looking to convert from mormon to catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter shipma2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony888 said:
Hey pepbandmom,
As i said before, it’s not LDS doctrine or dogma

For your reference, Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by listeners.
I understand about 20 of these brought up the subject of God the Father’s relationship to Adam. While most of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, some were/are controversial.

His teachings here were never cannonized as scripture, end of story.

The most you can do is examine and criticize Brigham Young personally. I won’t go their because I’ve not studied his biography or all his sermons. What I can say is LDS believe even our leaders are human, and make mistakes. I’m told Brigham Young contradicted himself.
Click to expand...
Tony 888,

I understand this differentiation you point out extremely often between speach and doctrine.
But I have a problem with something else.
If I St. Francis or anyother Saint, would have made few speaches completely contrary at the doctrine, would you really think they would have been considered a Saint?
How can somebody be recognized as a prophet while in his speaching not only they go against your own doctrine but apparently are not even compatible. You still recognize him as a prophet?
From your point of view a mormon prophet can say absolutely everything even things that will not be accepted as doctrine and at the same time be seen as prophets and guides.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Young, tossed under the bus, McConkie, tossed under the bus, seems to be a lot of unreliable teaching from men going on.
Click to expand...
zaffiroborant,

Catholics always insist the Pope is infallible, but nobody else believes them.
Conversely, LDS always insist our President/Prophet is fallible, but nobody else believes us. Ironic, isn’t it 🙂

I urge all of you to look up Prooftexting. It’s a dishonest approach to debating and thus I expect a sin.

If you read the thread, you will see I countered the McConkie prooftexting with additional quotes that were explicit in what McConkie thoughtv - He believed in the virgin birth
 
Exactly…People cannot even perceive, no matter how sincere, to grasp what is meant, and where it has existed in papal infallibility.

You can try to explain and they don’t get it…

The bottom line is that the Book of Mormon and its reasons for claiming it the true revelation of God is an entity of its own. You have to study the history of its beliefs, and that is what the Catholics are trying to do here, especially to those who are new Mormons. They have not been exposed or are in the Mormon mindset of compartmentalization.

Catholicism has consistency of faith, and fulfillment of the Old Testament.
 
Yup, It is really annoying when people outside your religion insist they really know what you believe.
 
Re: infallibility

Only in Faith & Morals when the Pope is speaking Ex Cathedra - from the Chair. A Pope can tell you 2 + 2 = 5 & he’d be wrong or the Moon is made of green cheese and he’d be wrong. But he cannot tell you a marriage consists of 2 men or of 2 women or of 1 man & 4 women (like that appalling cable show with the FLDS?) or of 2 men & 3 women & 2 animals :eek:
He can tell someone something “wrong” in private but is not the same as coming from the Chair (of Peter). If one believes EVERYTHING a POPE says is infallible is mistaken. Out of all the Popes, especially with most of the first martyred 70 - 80 Popes, most early mutilated, tortured, decapitated, burned, fed to the animals etc., we have a better rate going than the Lord did with His 12 apostles, way less than 1 in 12 are “bad” out of 263 is it?. But none of them ever changed doctrine even if history judges them as “bad”. The Bride of Christ is still in business.

Denominations say all sort of things are good and holy but in reality are sinful. These days things are really ratcheting up. We’ll see how it unfolds as we all battle with the culture of the day.

Interesting how Episcopalians & now Lutherans don’t see certain beliefs - usually voted on by the masses - as “Christian” & are coming back to Mother Church and have their own Ordinariate (Bishop to oversee them similar to the US Military). Episcopalians have had an exodus for 20 years now. Always thought amazing people VOTE for the TRUTH. My boss mentioned years ago his Church votes on what they want to believe - a stunner indeed!
 
Tony

Operative words in the writings by B. Young & others PROMULGATED in WRITING to the Mormon people by God’s 'PROPHET":

“Doctrine” “Particular Doctrine” “Principle of Obedience” Interesting words.

He clearly stated “D-o-c-t-r-i-n-e” did he not. TRUE PROPHETS of God do not make such MISTAKES! If Young is judged to be “MISTAKEN” it would seem he would qualify as a “FALSE PROPHET” in the arena of faith & morals.

I have noted in my posts sources - you would do well to research these things - his biography and his original sermons for yourself. Are copies of these originals easily accessed in your local Ward, library, BYU library? Or do you have to dig for them ex. on the Internet? If so, why?

and for the 3rd time: Do YOU believe You will become a GOD?
 
