Mormon's & Mary

[PaulDupre]

I’ve now read the links posted here and done some research on my own. While the church certainly doesn’t talk about such an awkward subject any more, I can’t deny that it appears we did spend a lot of time talking about it in the past. Though I don’t recall ever having read any of those quotes, they do not appear falsely represented or out of context. I agree that our leaders have talked a lot about something that seems crude and unnecessary to me. I admit reading them made me furrow my brow a bit and wonder “Why in the heck would you even talk about that?” It seems totally superfluous and irrelevant to 99% of what we really DO need to understand about God and his plan. Not sure I would have said those things… but I wasn’t there.

James,
Glad to see you broadening your knowledge of LDS history and theology. That was what I hoped my post would accomplish. I hope you will carefully study Joseph Smith’s General Conference address commonly known as “The King Follet Discourse”.
God love you,
Paul

 

[james71]

I do plan to read The King Follet Discourse. It is going to take me a while to do some more research on this. These forums can take up an enormous amount of time.

Lemme just close with a thought - zerinus says these teachings are false. I don’t know that I feel that way. I think they were attempts by sincere men to square two things they believed to be true 1) God has a tangible body and 2) Christ is the Son of God.
We have two points of truth and we have tried to connect the dots between them based on our current level of understanding. They had no concept of another way for a part of God to contribute to the conception of Jesus than sex so this is what they assumed. I contend there are likely a few unrevealed dots between those two truths we don’t yet understand. Knowing them will someday make a straight line. I hope the sensitive among you may understand what I’m trying to say.

Secondly - can a prophet be wrong on spiritual matters? Was Peter ever wrong about a gospel issue? I think the scriptures describe him denying Christ and resisting sharing the gospel with non jews. How could this be? The Rock upon which Christ would build his Chruch - weak in faith and understanding? I honestly have not spent much time studying Catholic doctrine and history to reverse your attacks - but you have studied your church. According to your beliefs, what does the Holy See see? Do you not believe your Popes speak for God and possess his authority to forgive sins and direct His Church? If so - has every word that has left their lips represented God’s will? Has no Pope in the last 2000 years made a statement that later was seen as something less than divinely inspired? I’m asking here - sincerely curious. I don’t think revelation is a telephone line. I also don’t believe that full understanding of a revelation necessarily comes with the package. I believe what was revealed to JS was true. Did he understand all of it himself? I dunno.

Lastly - for me, personally, saying something just happened - that it was a ‘miracle’ is not an answer, it is a stop-gap. It is an admission that we currently have no way of understanding or describing how something happened, so we don’t even try. Fine - but if you don’t know how something happened how can you know how it didn’t happen?

Just thinking out loud. Thanks for listening. I do appreciate the thoughtful remarks.

James

 

[Lehl]

I do plan to read The King Follet Discourse. It is going to take me a while to do some more research on this. These forums can take up an enormous amount of time.

Lemme just close with a thought - zerinus says these teachings are false. I don’t know that I feel that way. I think they were **attempts by sincere men **to square two things they believed to be true 1) God has a tangible body and 2) Christ is the Son of God.

Sincere men?

These men are supposed to be PROPHETS! Is that not the foundation of your Church?

These “sincere men” are supposed to be “God’s Mouthpiece on Earth” They aren’t allowed to make huge mistakes like that on the nature of God.

Joseph Smith proclaimed to know the nature of God as did all the other “prophets” that you and Zerinus admit got it wrong.

We have two points of truth and we have tried to connect the dots between them based on our current level of understanding. They had no concept of another way for a part of God to contribute to the conception of Jesus than sex so this is what they assumed. I contend there are likely a few unrevealed dots between those two truths we don’t yet understand. Knowing them will someday make a straight line. I hope the sensitive among you may understand what I’m trying to say.

Again, you’ve perfectly demonstrated how mere men would attempt to explain such a mystery. I think it is VERY clear then that these WERE ONLY mere men and NOT prophets.

Secondly - can a prophet be wrong on spiritual matters? Was Peter ever wrong about a gospel issue? I think the scriptures describe him denying Christ and resisting sharing the gospel with non jews. How could this be? The Rock upon which Christ would build his Chruch - weak in faith and understanding? I honestly have not spent much time studying Catholic doctrine and history to reverse your attacks - but you have studied your church. According to your beliefs, what does the Holy See see? Do you not believe your Popes speak for God and possess his authority to forgive sins and direct His Church?
James

No, a prophet absolutely CANNOT be wrong on spiritual matters!

