Mormon neighbors

[Lemuel]

“The interpretation of Mormon scripture has changed a million and one times since the 1980s.”

Just a few examples, please? Out of a million and one, 3 or 4 is not too much to ask, is it?

 

[Limoncello4021]

Lemuel, I was quoting Minux in one of his/her posts above.

 

[Apache75]

Why are you guys arguing about a religion that we don’t believe in? Let them be. You can only tell them so much. It is in Gods hands now. Don’t waste your time. Let them try to explain to God why they thought He would contradict Himself and lie in His name.

 

[Lemuel]

It sounded like you were agreeing with it. That’s all . . .

 

[Lemuel]

Why are you guys arguing about a religion that we don’t believe in?

It’s a bit of an emotional thing, I guess. Some of us were very vested in Mormonism for years, even decades. We don’t want others to make the same mistakes that we made.

 

[Apache75]

I can understand that. Thank God for your return.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Subordinationism is a Mormon thing. It’s one of their doctrines that make them very Arian. Subordinationism is a heresy. If Mormonism has moved away from subordinationism, it’s a huge change. I don’t see that they have in doctrine. They will skirt it in propaganda that is aimed at Christians, by printing things like, “they are one in purpose”. Which doesn’t address subordiantionism at all.

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: “In classical terms, LDS theology is subordinationist; that is, it views the Son and the Holy Ghost as subordinate to and dependent upon God the Eternal Father. They are his offspring.”

Athanasian Creed: “The Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.

 

[gazelam]

Your list is a 19th century invention. Study the Christian faith without your Mormon contaminations. I think it might be a joyful exercise for you to embark on.

I appreciate your invitation, but I think I’ll stick with the non-Hellenistic Living Water I already have.

 

[gazelam]

Subordinationism is a Mormon thing.

True. It’s also an Early Church Father thing. R. P. C. Hansen said it best.

“Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” (R. P. C. Hansen)

It’s one of their doctrines that make them very Arian.

There is exactly no Arianism in Latter-day Saint belief. Arianism teaches that Jesus was created ex-nihilo at some point. Latter-day Saint teaching is that we all have existed eternally.

If Mormonism has moved away from subordinationism, it’s a huge change.

It hasn’t.

 

[minux]

Without doing a formal list -

Adam-God doctrine - No Longer Taught
This is why the Catholic/Jewish God is not the same God as Mormonism
This is why My Saviour is not the same as the Mormon reference to Jesus

• Salvation Only Through Male Household - Women Can Enter the Afterlife on their Own!
• Ritual Chanting/Speaking in Tongues - No Longer Done at Temple, Done Until Late 80s
• Kolob - No Longer Preached by Missionaries, but Used to Rope the Narcissistic in by Promising One’s Own Planet Upon Death to be the God of
• Magic Underwear - Only at Temple
• African American Ban in the Priesthood - They Can be in the Priesthood Now, too! Thank you, Carl Malone!
• Caffeine - They can drink it! Thank you, Starbucks!
• Women Missionaries - They Can Go, Too!
• Pants for Women - Wow, Pushing the Envelope!

I would actually have more dogmatic respect for Mormonism if they stuck to the Dogmatic origins like the Amish. Had Mormons not evolved, we would not have met the Mitt.

 

[minux]

You argue for the deceit of Mormonism, because you do not want “others to make the same mistake?” Seriously, what is the logic? How do you contend that my Savior is your “literal Son of God, Adam, born through natural conception of the Mother”? How do you not expect one to take offense who knows Mormon doctrine and won’t join the high five, Mormon club?

Or, are we ignoring Mormon Doctrine with revisionism, because of the new wave of Prophets since the 1980s that have revolutionized Mormon culture? Mormonism did not have that Vatican II moment, because they go through one every decade.

 

[Apache75]

Lemuel is no longer a Mormon. Why would you think he is? He is very knowledgeable about LDS history. He is now a Catholic that has the same Savior as you and I. But don’t you think people come to Jesus in their own ways? A personal relationship regardless of religion?

 

[minux]

I never said he/she/it was not Catholic. What I have stated numerous times is, dogmatically, it is incorrect to say that Our Savior, as Catholics, is the same as Mormons; and it is incorrect to say Our God, as Catholics, is the same as Mormons. What I further stated is, as progressive as the Mormon church is today, not many years ago, you would not notice this mainlining Christianity aspect of contemporary Mormonism nor would you proclaim, as a Mormon, salvation through Our Savior alone / in the Catholic sense.

If you do not know the history or what the Mormon church was like, you have no frame of reference to what I am talking about. Books are written on the changes in Mormon dogma through the years to the point where the book, Mormon Doctrine, is no longer published nor maintained. This is analogous to the Catholic church no longer producing the catechism. Why do you think that is the case? Could it be, because Mormon dogma is constantly in flux to stay relevant with mainstream Christianity? Well, a lot of people feel that is the case.

Think about it, how often do you NOW hear mention of Mormon archeology anymore? In the 1980s, this was a serious, Church funded endeavor to prove the historiography. This is the same decade where they built museums showcasing the supposed history of the Nephites and Lamanites. You do realize these museums had zero artifacts supporting the historical claims as prescribed in the Book of Mormon? You do realize that the Mormons are no longer archeologically digging up New York in search of Golden Tablets? You do realize that no Prophet nor Apostle even mentions anything dogmatically unique to Smith?

All of this is fine, but to the OP, they wanted to know the dangers of a Mormon friend. I pointed out to the OP that dogmatically, Catholicism and Mormonism are incompatible for the reasons I have detailed herein. If the OP was thinking, well, Mormonism is just another branch of Protestantism, the answer is no.

