Mormon Christ "pretty close" to Christ of the Bible

[SirThomasMore]

Strange, that you do not see just how rude this post is and just how uncharitable it is.

Do you believe charity means I should lie? Should I just ignore the fact that your LDS church is false?

First you call his faith false.

Yes. I will not lie. It is false. Would you rather I lie to make you LDS folks happy?

And then you say that you are being charitable by doing so.

You do not believe that it is charitable to tell someone the truth? If your friend was a drug abuser, would you lie to your friend and tell him or her that abusing drugs is good?

Then you call the leader of the lds church false.

Because he is. It has been shown several times here.

And yet, you claim that this is not persecution because he is in a false church.

Is it persecution to try and bring people to the TRUE God?

Then you claim that you are his friend and call his church a church of satan.

I actually did not do that…I said Satan AND false churches. Two different things, hence the word “and”. However, if you want my opinion about where the LDS Church comes from, just ask

I think that I need to laugh just a little more:

It is disturbing that you would laugh. Becuase, either you are laughing that mormons are in a false church, or you are laughing at the instructions of Christ. Neither is a laughing matter

And this is catholic charity? Gosh, I hope not.

You abuse the word “charity”. Christ Himself said, 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. 49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

Charity hasd NEVER meant that we lie to make people happy. I am sorry that you believe it does.

 

[why_me]

We’re not talking about baptists, and we’re not talking about the baptist board.

Quit trying to deflect. It is really getting old.

Truth is truth, there is no way around it. Many times, the truth is harsh, but it is still the truth.

It is a charitable endeavor to show people the errors of their teachings.

I have a bit of a newsflash for you. Life is not one big warm fuzzy or chorus of kumbaya afer another.

yea, you are right which is one reason why a baptist would say that you follow false popes. At the end of the day, it is far from christ. And a baptist would say truth is truth and many times the truth is harsh and a baptist would say that it is also a charitable endeavor to show catholics the errors of their teachings and the world goes round and round…far from christ.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Well, I suppose that if this were a baptist forum the baptists can also say to you:

I disagree. Just because we are adamanet about the falsehoods of the catholic faith does not mean we are not charitable. One of the most charitable things a person can do is tell a friend when they are wrong. Charioty was never meant to mean standing by while people you know follow false popes.

Sure they could. Muslims can say it to us too. Anyone can…but so what? Jesus did not form His Church using John the Baptist, but with Peter. So, they can say what they want. You can follow the Mormons or Baptists, or whoever, but, as Joshua said, “for me and my house, we will follow the Lord.”

 

[twopekinguys]

yea, you are right which is one reason why a baptist would say that you follow false popes. At the end of the day, it is far from christ. And a baptist would say truth is truth and many times the truth is harsh and a baptist would say that it is also a charitable endeavor to show catholics the errors of their teachings and the world goes round and round…far from christ.

I really have to ask this question.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

This thread has nothing to do with baptists. Why do you keep trying to deflect and go there?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

yea, you are right which is one reason why a baptist would say that you follow false popes. At the end of the day, it is far from christ. And a baptist would say truth is truth and many times the truth is harsh and a baptist would say that it is also a charitable endeavor to show catholics the errors of their teachings and the world goes round and round…far from christ.

It is irrelevant what the baptists/muslims/scientologists/raelians/etc would say. Those of us involved in apologetics are well aware of what these people would say about Catholicism. That does not change the truth, and your comments are simply a deflection of the issue.

 

[PJM]

=Roman_Catholic;6742199]This was a response by a fellow poster on CA. I will not use the name of who wrote it only to say that it was written by a Mormon. I was curious as to how many other Mormons on this forum would also say that the Christ they follow was, “pretty close” to the Christ of the Bible?

God bless

Interestering in that for Morons Jesus is NOT GOD. Being a “nice guy,even a prophet” is not even close?

 

[TheQuestioner]

In terms of this “shunning” issue, I actually think pinay did a good job. He was very rational. His point was not to prove that shunning never happened, but to show that it is not an official teaching to shun. He also made a good point about people no longer meeting because of the lack of Church events. This would also factor into some of the “shunning”. At the end of the day it seems that the LDS church does not officially seek to shun anyone, apostate or not. It is a human action.

 

[SirThomasMore]

In terms of this “shunning” issue, I actually think pinay did a good job. He was very rational. His point was not to prove that shunning never happened, but to show that it is not an official teaching to shun. He also made a good point about people no longer meeting because of the lack of Church events. This would also factor into some of the “shunning”. At the end of the day it seems that the LDS church does not officially seek to shun anyone, apostate or not. It is a human action.

I dunno…he said it was not part of the Church manual, but evaded my question when I asked if the Church manual told them when to eat, where to eat, etc.

 

[TheQuestioner]

I dunno…he said it was not part of the Church manual, but evaded my question when I asked if the Church manual told them when to eat, where to eat, etc.

That has little to do with shunning doesn’t it? Yes sure, their manuals may tell them to do some strange things, but the claim was that “shunning” was a part of those things and he adequately showed that it was not.