Nice try, but Peter was NOT a PROPHET!

The Pope is not a prophet, either!

 

[zerinus]

Lemme just close with a thought - zerinus says these teachings are false. I don’t know that I feel that way. I think they were attempts by sincere men to square two things they believed to be true 1) God has a tangible body and 2) Christ is the Son of God.

I agree that they were attempts by sincere men to square things they already believed to be true; but they were wrong to take a guess at something they didn’t know, and then present their guesses as fact. Whenever you try to guess at gospel doctrine rather than obtain it by revelation, you nearly always get it wrong! If they had received a revelation to that effect, they should have said so; but they did not, and they hadn’t. If they weren’t sure of something, they should have just said that they didn’t know, rather than make definitive assertions about what they didn’t know.

I base my belief that that doctrine is false on the express assertion of scripture, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon; and on the current position of the Church on that subject. Both old and modern scripture teaches that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost; which means by the miraculous intervention of God. The Holy Ghost is portrayed throughout the scriptures as God’s miraculous agent. It is by this means that miracles are performed, sermons are preached, and healings are given. When it says that the event took place by that power, it makes it pretty clear that it was divinely performed miraculous act.

We have two points of truth and we have tried to connect the dots between them based on our current level of understanding. They had no concept of another way for a part of God to contribute to the conception of Jesus than sex so this is what they assumed.

There is nothing wrong in making such an assumption in your own mind, or even presenting it as a point of discussion. Where they went wrong was teaching it as though it were revealed fact.

I contend there are likely a few unrevealed dots between those two truths we don’t yet understand. Knowing them will someday make a straight line. I hope the sensitive among you may understand what I’m trying to say.

That is quite a possibility. President Ezra Taft Benson once said that how the conception of Jesus took place was one of the “mysteries of the kingdom”. He sounds like someone who knows something the rest of us don’t know, and he isn’t telling! That is perfectly possible.

Secondly - can a prophet be wrong on spiritual matters? Was Peter ever wrong about a gospel issue? I think the scriptures describe him denying Christ and resisting sharing the gospel with non jews. How could this be? The Rock upon which Christ would build his Chruch - weak in faith and understanding? I honestly have not spent much time studying Catholic doctrine and history to reverse your attacks - but you have studied your church. According to your beliefs, what does the Holy See see? Do you not believe your Popes speak for God and possess his authority to forgive sins and direct His Church? If so - has every word that has left their lips represented God’s will? Has no Pope in the last 2000 years made a statement that later was seen as something less than divinely inspired? I’m asking here - sincerely curious. I don’t think revelation is a telephone line. I also don’t believe that full understanding of a revelation necessarily comes with the package. I believe what was revealed to JS was true. Did he understand all of it himself? I dunno.

I entirely agree.

Lastly - for me, personally, saying something just happened - that it was a ‘miracle’ is not an answer, it is a stop-gap. It is an admission that we currently have no way of understanding or describing how something happened, so we don’t even try. Fine - but if you don’t know how something happened how can you know how it didn’t happen?

I think I know what you are saying. My answer to that is the same as what I gave above.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

Secondly - can a prophet be wrong on spiritual matters? Was Peter ever wrong about a gospel issue? I think the scriptures describe him denying Christ and resisting sharing the gospel with non Jews.

Hi James,
Yes, Peter denied Jesus three times. But that was before he was “converted” - before the Holy Spirit came upon him at Pentecost. After that he was a model of courage, even bravely accepting martyrdom in Rome.

You couldn’t be more wrong about Peter being reluctant to take the gospel to the gentiles. First, it was Jesus who told the apostles to preach only to the house of Israel (Matt 10:5), while foretelling of the future outreach to the gentiles. But after Pentecost, that command was changed by revelation.

Read Acts chapter 10. It tells how it was Peter to whom the Lord revealed his wish for the gentiles to be converted, and Peter’s subsequent conversion of the gentile Cornelius and his family. Then, in chapter 11, Peter announced to the Church what the Lord had revealed to him and set the mission to the gentiles into motion. It was several years later that St. Paul was converted and continued the mission to the gentiles.

