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

Harpazo · Jul 24, 2009

Glory to Jesus Christ!

While ***I *** think that Mormonism is a bizarre religion and do not believe it to be Christian, I do not care for the title of this thread. It is downright rude and perfect for inciting nasty remarks. It does not seek any understanding. To try to understand someone’s beliefs does not mean that one is giving up one’s own beliefs.

In Christ,
Andrew

Finrock · Jul 25, 2009

Good evening Harpazo! I hope you’ve had a good day.

Harpazo said:
Glory to Jesus Christ!

While ***I *** think that Mormonism is a bizarre religion and do not believe it to be Christian, I do not care for the title of this thread. It is downright rude and perfect for inciting nasty remarks. It does not seek any understanding. To try to understand someone’s beliefs does not mean that one is giving up one’s own beliefs.

In Christ,
Andrew

First of all, thank you for showing charity towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If I may, let me ask: If my Church teaches me that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, that Jesus is God, and that I should have faith in Jesus Christ and try to pattern my life after His, then would you not call me a Christian?

Thank you for your time.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

guanophore · Jul 25, 2009

dianaiad said:
You are asking questions that really dig into some of the meat of what we believe. There is nothing WRONG with that, but it means…

Well, first it means that we need to discuss the Trinity. Since we believe that the God head is composed of three entirely separate Individuals (though one in purpose) we believe that it is quite possible to live in a Kingdom overseen by the Holy Ghost–and NOT have a whole lot of contact with Jesus Christ or His Father.

This is a significant departure from what the Apostles beleived and taught. The early fathers considered this position heretical.

zerinus · Jul 25, 2009

guanophore said:
There is no physical return of Christ to earth.

I have noticed that you have a propensity for making categorical assertions without providing scriptural or other supportive evidence to back it up. This is a case in point. There is plenty of scriptural evidence that Christ will physically return to earth.

He will always have a glorified body, and when He returns, we will be taken up to Him, and also transformed into our glorified bodies.

Agreed; also those who had died will be resurrected to be caught up with him. But how does that prove that He will not physically return to earth?

When we see Him, we see the Father.

Not true. Jesus is said to be the “express image” of His Father’s “person” (Hebrews 1:3). That does not translate into “identical to His Father’s person”.

None of the persons of the Trinity can ever be separated from one another. They were not separated when He was here in the flesh, either.

That is nonsense, and it isn’t true. So all the while that Jesus was praying to His Father, He was praying to Himself? And when He ascended to the Father, He ascended to Himself? And when He said that His Father was greater than Him, He meant that He was greater than Himself? And when the Holy Ghost descended on Him in the form of a dove, He descended on Himself?

zerinus · Jul 25, 2009

guanophore said:
This is a significant departure from what the Apostles beleived and taught. The early fathers considered this position heretical.

Any evidence to back that up? We believe that there are three heavens or degrees of glory, and that is taught in the Bible. Paul was somebody who knew all about that, because he was “caught up to the third heaven” and saw and heard “unspeakable words” that was not lawful for him to utter (2 Corinthians 12:2–4). So the fact that there are “three heavens” is indisputable if you believe in the Bible. The only question that remains is, what are the differences between them? Well, since the Bible doesn’t tell us, you can legitimately claim that you don’t know. But as it turns out, we happen to know the answer to that question through modern day revelation and scripture that we have received. If you don’t want to accept that, you have that choice; but we do.

RC_Matt · Jul 25, 2009

Finrock said:
Good evening Harpazo! I hope you’ve had a good day.

First of all, thank you for showing charity towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If I may, let me ask: If my Church teaches me that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, that Jesus is God, and that I should have faith in Jesus Christ and try to pattern my life after His, then would you not call me a Christian?

Thank you for your time.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Christians do not believe that there are multiple gods.

Christians do not believe that men become gods.

Christians do not believe in a godhead comprised of three distinct physical entities, two
of which are corporeal and live a plant near the star Kolob.

