Mormon Claims

[LongJourney]

No, it is not just a “Phillipino thing.” No new doctrines are presented, just a reinforcement of faith that Mary brings the Message. After all, she gave birth to Jesus, who was the Word made Flesh. And remember, the Church thoroughly studies each claimed appearance, to see if it can be explained through natural means.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Is it just a Filipino thing then that the Catholics believe in Marian revelations?

It is quite a big thing in the Philippines. So big, that my parents spent oodles of money to travel to Lourdes. Anything to do with Marian apparitions usually come with a message from the Blessed Virgin Mary to the church. Is this not revelation?

The practice of praying the rosary, for example, is not something the apostles instructed. This, therefore, is continuing revelation.

So, yeah, the Catholics say that revelation ended at the death of the apostles but even in the Catholic church there is Mary who continues to guide. Did Bernadette talk about a different Jesus than the apostles?

Catholicism states that public revelation ended with the death of the apostles. Catholicism also teaches that private revelations have always continued. Public revelation is the Deposit of Faith, delivered once and for all, and is required to be believed by all. On the other hand, private revelations do not have to be believed in by all, and Marian apparitions fall within the private revelation category. I do not have to believe in Lourdes, Fatima, etc. I do have to believe that Jesus appeared to Paul.

The practice of praying the rosary is a discipline/practice. I do not have to pray to rosary if I don’t want to. In fact, I haven’t done so in years.

So, you seem to not be aware of the distinction between public and private revelation in Catholicism. The Catholic Church teaches that the former ended with the apostles (all that is necessary for salvation was given anciently), while the latter continues. Since any messages Mary gave to people are not necessary for salvation, they do not have to be followed by all Catholics.
*
"67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”."*

 

[pinay]

No, it is not just a “Phillipino thing.” No new doctrines are presented, just a reinforcement of faith that Mary brings the Message. After all, she gave birth to Jesus, who was the Word made Flesh. And remember, the Church thoroughly studies each claimed appearance, to see if it can be explained through natural means.

That is correct except that there is definitely new information - you can call it doctrine or not - that is brought forth in these apparitions. I am not questioning the apparitions. I am merely pointing out that revelations continue even in the Catholic church.

Both Catholic and LDS maintain absolutism of eternal doctrine. There is but one Word and that is in Christ. Therefore, it is not that there is “new” doctrine. It is merely more information/clarity of the Word.

The issue is whether all mankind already has all the information (clarification and more in-depth information of the Word). LDS believes that we are still receiving more revelations (that is, clarification, in-depth information of the Word, not a different Word) and will continue to do so.

You can go to any group of LDS people and ask them - is doctrine absolute - and you will get different answers. The difference is the perspective of doctrine - eternal doctrine or revealed doctrine?

A really good example of this is the doctrine of creation. The Bible, for the longest time, have been interpretted to be geocentric - meaning that the earth is the center of the universe. It wasn’t until the 16th century that modern revelations through science changed this interpretation. The LDS church didn’t exist then. But, if it did, and the LDS church held to geocentrism at the time, then the church leaders would investigate that new revelation and pray to God for guidance to determine if it is revelation for the church. And if the LDS preisthood receives confirmation from the Holy Spirit that heliocentrism is true, then it will send the message on to the church.

Now, the LDS members could see this 2 ways - 1.) The doctrine of creation is absolute and we just now received clarification on that eternal doctrine., 2.) The doctrine of creation was wrong and the church now has new doctrine to correct it.

The 1st is looking at doctrine as eternal (there is one truth and the truth is the Word) and the 2nd is looking at doctrine as earthly.

Neither one is wrong - it is a matter of perspective.

Now, the Catholic church held to geocentrism for the longest time. It finally accepted heliocentrism when all evidence pointed that way. You can maintain that there is no new revelation for the Catholic church, but this is just another example that yes, there definitely is, in the perspective of an LDS. The LDS and the Catholic church just have a different definition of “revelation”.

