Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[TOmNossor]

2.Why do you think Peter chopped of the ear of a man?

I wish I could edit the post on #1. I checked and it seems “likely written in Greek” is too bold for Matthew. Matthew may have been written in Aramaic (which could still be used by LDS to argue translation error of course).
Also, I should take advantage of the opportunity to link to this article by two Evangelical Christians. It is titled:
Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and not Knowing It.
cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html

It is not entirely accurate to call Owen an EC. He no longer is and he specifically gave some credit to his conversion to his engagement with LDS thought. He claims to be moving towards Catholicism (though not there) partially because of his recognition that Evangelical responses to some LDS issues are wrong or insufficient.

On to your number 2. I am not sure why you asked me this question.
Peter did not understand much of the gospel. He like all the apostles did not recognize that Christ was going to be crucified. He like all the apostle thought that the gospel was to go to the Jews not “all nations.” These were the things he taught with word and deed despite the fact that he was “the Rock” upon which Christ was building His Church. Peter was not infallible and he almost certainly taught error. He lied. He didn’t recognize that Christ’s being taken by the Roman soldiers was part of the plan.

If we could have the words of the Apostles as they gathered before they were told Christ had risen it would be interesting to see what ERROR they taught. Did they teach it was all over? Did they teach the message of Christ would go forward, and Christ would be a simple martyr who died for God’s truth rather than the resurrected God/man who was killed but rose again? We cannot know, but it seems beyond question that Peter (who at this time within Catholic thought was the Vicar of Christ on earth) was doctrinally wrong.

Also, long after Christ’s post resurrection ministry, Peter did not know the gospel had to be extended to the gentiles. Surely he taught such things. Surely he taught error. But, he was given greater light and knowledge through supernatural public revelation recorded in John 10. This is how the head of the church was corrected by God and the knowledge of the church moved forward. This is how the CoJCoLDS claims to progress in knowledge, but it is not how the Catholic Church claims doctrine DEVELOPS. This is one reason I see the prophet of the CoJCoLDS as the valid successor of Peter and not the Pope (there are many other reasons).

So, Peter attacked the guard who was taking Christ because Peter did not understand what Christ had already began trying to teach him and the rest of the apostles. He was not infallible. He would learn. Later Peter would again believe doctrinally unsound things, he would in this case learn by Supernatural Public Revelation. This is how the leaders of God’s church on earth have lead from Abraham to Peter to Joseph Smith, but not how the Pope leads.

Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre]

Was it the burning in the bosoom thing that Mormons get by self hypnosis?

Here’s an insight into the Mormon “testimony” that was posted in another forum by a poster who calls herself BeWhoYouAre:

Testimony is when the Mormons stand up in front of God and all creation and they swear they know the church is true. They know it and that’s all they know. They feel like its true. They feel happy about it being true. It’s all about feelings, they know because they feel.

Now, here’s my insight on the feeling:

I do believe if we examine a Mormon’s testimony, its the good feeling of being superior. They feel superior, therefore they know the church is true.

In all truthfulness, the Mormon Missionaires lecture basically they say, “People who believe the BoM to be true are superior to the rest of the world. Now go pray to God and ask Him if you are superior.”

That’s not exactly what they say. They say “people who believe the BoM is true are superior, so pray to God and ask Him if the Book of Mormon is true.”

The answer is that if God doesn’t tell you its true, that means you’re inferior. If God tells you its true, that means you’re superior.

That’s the psychological trick they play with that.

So, then now the person who wants to be superior has to live up to his or her feelings of superiority. And they’re given a laundry lists of do’s, don’ts, shoulds, rules, regulations, and rituals that they can start working on to prove their superiority.

So, hence, they don’t want to look at anything that would tell them that they’re not superior after all. They don’t want to look at anything at all that tells them that all humans are created equally.

And they don’t want to look at anything that tells them they’ve been duped.

