Mormons ... can anyone clear these things up for me?

[BDawg]

BDawg, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head - for some cases. The flip side of the coin is that certain people, and certain faiths, will be dishonest in their attempts to convert. Speaking candidly, it is the experience of many that the Mormons can be less than forthcoming with potential converts, and can try to avoid talking about the LDS church is really all about. “Milk before meat” and all that, you know?

Hi ib,

In my experience, you are right that some Mormons will avoid certain topics, but usually that is because they don’t know much about it, and they feel uncomfortable with it. In other words, they are marginally in the same boat as those people who are uncomfortable with ANY religious back-and-forth. We all tend to circle the wagons when we don’t have a ready answer, wouldn’t you agree?

On the other hand, part of the problem is that we don’t want to give enemies of our faith free rein to define “what the LDS church is really all about.” If I were to ask some people “what the LDS church is really all about,” they would make a list that would include things like 1) billions of gods, 2) men becoming gods, 3) polygamy, 4) “celestial sex,” 5) the Adam-God theory, and 6) the Danites. There’s some kernel of truth in all of those, but they would typically be taken FAR out of context, and they really aren’t the things that are at the core of our faith. The problem is that people can’t even begin to understand the far-out stuff until they understand what is REALLY at the core of the faith. So yes, even though I’m comfortable discussing most anything about Mormonism, I recognize that many people who don’t understand the basics won’t understand a thing I say about the weirder stuff.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I were to start a thread on a board inhabited mainly by people who don’t know much about Catholicism. The title of the thread is “What the Catholic Church Is Really All About.” My list would include, 1) Cannibalism in Communion, 2) Pedophile Priests, 3) Weird Stuff About Mary, 4) The Inquisition, 5) Rotten Popes, 6) Simony, and 7) Selling Indulgences. How would you address those topics? There’s a kernel of truth in all of them, but if you just jumped right in to explain all of them, wouldn’t it be hard to get your readers up to speed without backing up to explain what YOU think of as the basics of your faith?

You guys seem to be fond of accusing Mormons of wanting to give “milk before meat,” but you seem to forget where that phrase comes from–the New Testament.

“I have fed you with milk%between%, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.” (1 Cor. 3:2)

“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk%between%, and not of strong meat.” (Hebrews 5:12)

 

[AMDGtoo]

But why does it make you feel so uncomfortable when I say I would like you to convert to Mormonism?

To be honest, I don’t appreciate salesmen at all (and that includes the Mormon missionaries from the ward down the way from me, the JWs not far from me who “visit” every spring, or the little Baptist church down the highway. Also I have been badly hurt by the LDS and then had scads of missionaries (more than one or two or even three or four pairs) come to my door and talk for hours (collectively–even though I had told them.) It’s a bit more than I can tolerate at times.

Don’t you want me to convert to Catholicism?

The one that converts any of us is the Holy Spirit. And I’m sure that He can find far better folks to spread His word–there are quite a few right here on this board. So although I surely wish that the Holy Spirit will, you’ll be in no danger from the likes of me, who is always learning.

I’m just very glad that questions like the ones of the OP may be openly discussed without rancor or fear of a need to put up a defense…

In my experience, people who claim a certain religion, yet get offended by someone else’s desire to convert them, usually are the sort of people who haven’t spent much time thinking about why they believe what they do.

Well, now you know of yet another reason.

Thank you again for taking the time to answer what you can.

 

[hosemonkey]

While it is true that bdawg is more rational than most in trying to explain the morass of confusion that is mormonism, let us not forget that we are still dealing with a false, non-Christian religion whose origins are shrouded in speculation and outright falsehood. What I have gathered from this thread concerning mormon belief is that most mormons “don’t know nuthin’ about nuthin’.” Searching questions are met with “I dunno” or “It’ll all be sorted out later.” That won’t feed the bulldog. A lack of knowledge fosters rumor and speculation and the mormon organization’s lack of any authoritative source for answers causes grave doubt as to the legimacy of any mormon doctrine. On the one hand, you have the so-called “living prophet” but sometimes the words of these “prophets” are dismissed as " only his thoughts or speculations." I recognise the right of every person to believe as they please, but mormonism is built on nothing but the lunacy of Joseph Smith and the words of a bunch of old men in Salt Lake City who cannot agree on what is true or false. End of rant.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

