comprehension.

Mormons teach that God was once sinful man. How does that fit in with your comments?

 

[AtticusFinch]

Just as an aside, do you folks really want to know the answer to questions about what LDS believe? I get the impression of distinct lack of humility.

I agree. But then, I am not really surprised. LDS have always shown huge egos

You have read nonsense from those who stand to make a HUGE profit off of suckers like you by selling books like “How to Answer [pick your favorite religion]” and then reject it when an actual member of the Church tries to correct you.

It sucks that some of us were actual members before and know the truth and can refute the things you twist and try to hide.

I There are a lot of folks here with whom I have made friends, who have taught me much about not only Catholic Teachings, but about Faith in general. I find the insecurities of those making statements such as:

"That’s the thing with every individual LDS person who comes here, figuring out which version of LDS teaching you are following. "

If that makes mormons insecure, I apologize. But, it IS a valid question. There have been vast changes to doctrine and beliefs and teachings over the years. Heck, even JS had at least nine different versions to his “First Vision”

“LDS Doctrine and practices change all the time.” No it doesn’t. Name one.

Ok. 1. God is Spirit, Jesus is flesh and bone. Later, God and Jesus are both flesh and bone.

1. Polygamy. Later, in fear of losiong property and money, God, not normally known for being materialistic, changes polygamy to get LDS property back.
2. Blacks are shunned. Later, faced with huge revenue loss from schools refusing to play BYU and from tons of criticism, God, not normally known to be afraid, changes His position.
3. Blacks will become white if they are good. Later, black s will become PURE if they are good.
4. Adam is God. Later, that was never taught.
5. The Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil. Later, LDS apostles run when called to sit and learn at Pope Benedict’s feet.
6. It was taught that the World would end in the 1800s. Later, the 1900s came along.
7. It was taught that God was once a sinful man. Later, “we never taught that”.

Those are just a few…

“The more I learn about Mormonism, the more muddled your beliefs become. I would truly love to understand your perspective but I feel like we’re from different planets sometimes.” That is because you are not humble enough to recognize the bigoted anti-mormon literature you read is false witness and cannot reconcile these teaching with those of real LDS.

What if we never read anti-LDS stuff, but learned from reading old LDS books?

I find offensive the continual reference to ‘your god’. This is shallow attempt at insulting another’s beliefs, separating it and alienating it as unworthy of common courtesy.

You believe in a different god. How would you like us to make the statement?

The answer to the question why try to convert Catholics is because only the LDS have been commissioned of Jesus Christ with the saving ordinances.

As have Catholics…about 2000 years before Mormons were…

 

[AtticusFinch]

Sure. I will stay on as long as I perceive there is a real desire to understand. I frankly grow weary quickly of constant innuendo. Yes, it is true. The unfortunate position the Catholic Leadership has subjected Her flock to with regards to corrupt priests would qualify as a challenge to one’s faith.

Why? The Priests did not give me my faith…how can they damage it?

 

[AtticusFinch]

wussup - You didn’t answer my question - Are you taking the place of Parker and Diana?

Diana ignores anyone who can best her…

so she only sees the posts of about 3 people

 

[RebeccaJ]

…and you think MY posts are vile???

Just helping out in getting that mormon testimony delivered correctly.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Clever question. Well, really not that clever. Rephrase it so we can have a rational conversation sans amphobolic questions.

The usual non-answer. Do you believe Smith was teaching correctly when he said your god was created by another god?

I believe the actuality of this attribute of God is beyond human comprehension.

Do you now? That is not what your GA’s teach. Your god is supposed to be as comprehensible as yourself.

I see we have a mormon who is making up their own religion.

 

[TheosisM]

Do you now? That is not what your GA’s teach. Your god is supposed to be as comprehensible as yourself.