According to your beliefs, what does the Holy See see? Do you not believe your Popes speak for God and possess his authority to forgive sins and direct His Church? If so - has every word that has left their lips represented God’s will? Has no Pope in the last 2000 years made a statement that later was seen as something less than divinely inspired? I’m asking here - sincerely curious.

Read up on the charism of infallibility - it is not what you might think.

BTW, it is nice to dialog with a Mormon who doesn’t keep telling me I’m a filthy apostate.

Have a blessed evening,
Paul

 

[james71]

Paul - I’m taking a break from the forums for a bit. It was crowding out some of the other important things in my life. But I did want to say I’m sorry that other Mormons have said such short-sighted, small-minded things to you. I understand why they may have because I used to see the world in black and white too. I understand the ‘us’ against ‘them’ mentality. Mormons may be more prone to that type of world view since rather recently it really was ‘us’ against ‘them.’ Understandably we probably continue to suffer from a collective persecution complex because we were persecuted. Burying your child in a shallow frozen grave along the path of exile to a barren desert while someone else sits in your house next to your fire probably does something deep and painful to one’s heart and mind. It was legal to kill Mormon’s in Missouri until not that long ago when the extermination order was finally taken off the books. You know, that kind of stuff tends to shrink people’s minds in self defense. We are a product of that environment and we continue to think that way a little I’m afraid.

I have grown up enough over the last couple of years to realize that we are all ‘us.’ There is no ‘them.’ I honestly believe that if I were to have had all of your experiences I would likely feel and believe just like you do. I haven’t. I’ve had my experiences so I feel the way I do. I can still learn from your points of view.

 

[sterryfamily]

Guys - Papal infallibility and the infallibility of the Magisterium only apply to matters of faith and morals. Yes, St.Peter was chastised by St. Paul for excluding the Gentiles at once. No Pope is impeccable. But, just like with the Old Testament covenants, God makes sure His people are taught correctly by His chosen leaders and does not allow them to teach error in regards to faith and morals. This is not about revelation - many popes have done and said very bad things.

Look at it this way - did God abandon Moses when He sinned? Were the words Moses wrote any less the infallible word of God? Did He fire David after he sinned? nope. Why would He do any differently under the new and everlasting covenant?

 

[Chris-WA]

Secondly - can a prophet be wrong on spiritual matters?

A true prophet most certainly cannot teach error in matters of faith. So again I would say to you that if someone claims to be a prophet, yet teaches error to their flock, they are not a true prophet. It’s just that simple. I certainly don’t see Peter or any of the other Apostles ever teaching error. Some could have a weak understanding of something, but teaching error is something quite different and far more serious. After all, isn’t that one of the problems LDS have with what they claimed happened in the early Christian church?

Even our bad popes never changed the teachings of the church.

 

[Sixtus]

Chris WA posted:

A true prophet most certainly cannot teach error in matters of faith. So again I would say to you that if someone claims to be a prophet, yet teaches error to their flock, they are not a true prophet. It’s just that simple. I certainly don’t see Peter or any of the other Apostles ever teaching error. Some could have a weak understanding of something, but teaching error is something quite different and far more serious. After all, isn’t that one of the problems LDS have with what they claimed happened in the early Christian church?

Even our bad popes never changed the teachings of the church.

 

[rmcmullan]

Perhaps Catholics have a particularly hard time understanding the evolution of doctrine and and how understanding develops over time because they’ve done everything they can to seal off their church from any change.

The Mormon church as it is presented in these forums is almost always the 1830 version. I rarely see anyone here quoting the current prophet, it’s always some ancient publication that is not part of the Mormon cannon.

 

[Lehl]

---

Perhaps Catholics have a particularly hard time understanding the evolution of doctrine and and how understanding develops over time because they’ve done everything they can to seal off their church from any change.

The Mormon church as it is presented in these forums is almost always the 1830 version. ** I rarely** see anyone here quoting the current prophet, it’s always some ancient publication that is not part of the Mormon cannon.

Gordon B. Hinckley has many quote-worthy statements here! When he speaks publicly (to a predominantly non-LDS audience) he’s evasive, deceptive, and misleading.

