Mormons confessing to their bishops?

[zerinus]

How a person lives does not determine the truth of a religion.

According to the word of the Lord, it does:

Matthew 7:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

zerinus

 

[rpp]

According to the word of the Lord, it does:
Matthew 7:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.zerinus

No how a person lives says nothing about the truth of their religion. What it does say how faithful they are to the teachings of their religion.

The correct statement is: How a person faithful to their religion lives says much about the truth of their religion.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The point that I was trying to make is that: I don’t see criticizing anyone’s church or faith to be very productive. Most of the extreme negatives about mormonism comes from exmormons who are now catholics. I don’t see the emotional negativity from never mormon catholics. But the exmormons have an axe to grind. And it shows in use of language.

I am on this forum to communicate with catholics about the catholic faith. But unfortunately, the harsh language by mostly exmormons about mormons compells me to defend aspects of mormonism. Now if there were no mormon threads, I would be happy reading and commenting on catholic threads without reference to mormonism and in agreement with many of the catholic posters about catholicism.

I bring up the checkered past as a way to show that any criticism of mormon leaders can come to haunt catholics as catholic leaders have been far from perfect in the affairs of the ‘true’ church. The sin stone is a hard stone to throw.

On here I do take a middle ground toward mormonism On the mormonapologetics site, I take a middle ground in many of my posts. However, the critic posts that seem to use hypotheticals, I can be ‘harsh’ with in a nice sort of way.

I don’t see fanaticism as a way to get closer to god. It sows dislike and distrust of others as can be witnessed in some threads on this forum when fanatics post their ideas.

Yeah, I would be happy to not have mormon threads as well, but they exist. And often are used as proselytizing tools by the mormons who frequent here. And people like you who try to twist mormon beliefs to look like anything but what they are.

The harsh in a nice sort of way is called passive aggressive, and most mormons are pretty good at it. Instead of saying what they want to say. I prefer to just say it. Passive/aggressive makes me nuts, but that’s just me.

I think that you would prefer if mormons could just come here and spout whatever without anyone pointing out what, exactly, is wrong with that particular religion. It ain’t gonna happen.

And BTW, I have been a reader of mormonapologetics for many years and I have seen your posts. I don’t post there. But, you certainly have rose colored glasses on. There are many subjects and posts brought up that are incredibly anti-Christian, and anti-Catholic. Trinity being called heretical. Pope equated to Satan. ECF used to prove the “great apostasy”, very often with a slant towards gnosticism.

Often, I realize that it is because people there have never had a real Christian education, and so they are left in the dark to guess. From a Catholic perspective, it is sort of sad. From a position of defending the Catholic faith, the people there are very much in error. And are not Christian in the sense of how “Christian” has been defined for 2000 years.

Holding to what is truth and defending that truth is not fanaticism. It’s called conviction.

 

[MHalsey]

According to the word of the Lord, it does:

Matthew 7:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

zerinus

The quoted passage says nothing about the truth of a particular religion.

 

[zerinus]

No how a person lives says nothing about the truth of their religion. What it does say how faithful they are to the teachings of their religion.

The correct statement is: How a person faithful to their religion lives says much about the truth of their religion.

That is not what the Lord is saying. He says you can know whether they are true servants of God or not by the way they live. “By their fruits ye shall know them” means exactly that. It means that if they live good, honest, decent, hardworking, compassionate lives, and honor God and obey His word, they are His servants indeed.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

The quoted passage says nothing about the truth of a particular religion.

The quoted passage says how you can determine a true prophet from a false one. Well, if you can determine that they are true prophets, then that means that the religion they are a part of must be a true religion. They can’t be true prophets of a false religion, can they?

zerinus

 

[rpp]

That is not what the Lord is saying. He says you can know whether they are true servants of God or not by the way they live. “By their fruits ye shall know them” means exactly that. It means that if they live good, honest, decent, hardworking, compassionate lives, and honor God and obey His word, they are His servants indeed.

zerinus

And He is talking about individuals, not their religion.

Context is everything.

There were also good, honest, decent, hard-working, compassionate heretics.

And Hindus.

And Taoists.

And Muslims.

And Pagans.

And communists.

But why do you quote the Bible? The Bible was assembled by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after the Church became apostate, according to to Joseph Smith and the other founders of LDS. I would think that you would not be able to trust a book put together by a bunch of heretics and apostates.

