Question for Mormons

[RebeccaJ]

Jean, I think some people are just strongly opposed to “a unity of believers in Jesus,” which makes it impossible for them to respond in love and share knowledge.

The LDS church never has claimed to exist for the sake of “unity of believers”. It’s stated and clear goal is to replace all belief with its own errors.

This sort of “can’t we all get along” is a hustle.

The fact is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints **has no inclination whatsoever toward ecumenism **and no desire to compromise one ounce of its doctrine or history in order to court favor among other religionists.

lds.org

 

[Todd520]

Rebecca, I believe this is completely false

The fact is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no inclination whatsoever toward ecumenism

I believe you are correct on this one, and I hope it applies to the CC as well

and no desire to compromise one ounce of its doctrine or history in order to court favor among other religionists.

 

[JeanMichel]

The LDS church never has claimed to exist for the sake of “unity of believers”. It’s stated and clear goal is to replace all belief with its own errors.

This sort of “can’t we all get along” is a hustle.

lds.org

Rebecca, you seem to speak harshly against Mormons. It is my understanding that Mormons claim a belief in prophets. Their scripture of choice is Ephesians 4: 11-14:
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

This doctrine is hardly a “hustle”. Is this not scripture? Aren’t Mormons trying to fulfill it? Where are your prophets? Did the scripture give Catholics a pass on prophets? Have we come into a unity of the faith? It appears that prophets and apostles, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are needed to prevent the people of God from being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, by sleight of men, and cunninig craftifness.

I must say when I see one organized church attacking another organized church harshly, I become very cautious. It is not the way of Christ I know from the Bible. I feel sad that it is tolerated by fellow believers. I stand against such behavior as a disciple of Christ and I encourage you to have faith in the truth you know. There is not need to attack anyone.

 

[JeanMichel]

Jean, I think some people are just strongly opposed to “a unity of believers in Jesus,” which makes it impossible for them to respond in love and share knowledge.

No true Christian is without love for those who follow Christ or those who deny him. As a Christian we have no room, no ability choose who we will love and who we will not love. The fallen angel Lucifer is the father of contention and of the belief that we need not express love to others. It is not easy and we all must retain a spirit of the penitent daily because we fail so often. Let us always be sources of peace in the world.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, you seem to speak harshly against Mormons. It is my understanding that Mormons claim a belief in prophets. Their scripture of choice is Ephesians 4: 11-14:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
This doctrine is hardly a “hustle”. Is this not scripture? Aren’t Mormons trying to fulfill it? Where are your prophets? Did the scripture give Catholics a pass on prophets? Have we come into a unity of the faith? It appears that prophets and apostles, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are needed to prevent the people of God from being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, by sleight of men, and cunninig craftifness.

Mormons take this much further, saying a prophet is required to lead Christ’s Church. Completely ignoring the prophethood of the One who does lead His Church (which isn’t Mormonism).

So whatever, this is some sort of red herring, to what purpose, I have no idea.

I must say when I see one organized church attacking another organized church harshly, I become very cautious. It is not the way of Christ I know from the Bible. I feel sad that it is tolerated by fellow believers. I stand against such behavior as a disciple of Christ and I encourage you to have faith in the truth you know. There is not need to attack anyone.

I like how you attack people and “organized chuches” all under the guise of “I’m a better Christian than you because I don’t”. It’s totally awesome.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, I believe this is completely false

The fact is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no inclination whatsoever toward ecumenism

serious comprehension skill problem going on

 

[JeanMichel]

Yes, I am confused.

I don’t like it when someone professes some whacky doctrine as a Catholic belief.

So I always try to consider whether what someone says about another religion’s beliefs is actually part of their dogma.

However, after reading these posts, I AM QUITE CONFUSED about what Mormons believe.

It seems like they are indeed taking words that Catholics use, making an apparently subtle distinction that must be understood with nuance, and then usurping the word and saying, “yes, that’s what we believe, too!”

But I am quite certain the current teaching of the LDS is that Mary did not have intercourse/coitus with God.

Whether this was a teaching in the past, I dunno…

Hello PR,

You are not alone in your confusion. The LDS Church is rather young and much of their history has been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. As a church they have done a very poor job of defining their doctrines. In addition, and probably much worse, is that they have not clarified when their prophets are speaking as prophets and when they are just speaking as men. Brigham Young, the second leader of their church, stated something to the effect that Mary was impregnated the same way every one else is impregnated. However, to my understanding, this was never doctrine.