They just want to focus on the do’s, the don’ts, the shoulds, the rules, the regulations, and the rituals. Those become the whole focus of Mormons. Following after them helps the keep their feeling of superiority.

That feeling of superiority is in their heart, and they think its the testimony that the Church is true.

So, their testimony is that feeling that they have, the pride in their heart, that they are superior, hence, the testimony goes exactly like this: “I know the church is true, and I love my friends and family.”

Everyone says the exact same thing. The words do not vary in the least.

A Mormon would say “We don’t say we’re superior!” No, they use the word “Special” but it means the same thing.

Paul

 

[East_Anglican]

Thank you, East. Yes, i believe there was some discussion about some holy underwear or something when we added the con to the list about the LDS church requiring a certain dress code. However, what i’d really like to know is which of the reasons for not becoming a Mormon do you find the most worthy?

“Many will say “Lord Lord didn’t we … in your name”” is the best reason for not becoming a mormon I think.

 

[steve_b]

Peter did not understand much of the gospel. He like all the apostles did not recognize that Christ was going to be crucified. He like all the apostle thought that the gospel was to go to the Jews not “all nations.” These were the things he taught with word and deed despite the fact that he was “the Rock” upon which Christ was building His Church.

for clarification, show your reference

Tom:

Peter was not infallible and he almost certainly taught error.

Reference please

Tom:

He lied. He didn’t recognize that Christ’s being taken by the Roman soldiers was part of the plan.

True

Tom:

If we could have the words of the Apostles as they gathered before they were told Christ had risen it would be interesting to see what ERROR they taught.

I would suggest they taught NOTHING at this time. They were in hiding thinking they were next.

Tom:

Did they teach it was all over? Did they teach the message of Christ would go forward, and Christ would be a simple martyr who died for God’s truth rather than the resurrected God/man who was killed but rose again? We cannot know,

So why assume they taught error

Tom:

but it seems beyond question that Peter (who at this time within Catholic thought was the Vicar of Christ on earth) was doctrinally wrong.

Peter’s instillation hadn’t occured yet. All the promises to Peter were looking forward to post resurrection.

Tom:

Also, long after Christ’s post resurrection ministry, Peter did not know the gospel had to be extended to the gentiles.

How long are we talking about? Jesus focused on the Jews. As a result, so did the apostles. It was Peter who 1st taught that the gentiles were to be included.

Tom:

Surely he taught such things. Surely he taught error.

reference please

Tom:

But, he was given greater light and knowledge through supernatural public revelation recorded in John 10.

Could you clarify yourself

Tom:

This is how the CoJCoLDS claims to progress in knowledge,
but it is not how the Catholic Church claims doctrine DEVELOPS. This is one reason I see the prophet of the CoJCoLDS as the valid successor of Peter and not the Pope (there are many other reasons).

So Jesus jumps from Peter’s boat to your boat just like THAT!! And He does this by letting only YOU know this?
How interesting.

 

[majick275]

Peter did not understand much of the gospel. He like all the apostles did not recognize that Christ was going to be crucified. He like all the apostle thought that the gospel was to go to the Jews not “all nations.” These were the things he taught with word and deed despite the fact that he was “the Rock” upon which Christ was building His Church. Peter was not infallible and he almost certainly taught error. He lied. He didn’t recognize that Christ’s being taken by the Roman soldiers was part of the plan.

i have to disagree here. Peter lied in a personal matter not in matters of faith and morals to the church. you only ASSUME he taught error because you look at the time he was still learning. I would contend that he only taught that which he had been taught and that he did not teach that which he didn’t know.

If we could have the words of the Apostles as they gathered before they were told Christ had risen it would be interesting to see what ERROR they taught. Did they teach it was all over? Did they teach the message of Christ would go forward, and Christ would be a simple martyr who died for God’s truth rather than the resurrected God/man who was killed but rose again? We cannot know, but it seems beyond question that Peter (who at this time within Catholic thought was the Vicar of Christ on earth) was doctrinally wrong.

once again you assume this with no apparent evidence. just because he was still learning doctrine from christ does not mean that he was out teaching errors on subjects that he didn’t know about. this seems nothing more than excuse making for the doctrinal changes seen in the LDS church. it certainly is NOT beyond question since we have no record of Jesus apostles teaching false doctrine to the early church.

