Questions for Your Notre Dame Mormon

[boppysbud]

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.

Unfortunately like the huge majority of so called mormon “theology” that is just a lot of hog wash.

There is only one God, not just one God of this world, or one God that we worship while others exist, but one God period, only one God that exists.

I am sorry that Notre Dame Mormon will not chose to acknowledge my comments and questions, but the alternative is treating Catholic Christianity and Mormonism as peer religions. Even Mormons do not think Christians are their peers, they beleive Mormonism to be the only true “restored” church and Catholic Christianity to be “totally apostate”.

Catholic Christianity is the true faith, while in my opinion Mormonism is just one cult of many, “Christian” only by using some of the same words, but redefineing them out of all recognition.

 

[PaulDupre]

Technically, it would be the “God of this world”, Heavenly Father.

Actually. the LDS temple endowment ritual teaches that “the god of this world” is Lucifer (better known as Satan).

I attended the temple endowment ritual 19 times while I was LDS. When people go to the temple, they rent a packet of temple clothing. This includes a robe, a sash, a hat that is to be tied to the robe with a string, and a curious green sash that is embroidered with fig leaves.

In the endowment ritual, a film is show which claims to portray events surrounding the creation and fall of Adam and Eve. Lucifer appears to Eve, explaining to her that she must eat the forbidden fruit in order to become wise - to know good from evil, and pleasure from pain, “for that is how Father gained his knowledge.” This assertion is never contradicted in the rest of the ritual. This reflects the LDS teaching that their “god the father” was once a human who sinned, repented and was later exalted to godhood.

After being expelled from the garden of Eden, Adam is shown praying at an altar he built from stones. He prays, “Oh God, here the words of my mouth!” Instead of God appearing in answer to Adam’s prayer, Lucifer appears.

When Lucifer appears to Adam, he declares that he is the god of
this world. That assertion is never contradicted in the rest of the ritual. When Adam asks Lucifer “what is that apron you are wearing?”, Lucifer replies “It is the symbol of my power and priesthoods.” Adam, perplexed, asks “priesthoods??” “Yes,” answers Lucifer, “priesthoods.”

At that point, the film is interrupted. The moderator says “brothers and sisters, put on your aprons.”

The attendees dutifully put on the aprons provided in their temple packets. There is never any explanation of why the temple antendees are commanded to don these aprons.

Draw your own conclusions.

Paul

 

[mjf001]

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.

With respect, I’d like to see some empirical data to establish that an apostacy occured. There is over two thousand years of historical data. Surely, if an apostacy occurred there should be some physical evidence. Where are the LDS doctrines in the early church?

 

[mjf001]

Actually. the LDS temple endowment ritual teaches that “the god of this world” is Lucifer (better known as Satan).

I attended the temple endowment ritual 19 times while I was LDS. When people go to the temple, they rent a packet of temple clothing. This includes a robe, a sash, a hat that is to be tied to the robe with a string, and a curious green sash that is embroidered with fig leaves.

In the endowment ritual, a film is show which claims to portray events surrounding the creation and fall of Adam and Eve. Lucifer appears to Eve, explaining to her that she must eat the forbidden fruit in order to become wise - to know good from evil, and pleasure from pain, “for that is how Father gained his knowledge.” This assertion is never contradicted in the rest of the ritual. This reflects the LDS teaching that their “god the father” was once a human who sinned, repented and was later exalted to godhood.

After being expelled from the garden of Eden, Adam is shown praying at an altar he built from stones. He prays, “Oh God, here the words of my mouth!” Instead of God appearing in answer to Adam’s prayer, Lucifer appears.

When Lucifer appears to Adam, he declares that he is the god of
this world. That assertion is never contradicted in the rest of the ritual. When Adam asks Lucifer “what is that apron you are wearing?”, Lucifer replies “It is the symbol of my power and priesthoods.” Adam, perplexed, asks “priesthoods??” “Yes,” answers Lucifer, “priesthoods.”

At that point, the film is interrupted. The moderator says “brothers and sisters, put on your aprons.”

The attendees dutifully put on the aprons provided in their temple packets. There is never any explanation of why the temple antendees are commanded to don these aprons.

Draw your own conclusions.

Paul

That is disturbing. I’m glad I left before I ever went through that ceremony.

 

[BJRumph]

Of course, the “god of this world” in the NT is Satan as well, so it correlates.

However, if one were to “accept” the frequent response of mormons to the charges fo Polytheism, they nearly always respond that they are not, for there is only one God they recognize as being the real god of our creation/world; that is, the Father.

As such there is room for movement on both counts. On the one hand, when we think “worldly things” we think “Satan/Lucifer” due to the scriptural basis; yet when we proclaim the true God of the world, we mean God, not satan. It one of those things all bible using religionists have to deal with, including mormons and Catholics. It just means we have to make sure we have the context of the reading in question to determine who is being talked about.