Christians do not believe that knowledge of secret handshakes and passwords are necessary in order enter God’s heaven,

Christians do not believe that Joseph Smith’s approval is necessary to enter God’s heaven.

Christians do not believe the BOM, or any of the other standard works, are scripture any more than they believe the Koran is scripture.

Christians do not believe that one must accept the concept of celestial polygamy to enter God’s heaven.

Etc., etc., etc……

Judaism and Islam, as Abrahamic faiths, are closer to Christianity than is Mormonism. Mormonism, similar to Buddhism or Hinduism, is in a category by itself. This is not a criticism of Mormons or Mormon dogma, nor is it to imply that Mormons are not decent people, nor is it to say that Mormons are not “saved,” it is simply a statement of fact. No Christian faith of which I am aware accepts a Mormon baptism as valid. Similarly, Mormons do not accept any Christian baptism as valid. Christianity and Mormonsim are mutually exclusive.

As far as “preying” is concerned, I think that is a valid comment. Missionaries attempt to sell Mormonism as a Christian faith, which it absolutely is NOT. The “milk before meat” practice, i.e., baptizing converts before they are fully informed of CORE doctrine, results in people being baptized before they are made aware of some of the more peculiar Mormon tenets. This is exactly same tactic employed by Scientology.

On the other hand, if you wish to become a Catholic, you will have to attend a class one night per week for about a year. You cannot enter the Catholic Church until you fully understand everything the Church teaches.

Answersplease · Jul 26, 2009

ParkerD said:
By the way, the “wolves” did come, and they didn’t spare the flock, and it happened in about 100 AD-200 AD.

Wolves “preying” on sheep.

Hmmm,

I wonder who these “wolves” are?

Since ParkerD is with the LDS church, I wonder which group he is talking about are “wolves” who “did’nt spare the flock”?

ParkerD · Jul 26, 2009

Answersplease said:
Wolves “preying” on sheep.

Hmmm,

I wonder who these “wolves” are?

Since ParkerD is with the LDS church, I wonder which group he is talking about are “wolves” who “did’nt spare the flock”?

Answers,
Christ and the prophets used a number of different metaphors about sheep. He spoke of seeking to find the “lost sheep” to bring it back to the flock. He also spoke about the “lost sheep” of the house of Israel, and “sheep having no shepherd.” He is the “good Shepherd” who “giveth His life for the sheep.”

“Ravening wolves” or “wolves in sheep’s clothing” would be anyone who, though appearing to be powerful and perhaps feigning righteousness, has a different agenda than following Christ and His pure gospel. What was going on on the inside of the person was far more important than what was going on on the outside for others to see–according to Christ’s teachings. He was always consistent in teaching about this.

His teachings said to always watch out for “ravening wolves” which would mean someone with a lot of power and hungry to use that power to disrupt the sheep from following the Good Shepherd.

If you don’t think there were power struggles within the early church, then I don’t suppose you’ve read the epistles very much. It is clear reading the epistles that there were “wolves” among the “sheep”, and the apostles were worried about that and sought to help the members of the church stay strong in their faith and strong in seeking to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their lives rather than be disrupted by “ravening wolves” who would seek the power over the flock.

But Isaiah prophesied “all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (53:6) All means all. The gospel plan includes the way prepared by God for “all we like sheep.” “He was bruised for our iniquities…and with his stripes we are healed.” (53:5)

The healing power of Christ’s atonement and of His gospel is available to all. He knew we would need that healing. He knew we would always need the Good Shepherd. He was the perfect, unblemished lamb who gave Himself as the great and last sacrifice, and He did it for all of us–every single one. His healing goes beyond religious boundaries. It is a healing of the heart. The wolves would have us not seek that healing, but instead follow their cries for power.