Can you expand on this? Do Mormons believe that God can be fully comprehended right now, that we have exhaustive knowledge about God? What does it mean that Mormons believe that “[G]od is supposed to be as comprehensible as yourself”?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Can you expand on this? Do Mormons believe that God can be fully comprehended right now, that we have exhaustive knowledge about God? What does it mean that Mormons believe that “[G]od is supposed to be as comprehensible as yourself”?

“Christianity describes God as a disembodied, incomprehensible, spiritual entity that fills the whole universe, and an indistinguishable Father and Son.” Dallen Oaks

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22).

'Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both taught that “no man … can know himself unless he knows God, and he can not know God unless he knows himself” ’

 

[TheosisM]

“Christianity describes God as a disembodied, incomprehensible, spiritual entity that fills the whole universe, and an indistinguishable Father and Son.” Dallen Oaks

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22).

'Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both taught that “no man … can know himself unless he knows God, and he can not know God unless he knows himself” ’

Right, however I’m trying to understand your response to wussup in the context of him saying that something about God is “beyond human comprehension”. Is it that Mormon authorities say that God is not beyond human comprehension? Dallin Oaks clearly does not understand what the Trinity is talking about (“an indistinguishable Father and Son” doesn’t really say anything relevant to the Trinity, since they are distinguishable in personhood), so I’m trying to understand what is the difference between the Trinitarian understanding of the comprehensibility of God and the Mormon understanding. Is there a distinction between comprehending what has been revealed (in either context) versus comprehending everything about God?

 

[zerinus]

Can you expand on this? Do Mormons believe that God can be fully comprehended right now, that we have exhaustive knowledge about God? What does it mean that Mormons believe that “[G]od is supposed to be as comprehensible as yourself”?

Mormons believe that God is fully comprehensible but not “right now”:

D&C 88:

49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

Thus it is possible for man to “comprehend God,” but not “right now”!

 

[SteveVH]

Deep sigh…this is why I rarely give (name removed by moderator)ut. It matters not what an actual “Morman” says, folks always think they know more about my Church than I, even though I have been a member for over 20 years, am a returned missionary, etc, ad nauseum.

Trinitarianism. Whatever. In LDS Doctrine we believe your statement to be literally true. You can see the Father in the Son because his actions, doctrines, and teachings are perfectly in line.

Technically, Jesus did not say he saw the Father be resurrected, he said he saw the Father make that which was dead come back to life. While there are some in the Church who believe our Heavenly Father was literally like Christ in the sense he was a savior of a world before, that is not universally believed. And Death did not enter the world through sin, but as a result of a choice Adam made to either remain in the Garden of Eden forever or leave the Garden of Eden to be with Eve.

I don’t know what you are talking about here. Neither Jesus nor God the Father died ‘due to sin’. Jesus chose to give up this mortal life through the man-made execution of the cross, then through his own power, was resurrected as God-Eternal. Again, technically, LDS do not believe any die, but that death is a birth to resurrection. Therefore the Father could not die. I don’t get your point here. Are you using talking points?

Actually, this position is supported by scripture. It is not an invention of Joseph Smith. And yes, the logical conclusion is that all beings (even Steve) are eternal. As for not being created, the scriptures do not say that God ‘created’ anything. It says that God formed the universe (and man) from that which already existed.

Joseph Smith did not ‘give’ God anything. God is a being of matter. What is so ‘plain and clear’ is that Jesus died for our sins, and offers salvation to all who but bend the knee and acknowledge him as Lord and Savior. That is simple. As for defining ‘eternity’ and other terms, these are words used to describe very difficult subjects. There are at least a dozen books being published now that address the concepts of ‘time’, ‘eternity’, ‘zero’, and ‘nothingness’, all words we use to describe ultimate states of our existence. Your lack of understanding that these words are difficult to pin down is understandable. Ultimately, NO ONE understands what it means for ‘nothing’ to exist, what ‘eternity’ is, etc.