The lucifer appearance is a great counter-point to the presupposition of Smith’s “vision”. How did he know any of the visitors he had were not the very Angel of Darkness appearing as an Angel of Light, that even he recognized as real (granted, in a context to warn off others from believing their visions instead of his).

I always accepted the apron, covered in fig leaves, as being representative of A&E’s first impulse which sprung from their giving in to satanic influence. As such, it was a reminder of our own sinful state and the inadequacy of our own efforts to attain what God alone could give, which is (in a manner of speaking) what satan promised. Being the only “color” of the temple clothing, it made sense to me more as a reminder of our human failings than ever percieving it to be anything positive in nature (which is quite at odds to what the apron means in Masonry, btw). Of course, that is what I thought when I was a mormon. Now it is just yet another one of those things which exist in mormondom which just seem to be Satan screaming “Can’t you see its ME?!?!?!”

 

[BJRumph]

There is never any explanation of why the temple antendees are commanded to don these aprons.

Actually, there is no explaination for any of it. This is why I maintain that the temple ceremony even fails at its basic function as being an initiatic instruction. Yes, the ceremony remains the same, yet everyone is left to their own devices to interpret what it means.

This, however is not the case in even the initiatic systems Smith drew from to create the temple ceremony. While room is made for the personalization/interiorization of the meanings, each action and symbol are always explained after the ritualistic portion (if not integrated within it) in order to unify the teaching the ritual was designed to impart. Somehow Smith left that part out when taking everything else…

So, either take it literally, as some do; or make up your own interpretation. Either way, not the manner in which Smith insisted that God reveals things, or even tolerates; nor a viable teaching method if you actually intend to teach something that can make you a god according to the exacting method that is said was used by the Father…

 

[zerinus]

So the new human life in her is no part of the morality of the act? I just don’t get this thought.

I know some may have difficulty seeing themselves in a new life at this early stage but a lack of empathy does not change the fact that all of us looked like this at one time.

Well Saint (not sinner! ), I dont see a fertilized egg to be equivalnt to, or have the same “human rights” as, a well developed human being. The sin of abortion is not equivalent to the sin of murder, or taking innocent life. For one thing, a fertilized egg has no consciousness of its own existence, and feels no pain (physical or emotional) when its life is terminated. The sin of abortion is more along the lines of failing (by the parents) to accept responsibility for the consequences of a voluntary act which was designed by God to lead to the procreation of life; and that is not as serious a crime as the sin of murder. In the case of rape, since the action was not voluntary by one party, but was forced upon her against her wishes, then she must also have some say on whether she wishes to carry through with the consequences of that involuntary act or not.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Your assumption, of course, is that the rape victim’s rights trump the child’s rights. The right to convenience, the right to privacy, even the right to sanity, never trump the right to life unless you consider the second party less than a person, which we must assume you do.

If this is not so, then on what basis do you disallow the child his rights? (Remember, pro-choice and the assumption of non-personhood were the same arguments made for retaining the right to own slaves)

See my reply to Saint&Sinner above.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

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

I don’t see none!

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).

No, she still has rights. But when she voluntarily engages in sexual activilty (especially with her own husband), she has made a conscious decision to forego some of those rights which leads to pregnancy.

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?

No, the two situations are not comparable. When a couple engage in voluntary sex, that is the natural consequence, even if it is the result of the birth control accidentally goes wrong. They must accept those consequences.

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?

That is something that needs to be decided by prayer and consultation with Church leaders and medical advice. Each situation would be different. One cannot make a blanket assertion that covers every situation.

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…

Yes, that would be definitely wrong. You are comparing a lot of incomparable situations.

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?

See my reply to Saint&Sinner.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

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

I am LDS, and I defend the LDS position.

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

Well, the LDS Church has not spelled out in detail her position regarding every conceivable aspect of abortion, nor attemted to answer every hypothetical question or situation that mey arise in relation to it. Since you are asking a lot of detailed (sometines hypothetical) questions, in most cases I have to exercise my personal judgement, based on the general guidelines that the Church has given. The Church’s general position is that:

1. Abortion is a serious sin that should be avoided in most situations.
2. The sin of abortion is not equivalent to the sin of murder.
3. There are very rare situaltions where abortion may be permissible, such as rape or where the life of the mother may be in danger. This should be determined by prayer, consultaion with priesthood leaders and seeking competent medical advice.

That is the Church’s basic position. When you ask a lot of detailed questions not covered by the above, I have to exercise my personal judgement to formulate my answers in conformity with the above guidelines, and my understanding of LDS theology in general. Hence to some extent it is my personal opinion.

