Mormons prefer to prey on which? - Catholics or Protestants?

[guanophore]

And here you go spouting off about our beliefs, telling us what we believe, inaccurately I might add.

No, I don’t think so. dianaid is correct. The vows say “until death do us part”.

You may have to teach the “great apostasy” to validate your religion but is basically no different than what you complain about, tearing up one religion to build up your own.

You have to admit, Catholicism has plenty of history of tearing down other religions. It also has a flourid history of apostasy in all spheres.

But it’s always acceptable when you all do this since there’s no other way to show that “traditional/creedal Christianity” is not the way to go. You will say that it’s not the same because you don’t tear up Catholic beliefs or Baptist beliefs but that’s the beauty of it. With this one thing you tear them all down. I can see why most former LDS turn to atheism and understand the poll results on MADB better.

You certainly seem to feel strongly about this. Do you get that upset when someone says “your mother wears combat boots”?

This is is in the same vein as your “apostles” (the top people in your church) describing the Trinity in their general conference talks, for some reason it’s ok for them (and you)to inaccurately describe others beliefs.

Do you think that the LDS “apostles” inaccurately explain the Catholic notion of Trinity?

 

[guanophore]

Zundrah, you seem to be obsessed with Mormons? You state that you’re converting to Catholicism. When I made my reversion to Catholicism, I wasn’t taking a side tour obsessing with Mormons? What does the Latter Day Saints community have to do with your becoming Catholic?

Mormons and their predatory attack strategies has nothing to do with your new Catholic life to come or where you fit into this new faith. You mentioned one time you have a Mormon friend. Perhaps that’s where this interest comes from. In any case, discussing Mormons seems a bit off-track in your journey, don’t you think? I don’t mean this rudely, just curious because my protestant to catholic trek was much different.

Zundrah does get a lot of pressure from her Mormon friend, and I think that has been part of her finding a spiritual home. I agree, it is not worth sidetracking, especially right now. However, as you may have noticed, she does have some trouble focusing on one thing at a time. If you are going to chase a rabbit, it is better to chase only one at a time.

I liked your list!

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
If one is standing in front of a class of 12-year-olds, then if the question were to come up it seems to me to be unfair to answer with, “look it up yourself”.

The Catholic leader here in Salt Lake City has become known as a bridge-builder with respect to religious dialogue. I think that can be done. I think if people of different religions really do try to understand each others’ beliefs, then each can be respectful as well as have understanding including finding commonalities. I think a teacher of youth ought to try and take that approach, which is basically the reason for the question I had asked. To read descriptions of the Trinity from official sources is a head-scratcher for me and I think it would be for twelve-year-olds. Sometimes I get the feeling that my belief in three Persons is not so far off of a Trinitarian’s belief in three persons but One God if that is understood with respect to their unity, purpose, eternal nature, power, and complete omniscience and omnibenevolence.

Well when a 6th grade CCD teacher mentioned something like this LDS were adamant, he was not to explain LDS beliefs but refer the child in his class to either his parents or an official LDS sight.

 

[zerinus]

Believe it or not that is what keeps me Catholic. I have learned that every other religion that I question I never get a Answer.

That is not true of the Mormonism I know. I think that Mormonism is very good at providing answers to questions relating to its faith—within reason. There is no religion that can legitimately claim to have an answer to every question that might conceivably be asked.

Here is something else that is awesome in the Catholic faith. We never try to convert. . . .

There is nothing awesome about that. You are neglecting the Lord’s commandment: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). If you have the truth, you have an obligation to preach it.

 

[rinnie]

That is not true of the Mormonism I know. I think that Mormonism is very good at providing answers to questions relating to its faith—within reason. There is no religion that can legitimately claim to have an answer to every question that might conceivably be asked.

There is nothing awesome about that. You are neglecting the Lord’s commandment: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). If you have the truth, you have an obligation to preach it.

Yes preach. Not convert. Since when did teach and preach the gospel ever mean to convert? In the Catholic Church sure we spread the good news, but to convert we leave that up to the Holy Spirit.

THey never answer my questions. I have tried many of times.

Maybe you could take one easy one for me.

Matt.16:18 How could Jesus Christ say such a thing and say his church would not be overcome if he knew full well a great apostsy would make short shrift of it in a matter of decades. Was Jesus lying? Mistaken, Did he miscalculate. I think not. Christ divinity precluded such things.

