Mormons to build temple in Rome

[mjf001]

No, it would not matter.

Why should I share such an experience with you? Joseph Smith testified of that same experience, and you do not believe him either.

How would you know that I was telling the truth, or not halucinating or whatever?

You would not know. You would be speculating.

It would not impove your understanding from where you are right now. And no amount of study could convince you conclusively.

Don’t you see my point?

You would only know if you yourself had the experience.

Why did Paul NOT doubt his own experience?

You have not answered any of these points because you cannot.

In response to an earlier post, you stated that the LDS know the facts are wrong. Wouldn’t that, by definition mean they aren’t facts. As an LDS, I believed in very few black and whites. I said repeatedly that the world was full of gray’s. Looking back, I believe I felt this way, because of the mental gymnastics I had to go through to ignore the facts. You’ve criticized what you refer to as black and white thinking. I would like to propose that some things have to be looked at as black and white. The ten commandments for example; after all, they’re not called the ten suggestions. The words of Jesus as another example.
There was a period of time in my youth where the LDS had a chance to keep me from leaving. All they had to do was give me some objective “fact” that I could hold onto. In the fifteen years since I left, I’ve had numerous conversations with members of my family, some who are still convinced that I’ll come back if they come at me with the right argument. All I’ve ever heard, though is the same subjective arguments over and over again. Just packaged a little differently each time. There has to be something objective, something solid, otherwise, all you have is sand. Have you ever seen what the wind can do with sand?
With all due respect, all I’ve read from you are the same subjective arguments I hear from my family all the time. In RCIA I had to accept some things on faith, but there were also objective things that I didn’t just have to accept. That is where I feel the difference is. Facts don’t change, that’s why they’re called facts.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[mfbukowski]

In response to an earlier post, you stated that the LDS know the facts are wrong. Wouldn’t that, by definition mean they aren’t facts. As an LDS, I believed in very few black and whites. I said repeatedly that the world was full of gray’s. Looking back, I believe I felt this way, because of the mental gymnastics I had to go through to ignore the facts. You’ve criticized what you refer to as black and white thinking. I would like to propose that some things have to be looked at as black and white. The ten commandments for example; after all, they’re not called the ten suggestions. The words of Jesus as another example.
There was a period of time in my youth where the LDS had a chance to keep me from leaving. All they had to do was give me some objective “fact” that I could hold onto. In the fifteen years since I left, I’ve had numerous conversations with members of my family, some who are still convinced that I’ll come back if they come at me with the right argument. All I’ve ever heard, though is the same subjective arguments over and over again. Just packaged a little differently each time. There has to be something objective, something solid, otherwise, all you have is sand. Have you ever seen what the wind can do with sand?
With all due respect, all I’ve read from you are the same subjective arguments I hear from my family all the time. In RCIA I had to accept some things on faith, but there were also objective things that I didn’t just have to accept. That is where I feel the difference is. Facts don’t change, that’s why they’re called facts.

In Christ,
Michael

That black and white discussion is on another thread I was just reading.

Unfortunately, facts DO change. It used to be a “fact” that the sun went around the earth. It used to be a “fact” that atoms were the smallest divisible unit of matter. It used to be a “fact” that Pluto was a planet.

And then there are the “facts” that are subject to interpretation, like whether or not it was Columbus who “discovered” America. If you are native american, you may disagree with that idea. Or perhaps the Vikings “discovered” America.

Or the exact date of the Fall of Rome. All these have been discussed at length elsewhere.

Most “facts” require a context to define them. But the context is subject to change.

Ultimately all we “know” is our own experiences.

No one seems willing to answer the question I have posed:

How did Paul know his conversion experience was of God?

How did Peter know that Jesus was the Christ?

There was no Magesterium and no tradition to tell them it was.

 

[mfbukowski]

The questions at hand have been overlooked and answered with another question by you. You haven’t answered any questions put forth. Sounds like promoting your beliefs is your primary concern.

