A
amgid
Guest
flameburns623
You have neither understood my position correctly, nor Ben’s.
amgid
You have neither understood my position correctly, nor Ben’s.
amgid
- Status
B
ben_dy
Guest
Flame,
I admit that my speculations as to why amgid would be pleased that there exists no LDS equivalent of the CCC is completely unfair to him and the only excuse I offer (which is, I admit, not a good excuse) has nothing to do with amgid but rather the slamming dismissal and personal insults that I had recently read of D. Michael Quinn in a FARMS review. This man, once so highly respected, was (apparently) ex-communicated because he published genuine Mormon history that was an embarrassment to the LDS and whose book, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power” I enjoyed immensely and thought it ‘fair and balanced’ (although I’ve come to realize, through reading FARMS reviews, that any publication by Signature Books, and any articles published in Dialogue are automatically labeled as 'anti-Mormon). Yet the man professes to believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture. It seems that Quinn (once a respected scholar now a ‘bizarre’ figure) is open for ridicule - along with any LDS scholars - if they present less-than-divine hagiography of Joseph Smith (or any personage of the early Mormon church who left or who was cast out). This type of lashing out is so foreign to me, even amongst Catholic theologians who have been denied the right to teach or publish (even early Ratzinger was ‘controversial’ - yet did not stray so far as to enjoy censure) and although I’ve read some well-reasoned diatribes against heretical historians and theologians coming for Catholic Church sanctioned university employees, I’ve never read such sheer venom as I so often find on FARMS.
As to my speculations themselves, they are mine alone - putting myself in the place of a member of the LDS church and finding almost enumerable doctrines that didn’t pan out and so were dropped, doctrines that were once doctrine before they became embarrassments, changes and embellishments to revelations, etc. I should not have done that because I lack the faith that seems to need no reason to follow that - to me - seems prevalent amongst some LDS members.
I have “Gospel Principles” and several “Gospel Doctrine Study Guide” pamphlets that I ordered from DeseretBook.com as well as a number of booklets and pamphlets that are teaching aids published by (according to DeseretBook.com) “Church Distribution” that were given to me during my missionary visits two years ago (and I finally found my six lesson brochures - and one book that I was given with some amazing photos of temples around the world). At this point I’m ‘burnt out’ both in terms of funds and space for buying any new LDS literature… in the past couple of weeks I’ve been relying on the Internet for LDS reading material).
You were correct in advising me to “take more care” and I appreciate the comment. It has been a long time since I’ve participated in discussion boards and while I can be strongly opinionated about, for example, the “best” walks in Wales, in matters of faith I am, in person, congenial and careful not to be presumptuous while - obviously in this case - I have not mastered that art here. Being Catholic in the buckle of the Bible Belt has not always been easy and I have usually described myself as a congenial controversialist but, here, I strayed from congeniality and, for that, I apologize and will take your advice to heart.
B
ben_dy
Guest
amgid,
I realize that where you are not being deliberately obtuse (such in your claim that “apostolic church” was a “Freudian misspelling” - as I believe you termed it - for “apostate church”) you seem to be obtuse in the history of your own Church (as in not knowing to what I’m referring when I wrote of “Moroni becom(ing) Nephite again”.
So - discussion is pointless: Flame was correct in pointing out that I need take more care in the content and tone of my messages but I fear that I am unable to do so if you continue to display disregard for what I actually write, as opposed to that which you wish that I had written, and if you are not conversant with the history of your church. The former is insulting, the latter is of no profit to anyone.
I realize that where you are not being deliberately obtuse (such in your claim that “apostolic church” was a “Freudian misspelling” - as I believe you termed it - for “apostate church”) you seem to be obtuse in the history of your own Church (as in not knowing to what I’m referring when I wrote of “Moroni becom(ing) Nephite again”.
So - discussion is pointless: Flame was correct in pointing out that I need take more care in the content and tone of my messages but I fear that I am unable to do so if you continue to display disregard for what I actually write, as opposed to that which you wish that I had written, and if you are not conversant with the history of your church. The former is insulting, the latter is of no profit to anyone.