I have read the Book of Mormon and it clearly states what the Bible states, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and that Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Ghost. To say anything otherwise is deceitful.

I have known too many Evangelicals in my day. They condemn both Catholics and Mormons as cults. It is a wonder these two groups are working more together than the conflict I see on this forum.

It would seem like the Mormon Church could learn from the Catholics and create their own Magisterium. It would alleviate a lot of confusion for all.

 

[croix_de_fer]

Hello PR,

It would seem like the Mormon Church could learn from the Catholics and create their own Magisterium. It would alleviate a lot of confusion for all.

A critical difference would still remain… Christ established our Magisterium but man would establish their magisterium.

 

[PRmerger]

This happens with ALL ex (insert belief system here). Ex-Catholics are just as, if not more, virulently criticial of Catholicism, when they start debating Catholic beliefs in forums such as this one. Those ex-members (of any faith) who are still ‘stuck’ to their former faith enough to actively oppose it have no reason to present their old beliefs in any sort of positive manner–and every reason to twist, deny, missrepresent and outright lie about those beliefs.

Truer words were ne’er spoken on these forums (slight hyperbole, but the sentiment is there. )

I’ve said this before here:

Originally posted by PR: This is my #1 pet-peeve here on the CAFs: ex-Catholics (usually accompanied by these qualifiers: “altar server”, "12 years of Catholic schooling with nuns!’) who are adamantine that some whacky belief they’re professing was taught by the CC. And the fact that they’re an ex-Catholic means that, by golly, they’re speaking with authority.

Yet if you ask them a simple question like
-what’s the Immaculate Conception?
or
-where’s Scripture in the Mass?

they fail miserably in their explanation.

I will qualify the above with the thought that in my experience most ex-Catholics are not* intentionally *twisting and mis-representing the Catholic faith. They were poorly catechized (the Church has done an abysmal job in the past in its catechesis) and really do believe that this is Catholic teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

A critical difference would still remain… Christ established our Magisterium but man would establish their magisterium.

Yes, exactly.

 

[PRmerger]

Notice she didn’t address the subject, at all.

That is true.

Diana, did the LDS ever teach officially that Mary was impregnated “in the same way as every other female”?

 

[rinnie]

Rebecca is an ex-Mormon. Her bias is very much against Mormonism. Even if she were not an avowed opponent (and she is very much an avowed opponent) of Mormonism, her bias would naturally be against her former faith, and she would present the teachings of her former faith in the least positive manner possible. This isn’t because she is Rebecca. It’s because she’s an ‘ex.’

This happens with ALL ex (insert belief system here). Ex-Catholics are just as, if not more, virulently criticial of Catholicism, when they start debating Catholic beliefs in forums such as this one. Those ex-members (of any faith) who are still ‘stuck’ to their former faith enough to actively oppose it have no reason to present their old beliefs in any sort of positive manner–and every reason to twist, deny, missrepresent and outright lie about those beliefs.

And they all do. I’ve never met an ex-member of any faith (that actually tries to teach other people about that faith in order to warn them away from it) that did NOT twist, mislead, misrepresent and downright lie about that former faith.

…and that goes for all belief systems that I’ve attempted to find information about. In my 45+ years of speaking with people of other faiths about their faiths, I’ve never once seen an ex-whatever it is be accurate about the beliefs of his/her old faith, never mind being fair or positive. When you think about it, I think you can see why that would be…it’s not so much a factor of being an ‘ex,’ as it is being an ‘ex’ who feels compelled to go on the attack against their old faith. It’s a product of bitterness and a percieved betrayal that may or may not be valid. The point is, ex-members cannot be used as primary sources of information about their previous faiths.

…and yes, that goes for people who convert TO Mormonism from another faith. I would never use an ex-Catholic (now LDS) as a source of information about Catholicism.

I have to say I disagree with you. My husband for one is a good example. He was not Catholic when we got married. Actually neither was my Mother, I never knew that until I got married actually. But they both were of the Protestant faith and have both always had positive things to say about the previous faith.

They both actually said once I never knew how lucky I was to have the faith I have and now that they are both Catholic actually appreciate it probally more then I.

But when I would ask him did you guys ever do this or that he would answer honestly. And he would say this is one thing I must say I do not like in the Catholic Church. He hates the incense they burn around lent and Christmas. IT makes his allergys go crazy

And I have heard many people on this site say the same thing. They would say things like they are wonderful people and do alot for others etc. I think Rebecca is just being honest and from reading her posts through the last months I have to say I do believe her.

