Questions for Your Notre Dame Mormon

[zerinus]

Noted…so why would anyone else believe as you do? Why do you think that the LDS church is the true church and the CC isn’t.

A fundamental concept in LDS theology is the principle of Apostasy and Restoration. We believe that the early Christian church which the Lord established in ancient times eventually went into apostasy, and lost the divine authority that it once possessed. Hence a restoration of it was necessary, which is the LDS Church.

 

[amills]

A fundamental concept in LDS theology is the principle of Apostasy and Restoration. We believe that the early Christian church which the Lord established in ancient times eventually went into apostasy, and lost the divine authority that it once possessed. Hence a restoration of it was necessary, which is the LDS Church.

So when did this apostacy happen?

Can you more clearly define the historical event?

What were the events that took place that the LDS Church defines as the Apostacy?

What doctrines of the Catholic faith are Apostacy and how do you support such a claim?

I have heard of this Apostacy theory many times from LDS but I just cannot understand it due to the above questions never being answered. Perhaps you can elaborate more for me. Thanks

 

[Saint_Sinner]

So when did this apostacy happen?

Can you more clearly define the historical event?

What were the events that took place that the LDS Church defines as the Apostacy?

What doctrines of the Catholic faith are Apostacy and how do you support such a claim?

I have heard of this Apostacy theory many times from LDS but I just cannot understand it due to the above questions never being answered. Perhaps you can elaborate more for me. Thanks

Me too, me too!!!

 

[sterryfamily]

A fundamental concept in LDS theology is the principle of Apostasy and Restoration. We believe that the early Christian church which the Lord established in ancient times eventually went into apostasy, and lost the divine authority that it once possessed. Hence a restoration of it was necessary, which is the LDS Church.

Curious, Zerinus: How do you reconcile this thinking with our Lord’s promises 1) to be with His Church always, 2) to send His Spirit to guide His Church into “all truth” 3) that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church.

It doesn’t make sense to me that Christ would waste His time and bother to suffer ignominy on the cross if He or Heavenly Father knew the Church would go apostate.

It seems that, to justify the LDS position, one has to conclude that Christ either a) didn’t know what He was talking about (didn’t have the capacity to make such eternal promises), or b) lied to us.

 

[boppysbud]

Actually, Mormons and Christians do not worship the same god at all.

In Mormonism, the blood of Jesus is not sufficient to forgive murder (despite 1John 1:9). A Mormon believes that only by the shedding of his own blood is there a possibility of forgiveness. That is why Utah has always reserved the option for a death-row inmate to choose the firing squad as a method of execution - so that his blood may spill upon the ground to satisfy the Mormon god’s requirement.

Whichone of the millions of Mormon “Gods” would that be?

 

[BJRumph]

RyanL;

Your freind has come here with the stated intention of “In the spirit of that mutual benefit…am happy to answer any questions that I can.” regarding his religion, ostensibly to clear up our “misunderstandings” about the LDS religion. He then goes on to assert that we, meaning mormons and Catholics, share a “common faith”, specifically in regards to Christ.

Everyone, including himself as he later acknowledged in revealing his deceit, knows that is simply not the TRUTH, even according to his belief. It is, however, a persitant and common trait of “mormon apologetics” to diminish and hide all such differences for the sake of establishing the false belief in others that the lds church teaches, fundamentally, the same thing as other Christian churches. It is a deliberate obscuring of the facts for the sake of evangelizing his “audience”. It is not a mutual conversation, it is a one-way missionary effort.

My suggestion that he join RCIA was a deliberate opening to allow him to escape the charges of duplicity; for if he really believes in the same Deity as a Catholic (as initially claimed by way of “common faith”), then he should become Catholic. It was not expected that he would even consider it for a moment, for he had already identified his tactics and methods, which allow those of us with open eyes to discern his motives and actuality of the nature of the present conversation.

If simply and straightforwardly declairing the Truth is evangelization, then fine, I was evangelizing. But if you have a more accurate definition of missionary efforts, then you will have to conclude I was not. All I can do, which it is our duty to do, is make the truth God has given us explicitly known. It was not; therefore I stepped in to address that fact.