First of all I can really do without the patronizing attitude. Just so you know everything I discuss concerning the LDS Church comes from LDS documents and statements from those on this forum. I have purposely avoided anit-Mormon literature. I have even met with a Mormon bishop in order to get my information from the “horses mouth”. So don’t accuse me of intellectual dishonesty or speaking from “talking points”. I truly disagree with what you believe, not what I “think” you believe. I want to understand what you believe so that we can discuss our differences in an effort to arrive at truth. I have tried to arrive at definitions of words that we can agree on for the purpose of communicating. When I or you do not understand communication becomes impossible. So yes, wussup, I really want to understand, whether I agree or not. Thank you for your concern about my “lack of understanding” of the concepts of time, eternity, zero and nothingness, but no need to worry. I think I understand them quite well which is why I am baffled at your use of the terms. I tend to use definitions that are common among people in this time and place so that we can understand each other.

This particular converstion is going nowhere. I have already discussed these issues with Parker and don’t have the time or inclination to go through the whole thing again. Lets just say I strongly disagree with just about everything you said other than Jesus Christ being Lord and Savior. I never knew how far apart the Mormon faith is from Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular and never would have guessed before speaking with you and Parker on this issue. You both are the source of the information I disagree with, not an anti-Mormon source. Why would I need to look elsewhere?

 

[dianaiad]

Just as an aside, do you folks really want to know the answer to questions about what LDS believe? I get the impression of distinct lack of humility. You have read nonsense from those who stand to make a HUGE profit off of suckers like you by selling books like “How to Answer [pick your favorite religion]” and then reject it when an actual member of the Church tries to correct you. I for one do not come to proselyte here. Nevertheless, you must see the hypocrisy of this website. Go to the LDS Church site. I challenge you to find a place in it where we sell or offer teaching about another Church that are not true. Go ahead. There may be readings where we illustrate the differences, but that is about it.

Actually, nobody will find THAT, either. The closest I have seen us come is a book with two authors: the Mormon talks about the Mormon stuff, and the opposing viewpoint is written by someone who actually believes that viewpoint.

 

[wussup]

“Christianity describes God as a disembodied, incomprehensible, spiritual entity that fills the whole universe, and an indistinguishable Father and Son.” Dallen Oaks

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” (D&C 130:22).

'Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both taught that “no man … can know himself unless he knows God, and he can not know God unless he knows himself” ’

I would like to see the full in context quote you attribute to Dallin Oaks. Sources etc…

Yep, I believe it.

I would like to see what the elipses say. This comment is logically unclear. It is circular. Again, sources etc…

wussup - You didn’t answer my question - Are you taking the place of Parker and Diana?

Nope. I don’t know who they are. However, I would be happy to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

How will you decide if a person shows a real desire to understand? What criteria will you use to determine this?

Frankly, that is a judgement call on my behalf. I ask only to be treated with respect. In this context, I understand there would be a tremendous amount of defensive posturing, this is understandable. I think you will find I will not pass judgment on the RC faith, but only will seek to understand. One suggestion, what if I was a legitimate investigator? There are many who read these posts and perhaps your comments should be in the context of who else might be reading them.

Frankly, many of us have grown weary of chasing down posters trying to get our questions answered.

Ask away.

Will you be answering questions from prior posts that have gone unanswered?

I have read all the anti-mormon stuff I want. You suggested a dialogue regarding old and new testament doctrine. This is what I will respond to. I do not respond to questions regarding such bogus claims as the Adam-God Theory.

Are you aware that there will possibly be disagreement and debate on this thread?

Are you serious? I suggest you click on my name and look into the stuff I have responded to.

Yes, Catholics worldwide are saddened by the events that have recently come to light in the media. However, this is not the thread to discuss it. As I have mentioned to whyme, there are several threads on CAF dedicated to this subject. I know, for some reason, it seems to keep coming up on the LDS related threads:shrug:. It is not necessary to bring it up - Catholics everywhere are reading, debating, discussing etc this situation. My guess is if people visit a thread regarding LDS questions, they are not looking to discuss the sex abuse scandal, but rather the distinct beliefs of the Mormons.