 

[twopekinguys]

That has little to do with shunning doesn’t it? Yes sure, their manuals may tell them to do some strange things, but the claim was that “shunning” was a part of those things and he adequately showed that it was not.

I have to disagree here.

While nothing in their manual specifically states they should shun. However, the question regarding association with apostates implies that they may have to if they want their recommend.

Simply put, if they want their recommend, they cannot closely associate with apostates. The best way to avoid that would be to shun them. In other words, distance yourself as much as possible.

 

[Caprica]

All this talk about shunning and the Catholics don’t realize that their own church has done shunning:

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

"Public excommunication in foro externo has two degrees according as it has or has not been formally published, or, in other words, according as excommunicated persons are to be shunned (vitandi) or tolerated (tolerati). A formally published or nominative excommunication occurs when the sentence has been brought to the knowledge of the public by a notification from the judge, indicating by name the person thus punished. No special method is required for this publication; according to the Council of Constance (1414-18), it suffices that “the sentence have been published or made known by the judge in a special and express manner”.** Persons thus excommunicated are to be shunned (vitandi), i.e. the faithful must have no intercourse with them either in regard to sacred things or (to a certain extent) profane matters**, as we shall see farther on. All other excommunicated persons, even though known, are tolerati, i.e. the law no longer obliges the faithful to abstain from intercourse with them, even in religious matters…**As to the vitandi, now reduced to the two aforementioned categories, they must be shunned by the faithful as formerly.
**

…

Civilia jura, i.e. the ordinary relations between members of the same society, outside of sacred and judicial matters. This privation, affecting particularly the person excommunicated, is no longer imposed on the faithful **except in regard to the vitandi. **The medieval canonists enumerated the prohibited civil relations in the following verse:

* Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur,

namely:
(a) conversations, exchange of letters, tokens of benevolence (osculum);
(b) prayer in common with the excommunicated;
(c) marks of honour and respect;
(d) business and social relations;
(e) meals with the excommunicated."

Even if the Roman Catholic Church no longer does this, I don’t see how Catholics can be saying what they say in this thread when their own church has stated that a certain type of excommunicated people are to be shunned.

Oops! lol

 

[TheQuestioner]

I have to disagree here.

While nothing in their manual specifically states they should shun. However, the question regarding association with apostates implies that they may have to if they want their recommend.

But this is not true. It may be a hindrance, but it does not officially exclude them of anything. By your own admission you have stated that nothing in the manual tells them to shun. Therefore any assertion that “shunning” is implicit is only speculation. And although not all speculation is unwarranted in this case it would seem that in the end, it is just not officially part of Mormon rules. You may say the rule can be abused, and this is true, but to assert the rule was created to be abused is speculation and conspiracy theory.

Simply put, if they want their recommend, they cannot closely associate with apostates. The best way to avoid that would be to shun them. In other words, distance yourself as much as possible.

But pinay just told you that he himself has access to the temple even though he admits to sympathize with apostates and those who are not part of the Mormon Church. He received a recommend. I think someone suddenly asserted that he only went to Catholic Mass to convert others, which cannot be proven and is simply an unfounded accusation.

I’m not to judge obviously, but it would be nice, if you will, to apologize to pinay. Catholics on this forum give other Catholics a bad name quite often, and I feel you may have been a bit uncharitable in this instance.

 

[SirThomasMore]

That has little to do with shunning doesn’t it? Yes sure, their manuals may tell them to do some strange things, but the claim was that “shunning” was a part of those things and he adequately showed that it was not.

my point was, the manual does not tell them to a lot of things that they still do…sorry if that point was not clear for you

 

[tundramom]

This is a generalization. There is no policy of shunning in the mormon church. In fact, just the opposite. Those who leave the lds church are not suppose to be shunned. In fact, they are to be loved. This is the message that members receive. Now there are people who leave the lds church who want no connection with their former mormon friends. In this case, the shunning is sponsored by the people who left the lds church. No where in lds meetings are lists made as to who should be shunned.

I never seen anyone shunned in the mormon church. And I have known many many mormons in my life.

Hogwash. Let me introduce myself to you, shall I?
Steph

 

[SirThomasMore]

All this talk about shunning and the Catholics don’t realize that their own church has done shunning:

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

"Public excommunication in foro externo has two degrees according as it has or has not been formally published, or, in other words, according as excommunicated persons are to be shunned (vitandi) or tolerated (tolerati). A formally published or nominative excommunication occurs when the sentence has been brought to the knowledge of the public by a notification from the judge, indicating by name the person thus punished. No special method is required for this publication; according to the Council of Constance (1414-18), it suffices that “the sentence have been published or made known by the judge in a special and express manner”.** Persons thus excommunicated are to be shunned (vitandi), i.e. the faithful must have no intercourse with them either in regard to sacred things or (to a certain extent) profane matters**, as we shall see farther on. All other excommunicated persons, even though known, are tolerati, i.e. the law no longer obliges the faithful to abstain from intercourse with them, even in religious matters…**As to the vitandi, now reduced to the two aforementioned categories, they must be shunned by the faithful as formerly.
**

…

Civilia jura, i.e. the ordinary relations between members of the same society, outside of sacred and judicial matters. This privation, affecting particularly the person excommunicated, is no longer imposed on the faithful **except in regard to the vitandi. **The medieval canonists enumerated the prohibited civil relations in the following verse:

* Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur,

namely:
(a) conversations, exchange of letters, tokens of benevolence (osculum);
(b) prayer in common with the excommunicated;
(c) marks of honour and respect;
(d) business and social relations;
(e) meals with the excommunicated."