Also, long after Christ’s post resurrection ministry, Peter did not know the gospel had to be extended to the gentiles. Surely he taught such things. Surely he taught error. But, he was given greater light and knowledge through supernatural public revelation recorded in John 10. This is how the head of the church was corrected by God and the knowledge of the church moved forward. This is how the CoJCoLDS claims to progress in knowledge, but it is not how the Catholic Church claims doctrine DEVELOPS. This is one reason I see the prophet of the CoJCoLDS as the valid successor of Peter and not the Pope (there are many other reasons).

it is by no means SURE that they taught error. we have NO evidence of this. that the Apostles of Christ were taught by him directly throughout their lives is not in question. that there remained requirement for more public revelation IS. I take the stance that Jesus completed his work with the Apostles he called successfully. This would be in opposition to the idea that prophets are out teaching false doctrine and having to be corrected through revelation on a regular basis or that the whole church failed and God waited 1800 years to try again.

So, Peter attacked the guard who was taking Christ because Peter did not understand what Christ had already began trying to teach him and the rest of the apostles. He was not infallible. He would learn. Later Peter would again believe doctrinally unsound things, he would in this case learn by Supernatural Public Revelation. This is how the leaders of God’s church on earth have lead from Abraham to Peter to Joseph Smith, but not how the Pope leads.

Charity, TOm

this is how Jesus taught the apostles once that work was perfected the deposit of faith was solid as a rock. The popes are guided by the holy spirit to preserve this deposit of faith and upon occasion explain it. it, like God does not change as truth is eternal and the NEW covenant is perfect since it comes directly through God incarnate.

 

[East_Anglican]

Here’s an insight into the Mormon “testimony” that was posted in another forum by a poster who calls herself BeWhoYouAre:

Thanks for this it’s interesting.

Testimony is when the Mormons stand up in front of God and all creation and they swear they know the church is true. They know it and that’s all they know. They feel like its true. They feel happy about it being true. It’s all about feelings, they know because they feel.

The same way as people knew Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction and felt happy about it being true when people disagreed you mean?

Now, here’s my insight on the feeling:

I do believe if we examine a Mormon’s testimony, its the good feeling of being superior. They feel superior, therefore they know the church is true.

Of course it would. if people believe that being rifght about something makes them superior.

In all truthfulness, the Mormon Missionaires lecture basically they say, “People who believe the BoM to be true are superior to the rest of the world. Now go pray to God and ask Him if you are superior.”

That’s not exactly what they say. They say “people who believe the BoM is true are superior, so pray to God and ask Him if the Book of Mormon is true.”

The answer is that if God doesn’t tell you its true, that means you’re inferior. If God tells you its true, that means you’re superior.

That’s the psychological trick they play with that.

So the psychological trick is to get people to ask God if something is true who want god to tell them it is true to make them feel superior.

That’s commonly known as messing with ppeoples heads.

So, then now the person who wants to be superior has to live up to his or her feelings of superiority. And they’re given a laundry lists of do’s, don’ts, shoulds, rules, regulations, and rituals that they can start working on to prove their superiority.

Which is another blasphmous idea against Christ. We can’t earn salvation.

Also Jesus said “To the least of these, you did to me.” Superiority didn’t come in to it.

We’re also called to take the role of the servant.

So, hence, they don’t want to look at anything that would tell them that they’re not superior after all. They don’t want to look at anything at all that tells them that all humans are created equally.

And they don’t want to look at anything that tells them they’ve been duped.

They just want to focus on the do’s, the don’ts, the shoulds, the rules, the regulations, and the rituals. Those become the whole focus of Mormons. Following after them helps the keep their feeling of superiority.

