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

[Stephen168]

Z–I think you perhaps misunderstood what I was writing about, or maybe you aren’t familiar with believer’s baptisms? The whole point of what I was saying is that I don’t recommend an age. Believer’s baptisms are done when the individual wants to get baptized rather than at a set age. I think that if baptism is going to be delayed (not done in infancy), it makes more sense, at least to me, that each individual would determine when they are ready rather than set a specific age.

That said, if I was going to be forced to pick an age, I would pick somewhere in the teen years. This probably reflects my Jewish background/influence since bar/bat mitzvahs are done at age 13 and confirmations are done sometime in high school. By this time critical thinking skills have had a chance to develop and I think a person is more actively able to know what they are saying “yes” to than they are at age 8.

I would think a true believer’s baptism would happen after a child leaves home. As long as the child lives at home they will do want is expected of them. When I was Confirmed at age 15, I really wanted it, but I was one of the few in my class. Most (including my future wife) were there because it was expected of them. This does make me wonder how many Mormons go on a mission only because it is expected of them. I met a handful of Mormons in the military, so I know they all don’t go.

 

[Monte1945]

Monte1945,
If you want a list, then in the interest of time during the future rather than drag these things out, even though this will make this thread go on for weeks as people take issue with every case, here is a list (but remember that drifting is what happened and that many truths including the most important of acknowledging Christ’s atoning power and grace and His example of love and peace have remained):

1. Eternal marriage covenant. (Given to Adam and Eve.)
2. Covenant of baptism after belief by the particular individual, in a covenant with Jesus Christ.
3. Authority to administer those covenants, granted by God through the apostles on the earth, and only through such apostles being on earth among men.
4. Repentance does not include “doing penance”, but does include “restitution”.
5. Understanding the importance of seeking to be a “joint heir” with Jesus Christ, and not short-changing the doctrine which allows people to make excuses for not seeking continuous improvement during the course of their lives, continuous seeking for sanctification through the Holy Spirit, continuous seeking for the gifts of the Spirit and the gift of revelation through the Holy Spirit which will bring “hidden wisdom” and will guide to greater capacity to forgive and love others and forgive self and rely upon the grace of Jesus Christ Who is mighty to save and to glorify those who become His sons and His daughters through His atoning grace.
6. Understanding that God spoke to prophets in more places in the world than one particular area anciently, because His love encompassed all of His children and there were righteous people in more places than one. If He spoke to prophets, then they could write it down and could preserve a record of His dealings with them.
7. Understanding that all Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled.

I met a LDS man last week and he stated too me that the view of the Mormon church
is that:

“The bible was written by fallible men and that it can not be trusted to hold God’s
complete truth.”

He also said “the Book of Mormon is the only reliable infallible word of God.”

Is this true?

If so, how can you or any LSD attempt to communicate with other Christians?

How can we measure the Truths of God together without some agreed gauge
to proof our views? From reason alone?

I have often wondered what you all would do with what Jesus said (according to
the gospels) when after he began to discuss John The Baptist’s role he told
those who were listening to him that "The Law and the Prophets “were” until
John. Luke 16:16.

Plus it seems very obvious that in all of these posts here in this forum there
has been very little if any “scriptures” quoted from LDS members.

So if one wants to have his book as the foundation of his new church he has
and to attempt to delete that which Jesus said he “has” to discredit the infallibility
of the bible.

If this is true I don’t know if one can discuss any doctrine of the Catholic Faith with a LSD
member. The Catholic Church bases all of her doctrines from Traditions which were
taught orally and she only accepted the writings of the New Testament which did
not conflict with her orally traditional teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

I am not telling you or anyone to not be a LSD believer, that is each person’s choice.
As it should be. But if my soul’s eternal destiny was involved in what I was asked
to believe. I do not think this decision should be made slightly. I certainly could
not accept that any man will be a new prophet after John The Baptist as Jesus
claimed John would be the last prophet.

 

[ParkerD]

I met a LDS man last week and he stated too me that the view of the Mormon church
is that:

“The bible was written by fallible men and that it can not be trusted to hold God’s
complete truth.”

He also said “the Book of Mormon is the only reliable infallible word of God.”

Is this true?

If so, how can you or any LSD attempt to communicate with other Christians?

How can we measure the Truths of God together without some agreed gauge
to proof our views? From reason alone?

I have often wondered what you all would do with what Jesus said (according to
the gospels) when after he began to discuss John The Baptist’s role he told
those who were listening to him that "The Law and the Prophets “were” until
John. Luke 16:16.

Plus it seems very obvious that in all of these posts here in this forum there
has been very little if any “scriptures” quoted from LDS members.

So if one wants to have his book as the foundation of his new church he has
and to attempt to delete that which Jesus said he “has” to discredit the infallibility
of the bible.

If this is true I don’t know if one can discuss any doctrine of the Catholic Faith with a LSD
member. The Catholic Church bases all of her doctrines from Traditions which were
taught orally and she only accepted the writings of the New Testament which did
not conflict with her orally traditional teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

I am not telling you or anyone to not be a LSD believer, that is each person’s choice.
As it should be. But if my soul’s eternal destiny was involved in what I was asked
to believe. I do not think this decision should be made slightly. I certainly could
not accept that any man will be a new prophet after John The Baptist as Jesus
claimed John would be the last prophet.

Monte1945,
The person you visited with about the Bible was quite mistaken in how they discussed LDS beliefs with you.

