P
PaulDupre
Guest
You believe that when we die we become angels??? We certainly do not believe that.
Angels and humans are not the same species. One can never become the other.
- Status
Angels and humans are not the same species. One can never become the other.
D
Dchsknight
Guest
Perfect example of another Mormon Lie and Trick used by Mormons. They take What some one says and twists it around on them. Not gonna work Mormon Liar.
P
prodigalson12
Guest
They are following a completely different set of words and beliefs then we are, they honestly believe what they say is true because they have not been shown the truth. I would not call them liars, misguided would be a better word for it.
In the 1800’s, there was very much a need, or desire for something different then Christianity, just as there is today. Too many people can’t handle the teachings of Christ as intended, so in all cases will form their own religion. In this case, I read earlier where this smith guy was told “all” of the current religions are false, that in itself clearly shows the exact nature of the “entity” that was influencing him and that entity did NOT come from God for if there was a time in history where there was no trace of a true religion, or spiritual belief, the end would have came well before it finalized to that stage, for there would be nobody left to save since there would no longer be any believers.
The number ONE draw they had within their formation, just as they do today, is the strong bond and community spirit, with neighbor actually helping their neighbor “as long as they believe the same doctrin”, and these guys very much do take care of their own, which should be admired to a point, the point being caught completely short with their refusal to help others in the same manner regardless of faith.
I do pity these misguided people’s, I feel sorry that they have been brainwashed into believing false doctrine, having been blinded to the truth and in the end, will see the error within all of it, for all that is covered will be uncovered and all that is hidden will be exposed.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Prodigal,
We each feel sorry for each other. I feel sorry for anyone who follows a religion thinking it is inspired by God that practices infant baptism and offering indulgences for the treasury of the magesterium, that martyred people who differed with their beliefs even if that practice was in the distant past. I would walk away from such a belief system. No, I would run away as fast as I could.
We each feel sorry for each other. I feel sorry for anyone who follows a religion thinking it is inspired by God that practices infant baptism and offering indulgences for the treasury of the magesterium, that martyred people who differed with their beliefs even if that practice was in the distant past. I would walk away from such a belief system. No, I would run away as fast as I could.
D
Dchsknight
Guest
Indulgences are of a thing of the past, Infant baptism is a Sign of the New Covenant just as Circumsion was. The Church had dark days, who doesn’t. Mormons did and do, to say that mormons have a perfect church is a lie. THe people that truly murder for different Beliefs is the Muslims, DO NOT EVER compare us to them ever again.
L
LDSGuy
Guest
Indulgences are still part of current Catholic practice. And no one is claiming the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perfect.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Yes, Indulgences are still part of the Catholic faith, but not in the way that ParkerD implied in his earlier post, where he stated “offering indulgences for the treasury of the magesterium”
Just to clarify his misconception about the Catholic faith, (that is what we’re here for right?) you won’t see any mention of the “treasury of the magesterium”/
A quote from the CCC:
1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.
What is an indulgence?
“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.”
“An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.” The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead
L
LDSGuy
Guest
I never posted earlier about “indulgences for the treasury of the magisterium”…I’m well aware of the Catholic practice, I was Catholic before becoming a Latter-day Saint.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
My bad. That was ParkerD. oops. I corrected the post
D
Dchsknight
Guest
Oh well you traded down…
T
The_GreyPilgrim
Guest
From St. Augustine of Hippo:
Why, then, does truth generate hatred, and why does thy
servant who preaches the truth come to be an enemy to them who
also love the happy life, which is nothing else than joy in the
truth – unless it be that truth is loved in such a way that those
who love something else besides her wish that to be the truth
which they do love. Since they are unwilling to be deceived, they
are unwilling to be convinced that they have been deceived.
Therefore, they hate the truth for the sake of whatever it is that
they love in place of the truth. They love truth when she shines
on them; and hate her when she rebukes them. And since they are
not willing to be deceived, but do wish to deceive, they love
truth when she reveals herself and hate her when she reveals them.
On this account, she will so repay them that those who are
unwilling to be exposed by her she will indeed expose against
their will, and yet will not disclose herself to them.
Thus, thus, truly thus: the human mind so blind and sick, so
base and ill-mannered, desires to lie hidden, but does not wish
that anything should be hidden from it. And yet the opposite is
what happens – the mind itself is not hidden from the truth, but
the truth is hidden from it. Yet even so, for all its
wretchedness, it still prefers to rejoice in truth rather than in
known falsehoods. It will, then, be happy only when without other
distractions it comes to rejoice in **that single Truth **through
which all things else are true.
