MERGED Questions about Mormonism

[EcceAgnusDei]

See, this is why I do drive by’s here. Possibly this is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. I mean ignorant in its strictest definition. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None of what i said can be inferred by someone to mean what this nonsense is. Gnostic? There is nothing secret about what goes on during a marriage ceremony.

If it’s not secret, then why don’t you tell us all about it? Please include the moment that the bride and groom have at the veil prior to the wedding, and please do give us the details of the handshake they have over the altar.

It is sacred.

There are many sacred things in Christianity, too, but they are not kept secret. The Mormon equivocation of secret and sacred is quite Gnostic.

Sooo, Rebecca, if you do not get baptized, do you get to go to heaven? What if you do not attend confession ‘sufficiently’? Does this mean you are gnostic?

You obviously do not know what Gnosticism is. Baptism and confession are not secret rituals that confer a secret knowledge that is necessary for salvation. The Mormon Endowment ceremony, on the other hand, most certainly does. The knowledge given in the temple ceremony is necessary to enter heaven, as Brigham Young taught and as shown in the ceremony at the veil. You have to know the handshakes and the passwords to enter the Celestial Kingdom. This is secret knowledge.

What if the ‘secret’ knowledge is confession in the Lord Jesus Christ?

There is nothing secret about confessing that Jesus Christ is the Lord and God.

Shame, all those poor indians in South America who never heard the Gospel preached, who were never baptized, all going to hell because they didn’t have the secret knowledge you possess.

I’ll say it again: you really need to read up on what Gnosticism is and what “secret” knowledge is. Your example does not fit it at all.

 

[Stephen168]

Your understanding of a false dilemma is correct. The two options you gave were:

a) Native Americans are decendants of an ancient tribe per Joseph Smith

B) Native Americans are from Asia per the science of genetics.

‘B’ is certainly appears to be true, at least from maternal mitochondrial dna studies. The question is, is ‘a’ a valid question. No. It has not been the claims of the Church as doctrine that the American Indians were descendents of Israelites.

The “Mormon Church” and Joseph Smith are not the same thing. Joseph Smith (Pearl of Great Price) claims the Book of Mormon is the story of ALL the Native people of America, so ‘A’ is a valid statement. Only one statement can be true and you are correct in saying the true statement is ‘B’

 

[wussup]

… It does not talk about Blood Oaths. It does not talk about polygamy or that Adam is our God or that God was once a sinful man or many other LDS doctrines that the LDS Church tries to whitewash and hide.

Living Waters7 suggestion is a good one. Here is a link to the Gospel Principles Manual
You have probably noticed I generally refuse to bible-bash. It is such a colossal waste of time…

Watery milk.

The problem is, Gospel Principals tells only part of the story. It does not give the full truth or talk about the ugly doctrines they try to hide

The gospel principles manual covers what is doctrine now, and ignores what the doctrine was in the past.

Such tired old lies…this is the point where a bible basher would then begin bashing what would be considered ridiculous Catholic Doctrine. Just as much blather coming from one as coming from another. Boring aren’t I?

The “Mormon Church” and Joseph Smith are not the same thing. Joseph Smith (Pearl of Great Price) claims the Book of Mormon is the story of ALL the Native people of America, so ‘A’ is a valid statement. Only one statement can be true and you are correct in saying the true statement is ‘B’

chapter and vs please…

 

[twopekinguys]

Such tired old lies…this is the point where a bible basher would then begin bashing what would be considered ridiculous Catholic Doctrine. Just as much blather coming from one as coming from another. Boring aren’t I?

chapter and vs please…

So it teaches about how blacks were denied the priesthood? Or does it just teach that all males get the priesthood?

We’ll start with that one, and go from there.

I noticed that you didn’t provide a single reference showing that the manual teaches prior doctrines, and current doctrines.

So, with that, I will politely ask you for one.

 

[wussup]

If I was talking to someone who had an interest in seeing things from another’s perspective, a basic human social courtesy, I would bother to answer. If someone wants to know what the church believes re. black and the priesthood, pm me. Please, only if you are interested in hearing the entire background. Don’t bother if you want to bible bash.

 

[pgnat1]

Just curious… Is it true the Book of Mormon has been changed over one hundred times? Do Mormons believe this?

