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

[zerinus]

you are the worst on this board at misrepresenting mormon doctrine and history.

Yes, you would say that wouldn’t you. But I somehow don’t think that many people here would believe you on that one.

zerinus

 

[BDawg]

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?

Hi ib,

I read Winter’s book several years ago, but if I remember correctly, the conclusion he drew about Matt. 16:18 was not his own. Rather, he was reporting the conclusions of a number of other Catholic scholars who had studied the issue. I’ll see if I can dig out the book from a university library and get back to you. Maybe I can get you at least a few references. (Winter’s is kind of an old book, though. The list will be a little dated!)

The idea behind this interpretation is that the Greek text of the passage says the gates of “hades” will not prevail against the Church. But “hades” was not the place where Satan and his minions reigned. Rather, it was just the place where the spirits of the dead lived–good and bad. The Catholic apologists who wrote “Jesus, Peter, and the Keys” also cited scholars who took this interpretation.

“In this context hell, transliterated as ‘hades’ from the Greek, or ‘sheol’ from the Hebrew, means the place of the dead. Gates of Hades would mean that which prevents escape from death but the gates of death are helpless against those with eternal life. Hell as a place of punishment… is a poor translation of Matthew 16:18, according to some scholars.” (S. Butler, N. Dahlgren, and D. Hess, Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1996, 168-169.)

Of course, those guys went on to make a sort of a hybrid interpretation of the verse–combining this and the standard interpretation. Anyway, the point is that I wasn’t lying when I said that it is common even for Catholic scholars to interpret the verse differently than you do.

 

[BDawg]

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”?

Hi A,

I hope you aren’t getting upset with me–it’s not my intention. But I just don’t understand your logic. In previous posts you seemed to be arguing that Mormons aren’t Christians because we interpret Matt. 16:18 differently than you do. I pointed out that even some Catholic scholars interpret it differently than you. You argued about that, but in the end admit that this isn’t why you reject us as Christians. Well, ok.

Now your argument seems to be that if I claim to be a Christian, then I’m trying to confuse people by making them think I’m have the same beliefs as you. (Am I following you?) You seem to also be saying the Mormons USED to be proud of being different than Christians, but now we are trying to convince everyone that we’re just the same as all the other Christians.

But from my perspective, that’s absurd. Mormons have always claimed to be Christians. We just think that the other Christian churches have become somewhat corrupted and lost God’s authority. We still see these others as broadly Christian, however. Likewise, the RCC claims to be the one, true church of Christ on earth, but acknowledges that there are other types of groups that are broadly “Christian” in the world. So what?

If I am discussing religion with one of these other types of Christians, what am I supposed to do? I submit that 1) we should figure out what we can agree on, and then 2) discuss the points where we disagree. I agree with you that it might be disingenuous to ONLY point out similarities, however. But it would be just as confusing to gloss over similarities and only focus on differences.

So there you have it. I am willing to describe a lot of groups as “Christian,” because they believe in Jesus as the Son of God, Messiah, etc. But I think that the LDS form of Christianity is purer than the others. Is that clear enough for you?

Honestly, I can’t understand why you are making a big deal of the fact that LDS see themselves as Christians. How else are we supposed to categorize ourselves? It seems to us that people like YOU are the ones who are trying to confuse things by getting people to assume that we DON’T believe that core set of teachings I mentioned earlier.

 

[majick275]

Yes, you would say that wouldn’t you. But I somehow don’t think that many people here would believe you on that one.

zerinus

oh i wouldn’t be so sure of that. you have already on more than post had to admit that my description of mormon doctrine was correct and you have yet to show where any of mine were wrong. i have had to correct a number of your assertions and have always done so with verifiable references. perhaps after you’ve gone through the temple and had a few years of gospel doctrine you’ll have a better understanding of what your church teaches. unfortunately the revisionist historians that write the newer lesson manuals ignore much of your church history regarding doctrinal changes. i suppose you could read an old copy of mconkie’s doctrine, the doctrines of salvation and answers to gospel questions series by JFS and then try to separate out the speculation from the doctrine…might take awhile but at least you’d have a pretty good grasp of the big picture as opposed to the GBH method of “i don’t know” and don’t worry about any of that just follow the prophet.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think zerinus is absolutely correct that people who are reading the Non-Catholic religion threads about Mormons are curious to learn more about them, or refute and argue with them.

