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

  • Thread starter Thread starter paul_c
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholics lack nothing for salvation but Mormons lack plenty. Catholics should be trying to convert Mormons (and we do) not the other way around.
(grin) Wasn’t someone just claiming that Catholics didn’t say that Mormons were condemned?
 
I’ve actually heard another explanation that I find much more plausible, taught to me by one of my profs who is an OT expert. It’s basically a version of what you just said about BY in a reply to PaulC upthread. The gist: Leviticus was written by the P source (priestly writer/writers–this according to documentary hypothesis) during the exile. At the time the Israelites were downtrodden (as they often were). Poof!! All of a sudden we have these old laws, ahem…written by their ancestor, the prophets Moses!-- that further differentiates them from other groups of people. It gave them an identity, made it impossible for them to eat with people outside of their own group, and helped them survive by giving them an identity. They didn’t know that Moses didn’t really write it…

My prof speculates that the prohibition on pigs might have come about because “hey, our enemies, the Philistines, eat them. Let’s tell our people not to.”

I’ve wondered about this in a few ways. My first question was: Why follow only part of it? Of course, if one subscribes to the view of the WoW as you do regarding BY, well, then, yes, following only part of it (the parts that he made into a “practice/promise/policy”) makes sense. But for those LDS who seem to think it really is a commandment from on high, only to follow part of it…well that doesn’t make sense to me.

Another question that I have had is: What about the parts of the “health” aspects that are not actually healthy for large groups of people? For instance, eating all those grains preferentially over animal protein is, in my case and in the case of a sizable number of people with the same condition (it isn’t celiac, btw), is a recipe for sickness, not health.

I guess the answer to the query I’ve asked above depends on how one views the WoW origins. Truly revelation from God thru JS? That, to me is more than a little iffy because I know that this is not a healthy way for me or others with my condition to eat. And God would, presumably, know this too. Thus it is hard for me to understand how he would inspire a prophet to give “health” advice that would wind up not being healthy for groups of people. But if it is just some advice that JS gave, his own best attempt, well, that’s something different.
That’s about it, I think…as to your first explanation. We are different and we WANT to be. It was, and is, a survival mechanism. As to your second point, if a doctor says 'this isn’t healthy for you…" then that trumps the WoW, even in cases where it affects the coffee/tea/tobacco/alcohol promise. Not that this often happens, mind you, but my favorite cousin in the world had to have a cup of coffee in the morning to prevent migraines. It was cheaper, more effective and had a lot less side effects than the medication that was the alternative.

She eventually found a medication that was better than coffee, but for awhile…??? And, of course, it was fine. If the problem, theologically, was intrinsic to the COFFEE, that wouldn’t have been OK, just as a doctor’s note doesn’t make it OK for a JW to have a blood transfusion. To them, it is the substance that is the issue. To us…it’s the promise.
 
This is true, Mormons do not believe in the traditional Trinity. However, they do believe that Jesus is divine.
Theosis, I’m going to bring something up. It’s not a huge issue, but to me it was. Ask the lds if they celebrate/recognize Palm Sunday.
 
Theosis, I’m going to bring something up. It’s not a huge issue, but to me it was. Ask the lds if they celebrate/recognize Palm Sunday.
They don’t. Nor do they celebrate Ash Wednesday, Lent, Advent, etc. They don’t follow a liturgical calendar.
 
We are different and we WANT to be. It was, and is, a survival mechanism.
Just my personal opinion, just as I think Jews would still continue to exist as a people w/o kosher laws today, I speculate LDS would do the same w/o the WoW.
As to your second point, if a doctor says 'this isn’t healthy for you…" then that trumps the WoW, even in cases where it affects the coffee/tea/tobacco/alcohol promise.
Oh, sorry, I wasn’t clear. My point wasn’t so much “what if I need to do this, medically” as it was wondering how advice that is not actually healthful for lots of folks could be considered prophetic? I mean, the WoW is in the D&C, so that makes it scripture rather than just a speech, correct?. I recall being taught a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. Does this mean, then, that the WoW is considered prophecy? If so, how can that be reconciled with the non-universal health advice contained therein?