 

[SteveVH]

If I was talking to someone who had an interest in seeing things from another’s perspective, a basic human social courtesy, I would bother to answer. If someone wants to know what the church believes re. black and the priesthood, pm me. Please, only if you are interested in hearing the entire background. Don’t bother if you want to bible bash.

Does this mean that if we use the scriptures as evidence of our position then we are Bible bashing? I would agree that throwing Bible verses at each other is not the best use of time, but the scripures cannot be off-limits on a religious forum. I am not just interested in what you believe but also why you believe it. If it is foreign to Biblical Scripture or Sacred Tradition, you are going to have to explain the basis of your position.

 

[Stephen168]

chapter and vs please…

Church History:

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally with drawn from them as a people was made known to me:…

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era.

We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the tower of babel. The second race came directly from he city ofJerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They are principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jardites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnants are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith – History 1:34:

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

Science has shown that Joseph Smith was wrong.

 

[wussup]

Just curious… Is it true the Book of Mormon has been changed over one hundred times? Do Mormons believe this?

Yes. When the first edition was released the non-church member publisher changed many commas, and even words in the text. After this was discovered, the changes were fixed. This link illustrates the reasons for the changes.

Does this mean that if we use the scriptures as evidence of our position then we are Bible bashing? I would agree that throwing Bible verses at each other is not the best use of time, but the scripures cannot be off-limits on a religious forum. I am not just interested in what you believe but also why you believe it. If it is foreign to Biblical Scripture or Sacred Tradition, you are going to have to explain the basis of your position.

No. If you use to support your position, that is great and kinda why I am here. However, if you are using scripture to prove me wrong, that is Bible Bashing. Apparently, ‘bigotry’ is a bad word on this forum, so I won’t use the word ‘bigotry’, but when the unwise and doctrinally incorrect words of even our Church leaders is used to portray the Church Doctrine as a whole, add to that a bunch of insecurity and self-righteousness, yech. There are going to be obvious and interesting different interpretations of scripture between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That makes for a lively discussion. Even fun and can be very spiritual as we pray and ponder what makes for correct interpretation.
As sacred tradition, we do not subscribe to sacred tradition. (For obvious reasons ). I, am however interested in all facets of human belief, I just don’t appreciate having my faith demeaned, just as I am sure you don’t. I don’t think I am being unreasonable.

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes. When the first edition was released the non-church member publisher changed many commas, and even words in the text. After this was discovered, the changes were fixed. This link illustrates the reasons for the changes.

So, God did not guide the hands of the guy typsetting the “most perfect book”?

Those were not the only types of changes. One change was, after Blacks did not become “white and delightsome”, the words were changed to “pure and delightsome”. Major change. Also, names were changed when it was clear Joseph got it wrong.

.

 

[wussup]

Science has shown that Joseph Smith was wrong.

Read the next several issues and you will see this was an idea Joseph Smith was constantly evolving. It was not doctrinal.

 

[wussup]

Originally Posted by wussup
Yes. When the first edition was released the non-church member publisher changed many commas, and even words in the text. After this was discovered, the changes were fixed. This link illustrates the reasons for the changes.

So, God did not guide the hands of the guy typsetting the “most perfect book”?

Those were not the only types of changes. One change was, after Blacks did not become “white and delightsome”, the words were changed to “pure and delightsome”. Major change. Also, names were changed when it was clear Joseph got it wrong.

did you bother to read the link that clearly and succinctly addresses this specific example?

 

[Stephen168]

Read the next several issues and you will see this was an idea Joseph Smith was constantly evolving. It was not doctrinal.

You are the first Mormon to tell me that the Pearl of Great Price is not doctrine. Joseph Smith’s quote was shown to be a lie.

 

[TexanKnight]

did you bother to read the link that clearly and succinctly addresses this specific example?

lol…yes…and I am sure that easily fooled will fall for it. Me, I was easily fooled once. But I left the LDs Church,

It said specifcally…blacks will become “WHITE and delightsome”.

Guess what? Blacks never became white. So, guess what? Book of Mormon change…

what was changed? The word “white”.

It was changed to pure.

The “most perfect book” changed yet again.

I am praying for you, Wussup…

 

[Porknpie]

Yes. When the first edition was released the non-church member publisher changed many commas, and even words in the text. After this was discovered, the changes were fixed. This link illustrates the reasons for the changes.