B
ben_dy
Guest
And here is where my understanding of the one single prophet at a time falls short: you seem to be saying, as LDS members have, that prophets only speak ‘prophetically’ when the revelations are bound and printed in the standard LDS works. But, from reading the JoD, various diaries, recorded sermons, etc., of speeches in which they speak of having received a revelation (and let’s just dismiss Adam-God and Blood Atonement as TOO egregious for discussion!) so let’s take the ‘adoption by sealing’ practice as an example (and B. Young and Wilford Woodruff?) - and these revelations are published and practiced, are these revelations doctrine as long as they continue to be practiced and until another revelation comes from a subsequent prophet that this particular doctrine is NOT to be practiced and, at that point, ceases to be doctrine: or was it doctrine in the first place as it was not published in the standard works.
I’m sure you can appreciate, that as a Catholic, I find this very confusing and if you could explain - or point me in the direction of an explanation (but, gosh, no $50 tome, please! I’m moving to Maine and need to buy some warm clothes!) I would be grateful!
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Thanks for asking. Briefly:
Since the 5th century local bishops have written catechisms (in the vernacular, BTW) for the instruction of their priests and laity. This is within their authority and their primary role as preachers of the gospel. But there was no general catechism for the entire Church until 1564.
The council of Trent decided that, in order to counter all of the misinformation in anti-Catholic tracts circulating throughout Europe, a general Roman Catechism should be prepared. A team of four bishops was assembled for the task. In 1564 they completed the Roman Catechism. It was rather scholarly in tone and was written primarily for the clergy to use to instruct the faithful, but was also designed to be studied by the educated faithful.
In 1891, the Diocese of Baltimore, MD created a student catechism to be used in its Sunday School classes. This Baltimore Catechism is made up of more than 200 very short lessons in Q&A format that are very easy to understand. This catechism became so popular throughout the United States that it is still a classic to this day.
Pope John Paul II perceived the need for a new general catechism for the worldwide Church that would address modern social and technological developments and be written in a style more accessible to the average Catholic. In 1992 the Catechism of the Catholic Church was published. Its format is similar to that of the Roman Catechism of 1564. It is divided into four sections:
I: The profession of Faith
II: The celebration of the Christian Mystery (worship)
III: Life in Christ
IV: Christian Prayer
The Catechisms are available at any book store.
They are also online in many places:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/contents.cfm
The Baltimore Catechism (which I still love dearly):
catholicinformationcenteroninternet.org/Catechism/
Hope this helps.
Paul
F
flameburns623
Guest
Ben:
I’m not a practicing Mormon. I’m Anglican, and left the LDS Church some years hence. About all that I can say is that the teachings of living or recent General Authorities hold the same sort of teaching authority as the Magisterium of the RCC, but that over time it is understod that some GA’s will have espoused opinions which are no longer approved of by the ‘living Prophet and Apostles’. Also–that General Authorities are as free to engage in personal speculation as is the Pope or any other Roman Catholic leader.
The problem is that no rules of ‘ex cathedra’ have been properly hammered out–one never knows quite where private speculation ends and Official Declarations might begin. (“Official Declaration” is how the last revelation or two were entitled). The LDS Church has spent the last century or so in a relatively quiet period of history. Their leaders have had the luxury of being circumspect, restrained, thoughtful. Their people have been comfortable and therefore quiescent, not clamoring for action in the midst of a panic. The Church is not experiencing the loss of it’s properties nor the death of great masses of it’s people.
The LAST time it went through such experiences–it had at least two leaders (Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, not to mention those they assembled around them) who were charismatic and popular–and given to outlandish speculations and outright criminal actions. I certainly do NOT believe that the LDS Church is in any way under the special protection of God Almighty. I would fear that under pressure one would see some truly unscrupulous or outright unbalanced men rise to the top of the LDS hierarchy.
I am engaging in wanton speculation here–but who really knows where the LDS Church would meander if cast into truly dire straits? Let’s hope God holds off the chaos that could create a leader or series of leaders such as Smith or Young for a tad longer. If not for the sake of the LDS Church, then for the sake of all who would suffer in the midst of the chaos.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Sorry I forgot, here is a link to the original 1564 AD Roman Catechism from the council of Trent:
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tindex.htm
It is good to compare this catechism to the current one.