Mormons follow their current “prophet” without question. Why are Mormons here claiming otherwise?

Once one of their “prophets” is dead, the newest iteration can (and does) contradict previous “prophets”. So a Mormon follows their current “prophet”. Mormons can and do change doctrines. Because they believe that that God changes. When Mormon doctrines contradict from one leader to the next, they discard what was taught before. What was once prophetic becomes opinion.

Because of this approach, there is no continuity of Mormon doctrine. Ironically, the Mormon doctrine of a “great apostasy” is based on an assertion that there has been no continuity in Jesus’ Church. Yet, the continuity of the Church Jesus established is one of the most important, and carefully guarded, aspects of catholicism. Catholics take protecting truth and handing it on very seriously, and have done so since Jesus instructed the Apostles to teach and baptize all nations and people.

Mormons do not take continuity seriously. What their current leaders have to say is much more important to them than keeping a continuous line of Truth intact. They even project their own lax approach of continuity to the Apostles themselves.

Catholics here, are pointing this out, in various ways, and the Mormon response is “the Pope isn’t fallible”. This is nothing but a diversion, since we don’t view the Pope as Mormons view their “prophet”, and don’t view our doctrines as something that can and will change with the opinions of the current Pope.
 
Tony

The Church is very careful of who is deserving of the title of “Saint” and you can usually find little to no dirt on them whatsoever - title not used loosely; Saints are canonized due to their sheer holiness. Some single-handedly changed direction of RCC & World by doing God’s Will - highly influential holy ones ex. Augustine, Gregory, Leo, Benedict, Thomas, Dominic, Francis, Joan de Arc, Catherine of Sienna, Theresa of Avila - even holy women have changed Popes minds & history
  • Saints don’t steer away from Christ and His Church nor do they butt heads with it; it’s full speed ahead!
EWTN is of Franciscan origin. Even these FORUMS are part of Catholic Answers also on EWTN radio (190 stations in US). EWTN TV reaches over 100 million per week, IN, Shortwave, not to mention millions of books, millions dedicated to the Franciscan way of life for 8 - 9 CENTURIES, priests, nuns, sisters, brothers, schools, universities, hospitals; huge in world-wide media. Francis lived almost 1/2 way back to the time of Christ; a true GIANT of history.

I invite you to obtain some of his writings and there are many and read for yourself.
 
Pepband_Mom said:
Tony

and for the 3rd time: Do YOU believe You will become a GOD?
Click to expand...
why did you ignore me when I responded to you the first time?
  • I told you I’m perfectly fine with the Catholic teaching that ‘Christ became man so that Man might become God’
  • I then urged you to read up on deification and what the ECF taught.
to keep it simple
The more Christlike we are in this life, the more like Christ we will be in the next.

Personally, I have a long journey to become more Christlike
 
what part didn’t you understand?

I thought I was pretty clear that one must become like Christ, and I am far from it now.
 
Anna_Scott said:
shipma2,

Catholics are giving you advise regarding moving into RCIA for Catholicism. I praise God for your choice to leave the Mormon Church.

There are important steps you need to take to officially leave the Mormon Church. You may already have this information; but I will post it just in case you need it.

The Mormon Church will often rush to excommunicate, when they realize a member is really going to leave. Then, if the member speaks out against the LDS Church, at a later date; the Mormon Church can more easily slander the person’s reputation, and point to the fact that the church Excommunicated them.

However, as soon as a person submits a formal request to resign from any church in the U.S., including the Mormon Church, the church no longer has the legal right to hold court, excommunicate, or take any other action against the individual. There are laws that protect an individual’s right to resign from a religion; and there are already legal precedents.

The following link provides a simple summary of 2 court cases, as well as very helpful advice regarding the steps you need to take to resign from the Mormon Church.
dailykos.com/story/2008/10/14/11624/597/670/629888
(Emphasis is mine.)

"LEGAL PRECEDENTS
There is one case in particular that has clearly established in case law a right that most of us believe we had all along: the right to simply resign from a church. A second case is important to establish the church’s vulnerability to lawsuits when they refuse to honor resignations.

GUINN V THE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF COLLINSVILLE
Final decision by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, January 1989
Marian Guinn, a member of the Church of Christ of Collinsville, OK, hand delivered her resignation to the minister after he told her he was going to excommunicate her for fornication.