If you wish, you could use the option to pull up the posts of Zerinus and myself and you will see that many, many times we have quoted the Bible in support of LDS beliefs, and are lovers of the Bible as the word of God.

Have a good day.

 

[dianaiad]

lol. First, my thinking is far from shallow. Just because you are blinded does not mean what you can;t see is not there. The Bible is clear, whole households were baptized. That you choose to ignore that because there are only two references is humorous. And funny you should you talk about two verses not making a doctrine, because that is exactly what you have done regarding baptism for the dead and three levels of heaven…among others. And you go even further, not even needing Scripture to come up with the doctrine that God was once a sinful man.

And what the Savior said was “suffer the little children to come to Me.” The LDS version is “Suffer the little children to come to me…once they are 8”.

Do not tell me I am shallow just because you do not believe children are part of your household.

As Parker mentioned, these verses refer to two very specific households; not just any household at any time, or every household all the time, but two very specific households…and there is no hint anywhere that those SPECIFIC households had children under the age of eight. There is no evidence either for, or against, those households having children.

As it happens, many households do not have children. Certainly many do not have children under the age of 8. In fact, I would venture to predict that most households do not have children under the age of eight. As it happens, the average number of living children per family in Israel at the time was about 4 (infant mortality was high…not as high as with non-Jews, but high, nonetheless). Therefore households that have children at all could have had children under eight for as few as 12 years…and certainly not more than 15 to 20 years, even spacing the kids out a lot.

Even waaaaay back then, households were still households outside that 12 to 20 year window.

…and what DO you do about the childless couples, or the ones with fewer than four (say, one kid…)?

The point is, there is no evidence to show that THOSE particular households had children/infants, and such were certainly not mentioned. Given this, we have to look at what else the Bible has to say about baptism, who gets it and who needs it…and it makes a great deal more logical sense to assume that these households didn’t have children under the age of accountability than that they did—and that this assumption (absent ANY proof at all one way or the other) trumps all the other scriptures about the matter.

As to your last crack, about Mormons believing that Christ really meant “let the little children come unto me, but not until they are eight…” talk about taking a quote out of context!

He was talking to a specific group who were telling another specific group of children to not bother Him…and he told them to let THESE children come to Him, for (and HERE is where He gets general…) “Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Not, you notice, “let them come to Me so that they can be of the Kingdom of Heaven,” which is how you interpret it…but “of such IS The Kingdom of Heaven”

You are, in fact, by insisting as you do that we believe that children are not His, and cannot come to Him, making Christ a liar; for He said that children already ARE 'of the Kingdom of Heaven."

As in…“let them come, for they are already Mine.” How did that get turned into "let them come, but you baptize them first so that they CAN be Mine? " WE didn’t do that.

 

[dianaiad]

I met a LDS man last week and he stated too me that the view of the Mormon church
is that:

“The bible was written by fallible men and that it can not be trusted to hold God’s
complete truth.”

He also said “the Book of Mormon is the only reliable infallible word of God.”

Is this true?

That the bible was written by fallible men? Well, yeah. God didn’t write the bible, did He? Jesus certainly didn’t. All we have of God the Father OR His Son Jesus Christ is what others wrote about Them…and anybody but God is, by definition, imperfect and fallible.

…and the same thing applies to the Book of Mormon. The only difference between them, for us, is that ultimately it was compiled by one man, Mormon…and translated by one other man, Joseph Smith. There weren’t quite as many fingers in the pie, so to speak. However, if you read the title page of the Book of Mormon, you will read a disclaimer about ‘the errors of man’ that you might want to pay attention to.

If so, how can you or any LSD attempt to communicate with other Christians?

Hopefully without the LSD … (harking back waaaay too far to one of my favorite movie lines…)

How can we measure the Truths of God together without some agreed gauge
to proof our views? From reason alone?

There is a very long way between ‘not infallible’ and ‘flawed past reliability,’ Monte. The scriptures have been VERY carefully preserved for a very long time. We do believe that they can be generally trusted, if sometimes misinterpreted by those who disagree with us.

I have often wondered what you all would do with what Jesus said (according to
the gospels) when after he began to discuss John The Baptist’s role he told
those who were listening to him that "The Law and the Prophets “were” until
John. Luke 16:16.

Plus it seems very obvious that in all of these posts here in this forum there
has been very little if any “scriptures” quoted from LDS members.

Then you haven’t been paying attention. We quote the bible as frequently as anybody else. We would actually quote a LOT more scripture than everybody else, but, well…I don’t think that using the BOM, the PoGP or the D&C as prooftext sources would go over very well in CAF.

So if one wants to have his book as the foundation of his new church he has
and to attempt to delete that which Jesus said he “has” to discredit the infallibility
of the bible.

…??? or, as I would write in comment to one of my students…'what do you mean by this?" which is a far more polite way of saying…“huh?”

If this is true I don’t know if one can discuss any doctrine of the Catholic Faith with a LSD
member. The Catholic Church bases all of her doctrines from Traditions which were
taught orally and she only accepted the writings of the New Testament which did
not conflict with her orally traditional teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

You talk to us (and that’s “LDS,” by the way, not “LSD,” Captain Kirk notwithstanding…) by telling us what your beliefs are, and using what you base them on as the prooftexts for what they are.

Just as I hope you would accept our quoting the Bible AND the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants as ‘prooftexts’ for showing you what, and why, we believe what we do.