I’ve never heard an orthodox LDS perspective on this that I felt made sense. This one was a big stumbling block for me, to be honest.
 
Well, I honestly think it is great that can you make this distinction Diana. I respect your ability to have an insightful opinion here. Unfortunately, in my experience, you are a rare breed among orthodox Mormons in that respect.

I have heard so many LDS talk about the inherent evils of all substances included in the WoW. Alcohol abuse is tragic and I don’t mean to minimize it, but the fact is, it is not universal. I know too many people who consume modest amounts of alcohol will no ill effects. But after hearing so many LDS, all of whom had presumably never had a sip of alcohol ever, talk on and on about how universally evil it is… Well, I admit, I got a little impatient and began to tune out these monologues after hearing them for the umpteenth time.

And I myself am a tea drinker. And while I admit I drink it because I like tea and find it very comforting, I was pretty jazzed when I found out that there are studies that show that tea is a healthful thing to drink. (Of course there are opposite studies as well, that being the nature of science and all.) For me, a female with a significant family history of breast cancer – well, when some scientific studies indicated that tea seemed to be helpful wrt breast cancer, it made me glad, since I’ve been drinking it for years.

But tea according to some Mormons who don’t see things as you do…well, it’s bad in their view, and I was felt as if I was somehow “less than”, an inferior human being, because I drink it. 🤷
 
Well, I honestly think it is great that can you make this distinction Diana. I respect your ability to have an insightful opinion here. Unfortunately, in my experience, you are a rare breed among orthodox Mormons in that respect.

I have heard so many LDS talk about the inherent evils of all substances included in the WoW. Alcohol abuse is tragic and I don’t mean to minimize it, but the fact is, it is not universal. I know too many people who consume modest amounts of alcohol will no ill effects. But after hearing so many LDS, all of whom had presumably never had a sip of alcohol ever, talk on and on about how universally evil it is… Well, I admit, I got a little impatient and began to tune out these monologues after hearing them for the umpteenth time.

And I myself am a tea drinker. And while I admit I drink it because I like tea and find it very comforting, I was pretty jazzed when I found out that there are studies that show that tea is a healthful thing to drink. (Of course there are opposite studies as well, that being the nature of science and all.) For me, a female with a significant family history of breast cancer – well, when some scientific studies indicated that tea seemed to be helpful wrt breast cancer, it made me glad, since I’ve been drinking it for years.

But tea according to some Mormons who don’t see things as you do…well, it’s bad in their view, and I was felt as if I was somehow “less than”, an inferior human being, because I drink it. 🤷
No Coffee or Tea because they contain caffine. What doesn’t make sense to me is this – mormons ARE allowed to drink soda. And NOT:confused: just decaffinated…
 
No Coffee or Tea because they contain caffine. What doesn’t make sense to me is this – mormons ARE allowed to drink soda. And NOT:confused: just decaffinated…
Is it really because they have caffeine, or because the WoW states “hot drinks”? Perhaps some misinterpreted it as referring to the caffeine in coffee and tea, when the WoW doesn’t mention caffeine at all (correct me if I’m wrong, it’s been awhile since I looked at it).
 
Is it really because they have caffeine, or because the WoW states “hot drinks”? Perhaps some misinterpreted it as referring to the caffeine in coffee and tea, when the WoW doesn’t mention caffeine at all (correct me if I’m wrong, it’s been awhile since I looked at it).
I specifically asked in relief society, and was told “because they contain caffine”. When I then asked - “why are we allowed to drink soda” – the reply was – we couldn’t until the late 1970’s. Go figure. I used to ask too many questions for their taste, and all of their answers were inconsistent…:confused:
 
I specifically asked in relief society, and was told “because they contain caffine”. When I then asked - “why are we allowed to drink soda” – the reply was – we couldn’t until the late 1970’s. Go figure. I used to ask too many questions for their taste, and all of their answers were inconsistent…:confused:
That’s interesting. Yeah I have heard about the issue of caffeine (and why some would say caffeinated sodas were “borderline”). I never understood that since the WoW doesn’t mention caffeine, just “hot drinks”. Odd.

