Q for Mormons

  • Thread starter Thread starter sterryfamily
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zerinus said:
I call that burying your head in the sand. The early Christian church did apostatize. The best witness to that is the fact that there is no church today (apart from the LDS Church) that resembles the church that Jesus established in ancient times. Let’s note some stark differences. Firstly, in the earliest church there were no paid or professional clergy. People were elected to serve in various priesthood capacities or callings from the members of the congregation, without prior schooling or preparation; and it certainly was not a lifelong profession. You didn’t choose such a career for yourself for life. All of that developed later on as the apostasy set in. Secondly, the early Christian church was led by revelation, through the prophets and Apostles of the Lord. It was never part of the program that that institution, and the ability to lead the church by revelation should be done away. If it cannot be lead by direct and immediate revelation from the God, through His chosen ministers and servants, the prophets and Apostles of God, then it is not the church of God, period.

zerinus
Click to expand...
I was converted to Mormonism in the early 80’s. After realizing so many weird and outlandish teachings, and outright misleading teachings from their missionaries, and learning of so many forged sacred documents by their church, Joseph Smith’s tablets vanishing, etc, I was able to break away from this cult, and it is a cult.

But for years after their doctrine fell apart in my head and heart, I still defended the mormon church because I liked the idea they had no paid clergy to speak of. I also defended their polygamist background because they explained to me as a new convert they only had to revert to polygamy because the Catholics and protestants were killing all their men in the church.

As an ex-mormon, let me tell you that for the most part, mormons are fine people, they really are. But they are very confused and most have no idea what the end doctrine is according to their church. When I realized that they all expect to be Gods one day on the same level as our God, and will have their own universe to rule, I about laughed myself out of the church. Actually, I almost cried my way out.

Funny how their missionaries are trained to either avoid some topics, or even mislead as they did me and my family.

The Bible speaks of false prophets, and Joseph Smith is one of those false prophets. Christ stated in Matthew 16:18

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades [Hell] will not overcome it”

That alone in my book destroys any credibility to the mormon church, as their entire beginning is because of their belief that the gates of hell did destroy Christ’s Church.
 
rmcmullan said:
Mr. Allweather: I don’t mean to put you off but this topic has been very hotly debated and has lead to the formation of a huge branch of Protestantism: the Baptists. From there, the Annabaptists and the Mennonites and the Amish. I just don’t think I could do the same justice to this argument as the many people who have debated this before.

Let me just summarize: the Catholics view baptism as an infusion of grace. The Protestants and Mormons view it as repentance and being “born again”. The form of the baptism wherein a man goes under water and is brought out again is a symbol of rebirth. If you don’t believe that baptism is for repetance, that symbol doesn’t really hold up. The Mormons follow baptism with the bestowal of the Holy Ghost which is close to what a Catholic woould call an infusion of grace.
Click to expand...
might be some confusion here. Most baptists don’t believe water baptism is a requirement. being “saved” is the only necessity. following that up with “believers baptism” is a common practice and in my experience is always by immersion but it isn’t seen as essential to salvation. Mormons on the other hand believe it so necessary as to require proxy baptism for the dead
 
rmcmullan said:
Let me just summarize: the Catholics view baptism as an infusion of grace.
Click to expand...
If you mean Grace is without sin, then yes. Catholics believe that baptism removes original sin, and any other sin you have ever committed.

But “Infusion” is a term generally that describes mormon doctrine in several areas. For example, as I recall, they believe when a person is born they are “infused” with a soul that already existed from heaven, but now needs to prove them self on earth.

I was once told by my LDS attorney church president that mormons believe that we have been in heaven from the beginning, and we already have our personalities, etc. We are all just waiting for our earthly body to be born so we can go and choose our path because of freewill, as on earth we all have a veil over our memory so we cannot remember our preexistence. Once all souls are used up and have an earthly body, the world will end.

I want to make it clear, I am no longer mormon, but a very happy, and devoted Catholic.
 