I do realize that we have a problem in that you do not accept the BoM, the PoGP or the D&C as scriptural, or authoritative sources for divine Truth. That’s OK, we don’t think that Catholic “Holy Tradition” is authoritative for divine Truth, either. That doesn’t matter if what we are attempting to do is explain to the other WHAT we believe and why we believe it. It only causes problems when we are trying to convince the other one that what we believe is TRUTH.

Personally, I don’t try to do that. I’m only interested in seeing to it that when people disagree with what we believe, that they disagree with what we actually do believe, not some strawman Mormonism that has little resemblance to the real thing.

…and that’s what I want to know about Catholicism, too.

However, if what you really want to do is to prove us WRONG…then you are going to have to stick to common ground…and it looks very much as if that common ground is the bible. Not only that, but the specific books of the bible found in the KJV.

We are certainly used to that limitation ourselves, when talking to other Christians.

I am not telling you or anyone to not be a LSD believer, that is each person’s choice.
As it should be. But if my soul’s eternal destiny was involved in what I was asked
to believe. I do not think this decision should be made slightly. I certainly could
not accept that any man will be a new prophet after John The Baptist as Jesus
claimed John would be the last prophet.

Now where precisely did He DO that…especially since He, Himself, was the source of the revelation given to Paul and others, who definitely WERE prophets?

The thing is, Monte, if there weren’t any prophets after Christ, we wouldn’t know ABOUT Him…since being with Him and receiving revelation from Him is what made these men prophets.

One last thing to think about: Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus. What WAS that, if it wasn’t exactly the sort of revelation that OT prophets got rather frequently? What was different about Paul’s experience that made him NOT a prophet?

 

[zach_dunn]

Paul C,

(1) What one does is take the Luke description of the experience and compare with the Matthew description of the experience, and realize that (1) all people will be resurrected and (2) the Matthew description includes the words “there were with us” and the Savior’s reply in both cases singles out the Sadducees and their beliefs in no resurrection. I really don’t want to go through all that discussion again.

Parker, we’ve had three encounters (maybe two . . . I’m not exactly sure) about this doctrine of eternal marriage, please read the following three posts in order: #59, #61, #63; you never answered my post number 63. Every time we have “faced-off” on this doctrine, you always fall back on the excuse that I am choosing what I believe God asks of me or something along that line, I would greatly appreciate if you would continue this dialogue with me while letting other people join in, of course.

 

[zach_dunn]

Monte1945,
If you want a list, then in the interest of time during the future rather than drag these things out, even though this will make this thread go on for weeks as people take issue with every case, here is a list (but remember that drifting is what happened and that many truths including the most important of acknowledging Christ’s atoning power and grace and His example of love and peace have remained):

1. Eternal marriage covenant. (Given to Adam and Eve.)
2. Covenant of baptism after belief by the particular individual, in a covenant with Jesus Christ.
3. Authority to administer those covenants, granted by God through the apostles on the earth, and only through such apostles being on earth among men.
4. Repentance does not include “doing penance”, but does include “restitution”.
5. Understanding the importance of seeking to be a “joint heir” with Jesus Christ, and not short-changing the doctrine which allows people to make excuses for not seeking continuous improvement during the course of their lives, continuous seeking for sanctification through the Holy Spirit, continuous seeking for the gifts of the Spirit and the gift of revelation through the Holy Spirit which will bring “hidden wisdom” and will guide to greater capacity to forgive and love others and forgive self and rely upon the grace of Jesus Christ Who is mighty to save and to glorify those who become His sons and His daughters through His atoning grace.
6. Understanding that God spoke to prophets in more places in the world than one particular area anciently, because His love encompassed all of His children and there were righteous people in more places than one. If He spoke to prophets, then they could write it down and could preserve a record of His dealings with them.
7. Understanding that all Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled.

Please read this post, any comments?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, we’ve had three encounters (maybe two . . . I’m not exactly sure) about this doctrine of eternal marriage, please read the following three posts in order: #59, #61, #63; you never answered my post number 63. Every time we have “faced-off” on this doctrine, you always fall back on the excuse that I am choosing what I believe God asks of me or something along that line, I would greatly appreciate if you would continue this dialogue with me while letting other people join in, of course.

Zach Dunn,
I had kind of felt like I had talked myself “blue in the face” about the eternal marriage covenant and the difference between such a covenant and the marriages talked about in the experience with the Sadducees. That was why I hadn’t answered you.

Here is your post 63:

When Christ says humans will not marry in heaven (the “they” in the text), that kind of implies that there is no marriage in heaven . . .

Where is this Adamic Covenant in the Bible? Is it even in there? Anyway, you obviously agree that marriage is a covenant, and I’m sure you also know that covenants are dissolved by death (“Til death do us part”) so it’s not man that ends marriage as I believe you insinuated in an earlier post . . . it’s just the ending of a covenant.

Haha, I’m not married, I’m only eighteen . . . but I’d like to get married earlier on in my life rather than later.

What I desire most fervently in my heart is to know God’s Truth and do His will, that’s why I’m here talking to people. I believe God’s Truth resides in the Catholic Church and I want to share it with other people. Every time I come on the forums, beforehand I say a prayer asking for the Holy Spirit to show me His Truth, and every time I come on the forums, I feel all the more stronger about the Catholic faith . . .

It was you who said “humans will not marry in heaven”–not Christ. Christ used a verb with an understood subject, and the understood subject was either “Sadducees” (my view) or a larger subset of “unbelieving Jews” (your view), but to say that the understood subject is suddenly “all humans” is to make an extreme grammatical error because that subject was never implied in the passage, at all.