No. If you use to support your position, that is great and kinda why I am here. However, if you are using scripture to prove me wrong, that is Bible Bashing. Apparently, ‘bigotry’ is a bad word on this forum, so I won’t use the word ‘bigotry’, but when the unwise and doctrinally incorrect words of even our Church leaders is used to portray the Church Doctrine as a whole, add to that a bunch of insecurity and self-righteousness, yech. There are going to be obvious and interesting different interpretations of scripture between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That makes for a lively discussion. Even fun and can be very spiritual as we pray and ponder what makes for correct interpretation.
As sacred tradition, we do not subscribe to sacred tradition. (For obvious reasons ). I, am however interested in all facets of human belief, I just don’t appreciate having my faith demeaned, just as I am sure you don’t. I don’t think I am being unreasonable.

Wussup -

First, thank you for your previous response(s) to me. Based on what I have heard - and correct me if I am wrong - there is no one “book” that describes what is doctrine in the Mormon church. This is different than Catholicism and at a minimum, hard to relate to and a cause for much confusion IMHO.

On the subject of using scripture to compare and contrast one church and another, in this case, Mormon vs Catholic, one is neither a bigot nor a “bible basher” to do so. Bigot defined as intolerant as well as displaying hatred for another and “bible basher” defined as forceful in persuading people to the Christian religion and the bible. If you are already using the bible and are Christian, then by definition, this is not “bible bashing”. It’s apologetics.

To use scripture and tradition to compare and contrast different faiths is in keeping with scripture as it is part of giving an explanation & apologetics:

1 Peter 3:15 “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,”

But to your point, there is a certain conduct expected, again 1 Peter 3 :

8 Finally, all of you, be of one mind, sympathetic, loving toward one another, compassionate, humble.
9 Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing.

 

[wussup]

Yeah, I think vs 9 is the one I am referencing.

 

[wussup]

Truth be told, the real reason I could never be a catholic is because they deny my Australian Shepherd, Fancy, and my Weimaraner, Fred. having a soul and entry into the Kingdom of God.

 

[wussup]

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

Read the above carefully. No really. You missed it, read it again. Ok, I’ll help:

He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.

Does that help? No? Here, some more help, Former, "1 a: coming before in time b: of, or relating to, or occurring in the past. 2 Preceding in place or arrangement. 3 first in order of two or more things cited or understood. 4 having been previously. (Courtesy of Merriam Webster Dictionary)

See, that was, for me at least, very enlightening. I know that Joseph Smith made intellectual forays into speculation. He is as human as us all. Yet the PofGP is very carefully worded so as not to warrant the very conclusion you are attempting to imply. Cool. Thank you very much for helping me see this even more clearly than before.

 

[Porknpie]

Truth be told, the real reason I could never be a catholic is because they deny my Australian Shepherd, Fancy, and my Weimaraner, Fred. having a soul and entry into the Kingdom of God.

Wussup -

This is not accurate to the Catholic teaching:

• all living things have souls
• the church does not say whether or not animals will be in heaven or not. The church does not deny this.

Here’s a very short tract from EWTN:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/pets_in_heaven.htm

What do you reference in the bible to say that animals will be in heaven? Me personally, believe they will be as they are God’s creation and are here on earth to make us happy. But, if they are not in heaven, we will not care and we will be incapable of being sad. So…maybe you can be Catholic after all.

 

[wussup]

Wussup -

This is not accurate to the Catholic teaching:

• all living things have souls
• the church does not say whether or not animals will be in heaven or not. The church does not deny this.

Here’s a very short tract from EWTN:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/pets_in_heaven.htm

What do you reference in the bible to say that animals will be in heaven? Me personally, believe they will be as they are God’s creation and are here on earth to make us happy. But, if they are not in heaven, we will not care and we will be incapable of being sad. So…maybe you can be Catholic after all.

I have had extensive discussions regarding this matter. Dogs (and animals) have a soul but not an eternal one, it ceases to exist. This is per the same EWTN you are quoting, “In the case of plants and animals the soul goes out of existence.” This is opposed to the soul of man, “But in the case of man, the soul remains in existence because it is a spiritual or immaterial thing.” Legitimate question, do Catholics believe an animals soul is material? Or is it just an immaterial ‘thing’ of another, non immortal nature? It is the position of the Church that all life has immortal souls, each valuable and of worth eternally in the eyes of Father. Remember, he knows of each sparrow that falls. Though we are of much more worth than the sparrow, He still knows the sparrow. Anyway, this is a bit light hearted at best.