The minister refused to honor the resignation, went ahead with the ‘excommunication’ and then announced it from the pulpit. Guinn sued and was awarded $390,000. On appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Guinn’s resignation was effective immediately and that anything the church or the minister received Guinn’s resignation was tortable.

In other words, she could sue for anything they did after she resigned. The court ruled that with her resignation Guinn withdrew her consent to being treated as a member and she withdrew her consent to being subject to church discipline.

Of extra importance is the fact that the court ruled that the right to freedom of religion also includes the right to unilaterally resign from a church.

In several subsequent court cases the Mormon church has agreed to the principles established in Guinn. They have not even attempted to argue that the principles do not apply to them.

THE NORMAN HANCOCK LAWSUIT (Mesa AZ 1985)
In 1985 the Mormon church ‘excommunicated’ Norman Hancock AFTER he submitted a letter of resignation to the church.

Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church.

The suit was settled out of court and the settlement was sealed. An account on line reports that Hancock filed the suit himself, without the aid of a lawyer, after studying the Guinn case.

The same account says that church lawyers started discussing with Hancock just how much money he wanted, but he told them he didn’t want their money, that what he wanted was to have his name cleared. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an ‘excommuication’: the records would show that he resigned (that he asked for ‘name removal’).

. . .The Guinn and Hancock cases were the end of the era when the church told members that there was no way to stop being a member except by excommunication. The church began having a process it calls ‘name removal’.

However, the church still tells bishops and stake presidents that a member who is ‘transgressing’ should not be allowed to resign, that “name removal should not be used as a substitute for church discipline”.

If you’ve paid attention to the Guinn case, you already know that the church is wrong about that and they can be sued for ‘excommunicating’ someone who already resigned. At church headquarters they know this very well and they will usually put a quick halt to ‘discipline’ proceedings if they find out that the former members knows what his or her rights are."

© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
“Kos” and “Daily Kos” are registered trademarks of Kos Media, LLC
So, we are protected by the laws of our country. We have freedom of religion, which includes the right to resign from any religion, without the religious leaders/church taking any further action against us.

I encourage you to read Leaving the Mormon Church: mormonnomore.com/ before you resign. Read all the instructions on the website. There is a sample resignation letter at this link: mormonnomore.com/sample-letter. Again, get all the facts before you submit your letter.

Prayers and blessings for your journey into the Catholic Church,
Anna
Click to expand...
When I sent in my letter asking to take my name from Church records, the LDS Church held a court anyway. I did not attend, but was mailed a letter to say I had been excommunicated for conduct unbecoming a member of the LDS Church
 
Tony888 said:
Hey pepbandmom,
As i said before, it’s not LDS doctrine or dogma

For your reference, Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by listeners.
I understand about 20 of these brought up the subject of God the Father’s relationship to Adam. While most of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, some were/are controversial.

His teachings here were never cannonized as scripture, end of story.

The most you can do is examine and criticize Brigham Young personally. I won’t go their because I’ve not studied his biography or all his sermons. What I can say is LDS believe even our leaders are human, and make mistakes. I’m told Brigham Young contradicted himself.
Click to expand...
When a prophet speaks about God, it does not have to be canonized. It is accepted as Scripture. A True God would not, and should not, allow a prophet to give incorrect information about God. The fact that BY gave incorrect information about God should be a clue as his status as a true Prophet of God.

It is not my wish to fight, just inform.

In His Grip,
 
RebeccaJ said:
Mormons follow their current “prophet” without question. Why are Mormons here claiming otherwise?

Once one of their “prophets” is dead, the newest iteration can (and does) contradict previous “prophets”. So a Mormon follows their current “prophet”. Mormons can and do change doctrines. Because they believe that that God changes. When Mormon doctrines contradict from one leader to the next, they discard what was taught before. What was once prophetic becomes opinion.
Click to expand...
Is seems that would make Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc false teachers, and the current President a future false teacher
 
Tony888 said:
why did you ignore me when I responded to you the first time?
  • I told you I’m perfectly fine with the Catholic teaching that ‘Christ became man so that Man might become God’
  • I then urged you to read up on deification and what the ECF taught.
to keep it simple
The more Christlike we are in this life, the more like Christ we will be in the next.