By Adamic covenant, I meant the specific covenant that Adam and Eve had when God joined them in marriage and they had the knowledge that “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” That gives great perspective to the decision of Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit after Eve had partaken, knowing they would thus go into a condition where they would die, but knowing also that God had joined their marriage together and thus Adam could not keep the covenant and commandment regarding his marriage by letting her die alone. As far as he knew, they were going to die, it is true–but Christ’s mission was to break the bands of that death, and still Christ used the example of Adam and Eve to exemplify marriage. God does covenant making for eternity–not for this life only, ever. So I would never agree that covenants are “dissolved by death.” Earthly contracts can be (many times they continue by contract law), but not heavenly covenants, ever.

A person defending their faith and beliefs will always feel even stronger about them as they defend them. This is human nature.

Best wishes for a fulfilling marriage at the appropriate time in your life.

 

[ParkerD]

Please read this post, any comments?

Zach Dunn,
The passage you quoted from Hebrews 1, joined also with Hebrews 2, does not indicate at all that we should expect “public revelation” to cease, particularly in view of the vision of Revelation coming after the epistles of Paul in chronological time of when they were written down. Christ spoke as the Son of God come to earth, but He had also spoken by means of the prophets of old, as He testified to the Jews. What Paul is emphasizing is that Christ is differentiated from “the angels” and has a higher glory. He goes on in Hebrews 2 to say that Christ’s mission was to bring men to a like condition as Christ–not as the angels, who are “ministering spirits” (1:14), but as “sons unto glory” or in other words, “sons unto God”. (2:10)

The lack of “public revelation” during the period from AD 100 until 1820, does not mean no inspiration through the Holy Spirit was happening, for it was on many occasions and in many places. It means that those types of inspiration that occurred were not providing doctrinal clarity and guidance for the salvation of humankind–they were providing specific guidance for specific people who sought guidance for their relationships or for helping human endeavors such as writing the United States Constitution and the earlier documents that led to it, brought into a form that would be the basis of governing and blessing the lives of people.

One looking at the LDS view of human history as regards the plan of salvation for humankind, always needs to keep in mind that God values freedom of choice including that the entire population can choose wrong doctrine, and also that God has a plan that includes providing the saving ordinances (many involving vicarious temple ordinances) as an option for every human soul unless they were a son of perdition and fought against God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit during their life. So the time period when a fullness of authority and pure true doctrines were not going forth in the world, only postpones the opportunity that those spirits who lived at those times will eventually have for a knowing choice "yea’ or “nay” regarding Christ, baptism and the Holy Ghost, and as I had previously noted, an eternal marriage covenant for their own marriage.

 

[ParkerD]

Please read this post, any comments?

Zach Dunn,
I have been impressed this morning that I should add a couple of points in response to your question about “public revelation”.

First, as a youth you personify characteristics that are naturally prevalent in youth–zeal and excitement about one’s beliefs. If you’ll think back to 70 AD and on, you may be assured that youth back then had similar zeal and excitement. The leaders would have wanted to channel that zeal and excitement toward helping in the “causes” of keeping the church together and keeping it strong. Paul shows that in his epistles to Timothy and in other epistles.

As leaders seek to channel such zeal, they would need to be extremely thoughtful and careful to not squash the very thing that they should have been wanting to preserve–which was the kind of individual personal revelation and guidance that Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 2. Yet as they began to appeal to the “authority of the church” and to “tradition” and said at the same time that “public revelation was completed”, they in effect were saying “you must trust us because we have the authority and we have all the knowledge God wanted humankind to know.”

By teaching youth that concept, and those youth teaching their children, and so forth, of course it would be a very difficult thing to think that some youth or other is going to say to themselves, “No–the Bible says if we lack wisdom we should ask God, not man–I’m going to do exactly that”. Especially would it be extremely difficult for such a youth to have needful faith if they did ask God for the kind of wisdom necessary to trust that there was a need and Biblical precedence for a fountain of knowledge that is indicated by the term “public revelation.” A youth would need tremendous faith to break through the barrier to divinely sent knowledge that is created within everyone by the notion that “public revelation is complete–no more necessary.”

It becomes a “self-fulfilling” belief system, with certain people in charge who could “refine” the doctrine to appeal to more people or to preserve their own place in being sought after as an authority figure. This is natural human tendency which would have been logically expected to happen under those premises.

 

[paul_c]

Zach Dunn,
I had kind of felt like I had talked myself “blue in the face” about the eternal marriage covenant and the difference between such a covenant and the marriages talked about in the experience with the Sadducees. That was why I hadn’t answered you.

Here is your post 63:

It was you who said “humans will not marry in heaven”–not Christ. Christ used a verb with an understood subject, and the understood subject was either “Sadducees” (my view) or a larger subset of “unbelieving Jews” (your view), but to say that the understood subject is suddenly “all humans” is to make an extreme grammatical error because that subject was never implied in the passage, at all.

By Adamic covenant, I meant the specific covenant that Adam and Eve had when God joined them in marriage and they had the knowledge that “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” That gives great perspective to the decision of Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit after Eve had partaken, knowing they would thus go into a condition where they would die, but knowing also that God had joined their marriage together and thus Adam could not keep the covenant and commandment regarding his marriage by letting her die alone. As far as he knew, they were going to die, it is true–but Christ’s mission was to break the bands of that death, and still Christ used the example of Adam and Eve to exemplify marriage. God does covenant making for eternity–not for this life only, ever. So I would never agree that covenants are “dissolved by death.” Earthly contracts can be (many times they continue by contract law), but not heavenly covenants, ever.