That feeling of superiority is in their heart, and they think its the testimony that the Church is true.

So, their testimony is that feeling that they have, the pride in their heart, that they are superior, hence, the testimony goes exactly like this: “I know the church is true, and I love my friends and family.”

A Mormon would say “We don’t say we’re superior!” No, they use the word “Special” but it means the same thing.

Thank God Christ isn’t in to cloning us!

 

[TOmNossor]

I have seen there is nothing to convince me other than that what the ECFs were speaking about was a striving for perfection in our mortal lives.

Here are a couple of threads. Both include comments from me and comments from a Catholic who embraces what I call “strong deification.” The first is better and more thorough, but the second is more focused on what a Catholic believes.
defensorveritatis.net/?p=860#comments
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1624
I have a list of about 100 ECF quotes that range from bold declarations that men can become “gods” to solid expositions of the exchange formula, “God became man to make man god,” to less …

No pre-4th century ECF ever spoke of a limit upon the FINAL state of deified man.
I have found no limits, but Athanasius, Augustine, and then others seem to introduce these limits into Catholic thought. My view is the ancient one IMO.

Also, the best single volume collection of the case for deification I have found yet is Deification and Grace by Daniel Keating. I think if one reads it with a TOTALLY (impossible I know) mind, Dr. Keating will convinced them that men are to become gods. Then when he tried to explain that there is a limit upon the final state of deified man, the reader will be left wondering why Keating demands such things. I am of course BIASED, but that was what I saw. Keating is a Catholic BTW.

…

we are not deified. The reason “No pre-fourth century ECF ever spoke of a limit upon the FINAL state of deified man” is because no such deification exists.

This is just not the case. I have hundreds of ECF quotes that say (with or without surrounding context) that men can become gods. The absence of limits upon this language is significant since it is so present within 4th century and later Catholics.

Here is my “bold” statement… **Man is a creatURE and as such can not leap the chasm of being-ness to become creatOR. **

Man cannot leap what you call a “chasm.” On this we agree. But God is omnipotent and can bridge what you call a “chasm.” God became man and bridged the chasm via His omnipotence. It is God that deifies man and you should not suggest that He cannot do it. He can and He desires to do so.

RAR:
What we’re talking about is putting ourselves on par with God… this is the original sin! This is heresy. That is why Jesus established His church… so that we can put our trust in it, and by proxy, Him alone.
The original sin is self-sufficiently and pride outside of God’s action. Adam and Eve could not become as the God’s separate from God, and these became ever more evident when their disobedience resulted in expulsion from the presence of God. According to Keating the Bible says that God will make us gods. He is right it does. Also here is CCC460:

The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, p. 116.)

If the message of Genesis was as simple as you claim, then the Catholic Church is of the devil.
Instead, the message of the Bible is that while there is one God, we are to become gods through “partaking of the divine nature,” through becoming one as the Father and Son are one (John 19), through becoming “conformed to the image of the Son” (Rom 8:29) who is in the “image of the Father” (Col 1:15).
There are two options available to the consistent Bible believer.

1. Christ is man, but not fully divine and we are to be like him. Christ is the image of God, but not God.
2. Christ is God/man and is fully divine. We are to be like Him and He is like the Father.

Either Christ is a weak copy, semi-God, great man or He is God.
Either we are to be like Christ and be partially divine or we are to be like Christ, like the Father fully divine.
Consistency demands what Catholics and non-LDS Christians (other than JWs and other Arians BTW) are unwilling to assert.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Steve B AND Paul Dupre,
I have a lot to get to and will not be referencing what you asked. It is not my position that I can show Peter taught error, just that it is very likely he believed in error and quite possible said error passed his lips but was not recorded.