I don’t honestly care if I have “offended” him, as you suggest. If it gets him to look away from Smith long enough to look to God for understanding, then I am happy to have done so! I do care about defending the Truth, and protecting those who would otherwise fall for his false “dialog”. If he will not stick to explaining the* truth* about his religion (while proposing that he is), then yes, I who have the same knowledge he claims to hold, and with the same qualifications he has, to identify his falshoods and reveal the truth. Just because the Truth set me free, and he is still in bondage, does not invalidate either my knowledge or understanding of what his religion teaches, as he and all mormon apologists like him will blindly and rotely suggest.

If he is willing to tell the truth, then I won’t have a problem. His responses, if one bothers to actually read them, reveal exactly what I, and others, have been saying.

Telling us that our common faith resides in simply our mutual agreement that “love thy neighbor” was a teaching of Jesus, is not a truthful or accurate presentation of either religions’ stated theological positions, or character of the faiths involved, particularly on a religious fourum. The foundations of either religion do not reside in their ethical outgrowths, but in the theological truths which make up the basis of their respective FAITHS.

The matter of Faith regarding Christ in the mormon church is that, like us, he is a Son of God (he being simply “the firstborn”), not God himself (who is the singular person of “The Father”); contrast that with the Catholic Faith in Christ as him being the Only begotten Son of God (we being sons & daughters through adoption in Faith), and is God (unseparably with the Father and Holy Ghost), himself. These two postions are both:
1.) Two, distinct, separate, non-identical, different teachings. And…
2.) They represent foundationally distinct ontologies which make it impossible to reconcile the two into a single consistent teaching. They are irreconcilable statements of belief, in which one cannot be true while the other is also true.

If I was merely stirring up trouble because I am some “disgruntled anti-mormon” and lying as mormons all wish that we “apostates” were, then by all means; REVEAL IT. Otherwise, I have merely stated my position, which happens to both be on the opposite side of his, and is also documentally verifiable (from official current sources from both religions) as being true.

You decide. Again, if you think that because I am not couching my words in doublespeak or PC lingo that I am either wrong or being uncharitable, then I would suggest that you re-read the Gospels, the Catechism, and your favorite sources that detail the Works of Mercy. I have explained myself more than is necessary. If you, for the sake of a false belief in freindship over faith, want to write off anything I say, that is your choice.

 

[BJRumph]

Whichone of the millions of Mormon “Gods” would that be?

Technically, it would be the “God of this world”, Heavenly Father. Yes, while many will eventually become gods, it is theorized that they will become the sole “God” over their individual creations (or, more accurately, “organized worlds”). This is their defense to claims of polytheism; there is only One God “for which we have anything to do”, which if you read the lds site I presented earlier , you will see that this singular person is the Father.

It should be noted that the chance to create our own worlds to become gods over is not a direct scriptural teaching of the lds (being gods is though). It is a common belief that springs from the logical conclusions to the teachings presented in the Temple endowment ceremonies, coupled with unique interpretations of certain scriptures, such as those which state we will become “co-creators” with God. Thus, again, providing the wiggle room necessary to deny it to those who would reject the church because of the notion (“well, fine, find one scripture or valid church source that states this. See, we don’t believe that, its just a lie of anti-mormons”), while making it available to those who are attracted to it.

 

[BJRumph]

The real irony is, regarding the apostacy issue, that the mormon church has put forth that the church is indefectible. According to the “Official Declaration #1” of the church, wherein polygamy was ended as a practice (though not, interestingly enough, as a doctrine), the prophet, in trying to convince his followers he was right in giving up the practice stated that God would not allow his church to go astray, its “not part of the plan”. Perhaps Magick or Paul will provide the actual wording.

I just think that it is funny that the church that requires God to have abandoned the church he established (made easier by stating Christ is not God, therefore he didn’t actually establish anything himself until He arrived with Christ in the woods by Smith’s house…), because he was apparently invincible before the presumed errors of Man, in order to exist itself, now claims the same supernatural indefectibility that the original Church claims. Embarrassing, really, in its bald contradiction.