My copy of “Mormonism for Dummies” (yes, I have a few in the series 😉 ) says this:

“Although individual General Authorities have expressed opinions against the consumption of caffeine in soft drinks, the Church has never taken an official position on the subject.”

It then goes on to give a “quick rundown of what’s kosher for Mormons and what’s not, food-wise”, and divides it as “Definitely Okay, Probably okay, Possibly okay, Probably not okay but no one knows for sure, Definitely not okay”, and under the last one, “The subject of endless debate” are “caffeinated soft drinks”. 🤷
 
If you want to get a genuine understanding of Mormon doctrine, study the standard works of the Church. Then you will really know.
Go back and read Anna Scott’s many postings from the D&C that clearly state God was once a man like us. That’s what paul c was referring to, not just someone’s opinion,

It seems like this belief is usually denied or the topic is avoided. ParkerD tried to explain it differently but it seems so clearly written in the D&C. Makes me wonder…
 
Go back and read Anna Scott’s many postings from the D&C that clearly state God was once a man like us. That’s what paul c was referring to, not just someone’s opinion,

It seems like this belief is usually denied or the topic is avoided. ParkerD tried to explain it differently but it seems so clearly written in the D&C. Makes me wonder…
It should make one wonder. Someone made reference to “an elephant in the room.” On this particular thread, there is an elephant in the room–it is big and standing right in front of us; but LDS members say, there’s not really an elephant in the room. You just think you see an elephant. So, everyone says O.K. you must be right.
 
Is it really because they have caffeine, or because the WoW states “hot drinks”? Perhaps some misinterpreted it as referring to the caffeine in coffee and tea, when the WoW doesn’t mention caffeine at all (correct me if I’m wrong, it’s been awhile since I looked at it).
That is correct. “Hot drinks” has been interpreted to mean tea, coffee, Matte and such like. Obviously soups, hot chocolate, hot milk etc. are not included, which are also “hot drinks”.
 
Go back and read Anna Scott’s many postings from the D&C that clearly state God was once a man like us. That’s what paul c was referring to, not just someone’s opinion,

It seems like this belief is usually denied or the topic is avoided. ParkerD tried to explain it differently but it seems so clearly written in the D&C. Makes me wonder…
There is nothing in the D&C that says that God was once a man like us.
 
Indeed…but why did He use wine? Did He make a specific demand for wine rather than some other beverage, or…was it simply handy because that’s what they happened to be drinking?

Please don’t get me wrong; tradition is great and there’s no reason to disparage that as a reason for using wine. It’s just that…what happens if wine isn’t handy and water is? What’s more important, the wine–or the communion of saints that the wine serves? It is that question which Joseph faced that day, and our use of water/bread rather than wine/wafers is our answer to it.
If I may put my two cents in. Wine back then was used at meals since the water came from mostly polluted sources. Also, in many places water was not available although wine always was. Wine was the drink of the day. It is understood that the wine used then was not as alchoholic as the wine of today, it was more of a sweetish drink. Also, the bread used at the passover meal was unleavened bread ( the matzoh, as used today ). We use wine and wafers ( unleavened bread ) for the Eucharist not so much for tradition but to honor and obey Jesus’ request. I hope this helps.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Go back and read Anna Scott’s many postings from the D&C that clearly state God was once a man like us. That’s what paul c was referring to, not just someone’s opinion,

It seems like this belief is usually denied or the topic is avoided. ParkerD tried to explain it differently but it seems so clearly written in the D&C. Makes me wonder…
Momor,
Anna Scott was posting quotes from the talk by Joseph Smith that has been called the “King Follett Discourse”, and has never been in the Doctrine and Covenants so it is not scripture, and it was never fully explained. Some of its language is quoted from in manuals in the LDS church, but I agree with Zerinus that there is speculation on this subject that is unknown by any mortal. The scriptures ought to be looked at as “what God wants us to know” and “what we should spend our time thinking about,” and we will be well served if we do that. I was merely trying to explain the wording of the quotes in a context that would allow to not scoff at the possibility, but it is a topic that has no bearing on this life and there are so many more important subjects to study and think about!