 

[Lemuel]

Not only did you not provide any sources, you exposed yourself as a total fraud. You failed to show any doctrinal changes since the 1980s.

Adm-God doctrine - No Longer Taught

Nor has it been taught as doctrine for much longer than the 1980s. That is not a recent change by any means.

• Salvation Only Through Male Household - Women Can Enter the Afterlife on their Own!

I have no idea what this even means, but it’s not a doctrinal change, I can assure you. Women have always been able to enter the afterlife on their own.

• Ritual Chanting/Speaking in Tongues - No Longer Done at Temple, Done Until Late 80s

Between 1976 and 2013, I attended the Mormon temples hundreds of times. There never was any chanting or speaking in tongues before the late 80’s. The only thing I can think of that might remotely be what you are referring to is the second token of the Melchizedek priesthood, which, if you’re so knowledgeable about Mormonism, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

Kolob - No Longer Preached by Missionaries, but Used to Rope the Narcissistic in by Promising One’s Own Planet Upon Death to be the God of

That’s so bizarre that I don’t even know how to respond. Kolob is the star nearest the throne of God. That has never been taught in the Mormon church as anything else.

Magic Underwear - Only at Temple

Mormons are required to wear “magic underwear” i.e., the temple garment, day and night, whether or not they are in the temple. Nothing has changed.

African American Ban in the Priesthood - They Can be in the Priesthood Now, too! Thank you, Carl Malone!

It was never an African American ban on the priesthood. It was a ban on the Negro race, also considered to be the seed of Cain. And the ban was lifted before the 1980s, so sorry, you are wrong again, even though that’s the only thing you got even kind of close.

• Caffeine - They can drink it! Thank you, Starbucks!

There has never been a prohibition on caffeine. It was never then, nor is it now, a doctrine.

Women Missionaries - They Can Go, Too!

This has been the case for as long as the church has existed. It is not a change.

Pants for Women - Wow, Pushing the Envelope!

Mormon women have been wearing pants longer than the 62 years I’ve been around. And even if that were not the case, this is a policy, not a doctrine.

Sorry, but you struck out badly.

 

[Lemuel]

How do you contend that my Savior is your “literal Son of God, Adam, born through natural conception of the Mother”?

I don’t. Nor have I ever.

Books are written on the changes in Mormon dogma through the years to the point where the book, Mormon Doctrine, is no longer published nor maintained. This is analogous to the Catholic church no longer producing the catechism

Not hardly. The catechism is official doctrine of the Catholic church. Mormon Doctrine was merely a book written by an LDS member that was never canonized or considered to be an official publication of the Mormon church.

You have continued on and on to display your serious lack of knowledge of the Mormon Church.

 

[minux]

Not hardly. The catechism is official doctrine of the Catholic church. Mormon Doctrine was merely a book written by an LDS member that was never canonized or considered to be an official publication of the Mormon church.

This is fundamentally the point you are missing. What did you think I meant when I said, Mormonism, like Masonry, is, essentially, naturalistic?

To your rebuttable, everything you stated was misconstrued or flat out falsehoods. Please provide evidence when you rebuttable any point I make.

 

[minux]

I don’t. Nor have I ever.

Regardless of everything else you have stated with no concrete evidence to refute any of my statements, this was the fundamental point that you initiated an argument with. Now that you concur, we are pretty much done here. However, I still want you to explain what you think I mean that Mormonism is naturalistic. Also, explain why Catholicism is not naturalistic and what that has to do with man’s relationship with God, Gospel, and Dogma. Explain the implication of Mormonism being naturalistic and how this is exemplified in God, Gospel, and Dogma in Mormonism.

If you do not now what I mean by this, do some apologetic study on the role of naturalism in religion. You will see that all the connections I made were purposeful to this point.

 

[angel12]

I never said he/she/it was not Catholic

It? Seriously? How rude.

 

[Apache75]

It seems to me like you are being rude in your post. Like you want to start a fight. So be it. I have been in Utah for 28 years now and have heard all manner of things that are supposedly taught by the LDS church. Caffeine was never banned. If im correct it says anything that alters your state of mind or something along those lines. Their garments are to worn all the time, not just at the temple. As for salvation, it just wasn’t for men, but for woman also. Each person chooses their path to salvation and what kingdom they will enter ( Levels of the LDS heaven). I have read the B.o.M before and their other books and you are misinformed. I have many LDS friends and we have talked about these things and they have shown me shown me in their books. Do I agree with their religion? No. Do I agree with you about how their god is not the same? Yes. Quit being an Alpha Romeo Sierra Echo. It makes you look bad as well as us other Catholics.

 

[AngelaMarie]

Their garments are to worn all the time, not just at the temple.

Gonna take a guess that s/he is confusing the priesthood garment, which is their underclothing, with the temple robes, which is put on at various stages in the endowment ceremony in the temple. I say that, having had been thru the temple and “taking out my endowment” back in the 80’s. There have been changes made to the ceremony, one of which happened while I was still Mormon, so it’s been watered down considerably. But yes, they are required to wear their temple garments (again, their underwear) 24/7. It’s even a question that is asked during a recommend interview.

One thing is clear, s/he has many misunderstandings on various issues when it comes to Mormons and their practices.

Yes, both men and women, as per Mormon theology, can achieve salvation without the other (lowest degree of the celestial kingdom) . What they cannot achieve without the other (ie they need each other) is exaltation (highest degree of the celestial kingdom. There is where the idea of “being sealed” to each other comes in. Again, s/he has a basic sense of Mormonism, but is not clear as to what the details of Mormon teaching are.