We ought to seek the healing power of Christ, whoever and wherever we are in the world, of whatever religion.

guanophore · Jul 26, 2009

zerinus said:
You are very much mistaken I am afraid. LDS theology provides a deeper understanding of the “communion of the Saints” than you realise:

Great. Since so many of your teachings have departed from what the Apostles believed and taught (like natural earthly marriage and families in heaven) I am always surprised when I come across a small element of Apostolic teaching retained in the midst of so much that has been added.

zerinus said:
You are very much mistaken again. My faith is based on the Restoration, not on the Apostasy.

Well, lets be honest. I will concede this point, but you have to admit, there is no need for a restoration without an apostasy. Apostasy is the cause for which the restoration exists.

zerinus said:
I am not a Mormon because I believe in the Apostasy; I believe in the Apostasy because I am a Mormon. I am a Mormon because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true. When I read the Book of Mormon, or actively participate in the life of the Church, the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true,

Yes, I have been told about the burning.

zerinus said:
and that its leaders are inspired of the Lord and act and speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. Having determined (independently) that Mormonism is true, I am led to the (inevitable) conclusion that an apostasy must have occurred for the restoration to be made necessary.

That is helpful. It shows that the intellectual underpinnings are based upon experiential knowledge.

zerinus said:
Joseph Smith was just 14 years old when he received his First Vision; and he didn’t go to the woods to start a new religion. He went there to inquire of the Lord which church was right, so he knew which one to join.

I am not convinced that any of the Reformers wanted to start a new religion, or even a denomination. I believe that all of them were sincerely seeking to serve God in the best way.

zerinus:
It was the Lord that then informed him that none of the churches were right (thus implying that there had been an Apostasy), and that he should join none of them; and that at some future date the truth would be revealed to him. The LDS doctrine of the Apostasy is incidental to the Restoration, not the other way round.

So I guess that the religion is based as much upon his personal experiences as it is any of the current followers. When I read this, it makes it even more clear why Jesus had to establish a church.

guanophore · Jul 26, 2009

Answersplease said:
exposeromney.com/pages/Video_LDS.html Robert Millet, a Professor of Ancient Scripture, BYU

“NEVER GIVE MEAT, WHEN MILK WILL DO”

His instructions to Mormon missionaries include:

Mormons do not need to provide a straight answer to every question

When possible avoid certain subect areas that Christians will find objectionable.

When asked a difficult question by a non-Mormon, don’t answer that question, instead
answer the question that person “should have asked.”

These are just good marketing principles. All good sales representatives use these - especially those on commission!

Answersplease said:
Code:

Now you are sinking to Zerinus's level, personal attack when you can't provide an answer.

That was not a personal attack. All that was said is that what you posted was misinformation. What did you expect? I do the same thing when people post anti-Catholic misinformation. It is nothing personal.

Answersplease said:
Code:

Instead of saying that those articles I quoted are wrong, PROVE that they are wrong.

You posted articles with no message. How was anyone to know that was what you wanted? You posted no question, no query, no statement.

That is troll behavior.

Answersplease said:
Code:

SHOW me that they are liars.

I find such a position just as offensive as the topic of the thread.

Answersplease said:

If you are so overly sensitive, what are you doing on this thread, and why are you posting provocative material with no discussion on the content?

Answersplease said:
You talked about polygamy (and did’nt prove it was a lie), but what about the other things like Robert Millet?

In fact, I think he did the oppposite! I found the reply quite charitable and reasonable.

Answersplease said:
I don’t agree with the Mormon religion, but if you can show me that the things I quoted from those articles are lies, then I will admit that they are false and I will stop using those examples.

I find this position contentious, as I have said, the use of the word “lies” does not promote good discussion. The term used was “misinformation”, which seems less inflammatory. Also, you did not post an invitation of this sort with the material, so how was anyone to know your intentions? I did not.

guanophore · Jul 26, 2009

Zundrah said:
Polygamy is still practiced by mormons in countries where it is stilll legal. But I say just leave them to it, when people want to sin you shouldn’t bother trying to stop them if they wont listen. Let them continue. Polygamy isn’t just a mormon thing, it is common in certain eastern countries. But it is sad when a christian is doing it… because they are representing our faith to the world in a terribly negative way.

