L
lax16
Guest
Yes, praying for Texan Knight.
Maybe he can continue to look into why the Mormons are not excavating Cumorah.
- Status
Maybe he can continue to look into why the Mormons are not excavating Cumorah.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The entire LDS argument is based on not looking what God has done, but what they think God should have done, and then calling that ârestorationâ. It defies reality.Thank you. Yes, my intention was addressing a specific argument made by many LDS: that without living apostles and prophets, Christianity splintered and went into disarray. However, with the supposed restoration of those living apostles and prophets, we still see that the LDS movement (I use that phrase as an umbrella term referring to the dozens of churches that claim origination in the restoration of Joseph Smith) has splintered and gone into disarray to a great degree within its less than 200 year history. I also note that Catholics certainly do not make an equivalent argument.
I agree. When LDS bring up the idea that without the living apostles and prophets, Christians changed ordinances (such as the purported change in the form of baptism from immersion to âsprinklingâ), it seems as if this is based on the idea that the form or mode of ordinances should not change. However, the clearest example of an equivalent situation in Mormonism is with the clear evolution in the Initiatory washing and anointing ordinance in the temple, which is now only a symbolic washing and anointing (when previously it was a real full washing, then dabbing water on various body parts, etc). So, that argument doesnât work, so they then move the goal posts and say that it is an issue of authority, and Catholics would agree with that, though we would say that the Church has always had the authority to do what it is, given to her by Jesus Christ.
Yes, I agree. The living apostles and prophets seem to not be doing things differently than the purported non-prophet leaders of other religions. When we see the latest canonized revelation, lifting the priesthood ban of blacks in 1978 (how about that for an example of continuing revelation), we see that there actually is no record of the revelation, as we see in the rest of the D&C. The official declaration is just that-a declaration that a revelation was received, not the text of the revelation.
These two articles address my thoughts on the matter of revelation from the living apostles and prophets of the LDS church:
zomarah.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/thomas-s-monson-a-seer-a-revelator-a-translator-and-a-prophet/
zomarah.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/silent-revelations/
As Catholics we know that revelation from God continues to this day, and our history is filled with many examples of Heavenly visions and visitations. LDS claim that the Heavens were closed until Joseph Smith. We know that the Heavens have always been open, and visions, miracles, Divine gifts, etc. have continued unabated in our Church (and I would say to a much greater degree than in Mormonism).
I agree. Thatâs actually what I have said many times when discussing coming back to the Catholic Church. As well, I realized that many of the things that I liked about Mormonism, or that attracted me to it, are found in Catholicism in some fashion, coupled with a firm belief in the ongoing guidance and protection of Jesus Christ of His own body, which reminds me that the Church is the Kingdom of God on Earth, not some mere human organization that can be overthrown by the whims of man.
I was amused by that too.
J
Janderich
Guest
I think not. Joseph did not share every revelation nor did he share everything he knew. Further, he encouraged that saints to keep sacred things from the world.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Yes, he has always been adamant about that.Yes, praying for Texan Knight.
Maybe he can continue to look into why the Mormons are not excavating Cumorah.
J
Janderich
Guest
Let me talk for a moment about ordinances. To simplify the discussion I will leave out the idea of authority for now. Both Catholicâs and LDS believe it is required and believe they have it, so I donât need to hammer this point.
Obviously slight changes to ordinances occur from location to location. For instance, one person might be baptized in a different font than another or perhaps in a river. I hear few arguing about such minor inconsistencies. Clearly, on some level there can at least be minor changes to accommodate certain situations. So when then do changes create a problem? The problem occurs when the inner change, to which the ordinance points, is obscured and the form begins to take precedence. In such a state good hearted and sincere people cannot use the symbolism to help them find their way to God. Inevitably the symbol itself comes to take on meaning never intended. As if a physical item could transfer holiness to the individual! Such is the case in much of modern Christianity with water used for baptism or the bread used for the sacrament.
In such a state the ordinance itself has become idolatry. This is at least part of the reason why when others sought to become members of the LDS church without re-baptism, the Lord explicitly told Joseph, âWerefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead worksâ (D&C 22:2). It is because of these now âdead worksâ that a change needed to be made as the Lord further testifies, âFor it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old. Wherefore, enter ye in as the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your Godâ (D&C 22:3-4).
Stephen168
New member
Change is OK.
The form and the symbol do not matter because it gets in the way of finding God.
Except when the Mormon Church says that form and symbols matter and change is not OK
So you agree with Livingwaterâs argument.
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
General Conference talks are put forth as the words of the living prophets, but they are often full of errors that are later corrected or expunged before publication. Many LDS are embarrassed by some of the racist, anti-Christian and just plain stupid things their leaders say in GC. I have cited many of them here in the past.
In that same light, many of Joseph Smithâs visions and revelations originally published in the Book of Commandments were re-written before they were re-published in the Doctrine and Covenants, often completely reversing their meanings.
I agree with prior posters that the âliving prophets and apostlesâ have only succeeded in sowing confusion and inconsistency in the LDS church. The church now spends a great deal of print in denying and explaining away what their inspired prophets have taught within the scant 185 years of their churchâs existence (a very short time in which to create such a mess).
Those denials and weak excuses confuse and alienate their membership even more. No wonder the LDS church is hemorhaging members as never before.
