Mormonism

[LittleSoldier]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=466414&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=462182&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=460644&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=462178&highlight=Book+of+Mormon

And this epic:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=352674&highlight=Book+of+Mormon

It does appear, from the last link posted on the other current thread on the papyri and the BoA, that BH Roberts and Bishop Spalding had a wager-- Spalding agreed to an objective review of the origins of the BoA, and Roberts agreed to do an objective review of the BoM. And they both honestly carried out the agreement.

Obviously, Jan won’t look through that thread and check the links.

Roberts did not leave because of his findings. He had too much to lose. Wives, and caste within the LDS and SLC community.

OK, I checked the links. Thank you for providing them. Why do certain words (like “of”) appear like they’re tabbed or in boxes or something?

Here is my reaction to the threads:
(1) Several members were banned.
(2) Many posts were edited by the moderator.
(3) :whacky: :whacky: :whacky:
(4) and I have a headache, too…

 

[LittleSoldier]

ADDENDUM TO ABOVE POST: I’m having some problems seeing because my glasses broke and so I’m wearing an old pair and they are the wrong prescription and my cursor keeps jumping all over the page…BUT:

I tried to read part of the Book of Mormon, from a link provided by Jerusha (thank you!). And it made no sense. From what I can gather, someone named Nephi (sp?) decided to write down something like a journal. But he keeps saying he’s going to do this and write about his father and he keeps saying this over and over but I never managed to get to the part where he actually wrote anything. I finally gave up.

Is the whole Book of Mormon like this? I don’t mean any offense; I haven’t read the Bible completely but I have tried and when I got to the “begats” I gave up. I think that if I am going to debate something I should know as much as possible about it (which is why I bought a copy of “Satan’s Bible” or something like that and it was an awful book; it fell on the floor and my cat urinated on it (she never did that to any other book) and I threw it away - good riddance).*

So I think I should read this book, after I read the Bible completely from cover to cover, sans the “begats” but I would like to know if it is all like what I have already read, which is part of the first book (Book of Nephi?). I’m sorry to appear so dimwitted today; I’m not feeling very well and I’ve been attacked all day on youtube by people telling me that I worship Mary and that I’m a necromancer and that Mary is dead and that Catholics think God is a giant wafer - sorry; I know this is off-topic but it seems like everything is rather unreal right now. I’m staying off of youtube and I don’t recommend it for anyone else - at least not the anti-Catholic videos and what passes for discussions.

*I am NOT comparing the Book of Mormon or the Bible to "Satan’s Bible (or whatever it was called). :nope:

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Garyo49,

You wrote: Jan, you must be trying to pull our legs, something Mormons are very good at. Have you heard of B.H. Roberts? B.H. Roberts was one of the most respected and well-known LDS Historians. He also was a member of the First Council of Seventy (1888-1933). Roberts’ in-depth studies of Book of Mormon origins led him to doubt the authenticity of the book. Roberts’ honest research and study is uncommon to LDS Historians, who commonly seek to suppress and sanitize LDS-sanctioned historical information rather than critically analyze Mormon origins.​

Great work, Gary! It is important for those who would come to grips with L.D.S. Mormonism or outright to grapple with this demonic deception, to realise that despite how illogical and baseless L.D.S. Mormonism is, this false religion has had some great thinkers in its ranks. I have most of B.H. Roberts books and they are very deep, indeed. The best Mormon thinkers are anything but easy to refute. (In Roberts case he ended up gently refuting much of Mormonism himself, though he never exited the cult.)

Today there are many minds of Roberts sophistication and beyond that. If one is to deal with L.D.S. Mormonism honestly, one must come to grips with what the best of its own thinkers write, reading Mormon journals and monographs. This takes serious commitment to understanding Mormon errors as well as a strong hold on ones own grasp of Catholic truth. Dealing with the educated laity of this cult is not easy to do and can lead to catastrophic results for the Catholic or Protestant who is not ready for such encounters.

 

[LittleSoldier]

TexanKnight:
TexanKnight, when I quote your post this is what I get:

I get nothing. If you respond within the QUOTE box your responses do not show up and then if I want to respond to you I have to go back and copy and paste. Will you please use the QUOTE function properly? Thanks.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Garyo49,

You wrote: Jan, you must be trying to pull our legs, something Mormons are very good at. Have you heard of B.H. Roberts? B.H. Roberts was one of the most respected and well-known LDS Historians. He also was a member of the First Council of Seventy (1888-1933). Roberts’ in-depth studies of Book of Mormon origins led him to doubt the authenticity of the book. Roberts’ honest research and study is uncommon to LDS Historians, who commonly seek to suppress and sanitize LDS-sanctioned historical information rather than critically analyze Mormon origins.​

Great work, Gary! It is important for those who would come to grips with L.D.S. Mormonism or outright to grapple with this demonic deception, to realise that despite how illogical and baseless L.D.S. Mormonism is, this false religion has had some great thinkers in its ranks. I have most of B.H. Roberts books and they are very deep, indeed. The best Mormon thinkers are anything but easy to refute. (In Roberts case he ended up gently refuting much of Mormonism himself, though he never exited the cult.)