Honestly why would she have to lie. Rather you are Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, no matter what your faith, If you down right lie you are lying about God. And I do not think she would do that. But I do think that in the Mormon faith and LDS there are things that are not revealed to you until you become of the faith. And that really does bother me. I think any faith should be up front from the start. To me and this is just me, if you are hiding something WHY!

 

[rinnie]

Using terms like “fully God” and “fully man” doesn’t make sense in Mormonism since they do not accept a difference in “species” between God and man. There is only a difference in progress. It wouldn’t make sense to talk of Jesus having a divine nature and a human nature in Mormonism since they believe that we are all, God and man, of the same nature.

Now see this bother’s me. There is only ONE GOD. We will never be God, nor should ever want to be God. Now this would be a place to start with truth. So I will ask a Mormon is this statement true or false.

I am not here to condemn what you believe I am only asking for the truth as your Church teaches. You can ask me any truth of my Church and I will tell you. I understand you many not agree with it, and I accept that also. But I will tell the truth to the best of my knowledge. And if I was wrong I will find out from the Priest, or Bishop if needed and get the truth.

But without the absolute truth what is the purpose of these threads? ANd why HIDE a truth

 

[rinnie]

That is true.

Diana, did the LDS ever teach officially that Mary was impregnated “in the same way as every other female”?

Another legit question. Is this true for the LDS or is it not?

 

[LongJourney]

We have been through this time and time again. BY taught that. They do not call it Doctrine. The BoM seems to indicate that. However, they interpret that passage differently. So, the Mormons who participate on this board deny it, particularly since it is so offensive to Catholics. Let it be rhymes with a________.

 

[dianaiad]

That is true.

Diana, did the LDS ever teach officially that Mary was impregnated “in the same way as every other female”?

Depends on what you mean by that. If you mean…that she was pregnant with a human baby like every other female, then yes. In fact, all those quotes by our leaders that others use to ‘prove’ that we believe that God had sex with Mary are actually about the idea that Mary WAS a human woman, that God the Father was Jesus’ physical father, as well as His Immortal Father…that the Holy Ghost was not.

In other words, that (for lack of a better term) the DNA contributed to the mix was that of God, for a fully human child. Consider: His conception was a miracle: what would be miraculous about getting pregnant after sex, no matter with Whom?

The Book of Mormon specifically states that Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth…“virgin” in the English language definition of the word; that is, hymen intact, never having had sex with anybody…or Anybody.

So your question above is a beautiful example of the problem we have… The idea is, Mary was very much naturally pregnant with the Only Begotten Son of God; physically pregnant with a very human baby; all the laws of nature applied…the miracle was in the method of conception.

Back when most of these statements were made, there was a lot of mystical argument about Mary’s pregnancy and the birth of her Child. I have only recently come to understand one of them…something about Mary not actually having to go through labor, but having the Child somehow appear in her arms when the time came. (Personally, and understandably…I have five kids and BOY, do I understand…I figure that’s wishful thinking)

ANYway, LDS leaders wanted to bring the topic back to reality, and to emphasize that God the Father was the Father of Jesus in all ways; the Holy Ghost was not. That He managed to get Mary pregnant without having sex with her…we understand that. Why does everybody else assume that He could not have done so?

Shoot, WE can…and it turns out, by the way, that we’ve been able to do it since the middle ages.

 

[dianaiad]

I have to say I disagree with you. My husband for one is a good example. He was not Catholic when we got married. Actually neither was my Mother, I never knew that until I got married actually. But they both were of the Protestant faith and have both always had positive things to say about the previous faith.

They both actually said once I never knew how lucky I was to have the faith I have and now that they are both Catholic actually appreciate it probally more then I.

But when I would ask him did you guys ever do this or that he would answer honestly. And he would say this is one thing I must say I do not like in the Catholic Church. He hates the incense they burn around lent and Christmas. IT makes his allergys go crazy

And I have heard many people on this site say the same thing. They would say things like they are wonderful people and do alot for others etc. I think Rebecca is just being honest and from reading her posts through the last months I have to say I do believe her.

Honestly why would she have to lie. Rather you are Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, no matter what your faith, If you down right lie you are lying about God. And I do not think she would do that. But I do think that in the Mormon faith and LDS there are things that are not revealed to you until you become of the faith. And that really does bother me. I think any faith should be up front from the start. To me and this is just me, if you are hiding something WHY!