For in LDS - revelation is nothing but a deeper understanding of the Plan of our Salvation which is in Jesus Christ. It can come from anywhere, as long as it is sustained by the Priesthood who holds the keys of discerning what is of God and what is of the Devil. Science is just another way for God to reveal to us His eternal nature.

If you can understand that, then you might be able to understand why LDS holds to that faith that we are still learning and that God is still active in showing us more of the path back to Him and that learning is called revelation.

No devout Catholic will claim that they know it all - or that the Pope knows it all. So, we are really not that different.

 

[LongJourney]

I have a firm faith, where changes happen very slowly. I prefer mine.

You have a faith founded upon sand, where basic claims change with the wind. Some day there will be a sand-storm.

 

[SteveVH]

Are you saying that Christ will not return? I think most Christians believe in the second coming of Christ. Who is going to prepare the way for the second coming of Christ?

Which part of

There is nothing more for which to wait except His second coming.

sounds like I don’t believe in the second coming?

Are you misinterpreting the scripture like many Jews in the time of Christ? They expected a Messiah that would free them from their bondages. They did not expect someone who would take upon himself their sins and free them from spiritual death. They were diligent students of the Bible and many of them missed it. They missed it so badly that they decided to kill Him.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

The Bible speaks of an apostasy and a restoration before the second coming of Christ and you don’t seem to see it.

Actually I do see it, I think it began with the Reformation and increased with the LDS.

“Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.” (Matthew 17:3-13)

And?

A messenger was to come before the second comming of the Lord to prepare the way. This is about Elijah, who appeared to Joseph and Sidney Rigdon in the Temple of Kirtland on 3 April 1836. The interesting thing is that Jewish have a tradition where they reserve a plate and a cup for Elijah during the passover. That same night Elijah came, not to the Jewish, but the Joseph Smith and Sidney Ridgon in the Temple of Kirtland.

So you say.

“Behold, **I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, **even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.” Mal 3:1

Yes, and these words are quoted by Christ as referring to John the Baptist who prepared the way for the coming of Jesus, not Joseph Smith. You can find it in all four Gospels.

The Bible talks about a restorarion or restitution of all things before the second comming:

“And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” Acts 3:19-21

The apostasy was to happen before the second coming of Christ. Paul told the Thessalonians not to worry about Christ coming back anytime soon saying,

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [Greek apostasia] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

Yes, there will be a falling away from the true Church, the Catholic Church, there already has been as I stated above and the LDS is part of this apostacy. There will be a returning to the one, true Church, the Catholic Church, because it is Christ’s Church, the one He founded.

“Let no one decieve you in any way. For unless the apostacy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god - and object of worship so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that his is a god do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things?” (2 Thess 2:3-5)

Which of us claims to become gods?

 

[SteveVH]

That is correct except that there is definitely new information - you can call it doctrine or not - that is brought forth in these apparitions. I am not questioning the apparitions. I am merely pointing out that revelations continue even in the Catholic church.

Pinay, does this then mean that you believe that the Catholic Church did not fall into apostacy, that it continues to receive revelation, that it did not end with the last apostle?

 

[why_me]

Perhaps, but it is much easier to be confused when you follow a false prophet. We need to pray for the real Holy Spirit to bring these brothers from a false church into the Truth

Well, protestants claim that the catholics follow a false pope. What to do? And catholics would say that protestants follow false leaders. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t create charity, right?

 

[SteveVH]

Well, protestants claim that the catholics follow a false pope. What to do? And catholics would say that protestants follow false leaders. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t create charity, right?

Actually, I don’t think that is accurate. As a Catholic, I wouldn’t consider a Protestant preacher to necessarily be a false teacher. I will gaurantee that it will be more free from error than LDS teaching in most cases. No, we believe non-Catholic Christians have the truth, they just do not have the fulness of truth.

It is different with Joseph Smith. I would agree that he is a flase teacher because he teaches a different gospel altogether. Yes there are others that would fall into this category such as Jehovahs’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventist’s, Christian Science etc… which reject the very basic tenets of Christianity. You call yourselves Christian, but as Abraham Lincoln once said “If you call a lamb’s tail a leg, then how many legs does a lamb have? It still only has four.”