I don’t understand why Catholics are so worried that Mormons are here to convert them. Are we so unsure of our faith? I’m not, and I really appreciate learning more about the Mormon faith because it is a very original religion, and there is so much mis-information on them generally, and a lot of anti-Mormon propaganda out there.

I think BDawg has been absolutely straight forward and non-defensive about his religion, and I have learned a lot from his replies. Mormons believe in the New Testament, and they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. To me this means they are Christians (granted not Catholics, not Protestants, not Baptists, etc.). Maybe they are peculiar Christians, but never-the-less they are Christians in my book.

 

[hosemonkey]

I think zerinus is absolutely correct that people who are reading the Non-Catholic religion threads about Mormons are curious to learn more about them, or refute and argue with them.

I don’t understand why Catholics are so worried that Mormons are here to convert them. Are we so unsure of our faith? I’m not, and I really appreciate learning more about the Mormon faith because it is a very original religion, and there is so much mis-information on them generally, and a lot of anti-Mormon propaganda out there.

I think BDawg has been absolutely straight forward and non-defensive about his religion, and I have learned a lot from his replies. Mormons believe in the New Testament, and they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. To me this means they are Christians (granted not Catholics, not Protestants, not Baptists, etc.). Maybe they are peculiar Christians, but never-the-less they are Christians in my book.

Nope!

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

I think zerinus is absolutely correct that people who are reading the Non-Catholic religion threads about Mormons are curious to learn more about them, or refute and argue with them.

I don’t understand why Catholics are so worried that Mormons are here to convert them. Are we so unsure of our faith? I’m not, and I really appreciate learning more about the Mormon faith because it is a very original religion, and there is so much mis-information on them generally, and a lot of anti-Mormon propaganda out there.

I think BDawg has been absolutely straight forward and non-defensive about his religion, and I have learned a lot from his replies. Mormons believe in the New Testament, and they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. To me this means they are Christians (granted not Catholics, not Protestants, not Baptists, etc.). Maybe they are peculiar Christians, but never-the-less they are Christians in my book.

Hi christine77,

I ( being Catholic ) AGREE , It is a true desire I have to try and understand ( directly from the source ) what and why the " others " believe and why they do so.

I can respect as well as be interested in other beliefs ( having nothing to do with if I buy it or not )

I do indeed greatly appreciate the views and " defense " they bring to to table ( again, even if I do not agree ) the point is that they do hold their beliefs deep within them.

I will close by echoing your comment , I also believe they are indeed our christian brethran.

God bless,
Carl

 

[AMDGtoo]

Thank you BDawg for answering my post. No, I am not upset with you (I am not your enemy either) and no, I don’t think the LDS are not Christian solely because of your interpretation of Matthew 16:18 (though I can’t even imagine someone thinking that God could “build His Church” and promise to be with it until the end of time–Matthew 28:20–and then fail so miserably to be true to His word that it all falls into apostasy–even though there is no record of it in history.)

It was never “in the end” for me–it is instead “from the beginning”. I have kept saying that it needs to be understood that LDS theology and Christian theology are two different things from the very beginning. You (and most LDS that I have spoken to) have insisted that you are “Christian” simply because of the name “Jesus” and that you honor Him, as a man. I have been saying that being a Christian is much more than that. And further, I wonder why the LDS want to reduce Christianity to simply believing in a man named Jesus. Muslims believe in a prophet named Jesus but their theology is at odds with historic Christianity. Jewish people know that man Jesus existed, but they would never say that that makes them Christian. And Freemasonry speaks of a “Great Builder” but that doesn’t make it Christian either. It’s the theology–not just the name.

I pointed out that even some Catholic scholars interpret it differently than you.

Yes, that is surprising since that particular verse is used in Catholic circles to show the founding of the Catholic Church. Would you please list those Catholic scholars? And are you sure that they are Catholics in good standing with the Universal Church in Rome?