Even if the Roman Catholic Church no longer does this, I don’t see how Catholics can be saying what they say in this thread when their own church has stated that a certain type of excommunicated people are to be shunned.

Oops! lol

Geez, a red herring argument. You must be LDS.

What you have shown is a “shunning” only in the most extreme ex-communbications and ONLY as to sacred things. This is not a total shunning as many of us experienced with the LDS Church even when there was no excommunication.

Nice try…bad result for you

 

[TheQuestioner]

All this talk about shunning and the Catholics don’t realize that their own church has done shunning:

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

"Public excommunication in foro externo has two degrees according as it has or has not been formally published, or, in other words, according as excommunicated persons are to be shunned (vitandi) or tolerated (tolerati). A formally published or nominative excommunication occurs when the sentence has been brought to the knowledge of the public by a notification from the judge, indicating by name the person thus punished. No special method is required for this publication; according to the Council of Constance (1414-18), it suffices that “the sentence have been published or made known by the judge in a special and express manner”.** Persons thus excommunicated are to be shunned (vitandi), i.e. the faithful must have no intercourse with them either in regard to sacred things or (to a certain extent) profane matters**, as we shall see farther on. All other excommunicated persons, even though known, are tolerati, i.e. the law no longer obliges the faithful to abstain from intercourse with them, even in religious matters…**As to the vitandi, now reduced to the two aforementioned categories, they must be shunned by the faithful as formerly.
**

…

Civilia jura, i.e. the ordinary relations between members of the same society, outside of sacred and judicial matters. This privation, affecting particularly the person excommunicated, is no longer imposed on the faithful **except in regard to the vitandi. **The medieval canonists enumerated the prohibited civil relations in the following verse:

* Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur,

namely:
(a) conversations, exchange of letters, tokens of benevolence (osculum);
(b) prayer in common with the excommunicated;
(c) marks of honour and respect;
(d) business and social relations;
(e) meals with the excommunicated."

Even if the Roman Catholic Church no longer does this, I don’t see how Catholics can be saying what they say in this thread when their own church has stated that a certain type of excommunicated people are to be shunned.

Oops! lol

If you read further you would have read that those who were vitandi are those who encourage the faithful to do crimes (and are thus a really really really bad influences) or those priests who knowingly give the Eucharist to those who are excommunicated (vitandi or tolorati) and thus betray the entire faith community. These must be publicly declared by the Pope or the Bishop and their names must be declared. I must involve a judge, and a trial.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Hogwash. Let me introduce myself to you, shall I?
Steph

Yes, several of us have stated we were “shunned” but Why just ignores our comments and claims he has never known anyone who was shunned

 

[TheQuestioner]

my point was, the manual does not tell them to a lot of things that they still do…sorry if that point was not clear for you

The point is clear, but it is pointless here because your goal was to show this was official Mormon teaching. It’s not. Its a human thing, not a Mormon thing.

 

[pipper]

Quelle nonsense, Mormons most surely do treat their excomunicated members terribly and shun them. And they make it very hard to get back in. First they have to confess to the mormon bishop, are excommunitcated and go through months or even years of
“repentence”, after all that and shunning they are made to be re-baptised.

The very rare cases of Catholic excommunication all requred is to confess, and do a short penance, and you are back in good standing. No shunning and no re-baptism since one has already been baptised which leaves an indelible mark on the soul. Nothing you can do can unbaptise you.

 

[Caprica]

Geez, a red herring argument. You must be LDS.

What you have shown is a “shunning” only in the most extreme ex-communbications and ONLY as to sacred things. This is not a total shunning as many of us experienced with the LDS Church even when there was no excommunication.

Nice try…bad result for you

Did you actually read it? I guess not, because it says that they are NOT only shunned as to sacred things, but to “profane” as well-

“Persons thus excommunicated are to be shunned (vitandi), i.e. the faithful must have no intercourse with them either in regard to sacred things or (to a certain extent) profane matters”

It then goes on to talk about “civilia jura”, and that the faithful are not allowed to have conversations, exchange of letters, tokens of benevolence, etc. with the vitandi.

So no matter how much you may want to say that this is “the most extreme” excommunication, it’s a fact that the Catholic Church taught that a certain type of excommunicated person had to be shunned, and therefore engaged in shunning, not only in “sacred things”, but “profane matters” such as conversations and exchanging letters, as well.

So, what is the argument here again? The Catholic Church practiced shunning of a class of people officially. Saying that it was of the “most extreme” excommunicants is just moving the goal posts.

Oops!