Oh, what a tangled web they weaveâŚ
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Like when the LDS church changes the initiatory from a full bath to just standing naked while someone anoints specific places on the body and finally to âsymbolicallyâ anointing a person only on the head.
Like saying that it is wrong to âsymbolicallyâ pour (not the derisive sprinkle) water on the head.
The LDS church has no room to point out the changes made by others.
J
JaminB123
Guest
Yeah, I was confused by Texas Knightâs recent posts as well, so confused that I went back to look at his post history to see what happened. He was posting normal through late 2014, then in ~January 2015 it seemed his wife got a serendipitious job in SLC which TK took as a miraculous sign from God that he should return to Mormonism. Wow. Itâs troubling because I saw in TK a kindred spirit and now Iâm not sure whatâs going on with him. I just said a prayer for him and hope the best for him.
T
taylorf
Guest
Praying that in two days this is revealed as some sort of sick April fools joke. TexanSaint just doesnât sound right!Yes, I am quite baffled as well. I donât get how someone who posted like TK did could now be seriously considering going back.
M
Marie5890
Guest
I canât imagine walking away from the Eucharist. But John 6 certainly shows that people will, and do.
I pray for the grace that I never will.
I pray for the grace that I never will.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Over at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, TexanKnight (who is âCountryBoyâ) sent me this message last night:
"you should not have been so afraid of me. Your fear was all I needed to know about your idea of truthâŚ"
I think we need to pray for him, pray that he finds spiritual peace, and, at least to me, mental peace.
"you should not have been so afraid of me. Your fear was all I needed to know about your idea of truthâŚ"
I think we need to pray for him, pray that he finds spiritual peace, and, at least to me, mental peace.
M
Marie5890
Guest
I will pray for him.
Fear? Itâs sad that such a distortion has occured to his mind.
Stephen168
New member
I could never understand attending a Church that didnât have the Eucharist. If the body and blood of Christ isnât there, then why attend.
I remember a poster who called a sacrament of bread and water prison food, leaving Jesus Christ for prison.
Stephen168
New member
Catholicism is based on faith AND reason. It seems Mormons fall into a trap of faith OR reasonâŚ
M
Marie5890
Guest
And itâs because of faith AND reason, the idea of fear entering into any discussion is, well, silly.
There is no reason to fear anything when faith and reason is oneâs foundation of Truth. If anything, it gives us confidence.
E
eddie_too
Guest
months ago there was someone who posted a comment, while claiming to be catholic, that rejected Jesusâ teaching that there was no marriage in heaven. this person was adamant that if he could not be married to his wife in heaven than he did not want to be in heaven, at least that was how I understood the sentiments underlying the comment.
I cannot remember if that comment was posted by Texanknight. however, if it was, it may be that Texanknight ran into a priest who was adamant about the Lord Jesus teaching that doctrine, that marriage between a man and a woman was dissolved at death. recognizing the emotion of the person who had made the original comment wherein they rejected the idea that marriage ended with mortal death, such a confrontation with the RCCâs teaching in this area could have led that person away from the RCC.
I remember that I was very concerned at the time about the personâs relationship with the RCC because of the strength of their denial of the Lordâs teaching on this subject.
in any case, pray for Texanknight.
I cannot remember if that comment was posted by Texanknight. however, if it was, it may be that Texanknight ran into a priest who was adamant about the Lord Jesus teaching that doctrine, that marriage between a man and a woman was dissolved at death. recognizing the emotion of the person who had made the original comment wherein they rejected the idea that marriage ended with mortal death, such a confrontation with the RCCâs teaching in this area could have led that person away from the RCC.
I remember that I was very concerned at the time about the personâs relationship with the RCC because of the strength of their denial of the Lordâs teaching on this subject.
in any case, pray for Texanknight.
E
eddie_too
Guest
regardless of the historical questions about changing doctrines (as opposed to development of doctrines) that some claim occur within the RCC, the fact remains that the structure of Jesusâ Church, as He Himself created it, has always been that of the RCC. it has always been a magisterium with the final say being given to the successor of Peter.
this was new to me and someone claiming to be LDS said it earlier in this thread, but I did not know that the LDS had a history of being a democracy wherein the majority of the twelve living apostles had the final say on doctrine. can anyone say if that is true?
I know that heaven is not a democracy.
this was new to me and someone claiming to be LDS said it earlier in this thread, but I did not know that the LDS had a history of being a democracy wherein the majority of the twelve living apostles had the final say on doctrine. can anyone say if that is true?
I know that heaven is not a democracy.
Stephen168
New member
And itâs because of faith AND reason, the idea of fear entering into any discussion is, well, silly.
There is no reason to fear anything when faith and reason is oneâs foundation of Truth. If anything, it gives us confidence.
M
Marie5890
Guest
The doctrine of marriage continuing into the next life is a strong emotional and romantic pull for Mormons. Itâs very appealing for those who do lean heavily on feelings and emotions to determine what is true vs what is not true.
Thatâs why, as Catholics, we lean on faith and reason, not emotions, for discerning Truth. Feelings and emotions wax and wane. Etc etc.
And if one were to be really honest and look at marriage in itâs entire historical evolution, romance is a far newer prism.
Historically, marriage didnt rely on romance. Romance was not itâs foundation. The idea of romance really began to blossom as itâs main foundation in the 19th century, really got into high gear in the 20th century and now, marriage is on the decline in the 21st century.
But historically, romance wasnât seen as part of the equation.
- Status