 

[pinay]

Pinay, does this then mean that you believe that the Catholic Church did not fall into apostacy, that it continues to receive revelation, that it did not end with the last apostle?

Hello Steve,

That would have been really awesome then my parents will be at peace.

Unfortunately, I do believe that the Catholic church fell into apostasy. But, that does not mean that NOTHING in the Catholic Church is of God. What it means is the Catholic Church lost its authority to lead the entire church so that she does not hold all the truth.

But, at the same time, the Holy Spirit do not limit Himself to “whatever is the true church”. An important article of the LDS faith is:
“If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”

It does not say anywhere that these praiseworthy things are limited to the LDS Church. My example of scientific revelations is an appropriate one. Just because it came from science and not the “whatever is the true church” does not mean that it is not of God. God uses everyone and everything to bring us back to Him. But, to determine the truth to follow for the entire church, we look to our prophets/apostles if we lack understanding to determine what part of scientific revelation is God’s. My faith brings me to look to the LDS prophets/apostles for guidance. Therefore, I cannot tell you that Marian apparitions are not of God. And I cannot tell you whatever message came from it is not of God. The LDS Prophet can, though. And lots of times, the same message from the Marian apparitions are mirrored in LDS teaching. So, if anything else, that shows me that God guides everyone of all faiths.

Okay, here’s a current example - gay marriage. Both Catholics and LDS agree on this. The Catholics have always defined marriage as between man and woman. Always. Since the beginning. Every Pope has sustained this doctrine. So, we can see that the Catholic Church holds truth. But, as an LDS member, I look to The Family: A Proclamation to the World issued by the LDS Presidency for guidance. Because the LDS doctrine holds more on the doctrine of marriage where marriage is eternal. Make sense?

With love.

 

[campeador]

“Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.” (Matthew 17:3-13)

Evanfaust, it seems you’ve taken this passage out of context. Here is the full passage (Matthew 17:10-13):

10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?

11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.

12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

13Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

The verse is self-explanatory. Elias (Elijah) = John the Baptist.

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.” Mal 3:1

This verse is also talking about John the Baptist, not Elijah. I’ve bolded the similarities (Mark 1:1-4):

1The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2As it is written in the prophets, Behold,** I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.**

3The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

4John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Ol’ Joe should have done more homework before claiming Elijah appeared to him.

 

[Tmaque]

Hello Steve,

Okay, here’s a current example - gay marriage. Both Catholics and LDS agree on this. The Catholics have always defined marriage as between man and woman. Always. Since the beginning. Every Pope has sustained this doctrine. So, we can see that the Catholic Church holds truth. But, as an LDS member, I look to The Family: A Proclamation to the World issued by the LDS Presidency for guidance. Because the LDS doctrine holds more on the doctrine of marriage where marriage is eternal. Make sense?

With love.

First of all, the rise of the acceptance of gay lifestyles could only come about after the acceptance by many religions (LDS is one) of the use of contraceptives. This is so because it divorces the marital act from children. Once that break occurs sex becomes about the relationship, not about children. Only the Catholic Church recognized this and only the Pope prophesied the rise of divorce and the gay lifestyle due to contraception.

Second. It’s clearly taught in the NT that there will be no marriage in heaven. The LDS Church has invented many new doctrines. This is one.

 

[pinay]

First of all, the rise of the acceptance of gay lifestyles could only come about after the acceptance by many religions (LDS is one) of the use of contraceptives. This is so because it divorces the marital act from children. Once that break occurs sex becomes about the relationship, not about children. Only the Catholic Church recognized this and only the Pope prophesied the rise of divorce and the gay lifestyle due to contraception.

Second. It’s clearly taught in the NT that there will be no marriage in heaven. The LDS Church has invented many new doctrines. This is one.

I don’t follow how contraceptives have anything do with gay lifestyle.

The Catholics have contraceptives - it’s called the Rhythm Method. So, yes, the Catholics engage in sexual activity for the purpose of enhancing a marriage and not just for having children as well.