Today there are many minds of Roberts sophistication and beyond that. If one is to deal with L.D.S. Mormonism honestly, one must come to grips with what the best of its own thinkers write, reading Mormon journals and monographs. This takes serious commitment to understanding Mormon errors as well as a strong hold on ones own grasp of Catholic truth. Dealing with the educated laity of this cult is not easy to do and can lead to catastrophic results for the Catholic or Protestant who is not ready for such encounters.

I’m sorry but I don’t see anything “demonic” about it.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Little Soldier.

You wrote: *I’m sorry but I don’t see anything “demonic” about it. *​

Any strong untruth about Christianity or its counterfeit is demonic. The nature of the error in this realm is one of great seriousness. Of course, if L.D.S. Mormonism really were true, then Christianity itself would be demonic. (However, that just is not so.)

Jerry Parker

 

[RebeccaJ]

I suggest looking up the “Articles of Faith” of Mormonism. It tells you that they do in fact believe in the Trinity. They have a slightly different view than Catholicism, but they worship Christ, The Father, and the Holy Spirit.

I suppose you could say the Grand Canyon is slightly different than a trench dug with a garden shovel. Sure.

 

[LittleSoldier]

To the general reader:
This subject has been debated up one side and down another on so many threads it is ridiculous. I would suggest you check them out.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=618785&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=633612&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=544519&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=547339&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=477345&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=531288&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=522009&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=519731&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=509107&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=499461&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=479602&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=490987&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=487099&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=485027&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=484595&highlight=Book+of+Mormon
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=477922&highlight=Book+of+Mormon

Yes, there is more!! Just use the search feature!! All just for the price of your internet!!
:compcoff:

Jan, we have been there and done that. There is no need to go through it again. The BoM is bogus.

AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHHH!!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

I suggest looking up the “Articles of Faith” of Mormonism. It tells you that they do in fact believe in the Trinity. They have a slightly different view than Catholicism, but they worship Christ, The Father, and the Holy Spirit.

But they don’t worship the real Christ, the real God the Father, and the real Holy Spirit. What they worship are a god who used to be a human in order to learn how to be a human and who sinned (according to some Mormons but not all), and I’m not sure about Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It’s not the same. The only thing common to both is that they involve three beings or persons or something. That’s all. It’s not slightly different. It’s amazingly different.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

I suppose you could say the Grand Canyon is slightly different than a trench dug with a garden shovel. Sure.

---

Well, yes, the “take” of the Articles of Faith is skewed, but this matter deserves a more explicit explanation than these amusing words. Actually, those Articles of Faith reflect rather well what Mormons had believed before Joseph Smiths slide into polytheism. He once was, roughly speaking, Trinitarian, or perhaps more properly one less of the godhead (for God the Father and the Son being One God, leaving much ambiguity regarding the Holy Ghost), but the L.D.S. Mormons left this more traditional reasoning behind as Joseph Smiths late teachings introduced polytheism. Even today L.D.S. Mormons can say the words of the Articles of Faith while not meaning what a Christian would understand those words to mean.

The R.L.D.S. Mormons (now called the Community of Christ) continued to be Trinitarian, while the Mormons who followed Brigham Young held to Smiths late teachings, as they are most widely known to be summed up in a funeral oration that he had delivered (called the "King Follett Discourse"), as well as in some doctrinal statements found in the L.D.S. Mormons edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (but not included in the R.L.D.S. Mormons` edition of the Doctrine and Covenants), that funeral having provided the occasion that Smith took to introduce his newly minted polytheistic ideas publicly. The words of the Articles of Faith remain, but the theology drifted far afield.

 

[LittleSoldier]

For Latter-day Saints, when we die, we go to the “spirit world”, which is divided into Paradise, for the righteous, and Prison, for the unrighteous and those that did not have the chance to accept to the Gospel in this life.

In the Summa Theologica, Augustine is quoted as saying that when Christ descended into hell (hades), “He broke down the gate and ‘iron bars’ of hell”. Is this incorrect?

I don’t know if Augustine said it or not. I’ll take your word for it. But Augustine, although an ECF, was not infallible and never claimed to be. I would have to read the context of the statement. It’s just cherry-picked right now. I don’t have enough information and I have only started reading The Confessions of St. Augustine.