To tell you the truth, I don’t think Catholics really want to convert anyone. Well, maybe some do, anyway I’m not very evangelical. My Catholic faith is so deeply religious and ingrained in me that I can hardly even imagine trying to explain it to a non-Catholic. I could tell them the structure of the Mass, but not be able to describe the feelings it brings to my soul.

But I think this thread has been very good at explaining to me what Mormons do believe. For a while, I was thinking that Mormons weren’t Christians, but now I see that they are. The answers on this thread seem very informative and honest.

 

[BDawg]

While it is true that bdawg is more rational than most in trying to explain the morass of confusion that is mormonism, let us not forget that we are still dealing with a false, non-Christian religion whose origins are shrouded in speculation and outright falsehood. What I have gathered from this thread concerning mormon belief is that most mormons “don’t know nuthin’ about nuthin’.” Searching questions are met with “I dunno” or “It’ll all be sorted out later.” That won’t feed the bulldog. A lack of knowledge fosters rumor and speculation and the mormon organization’s lack of any authoritative source for answers causes grave doubt as to the legimacy of any mormon doctrine. On the one hand, you have the so-called “living prophet” but sometimes the words of these “prophets” are dismissed as " only his thoughts or speculations." I recognise the right of every person to believe as they please, but mormonism is built on nothing but the lunacy of Joseph Smith and the words of a bunch of old men in Salt Lake City who cannot agree on what is true or false. End of rant.

Hose,

I respectfully suggest that the reason Mormonism is a “morass of confusion” for you is that you have never really tried to understand us. It makes sense to me, at least, and people don’t usually accuse me of being stupid.

 

[ibkc]

But I think this thread has been very good at explaining to me what Mormons do believe. For a while, I was thinking that Mormons weren’t Christians, but now I see that they are. The answers on this thread seem very informative and honest.

They have been, of course, and I really appreciate the candor here.

However, I still don’t consider Mormons to be Christians. Simply acknowledging that Jesus was something special, and selectiving utilizing one specific version of the Bible, does not make a Christian, IMO. Lots of non-Christian groups include Jesus in their beliefs ranging from Islam to the Church Universal and Triumphant; the LDS church is just another one of those. There’s also the fact that for the majority of their history, the Mormons themselves denied that they were Christians and were highly critical of Christians and Christian creeds.

 

[BDawg]

you are far better than most. at least you’re up front about what you believe. but conversion attempts come in many flavors where mormonism is concerned. i guess then it’s about intent. the “why are you here” intent. if you came to ask about catholic doctrines/practices, great, catholic traditions? awesome. are you here because you might want to become catholic? even better. do you have catholic realtives or friends and want to understand their religion? that’s okay. are you here just to engage in apologetics? it’s allowed but i think your time better spent elsewhere like FAIR or MADB. if you really feel the need to “defend your faith” against hostile attacks then there plenty of fundie and evangelical sites for you to tilt at. but did you just come here to gain converts? is this your choice for “every member a missionary”? then i think it’s dishonest and impolite.

you know your motives. is god calling you here? why? repent and be baptized:thumbsup:

Hi Z,

The truth is that I like talking about religion. It interests me, and I think that when people of different faiths try to understand what the others believe, and why they believe it, everyone comes out with a little more respect for each other. In fact, I don’t think two people have snowball’s chance in hell of really understanding one another, unless they talk about their deepest religious beliefs.

I also think that when people speak the truth in love, the Holy Spirit will testify to others hearts, and conversion can happen. So if I like to talk religion with people because I think it promotes understanding and appreciation, but I also think that the Holy Spirit might testify of the truth to someone, what do you think I should do about participating in a forum like this? Should I participate to help people understand, but hope the Holy Spirit keeps his trap shut? Or should I just try to be helpful, honest, and polite, and let God worry about who does or doesn’t get converted?