In LDS doctrine, the sanctity of sexual intimacy is as much a part of building the relationship of man and wife as for procreation. Believe it or not, the Catholic Church holds the same understanding. Where it not for that, the Catholic Church would ask that husbands and wives abstain from sexual intimacy unless they plan on having children. Any contraception, including the rhythm method would be a no-no. Post-menopausal women cannot engage in sexual intimacy, etc…

So, the only difference between LDS and Catholics on this point is that the LDS church have priesthood authority in the homes whereas the Catholic church have priesthood calling and marital calling separate (you can only have one or the other and not both). Therefore, in matters of intimacy, the LDS church empowers Priesthood authority to determine how to express this between husband and wife as long as it does not contradict doctrine - for example, watching porn with your wife is a no-no because of the doctrine of chastity. So, when an LDS priest asks, can my wife and I take contraception? The church will tell him, “Pray about what’s best for your family”. When an LDS couple takes contraception they are still preserving the sanctity of sexual intimacy because they are enhancing the relationship between man and wife. That kind of thing.

But, it is common belief that the LDS church is well known for their big families. There are so many couples in our ward alone that has 5 children. At least 2 families have 7 children. ISo, in a ward of only 60 families or so, that’s a pretty big percentage. The Catholic church in the USA seem to have smaller families now.

But, I don’t see how this somehow ties into gay marriage.

 

[evanfaust]

Evanfaust, it seems you’ve taken this passage out of context. Here is the full passage (Matthew 17:10-13):

The verse is self-explanatory. Elias (Elijah) = John the Baptist.

Have you noticed that the Lord says SHALL in the future tense?..“Elias truly **shall **first come, and restore all things.” You only noticed the obvious part of the prophecy, but failed to see that the prophecy is about the first and the second coming of Christ. Obviously, John the Baptist was the forerunner for the first time and was also a messenger and forerunner during the “restoration of all things.” John the Baptist of course being the first messenger and then Elijah, Moses and others. As you know Momons do claim the John the Baptist appeared resurrected to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowedery to restore the priesthood, preparing the way for the restoration of ALL things.

“Elijah himself appeared before Jesus, Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus told his disciples to tell no one of the vision until after His resurrection from the dead.”

"Modern Apostle Bruce R. McConkie summarized the LDS doctrine: "Elias is a composite personage. The expression must be understood to be a name and a title for those whose mission it was to commit keys and powers to men in this final dispensation."124 And as with the Lord’s first advent, Latter-day Saints believe that Elijah himself was one of the heavenly visitors who appeared to Joseph Smith (as well as Oliver Cowdery) to restore the original “keys and powers.” (See D&C 110)

This verse is also talking about John the Baptist, not Elijah. I’ve bolded the similarities (Mark 1:1-4):

Again, this scripture refers to two different times…it refers to the first and the second coming of Christ. If you carefully examine the scripture you will see evidence of the second coming…I pointed out the evidences for you to see.

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.**Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years.” **Mal 3:1-4

Ol’ Joe should have done more homework before claiming Elijah appeared to him.

As you can see…Joseph is light years ahead of the traditional interpretation.You should do a little more homework and see the deeper meaning of the scritpures, not just the obvious.

…continue…

 

[evanfaust]

…continuing…

Elias and the “Restoration of All Things”

This point is supported by the Latter-day Saint and early Christian doctrine of Elias. “Elias” is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Elijah.” In the last verses of the Old Testament the promise is made: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord . . . .” (Malachi 4:5) After Elijah himself appeared before Jesus, Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus told his disciples to tell no one of the vision until after His resurrection from the dead. But then the Apostles asked:

Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." (Matthew 17:3-13)

What did Jesus mean when He said that John the Baptist was Elias, even though Elijah and Moses had just appeared? The angel Gabriel told John’s father that he would “go before him [Christ] in the spirit and power of Elias . . . .” (Luke 1:17) Therefore, it must be that certain people who are called of God to be forerunners of the Kingdom, as John was, act in the “spirit and power of Elias.”