 

[RyanL]

Dear BJRumph,

I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to explain to me your position - it was very helpful.

I don’t believe that anything you’ve said is necessarily incorrect (with the exception of imputing intentionally deceitful motives as a first resort); what I take issue with is your presentation of the information. Speak the truth in love, my brother in Christ. I have no problem calling a spade a spade, but you don’t club a spade about the head and shoulders with it just because it happens to be the case – at some point it simply becomes abusive.

I’m not saying to walk on egg shells here; simply be decent to the man.

If you think there are irreconcilable contradictions in LDS theology, please make them known and give him a chance to justify his beliefs. If you think he’s a polytheist, by all means say so – I have. If you think it’s wrong to say we share a “common faith”, I won’t fault you for saying so.

All I’m asking is that you do so without being demeaning or condescending. As a Catholic, you’re better than that.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Chris-WA]

It is a common belief that springs from the logical conclusions to the teachings presented in the Temple endowment ceremonies, coupled with unique interpretations of certain scriptures, such as those which state we will become “co-creators” with God. Thus, again, providing the wiggle room necessary to deny it to those who would reject the church because of the notion… while making it available to those who are attracted to it.

This is an interesting point–one I have not considered before. On the one hand such things may be outright denied to the skeptical investigator. On the other hand, within the walls of Sunday school or to an investigator who is not so skeptical, such things may not be denied, but maybe even taught. Part of the problem is that within the LDS church, there is no “Catechism” book. There is no one written source which defines their beliefs in black and white. In their case, the current interpretation of the BoM, bible, and D&C depends on the interpretation of the current prophet. The prophet must interpret their scriptures in order to provide practical authoritative teaching, but since the interpretation has changed over the decades, so does the teaching. That is why there is all this disagreement about what the Mormon church really teaches. Not even the Mormons can really agree on it, as is shown by posters such as NotreDameMormon, Amgid/Zerinus, and Tom Nossor. They don’t have an authoritative book to point to, so their interpretations are either based on their own interpretations of their scriptures, or on the particular prophet they choose to study at the time.

 

[BJRumph]

RyanL;

Understand, I do get where you are coming from. really, I do.

But, before you decide that freindly sounding words are a necessity, have you considered his “freindly” question/assertion of:

Intelligent people like you cannot believe that a few quotes taken in or out of context from historical documents of valid or questionable origin, can be used to accurately state the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church and its leaders.

in its meaning?

Yes, he said it in a “nice” way, but has just called everyone un-intelligent for thinking that a “valid” document from a reliable source in its proper context to be capable of providing an accurate statement of beliefs of a Church! As a Catholic, do you believe yourself to be not “intelligent” for believing that the Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the Catholic Faith? We are not talking about your personal reflections and understandings of what it says, but the teaching of the Church and the faith it intends to convey. Your friend, however, just asserted that you were, even if it was done in the most indirect manner he could. He gets his personal attack in on all of us, and gets defended for it!

Did you even read past the “nice”?

Yes, I find the doctrinal content of the lds faith to be “silly” due to its inherently self-negating and contradictory nature. However, I did not ever call your freind stupid. On the contrary, I have given him far more credit than he has given myself, or even you. I did demonstrate his innacurracies of doctrine, which can only be assumed to be intentional when he claims to have enough knowledge to answer our questions. And these are not “deep” or difficult questions; they are well known to every mormon! That my assuming he is intelligent and even cursorily knowledgeable to the extent that he claims brings us to the logical conclusion that he is not being straightforward (or Honest for a less PC way of putting it) in his answers. His intent is betrayed/discerned by the fact that he bothers to be evasive in his responses and answers. If he was interested in an honest discussion of actual doctrines, then he would gladly expound them, and not worry that we won’t be convinced by them for conversion purposes.

While I appreciate your intention, the fact is “nice” is not automatically “loving”, as you friend has shown; nor is being direct in exposing what is being hidden being uncharitable. I guess we will just have to disagree on what we each perceive. I’m Ok with that. I have no use for such games. Perhaps if he gave it a try, he, and you, would find “nicer” posts from me when care is taken to be truthful and accurate.