This is honest question with no ill intent. Nor am I attacking the Mormon religion. I say this because you seem to presume that anyone who disagrees with you is mocking you and attacking the Mormon religion. That is incorrect nearly every time and/or WhyMe you accuse someone of this, and it is not the case here.

Please remain charitable.

 

[zerinus]

And He is talking about individuals, not their religion.

Context is everything.

He is talking about determining false prophets from true ones. If they are true prophets, then they are true prophets of a true religion. They can’t be true prophets of a false religion.

There were also good, honest, decent, hard-working, compassionate heretics.

And Hindus.

And Taoists.

And Muslims.

And Pagans.

And communists.

They are not claiming to be prophets. But of whatever religion they are, if they live according to the commandments of God, they are accepted of Him:

Acts 10:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation [and religion] he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

But why do you quote the Bible? The Bible was assembled by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after the Church became apostate, according to to Joseph Smith and the other founders of LDS. I would think that you would not be able to trust a book put together by a bunch of heretics and apostates.

Catholics are always saying that, which is a lot of nonsense. God gave us the Bible through His holy prophets. The Catholic Church did no such thing.

This is honest question with no ill intent. Nor am I attacking the Mormon religion. I say this because you seem to presume that anyone who disagrees with you is mocking you and attacking the Mormon religion. That is incorrect nearly every time and/or WhyMe you accuse someone of this, and it is not the case here.

And why are you so defensive when talking about your religion? I have said nothing in these posts to give you the impression that I am “upset” by what you have said. I am merely responding to your comments.

Please remain charitable.

How was I being uncharitable? Can you quote a passage please?

zerinus

 

[rpp]

He is talking about determining false prophets from true ones. If they are true prophets, then they are true prophets of a true religion. They can’t be true prophets of a false religion.

They are not claiming to be prophets. But of whatever religion they are, if they live according to the commandments of God, they are accepted of Him:Acts 10:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation and religion] he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

That is not the context in which Peter was speaking. Nor was it the Context in which the Lord is speaking.

Now in reference to the underlined text, by what authority is it that you alter Holy scripture?

Other religions do not have the full truth, only part of it. In many cases, only a very small part of the truth.

Catholics are always saying that, which is a lot of nonsense. God gave us the Bible through His holy prophets. The Catholic Church did no such thing.

Well, if you can alter scripture, you can alter history too, apparently. Catholics are not the only ones who say this. Muslims say it. Jews say it. Secular historians say it. Catholics say it because it is true. So where exactly did the Bible come from and how was it put together? Did is suddenly fall from the sky? But that is off topic.

 

[zerinus]

That is not the context in which Peter was speaking. Nor was it the Context in which the Lord is speaking.

Now in reference to the underlined text, by what authority is it that you alter Holy scripture?

I did not “alter scripture”. That was implied in the text. That scripture referred to the receiving of the Holy Ghost by Cornelius, who at that time was just a pagan. He received the Holy Ghost and the visitation of an angel as a pagan, telling him to send for Peter. When Peter said that “in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him,” he also meant “every religion,” because that is what Cornelius was. He was a Roman pagan–but a righteous man nevertheless.

Other religions do not have the full truth, only part of it. In many cases, only a very small part of the truth.

It don’t matter. Everyone who does righteousness in every religion is accepted of God. That is what that scripture implies.

Well, if you can alter scripture, you can alter history too, apparently. Catholics are not the only ones who say this. Muslims say it. Jews say it. Secular historians say it. Catholics say it because it is true. So where exactly did the Bible come from and how was it put together? Did is suddenly fall from the sky? But that is off topic.

It was the Jews who in fact gave us the Bible. Now they are claiming that the Catholics did it? How can that make any sense?

zerinus

 

[truthsilence]

I am on this forum to communicate with catholics about the catholic faith.

Your posting history doesn’t seem to support this statement.

I bring up the checkered past as a way to show that any criticism of mormon leaders can come to haunt catholics as catholic leaders have been far from perfect in the affairs of the ‘true’ church. The sin stone is a hard stone to throw.

If Joseph and Brigham were teaching the same gospel that Jesus and the Apostles taught, this might have some relevance here.

On here I do take a middle ground toward mormonism On the mormonapologetics site, I take a middle ground in many of my posts. However, the critic posts that seem to use hypotheticals, I can be ‘harsh’ with in a nice sort of way.

As was already pointed out this is called passive/aggresiveness. I wouldn’t brag about it.

I don’t see fanaticism as a way to get closer to god. It sows dislike and distrust of others as can be witnessed in some threads on this forum when fanatics post their ideas.