We tell you we believe the Bible, you claim the Bible is errant. We tell you God granted us the gift of faith, you doubt us. You asked how we know Jesus was the Christ, yet one of your prophets claims Mormons don’t believe in the traditional Christ.

**“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.’” (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 ) **

Do Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers?

It really appears there are big differences in the Jesus we believe in and the one Mormons believe in.

The Mormon Jesus

1. The literal son of god and his goddess wife begotten in the pre-existence.
2. The brother of all spirits born in heaven in the premortal existence.
3. One of 3 gods in the godhead.
4. The Trinity is three separate gods.
5. First one to receive a spirit body.
6. Atoned for sin on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemane.

The Christian Jesus

1. Not the literal son of god and his goddess wife.
2. Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven in a premortal existence.
3. Not one of 3 gods in the godhead.
4. The Trinity is 3 persons in one God.
5. Was always spirit from eternity.
6. Atoned for sin on the cross alone.

You can re-ask the same questions over and over if you like, and I can do the same. President Hinckley is right. You are distorting our position.

How did Paul know his experience was of God?

I will not stop asking that question until I get an answer.

It appears no one can answer it.

Because I am right. It ultimately boils down to “subjective experience”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You can re-ask the same questions over and over if you like, and I can do the same. President Hinckley is right. You are distorting our position.

How did Paul know his experience was of God?

I will not stop asking that question until I get an answer.

It appears no one can answer it.

Because I am right. It ultimately boils down to “subjective experience”.

No, you are projecting your experiences onto St.Paul. There is no more to be said than what Jesus’ Himself said. Anyone who has had an encounter with a Person, the One Who died for all, KNOWS.

You are the one that keeps on insisting it has to be a “feeling”, as I have already told you, it is not a feeling, it is a KNOWING.

 

[mfbukowski]

No, you are projecting your experiences onto St.Paul. There is no more to be said than what Jesus’ Himself said. Anyone who has had an encounter with a Person, the One Who died for all, KNOWS.

You are the one that keeps on insisting it has to be a “feeling”, as I have already told you, it is not a feeling, it is a KNOWING.

I completely agree with you, but I think your Catholic compatriots do not. They are insisting that one needs tradition and the Magesterium to know anything is true. They do not have the KNOWING experience I guess.

 

[Jerusha]

Unfortunately, facts DO change.

And then there are the “facts” that are subject to interpretation, like whether or not it was Columbus who “discovered” America. If you are native american, you may disagree with that idea. Or perhaps the Vikings “discovered” America.

.

So facts do change? Then you no longer believe that it is a fact that Jews discovered the Americas?

Maybe you believe that if the Vikings discovered America, you, as a descendant of the Vikings, have the right to the land?

Neither one holds water for me.

 

[ronald_g_w]

He was there.

Matt. 16: 17
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.

From the above scripture it is evedent that just being there was not enough for many walked and talked with Him yet gained no testimony as to his devine calling and who he was. The witness has to come from the Holy Ghost inorder to cement it within our very being hence this witness is more sure than just being there.

 

[PaulDupre]

I completely agree with you, but I think your Catholic compatriots do not. They are insisting that one needs tradition and the Magesterium to know anything is true. They do not have the KNOWING experience I guess.

We do have the knowing experience, but we Catholics don’t brag about it and use it as evidence that our Church is true. It is very private, as private revelation should be.

My son, who also posts on these fora, describes it as someone opening a drawer in the file cabinet of his mind, inserting a folder and closing the drawer. Suddenly the information is just there where it was not before, along with a profound awe at the miracle of it all. I think that describes very well what I experience as a Catholic.

Now I will not mention it again - it is private and sacred.