There was an even earlier catechism compiled by St. Thomas Aquinas.
God bless,
Paul
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tindex.htm
It is good to compare this catechism to the current one.
There was an even earlier catechism compiled by St. Thomas Aquinas.
God bless,
Paul
M
mormon_fool
Guest
Wow, thanks for all this great information about the history of catechisms. Give the CoJCoLDS 5 centuries and maybe we will have one too
!later,
fool
B
BJRumph
Guest
Gee Mormon Fool; with continuing Public Revelation, what on earth do you need five centuries for? GBH should be able to whipp one out in a month or two; though I suppose getting through Correlation Committee might need those centuries afterall…
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
mormon fool:
I don’t know if you could do so, unless you created an open-ended document. Don’t you LDS’ believe in an open canon? If so, then you should publish an additional volume of your cetechism at the end of each year, kind of like how the Supreme Court publishes its cases in new volumes that continue to accrue. It would be different from the Catholic Catechism, but if properly indexed, it may be helpful to those both inside and outside of the LDS who wish to study the religion.Wow, thanks for all this great information about the history of catechisms. Give the CoJCoLDS 5 centuries and maybe we will have one too
later,
fool
M
majick275
Guest
Mormons what are they? hmmm… well first things first.
Most of us see “in the begining” as it is written in Genesis. (true some it allegorically, some literally and some see it in various places between the two)
Here then is found Satan’s first attempt (first in this existence at least) to tempt man to disobey God and thus become “evil”. That very first temptation appealed to man’s pride and basically said that if man would violate the one commandment he had been given at that time then he would become like God.
This is very significant when studying LDS beliefs because it is so heavily emphasized. (JS claims to have corrected the translation of genesis to produce the book of Moses, The book of Abraham tells this same story from a different viewpoint much like Luke and Matthew tell the Gospel, The Temple ceremony definitely emphasizes this) LDS teachings tell us of a “pre-existence” in which Satan showed his own pride and tempted man with the promise of salvation guaranteed if we would give him the glory instead of God.
The common thread here is that Satan wants to appeal to pride to prevent people from worshipping God. He certainly doesn’t want people out doing what Jesus did. He wants glory and offers the promise of this to others. (obviously a false promise)
What if he could find a way to spin that original idea of his, you know get Man to turn from what God commands by getting him to try and become like God? What if he could get motivated, pious, goodhearted people so focused on this that they started leaving the example of Jesus behind?
Most of us see “in the begining” as it is written in Genesis. (true some it allegorically, some literally and some see it in various places between the two)
Here then is found Satan’s first attempt (first in this existence at least) to tempt man to disobey God and thus become “evil”. That very first temptation appealed to man’s pride and basically said that if man would violate the one commandment he had been given at that time then he would become like God.
This is very significant when studying LDS beliefs because it is so heavily emphasized. (JS claims to have corrected the translation of genesis to produce the book of Moses, The book of Abraham tells this same story from a different viewpoint much like Luke and Matthew tell the Gospel, The Temple ceremony definitely emphasizes this) LDS teachings tell us of a “pre-existence” in which Satan showed his own pride and tempted man with the promise of salvation guaranteed if we would give him the glory instead of God.
The common thread here is that Satan wants to appeal to pride to prevent people from worshipping God. He certainly doesn’t want people out doing what Jesus did. He wants glory and offers the promise of this to others. (obviously a false promise)
What if he could find a way to spin that original idea of his, you know get Man to turn from what God commands by getting him to try and become like God? What if he could get motivated, pious, goodhearted people so focused on this that they started leaving the example of Jesus behind?
M
majick275
Guest
(continued)
This is what I find that Mormons are. They have created a church that teaches men to become Gods.