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.

I have said before, I don not consider abortion to be equivalent to murder.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

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

The Holy Spirit witnesses to me that it is true. I have read the Book of Mormon, and I know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that it is true.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

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

Thanks for rewording it correctly

We use it because we believe it is the word of God.

zerinus

 

[BJRumph]

Wow AMGID;

What an incredibly humanistic and athiestic position you have drawn up. Especially for one who claims to believe what your church teaches abouth the subject.

So, because the cells of the person cannot “feel” pain, they are not a person? Or because they have no Consiousness, they are not the body that your Faith insists has an intelligent, knowing, aware Soul, a vetran of the War of Heaven?

I take it you firmly belive that biology is the creator of life, rather than being the mere mechanism God uses to create new life. Strange though, as you should believe, as your religion dictates, that there is a soul waiting for eons to inhabit that very body that is being discarded because to woman doesn’t agree with the manner of its conception.

Again, it is a crime that a rape occured; but so too is it a crime to continue that aggression onto someone, not thing, that had no choice or power over the matter. Besides, when is a phsycal assult, even one of a sexual nature, justify the murder of a life that is not the aggressor. Again, false projection is being placed upon the baby. Being a victim does not give allowance to create another victim. Even I, not being exactly a “good” Catholic on this particular point, feel that rape is a capital crime; but the one that needs to be terminated is not the resultant child, but the jerk (can’t use the words i’d like) who did it.

Its life. It’s genetics/DNA will prove it is Human life. Relying on its current capacity to reason or even “feel pain” as a justification for causing/allowing its death is a dangerous precedent with truly evil implications (which are of course being fought in society even now). Of course, once you believe that, then we now can dispose of all those who are incapable of a level of “rational thought” that we deem appropriate, and we certainly have the technology do so without causing any pain.

Is it really any wonder, AMGID, why Catholics say mormons are as part of the “Culture of Death” every bit as much as full “right to Choice/death” advocates?

The sad part is, mormons are so ready to throw away their doctrinal beliefs in order appease their emotional desires. Since NDM apparently has left the building, I’ll re-ask you.

What, exactly, did Smith restore? Apparently the doctrines he introduced are not considered important, and undeniably take a second seat to practicality and expediency; so what was he restoring? What “works” does the mormon church produce that have been absent since the “Great Apostasy”? If the restored Doctrine is so meaningless that you are free to discard any of it at whim, then how could anyone, let alone the Catholic Church, or Constatine, or whoever you blame, have possibly corrupted the Gospel, which apparently is purely ethical/practical in the mormon veiw, rather than doctrinal/theological. Even if you somehow prove the Catholics lost it, there were (and still are) dozens of religions/philosophies world-wide that preach the same ethical ends; how could any one organization have thwarted God so totally in such a naturalistic social ethic (which is called the Natural Law in the Catholic church, btw, which was given to all mankind).? Sorry, it just is unconceivable to me; and while I am not the smartest cookie in the barrel, I aint exactly the bottom of it either.

 

[BJRumph]

We use it because we believe it is the word of God.

Only when “translated correctly.” The inspiration of God is trumped by the hand of Man, according to this (yet again) incomplete mormon answer to a question.

So, when is GBH going to finish Smith’s incomplete re-writing/“translation” of the King James Edition? You know, the one scholars readily admit is rife with error and deliberate revising, and not to mention the one used by your church in its offical useages?

Or has the translation stopped because that would make it too alien to your potential protestant converts? Making your new claims to be just another mainstream “christian” denomination fall too flat?

Or, it is that the fundies are right, and the lds church has apostasized from the truth that was given by Smith, BY, et al? I don’t seriously expect you to believe that, but its a legitimate possibilty when you compare the teachings of the early mormon prophets and those of the current ones on even simple, fundamental topics, such as the actual nature of Revelation. Of course, that just means we can say Smith was a legitimate prophet, while still refuting the lds church…

Even your scholars recognize that the JST is incomplete, so why has there been no further “correction”? Can you provide any external evidence that shows that the copious extensions added by the JST have been found in other, non-tampered with scriptural sources? Anything to verify that “Enoch” is indeed a city, as Smith asserted, and not an individual person as all known scripture says?

We won’t even bother with why no more revelation/cannon…

Why is there so much uncertainty among those who proudly proclaim they alone have continuing revelation, and a leader Prophet who directs them at the direct will of God?

For comparison, Catholics do not make such an exalted position of the Pope, yet we are very clear and certain as to our doctrine, or at least where it can be found. We can answer questions in a forthright manner. Mormons do not, despite the claims of certainty and unity they make.

It is because you can’t, or won’t?

 

[BJRumph]

Ok, I’m bored already.

Thanks for the fun guys, and let me know if it goes anywhere interesting.