 

[ronald_g_w]

let’s look at this. Peter was called by Jesus himself in the flesh and personally taught by Jesus up to that point. Abraham was personally visited by angels and received significant miracles prior to making a covenant directly with God himself. Noah was directed by God himself and witnessed vast miracles. Of course i believe in revelation. God had the Bible produced for that reason. so that I could learn what he has revealed. Read Hebrews, especially the first chapter. what the prophets started jesus completed. there is no need for more public revelation. that is a tough sell even amongst LDS. how much canonized scripture has come forth since Brigham Young? personal revelation is important but I think LDS carry it too far. Jesus taught us correct principles and expects us to apply them when we think for ourselves. What value is revelation on the number of earrings to wear or if it’s okay to have facial hair. do you really expect revelation on what stocks to invest in? I’ll just repeat something Gordon B. Hinkley once said (paraphrasing for brevity) we don’t need a lot more revelation we need to focus on what we already have. Here is my point…the bible tells us what we need to know from a scriptural standpoint. the church that jesus established that wrote those words down and assembled them into a canon and then passed down the apostles teaching of what those scriptures mean provides us with the context to understand those revealed words. prayer and study can do the rest. the combined effect takes a lot more time but I can tell you that in my case it provides a much deeper and complete faith. I believe the catholic church IS the church that God created and nurtures to this day. I believe after much study and prayer that Joseph smith was a fraud.

good. it needs to be clearly understood that this is NOT a place for mormons to gain converts or even “plant seeds” of conversion. this is a place to learn about the Catholic faith and in this particular forum to discuss other faiths within that context. it is obvious when people come her with no interest whatsoever in catholicism. it is just as obvious when the ruse of “i’m just correcting the errors and denouncing the lies” is used to obscure blatant missionary attempts.

Can I ask you a question has the Catholic Church not changed a single doctrine, from the time of Peter, Have the Popes never made changes that have helped the church in its progress since the time of the Apostles ?

 

[majick275]

Can I ask you a question has the Catholic Church not changed a single doctrine, from the time of Peter, Have the Popes never made changes that have helped the church in its progress since the time of the Apostles ?

you ask multiple questions packaged as one.

The Catholic Church has NEVER changed actual doctrine. while our understanding of the revealed truth may increase and/or may require clarification, the truth doesn’t change. God doesn’t change either.

Popes, councils, bishops, etc. have made many changes over the years that have helped the church. those would include practices, disciplines, organization, liturgies and such.

 

[ronald_g_w]

The questions at hand have been overlooked and answered with another question by you. You haven’t answered any questions put forth. Sounds like promoting your beliefs is your primary concern.

We tell you we believe the Bible, you claim the Bible is errant. We tell you God granted us the gift of faith, you doubt us. You asked how we know Jesus was the Christ, yet one of your prophets claims Mormons don’t believe in the traditional Christ.

**“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.’” (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 ) **

Do Mormons believe Jesus and Satan were brothers?

It really appears there are big differences in the Jesus we believe in and the one Mormons believe in.

The Mormon Jesus

1. The literal son of god and his goddess wife begotten in the pre-existence.
2. The brother of all spirits born in heaven in the premortal existence.
3. One of 3 gods in the godhead.
4. The Trinity is three separate gods.
5. First one to receive a spirit body.
6. Atoned for sin on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemane.

The Christian Jesus

1. Not the literal son of god and his goddess wife.
2. Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven in a premortal existence.
3. Not one of 3 gods in the godhead.
4. The Trinity is 3 persons in one God.
5. Was always spirit from eternity.
6. Atoned for sin on the cross alone.

Your point # 6 how do you read / understand this scripture ?

41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

If the garden of Gethsemane was not part of his atonement, why did an angle come to strengthen Him and why was his agony so great at this time to cause His sweat as it were great drops of BLOOD. there were others in his day who were crucified therefor this alone was not what prompted him to say if thou be willing, remove this cup from me. Surely it included that moment, His trial, ridicule, scurging and altimately the cross ?

 

[TurboVW]

As a former resident of Rome (frazione Monte Mario), I too was drawn with interest with this recent article and glad I came upon this thread to see all the many varied replies.

I can tell you that Rome is a very cosmopolitan and international city. There are churches of every religion there. I had American friends who would take the bus downtown to the Presbyterian and Methodist churches for Sunday services in English.