If there was no great apostasy then no need for a restoration of religious authority on earth, no restored gospel the entire premise of the Mormon Church undercut.

You explain it to me. Again doubt if I will hear from you again on it. But who knows:shrug:

I would love to hear a answer though!

 

[rinnie]

By the way the CC does have every answer. And if it doesn’t God has not revealed it yet. It’s written in the bible. What we are to be taught when God wants us to know it, will come from the Apostles, His Apostolic succession is in the CC.

 

[dianaiad]

Family is only who you’re married to?

It’s a very big part of it. If you are not family to your spouse, then where does it say anywhere that you will be ‘family’ and stay together with anybody else (in Catholic theology?)

Where, ANYWHERE, is there an assurance, or even a hint, that families will be together in Catholic theology?

Serious question, that.

 

[dianaiad]

So he can explain it to someone else. Why shouldn’t he just direct that other person to sources?

Ok, give him some sources…but what is your problem with explaining it to HIM?

I had real monks and priests explain Marianism to me, and I believe even you have to agree that I understand your reverence for her, why you pray to her and what you are NOT doing when you pray to her for intercession.

Is it so tough for you to do the same for him in re. the trinity?

 

[mjf001]

Marriage in this life, is meant to reflect in an imperfect way, the perfect unity of the Trinity. Since we are with God in heaven, why why would we need marriage? We will still be with our loved ones and friends in heaven, plus, we’ll be in the presence of God. What more could we possibly want?

In Christ,
Michael

 

[zaffiroborant]

No, I don’t think so. dianaid is correct. The vows say “until death do us part”.

Well the vows don’t say anything about losing ones family after death which is what Dianaid claims we believe. And do you believe that family only consists of people you are married to, I have a somewhat wider group I define as family:shrug:

You have to admit, Catholicism has plenty of history of tearing down other religions. It also has a flourid history of apostasy in all spheres.

I never said they didn’t, just pointed out that in spite of LDS claims otherwise, they do the same thing.

You certainly seem to feel strongly about this. Do you get that upset when someone says “your mother wears combat boots”?

It’s a bit annoying to hear repeatedly that the LDS do not tear up other religions they just say what they believe. When they start out with tearing down other religions.

Do you think that the LDS “apostles” inaccurately explain the Catholic notion of Trinity?

Yes.

 

[zaffiroborant]

It’s a very big part of it. If you are not family to your spouse, then where does it say anywhere that you will be ‘family’ and stay together with anybody else (in Catholic theology?)

Where, ANYWHERE, is there an assurance, or even a hint, that families will be together in Catholic theology?

Serious question, that.

From The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church by John A. Hardon S.J.

"Social Joys of Heaven. Revelation constantly speaks of heaven as a kingdom or a city, and the Church considers souls in glory as belonging to the triumphant Mystical Body of Christ. The social dimension of eternal happiness, then is part of the Christian faith.

Tradition further amplifies this idea by suggesting the joys of the blessed when they meet and recognize one another, not only in the intuitive vision of God but also by direct mutual intercourse. To deny such communication would be to deny them the legitimate exercise of their faculties and contradict the very concept of beatitude, which is the perfection of every human power and satisfaction of every legitimate desire.

Since Christianity differs from such oriental religions as Hinduism and Buddhism precisely in believing that man retains his identity in a future life, it is essential to the Christian notion of heaven that its inhabitants live together as distinct persons, knowing and being know by their fellow citizens in the New Jerusalem, and living in the company of those they had known and loved on earth."

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line

“They delight greatly in the company of Christ, the angels, and the saints, and in the reunion with so many who were dear to them on earth.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

Ok, give him some sources…but what is your problem with explaining it to HIM?

I had real monks and priests explain Marianism to me, and I believe even you have to agree that I understand your reverence for her, why you pray to her and what you are NOT doing when you pray to her for intercession.

Is it so tough for you to do the same for him in re. the trinity?

My explaining the Trinity is not the point. In another thread you were adamant that a Catholic CCD teacher had no business explaining LDS beliefs when brought up by a student. You insisted that the child should be referred to the parents, even suggesting this was what the parents might want their child to learn, though the idea that a parent would send a child to learn LDS doctrine in a CCD class is ludicrous. The other options you approve, sending them to an official LDS web site or that the teacher simply stick to their own doctrine and leave LDS doctrine alone. Why is it different (yet again) when and LDS wants to explain Catholic doctrine to children?