Look at the phenomenal amounts of money, time and effort that good people in the Mormon church devote to Temple work. what could these (the best of Mormons) accomplish for the glory of God with that same amount of dedication and resources? Can you imagine the amount of service and relief that could help people all over the world that could be accomplished with that type of commitment? (and just where in the canonized scriptures do the followers of Jesus leave the needs of the living to focus on redeeming the dead?)
I have to believe that Satan laughs with delight when all of those people throughout the world focus so much effort and resources on ordinances for the dead. time when they are in those temples performing vain repetitions and out of Satan’s way.
Jesus preached to the spirits of the dead. Really? then why would they need any human intervention? Is this (redeeming the dead) taught in the book of mormon which contains a fullness of the gospel? no, that book tells us that this lifetime is when we must work out our salvation. Does this book of mormon teach eternal increase or plurality of Gods or even the deification of man? No? so where do they get these from? Which canonized scriptures are the endowment ceremony in? (or even the command to perform any ordinances other than baptism on behalf of the dead)
Every time a mormon thinks about how great it’s going to be to become a God then Satan smiles. Pride…his favorite sin. The Mormon who thinks of his family unit as the ultimate “heaven” minimizes Gods place in his life. He is not focused on eternal worship of the almighty, that is but a means to an end. He is preparing to rule over his queens and priestesses and watch over his eternal increase. Thanks to God? sure but the main focus is getting that crown, becoming as the Gods! after all, families are forever!
Satan holds an important role in the LDS temple. He is the first being that the newly created Adam and Eve interact with after being placed in the garden. He answers their prayers (with no interference from the Lord) and when he succeeds in tempting them, it is he who clothes them. (in an apron that they will wear throughout the rest of the temple experience, even over the clothes that God gives to them) It is he who tells God that he is just doing what has been done on other worlds.(He tells this to a God who seems to have no clue what is happening on this planet and relies on the “reports” of his subordinates to know what occurs on this Earth that he did not even create.) He tells the people that if they ever falter they will be under his power and defiantly tells God what he will do with this “new” world. God never contradicts or corrects any of this in the Mormon Temples.When Gods messengers determine it’s time they just send Satan away. No refutation of Satan’s message, even the fall is justified “so that man might be”. As if to say that No human would have existed after Adam and Eve had they not sinned. Eve tells Adam how much better off they are for having done as Satan said. What Satan told them is that this is how God became God and that is never refuted in these sessions. No what Satan teaches in the Temple is unfortunately what Mormons believe, That they may become Gods in the same manner that their Father in heaven became a God.
The delegating to Jesus who delegates to either Michael (Adam) or to Peter, James and John by the Father shows little involvement from the Mormon God. Rather the lesson is that men are empowered by God to run things for now and may become Gods if they follow the correct process. (big G, heavenly father staying greater because he is lord over lords who will be over lords, etc. to the everlasting increase of his kingdoms)
Satan says to the mormon that he teaches them the doctrines of men mingled with scripture. Yet as we have established here, every Sunday in LDS churches around the world and even in their general conferences they teach just that. the doctrines of their general authorities, subject to change (or interpretation or even refutation) mingled with scriptures pulled out of context to support the current position. No catechism, magisterium, or even trained clergy. Lots of speculation.
This is what I find that Mormons are. They have created a church that teaches men to become Gods.
Look at the phenomenal amounts of money, time and effort that good people in the Mormon church devote to Temple work. what could these (the best of Mormons) accomplish for the glory of God with that same amount of dedication and resources? Can you imagine the amount of service and relief that could help people all over the world that could be accomplished with that type of commitment? (and just where in the canonized scriptures do the followers of Jesus leave the needs of the living to focus on redeeming the dead?)
I have to believe that Satan laughs with delight when all of those people throughout the world focus so much effort and resources on ordinances for the dead. time when they are in those temples performing vain repetitions and out of Satan’s way.