A person defending their faith and beliefs will always feel even stronger about them as they defend them. This is human nature.

Best wishes for a fulfilling marriage at the appropriate time in your life.

Parker, As I have demonstrated over and over, Christ DID say there is no marriage in heaven. All your wordsmanship will not change that. And both Jesus and Paul made it clear that if you could manage it, it was a better state to stay celibate and devote all your attention to God (like the Catholic clergy and religious do). This is not to take away from marriage, which is sacramental, but to make it clear that marriage is NOT a requirement.

Claiming that Adam took the fruit from Eve to keep her from dying alone is a completely made up. Even if it was true, doesn’t that make it clear that he is choosing Eve over God? Is that something God would reward? Didn’t Jesus make it clear that if you chose family over him, you were not worthy of him?

 

[paul_c]

Zach Dunn,
I have been impressed this morning that I should add a couple of points in response to your question about “public revelation”.

First, as a youth you personify characteristics that are naturally prevalent in youth–zeal and excitement about one’s beliefs. If you’ll think back to 70 AD and on, you may be assured that youth back then had similar zeal and excitement. The leaders would have wanted to channel that zeal and excitement toward helping in the “causes” of keeping the church together and keeping it strong. Paul shows that in his epistles to Timothy and in other epistles.

As leaders seek to channel such zeal, they would need to be extremely thoughtful and careful to not squash the very thing that they should have been wanting to preserve–which was the kind of individual personal revelation and guidance that Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 2. Yet as they began to appeal to the “authority of the church” and to “tradition” and said at the same time that “public revelation was completed”, they in effect were saying “you must trust us because we have the authority and we have all the knowledge God wanted humankind to know.”

By teaching youth that concept, and those youth teaching their children, and so forth, of course it would be a very difficult thing to think that some youth or other is going to say to themselves, “No–the Bible says if we lack wisdom we should ask God, not man–I’m going to do exactly that”. Especially would it be extremely difficult for such a youth to have needful faith if they did ask God for the kind of wisdom necessary to trust that there was a need and Biblical precedence for a fountain of knowledge that is indicated by the term “public revelation.” A youth would need tremendous faith to break through the barrier to divinely sent knowledge that is created within everyone by the notion that “public revelation is complete–no more necessary.”

It becomes a “self-fulfilling” belief system, with certain people in charge who could “refine” the doctrine to appeal to more people or to preserve their own place in being sought after as an authority figure. This is natural human tendency which would have been logically expected to happen under those premises.

Parker,
Isn’t what you are warning against, exactly what the leadership of the LDS does: Refine their doctrine to appeal to more people and to perserve their place as an authority figure.
When it suited Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, they created doctrines of plural marriage to legitimize their adulteries. When these arrangements scandalized the nation nonetheless and kept Utah from becoming a state, suddenly plural marriage was disallowed. At the Mormon inception, slavery was a big issue and so it was a doctrine that blacks couldn’t b e priests. However, after the civil rights movement, in the face of public outcry, the Mormon doctrine changed to allow blacks to be priests. These are only a few examples. Truth for the Mormon is dictated by the needs of the times. Truth for a Catholic is eternal and never changes.

So at least portray our views correctly and be honest about how your church operates. Truth doesn’t change and the truth of salvation was given by Jesus to the Apostles to spread to the nations. There are no new truths, only lies masquerading as truth.

 

[paul_c]

Zach Dunn,
The passage you quoted from Hebrews 1, joined also with Hebrews 2, does not indicate at all that we should expect “public revelation” to cease, particularly in view of the vision of Revelation coming after the epistles of Paul in chronological time of when they were written down. Christ spoke as the Son of God come to earth, but He had also spoken by means of the prophets of old, as He testified to the Jews. What Paul is emphasizing is that Christ is differentiated from “the angels” and has a higher glory. He goes on in Hebrews 2 to say that Christ’s mission was to bring men to a like condition as Christ–not as the angels, who are “ministering spirits” (1:14), but as “sons unto glory” or in other words, “sons unto God”. (2:10)

The lack of “public revelation” during the period from AD 100 until 1820, does not mean no inspiration through the Holy Spirit was happening, for it was on many occasions and in many places. It means that those types of inspiration that occurred were not providing doctrinal clarity and guidance for the salvation of humankind–they were providing specific guidance for specific people who sought guidance for their relationships or for helping human endeavors such as writing the United States Constitution and the earlier documents that led to it, brought into a form that would be the basis of governing and blessing the lives of people.

One looking at the LDS view of human history as regards the plan of salvation for humankind, always needs to keep in mind that God values freedom of choice including that the entire population can choose wrong doctrine, and also that God has a plan that includes providing the saving ordinances (many involving vicarious temple ordinances) as an option for every human soul unless they were a son of perdition and fought against God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit during their life. So the time period when a fullness of authority and pure true doctrines were not going forth in the world, only postpones the opportunity that those spirits who lived at those times will eventually have for a knowing choice "yea’ or “nay” regarding Christ, baptism and the Holy Ghost, and as I had previously noted, an eternal marriage covenant for their own marriage.

Parker, really, this is laughable. You are right that there were revelations between 100 and 1820. the Church has had 33 Doctors of the Church and countless Saints who have encountered God and made him more understood by the Faithful. But they never changed Chruch Doctrine because the truth doesn’t change. Being faithful to the teachings of Christ as passed down from the Apostles is the true test of orthodoxy.