Yes, it’s an initally scary thought of an LDS church in Rome. But if you follow the state of Catholicism in Europe today, this might help Romans to rediscover and defend their faith…Italians generally do not welcome such things. We get Italian JWs (and American LDS youth) calling at our door frequently because I live in a predominantly Italian neighborhood. My father and my neighbors morph into theologians when they come to the door and try to bring them “back to Roma.”

Maybe this will happen with the LDS in Rome??? Just a lofty though.

 

[PaulDupre]

Your point # 6 how do you read / understand this scripture ?

41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

If the garden of Gethsemane was not part of his atonement, why did an angle come to strengthen Him and why was his agony so great at this time to cause His sweat as it were great drops of BLOOD. there were others in his day who were crucified therefor this alone was not what prompted him to say if thou be willing, remove this cup from me. Surely it included that moment, His trial, ridicule, scurging and altimately the cross ?

The Catholic Church agrees with you on this, as do I.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You can re-ask the same questions over and over if you like, and I can do the same. President Hinckley is right. You are distorting our position.

How did Paul know his experience was of God?

I will not stop asking that question until I get an answer.

It appears no one can answer it.

Because I am right. It ultimately boils down to “subjective experience”.

I’m not going to re-ask questions. It’s apparent you are avoiding answering and using the Mormon technique of ‘answering the question that should have been asked’.

We are at an impasse. You say, repeatedly, no one can answer your questions. What you mean is no one can answer them to your satisfaction. Does that, in itself, make our answers wrong? Only in your ‘opinion’.

We believe we are right. You believe you are right. From this point, we have to find a way to ‘discover’ right. The problem is, you will only consider, as you say, your own personal subjective experience. Subjective experience cannot be fully shared. We turn to scriptures, traditions and the Church, which you fully disregard as wrong over your subjective experience.

Catholics feel their own subjective experience that leads them to seek and know the truth, through prayer, scriptures, traditions and His Church. These things have been documented and existed since the death and resurrection of Christ.

All you offer is your own subjective experience and an admittance of no evidence or proof whatsoever.

I can understand our Protestant brothers and sisters, as they have a part of the truth that came from the Church. The problem with Mormonism as I see it is, Mormons have scriptures but deny it’s inerrancy and have an entirely different interpretation. I’m not aware of any Protestants that believe in the plurality of God. I don’t know of any Protestants that believe Jesus and satan were brothers or ‘spirit’ brothers. I don’t know of any Protestants that believe God the Father is an exalted man. I don’t know of Protestants that believe they, themselves, can one day be exalted to be Gods. I don’t know of any Protestants that believe in surrogate baptisms for the dead. I’m not aware of any Protestants that believe the Bible to be errant.

Protestants have a ‘connection’ to truth, as the reformation came directly from the Church Christ built, promised to be with until the consummation of the world and assured us even the gates of hell would not prevail. Are there doctrinal differences? Yes, most definately. Those doctrinal differences do not include the many differences between Mormonism and Christianity.

I do thank you for the answers you have given and for the research you’ve made me do when you avoided giving answers. I have learned a lot, even though it’s not what you hoped I, or others, would accept.

I will not continue the arguments with you any longer, as I admit, I am weak and easily drawn into the ‘return fire’ attitude to your style of ‘sharing’. I see condescending, ad hominem attacks, obfuscation and covert purposes behind all your posts anymore. I believe you are not here to truly share as much as you are here in a veiled attempt to seek conversions.

When I see you raise issues that I have gained knowledge of, I will share what I learned for the sake of those who might be considering what you say.

You are in my prayers.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

You did not address the instances in which “new doctrine” was established, (Moses , others – Mary and Joseph) and I would disagree that new doctrine is not established this way. Just think about it. The entire bible is “new doctrine” if you don’t have a bible, and was revealed to people, the prophets.

The bible is public revelation; not private revelation. There is a clear difference between the two.

mfbukowski:

Prophets can receive new doctrine by revelation. Would you dispute that? Where did the bible come from then?