Your opinion about my mental state aside I was merely pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in Joseph Smith’s book. The logic I use is syllogistic and not circular. I have proposed things and have provided facts to back up what I have proposed. The evidence is self-evident to one who chooses to lay aside preconceived notions and beliefs and looks at the historical record as it stands. If you choose to lay it aside I have done all that I can. I will pray to God that He may give to the grace of understanding.
6 years ago I was a seeking atheist who during my seeking investigated Mormonism as a possibility. The problem with Mormonism, along with all the other Protestant religions, is that all of you say the same thing: “Just read the book, listen to the Holy Spirit, and He will guide you.” The logical fallacy of this is that in order for that to be true that would mean that the Holy Spirit has purposely misled Christians into the 30,000+ Christian denominations that exist today. All of which disagree on such fundamental things such as who Jesus was and is, the effect of sacramental baptism, when baptism should be done, the Lord’s Supper, etc., etc. I didn’t then, and still don’t now, believe that the Holy Spirit would do that. So either the book(s) is wrong, or the people aren’t really being led by the Spirit and instead are merely following their own devices and imaginations. I believed it was the latter. After looking into the historical record I found only that only one Church existed from the 1st century on. God, in His wisdom, used my reason to smash my stoney heart. He gave me the faith I needed and I assented to Him and joined His Church.
What I want has nothing to do with deception. What I want is for people to come to the fullness of the truth as I have. I have come to believe, after experiencing many other belief systems, that that fullness of truth only exists only exists within the Catholic Church.
I am sorry that you took offense to the inconsistencies. But they are what they are, they connot be denied. I will continue to pray for you and hope God will show you the way.
P
prodigalson12
Guest
The GreyPilgrim;4967363} the people aren’t really being led by the Spirit and instead are merely following their own devices and imaginations. [/QUOTE said:
L
LAMBOFGODGIRLY
Guest
I know what you mean. I loved Billy Graham!!! When I was little my Mom and me wrote to him about me being afraid of the dark, and I thought I would get a letter back from the Billy graham organization, but I actually received a letter directly from him! I am a cradle Catholic, but I was so drawn to him! He always made so much sense to me. My mom also loved watching him! He was Just a good wholesome southern Baptist.
D
Dchsknight
Guest
Billy Graham Is also one of the few Protestants, that knew what he was talking about. It is very hard these days to find Protestants who know what the heck they Believe and Why. He also did what he Believed, i very much expect to see Mr. Graham in Heaven. I only wished i could have shook his hand and meet that Powerful Knight of Christ.
H
HopeTrail
Guest
I stumbled across this website and couldn’t help but give one piece of insight. Before I do I would like to say: I do not think that the spirit thrives or will even remain while there is a spirit of contention. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints “Mormons” do not think that trying to prove others wrong is the course that invites the spirit.
Here is the insight I would like to mention: I stumbled across your site at catholic.com/library/Problems_with_the_Book_of_Mormon.asp There were a few things sited that “proved” the Book of Mormon wrong. I am only going to address one, because it makes the point I am commenting on. The following quotation is directly copied from the above web address, which is from this site. QUOTE:If you’re asked by Mormon missionaries to point out examples of such errors, here are two you can use.
We read that Jesus “shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).
If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town. END OF QUOTE
MY PERSONAL RESPONSE TO THIS STATEMENT FROM YOUR SITE:
Here is information on that issue that comes straight from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - web site - lds.org.
Why does the Book of Mormon say that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem? (Alma 7:10.)
D. Kelly Ogden, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Aug. 1984, 51–52
D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem.
The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.
El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times. 1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.” 2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.” 3
The Book of Mormon is internally consistent in using the wording “the land of Jerusalem” to refer to the place from which Lehi and his family had left, where the Savior would appear as a mortal, and to which the people of Judah would eventually return. 4
Modern revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith perpetuates the expression and its ancient meaning. In Doctrine and Covenants 133:24, we read that when the continents are reassembled and again become one land mass, “the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place.”
Several other scriptural cities are also labeled at times as lands. Ammonihah was a city (see Alma 8:6), but it was also a land (see Alma 14:23). The area surrounding the city of Ur was also known as Ur. We read that an idolatrous shrine stood by Potiphar’s Hill, which “was in the land of Ur, of Chaldea.” (Abr. 1:20.) And in Abraham 2:4, we learn that Abraham and his family left “the land of Ur, of the Chaldees” and transferred to the “land” of Haran. The Damascus Rule (also known as the Zadokite Document—part of the Dead Sea Scrolls) twice refers to the “land of Damascus.” 5
At Jerusalem. Alma stated that Jesus would be born of Mary not in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem. Dictionary definitions of at include the words close by and near. Certainly “at Jerusalem” could be interpreted “near Jerusalem.”