I wouldn’t be so sure you want quotes discussed here from Gordon B. Hinckley about “evolution of doctrine” considering he said:

Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation

Compass Interview, aired Nov. 9, 1997

Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don’t need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we’ve already received.

San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday Interview, April 13, 1997

Your own “prophet” saying you don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. You already have enough and need to pay attention to that. That’ll be hysterical when the next “prophet” comes out with revelation after revelation.

This is clearly why Gordon B. Hinckley has contributed absolutely zilch to the LDS prophecy-wise. He sure hasn’t been earning his paycheck as “prophet, seer, and revelator”

At least he’s earned his paychecks by building a boatload of temples and trying to mainstream Mormonism.

 

[rmcmullan]

Now that is a rare thing indeed, the current prophet actually being quoted here on the Catholic forums. Don’t stop, let’s hear more! I wish you all would get into the habit of quoting the current prophet.

I hope you didn’t misunderstand me when I say that the Catholic church has done everything it can to seal off their church from any change. It’s not just that you’ve closed off public revelation, it’s something almost philosphical that underlies much of what is taught. For example prayers. Mormons and some Protestants faiths teach that prayer is a communication with God and you should expect answers from prayers. Catholics not so much with all the fixed prayers, rosaries and chants. Mormons have the baptism at the age of accountability which is followed by the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Catholics have the infant baptism. It’s sort of like the Catholic church is trying to protect their members from the Holy Spirit. I know you won’t like me saying that but that is just my impression. I was raised Catholic so I know the difference. But these things have all been discussed many times before and I am somewhat sympathetic to your point of view. At least I know you have good reasons for believing as you do.

Also, you agree with GBH, right?

 

[Lehl]

Mormons and some Protestants faiths teach that prayer is a communication with God and you should expect answers from prayers. Catholics not so much with all the fixed prayers, rosaries and chants.

Um, did anyone say that Catholics don’t pray and/or communicate with God without fixed prayers, rosaries, and chants? (Not sure what you mean by “chant”) I don’t think I’ve chanted in my life! .

As a Catholic, do I pray to communicate with God and receive answers? ABSOLUTELY. I have a great relationship with God. When I privately pray to him, do I recite stuff I’ve memorized? NO. I have a personal relationship and my prayers are more like an ongoing conversation. Honestly, I’ve only prayed the rosary about 10 times. Only at funeral rosary services, too

How strange and incredibly naiive to think that Catholics don’t “communicate with God without memorized prayer and rosaries”

At least you’re broadening your horizons!

Mormons have the baptism at the age of accountability which is followed by the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Catholics have the infant baptism…I was raised Catholic…

I’m having a VERY hard time believing that you were once Catholic. If that were true, you would know that you just compared apples to oranges. LDS baptism is not comparable to Catholic Baptism. LDS baptism is much more comparable to Catholic Confirmation. An LDS baby blessing is much more similar to a Catholic Baptism.

It is clearly evident you need to do some reading and research about the sacrament of Confirmation. Many LDS make this mistake.

It’s sort of like the Catholic church is trying to protect their members from the Holy Spirit. I know you won’t like me saying that but that is just my impression.

Again, your ignorance is showing!

The Sacrament of Confirmation IS the gift of the Holy Spirit and the completion of Baptism! Bible passages such as Acts 8:14–17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, speak of a **laying on of hands for the purpose of bestowing the Holy Spirit. **

1. What is Confirmation?
Confirmation is the sacrament in which the Holy Spirit comes to us in a special way to join us more closely to Jesus and his Church and to seal and strengthen us as Christ’s witnesses. ***It is the completion of baptismal grace. ***(1285, 1316)

*When the Intercessor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth that comes forth from the Father-he will bear witness to me, but you, too, will bear witness… *(Jn 15:26). (See also Acts 2:4; 8:14-17)

What does “confirm” mean?
To confirm means to strengthen. In Confirmation our faith is deepened and strengthened, and through this sacrament we are more perfectly bound to Christ and to his Church. (1285)

What are the effects of Confirmation?
Confirmed Catholics have become full-pledged members of the Church. They have received spiritual strength and special graces to help them better witness to Christ. The confirmed have also grown in the graces and gifts first received in Baptism. This is indicated during the Confirmation ceremony when the Holy Spirit is called upon to come with his seven gifts. (1303)

*They prayed over them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for it had not yet come upon any of them-they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus *(Acts 8:15-16).