Why is Parkerd allowed to explain our doctrine (and I have some sort of obligation to aid him in this) to his 12 year olds and our CCD teacher is not granted the same latitude?

 

[tundramom]

Good comments dianaiad. I don’t understand persisting in imposing beliefs upon someone after they clearly deny holding to that particular belief. Catholics here probably do it to you. Protestants somewhere else do it to Catholics. “You worship statues, they say”, and they don’t care how or what we answer. They know. It is a most ineffectual tool for evangelism. I am Catholic, and have admired your patient answers.
Rory

Totally OFF Topic!! RORY!!! :extrahappy::juggle::hug3:

Hello my friend!

Please return to the debate folks…

in Christ
Steph

 

[ParkerD]

My explaining the Trinity is not the point. In another thread you were adamant that a Catholic CCD teacher had no business explaining LDS beliefs when brought up by a student. You insisted that the child should be referred to the parents, even suggesting this was what the parents might want their child to learn, though the idea that a parent would send a child to learn LDS doctrine in a CCD class is ludicrous. The other options you approve, sending them to an official LDS web site or that the teacher simply stick to their own doctrine and leave LDS doctrine alone. Why is it different (yet again) when and LDS wants to explain Catholic doctrine to children?

Why is Parkerd allowed to explain our doctrine (and I have some sort of obligation to aid him in this) to his 12 year olds and our CCD teacher is not granted the same latitude?

Zaffiroborant,
I suppose I might as well clarify further. When I have read definitions (including on this website under the topic by following various subheadings), I get confused and I think a twelve-year-old would be confused. I personally think the idea of the Trinity as that term was originally used, if I have understood what I have read, is closer to three actual Persons who are One because they have a unified, glorified Spirit substance or divine essence, hence they are not divided and can be described as One God. But when Christ returns to earth, if I understand the belief then it would be expected that Christ will have a physical body as He had when He was resurrected, and He will be a separate Person from Heavenly Father, or in other words those who see Him will not be seeing Heavenly Father, and Heavenly Father will still be in heaven at that moment in time. (I am not in any way trying to tell anyone what they believe–I am interested in understanding whether what the words I have read have meant to me are what those words mean to someone else who has the belief.)

 

[zerinus]

Yes preach. Not convert. Since when did teach and preach the gospel ever mean to convert?

Sure it does! To “preach” means to convert. Matthew 28:19 (KJV) reads: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” You couldn’t “baptize” them without first converting them! Other translations of the Bible, such as the NIV, render that verse as follows: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. To “make disciples of” means to convert.

In the Catholic Church sure we spread the good news, but to convert we leave that up to the Holy Spirit.

Well, we don’t exactly put them into gas chambers to convert them, if that is what you had in mind! We teach them the gospel, and the Holy Ghost converts them if they are ready.

Continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

THey never answer my questions. I have tried many of times.

Maybe you could take one easy one for me.

Matt.16:18 How could Jesus Christ say such a thing and say his church would not be overcome if he knew full well a great apostsy would make short shrift of it in a matter of decades. Was Jesus lying? Mistaken, Did he miscalculate. I think not. Christ divinity precluded such things.

If there was no great apostasy then no need for a restoration of religious authority on earth, no restored gospel the entire premise of the Mormon Church undercut.

You explain it to me. Again doubt if I will hear from you again on it. But who knows:shrug:

I would love to hear a answer though!

I have had to answer that question (and other related questions) so many times that I got sick to death of answering it; so I have prepared a ready-made answer and posted it in my Blog that you can read here. The following is an extract from that article that relates to your specific question:

Objection 6. The church could not have apostatized because Jesus promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18); and that “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20).

The church did not apostatize in that sense of the term, and the “gates of hell” did not “prevail” against it. There is more than one way of defining a church. If you define the church sacramentally and ecclesiastically, then yes, it did apostatize, because the priesthood authority in it was lost. But if you define the church as the body of true believers in Christ (which is the literal meaning of it), then no, in that sense it did not apostatize, because as explained earlier, there were many true believers in Christ in the Christian world throughout its history, which constituted God’s true “church”. The “wheat” and the “tares” were mingled together, so that it was not possible to distinguish between them (Matthew 13:28–29). The “wheat” constituted God’s true church. But only God knew what was in their heats, and who were the “wheat” and who were the “tares”.