There is another example in the Book of Mormon in which the word at may mean “near.” The record does not say that Lehi and his family lived in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem: “My father, Lehi, … dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days” (1 Ne. 1:4); “he returned to his own house at Jerusalem” (1 Ne. 1:7.); and “I, Nephi, have … dwelt at Jerusalem” (2 Ne. 25:6). That Lehi and his family may indeed have lived outside of Jerusalem proper is evidenced in the account of the sons’ attempt to secure the brass plates with their abandoned wealth: “We went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things. And after we had gathered these things together, we went up again unto the house of Laban.” (1 Ne. 3:22–23; italics added.) Lehi could have lived several miles away and still lived at Jerusalem—just as Jesus could be born several miles away in Bethlehem but still be born at Jerusalem.
Joseph Smith, of course, knew well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If he had been the author of the Book of Mormon he would have so stated the fact, since any deviation from the well-known setting would certainly draw objection and accusation. However, Joseph Smith was merely translating a geographical note from an ancient writer—a note which in itself is another evidence that the Book of Mormon derives from a Semitic background.
Thus, Alma’s prophetic preview of the setting of the Savior’s birth is not erroneous or contradictory. It is compatible with similar biblical and extra-biblical figures of speech—evidence, in fact, of the passage’s authentic ancient origin.
Here is the insight I would like to mention: I stumbled across your site at catholic.com/library/Problems_with_the_Book_of_Mormon.asp There were a few things sited that “proved” the Book of Mormon wrong. I am only going to address one, because it makes the point I am commenting on. The following quotation is directly copied from the above web address, which is from this site. QUOTE:If you’re asked by Mormon missionaries to point out examples of such errors, here are two you can use.
We read that Jesus “shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).
If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town. END OF QUOTE
MY PERSONAL RESPONSE TO THIS STATEMENT FROM YOUR SITE:
Here is information on that issue that comes straight from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - web site - lds.org.
Why does the Book of Mormon say that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem? (Alma 7:10.)
D. Kelly Ogden, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Aug. 1984, 51–52
D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem.
The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice.
El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times. 1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.” 2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.” 3
The Book of Mormon is internally consistent in using the wording “the land of Jerusalem” to refer to the place from which Lehi and his family had left, where the Savior would appear as a mortal, and to which the people of Judah would eventually return. 4
Modern revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith perpetuates the expression and its ancient meaning. In Doctrine and Covenants 133:24, we read that when the continents are reassembled and again become one land mass, “the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place.”
Several other scriptural cities are also labeled at times as lands. Ammonihah was a city (see Alma 8:6), but it was also a land (see Alma 14:23). The area surrounding the city of Ur was also known as Ur. We read that an idolatrous shrine stood by Potiphar’s Hill, which “was in the land of Ur, of Chaldea.” (Abr. 1:20.) And in Abraham 2:4, we learn that Abraham and his family left “the land of Ur, of the Chaldees” and transferred to the “land” of Haran. The Damascus Rule (also known as the Zadokite Document—part of the Dead Sea Scrolls) twice refers to the “land of Damascus.” 5
At Jerusalem. Alma stated that Jesus would be born of Mary not in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem. Dictionary definitions of at include the words close by and near. Certainly “at Jerusalem” could be interpreted “near Jerusalem.”
There is another example in the Book of Mormon in which the word at may mean “near.” The record does not say that Lehi and his family lived in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem: “My father, Lehi, … dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days” (1 Ne. 1:4); “he returned to his own house at Jerusalem” (1 Ne. 1:7.); and “I, Nephi, have … dwelt at Jerusalem” (2 Ne. 25:6). That Lehi and his family may indeed have lived outside of Jerusalem proper is evidenced in the account of the sons’ attempt to secure the brass plates with their abandoned wealth: “We went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things. And after we had gathered these things together, we went up again unto the house of Laban.” (1 Ne. 3:22–23; italics added.) Lehi could have lived several miles away and still lived at Jerusalem—just as Jesus could be born several miles away in Bethlehem but still be born at Jerusalem.
Joseph Smith, of course, knew well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If he had been the author of the Book of Mormon he would have so stated the fact, since any deviation from the well-known setting would certainly draw objection and accusation. However, Joseph Smith was merely translating a geographical note from an ancient writer—a note which in itself is another evidence that the Book of Mormon derives from a Semitic background.