Is there a preferred age for confirming?
In the Latin tradition the person to be confirmed should have reached the age of discretion.

The US Bisops has set the ‘age of discretion’ between 7 and 17. Around here, Confirmation is received when one is a junior in high school. That is when I was confirmed.

Also, since I know how much LDS love ECF’s…
catholic.com/library/Confirmation.asp

Also, you agree with GBH, right?

:bigyikes:

 

[rmcmullan]

You’re not the first one to question my Catholic past but I can assure you it’s a matter of record. I attended Catholic schools until high school and attended church regularly until I became Mormon.

It’s interesting to hear about your prayer because it gives me some hope for the Catholics but after reading many of these threads (on other forums), it seems as though you might be an exception. Why then all the memorized prayers? I know you’re not bound to pray the rosary and free to prayer however but the rosary and the Glory Be and the Hail Mary and the Our Father are the ones that are taught and practised publicly. I think it’s a rare thing for a Catholic priest to say a prayer that he has not memorized.

As for baptism and confirmation, I believe the Catholic teaching have confused the two by claiming that baptism is a infusion of grace and not for the forgiveness of sins. The completion of baptismal grace makes no sense to me. But a baptism for the forgiveness of sins followed by the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost does.

But these are side issues. Call me suspicious but I believe the purpose of the original post was just to embarass Mormons by digging up and misrepresenting the Mormon teaching on the birth of Jesus. And with no attempt to present the teaching from an authoratative and modern source. No quotes from GBH. I think what Majick said in his most recent post is pretty much the Mormon teaching. Infact, I wasn’t sure if he was presenting from either a Mormon or Catholic viewpoint, seems as he’s perfectly fluent in both. But the truth is the entire subject is a little difficult to go into in much depth and an oft critisized point especially by aethiests. They are the one who object to the virgin birth the most strenuously. Many other pagan gods also lay claim to a virgin birth involving a variety of mechanisms including parthenogenesis. I personally am not to comfortable with such a discussion.

 

[PaulDupre]

For example prayers. Mormons and some Protestants faiths teach that prayer is a communication with God and you should expect answers from prayers. Catholics not so much with all the fixed prayers, rosaries and chants.

Hi mcmullan,
You make the mistake that most non-Catholics make with regard to Catholic prayer. You fail to distinguish between public and personal prayer.

The mass is a public worship. The prayers of the mass are formalized in order to protect the deposit of faith. We say “As we pray, so do we believe.” Prayers express theological beliefs. Our priests don’t get up and “wing it”, saying whatever they think or feel. You see Evangelical ministers doing that, and it accounts in large part for what we call “Protestant drift” - the steady moving away of Evangelicals (and all Protestants) from the original teachings of the Church as expressed by the Early Church Fathers of the first few centuries AD.

In an Evangelical service, the beliefs expressed in prayer are the personal beliefs of whomever is doing the praying. The formalized liturgy of the Catholic Church guards against such drift.

By contrast, in private prayer Catholics are encouraged to develop a deep and very personal relationship with Jesus, pouring out our hearts and minds to Him and listening for His answers. Catholics can use the prayers of the great saints if they wish. In my early adult years I learned a great deal about prayer from the prayers of St. Francis De Sales. He really resonated with me.

Apparently, when you were “Catholic”, your parents never taught you to pray. Mine did. We had family prayer and a short bible reading every evening, with my dad presiding. Had you grown up genuinely Catholic, you would know how Catholics pray from the heart.

I love the rosary, too, BTW. But that is a different type of personal devotion - a form of meditation on the life of Jesus. It is not intended to replace daily personal prayer.

I am truly sorry for you that you never learned what real Catholicism is. But there is still time.

God love you,
Paul

 

[Lehl]

Hi mcmullan,
You make the mistake that most non-Catholics make with regard to Catholic prayer. You fail to distinguish between public and personal prayer.
The mass is a public worship. The prayers of the mass are formalized in order to protect the deposit of faith. We say “As we pray, so do we believe.” Prayers express theological beliefs. Our priests don’t get up and “wing it”, saying whatever they think or feel…

God love you,
Paul

Yes, that is exactly right.