Maybe the answer is that we should not be worrying so much about others’ motives, and just try to have polite, honest, and informative discussions. The truth will cut its own way.

FYI, I am interested in learning more about Catholicism. I’ve read a lot of books by Catholic historians and apologists, but I’m no expert. Sometimes I have posted questions on the experts’ forums at the EWTN site when I haven’t been able to figure out how Catholics would rationalize some point. (Is that still around? I haven’t asked anything there in a while.) My favorite Catholic authors have been Cardinals Newman and Daniélou. I also like Pat Madrid. I liked Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism,” but I think he’s kind of a hypocrite for writing that and then publishing Isaiah Bennett’s anti-Mormon trash that does exactly the same thing to Mormonism that Keating complained about the fundamentalists doing to Catholicism.

Anyway, REEEELLLLLAAAAXXXXXXX. I don’t bite… much.

 

[BDawg]

They have been, of course, and I really appreciate the candor here.

However, I still don’t consider Mormons to be Christians. Simply acknowledging that Jesus was something special, and selectiving utilizing one specific version of the Bible, does not make a Christian, IMO. Lots of non-Christian groups include Jesus in their beliefs ranging from Islam to the Church Universal and Triumphant; the LDS church is just another one of those. There’s also the fact that for the majority of their history, the Mormons themselves denied that they were Christians and were highly critical of Christians and Christian creeds.

Hi Ib and Christine,

Mormons believe:

1. Jesus is the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, etc.
2. Jesus is fully God.
3. Jesus is ONE with the Father and Holy Spirit (just not in the same way you guys define divine unity.)
4. Jesus was sinless.
5. Jesus died for our sins, and was bodily resurrected.
6. We can be saved from our sins through the grace of Jesus Christ.
7. We access the grace of Jesus Christ through faith in Him, repentance, baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

I could go on, but I’m also fully aware that some of the details of our belief in Jesus are not the standard Christian party line.

So, are we Christians? We think of ourselves as Christians, and the above is good enough for many others to call us Christians. But others (like ib) focus more on the dissimilar details, and conclude that we really aren’t Christian at all.

Personally, I don’t care much which camp you fall in, as long as you:

1. understand that Mormons believe the points I mentioned above, and
2. don’t go around telling everyone that “Mormons aren’t Christian” without explaining that we do believe the above points.

Lots of people hear “Mormons aren’t Christians,” and just assume that means we are some kind of weird Hindu sect, or something. I object to that, because it spreads misunderstanding.

 

[ibkc]

I could go on, but I’m also fully aware that some of the details of our belief in Jesus are not the standard Christian party line.

Respectfully, that is putting it lightly. There are not a small number of Mormon beliefs which are downright bizarre, skirting close to blasphemy. The fact that you guys believe Jesus was so weak that he failed not once, but twice to establish His church, says volumes. Also much of the behavior and statements of your founders is questionable at best and absolutely anti-Christian at worst. But that is another thread, I suppose. It is not my intent to misrepresent the LDS church, ever; but I will also not make excuses for what I see are very dangerous errors in the Mormon system.

 

[BDawg]

Respectfully, that is putting it lightly. There are not a small number of Mormon beliefs which are downright bizarre, skirting close to blasphemy. The fact that you guys believe Jesus was so weak that he failed not once, but twice to establish His church, says volumes. Also much of the behavior and statements of your founders is questionable at best and absolutely anti-Christian at worst. But that is another thread, I suppose. It is not my intent to misrepresent the LDS church, ever; but I will also not make excuses for what I see are very dangerous errors in the Mormon system.

I’m ok with that, as long as it is clear that we believe the points I listed. Personally, I think your idea that our belief in an apostasy and restoration of true Christianity precludes us from being Christians is kind of weak. So as long as you aren’t misleading anyone, I can’t really object to you making us look good.