Ploygamy is a selfish act to please ones self only.

xxx zundrah xxx

There are some problems with this approach, Zundrah. A short time ago, you seemed scandalized that the US had made abortion legal.Those of us who believe that a human is formed from the moment of conception work very hard to get this law overturned, as we believe it sanctions murder. Are you suggesting that we should just “leave them to it - don’t bother to stop them if they won’t listen”? Right now, there is a bill in congress that will force all providers of health insurance to provide coverage for abortions. If any refuse, they will go out of business. Catholic hospitals will have to close if they refuse to provide abortions. Are you suggesting that we all just “let them do it?”

Our president is also suggesting that people at the end of life should have access to means of “dying with dignitiy” basically for the purpose of preserving limited health care benefits to their children and grandchildren. If the bill is going to be “too substantial” then they can just end it, and save the country money. Should we just “let them do it”? Who is next? the mentally ill? The disabled" Just “let them do it” (refuse services) because their quality of life is bad.

Well, I am on an off topic rant here, but whenever a group such as polygamists are in a larger society whos values are contrary, it is incumbent upon the Christians in that society to labor vigorously for the values taught by Christ. It is a sin for us to “let them do it”. As you progress in your RCIA, you will learn more about these kinds of sin, in which a person sits by and does nothing while others are on the road to perdition.

dianaiad · Jul 26, 2009

guanophore said:
There are some problems with this approach, Zundrah. A short time ago, you seemed scandalized that the US had made abortion legal.Those of us who believe that a human is formed from the moment of conception work very hard to get this law overturned, as we believe it sanctions murder. Are you suggesting that we should just “leave them to it - don’t bother to stop them if they won’t listen”? Right now, there is a bill in congress that will force all providers of health insurance to provide coverage for abortions. If any refuse, they will go out of business. Catholic hospitals will have to close if they refuse to provide abortions. Are you suggesting that we all just “let them do it?”

Our president is also suggesting that people at the end of life should have access to means of “dying with dignitiy” basically for the purpose of preserving limited health care benefits to their children and grandchildren. If the bill is going to be “too substantial” then they can just end it, and save the country money. Should we just “let them do it”? Who is next? the mentally ill? The disabled" Just “let them do it” (refuse services) because their quality of life is bad.

Well, I am on an off topic rant here, but whenever a group such as polygamists are in a larger society whos values are contrary, it is incumbent upon the Christians in that society to labor vigorously for the values taught by Christ. It is a sin for us to “let them do it”. As you progress in your RCIA, you will learn more about these kinds of sin, in which a person sits by and does nothing while others are on the road to perdition.

There is a very big difference between an action that affects the very life of a human being (such as abortion and force euthanasia) and a law that restricts the ability of someone to live his or her religion as he or she wishes–that does NOT mean the physical ending of life.

To equate polygamy with abortion and euthanasia demeans the deadly seriousness of abortion and euthanasia, I think. One can stop practicing polygamy…"repent’ of it. Once one has had an abortion or selected euthanasia (for oneself or a loved one), that’s it. No coming back from that decision.

It seems to me that someone who lumps polygamy in with abortion and euthanasia has a different motive for wanting them stopped; not so much for the sake of the innocent lives lost, but because he doesn’t want other people living according to different standards than he does, even if they don’t share those standards.

That’s a dangerous attitude to have. That’s an attitude, not of ‘save the lives of the innocents,’ but of 'it’s all about power, and I want you to obey my rules, whether you agree with them or not."

Certain things, I believe, transcend such power struggles, and euthanasia/abortion as birth control are among those things. They must be kept separate from all other quarrels about beliefs, doctrine, morals…politics and power plays.

guanophore · Jul 26, 2009

dianaiad said:
There is a very big difference between an action that affects the very life of a human being (such as abortion and force euthanasia) and a law that restricts the ability of someone to live his or her religion as he or she wishes–that does NOT mean the physical ending of life.