Have a wonderful day.
 
Momor,
Anna Scott was posting quotes from the talk by Joseph Smith that has been called the “King Follett Discourse”, and has never been in the Doctrine and Covenants so it is not scripture, and it was never fully explained. Some of its language is quoted from in manuals in the LDS church, but I agree with Zerinus that there is speculation on this subject that is unknown by any mortal. The scriptures ought to be looked at as “what God wants us to know” and “what we should spend our time thinking about,” and we will be well served if we do that. I was merely trying to explain the wording of the quotes in a context that would allow to not scoff at the possibility, but it is a topic that has no bearing on this life and there are so many more important subjects to study and think about!

Have a wonderful day.
How does the Mormon church ( or the standard practicing Mormon) decide which of Joseph Smith’s (and his successors) words are to be believed as doctrine and which are to be discarded as mere opinion (and hence, not valid). And how do you decide what has bearing on this life and what does not?

It seems that if Joseph Smith was really the KEY prophet of all times, responsible for the restoration that allows man to be saved, then it would not be appropriate to countermand his statements when they become inconvenient (like for instance, plural marriage) . Unless he himself said that his pronouncements weren’t true, wouldn’t you be obligated to accept what he says at face value. Afterall, your entire religion is based on his pronouncements so how can any true Mormon believer justify doing anything but following and believing everything he says?
 
Theosis, I’m going to bring something up. It’s not a huge issue, but to me it was. Ask the lds if they celebrate/recognize Palm Sunday.
Vicki…why don’t you ask?

I mean…we are right here, after all. 😉

As to whether we ‘celebrate/recognize’ Palm Sunday…not really, no. During the Sacrament Meeting on that day someone will talk about the events of that day, but we don’t do anything special outside of that. Every once in awhile General Conference may fall on that day…(this year General Conference is on Easter weekend).

Is this leading up to something? Catholics formally celebrate a great many more holidays than we do, y’know. That’s OK with us. 😉
 
There is nothing in the D&C that says that God was once a man like us.
I was mistaken about the document this came from but the words seem clear and unambiguous to me. I wonder when the JD became available in writing to non-Mormon’s and the secret was no longer secret? From Anna’s post #36.

Journal of Discourses (JD) 6:3-4, Founder and 1st Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith, April 6, 1844:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret." (momor’s emphasis)
“I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see.”

"Here, then, is eternal life-to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all the Gods have done before you, - namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one, - from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead. . "
 
Just my personal opinion, just as I think Jews would still continue to exist as a people w/o kosher laws today, I speculate LDS would do the same w/o the WoW.

Oh, sorry, I wasn’t clear. My point wasn’t so much “what if I need to do this, medically” as it was wondering how advice that is not actually healthful for lots of folks could be considered prophetic? I mean, the WoW is in the D&C, so that makes it scripture rather than just a speech, correct?. I recall being taught a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such. Does this mean, then, that the WoW is considered prophecy? If so, how can that be reconciled with the non-universal health advice contained therein?

I’ve never heard an orthodox LDS perspective on this that I felt made sense. This one was a big stumbling block for me, to be honest.
NOTHING is universal… that is, ‘good for everybody.’ There are times when some adjustments must be made, and Catholicism is very aware of this. 😉 That’s why the ‘doctors’ orders’ thing is appropriate. The thing is, the WoW advice IS the best health advice for the most people. It isn’t true for you, nor my niece who has Celiac disease, kidney failure AND diabetes, but it’s true for more people than it is not true for. 😉

For instance, there isn’t a single substance advised against in the WoW that has advantages that can’t be found elsewhere, in other foods that don’t have the disadvantages of coffee, tea, alcohol or tobacco…the anti-oxidants and advantages of wine are found in unfermented grape juice, for instance.

Or look at it this way: unless you have a specific medical condition that contraindicates it, following the Word of Wisdom is a going to do you a lot less harm than NOT following it would.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top