I won’t mince words on this because it would serve no good. Joseph Smith new revelations contradict known and established Christian teachings so one or the other is a lie. Joseph Smith denied the Trinity and the very essence of God. He created a whole new set of scriptures and modified the existing ones. He created the concept of celestial marriage, directly contradicting the teachings and examples of Jesus and Paul as documented in scripture. Joesph Smith legitimized adultery and sought to circumvent the 6th commandment against adultery by renaming it plural marriages. Joseph Smith claimed the Catholic Chruch apostasized from the originial teachings of the Apostles but could demonstrate not one such instance, nor could he determine the time or action that demonstrated this apostasy. On the other hand, Joseph Smith clearly changed doctrine and hence apostasized from the original faith but sought to justify it by calling it “New Revelations” rather than Apostasy. This is undeniable. You yourself note these changes everytime you acknowledge a unique LDS revelation.

Bottom Line, you can change the names to " plural marriage" and “New revelations” , but that doesn’t change the truth. Adultery and Apostasy remain unchanged regardless of the terms you use.

 

[TheosisM]

Parker, really, this is laughable. You are right that there were revelations between 100 and 1820. the Church has had 33 Doctors of the Church and countless Saints who have encountered God and made him more understood by the Faithful. But they never changed Chruch Doctrine because the truth doesn’t change. Being faithful to the teachings of Christ as passed down from the Apostles is the true test of orthodoxy.

Just to be precise here for ParkerD: There certainly were private revelations during that time period, however Catholicism teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

 

[AtticusFinch]

As Parker mentioned, these verses refer to two very specific households; not just any household at any time, or every household all the time, but two very specific households…

So? It was Clear that it was two WHOLE households, which included not only extended families, but servants, etc.

and there is no hint anywhere that those SPECIFIC households had children under the age of eight. There is no evidence either for, or against, those households having children.

lol…which do you think is more likely in that time period? Whole households including extending familes and servants’s families that did NOT have children under 8 or that did? Do you truly need to check your reason at the door to be LDS?

As it happens, many households do not have children. Certainly many do not have children under the age of 8. In fact, I would venture to predict that most households do not have children under the age of eight. As it happens, the average number of living children per family in Israel at the time was about 4 (infant mortality was high…not as high as with non-Jews, but high, nonetheless). Therefore households that have children at all could have had children under eight for as few as 12 years…and certainly not more than 15 to 20 years, even spacing the kids out a lot.

First, we are talking about then, not now. So what households “have” and don;t “have” is not relevant, though as a Mormon, I did not know very many families at all who had ZERO children in the household. And if the average number in a household back then was 4, that means there were families that had more than four. So, if the average was four, then the odds that there were no children in either household are very very slim.

The point is, there is no evidence to show that THOSE particular households had children/infants, and such were certainly not mentioned. Given this, we have to look at what else the Bible has to say about baptism, who gets it and who needs it…and it makes a great deal more logical sense to assume that these households didn’t have children under the age of accountability than that they did—and that this assumption (absent ANY proof at all one way or the other) trumps all the other scriptures about the matter.

No, since the Bible says WHOLE households, it is not easier to assume that there were no children. That is actually a silly assumption based on your need to defend your practice. But let’s see what the Bible says: It says EVERYONE needs to be baptized and does not make ANY stipulation as to age. So…we have EVERYONE needing to be baptized with no stipulation as to age, AND whole households getting baptized (notice it did not say, in either case, only the adults…it said the whole household…that oughta make you wonder. If it was intended to be only certain ages, then why say the whole household?)

As to your last crack, about Mormons believing that Christ really meant “let the little children come unto me, but not until they are eight…” talk about taking a quote out of context!

No…it is reflecting what you believe.

Like I said…it is a shame that LDS children are not part of WHOLE households…because it is easy to assume that whole households just never have any children…if you are LDS

 

[ParkerD]

…
Claiming that Adam took the fruit from Eve to keep her from dying alone is a completely made up. Even if it was true, doesn’t that make it clear that he is choosing Eve over God? Is that something God would reward? Didn’t Jesus make it clear that if you chose family over him, you were not worthy of him?

To the general reader (Paul can also read, but I’d rather he doesn’t respond as there is not really a dialog going on between the two of us which would imply listening):

So for the benefit of other readers:

When Adam was asked if he had partaken of the forbidden fruit, we can observe his response: “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” (Genesis 3:12)

Eve was not only a gift to Adam from God, but with this supernal, crowning gift of the creation came the commandments and understanding that they:

1–“Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…” (Genesis 1:28)
2–“have dominion” (meaning stewardship to help the earth flourish)
3–“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) This is far more than a physical “cleaving” and becoming “one flesh”. It is to gain a spiritual and communicative oneness also that brings joy to both partners, whereby they enhance each others’ abilities and unique gifts.
4–Eve was to be “an help meet for him.” God said that it “is not good that the man should be alone.” (Genesis 2:18)

Any notion that Adam was “choosing Eve over God” is simply not reading Genesis with any level of understanding, at all. How many ways did God need to say that Eve was to be with Adam and Adam was to be with Eve, for their mutual blessing?