Right, and His Church is made up of people, and I am making an analogy as to how death does not lay claim to us, and does not prevail, due to Christ’s atonement and resurrection, and how this also applies to a belief in the apostasy and restoration of the Lord’s Church, in light of the gates of hades not prevailing.

I don’t understand what you are saying. In one way God’s Church is made up of people; she is also His Bride and she is the Body of Christ. It seems that Mormons believe that Jesus founded a Church that died when He died - that means that Church only lasted a few years at most and then failed? Is this correct? And then, although the Gates of Heaven were opened Jesus left us with nothing: no Church, He was gone, there was nobody. That is very sad. I don’t see that as an act of a loving God and I also don’t see that as compatible with Jesus’ statement that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [His Church].” How long did people flounder around until Joseph Smith showed up to resurrect God’s Church? And if Joseph Smith was indeed the one to whom this mission of mercy was given, where did the Bible come from? Who put all those pieces and scrolls and bits of papyrus together and put it into book form? It was the Catholic Church - still alive and still healthy and still without the gates of hell successfully prevailing against her in ANY way.

Jesus did not make a wimpy Church. He gave His Church the power to bind and loosen what is in HEAVEN. That is amazing power! I just can’t see this powerful, infallible, protected Church just dying. I can’t accept that.

The belief in an apostasy of Christ’s Church means that it (and the priesthood of God) was not present on the earth during that time. The Church did of course exist in Heaven, as it is not only an earthly body. However it was not present on the earth. Similarly, when Jesus Christ died, although He did die, He still existed elsewhere. This is therefore analogous to the situation with an apostasy. Jesus Christ did die, however He conquered death, and is resurrected. Therefore death did not prevail. Similarly, if Christ’s Church “died”, was not present on the earth, but then was restored by God, the gates of hell/hades certainly did not prevail, since the Church has been restored. That is one way to understand the “gates of hell” passage in light of a belief in apostasy. Latter-day Saints believe that God “resurrected”/restored the Church.

APOSTASY?? God’s Church degraded into apostasy? That would surely mean the gates of hell had prevailed against her - no ifs, ands, or buts. And the gates of hell surely would have prevailed if God’s Church were not present on earth. Without God’s Church there is no salvation. And I have never seen any Scripture that lends credence to the concept of the Church being present only in Heaven. Apostolic Tradition has been unbroken from Peter to the present. Yet the Church wasn’t present on earth? That just can’t be. God would not orphan us, even temporarily.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Little Soldier.

You wrote: *I’m sorry but I don’t see anything “demonic” about it. *​

Any strong untruth about Christianity or its counterfeit is demonic. The nature of the error in this realm is one of great seriousness. Of course, if L.D.S. Mormonism really were true, then Christianity itself would be demonic. (However, that just is not so.)

Jerry Parker

I *don’t *see anything demonic about it. If it were demonic it would have to involve a demon. It may be that Joseph Smith was influenced by Satan, but so far I have seen no evidence of this. But then, after seeing all the threads on Mormonism, I have to admit that I am at the very beginning of a complicated journey if I want to understand what has gone on in the history of the Mormon Church and its “good fruits” and all that. I’ve read quite a bit of the threads whose links have been posted and I am finding them confusing at best. I’ve been told so many things such as Mormons becoming gods and being given their own planets to rule. I’m aware of blood atonement and that horrifies me. I’ve read a bit about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. And as I’m typing this I am realizing what you are saying - I was looking at it from another angle and didn’t understand your use of the word “demonic.” And of course Christianity is NOT demonic in any way.

Please let me rephrase my position:

At the present time I suspect that there is something demonic about the history of the Mormon Church.

Is that better?

 

[Jellyfish101]

I am a little confused. How can Mormons claim they accept the teaching of the bible yet state that the Virgin Mary was in fact, not a virgin at all and that God imitated a greek god by sleeping with her to physically conceive Jesus? This makes me upset, because my Mother is a chaste and pure servant of God, not some mistress.

 

[wes144]

There are many wonderful sincere Mormons. Sincerity will not get you to Heaven. You can be sincerely wrong as Eve was when she bought Satan’s first two lies. "You don’t really die, you become like God!"Genesis 3:4, 5 Hence the basis for Mormonism, you don’t really die, you eternally progress to Godhood! I don’t mean to be blunt but it is better to find out the god you are following, the god of this world, before you meet the Righteous God that is your Judge!

 

[truthsave]

One of the things mormons get misleaded is about good fruits.

They are tought to make an extremely faulse analogy:what is good for men and good for God. For many of them there is no difference between these two froms of goods.
So good fruits is something good for men.

In christianity teaching things are very different. First of all the personal good even though is respectable and morals can be egoistics oriented and Jesus warned against this way of being good (the pharisean). But apparently very few consider it as relevant.