As for un-Christianlike behavior among LDS leaders, it seems to me that the Catholics can trump us every time with some of their Popes.

So I guess it comes down to your personal, idiosynchratic definition of “Christian.” Mormonism certainly meets any of the ones you normally find in the dictionary, no matter what you think of the idea that we’re “true Christians.”

 

[ibkc]

Now we start to see it.

I’m ok with that, as long as it is clear that we believe the points I listed. Personally, I think your idea that our belief in an apostasy and restoration of true Christianity precludes us from being Christians is kind of weak.

It’s just one in a long list of reasons, as should be clear from my previous post.

As for un-Christianlike behavior among LDS leaders, it seems to me that the Catholics can trump us every time with some of their Popes.

The difference being, none of our Popes, even the worst scoundrels, ever taught error in doctrine. Popes are only infallible in high-level matters of faith and morals. In real life, they are just men, and like all of us, they are sinners.

Compare this to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the rest, who taught based on their own desires for sex and power, making up things as they went along. The complete and total lack of historical, archaeological, genetic and linguistic support for any aspect of the history presented in the Book of Mormon bears this out.

 

[hosemonkey]

Now we start to see it.

It’s just one in a long list of reasons, as should be clear from my previous post.

The difference being, none of our Popes, even the worst scoundrels, ever taught error in doctrine. Popes are only infallible in high-level matters of faith and morals. In real life, they are just men, and like all of us, they are sinners.

Compare this to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the rest, who taught based on their own desires for sex and power, making up things as they went along. The complete and total lack of historical, archaeological, genetic and linguistic support for any aspect of the history presented in the Book of Mormon bears this out.

I think that the veracity and credibility of mormonism rests primarily on two things; the historicity of the BOM and the character of Joseph Smith. Science and archeology have proven that the BOM is a phantasmagoria of plagarism, fantasy and poor literary quality. An obvious work of fiction. The character of Joseph Smith is not only well known, but documented, beginning with his brushes with the Law and his well-known propensity for not telling the truth. He simply could not keep his stories straight. He lied to accomplish his ends. Even his own wife finally realized that he was nothing but a con-man. To base one’s salvation on such a shaky foundation is almost criminally stupid. Would you hand over your life’s savings on the basis of such evidence? Right! Neither would I.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Lots of people hear “Mormons aren’t Christians,” and just assume that means we are some kind of weird Hindu sect, or something. I object to that, because it spreads misunderstanding.

Aww–just when I was hoping for actual answers, there you went with the “Mormons are Christians too” and implied that our view (and most of Protestant’s view as well) and Mormon view of Christianity is the same even when it isn’t. (Did you have to? In the past you all seemed to be proud that you were a “peculiar people”, calling yourselves Mormon and not Christian. There wasn’t an attempted “confusion” of the two. And what’s wrong with claiming what you are anyway?)

Well, just how the term “Christian” is applied should be always bepointed out. (Too bad that it isn’t–it’s just claimed that Mormons are as Christian as the next guy). Okay, the LDS are “Christian” if what is meant by “Christian” is just a follower of a man named Jesus–not that the LDS follow Christian theology–the historical and Biblical Jesus = God, the second person of the Trinity (the eternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit who created all that is seen and unseen); Jesus, the God-man who was born in the actual Bethlehem (not a suburb of Jerusalem) of the Virgin the great Theotokos, who was “overshadowed” by the most High, not a Virgin because she was with an exalted man; Jesus who founded His Church and said that “the gates of hell would not prevail against it”; Jesus who gave of Himself; Jesus who carefully taught His disciples and gave them His mission to carry on; Jesus who as God offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sins–and this He did on the cross, not in the Garden of Gethsemane, only to rise in glory on the third day. It’s about history–Saints and angels.

It’s the theology that makes a Christian, not just a similar name. And IMO no one can fail to take that richness into consideration and make a “me too” claim if their theology is nothing similar–that spreads misunderstanding.