Adam had a choice dilemma. He had indeed received the commandment not to partake of the forbidden fruit or he would die, but one observes that his decision was that the commandments from God relating to his being a support and a companion to Eve, and she to him, was regarded by Adam as the more important commandments to keep. This is evident from his decision not to be selfish and remain in the garden of Eden while Eve would die and be sent away from the garden of Eden. He said “gavest to be with me” as he told God why he partook of the forbidden fruit. If one reads the words, the words have deep meaning about his reasoning and his choice.

There are so many ramifications with the kinds of questions such as: “Is that something God would reward? Didn’t Jesus make it clear that if you chose family over him, you were not worthy of him?” and “is he choosing Eve over God?”

Jesus Himself placed the union of Adam and Eve as an exemplary marriage–the prototypical marriage for all humankind. Any notion that he regarded their marriage as something to be spurned or something where Adam chose “Eve over God” is a notion that is not supported by Jesus’ words.

The implied notion that one cannot “choose God and family” as joint blessings in one’s life is a sad commentary on a view of family. God can be placed at the center of a family’s devotion and of a couple’s devotion. They need not choose family over God, at all. They should always choose God, choose to obey God, but also choose to be loving and responsible in relationships with family.

 

[paul_c]

To the general reader (Paul can also read, but I’d rather he doesn’t respond as there is not really a dialog going on between the two of us which would imply listening):

Parker,
Is this really how you operate? You comment on a Catholic website about a Catholic contribitor’s comments and then request that he doesn’t defend his position? That’s a bit ridiculous, don’t you think? And don’t equate dissent with not listening to you. I read every word with great interest and where you disagree with Catholic teaching , I do the necessary research to show the Catholic view accurately. It is natural that when you bring in Mormon (or personal) innovations to what has been historically taught, that you will find dissent from Catholics. You should expect nothing less from us. We are here to explain and defend our faith.

So for the benefit of other readers:

When Adam was asked if he had partaken of the forbidden fruit, we can observe his response: “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” (Genesis 3:12)

Eve was not only a gift to Adam from God, but with this supernal, crowning gift of the creation came the commandments and understanding that they:

1–“Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…” (Genesis 1:28)
2–“have dominion” (meaning stewardship to help the earth flourish)
3–“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) This is far more than a physical “cleaving” and becoming “one flesh”. It is to gain a spiritual and communicative oneness also that brings joy to both partners, whereby they enhance each others’ abilities and unique gifts.
4–Eve was to be “an help meet for him.” God said that it “is not good that the man should be alone.” (Genesis 2:18)

Any notion that Adam was “choosing Eve over God” is simply not reading Genesis with any level of understanding, at all. How many ways did God need to say that Eve was to be with Adam and Adam was to be with Eve, for their mutual blessing?

Adam had a choice dilemma. He had indeed received the commandment not to partake of the forbidden fruit or he would die, but one observes that his decision was that the commandments from God relating to his being a support and a companion to Eve, and she to him, was regarded by Adam as the more important commandments to keep. This is evident from his decision not to be selfish and remain in the garden of Eden while Eve would die and be sent away from the garden of Eden. He said “gavest to be with me” as he told God why he partook of the forbidden fruit. If one reads the words, the words have deep meaning about his reasoning and his choice.

There are so many ramifications with the kinds of questions such as: “Is that something God would reward? Didn’t Jesus make it clear that if you chose family over him, you were not worthy of him?” and “is he choosing Eve over God?”

Jesus Himself placed the union of Adam and Eve as an exemplary marriage–the prototypical marriage for all humankind. Any notion that he regarded their marriage as something to be spurned or something where Adam chose “Eve over God” is a notion that is not supported by Jesus’ words.

The implied notion that one cannot “choose God and family” as joint blessings in one’s life is a sad commentary on a view of family. God can be placed at the center of a family’s devotion and of a couple’s devotion. They need not choose family over God, at all. They should always choose God, choose to obey God, but also choose to be loving and responsible in relationships with family.

Parker, think about what you are saying. You are advocating that if one marriage partner sins, the other should sin likewise for solidarity. So if a husband kills someone and is going to jail and potentially to hell, should the wife do likewise?

And of course a man can choose God and family, and in most cases, they are complementary with the family members helping each other in their journey to holiness. But that isn’t what happened in the case of Adam and Eve in the Garden now is it? In Fact, Eve allowed herself to be decieved by Satan and then convinced Adam to follow her into damnation. So now as you say, Adam had a dilemma. He could follow God or he could follow Eve and the Devil who was leading her. The Catholic view, supported by Scripture, is that he should follow God and that perhaps through his example and his holiness, Eve would recognize the error of her ways and be redeemed. The view you present, I don’t know if it is Mormon thought or your own, is that Adam was justified in following Satan because he was showing love for his wife, who had already been redeemed.

This concept of celestial marriage is not of God. This is shown clearly from the scriptures. And look, in order to defend it, you are now advocating that Adam support and join Eve in her sins rather than follow God’s clear commandment to him. Isn’t that how Satan works? Creating one lie and then building others on it?

 

[sablouwho]

The view you present, I don’t know if it is Mormon thought or your own…

Paul, while I cannot speak for Parker, I can tell you that I did hear similar stories when I was an LDS investigator:

The gist of it was that Eve made a “brave choice” because she had to choose between two commandments, to not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge, and to be fruitful and multiply. And God wanted Adam and Eve to experience a mortal life, and have mortal progeny. (LDS apparently believe that Adam and Eve were sterile or sexually immature, I don’t remember which, while they were in the garden, so they would have to leave the garden in order to become parents) It was God’s will that they break one law in order to keep the other, so it was not a sin because sin is going against God’s will.