One would almost assume from rncmullen’s previous posts that Mormons NEVER do memorized prayers. We know that they do.

I would also have to point out that they do so precisely why Catholics do the same during public worship.

When they bless their “sacrament”, their 12 year-old “priests” have to say a certain prayer JUST SO and actually look for the approval of the bishop that it was correct before proceeding…or they have to start over.

lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=2c09023382b9b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Since the sacramental prayers are actually scripture (Moro. 4:3; Moro. 5:2; D&C 20:77, 79), the Lord has given us specific instructions as to the manner of asking blessings upon the bread and the water. The worthy and reverent offering of these prayers can make a great difference in whether the ordinance of the sacrament is highly spiritual or merely perfunctory. **Aaronic Priesthood curriculum materials for priest-age young men recommend memorization of the prayers. **Studying and understanding the purpose of the sacrament and the significance of the prayers can also greatly improve the effectiveness of those chosen to perform the ordinance. As in most things, preparation and practice will lessen the chance of making mistakes when repeating the prayers. Even though the prayers should still be read from the cards provided (or from the scriptures), familiarization with and memorization of the prayers by those who will read them will enable the officiator to have a confidence and a knowledge that will bring reverent and spiritual offering of the prayers.

Also:
lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=5ed97befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=true

• Read the sacrament prayers one sentence at a time. Discuss the meaning of each sentence. Challenge each class member to memorize the prayers.

lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?vgnextoid=ed462ce2b446c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b58f97a7c1d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=true

1. Memorize the sacrament prayers. Talk to a priesthood leader about the baptismal covenant and what it involves

.

In regards to Mormon baptisms:
lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?vgnextoid=ba805f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=24977befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

Give the young men time to locate and mark this verse. **Emphasize the importance and necessity of using the exact words as outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants. Then give the young men one minute to memorize the prayer. Call on a few of the young men to repeat it from memory.

Emphasize that the baptismal prayer is one of the few set prayers in the Church. It is so important that it must always be said correctly.**

 

[rmcmullan]

I can appreciate what you’re saying to some degree but I’ve been on both sides and it’s definitely different. Perhaps PaulDupree is correct in that my parents never taught me the proper way to pray because as a Catholic, I didn’t ever see an example of an extemporaneous prayer outside the garden of Gethsemane. And my parents only taught me the memorized prayers.

Lehl, the sacrament prayer is only said as part of blessing the sacrament and is never used during either private or public prayer. Almost every prayer said aloud at a Mormon (and probably many Protestant meetings) meeting is extemporaneous and every one of their (many) meetings is opened and closed with prayer. It’s what we’d call an ordinance and all the oridinance have set forms. The baptismal prayer is the same. Blessings on the sick, or of comfort, or calling to an office are a hybrid: they have a set part and a part that is provided through inspiration.

I just think that the Catholic concept of prayer is different. If you want to differ, okay, but many of the other threads on these forums say as much. Succinctly, the Catholics emphasize worship and the Mormons communication. But it’s not a black and white thing, it’s much more a emphasis.

 

[majick275]

Jesus himself taught us the our father. I find it somewhat strange then that it’s not used in LDS worship services ever. as to “free verse” prayers, this is taught and encouraged in Catholic schools, CCD and by priests. I would also claim that since we pray directly to the holy spirit that we certainly do not “protect ourselves” from him but rather worship him and converse with him.

 

[sterryfamily]

Perhaps Catholics have a particularly hard time understanding the evolution of doctrine and and how understanding develops over time because they’ve done everything they can to seal off their church from any change.

The Mormon church as it is presented in these forums is almost always the 1830 version. I rarely see anyone here quoting the current prophet, it’s always some ancient publication that is not part of the Mormon cannon.

The issue is the pretense under which your “prophets” say these things. They have purported that their words are God’s and infallible. If that were so, then it would be unchanging.

 

[rmcmullan]

Okay Majick and Lehl and PaulDupree, I guess I stand corrected about the prayer thing but I’m glad to be in this case. My experience was different.

SterryFamily, please check out D&C 28. I know you guys have a particularly difficult time sorting through the variety of Mormon voices but we do have some rules in place.