I see that you mentioned that the divinity of God is different for Mormons and I am glad to see that there is an admission that the same words are used giving the idea that the same or similar meanings are also operative while they are not. Would you care to elaborate on some of the other things (like do LDS believe in original sin–I thought that you all believed that you would only be punished for the sins you, yourself committed; and just how your Jesus atoned–I thought that you all didn’t really believe in the cross; or how Jesus’ claim that “the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church” could have prevailed once in the mid-East and once in America; and I guess there’s more.)

Honestly, this is not an attack. I don’t know. Heck, I didn’t know about that Michael = Adam thing or the Gabriel = Moses that was on this thread too.

 

[BDawg]

Yo A,

I’m ok with being called a “heretic,” if that’s more to your liking. That gives the message that I am Christian in a broad sense, but not doctrinally “orthodox” enough for whoever is talking. And personally, I think the “I’m ok, you’re ok” approach is lame, too. Here it is: Mormons are different in many ways than normal Christians, and those differences give us a reason for our existence as a group.

If we focus only on differences, or focus only on similarities, the result is the same. Misunderstanding.

I see that you mentioned that the divinity of God is different for Mormons and I am glad to see that there is an admission that the same words are used giving the idea that the same or similar meanings are also operative while they are not. Would you care to elaborate on some of the other things (like do LDS believe in original sin–I thought that you all believed that you would only be punished for the sins you, yourself committed; and just how your Jesus atoned–I thought that you all didn’t really believe in the cross; or how Jesus’ claim that “the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church” could have prevailed once in the mid-East and once in America; and I guess there’s more.)

Honestly, this is not an attack. I don’t know. Heck, I didn’t know about that Michael = Adam thing or the Gabriel = Moses that was on this thread too.

1. Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus atoned for original guilt. We are still affected by the Fall, so that our bodies have a sinful nature, but we will only be punished for our own sins. Similarities: LDS and the RCC both teach that Adam and Eve fell, bringing sin into the world. Differences: LDS do not teach anyone will be punished for what someone else did. LDS also teach that the Fall was ultimately necessary, because in the end, those saved will be in a higher state–both without sin, and knowing good from evil.
2. LDS believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ began in the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus prayed and suffered, and ended on the Cross. My understanding is that the RCC teaches that the Atonement only occurred on the cross. Another difference is that we don’t use the Cross as a symbol. I’ve heard lots of explanations for why this is, some of which are meant (I think) to sound less offensive to others, but I think it boils down to this. Christians have for many centuries turned the cross into a kind of “graven image”. I know the RCC claims that kneeling before statues and such is not really “worshiping graven images,” but other groups (not just the LDS) see that kind of thing differently. So it isn’t that we “don’t believe in the Cross.” Rather, the main thing is that we don’t use it as a symbol, to separate ourselves from traditional practices that seem a bit idolatrous to us. (I hope I haven’t offended you by saying this. I’m just trying to be honest.)
3. The passage (Matt. 16:18) that says “the gates of hell” would not prevail against the Church was not talking about the earthly survival of the Church. Even many Catholic commentators and apologists have come to this conclusion after studying the issue. For instance, a Catholic scholar named Michael Winter wrote a scholarly defense of the Papacy, in which he analyzed the linguistic and cultural background of that passage. He said that “although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.” (M. M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1960, p. 17.) So I guess the answer to your question is that we interpret the passage differently than you do, and many Catholic scholars do the same.
4. About Michael being Adam and Gabriel being Noah. LDS believe that men were born as spirit children to God in the eternity before mortal life, and those souls come here to inhabit mortal bodies. At death, our spirits are separated again from our bodies, and eventually resurrected into a glorious body like the one Jesus has. Premortal spirits and resurrected people can act as angels to God. That’s how an angel (e.g., Michael or Gabriel) could come to be equated with a particular mortal man (like Adam or Noah) in LDS belief.

I hope that helps some.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Thank you for your reply but I wouldn’t go so far as to simply call you a “herectic” as much as I would simply state that Mormons and Christians seem to be miles apart in their respective beliefs.