Personally, I have a long journey to become more Christlike
Click to expand...
Tony888,

your understanding of Christ became man so that Man might become God is mormonized, so must be revised if not you will repeat wrongly this sentence.
It is not becoming a God separated from God. This is your doctrine! It is union with God, as the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son. Please read the gospel. No man could stand the presence of God in not in the union with Jesus Christ the Word of God and God Himself. I know it is difficult for you, would be also for me if I was a mormon, but just give it a try to grasp the sentence in its real meaning.

You say It is really annoying when people outside your religion insist they really know what you believe. But many here were mormons and when they were mormons they knew what they were talking about why they don’t know mormonism any more when they are out of it. If from Ortodox I become atheist since I loose my faith I say I don’t believe in Christianity because I lost my faith not because I realized my religion was based in a cumulation of frauds. I can never say, even if I loose my faith that St. Seraphim was not a Saint and a man of extraordinary faith. But if I were a mormon and I get out from mormonism from studing Joseph Smith life, discovering he didn’t die as a martir, discovering he created a bank, that he wanted to became president of United States, that evn though in the book of mormon that mormon say it is the most perfect book it is clearly contrary to plurial mariage and then he married at least 33 times, that the Book of Abrham is more has to be accepted blindly since it is too clearly a Joseph Smith invention…and I can go on for very long time.
It is not the same thing that for a Christian loosing faith.
Hope you can see my point.
My wife’s father has been a bishop (no ex LDS) and when I ask him something he knows
mormon doctrine so why some mormon here want to make people believe that when a mormon get out from mormonism he invent things about mormon doctrine?
 
TONY

Now, I asked if YOU believe YOU would be a GOD NOT Christ or Christlike

Deflection is correct

Jesus Christ existed before he was born to this earth in his DIVINE NATURE: see the Word, the Logos (Lots of internet info there for your edification on EWTN or catholic.com website, millions of others too)

You do not or will never have a DIVINE NATURE only GOD DOES although your soul is of divine ORIGIN but that won’t make you divine in NATURE. Human kind gets the soul at the moment of conception (contrary to the confusion of LDS doctrine of the “pre-existence”)

Elder James A. Little said “I believe in the principle of Obedience; and if I am told that Adam is our Father and our God, I just believe it”. Tony, the LDS faithful RAN WITH EVERYTHING THE PROPHET SAID. The Prophet manufactured it, announced & printed it numerous times clearly promulgating it as Doctrine - it’s there in print & once again, get copies of the original doctrines & read for yourself. Adam-God doctrine was NOT PROTECTED as doctrine in latter years. Why? Because your “PROPHET” was incorrect or something like that, maybe, WRONG!

To contrast, in the RCC world a Doctrine or Dogma stands like ROCK, it will be there FOREVER. You can’t budge it, dismiss it and wave it off. Truth cannot change.

For the 4th time please simply answer my valid & critical question Yes or No - You be a God or not - Christ or Christlike is not my question. God hood on your horizon?; do you believe if worthy, in the Celestial Kingdom, you will inhabit your own planet & with your earthly wife have spirit children… Yes or NO
 
Pepband_Mom said:
TONY

Now, I asked if YOU believe YOU would be a GOD NOT Christ or Christlike
Click to expand...
pep mom, you appear to be intent on practicing polemics rather than understanding a different theology. Since you are unreachable, one more time for the audience

I support the Catholic doctrine of Theosis as expressed in CCC 460

To ensure there is context, below are the surrounding paragraphs articulating why Christ took human form.
CCC 458, "The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God’s love: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."72 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."73
CCC 459, The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."74 On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: "Listen to him!"75 Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: "Love one another as I have loved you.“76 This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example.77
CCC 460, The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
CCC 461, Taking up St. John’s expression, “The Word became flesh”,82 the Church calls “Incarnation” the fact that **the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation **in it. In a hymn cited by St. Paul, the Church sings the mystery of the Incarnation:
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.83
Click to expand...
I like the last paragraph as an articulation of what we all should aspire to.

Whether one believes in Theosis or Exaltation, it is about the journey of obeying the commandments of God.

Your fixation on the outcome is not healthy. I also urge you to read my signature quote.
 
Tony, I respectfully request you answer Mom’s questions. They are not difficult questions.

In His Grip
 
Tony888 said:
pep mom, you appear to be intent on practicing polemics rather than understanding a different theology. Since you are unreachable, one more time for the audience
Click to expand...
The audience would like you to give a straight honest answer to her yes or no question. An honest answer would start with a Yes or a No followed by clarification
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top