The ‘some reason’ is because it is easy to paint another faith with a tar brush, and yet not recognize the same brush is stroking one’s own faith. I DO NOT believe the RC teaches or subscribes or facilitates corruption any more than most other faiths. Frankly, if a Bishop, Apostle, etc. of LDS were to go through such a thing, I believe it to be the Church policy by writ and action to excommunicate the individual immediately.

Finch said- Mormons teach that God was once sinful man. How does that fit in with your comments?

You will find I will not be responding much to Finch. This is an example of why not. This is not true. LDS do not believe this, have never taught it, and it is a lie. I will respond to this and only one other anti-mormon teaching.

 

[wussup]

I will talk of two subjects here, the Adam-God Theory and Finch’s suggestion that we believe God to have once sinned. The purpose is to illustrate how I will then be ‘proven’ wrong and that I don’t know what I am talking about.

The Adam-God Theory
There is a lot of heated discussion about what Brigham Young meant by his Adam-God Theory. My opinion is the same as the opinion of Orson Pratt and virtually all of the early Church Leaders and ALL of the current Church Leaders that BY was speaking of his own believe, was so convinced he came close to the heresy of announcing it doctrine, however, he never said, thus spake the Lord. It is true that at his insistence, he had his theory taught in the Church. It was extremely unpopular and much was written and many hard words were argued about it being false. Orson Pratt, Franklin Richards, Penrose, and many others argued vociferously against it. Frankly, BY was a nut in many points.

Finch’s Idea of LDS believing God Sinned
A typical example of non-sense. I have no idea where he got this from. I have heard it mentioned in the past, but have never seen a source. WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT to be true that God the Father or Jesus Christ EVER sinned.

 

[Stephen168]

In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a son. (Heb 1:1-2)

Who wrote this verse?

Maybe Paul

Was Paul one of the original apostles?

No

Was Paul an apostle?

Not one of The Twelve (rev 21:14) because he didn’t qualify (Acts 1:21-22) but one of the many other Apostles (Luke 10:1, Acts 14:14)

Did Paul receive direct revelation from Christ, with information that he was directed to tell the church?

No, nothing new (Acts 9:10-19)

Would we know anything at all about what happened to Jesus after His death and Resurrection if Jesus’ apostles did NOT recieve direct revelation from Him?

Yes, we record history all the time. That history is passed down through Catholic Bishops to this day.

Please tell me what NEW revelation Paul gave us?
dianaiad;6437092:

As well, Paul said several things that are not found in the gospels…including, by the way, the very verse you keep quoting here. That is indeed ‘new,’ in that none of the gospels mention the concept.

It is not new revelation, but a an explanation of the one revelation of Jesus. One may receive a new insight into the one revelation, but that does not constitute a new public revelation. That is the problem we have with Mormon theology. You do bring in something different (celestial marriage, polygamy, polytheism etc…) which was not “revealed” to the Apostles. We were warned not to accept a different gospel even if given to us by and angel. Our Church continues to guard and protect the truth given to us by the Apostles and nothing more, not because public revelation was cut off from the Church, but because there is no further revelation apart from the saving power of Jesus Christ.

And she never answered your original question. A question asked and never answered many times.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Finch said- Mormons teach that God was once sinful man. How does that fit in with your comments?

You will find I will not be responding much to Finch. This is an example of why not. This is not true. LDS do not believe this, have never taught it, and it is a lie. I will respond to this and only one other anti-mormon teaching.

No, you will not be responding to me because I post the truth and there is no way to refute it. Typically, LDS posters only post to those who have no clue about the Church. When they meet up woth former members who served a mission, served in the Elder’s Quorum Presidency, served in the Bishopric, etc. etc., they are stumped. They cannot tell me I don;t know, because they know I do.