I guess this may be a little off topic, but since you were forthright in your answers, just thought you’d like to know–original sin is not original guilt. Original sin is the concept that when Adam & Eve fell, they lost the gifts of perfect health–spiritual and otherwise that he would have been able to pass on to his descendants. (A person can’t pass on what he no longer has.) Instead we inherited a lack of grace and an abnormally strong desire to want things our own way (concupiscence). I believe the theologian Dr. Scott Hahn discusses this. The fact is you believe in “original guilt” and we don’t.

And about the cross, you are correct when you say that there are many explanations. As to it being a form of idolatry, of course, as you know, only God is worshipped, and it seems that even in the Bible images were only prohibited if the purpose was worshipping them. Again not done because only God is worshipped. And I think 1 Corinthians 1:23 explains Christian thought about the cross.

About Matthew 16:18, I’m quite certain that any number of these fine apologists here on this board can find scholars that agree that the verse pertains to Jesus’ Church on earth, and not just “good and evil”, so I guess that shows another difference between Christianity and the LDS faith.

Oh wait, since these are other difference between Christian and Mormon theology (you believe in “original guilt” while we do not), I guess it does speak to the “clearing up of some things” concerning Christian and Mormon beliefs. And they do appear different.

 

[BDawg]

I guess this may be a little off topic, but since you were forthright in your answers, just thought you’d like to know–original sin is not original guilt. Original sin is the concept that when Adam & Eve fell, they lost the gifts of perfect health–spiritual and otherwise that he would have been able to pass on to his descendants. (A person can’t pass on what he no longer has.) Instead we inherited a lack of grace and an abnormally strong desire to want things our own way (concupiscence). I believe the theologian Dr. Scott Hahn discusses this. The fact is you believe in “original guilt” and we don’t.

Hi A,

Thanks for clearing this up, but I’m still not understanding perfectly. If someone inherits a “sinful nature” as well as a “lack of grace,” does that mean that he is automatically barred from the presence of God, even if he commits no personal sin? I thought this was the reason for postulating something like Limbo for unbaptized infants. In any case, WE don’t believe in “original guilt.” That’s what we call your belief, because we figure that, one way or another, people get the shaft just because of what Adam did, in your scenario.

So which is it? Are people barred from heaven because of a “lack of grace,” which they inherited from Adam, or not? Seems like a tricky subject to me, and I would appreciate understanding your point of view better.

(I read some stuff by Scott Hahn, once, and I thought he was pretty good. Can you give me the reference you were talking about?)

About Matthew 16:18, I’m quite certain that any number of these fine apologists here on this board can find scholars that agree that the verse pertains to Jesus’ Church on earth, and not just “good and evil”, so I guess that shows another difference between Christianity and the LDS faith.

So are you saying that the Catholic scholars like the one I quoted aren’t Christians? I understand that you disagree with this interpretation of Matt. 16:18, but I have never before seen anyone claim that you have to have a particular interpretation of that verse to be a Christian.

It seems to me that your argument is something like this:

Tigers are cats.
Lions are not tigers.
Therefore, lions are not cats.

Once again, I don’t mind if you don’t want to let me into your personal club of Christians. However, I reserve the right to point it out when I think your membership rules are bizarre.

 

[ibkc]

So are you saying that the Catholic scholars like the one I quoted aren’t Christians? I understand that you disagree with this interpretation of Matt. 16:18, but I have never before seen anyone claim that you have to have a particular interpretation of that verse to be a Christian.

BDawg, I went looking for the reference you posted. The one and only mention of it I could find on Google is on the fairlds.org site. I did find one other book by this Winter fellow on Amazon. You further asserted that “many” Catholic theologians agree with him. Could you provide a list of these theologians, please?

 

[zerinus]

it’s a matter of “politeness”. you are at a catholic site and thus it is expected that you would be here to inquire about catholic things.

if you came to ask about catholic doctrines/practices, great, catholic traditions? awesome. are you here because you might want to become catholic? even better. do you have catholic realtives or friends and want to understand their religion? that’s okay. are you here just to engage in apologetics? it’s allowed but i think your time better spent elsewhere like FAIR or MADB. if you really feel the need to “defend your faith” against hostile attacks then there plenty of fundie and evangelical sites for you to tilt at.