I also, personally, do not feel comfortable adopting his methodology in an effort to appear as nice as he is perceived to have been. I have done that in the past, and all it accomplishes is to dillute and hide the truths being discussed. The effect of that is he accomplishes his aims, to hide the truth; and we lose ours, to reveal it.

The only nice thing about being an ex-mormon, is I know when he (or any mormon) is hiding the doctrines/truth being asked about. I even used to defend them myself when I was an active mormon. I don’t have to believe that they are “true” to know that they are truthfully being taught/believed. Yet, in another standardized response of a mormon, this basic truth is denied, saying instead that “that you cannot learn the truth of anything from its critics”, thereby trying to preclude any objection to whatever he has to say. That he made such a pre-emptive move (this was in the first post) also only demonstrates his mental faculties and deliberate posturing.

Again, what am I to conclude? How can I be allowed to call him a spade, in this case a spade meaning “dishonest about lds doctrine”, if I am not allowed to do so? Have I not demonstrated our mutual appreciation for his intelligence? Have I not acknowledged his level of knowledge? This isn’t a simple ad hom; we cannot even get to a discussion about what the lds believe if we play it by his rules! There is no conversation! This is the result of his actions, not my “attacks” or even admittedly curmudgeony, at times, demeanor. He invited us to ask him about lds beliefs, and then he denied them. Calling the bluff will certainly make him uncomfortable, but it still remains that it happened.

I am not “clubbing” him about it, I am just making sure he has no room to hide his “spadiness” with PC nonsense. A spotlight is not a club (well, unless its a Maglite ).

 

[kellie]

Actually, Mormons and Christians do not worship the same god at all.

In Mormonism, the blood of Jesus is not sufficient to forgive murder (despite 1John 1:9). A Mormon believes that only by the shedding of his own blood is there a possibility of forgiveness. That is why Utah has always reserved the option for a death-row inmate to choose the firing squad as a method of execution - so that his blood may spill upon the ground to satisfy the Mormon god’s requirement.

So how do they use the Bible if they don’t believe in the God that inspired it ?

 

[BJRumph]

They don’t have an authoritative book to point to, so their interpretations are either based on their own interpretations of their scriptures, or on the particular prophet they choose to study at the time.

That is the truth as the modern church has allowed it to develop. However, there are some things, like the Articles of Faith, which were intended to be such authoritative statements. The problem is the contradiction between the realities proposed by the religion’s stated doctrines, and what has been allowed to become the “common” faith, which is often built upon the various teachings of prophets past now quietly dissmissed and endorsed as expedient for current needs.

Supposedly, under the rationale for allowing them to dismiss previous prophetic utterances, the current prophet will definitively define current doctrine in appropriate language. The problem is, the current prophets have deliberately refrained from issueing anything considered to be definitive. Apologists reject BY’s “blood atonement” teachings, yet the actual reigning Prophet will not definitively do so. They will, as GBH did about our capacity of becomeing gods in his old TV interview, wholly dodge the issue, but without definitive/authoritative statement of acceptance, rejection, or even clarification.

In the end, the last few Prophets have only worked to the effect of diminishing the role they play within the doctrinal life of the church. So long as you don’t disobey them, your good to believe what you will.

 

[kellie]

I think that she also has the right to refuse to carry through the terms of pregnancy that she was subject to against her wishes, and was in fact a violation of her most sacred and legitimate rights. She is not a dead corpse that she should be impregnated by anyone at will against her wishes, and she has no say in the outcome. That is my personal opinion.

I know that in Catholic theology that appear to be the case; but that is not so in LDS theology. The Bible states that some sins cannot be forgiven (Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10; Hebrews 10:26-29). We believe that premeditated murder is one of those.

Self-defense is not murder. Even in civil law self-defense is not considered a punishable crime.

Self-defense is not a sin at all (provided reasonable force was used, and there was no premeditated desire to harm or kill). But abortion is a sin under most circumstances.

zerinus

I am lost now zerinus as to what religion you are actually defending.