This principle must apply to other prophets as well as John, for Jesus not only said that “Elias has come already,” but also that “Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.” Thus, a restoration would still be needed in the future, just as Latter-day Saints have proclaimed. Noting the many persons the revelations of Joseph Smith identify as “Elias,” modern Apostle Bruce R. McConkie summarized the LDS doctrine: "Elias is a composite personage. The expression must be understood to be a name and a title for those whose mission it was to commit keys and powers to men in this final dispensation."124 And as with the Lord’s first advent, Latter-day Saints believe that Elijah himself was one of the heavenly visitors who appeared to Joseph Smith (as well as Oliver Cowdery) to restore the original “keys and powers.” (See D&C 110)

Although one might argue that Joseph Smith could have extracted this doctrine from the Bible, but the fact that no other group has developed a similar dogma would seem not to support such a conclusion. Here again, Joseph struck upon a prominent doctrine of the early Church that had been lost. For example, Hippolytus (ca. 200 A.D.) indicated that various forerunners would appear to prepare the way for the second advent of the Savior:
[The Savior] is to be manifested again at the end of the world as Judge. It is a matter of course that His forerunners must appear first, as He says by Malachi and the angel, [Malachi 4:5-6]. These, then, shall come and proclaim the manifestation of Christ that is to be from heaven; and they shall also perform signs and wonders, in order that men may be put to shame and turned to repentance for their surpassing wickedness and impiety.

Justin Martyr explained the doctrine of Elias in similar terms to Trypho the Jew, asking, “shall we not suppose that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent? . . .” 126 According to John Chrysostom, John was to be the forerunner of Christ’s First Advent, and Elias would be the forerunner of the Second: "John is Elias, and Elias John. For both of them received one ministry, and both of them became forerunners."127 Similarly, Victorinus, Methodius, Cyprian, Lactantius, Jerome, Augustine, and Theophylact all expressed the belief that Elijah would come to “restore all things” before the Second Coming of the Lord.

Therefore, it is safe to say that the early Christians had a certain belief that the way would be paved for the Lord’s Second Advent through the agency of various prophetic forerunners, including Elijah the prophet, who the Savior said would come and “restore all things.” And it is also safe to say that Joseph Smith preached a very similar doctrine. What is more important, this belief of the early Church, combined with the evidence for the apostasy, underscores the fact that a restoration of the gospel was necessary and expected.

fairlds.org/Restoring_the_Ancient_Church/chap02.html

 

[dianaiad]

What was it you had to say on the subject of definitions??? Oh yes here’s what you said:

Seems when it comes to defintions you are trying to have it both ways and giving a snooty dismissal of all definitions other than your own.

Actually, I’m giving you the definitions of ‘revelation’ and ‘public revelation’ that you guys have been giving ME often enough.

 

[evanfaust]

This verse is also talking about John the Baptist, not Elijah. I’ve bolded the similarities (Mark 1:1-4):

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”–Malachi 4:5, 6

Campeador…please also read this text:

ccem1929.com/Publications/prophecy_now_being_fulfilled.htm

 

[campeador]

…continuing…

Falling back on the ‘long winded cut and paste’… just like why me.
:yawn:

 

[evanfaust]

Falling back on the ‘long winded cut and paste’… just like why me.
:yawn:

I use a combination of both…my own words and source from scholars. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[campeador]

Campeador…please also read this text:

ccem1929.com/Publications/prophecy_now_being_fulfilled.htm

From your link:

It will be necessary, however, for John to come again before he will be able to complete the mission prophesied of him in Malachi.

(Yes, Ol’ Joe should have done his homework)

and this (from the same link above):

Why then should we be surprised when we learn that John the Baptist has indeed come again? That he has appeared in person to a man named Otto Fetting of Port Huron, Michigan, (1927-1933) then to W. A. Draves of Independence, Mo…

Joseph Smith seems to have been visited by the wrong prophet.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

evanfaust, who is the man of sin, the son of perdition, that was revealed, according to your quote of 2 Thess 2:3?