Well maybe we can all say water baptism is to confirm we are saved and have a key to heaven lor!!! That is the only different that separate us with the non-believers. Becoz althought non-believer don’t go for water baptism, but yet they do have God blessing as well, example physical healing…etc…
 
Allweather said:
That thing about paid “professional” clergy seems like a strong argument, but I wonder, what is necessarily wrong with having a paid professional clergy?
Click to expand...
Everything wrong! It was not intended to be a paid job. When you turn it into a paid profession or job, you ruin it. You destroy it. That is in the nature of the beast.
Don’t the Mormons also have a cadre of paid professionals at the top?
Click to expand...
Actually, no. The top leadership of the Church have nearly all led successful professional lives in their earlier years, and live off their pensions or savings like other people do. It is only when that is not sufficient for their needs that it is topped up by the Church. Many of them could still earn more money in their chosen field of profession than as a General Authority of the Church. Elder Russell M. Nelson had been an internationally renowned heart surgeon. He could still make more money as a consultant than as an Apostle. Elder Richard G. Scott had been a nuclear physicist. Elder Dallin H. Oaks had been a university academic and a successful lawyer. Elders Henry B. Eyring and L. Tom Perry had been successful business men. Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf had been an airline pilot. The same goes for the rest. None of them chose a professional career as a clergyman for their lives, because such a thing does not exist in the LDS Church. They were called to serve in their Church positions by the Lord, and they are taught how to do their job by the Holy Spirit. That is how it was in the early church. Peter and John and James had all been fishermen. Matthew had been a tax collector. Luke had been a physician. How did they learn to be Apostles? By the Holy Ghost: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). That is how they acquired their qualifications to be Apostles of the Lord. They didn’t go to college to get a theological degree in order to qualify. And that is how modern LDS Apostles receive their qualifications.
As for “revelation” is it possible that Mormons have a different definition for the word than Christians do?
Click to expand...
You mean apostate Christians. That is a distinct possibility! I wouldn’t be surprised about that at all. The LDS definition is the biblical one. It means the ability to communicate directly with God, and to add to the canon of scripture. A church that claims that the canon of scripture is closed is a dead church; not a living, breathing church.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Everything wrong! It was not intended to be a paid job. When you turn it into a paid profession or job, you ruin it. You destroy it. That is in the nature of the beast.

Actually, no. The top leadership of the Church have nearly all led successful professional lives in their earlier years, and live off their pensions or savings like other people do. It is only when that is not sufficient for their needs that it is topped up by the Church. Many of them could still earn more money in their chosen field of profession than as a General Authority of the Church. Elder Russell M. Nelson had been an internationally renowned heart surgeon. He could still make more money as a consultant than as an Apostle. Elder Richard G. Scott had been a nuclear physicist. Elder Dallin H. Oaks had been a university academic and a successful lawyer. Elders Henry B. Eyring and L. Tom Perry had been successful business men. Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf had been an airline pilot. The same goes for the rest. None of them chose a professional career as a clergyman for their lives, because such a thing does not exist in the LDS Church. They were called to serve in their Church positions by the Lord, and they are taught how to do their job by the Holy Spirit. That is how it was in the early church. Peter and John and James had all been fishermen. Matthew had been a tax collector. Luke had been a physician. How did they learn to be Apostles? By the Holy Ghost: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). That is how they acquired their qualifications to be Apostles of the Lord. They didn’t go to college to get a theological degree in order to qualify. And that is how modern LDS Apostles receive their qualifications.

zerinus,
please provide references for these assertions. Wait, you Can’t!!! The Mormon church does not disclose it’s finances, shoot.
Your clergy are paid and it is their profession. Don’t be so blind.

in Christ
Steph
Click to expand...
 
Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book in the world. If that is true, why has there been over 3,000 changes since the original 1830 Kirtland edition?:confused:

Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham from Egyptian Papyrus which actually turned out to be an Egyptian funeral text that had nothing whatever to do with Abraham.:eek:

There are many things that prove Joseph Smith was a false prophet.😊

Like the Inspired Version of the Bible he " Translated".:mad:
 
zerinus said:
Everything wrong! (with paid clergy) It was not intended to be a paid job. When you turn it into a paid profession or job, you ruin it. You destroy it. That is in the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...
Are you making this statement on your own? Do you have anything other than your own feelings to back it up? Who said it is “wrong” to have a paid clergy. Who, besides Zerinus and the Mormons and a few Protestants?
Actually, no. The top leadership of the Church have nearly all led successful professional lives in their earlier years, and live off their pensions or savings like other people do.
Click to expand...
Well, like I said, that is impressive as you’ve presented it here, though I strongly believe that your statement is far from the whole story. I believe that all the men you’ve mentioned are men with considerable temporal power at their disposal. Men with this sort of power don’t need to carry cash.
You mean apostate Christians. That is a distinct possibility! I wouldn’t be surprised about that at all. The LDS definition is the biblical one. It means the ability to communicate directly with God, and to add to the canon of scripture. A church that claims that the canon of scripture is closed is a dead church; not a living, breathing church.
Click to expand...
zerinus
Click to expand...
That is a novel idea, and one that has served the Mormons well over the years in misleading people away from the Church that Jesus established upon the Apostles. And not just the Mormons, but the various competitors of the Mormons, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the 7th Day Adventists, and the Moonies, and the Branch Davidians, and the Christian Scientists, and Lord knows what other strange and exotic sects and cults, to say nothing of the more orthodox Christians called Protestants, from whom the Mormons and the others I mentioned take their cues.
 
zerinus said:
No, that is the problem with all churches, including Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

zerinus
Click to expand...
The fact that the Jewish and Christian canons are closed bother the Mormons so much, but that is only because they don’t believe in the Bible. They will, when it suits their obfuscatory needs, pretend to venerate the Bible, but deep down they mistrust it, and don’t really believe in it. They believe in their prophets and assorted “modern scriptures.” Unfortunately, these “modern scriptures” don’t stand very well on their own without the blind faith of Mormon people. And neither do the Mormon prophets, who walk along a debris field littered with unfulfilled, false prophesies and confusions, such as the current elderly prophet who is unable to comprehend the Christian creeds.

Neither do the Mormons (or very many Protestants, for that matter) understand the role of the Bible in the life of the Church. If they did understand it, they wouldn’t be so prone to making outrageous claims about closed canons and ongoing revelation. Their lack of understanding is why they’re on the outside looking in. Some former Mormons have recently posted here telling their stories of the gimmickry that was perpetrated upon them by Mormon salesmen. These are courageous people who faced the hard facts about the religion that had kept them outside looking in.
 
Allweather said:
The fact that the Jewish and Christian canons are closed bother the Mormons . . .
Click to expand...
Interesting you should say that. The Jews also believe that the canon of scripture is closed—except that they stop at Malachi! Neither are they the only ones who believe the canon of scripture is closed. The Moslems do too—except that they stop at Mohamed! Did you notice a pattern there? You know what the proverb says: “Birds of a feather, flock together!” All apostate religions have that thing in common.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Interesting you should say that. The Jews also believe that the canon of scripture is closed—except that they stop at Malachi! Neither are they the only ones who believe the canon of scripture is closed. The Moslems do too—except that they stop at Mohamed! Did you notice a pattern there? You know what the proverb says: “Birds of a feather, flock together!” All apostate religions have that thing in common.

zerinus
Click to expand...
You my fine LDS friend know nothing about the Jewish canon of scripture. I happen to have 4 Hebrew Bibles.
The TANACH, is divided into three parts TORAH, PROPHETS, WRITINGS.

At the end of the PROPHETS Malachi, The Hebrew canon continues with Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles.

As for having a closed canon, the Catholic and Apostolic Church made the decision to close the canon, to safe gard the people of God from evil heresies.
The Church has the right to do this because She was the one who put the Bible together.
 
Allweather said:
God doesn’t require blind faith. Blind faith usually leads down blind alleys.
Click to expand...
Allweather, here’s some teaching for you:

Hope leads to faith.
Faith leads to knowledge.