That is nonsense and you know it. If somebody wanted to come here simply to learn more about Catholicism, there are several boards on CAF that might suit their purpose. Here are some: “Ask an Apologist” board, “Catholic Answers—Today” board, “Apologetics” board, “Liturgy and Sacraments” board, “Catholic Living” board. Why should they come to the “Non-Catholic Religions” board? And why should Catholic Answers have a “Non-Catholic Religions” board at all?

I am here to prevent people like you from spreading disinformation about Mormonism, and to give people who want to know the correct information. If in the process somebody finds Mormonism sufficiently attractive to want to join it, good for them. That would be a welcome but unexpected gain.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

That is nonsense and you know it. If somebody wanted to come here simply to learn more about Catholicism, there are several boards on CAF that might suit their purpose. Here are some: “Ask an Apologist” board, “Catholic Answers—Today” board, “Apologetics” board, “Liturgy and Sacraments” board, “Catholic Living” board. Why should they come to the “Non-Catholic Religions” board? And why should Catholic Answers have a “Non-Catholic Religions” board at all?

I am here to prevent people like you from spreading disinformation about Mormonism, and to give people who want to know the correct information. If in the process somebody finds Mormonism sufficiently attractive to want to join it, good for them. That would be a welcome but unexpected gain.

zerinus

you are the worst on this board at misrepresenting mormon doctrine and history. i understand that part of this is your youth and inexperience but you aren’t preventing anything except polite discussion. if your main purpose is to prevent people from spreading disinformation then you need to go to CARM or some other such site where it is really happening. here at CAF the only LDS disinformation on mormons is being spread by you and whyme

 

[AMDGtoo]

My we are getting involved here. But I’ll try to answer.

Original sin. Revelations 21:27 states "…nothing unclean will enter it (heaven) sooo if Adam squandered his gifts (perfect “cleanness” and grace), he simply didn’t have those gifts to pass on to his children and their children and so on. (It would be like you having a million dollars that you could use and after you died, your children would inherit it. However, if you spent it all, there wouldn’t be anything for your children to inherit. It’s very logical IMO) It’s been awhile and I have read quite a bit of Dr. Hahn’s works, but I think he discussed it in his book, A Father Who Keeps His Promises. Can’t be sure though.

As to Limbo, it was never an official teaching of the Church. It was an attempt to reconcile the fact that the Bible teaches us that “nothing unclean will enter heaven” and the lack of babies’ cupability. I believe Augustine first used the reconciliation. But I know that it isn’t even mentioned anymore. You’ll find our official teachings in the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church

Of course Baptism washes away original sin (and any sins that we ourselves committed–in the case of adult Baptism). Baptism restores God’s grace again.

WE don’t believe in “original guilt.” That’s what we call your belief, because we figure that, one way or another, people get the shaft just because of what Adam did, in your scenario.

Well, you were mistaken. IMO that’s what happens when there are assumptions made with no attempt to clarify them.

So are you saying that the Catholic scholars like the one I quoted aren’t Christians?

No, I am stating that any number of the good people here can point to scholars that hold a different opinion and that can tell you exactly why they hold that opinion.

I understand that you disagree with this interpretation of Matt. 16:18

Yes I am afterall Catholic and this is a Catholic site, but I want you to know that just because I disagree with this opinion ** isn’t** the reason that I believe that the LDS and Christians (which include Catholics) are miles apart in theology.

Once again, I don’t mind if you don’t want to let me into your personal club of Christians. However, I reserve the right to point it out when I think your membership rules are bizarre.

And I can’t understand why you are not proud of who you are–that “peculiar people” that your ancesters were proud of and would never dream of confusing the LDS with us poor Christians (who were thought to have gotten it terribly wrong.)----Hmmm, is that it? Confusion? So the Mormon missionaries can tell investigators that “we’re not so different from you”?