I grew up in a home where the people we knew who were strong in their faith were called fanatics. This saddens me. Yes, there is such a thing as religious fanatics, definitely. They drive airplanes into buildings and shoot people at abortion clinics. But to actually live and speak what you believe is not fanaticism. It’s called being honest with yourself and others.

 

[ibkc]

Catholics are always saying that, which is a lot of nonsense. God gave us the Bible through His holy prophets. The Catholic Church did no such thing.

“Catholics” say this because it is simple fact, and it is not just Catholics who say it. Non-Catholic scholars, historians and educated people say it, too. Before the Bible, Christians had a loose collection of documents, some divinely inspired, some not so much. In the fourth century the Catholic church held a series of synods to determine the canon. Around 400AD, St. Jerome compiled all the books of the Bible in their various languages into a unified Latin version. That is where the Bible as we know it comes from, and this is taught in any decent history class, not just in Catholic schools and churches.

 

[PaulDupre]

I bring up the checkered past as a way to show that any criticism of mormon leaders can come to haunt catholics as catholic leaders have been far from perfect in the affairs of the ‘true’ church.

why me,

We don’t criticize Mormon leaders for being imperfect people; we criticize them for teaching false doctrine. Every man is imperfect, but when Joseph Smith married the wives of other men and coerced young girls into sex, he taught his followers that it was the will of God and that it was the correct thing to do.

Brigham Young taught his followers that only polygamists would enter heaven and that black skin was a curse which made blacks filthy, lazy and stupid.

That is why we criticize them and the other Mormon leaders. If they had kept their sins to themselves instead of teaching their followers to imitate them, we could just chalk it up to men being men.

Yes there have been some sinful popes, but none of them ever taught false doctrine. That is the key difference.

Respectfully,
Paul

 

[holdencaulfield]

why me,

We don’t criticize Mormon leaders for being imperfect people; we criticize them for teaching false doctrine. Every man is imperfect, but when Joseph Smith married the wives of other men and coerced young girls into sex, he taught his followers that it was the will of God and that it was the correct thing to do.

Brigham Young taught his followers that only polygamists would enter heaven and that black skin was a curse which made blacks filthy, lazy and stupid.

That is why we criticize them and the other Mormon leaders. If they had kept their sins to themselves instead of teaching their followers to imitate them, we could just chalk it up to men being men.

Yes there have been some sinful popes, but none of them ever taught false doctrine. That is the key difference.

Respectfully,
Paul

Quite true there are often many Mormons who are good people. However it is extremely wrong to teach false doctrine. It is morally wrong and it is blasphemy.

 

[MHalsey]

Quite true there are often many Mormons who are good people. However it is extremely wrong to teach false doctrine. It is morally wrong and it is blasphemy.

And hence the ravening wolves Jesus was referring to.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

 

[why_me]

And hence the ravening wolves Jesus was referring to.

Of course you do realize that these quotations that you posted could be turned right back on you. And that is the point. Plus, we now have Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Bayless Conley etc…and they also ravening wolves, leading people away? Some may say yes. And what about the pope? Could someone claim those quotations for the pope? Perhaps so if they wish to.

 

[why_me]

Quite true there are often many Mormons who are good people. However it is extremely wrong to teach false doctrine. It is morally wrong and it is blasphemy.

And yet, if one asks a protestant about catholic doctrine, could they not claim that catholic doctrine is false? I suppose so. Thus, we are in a hamster wheel or on a hamster treadmill.

 

[why_me]

why me,

Yes there have been some sinful popes, but none of them ever taught false doctrine. That is the key difference.

Respectfully,
Paul

Question: Did they use doctrine for sinful purposes? And yet, still remain pope? Maybe so. Such is my guess.

 

[MHalsey]

Of course you do realize that these quotations that you posted could be turned right back on you. And that is the point. Plus, we now have Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Bayless Conley etc…and they also ravening wolves, leading people away? Some may say yes. And what about the pope? Could someone claim those quotations for the pope? Perhaps so if they wish to.

The point is that the quote from Z does not prove the truth of a religion based on the moral character of its adherents.

 

[zerinus]

The point is that the quote from Z does not prove the truth of a religion based on the moral character of its adherents.

The point is that Jesus gave that as a test by which we can determine a true prophet from a false one. We judge them by their “fruits” (moral behavior). If we determine by that means that they are true prophets, then that means that they are true prophets of a true religion, right? They cannot be true prophets of a false religion. Prey tell me how somebody can be a true prophet, but of a false religion?

zerinus