The Restoration of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith is further evidence that the gates of hell did not prevail against the church. The purpose of this Restoration has been precisely to “gather together the wheat” to keep them safe; while the “tares” are bound in bundles ready to be burned (Matthew 13:30). This is actually taught in modern LDS scripture:

D&C 101:

65 Therefore, I must gather together my people, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, that the wheat may be secured in the garners to possess eternal life, and be crowned with celestial glory, when I shall come in the kingdom of my Father to reward every man according as his work shall be;
66 While the tares shall be bound in bundles, and their bands made strong, that they may be burned with unquenchable fire.

Jesus did not build His church on Peter. Peter was a mere mortal. If the church had been built on Peter, then when Peter died the church should have gone with him. Where there was no Peter, there would be no church. The “rock” refers to the testimony of the Holy Ghost which Peter had of the divinity of Jesus Christ:

Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The “rock” was the testimony of the Holy Ghost that Peter had expressed. God’s true church are ultimately those who have that testimony ingrained in their hearts by the indelible witness of the Holy Spirit, regardless of what church they belong to. Those who have that testimony will recognise the truth of the Restoration, and will join the LDS Church. Thus the “wheat” are gathered together for safety, while the “tares” are bound up for burning. The system is in fact so perfect that it is retroactive. It not only affects the living but also the dead. Through the keys of the priesthood that have been restored, and vicarious baptisms for the dead, not only the living are saved but also the dead. It is a perfect plan. It is a divine organization. The early church certainly did apostatize, but the “gates of hell” did not prevail against it. Those are two different principles.​

Hope that has answered your question. If not, come back to us and we will talk about it further.

 

[Answersplease]

I got on this thread because I follow Zundrah around the threads because she gets out of hand. I saw the title, and found it offensive.

If Zundrah stops taking her RCIA classes because of your following her around and taking it upon yourself to to be her personal corrector

you probably won’t care because you won’t think it was your fault.

I avoid talking to Mormons as much as possible. I don’t receive them at the door, and don’t engage them on the forum.

So Zundrah is the only one you like to stalk, and if any Mormons or any other person from any religion gets out of hand, its not your problem, only Zundrah is your focus.

Are Catholics and RCIA students the only ones you correct?
The false claims and anti-Catholic propaganda spread by some other religions don’t require your attention?

You seem to criticize the Catholics and defend the Mormons and yet you don’t engage the Mormons on the forum.

I wonder how many Catholics have fallen away because of you.

 

[rinnie]

/. . . Continued

I have had to answer that question (and other related questions) so many times that I got sick to death of answering it; so I have prepared a ready-made answer and posted it in my Blog that you can read here. The following is an extract from that article that relates to your specific question:

Objection 6. The church could not have apostatized because Jesus promised that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18); and that “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20).

The church did not apostatize in that sense of the term, and the “gates of hell” did not “prevail” against it. There is more than one way of defining a church. If you define the church sacramentally and ecclesiastically, then yes, it did apostatize, because the priesthood authority in it was lost. But if you define the church as the body of true believers in Christ (which is the literal meaning of it), then no, in that sense it did not apostatize, because as explained earlier, there were many true believers in Christ in the Christian world throughout its history, which constituted God’s true “church”. The “wheat” and the “tares” were mingled together, so that it was not possible to distinguish between them (Matthew 13:28–29). The “wheat” constituted God’s true church. But only God knew what was in their heats, and who were the “wheat” and who were the “tares”.

The Restoration of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith is further evidence that the gates of hell did not prevail against the church. The purpose of this Restoration has been precisely to “gather together the wheat” to keep them safe; while the “tares” are bound in bundles ready to be burned (Matthew 13:30). This is actually taught in modern LDS scripture:

D&C 101:

65 Therefore, I must gather together my people, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, that the wheat may be secured in the garners to possess eternal life, and be crowned with celestial glory, when I shall come in the kingdom of my Father to reward every man according as his work shall be;
66 While the tares shall be bound in bundles, and their bands made strong, that they may be burned with unquenchable fire.

Jesus did not build His church on Peter. Peter was a mere mortal. If the church had been built on Peter, then when Peter died the church should have gone with him. Where there was no Peter, there would be no church. The “rock” refers to the testimony of the Holy Ghost which Peter had of the divinity of Jesus Christ:

Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Hope that has answered your question. If not, come back to us and we will talk about it further.
​

The Priesthood authority was lost How do you figure. Thats not what the bible says.