“You people aren’t faithful to God! Don’t you know that if you love the world, you are God’s enemies? And if you decide to be a** friend of the world**, you make yourself an enemy of God”. James 4.4

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” Matthew 16:23

It is already difficult for christian to consider these statements, but mormons when something is hard they just change it or directly don’t consider it.

Not all good is good and good not done well is not good. And if you feel well and made good doesn’t mean you did well in the eyes of God.
Only the Will of God is good.

Many mormons say they know the Will of God. Since they think what J.Smith said is the Will of God.

 

[TexanKnight]

TexanKnight, when I quote your post this is what I get:

I get nothing. If you respond within the QUOTE box your responses do not show up and then if I want to respond to you I have to go back and copy and paste. Will you please use the QUOTE function properly? Thanks.

Did not know there was a improper way to post. I might post in a way you dislike, but that is the breaks. Last night, I posted from my ipad and I have not idea how to make it work on an ipad.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The first thing anyone should understand about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is that Joseph had almost no schooling. Some of the first letters he wrote have quite a number of strike-outs and are written very poorly by almost any standard. His wife, Emma Smith, once stated, “Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.” (Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History (Jan. 1916): 454). So, to say Joseph wrote the BofM holds absolutely no weight.

.

Many people then had little formal schooling, they were taught basics at home, nothing surprising about JS having almost no “schooling”. The striking thing about JS’s supposed illiteracy is that Joseph Smith Sr. was a school teacher. If Joseph Jr was illiterate then his father was a neglectful sluggard of a parent.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Resonse- Always a nice try. but Joseph was not as uneducated as you try to claim. Second, he was with rigdon, who was very educated. Plus, when you copy other material, you do not need to be very educated.Nope…the truth never falls flat. Joseph was a fraud.

And Oliver Cowdery who as also…a School Teacher!!!

 

[zaffiroborant]

---

Well, yes, the “take” of the Articles of Faith is skewed, but this matter deserves a more explicit explanation than these amusing words. Actually, those Articles of Faith reflect rather well what Mormons had believed before Joseph Smiths slide into polytheism. He once was, roughly speaking, Trinitarian, or perhaps more properly one less of the godhead (for God the Father and the Son being One God, leaving much ambiguity regarding the Holy Ghost), but the L.D.S. Mormons left this more traditional reasoning behind as Joseph Smiths late teachings introduced polytheism. Even today L.D.S. Mormons can say the words of the Articles of Faith while not meaning what a Christian would understand those words to mean.

The R.L.D.S. Mormons (now called the Community of Christ) continued to be Trinitarian, while the Mormons who followed Brigham Young held to Smiths late teachings, as they are most widely known to be summed up in a funeral oration that he had delivered (called the "King Follett Discourse"), as well as in some doctrinal statements found in the L.D.S. Mormons edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (but not included in the R.L.D.S. Mormons` edition of the Doctrine and Covenants), that funeral having provided the occasion that Smith took to introduce his newly minted polytheistic ideas publicly. The words of the Articles of Faith remain, but the theology drifted far afield.

Regardless of what was believed in the past when the AoF originated, when LDS point to the AoF and say we believe in the Trinity too, they are lying. They know full well that what they believe is nothing like the beliefs concerning the Holy Trinity Their apostles have continuously explained the differences in conferences, books and, magazines often mocking our beliefs. Recently an LDS apologist published an article that quoted Catholic theologians and then proceeded to distort what our teaching is by leaving out “the rest of the story” In a nutshell he was saying “really when it comes down to it Catholics believe and understand God the same way we do, they just don’t realize it”. This is a lie and when other LDS go on to tell it they are participating in deception, truly they are putting on sheep’s clothing when they masquerade as Trinitarians.

 

[Jerusha]

Joseph Smith’s family supported him in the con. Oliver Cowdery was also a relative. BECAUSE of the fact that Joseph Jr. was the least academic member of the family, he was appointed to the role, since he was the least likely to be able to write a book as good as the BoM.

The highlighting and boxing of the words in the links supplied is a result of having used the search function. I could have edited the links to remove that, but I am busy with something else.

The number of banned posters in those threads has more to do with peoples’ temper, in terms of the opposition of Catholicism and Mormonism. I am sure there are some posters here who have been banned and returned under another account, perhaps a bit wiser. I actually was posting for a while under another account when things got too heated. Otherwise I would have lost my temper and Jerusha account, too. :knight2:

What is demonic about Mormonism has more to do with Adam and Eve’s transgression in the Garden being defined by Mormons as a good thing, since without it, there would be no sex, and no joy, and they would never be able to become gods. God forced them to sin.