Or something along those lines. It was about a year and a half ago that I heard this, so I can’t promise that I got all of the nuances. I am sure that if I have made an unintentional misrepresentation that Parker or another LDS poster will make the necessary corrections.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
Is this really how you operate? You comment on a Catholic website about a Catholic contribitor’s comments and then request that he doesn’t defend his position? That’s a bit ridiculous, don’t you think? And don’t equate dissent with not listening to you. I read every word with great interest and where you disagree with Catholic teaching , I do the necessary research to show the Catholic view accurately. It is natural that when you bring in Mormon (or personal) innovations to what has been historically taught, that you will find dissent from Catholics. You should expect nothing less from us. We are here to explain and defend our faith.

Parker, think about what you are saying. You are advocating that if one marriage partner sins, the other should sin likewise for solidarity.

And of course a man can choose God and family, and in most cases, they are complementary with the family members helping each other in their journey to holiness. But that isn’t what happened in the case of Adam and Eve in the Garden now is it? In Fact, Eve allowed herself to be decieved by Satan and then convinced Adam to follow her into damnation. So now as you say, Adam had a dilemma. He could follow God or he could follow Eve and the Devil who was leading her. The Catholic view, supported by Scripture, is that he should follow God and that perhaps through his example and his holiness, Eve would recognize the error of her ways and be redeemed. The view you present, I don’t know if it is Mormon thought or your own, is that Adam was justified in following Satan because he was showing love for his wife, who had already been redeemed.

This concept of celestial marriage is not of God. This is shown clearly from the scriptures. And look, in order to defend it, you are now advocating that Adam support and join Eve in her sins rather than follow God’s clear commandment to him. Isn’t that how Satan works? Creating one lie and then building others on it?

Paul C,
I should have worded my comment differently, I suppose. Some people just write, “I’m going to put you on ignore.” The responses that do not seem to show “listening” is when statements are made that say “Christ said this in this way,” or “God meant this”–when those are opinions, not facts, and I have tried to demonstrate the facts about the actual scripture based on the scriptural text itself. It becomes a pointless conversation.

To jump to the conclusion that I would advocate the item you mentioned that I deleted as I quoted your quote, is a serious misunderstanding. You evidently didn’t catch the point at all. Adam’s dilemma wasn’t that sort of dilemma. He had a choice between breaking one commandment having to do with himself and the forbidden fruit, or breaking four other commandments having to do with Eve and his God-given relationship with her. He had no basis for thinking she would be “redeemed” if he did not partake of the forbidden fruit–no basis whatsoever. She would die–that was what he knew. He would lose her companionship. That was what he knew. God had given her to him, and him to her. That was what he knew.

Peace to you and all. Genesis is wonderfully insightful. The Bible is a magnificent blessing to humankind.

 

[Strevel]

I find it curious that members of the LDS (Mormon) church are constantly on this website trying to convert Catholics. So my question to the LDS proseltizers here is this: Why do you think you need to convert Catholics? What do you think we lack in terms of salvation that the chruch of the LDS offers?

You see, the Catholic Church offers the Apostolic truths AND the grace giving sacraments that Jesus initiated. Its practicing members love God by pray regularly, read scripture, partake of the sacraments, go to mass at least weekly and love thier neighbors through works of mercy and charity. The most devoted among us become preists and religious, giving up their lives to serve God and their fellow man, with vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.

So what are we missing that you could provide through the Mormon church? What do we need to do that we don’t do already?

If you flip the question and ask me what you members of the LDS need to do that you don’t do already, I would say that you must partake of the sacraments as Jesus told us. Be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins and to gain the graces to be saved (John 3, Matthew 28, and many other scriptural references). Partake of the eucharist, because those that don’t eat his body and drink his blood will have no life within them (John 6, the last supper discourses, and 1corinthians 10, 11). When you fall through sin, reconcile with God through the sacrament of reconciliation, because we know that Jesus gave the apostles and their successors the right to forgive sins.

So lets discuss both ends of this>

1. What do you think Catholics don’t do that they need to do to be saved
2. Why you think you don’t need the sacraments?

I was Mormon, and like so many of an increasing number, left the LDS Church. I returned to my Catholic faith. A Missionary companion and his wife and kids joined the Catholic faith as well. You missunderstand the purpose and intent of the missionary efforts of the LDS Church. Sadly, and I confessed this, I became LDS for several years. I was a Missionary for two of them in CA. The purpose of every name, every address every “sales lead” in the LDS Church is to convert. They are the personification of the Borg on Star Trek. They want yo, resistance is futile, and if you were as smart and blessed as they are you would know it, too.

They are not there to teach of Christ at all, but to incress the Largess of the LDS Church…plain and simple. They do not believe in ANY sacraments as we do. They will smile at us, but theor purpose in wanting a better relationship with is is to be seen with us so as to increase their credability in the Christ believing world so they can convert more. They believe Christ (and God) have countless plural wives. God lives on a planet Kobal with his wives without number. Satan was his brother. And the fertilizer goes on to a point I do not want to go into in this email. Beautiful flowers will grow in the fertalizer they speak.
I have a free esheet I will send to anyone on them. Email me at vegasdon@gmail.com and I will send it to you free, no obligation. Their goal would rid the world of us, Christs teachings. They privately to us yet publically within themself call us the “Great Whore of the Earth”. They can ultimately do greater desolation to the body of Christ than the Protestant Reformation ever thought of in its wildest freams. They want us dead.

Don, Las Vegas