 

[ParkerD]

Finch said- Mormons teach that God was once sinful man. How does that fit in with your comments?
You will find I will not be responding much to Finch. This is an example of why not. This is not true. LDS do not believe this, have never taught it, and it is a lie. I will respond to this and only one other anti-mormon teaching.

No, you will not be responding to me because I post the truth and there is no way to refute it. Typically, LDS posters only post to those who have no clue about the Church. When they meet up woth former members who served a mission, served in the Elder’s Quorum Presidency, served in the Bishopric, etc. etc., they are stumped. They cannot tell me I don;t know, because they know I do.

You may know what you believe, and what you think you got from the statement by Lorenzo Snow when he was a young man new in the church. Callings do not equate with having an understanding of doctrine.

Joseph Smith said the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Christ did, and that Christ “does what He sees His Father do, before this world came rolling into existence.” So if you’re saying Christ was a “sinful man” who dwelt on an earth, then I disagree with the kind of Person you think Christ was when He was on earth living among men. Joseph Smith taught (if quoted correctly) that the Father was like the Son when the Father dwelt on an earth.

 

[AtticusFinch]

I will talk of two subjects here, the Adam-God Theory and Finch’s suggestion that we believe God to have once sinned. The purpose is to illustrate how I will then be ‘proven’ wrong and that I don’t know what I am talking about.

The Adam-God Theory
There is a lot of heated discussion about what Brigham Young meant by his Adam-God Theory. My opinion is the same as the opinion of Orson Pratt and virtually all of the early Church Leaders and ALL of the current Church Leaders that BY was speaking of his own believe, was so convinced he came close to the heresy of announcing it doctrine, however, he never said, thus spake the Lord. It is true that at his insistence, he had his theory taught in the Church. It was extremely unpopular and much was written and many hard words were argued about it being false. Orson Pratt, Franklin Richards, Penrose, and many others argued vociferously against it. Frankly, BY was a nut in many points.

Journal of Discourses 1:50-51., a Sermon by BY:

“My next sermon will be to both Saint and sinner…Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken–HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed.” Now, Mormons here would have you believe it was not doctrine. It was just opinion. It was just a sermon of opinion. Yet, BY stated:
“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture” (Journal of Discourses 13:95).

Does that sound like I am lying? Does it sound like I am making it up?
Finch’s Idea of LDS believing God Sinned
A typical example of non-sense. I have no idea where he got this from. I have heard it mentioned in the past, but have never seen a source. WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT to be true that God the Father or Jesus Christ EVER sinned.

It was taught that “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.” How much clearer can it be? I was taught that if I followed all the rules, and paid my tithing, etc., I could become a god and have my own world. Think about it. If God was “as man is”, then how was God? Man is a sinner. God was a sinner, followed the rules, and then became a god, just like we can. Mormons run away from that teaching now, but it is hard to run from everything.

 

[AtticusFinch]

You may know what you believe,

I know what I was taught. I know what we discussed at the MTC, at bishopric meetings, etc. Parker, I understand you are uncomfortable with the LDS past. I understand how it needs to be whitewashed. I sympathize with you. I admire that you will come here and face your past so diligently.

and what you think you got from the statement by Lorenzo Snow when he was a young man new in the church. Callings do not equate with having an understanding of doctrine.

lol…he was a leader in the Church and was paraphrasing the King Follett discourse given by JS

Joseph Smith said the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Christ did, and that Christ “does what He sees His Father do, before this world came rolling into existence.” So if you’re saying Christ was a “sinful man” who dwelt on an earth, then I disagree with the kind of Person you think Christ was when He was on earth living among men. Joseph Smith taught (if quoted correctly) that the Father was like the Son when the Father dwelt on an earth.

Another nice job of twisting. But The saying is not “As Jesus was, God once was…” It is “As MAN IS, God once was…” And I think you would agree with me that man IS sinful…

right?