Now your argument seems to be that if I claim to be a Christian, then I’m trying to confuse people by making them think I’m have the same beliefs as you. (Am I following you?)

No. I asked a question. And since I have also talked with a number of missionaries and been told, in various ways, “We’re the same”, I think it is a fair and valid question.

You seem to also be saying the Mormons USED to be proud of being different than Christians, but now we are trying to convince everyone that we’re just the same as all the other Christians.

You mean the LDS in the past weren’t proud of being a “peculiar people”? And they didn’t claim that the Christian church went astray so very badly that it had to be restored by JS?

How else are we supposed to categorize ourselves?

As LDS with a different theology (and then you can explain your points).

It seems to us that people like YOU are the ones who are trying to confuse things by getting people to assume that we DON’T believe that core set of teachings I mentioned earlier.

Now it appears that I have upset you. I’m sorry. I just want things to be completely honest here, and not just “appearances”.

See–I’m not even suggesting that you disclose that many of the LDS beliefs have been “borrowed” from the Gnostics or the Arians (which were roundly condemned by the Catholic Church way back in her earliest councils) nor am I asking you to mention all the Protestant and anti-Catholic thoughts of Edward Gibbon, Joseph Milner, and Johann von Mosheim (upon whom Talmage relied heavily in his anti-Catholic The Great Apostasy) not to mention those of JS.

 

[BDawg]

It was never “in the end” for me–it is instead “from the beginning”. I have kept saying that it needs to be understood that LDS theology and Christian theology are two different things from the very beginning. You (and most LDS that I have spoken to) have insisted that you are “Christian” simply because of the name “Jesus” and that you honor Him, as a man. I have been saying that being a Christian is much more than that. And further, I wonder why the LDS want to reduce Christianity to simply believing in a man named Jesus. Muslims believe in a prophet named Jesus but their theology is at odds with historic Christianity. Jewish people know that man Jesus existed, but they would never say that that makes them Christian. And Freemasonry speaks of a “Great Builder” but that doesn’t make it Christian either. It’s the theology–not just the name.

Hi A,

I don’t understand what it was that I (or any LDS) ever said that would imply that believing Jesus was a good man or a prophet is enough to make one a “Christian.” I certainly don’t think that.

 

[majick275]

I think zerinus is absolutely correct that people who are reading the Non-Catholic religion threads about Mormons are curious to learn more about them, or refute and argue with them.

I don’t understand why Catholics are so worried that Mormons are here to convert them. Are we so unsure of our faith? I’m not, and I really appreciate learning more about the Mormon faith because it is a very original religion, and there is so much mis-information on them generally, and a lot of anti-Mormon propaganda out there.

I think BDawg has been absolutely straight forward and non-defensive about his religion, and I have learned a lot from his replies. Mormons believe in the New Testament, and they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. To me this means they are Christians (granted not Catholics, not Protestants, not Baptists, etc.). Maybe they are peculiar Christians, but never-the-less they are Christians in my book.

i agree with you about bdawg he’s been totally upfront. however others have not. it’s not the informed choice to be feared it’s the deceivers and the vulnerable being paired up

 

[zerinus]

CHRISTINE77;3847608:

I think zerinus is absolutely correct that people who are reading the Non-Catholic religion threads about Mormons are curious to learn more about them, or refute and argue with them.

I don’t understand why Catholics are so worried that Mormons are here to convert them. Are we so unsure of our faith? I’m not, and I really appreciate learning more about the Mormon faith because it is a very original religion, and there is so much mis-information on them generally, and a lot of anti-Mormon propaganda out there.

I think BDawg has been absolutely straight forward and non-defensive about his religion, and I have learned a lot from his replies. Mormons believe in the New Testament, and they believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. To me this means they are Christians (granted not Catholics, not Protestants, not Baptists, etc.). Maybe they are peculiar Christians, but never-the-less they are Christians in my book.

Hi christine77,

I ( being Catholic ) AGREE , It is a true desire I have to try and understand ( directly from the source ) what and why the " others " believe and why they do so.