I’m not disputing the fact that the bible is inspired and revealed by God. And I’m not disputing that the revelations experienced and documented in the bible are also real. And I’m certainly not going to dispute the validity of the preaching declared by the prophets of the OT and of John the Baptist. But I’m drawing a distinction between public and private revelation. I’m also distinguishing between revelation of the truth of previously publicly revealed doctrine (i.e. Christ’s manifestation to Paul on the Damascus road as confirming christian claims of Christ’s resurrection), as opposed to post-Apostolic individuals who claim that God privately revealed to them alone startlingly new and divergent doctrines. IOW I’m not disputing that the prophets of the bible were called by God. But I question the claims of modern day prophets, because I believe public revelation ended at the death of John, the last Apostle.

mfbukowski:

If it was “only” a “conversion experience” like Paul’s, that is good enough for me.

Good enough for what? For doctrine? What if your wife wakes up tomorrow and tells you that the Angel Moroni visited her in a dream and told her she was to marry another man? Is that “good enough” or would you question your wife’s conclusions regarding the source of her dream?

mfbukowski:

Imagine a conversation between Paul and a buddhist from 2000 years ago where the buddhist or zoroastrian speaks the same arguments you have made. “Well buddhists and zoroastrians and worshippers of mithras also have revelations, and you can’t be sure it is true doctrine” How would Paul answer those questions?

First, that’s not exactly what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that an individual’s private revelation is no basis for establishing truth of doctrine. I’m not saying that doctrines cannot be shown to be true.

I’m guessing that under your scenario, Paul would come to the same conclusion I have. That personal visions and revelations are no basis for arguing the truth of doctrine to someone else; and he would move to another line of argument. Perhaps reasoning from his own faith, as in his speech to the men of Athens. (Acts 17: 20ff) He pointed, ultimately, to the truth of the resurrection. He did not say believe me because God revealed the truth of Christianity to me in a profound conversion experience. Nor did he beg the Athenians to read the hebrew scriptures and pray for personal revelation. He called men to repent and come to Christ because the Day of the Lord was coming.

mfbukowski:

How did Paul know it was true, and not a halucination?

Faith and reason. Not personal revelation.

mfbukowski:

How do we know that Moses had not picked up a strange herb in the sandwich he carried to Sinai?

Faith and reason. Not personal revelation.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

So facts do change? Then you no longer believe that it is a fact that Jews discovered the Americas?

Maybe you believe that if the Vikings discovered America, you, as a descendant of the Vikings, have the right to the land?

Neither one holds water for me.

The conclusions change, because the study of early American history is ongoing and new evidence is uncovered all the time. But the FACT of who it was that first came to the western hemisphere is fixed and unchangeable.

Either the Jews discovered America, or they did not.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

So facts do change? Then you no longer believe that it is a fact that Jews discovered the Americas?

Maybe you believe that if the Vikings discovered America, you, as a descendant of the Vikings, have the right to the land?

Neither one holds water for me.

Yes, I own all of America. That is exactly what the post was about.

 

[mfbukowski]

We do have the knowing experience, but we Catholics don’t brag about it and use it as evidence that our Church is true. It is very private, as private revelation should be.

My son, who also posts on these fora, describes it as someone opening a drawer in the file cabinet of his mind, inserting a folder and closing the drawer. Suddenly the information is just there where it was not before, along with a profound awe at the miracle of it all. I think that describes very well what I experience as a Catholic.

Now I will not mention it again - it is private and sacred.

Thanks for that Paul

I understand “private and sacred”, but many here do not.

 

[mfbukowski]

Can I ask you a question has the Catholic Church not changed a single doctrine, from the time of Peter, Have the Popes never made changes that have helped the church in its progress since the time of the Apostles ?

What about the Immaculate Conception as a major example?

 

[mfbukowski]

The conclusions change, because the study of early American history is ongoing and new evidence is uncovered all the time. But the FACT of who it was that first came to the western hemisphere is fixed and unchangeable.

Either the Jews discovered America, or they did not.

Peace,
-Robert

It sounds like you are saying that there are “facts” out there somewhere which no one has discovered yet?