I agree. Perhaps there is a better example. That one happens to be on my mind today. In either case, if we believe that God has revealed something to us, such as that marriage is between one man, and one woman, then we have an obligation to be light and salt to society in the light of this revelation.

dianaiad said:
To equate polygamy with abortion and euthanasia demeans the deadly seriousness of abortion and euthanasia, I think. One can stop practicing polygamy…"repent’ of it. Once one has had an abortion or selected euthanasia (for oneself or a loved one), that’s it. No coming back from that decision.

Such a statement is not consistent with Apostolic Teaching. The Apostles taught that any and all sins can be forsaken. The only unforgivable sin is final impentinence.

dianaiad said:
It seems to me that someone who lumps polygamy in with abortion and euthanasia has a different motive for wanting them stopped; not so much for the sake of the innocent lives lost, but because he doesn’t want other people living according to different standards than he does, even if they don’t share those standards.

as I said, I am not “lumping” anything. I am trying to illustrate a spiritual principle. It is wrong for Christians to just “let them do it” when the behavior is against what we believe God has revealed as right moral conduct. I will go so far as to say, though, that being light and salt to the world does include preventing people from living according to standards that violate the commandments of God. We should try to prevent society from committing sins against God, by legislating against murder, rape, robbery, etc.

dianaiad said:
That’s a dangerous attitude to have. That’s an attitude, not of ‘save the lives of the innocents,’ but of 'it’s all about power, and I want you to obey my rules, whether you agree with them or not."

Yes, it can be very dangerous, and has been. When there was a conflation of the Church and State, it was clear that corruption in the clerical and secular leadership created great suffering for people. The successful implementation of this concept of light and salt is predicated upon the personal holiness of the persons involved.

dianaiad said:
Certain things, I believe, transcend such power struggles, and euthanasia/abortion as birth control are among those things. They must be kept separate from all other quarrels about beliefs, doctrine, morals…politics and power plays.

For Catholics, the corruption of the modern mind on the nature of marriage is very serious. Although polygamy does not take the life of another as these other actions do, it has an insidious destructive effect on the family and society.

dianaiad · Jul 26, 2009

guanophore said:
I agree. Perhaps there is a better example. That one happens to be on my mind today. In either case, if we believe that God has revealed something to us, such as that marriage is between one man, and one woman, then we have an obligation to be light and salt to society in the light of this revelation.

Absolutely; preach against it. Declare that you are against it. Teach what you believe to be true.

I have a problem with polygamy; first, it is against my religion (really!) and second, it is a little embarrassing. However, between consenting adults who do not share my beliefs? I don’t see where I have a right to interfere with them, as long as their right to practice their beliefs does not interfere with my right to practice mine. Polygamy does not do that–and something tells me that abuses in the name of making them toe our monogamous line are worse than their being left alone; witness that wholesale child kidnapping from the Texas compound last year.

guanophore said:
Such a statement is not consistent with Apostolic Teaching. The Apostles taught that any and all sins can be forsaken. The only unforgivable sin is final impentinence.

Part of repentance is making amends for the transgression. How does one make amends for a lost human life? You can return a stolen item. You can apologize for a slight. You can fix almost anything if you try hard enough—but not the ending of a life. That’s what I meant by 'you can’t turn back after that."

I suppose that, once having committed a murder, you CAN kill yourself as an attempt to atone…but that’s not atonement, that’s just committing another murder.

guanophore said:
as I said, I am not “lumping” anything. I am trying to illustrate a spiritual principle. It is wrong for Christians to just “let them do it” when the behavior is against what we believe God has revealed as right moral conduct. I will go so far as to say, though, that being light and salt to the world does include preventing people from living according to standards that violate the commandments of God. We should try to prevent society from committing sins against God, by legislating against murder, rape, robbery, etc.