How do you explain Acts 1:20 let another take his office. Matthias takes Judas Apostolic ministry. 1 Tim 4;4 gift conferred with the laying of hands. 2 Tim 2:2 what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers. I could go on and on. What lies? I think not.

What about what Jesus said I leave you the advocate the HS and the power will be with you forever until the end. How do you explain this scripture. Could you show me scripture that contradicts this. Where it said the lay of hands the Power of the Holy Spirit dies? Would love to see it. And I am sorry the CHurch has NEVER changed. The keys of the Priesthood have never been restored because they have never left the hands of the Pope. IF so could you explain to me why he still has them. Last I heard he still holds the keys. He is still in the seat of Peter? How can that be. try again you explaination makes no sense.

Heres another while you are at it. Joseph smith taught of plural Gods. How can that be when there is only ONE GOD. God from God, light from light, true God from True God begotten not made. How about that one. But first try again with the first one.

Here is my very favorite. JS said when I get to my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom and it will exalt him in Glory. He will then take a higher exaltation and I will take his place and thereby become exalted myself! Yeah right. Can’t wait to hear that one!​

 

[guanophore]

It’s a very big part of it. If you are not family to your spouse, then where does it say anywhere that you will be ‘family’ and stay together with anybody else (in Catholic theology?)

Where, ANYWHERE, is there an assurance, or even a hint, that families will be together in Catholic theology?

Serious question, that.

A person would only ask such a question who is not familiar with the communion of saints. It is one of the most fundamental doctrines of the Church, reflected in the Apostle’s creed, recited daily at Mass, all over the world.

Jesus taught that we are not “married” in heaven, because we are like the angels (no need or desire for sexual reproduction).

 

[zerinus]

The Priesthood authority was lost How do you figure. Thats not what the bible says.

How do you explain Acts 1:20 let another take his office. Matthias takes Judas Apostolic ministry.

Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the point at which the church apostatized. That is a good illustration of how the church should have continued to operate if it had not apostatized. We believe that the institution of the Twelve Apostles was meant to continue in the church, and in fact form the governing counsel of the church. The fact that it didn’t is an indication of the loss of that priesthood authority in the church.

1 Tim 4;4 gift conferred with the laying of hands. 2 Tim 2:2 what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers. I could go on and on. What lies? I think not.

Again, that is not the point at which the church had apostatized. The church was fully functional and operational at that point in time.

What about what Jesus said I leave you the advocate the HS and the power will be with you forever until the end. How do you explain this scripture. Could you show me scripture that contradicts this. Where it said the lay of hands the Power of the Holy Spirit dies? Would love to see it.

By the Apostasy we don’t mean that the Holy Spirit left the church, or ceased to function or be operational in the lives of faithful Christians. If you are going to fire millions of questions at me about the Apostasy, I think you should first read that article I had given in post #55 where most of your questions have already been answered.

And I am sorry the CHurch has NEVER changed. The keys of the Priesthood have never been restored because they have never left the hands of the Pope. IF so could you explain to me why he still has them. Last I heard he still holds the keys. He is still in the seat of Peter? How can that be. try again you explaination makes no sense.

We think the Pope is a good man, and does a lot of good things. But we disagree with the Catholics that he still holds the keys of the priesthood.

Heres another while you are at it. Joseph smith taught of plural Gods. How can that be when there is only ONE GOD. God from God, light from light, true God from True God begotten not made. How about that one. But first try again with the first one.

You are venturing into different areas of doctrine now, which should be discussed separately. To cut a long story short, we also believe there is only one true supreme God. The LDS doctrine of the plurality of gods is first of all in agreement with what the early Christians believed; and secondly, it simply defines a degree of salvation in the kingdom of God. We become gods by grace, and remain subservient to and continue to worship the one true God of heaven, which is the Father; and also His Son Jesus Christ.

Here is my very favorite. JS said when I get to my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom and it will exalt him in Glory. He will then take a higher exaltation and I will take his place and thereby become exalted myself! Yeah right. Can’t wait to hear that one!

Joseph Smith said that of Jesus Christ, not of himself. That was his take on 1 Corinthians 15:24–28. There is nothing sinister about that comment.