And then the cycle starts over. That is how one goes from grace to grace and increases in understanding. Ponder this, grasshopper.
 
obadiah said:
You my fine LDS friend know nothing about the Jewish canon of scripture. I happen to have 4 Hebrew Bibles.
Click to expand...
And that makes you an authority on the Jewish canon, right?
The TANACH, is divided into three parts TORAH, PROPHETS, WRITINGS.
Click to expand...
How amazing!
At the end of the PROPHETS Malachi, The Hebrew canon continues with Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles.
Click to expand...
That is a ludicrous objection. The Jews recognize Malachi as the last inspired author who wrote in the canon. After him they consider the canon closed. “Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles” come chronologically before Malachi. The fact that they may print it in their books after Malachi is neither here nor there.
As for having a closed canon, the Catholic and Apostolic Church made the decision to close the canon, to safe gard the people of God from evil heresies.
Click to expand...
That is another absurd comment. There has been heresies ever since there have been true religion. No responsible, divinely inspired religious leader has ever declared the canon of scripture closed for fear of heresies. Imagine what would have happened if Moses had declared the canon closed for fear of heresies—then there would have been no more scripture after Moses; or if Solomon had declared scripture closed for fear of heresies—then there would have been no more scripture after Solomon; or if Jesus had declared the canon closed—then there would have been no more scripture after Jesus. It is the hallmark of an apostate religion that declares the canon of scripture closed. It knows that it has no power to add to the canon; therefore what better way to get round that problem than to declare the canon closed.
The Church has the right to do this because She was the one who put the Bible together.
Click to expand...
She neither put the Bible together; nor would that give her the authority to declare the canon closed. If the canon is the word of God, then only God has the authority to declare the canon closed; and He has not done so.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
And that makes you an authority on the Jewish canon, right?

How amazing!

That is a ludicrous objection. The Jews recognize Malachi as the last inspired author who wrote in the canon. After him they consider the canon closed. “Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles” come chronologically before Malachi. The fact that they may print it in their books after Malachi is neither here nor there.

That is another absurd comment. There has been heresies ever since there have been true religion. No responsible, divinely inspired religious leader has ever declared the canon of scripture closed for fear of heresies. Imagine what would have happened if Moses had declared the canon closed for fear of heresies—then there would have been no more scripture after Moses; or if Solomon had declared scripture closed for fear of heresies—then there would have been no more scripture after Solomon; or if Jesus had declared the canon closed—then there would have been no more scripture after Jesus. It is the hallmark of an apostate religion that declares the canon of scripture closed. It knows that it has no power to add to the canon; therefore what better way to get round that problem than to declare the canon closed.

She neither put the Bible together; nor would that give her the authority to declare the canon closed. If the canon is the word of God, then only God has the authority to declare the canon closed; and He has not done so.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Well how about this I can read and write Hebrew. I think THATS what makes me an authority on the Hebrew Bible. And you are dead wrong about the order of books in the Bible. You use the KJV which based it’s ordering of the books based on the Greek Septuagint. So you are wrong.
You sound like a very angry Mormon. Is it because deep down inside you know OUR Church is true?
And if the Book of Mormon is " the most correct book" why has there been over 3,000 changes since the 1830 edition?
And what about the phony Book of Abraham?
 
obadiah said:
Well how about this I can read and write Hebrew. I think THATS what makes me an authority on the Hebrew Bible. And you are dead wrong about the order of books in the Bible. You use the KJV which based it’s ordering of the books based on the Greek Septuagint. So you are wrong.
Click to expand...
The order of the books is irrelevant. According to the Jewish tradition, who was the last author to add to the Jewish canon? If it wasn’t Malachi, who else was he?
You sound like a very angry Mormon. Is it because deep down inside you know OUR Church is true?
Click to expand...
Neither.
And if the Book of Mormon is " the most correct book" why has there been over 3,000 changes since the 1830 edition?
And what about the phony Book of Abraham?
Click to expand...
Both are scripture and revelations from God.

zerinus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top