May God bless us all with understanding and the Grace to see His Truth. Glory to you, Holy Trinity!

 

[zerinus]

So when did this apostacy happen?

The Apostasy was not an event, it was a process. With the death of the Lord’s Apostles, and the loss of direct communication with the heavens, the church drifted, both doctrinally as well as procedurally and organizationally, and went into apostasy. This does not mean that there were no more good Christians left in the world; it means that the divine authority of the church was lost.

Can you more clearly define the historical event?

See above.

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

The loss of divine authority to commune directly with God. Paul says that God established His church on the foundation of prophets and Apostles, Christ Himself being the cornerstone. When the Aostles led the church, they had the divine authority to communicate directly with God, and to lead the church by direction from God. God did not intend the institution of the Twelve Apostles to disappear. When one Apostle died, another was chosen to succeed him. It is when that institution disappeared from the earth, and the church’s link with the heavens was lost, that the Apostasy began to set in. By the Apostasy we mean the loss of divine quthority to lead the church. We don’t mean that there were no more good Christians left.

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

There are many doctrines of the Catholic Church that we do not agree with, infant baptisms being one example.

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

It has been answered, but it gets boreing to keep answering the same question over and over again.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Me too, me too!!!

I just answered him. I hope that answers your question too!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Curious, Zerinus: How do you reconcile this thinking with our Lord’s promises

1. to be with His Church always,

The Lord has been with His true believers in Him always.

1. to send His Spirit to guide His Church into “all truth”

That promise was made to His disciples, the true believers in Him, and that promise has been fulfilled.

1. that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church.

The gates of hell did not prevail against His church. That is why God has restored His true Church on earth in our time for the benefit of His true believers in Him, both now and for all time.

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.

That is not correct. Apostasy and restoration has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind since creation began. Whenever a church, or a dispensation of the gospel has apostatized, God has established a new one, and this is no exception to it.

zerinus

 

[kellie]

The Lord has been with His true believers in Him always.

Are you saying, as I am a Catholic, that I am not a “true believer” of Christ?

 

[RyanL]

I dont see a fertilized egg to be equivalnt to, or have the same “human rights” as, a well developed human being.

I’m going to respond to this post if you don’t mind, as it’s more substantive than the response to me. Here, you say that a fertilized egg does not have the same “human rights” as a well developed human being. Let’s analyze that…

1. Despite the genetic make-up and science telling us that the fertilized egg is a member of our species, you claim that this member of our species does not have the same rights as…well…you. So this human is not as good as you in the rights context. “Life unworthy of life”, as the Germans used to say. Interesting. Are you really saying that some human beings are more human than others? Who gets to be the arbiter of this newfound non-humanity of humans?
2. You claim that it’s a “well developed human being” that has the right not to be intentionally killed by its mother. Under that understanding, it’s not so bad to kill an 8 year old, who does not have all its sexual organs “well developed”, as it is to kill an 18 year old. And yet this is not what you teach. Why? Likewise, it’s not so bad to kill a person who was born without arms, since they’re not “well developed”, as it is to kill a person with two arms. And yet this is not what you teach. Why? Aren’t they both less “well developed” than you?
3. Perhaps you’re right, though, and a zygotic human does not have “rights”. But surely you know that that’s not when abortions take place! Under U.S. (and apparently LDS) law, abortions can happen all the way up to delivery for the “life and health” of a mother. Health, of course, includes mental health – which is where your particular “rape and incest” justifications manifest themselves. How do you justify killing a 28 week old fetus in utero and not justify killing a 28 week old fetus just delivered? Don’t both instances equally affect the mental health of the mother? It’s the same hypothetical child - so what makes the same killing okay in one instance and an unforgivable sin in the other? Hint: it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rationalizations you have put forward so far.

For one thing, a fertilized egg has no consciousness of its own existence,

Um…neither does a newborn. Can you kill it? Google Peter Singer and infanticide to see your rationale play out.

and feels no pain (physical or emotional) when its life is terminated.

Surely you realize that most abortions do not occur at the zygotic stage…by the time most happen, the children most certainly do feel pain. I can provide documentation if you wish. Your church makes no distinction between the pain-feeling and non-pain-feeling aborted babies - why do you?

The sin of abortion is more along the lines of failing (by the parents) to accept responsibility for the consequences of a voluntary act which was designed by God to lead to the procreation of life; and that is not as serious a crime as the sin of murder.

So if I decide not to feed my infant son anymore and he dies, I’m simply failing to accepting the responsibility for the consequences of a voluntary act – that of parenting. I’m not killing him by starvation, I’m simply failing to accept my responsibility to provide him food.

This moral system of yours is intellectually bankrupt, as it justifies any number of atrocities.

…cont’d…