Jesus preached to the spirits of the dead. Really? then why would they need any human intervention? Is this (redeeming the dead) taught in the book of mormon which contains a fullness of the gospel? no, that book tells us that this lifetime is when we must work out our salvation. Does this book of mormon teach eternal increase or plurality of Gods or even the deification of man? No? so where do they get these from? Which canonized scriptures are the endowment ceremony in? (or even the command to perform any ordinances other than baptism on behalf of the dead)
Every time a mormon thinks about how great it’s going to be to become a God then Satan smiles. Pride…his favorite sin. The Mormon who thinks of his family unit as the ultimate “heaven” minimizes Gods place in his life. He is not focused on eternal worship of the almighty, that is but a means to an end. He is preparing to rule over his queens and priestesses and watch over his eternal increase. Thanks to God? sure but the main focus is getting that crown, becoming as the Gods! after all, families are forever!
Satan holds an important role in the LDS temple. He is the first being that the newly created Adam and Eve interact with after being placed in the garden. He answers their prayers (with no interference from the Lord) and when he succeeds in tempting them, it is he who clothes them. (in an apron that they will wear throughout the rest of the temple experience, even over the clothes that God gives to them) It is he who tells God that he is just doing what has been done on other worlds.(He tells this to a God who seems to have no clue what is happening on this planet and relies on the “reports” of his subordinates to know what occurs on this Earth that he did not even create.) He tells the people that if they ever falter they will be under his power and defiantly tells God what he will do with this “new” world. God never contradicts or corrects any of this in the Mormon Temples.When Gods messengers determine it’s time they just send Satan away. No refutation of Satan’s message, even the fall is justified “so that man might be”. As if to say that No human would have existed after Adam and Eve had they not sinned. Eve tells Adam how much better off they are for having done as Satan said. What Satan told them is that this is how God became God and that is never refuted in these sessions. No what Satan teaches in the Temple is unfortunately what Mormons believe, That they may become Gods in the same manner that their Father in heaven became a God.
The delegating to Jesus who delegates to either Michael (Adam) or to Peter, James and John by the Father shows little involvement from the Mormon God. Rather the lesson is that men are empowered by God to run things for now and may become Gods if they follow the correct process. (big G, heavenly father staying greater because he is lord over lords who will be over lords, etc. to the everlasting increase of his kingdoms)
Satan says to the mormon that he teaches them the doctrines of men mingled with scripture. Yet as we have established here, every Sunday in LDS churches around the world and even in their general conferences they teach just that. the doctrines of their general authorities, subject to change (or interpretation or even refutation) mingled with scriptures pulled out of context to support the current position. No catechism, magisterium, or even trained clergy. Lots of speculation.
M
majick275
Guest
(continued)
Mormons, what are they?
simply (but sadly) they are those who Satan has deceived with his original plan. They are (in general) pious, good hearted “doers of the word” (although the wrong word) who have been tricked into spending their lifetimes in Temples for the dead and in pursuit of their own prideful dreams of Godhood. They have built a great and wealthy church that serves the purposes of the devil as they send out missionaries by the thousands to tell everyone that all other churches are false, that the whole world apostasized over 1800 years ago, the Bible isn’t reliable and only when Joseph Smith started his work was their a true church of God to be found anywhere on this earth.
To this I say :
Repent and be baptized that you might find the true grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Give up all prideful ambitions and humble yourselves before the Almighty Father, creator of heaven and Earth. Worship God the Holy Spirit who will testify of the truth of his words and grant you peace. One God, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Take joy in actually worshipping him. He loves you and calls to you now and forever.
Mormons, what are they?
simply (but sadly) they are those who Satan has deceived with his original plan. They are (in general) pious, good hearted “doers of the word” (although the wrong word) who have been tricked into spending their lifetimes in Temples for the dead and in pursuit of their own prideful dreams of Godhood. They have built a great and wealthy church that serves the purposes of the devil as they send out missionaries by the thousands to tell everyone that all other churches are false, that the whole world apostasized over 1800 years ago, the Bible isn’t reliable and only when Joseph Smith started his work was their a true church of God to be found anywhere on this earth.
To this I say :
Repent and be baptized that you might find the true grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Give up all prideful ambitions and humble yourselves before the Almighty Father, creator of heaven and Earth. Worship God the Holy Spirit who will testify of the truth of his words and grant you peace. One God, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Take joy in actually worshipping him. He loves you and calls to you now and forever.
- Status