Mormonism and Angels

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris-WA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rmcmullan said:
Not Bibilical? But not in contradiction to the Bible. Perhaps in contradiction to Catholic scholar’s interpretation of the Bible and Jewish tradition. This is the difference between Mormons and Catholics: we believe in continuing revelation.
Click to expand...
If you are trying to convince a Catholic, or any other non-Mormon of the truth behind LDS beliefs, you need to start with some common ground, that being the Bible, don’t you agree? So, if you think that angels and humans are the same species, you need to indicate where in the Bible that idea comes from?
 
What is with this sola scriptura approach? I thought there were three ways:

Protestants: Appeal to the Bible. Only the Bible.

Catholics: Appeal to tradition and scholarly interpretation

Mormons: Appeal to God through revelation.

Am I wrong on this? I know that in reality, most people will use a combination of these three but in general, the churches tend to lean the way I described above, as that is the way they were taught and in each case, goes back to their origins.
 
rmcmullan said:
What is with this sola scriptura approach? I thought there were three ways:

Protestants: Appeal to the Bible. Only the Bible.

Catholics: Appeal to tradition and scholarly interpretation

Mormons: Appeal to God through revelation.

Am I wrong on this? I know that in reality, most people will use a combination of these three but in general, the churches tend to lean the way I described above, as that is the way they were taught and in each case, goes back to their origins.
Click to expand...
For the sake of this discussion, lets just use the Bible itself, because all three that you mentioned above can agree on it being the Word of God, right?
 
You mean the words of prophets. Prophets and apostles wrote the bible. And it was put together by a church. Different churches even have different books in their Bible.
 
rmcmullan said:
Not Bibilical? But not in contradiction to the Bible. Perhaps in contradiction to Catholic scholar’s interpretation of the Bible and Jewish tradition. This is the difference between Mormons and Catholics: we believe in continuing revelation.
Click to expand...
We believe in continued teaching by the Holy Spirit, but only as removing layers of the onion, for example. What is finally understood from this process, is not a contradiction of what Scripture has already taught, iow, it does not supersede it, as in LDS teaching.
 
rmcmullan said:
You mean the words of prophets. Prophets and apostles wrote the bible. And it was put together by a church. Different churches even have different books in their Bible.
Click to expand...
Ok, so what is the bottom line common ground that Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons can work with then when discussing something about God?
 
I know and that’s a very reasonable protection against “every whim of doctrine” and has served you well in guarding against …uh… unwholesome cultural traditions. But its strength is also its weakness. I know if I were a much better man and an angel appeared to me three times in one night and showed me a vision and explained he was a resurrected being I would seriously have to reconsider whatever teaching I ever had.

Of course this did not happen to me. But I do believe the testimony of some one who made this claim after carefully considering his works and teachings.

The original posting was just asking where we got that teaching from and I guess the short answer is from revelation.
 
rmcmullan said:
I know and that’s a very reasonable protection against “every whim of doctrine” and has served you well in guarding against …uh… unwholesome cultural traditions. But its strength is also its weakness. I know if I were a much better man and an angel appeared to me three times in one night and showed me a vision and explained he was a resurrected being I would seriously have to reconsider whatever teaching I ever had.

Of course this did not happen to me. But I do believe the testimony of some one who made this claim after carefully considering his works and teachings.

The original posting was just asking where we got that teaching from and I guess the short answer is from revelation.
Click to expand...
So, to accept LDS teachings, one (non-LDS) must reconsider all their previous teachings they had as being “weak” or incomplete, and must put their faith in one man’s visions and revelations during the 19th century, visions that had no witnesses?
 
JMM1957 said:
So, to accept LDS teachings, one (non-LDS) must reconsider all their previous teachings they had as being “weak” or incomplete, and must put their faith in one man’s visions and revelations during the 19th century, visions that had no witnesses?
Click to expand...
Yup! Sums it up! Jesus is a failure according to Mormonism until Joey came around and got it right.
 
rmcmullan said:
I know and that’s a very reasonable protection against “every whim of doctrine” and has served you well in guarding against …uh… unwholesome cultural traditions. But its strength is also its weakness. I know if I were a much better man and an angel appeared to me three times in one night and showed me a vision and explained he was a resurrected being I would seriously have to reconsider whatever teaching I ever had.

Of course this did not happen to me. But I do believe the testimony of some one who made this claim after carefully considering his works and teachings.

The original posting was just asking where we got that teaching from and I guess the short answer is from revelation.
Click to expand...
What revelation?
 
rmcmullan said:
What is with this sola scriptura approach? I thought there were three ways:

Protestants: Appeal to the Bible. Only the Bible.

Catholics: Appeal to tradition and scholarly interpretation

Mormons: Appeal to God through revelation.