I can respect as well as be interested in other beliefs ( having nothing to do with if I buy it or not )

I do indeed greatly appreciate the views and " defense " they bring to to table ( again, even if I do not agree ) the point is that they do hold their beliefs deep within them.

I will close by echoing your comment , I also believe they are indeed our christian brethran.

God bless,
Carl

Thank you Christine and Carl for your comments.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

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.

When two people of different faiths debate religion, each does so from the standpoint that his (or her) own religion is correct, and that the other one isn’t. That in itself is in the nature of evangelism; because if you are right, the implication of that is that I should become a Catholic; and if I am right, the implication of that is that you should become a Mormon! That is in the nature of religious debate. You can’t debate religion without evangelizing—whether you realize it or not.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

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.

So you reckon LDS belief in the Apostasy amounts to blasphemy? Interesting. For your information, I have written a lengthy article in my Blog on the LDS belief of Apostasy which you may find interesting. You can read here.

By the way, where did the “twice” bit come from?

zerinus

 

[ibkc]

So you reckon LDS belief in the Apostasy amounts to blasphemy? Interesting.

Close to it, actually. You are basically saying that Christ spoke untruthfully when He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church. That implies strongly that Christ was either a liar or a madman who made grandiose promises He could not keep. The true Son of God does not lie nor does He go back on His promises.

By the way, where did the “twice

Per the Mormon view, Christ’s church in the Middle East went into apostasy within a couple or few generations - and then was defeated AGAIN in North America when the Lamanites wiped out the Nephites.

 

[BDawg]

Hi everyone,

Looks to me like this thread has run its course, so I’m going to stop checking it. If anyone wants me to comment on some question about Mormon beliefs, please start a new thread and contact me through my profile.

Thanks for the fun,

BDawg

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Zerinus,
(by the way, what does your name mean?)
I really don’t care if you stay a Mormon, I wouldn’t try to convert you - I think variety is the spice of life! I like to read this stuff because I like to learn about different religions. I am not here to judge but to try to understand. Also, I think we all have more in common than we like to admit.

 

[zerinus]

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.

The “theology” that you are describing is in fact the theology of an apostate religion—an apostate Christian religion—as Christianity became Apostate in the first century. The true Christian theology is the LDS one, which has been restored from heaven in its purity through the revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith in our time.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

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.

“Original guilt” is the same as “original sin”. Just because two different words are used it does not mean that they must mean two different things. “Original sin” in traditional Christian theology means that mankind is “guilty” because of the sin of Adam. The sin of Adam is “imputed” to them as a consequence of the Fall. Therefore they must be “baptized” in order to obtain a remission of that sin; otherwise they are damned and go to hell as a consequence of being guilty by reason of the sin of Adam. LDS don’t accept that. We believe that mankind become guilty (and are punished) for their own sins, not for the sin of Adam. That is the difference.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Close to it, actually. You are basically saying that Christ spoke untruthfully when He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church. That implies strongly that Christ was either a liar or a madman who made grandiose promises He could not keep. The true Son of God does not lie nor does He go back on His promises.

Already answered in that Blog post I had referred to. Have a look through it, and tell me what you think.

Per the Mormon view, Christ’s church in the Middle East went into apostasy within a couple or few generations - and then was defeated AGAIN in North America when the Lamanites wiped out the Nephites.

So you think that belief in the Deluge also amounts to blasphemy? By your logic, you should, because God could not build a world that was secure enough to last very long; and eventually had to destroy it all and start afresh.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,
(by the way, what does your name mean?)

Nothing much. It is a play on “Zerin,” which is the name of a mountain in the Book of Mormon. By the way, only two people have asked me that question so far, and both of them have been women! I wonder if that says something about women!

I really don’t care if you stay a Mormon, I wouldn’t try to convert you - I think variety is the spice of life! I like to read this stuff because I like to learn about different religions. I am not here to judge but to try to understand. Also, I think we all have more in common than we like to admit.

I do! I think that Mormonism is true, and everyone aught to become a Mormon!

zerinus