Thus, Alma’s prophetic preview of the setting of the Savior’s birth is not erroneous or contradictory. It is compatible with similar biblical and extra-biblical figures of speech—evidence, in fact, of the passage’s authentic ancient origin.
- See James B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 488.
- Ibid., p. 489, italics added. Translation by W. F. Albright and George E. Mendenhall. See also Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1974), map #39.
H
HopeTrail
Guest
THE LAST POST WAS MINE AND IT WAS TOO LONG SO I HAD TO CUT OUT SOME REFERENCES (which can be still be viewed at
lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=661105481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
AND THE END OF MY POST WOULD HAVE SAID THIS (IF I HAD HAD MORE ROOM):
I hope this information is useful and possibly leads those who have a question about a different religion, than their own, to go to the source. If I wanted to learn about Judaism or the Catholic faith etc. I hope I would go to their specific Church and ask the question. As I hope I would if I had a question about any religion. I feel we should go to their church and ask their leaders and dig in and find the information - first hand, what they believe - not what others say they believe. Good luck with your search for truth. I am working on my search also and I know because we are looking - it will be found. May we all feel like brothers and sisters on a journey toward everlasting life. I feel that we are all connected and share common ground that we can build on. Good hunting!
lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=661105481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
AND THE END OF MY POST WOULD HAVE SAID THIS (IF I HAD HAD MORE ROOM):
I hope this information is useful and possibly leads those who have a question about a different religion, than their own, to go to the source. If I wanted to learn about Judaism or the Catholic faith etc. I hope I would go to their specific Church and ask the question. As I hope I would if I had a question about any religion. I feel we should go to their church and ask their leaders and dig in and find the information - first hand, what they believe - not what others say they believe. Good luck with your search for truth. I am working on my search also and I know because we are looking - it will be found. May we all feel like brothers and sisters on a journey toward everlasting life. I feel that we are all connected and share common ground that we can build on. Good hunting!
M
majick275
Guest
this tired cliche continues to come from LDS “member missionaries” seeking to wave off all critical views without real answers. we know that the LDS church has a verifiable history of hiding it’s unpleasant truths and like other cults is NOT the best source when one wishes to study their beliefs, practices and history. a lack of trained clergy and an open canon contribute to a lot of “congregational doctrine” that is neither “official” nor permanent. if i wanted to learn about a scam it is very doubtful that i could approach one of the con men who worked it to find out “the truth”…nor would talking to a still duped victim reveal anything to me. hence there IS a role for the investigative reporter as well as the one who has “learned their lesson”.
I also point out the hypocrisy of the LDS position since they start their missionary lessons with their canonized scripture about their belief in the “great apostasy” in which they not only call all Christians apostates (not seeming to realize just how offensive that is …or why) and going so far as to call our creeds ABOMINATIONS!!! and ll who profess them corrupt! From a Catholic viewpoint the BoM calls out specific Catholic doctrines and practices as being satanic and leading straight to hell. the pre-1990 Temple ceremony went even further in it’s outright mocking of other churches as being ignorant hirelings of satan and their duped followers.
Mormons will NOT teach you the truth about their highest beliefs. (the Temple and what the symbols mean. what is being done and why in detail there) Many simply don’t know and none are authorized to “speak for the church” nor do they even a a catechism equivalent to refer to. doctrinal positions espoused by their prophets, while claimed to be direct revelation derived from direct Q&A sessions between prophet and God in face to face conversations even, seem to come and go and even the ones canonized in scripture change as the LDs scriptures themselves have changed.
Mormons are not interested in exchanges of ideas or learning about other religions beyond what it takes to gain converts. they are not here to “correct misconceptions” or learn each others beliefs. they are here trolling for converts. the ponzi scheme of eternal progression requires a constant stream of new people that is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit. Thus Mormons are being led to more and more aggressive efforts out of sheer desperation.
Pray for them and be on the lookout for those few who are starting to see the light and are willing to listen and teach them the truth when they ask for it…but as to the rest…DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!
P
ParkerD
Guest
If a person has access to living water but doesn’t know about it, or if a person has living water in their life but stops letting it enrich their life with new insights and knowledge, then the stopped progress is like a dam in comparison to the flow of water. The water has been dammed.
I would like to drink from the purest source of water I can find, the living water. It is enlivening. It is not a catachism or an edict. It is a well of water that never dries up, and always brings new insights and additional understanding.
I would like to drink from the purest source of water I can find, the living water. It is enlivening. It is not a catachism or an edict. It is a well of water that never dries up, and always brings new insights and additional understanding.
J
Jerusha
Guest
The BOM is anti-Mormon. 
Stephen168
New member
Which is the beauty of the Catholic Church.
- Status