A Catholic could believe that had Peter tried to teach from the Chair of Peter his view that lead him to intervene when Christ was being taken, his view on the fate of the church post Christ’s murder, or tried to teach his mistaken view on extending the gospel to the gentiles; the Holy Spirit would have (and perhaps did) constrain him from teaching error. I am just saying it is obvious that Peter held doctrinal error. The Bible certainly does not show where he taught the errors it was obvious he believed.
Of course all we have is Peter’s Canonized words and with LDS prophets we have much more. Since I claim it is the canonization of the teachings that is the highest seal of truth in the CoJCoLDS, perhaps this is yet another reason to accept my view (and the view of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Harold B. Lee, and recently presented on lds.org).

Also, read John 10. Peter received supernatural public revelation to correct the doctrinal error he held concerning the gospel going to the gentiles. The informed Catholic should acknowledge that Peter received supernatural public revelation and his successor (according to Catholic thought) cannot do this. I suggest this is a data point in assessing which church possesses the authority Peter possessed.
Charity, TOm

 

[why_me]

Was it the burning in the bosoom thing that Mormons get by self hypnosis?

No. But I would call it an overpowering sensation. I was only 18 and never experienced such a feeling again. And I can say that after I was baptized lds, I had an extremely joyous peaceful feeling inside me.

I can’t explain it. But such experiences did not keep me active in the lds church either. I can understand the witnesses to the book of mormon when some also fell away. And, like me, they never denied what they saw but in my case, I have never denied what I felt.

 

[steve_b]

Steve B AND Paul Dupre,
I have a lot to get to and will not be referencing what you asked. It is not my position that I can show Peter taught error,

So why say earlier that he did teach error?

Tom:

just that it is very likely he believed in error and quite possible said error passed his lips but was not recorded.

speculation

Tom:

I am just saying it is obvious that Peter held doctrinal error.

And I asked you for a reference

Tom:

The Bible certainly does not show where he taught the errors it was obvious he believed.

Since we don’t have a record of Peter teaching error, how do you know what he believed? what’s the purpose of all your speculation regarding error?

Tom:

Of course all we have is Peter’s Canonized words and with LDS prophets we have much more.

Canonized words get us traction. LDS “prophets” are not going to get you traction in these discussions.

Tom:

Since I claim it is the canonization of the teachings that is the highest seal of truth in the CoJCoLDS, perhaps this is yet another reason to accept my view (and the view of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Harold B. Lee, and recently presented on lds.org).

What we know is,

Joseph Smith is the founder of your religion, in New York, circa 1930. He apparantly dug up some plates (which can’t be produced) on his family farm, and from them created the BoM

Your religion is 78 years old and is man made.

 

[NewSeeker]

Steve - mormonism is 178 years old (founded in 1830, not 1930). But I agree with you - mormonism is man made.

The wonderful thing about accepting TOm’s position about the canonization of LDS doctrine is that, since past canonized doctrines are no longer canonical (e.g. God used to have his own heavenly father, but now he’s eternally God; it used to be that blacks would not get the priesthood until the Millenium, but now they can since there was a “revelation” in 1978), we can disregard today’s canonized doctrines since 100 years from now some of them will no longer be canonical.

NS

 

[steve_b]

Steve - mormonism is 178 years old (founded in 1830, not 1930). But I agree with you - mormonism is man made.

OOPS!!! thanks for the correction

New:

The wonderful thing about accepting TOm’s position about the canonization of LDS doctrine is that,

I think I left the wrong impression. When I think of canonized words, I think of sacred scripture, NOT what LDS consider canonized.

New:

since past canonized doctrines are no longer canonical (e.g. God used to have his own heavenly father, but now he’s eternally God;

Is this how you meant to say it?

 

[NewSeeker]

Steve - yes, that’s what I meant to say. Maybe I should have said it the following way to be clearer:

It used to be canonical that God has his own heavenly father, but today he’s eternally God; it used to be canonical that blacks would not get the priesthood until the Millenium, but today they can since there was a “revelation” giving it to them in 1978.