You say “in your opinion”. So which is it? Your beliefs or those of the Mormons?

Killing someone through self-defence is not a sin you say, but murder is a sin as it is pre-meditated.

Your’e saying abortion is not pre-meditated???

You seem to be totally confused as to what “murder” is.

 

[BJRumph]

So how do they use the Bible if they don’t believe in the God that inspired it ?

Its not that God didn’t inspire it, its that we men overrode God’s spirit and corrupted it. The real question, which answer becomes revealing when discovered, is WHY do they uses it…

 

[kellie]

If you mean theological differences, they are many, and they couldn’t all be discussed in one thread. The question of which one you should join, however, is not really dependent on the “differences”. That depends ultimately on which one is the true, authorized, and authoritative representative of God on earth today. I believe that the LDS Church is, and that is why I am LDS.

zerinus

Tell us why you believe the LDS to be the true church

 

[kellie]

Its not that God didn’t inspire it, its that we men overrode God’s spirit and corrupted it. The real question, which answer becomes revealing when discovered, is WHY do they uses it…

Yep BJRumph, that is what I meant, WHY do they use it?

Thanks for rewording it correctly

 

[BJRumph]

AMGID;

So, when a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then the baby is not an innocent (apparently it is “attacking” its mother), and the mother is only acting in self defense, thereby alleiviating her, eternal, guilt for killing an innocent?

I realize that you want to follow the libertine efforts as stating Abortion is not Murder, yet there is not a definition of “murder” that does not exclude abortion from it. Not a “Catholic” rule, btw; the Natural one.

At its most basic, murder is the deliberate attempt to kill someone. Many legal definitions require also “pre-meditation”. The defenselessness of the victim does not establish it as murder, but often plays into estabishing the “heinousness” of the act for punative reasons. Nothing here to remove abortion from the list of “murder”, though evidence that it is a very heinous crime.

Accidental killings require the absense of intent, unfortunately Abortion lacks that element entirely.

This is why those pushing for legalized abortion carefully avoid the “murder” issue, and insist on defining it under terms of “rights” of adults over children.

 

[BJRumph]

The question of which one you should join, however, is not really dependent on the “differences”.

Actually, according to both churches, it is precisely what we believe about God that matters, and is the basis of joining one or the other, for they each teach radically different things about this foundational item of Faith.

How can you recognize that God has lead to you a belief, if you know nothing about Him, and therefore cannot recognize Him? You cannot, even Smith said so. The differences identify what each organization says about God; as such, the differences you want to dismiss are critical in defining the remainder of your faith. Your implied indifferentism would cause Smith to roll over in his grave, not that it isn’t an rejection of all LDS claims…

 

[PaulDupre]

Perhaps you should look a little more closely; it’s a logical argument.

You have not answered the question - does the married woman have “rights” in her own body or not? Is she a corpse that no longer has rights? If you say yes she still has rights, you have to say abortion as a whole is not immoral if you want to be logically consistant. If you say no, you have to justify why the married woman lost her “rights”. It’s that simple. When you start talking “rights” talk, you have to establish a foundation for the rights (i.e., who gave her those rights). If you’re going to strip someone of their rights, you have to establish why the foundation is no longer present (i.e., who can take those rights away).

But for the sake of your confusion, let’s take it a step further and assume the married couple was practicing artificial birth control and an “accident” happened. It’s now no longer “natural” or “expected”. Does the woman still have “rights” in her own body? Her concent to pregnancy was not present, so by your logic abortion should be no biggie…right? What if they find out the child has Down’s syndrom - they didn’t consent to that, so they should be able to abort…right? What if the child is a girl but they only consented to having a boy…no consent…they can abort, right? Before you laugh off this last example, understand that this is an increasing trend in the U.S. and in the U.K., commonly termed sex/gender selection…

Let me see if I understand what you’re saying - if a woman’s rights not to be sexually assaulted is violated, and a separate act of conception occurs, she now has the “right” to kill the human being inside of her. How does that logically follow?

God Bless,
RyanL

Ryan, weren’t you one of my professors in law school? Very nice exposition.
Paul