Rinnie, I put quite a few qualifications in there…that I don’t think your husband, for instance, has. Does your husband, for instance, actively attempt to post to boards that address his former faith? Does he write pamphlets or books about it? Does he criticise it every chance he gets? Does he debate members of his old faith in an attempt to convert more people out of it, or to prevent others from joining it?

I tried to be clear about this: that simply being an ex isn’t a problem…it’s being an ex who is “stuck” with the old belief system, and who actively combats it.

While I admire your belief in people, there is a concept called ‘lying for Jesus’ that is a constant among those I have described. It’s an ‘the ends justify the means’ sort of thing. As long as the goal is the defeat of a system one hates, then lying about it in order to accomplish that end is quite all right. After all, even if one gets caught, what could happen? Nothing has more ‘legs’ than lies about religions one doesn’t like.

The real question is…why would a believer lie about his/her own beliefs? In THAT case, getting caught in a lie is very damaging. There is no motive for a believer to lie about his/her beliefs, when attempting to explain what they are.

Well, not unless someone has a gun at their heads…but that isn’t a problem for anybody here, is it?

No, it’s always a good idea to believe the believer first. Even if he or she doesn’t have the ‘official’ doctrine exactly correct, S/he still knows more about his/her own beliefs than anybody else. In every case it is safer to believe the believer over an ex or a 'non-."

 

[dianaiad]

We have been through this time and time again. BY taught that. They do not call it Doctrine. The BoM seems to indicate that. However, they interpret that passage differently. So, the Mormons who participate on this board deny it, particularly since it is so offensive to Catholics. Let it be rhymes with a________.

LJ, the BoM flat out states that Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth. There is no ‘seems to indicate’ anything at all.

 

[JHow]

Rebecca is an ex-Mormon. Her bias is very much against Mormonism. Even if she were not an avowed opponent (and she is very much an avowed opponent) of Mormonism, her bias would naturally be against her former faith, and she would present the teachings of her former faith in the least positive manner possible. This isn’t because she is Rebecca. It’s because she’s an ‘ex.’

This happens with ALL ex (insert belief system here). Ex-Catholics are just as, if not more, virulently criticial of Catholicism, when they start debating Catholic beliefs in forums such as this one. Those ex-members (of any faith) who are still ‘stuck’ to their former faith enough to actively oppose it have no reason to present their old beliefs in any sort of positive manner–and every reason to twist, deny, missrepresent and outright lie about those beliefs.

And they all do. I’ve never met an ex-member of any faith (that actually tries to teach other people about that faith in order to warn them away from it) that did NOT twist, mislead, misrepresent and downright lie about that former faith.

…and that goes for all belief systems that I’ve attempted to find information about. In my 45+ years of speaking with people of other faiths about their faiths, I’ve never once seen an ex-whatever it is be accurate about the beliefs of his/her old faith, never mind being fair or positive. When you think about it, I think you can see why that would be…it’s not so much a factor of being an ‘ex,’ as it is being an ‘ex’ who feels compelled to go on the attack against their old faith. It’s a product of bitterness and a percieved betrayal that may or may not be valid. The point is, ex-members cannot be used as primary sources of information about their previous faiths.

…and yes, that goes for people who convert TO Mormonism from another faith. I would never use an ex-Catholic (now LDS) as a source of information about Catholicism.

I don’t think it fair to speak to motive on a board like this. I’m supposing neither of you knows the other in person (I could be wrong). Diana can claim authority as a believing Mormon, Rebecca can claim authority as an ex-Mormon, but at the end of the day, you both need to argue your points on evidence (despite whatever you suspect the other persons’ motives are).

As to “ex-members” not being a primary source of information, let’s remove that idea from this context and apply it to another: have you ever read Whittaker Chambers autobiography? Who do you think was being more accurate about communism? Chambers or Alger Hiss?

 

[Todd520]

I don’t think it fair to speak to motive on a board like this. I’m supposing neither of you knows the other in person (I could be wrong). Diana can claim authority as a believing Mormon, Rebecca can claim authority as an ex-Mormon, but at the end of the day, you both need to argue your points on evidence (despite whatever you suspect the other persons’ motives are).

As to “ex-members” not being a primary source of information, let’s remove that idea from this context and apply it to another: have you ever read Whittaker Chambers autobiography? Who do you think was being more accurate about communism? Chambers or Alger Hiss?

I think it’s perfectly legit to judge someone based on their posts over several weeks, whether they are logical, reasonable, and chartitable.

Speaking as an ex-catholic, I also agree ex members do have to be careful not to deride their former faith beyond reason. I like my signature as a constant reminder to myself as well as others.