Yes…we need to legislate against crimes (sins) that cause physical damage to others–that involve unwilling participants.

Polygamy doesn’t do that, y’know. At least, it’s not supposed to. Where it does, of course we, as a society, have to do something–when the participants are too young, for instance. However, that’s not the same thing as legislating how many spouses one can have at one time.

guanophore said:
Yes, it can be very dangerous, and has been. When there was a conflation of the Church and State, it was clear that corruption in the clerical and secular leadership created great suffering for people. The successful implementation of this concept of light and salt is predicated upon the personal holiness of the persons involved.

For Catholics, the corruption of the modern mind on the nature of marriage is very serious. Although polygamy does not take the life of another as these other actions do, it has an insidious destructive effect on the family and society.

…but not on YOUR life, or YOUR society. You don’t like polygamy? Fine. Don’t practice it. You don’t think others should practice it either? Wonderful. Go tell them. Explain why they shouldn’t. Teach them better.

Don’t pass a law, though. For one thing, it is counter productive. For another thing…Jesus didn’t come down here to pass laws or to rule temporally, though He certainly could have. Remember, that was the entire nature of the temptation He faced in the desert; to exercise His power in a way that would force everyone to obey and follow Him; to BE that mortal king. He chose a quite different path.

As should we.

As you might have figured out, I’m leaning toward libertarian–conservative libertarian, but still…

I’m allergic to laws that force religious doctrine upon those who do not share it. Even when that doctrine is mine.

Teach? Yes. Persuade?" Absolutely. Force? Never…'a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Jerusha · Jul 26, 2009

dianaiad said:
Part of repentance is making amends for the transgression. How does one make amends for a lost human life? You can return a stolen item. You can apologize for a slight. You can fix almost anything if you try hard enough—but not the ending of a life. That’s what I meant by 'you can’t turn back after that."

I suppose that, once having committed a murder, you CAN kill yourself as an attempt to atone…but that’s not atonement, that’s just committing another murder.

I’m allergic to laws that force religious doctrine upon those who do not share it. Even when that doctrine is mine.

Teach? Yes. Persuade?" Absolutely. Force? Never…'a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Mary Doria Russell’s novel set in WWII Italy includes a German who had stood at the ramp. He got TB, repented, and confessed, but the priest denied absolution, telling him he was only afraid of death. He atoned by joining the Resistance.

Only a fictional character, but there is atonement for murder.

Your other set of comments mark a marvelous breakthrough. :flowers:

dianaiad · Jul 26, 2009

Jerusha said:
Mary Doria Russell’s novel set in WWII Italy includes a German who had stood at the ramp. He got TB, repented, and confessed, but the priest denied absolution, telling him he was only afraid of death. He atoned by joining the Resistance. Only a fictional character, but there is atonement for murder.

Your other set of comments mark a marvelous breakthrough. :flowers:

Huh?

How does it mark a ‘marvelous breakthrough,’ Jerusha? Nothing in my post reflects any change in my thinking—or what I have written. I’m glad you finally agree with me, though. THAT could be termed a 'marvelous breakthrough."

As to your fictional character…no. NOTHING that man could possibly do could atone for murder, no matter how many lives he saved, or how hard he works for good; the lives he was instrumental in ending remain lost.

An aborted child remains dead, no matter how repentant the mother and her doctors are. Therefore, if an abortion is necessary, there had better be no other option-because there are few tragedies worse than the death of a child, no matter what stage of life that child is in.

A murdered man is still murdered. If the murderer could come back and give the life back that he took, ok—but he cannot. In this case he has to put his faith in the Atonement–because the murderer can’t possibly atone for that himself.

Mormons do consider murder to be the worst sin that one can commit, shy of the one unpardonable sin–denying the Holy Ghost. THAT one is very difficult to do, so in real life, murder is about it.

zerinus · Jul 26, 2009

RC_Matt said:
Christians do not believe that there are multiple gods.