Am I wrong on this? I know that in reality, most people will use a combination of these three but in general, the churches tend to lean the way I described above, as that is the way they were taught and in each case, goes back to their origins.
Click to expand...
Yes you are wrong. Catholics do not only appeal to tradition. We Catholics were revealed the God’s revelation in a person called: Jesus Christ. Not a mortal man who lived 18 centuries later.
 
Nicea325 said:
Yes you are wrong. Catholics do not only appeal to tradition. We Catholics were revealed the God’s revelation in a person called: Jesus Christ. Not a mortal man who lived 18 centuries later.
Click to expand...
How pretentious! You were given the same record of the prophets and apostles as everyone else. Written by mortal men. Nobody made you a special friend, that’s a title you are putting on yourself.
 
rmcmullan said:
How pretentious! You were given the same record of the prophets and apostles as everyone else. Written by mortal men. Nobody made you a special friend, that’s a title you are putting on yourself.
Click to expand...
You’ve got it all wrong. Bride Of Christ, not Friend of Christ. 😃

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p2.htm

Who’s the pretentious one? Hmmmm. Perhaps it’s above your pay grade? …defining what Christ did, as not done.
 
rmcmullan said:
How pretentious! You were given the same record of the prophets and apostles as everyone else. ** Written by mortal men. ** Nobody made you a special friend, that’s a title you are putting on yourself.
Click to expand...
Yes, but these mortal men walked, talked, ate with Jesus, were given the power to work miracles, and were the first members of the Church that Jesus established. I would say they were in a privileged position, wouldn’t you?
 
rmcmullan said:
I know and that’s a very reasonable protection against “every whim of doctrine” and has served you well in guarding against …uh… unwholesome cultural traditions. But its strength is also its weakness. ** I know if I were a much better man and an angel appeared to me three times in one night and showed me a vision and explained he was a resurrected being I would seriously have to reconsider whatever teaching I ever had.**

Of course this did not happen to me. But I do believe the testimony of some one who made this claim after carefully considering his works and teachings.

The original posting was just asking where we got that teaching from and I guess the short answer is from revelation.
Click to expand...
Galatians 1:8:

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

If you believe the Bible is the unerring Word of God, then I would take these verses very seriously.
 
JMM1957 said:
Ok, so what is the bottom line common ground that Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons can work with then when discussing something about God?
Click to expand...
That’s a great question, thanks. The only answer I can think of is the Bible. But as you know that approach has its flaws, every one of the tens of thousands of Christian sects use similar Bibles and some how differ in beliefs, sometimes a lot. Still, it’s the basis and prevents a lot of deviation.

The Bible was written by holy men and apostles and many of them we ministered to directly by angels and sometimes, even God Himself. That is revelation. And it’s because they received direct revelation that we regard them so highly.

Revelation vs. tradition has been debated by much smarter people than me in these forums so I don’t wish to open that up again and hijack the thread. The basis of most people’s faith is part reason, part experience, part Holy Spirit. All I am saying is that you can get answers to prayers and revelation is the time tested (since the days of Adam) way to receive divine knowledge outside the written word. We promote it as Mormons, we rely on it and we use it. So don’t dismiss it when an LDS tells you that they learned something about the nature of angels through revelation. You don’t have to believe it of course. But the person who experienced I think does.
 
JMM1957 said:
Ok, so what is the bottom line common ground that Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons can work with then when discussing something about God?
Click to expand...
To recognize that we know that God is and exists, yet we worship differently. Working with, using your word, I submit respect the differing view versus contending with other.
 
rmcmullan said:
To answer the original post, the idea that Angels were not a separate species came from Moroni himself, the angel that sits on the top of most of the temples with a horn. He appeared to Joseph Smith to teach him and to tell him of a record he had kept when he was a man (around 400 AD).
Click to expand...
If you are intellectually honest, though, you must admit that the First Vision story has at least four very different versions, each one more fantastic than the one before. The first account of it was far different than the last, which of course became the official First Vision story that you have today. When you study the history of the different versions, it becomes very difficult to take Joseph Smith seriously. But that is just one example showing how much of a fraud Joseph Smith was. There are many, many more.

The more I learn about Joseph Smith, the more I realize he was a conman who swindled a lot of people, and did a whole lot worse. Not a good human being.
 
Chris-WA said:
If you are intellectually honest, though, you must admit that the First Vision story has at least four very different versions, each one more fantastic than the one before. The first account of it was far different than the last, which of course became the official First Vision story that you have today. When you study the history of the different versions, it becomes very difficult to take Joseph Smith seriously. But that is just one example showing how much of a fraud Joseph Smith was. There are many, many more.

The more I learn about Joseph Smith, the more I realize he was a conman who swindled a lot of people, and did a whole lot worse. Not a good human being.
Click to expand...
The number of versions of the First Vision ----- a nothing point and argrument.

Joseph Smith never denied or refuted what he experienced so anyone who calls him names, etc, they have the choice of their opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top