The point is that in both instances, what was once canonical no longer is.

NS

 

[majick275]

it goes even deeper. it used to be canonized LDS scripture that God the father was spirit and only Jesus had a body and the holy ghost wasn’t a third person but rather the shared mind of the father and son. then that was removed BUT never denounced as wrong, in fact the intro still says the removed section is good for teaching.

It was also canonized scripture that polygamy was wrong and LDS did not practice it. this was canonical during the time it was practiced and wasn’t removed until after they stopped.

 

[PaulDupre]

Also, long after Christ’s post resurrection ministry, Peter did not know the gospel had to be extended to the gentiles.

Tom,

Read Acts chapters 10 & 11. These two chapters report how God revealed to Peter that he was to inaugurate the mission to the gentiles, and how Peter instructed the rest of church about it. This occurred fairly soon after Pentecost.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

Also, read John 10. Peter received supernatural public revelation to correct the doctrinal error he held concerning the gospel going to the gentiles.

You mean Acts 10, not John 10.

Paul

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

point #52, IMHO ought to be #1. It’s a showstopper.

Yes, if 53 is true it is a showstopper!

Tell me, Steve, why do you believe it is true?

---

---

The most important reasons to reject Mormonism:

**Reason 17.**Joseph’s vision seems to be weighted above Jesus’ words. Jesus gave authority to Peter and the Roman Catholic church.

Reason 43.
The doctrine that God was once a man just like any other man; who lived on an earth and progressed to Godhood. This is in direct conflict with what God has said of himself. He said he is Eternally God. The Great I AM. He Who Is. Without beginning or end.**Reason 53.**Mormonism is human, rather than Divine, in origin. That is, it is a man-made religion.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

As a LDS, I could say that yes the Greek is expressing Christ’s Aramaic idea with a little “faulty translation.” But, such would be unfair.
Peter a male could not be called “petra” a large rock (like the cliff face at Caesarea Philippi where Christ likely motioned to as they were standing at the base of this impressive structure). A male must have a male name “petros,” which fortunately for those who wish to not be Catholic means “small stone.” So when Matthew wrote this he used proper Greek (assuming it was first written in Greek which it likely was). He did this not to minimize Peter, but to be grammatically correct.
Even though this argument should be empty already, the truth is Jesus was probably speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, “Kepha = Kepha” no issue, Protestant argument done. …

Thank you, TOm; it is good to have an expert in Aramaic and Greek to consult!



I’m curious about something, though. You said that Jesus was referring to the the clift of Caesarea Philippi when He said, “… on this petra I will build my church.” Yet, as far as i know, no Christian church or Mormon temple was built at the edge of this precepise.

What, then, was the petra to which the Matthew was referring when he translated Jesus’ words into Greek? I mean, if He meant to say

You are Peter, and on Peter I will build my church.

then why did He not say the following?

You are Petros and on Petros I will build my church.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I find your call (you claimed God wants you here) to investigate Mormonism on a Catholic board curious. Perhaps God wanted you to do this so I can tell you to not employ methodology likely to produce a result when seeking Him. You will not get the BEST info about the CoJCoLDS here. …

I find your modesty refreshing! Still, i have confidence in your ability to succeed at giving me the best info to make an informed decision about the LDS church. I believe in you, major TOm!

Should you convince me of the truth, i do not think it would matter how many cast their vote for a lie. As Socrates said to his good friend Phaedrus:

If we had found the truth ourselves, do you think that we would care much about the opinions of men?

(Phaedrus 274)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I think the only reason to be a Catholic or a LDS is that God calls one to be a member of His Church. This call can be intellectual and/or spiritual, but it is God’s will in our lives that we must seek. I may or may not be “invincibly ignorant” of Catholic truth when I die, but it will not be because I did not attempt to vince my ignorance.

Charity, TOm

If it is not to personal for you to answer, maj. TOm, will you tell me, please, how God called you to the Mormon faith?